2016, 11-17 Special Water Issues AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Thursday, November 17, 2016
8:30 a.m.— 11:30 a.m.
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
11707 E Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Call to Order by Mayor Higgins
Roll Call
Self-Introductions
Overview: Discussion Topics—Mark Calhoun
1. Department of Ecology, Instrearn Flow Rules Henry Allen
2. Supreme Court Case: Wltatcom County v. Hirst—Cary DriskelI, John Holtman
3. Legislative Clarification of Water Providers' Water Rights—Cary Driskell, Henry Allen,
and Joe Carroll
o Support legislation clarifying Valley water provider's water rights
o Support Senator Padden's efforts to adopt legislation that clarifies that the water rights held
by water providers serving the Spokane Valley region can be changed from irrigation to
municipal water supply purposes without going through the change of use permitting
process that is currently required
4. Spokane Valley's Utility Tax Proposal—Chelsie Taylor
5. Abandoned Utility Infrastructure—Cary Driskell
Spokane Valley's proposal regarding abandoned utility infrastructure located in City rights-
of-way.
ADJOURN
Special Meeting Water issues: 11-17-2016 Page 1 of 1
Instream Flow Rule Notes
hnstre..,m Flow
o Instream flows are water rights for the state,the public, and the public's natural resources,to keep
water instream and is subject to the prior appropriation doctrine. When established it is the most
junior water right on the river.
o
"Instream flow" identifies a specific stream flow level (measured in cubic feet per second, cfs) at a
specific location on a given stream. An instream flow rule is a stream flow regime set in a state
regulation and often includes management strategies.
Some Key Instream Flow Rules
The 1967 Minimum Water Flows and Levels Act(Chapter 90,22 RCW)
RCW 90.22.0 .0 Establishment of minimum water flows or levels--Authorized--Purposes.
The department of ecology may establish minimum water flows or levels for streams, lakes or other
public waters for the purposes of protecting fish, game, birds or other wildlife resources, or
recreational or aesthetic values of said public waters whenever it appears to be in the public interest to
establish the same.
Water Resources Act of 1971 (Chapter 90.54 RCW)
RCW 90.54.020 General declaration of fundamentals for utilization and management of waters of
the state.
Utilization and management of the waters of the state shall be guided by the following general
declaration of fundamentals:
(2) Allocation of waters among potential uses and users shall be based generally on the securing of the
maximum net benefits for the people of the state. Maximum net benefits shall constitute total benefits
less costs including opportunities lost.
(3) The quality of the natural environment shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced as
follows:
(a) Perennial rivers and streams of the state shall be retained with base flows necessary to
provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic and other environmental values, and
navigational values. Lakes and ponds shall be retained substantially in their natural condition.
Withdrawals of water which would conflict therewith shall be authorized only in those
situations where it is clear that overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.
WA TERSHE 1 ?LANNING (Chapter 90.82 RCW)
RCW 9O.82.080 Instream flow component--Rules.
(1)(a) If the initiating governments choose, by majority vote, to include an instream flow component, it
shall be accomplished in the following manner (process is subsequently described)
Mine'.'wn Water Flows read Levels (RCW 90.22 &RCW 90.03)
Ecology has the exclusive authority to set minimum water flows or levels for stream, lakes, or other
public waters
How are instream flows set
o Evaluate the flow necessary to support and protect resources
o Studies done to evaluate the stream flow necessary to provide fish habitat.
o Stream flow needed for fish habitat usually protect aesthetic and recreational values
Impacts of setting instream flows
lnstream flow/water management rules only affect water right decisions made after the adoption date
of the rule. Therefore such rules will not affect use of:
o An existing or "senior" water right: a water right that predates the rule's date of adoption.
o An existing permit-exempt well.
o Water supplied by municipal or community water systems.
Water rights secured after the rule adoption date will be "junior" to the instream flows. If you start a
new water use, or make a change to an existing water right, after the effective date of the rule, you will
be subject to any water management strategies and requirements specified in the rule.
(http://www.ecy.wa,gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html)
•
Chapter 173-557 WAC o Instream flow rule for the Spokane River
and SVRP (effective February 27, 2015)
WAC 173-557-020 (3) Chapter 173-557 WAC applies to the use and appropriation of surface water and
groundwater begun after the effective date of this chapter.
WAC 173-557-060 Future new uses of water.
(1) Instream flows established in this rule are water rights and shall be protected from impairment by:
(a) New water right permits approved by ecology after the effective date of this chapter; or
(b) Permit-exempt withdrawals established within the area regulated under this chapter after the
effective date of this chapter.
Instream Flow: for the Spokane River
Spokane Riser ati Spokane
October 1 -March 31 1,700 cfs
April 1 -June 15 6,500 cfs
June 16-September 30 850 cfs
Spokane River at Greenacres
(Barker Road)
June 16-September 30 500 cfs
•
Spokane R at Spokane Exceedance Curves
1986 - 2008
28.044 �r11.11 . I i
26,000
245044
??,044
24.000
N 1 .`1\ I ---
18.040 I
c 16,040
14,000 _
1?,000 - i
a IPA
10,000 �MWANIF _4 i t \
ROO
6000
10/6 11/5 12/5 1/4 2/3 315 4/4 5/4 613 7/3 812 9/1 ion
F -90%--80% - 70%-- -60%- •--5O%-20%--10% 2012 Caucus Min I low
Figure 4. Exeeedence Itydrographs and recommended instteam flows at USGS gauge 12422500
(Spokane River at Spokane).
Exceedance Curve --shows the percent of time a specified discharge is equaled or exceeded.
Submitted By Henry Allen, City of Spokane Valley Development Engineer
•
VanNess 719 Second Avenue,Suite 1150
Seattle,WA 98109-1728
Feldman Lir 206-623-9372
vWhatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
Case Summary
On October 6,2016,the Washington State Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Whatcom
County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board("Hirst"). In a split decision,the
majority of the Court concluded that the Growth Management Act("GMA") requires counties to play an
expansive role in the regulation of water availability and water quality. The outcome of this case will
likely force local governments to increase the level of analysis of water availability and impacts during
their review of building permit and subdivision applications.
The decision is the culmination of an appeal initiated by a group of individual property owners and the
public interest group Futurewise (collectively"Petitioners"),who challenged the adequacy of Whatcom
County's rural element of its comprehensive plan. The Petitioners alleged that measures included in the
rural element of the County's comprehensive plan did not adequately protect the availability of water
supply or water quality. Specifically,the Petitioners argued that the County's approach fell short
because it did not include an assessment of whether the new withdrawals would impair minimum
instream flows prior to issuing a building permit or subdivision approval.
In general,the GMA requires counties to adopt a rural element as part of a local comprehensive plan
that includes "measures that apply to rural development and protect the rural character of the area"by
"[p]rotecting..,surface water and groundwater resources..." RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c)(iv). In addition,
other land use statutes,including the subdivision act, RCW 58.17.110,and the state building code, RCW
19.27.097, require cities and counties to confirm water supply is adequate to serve the proposed
development. The Petitioners challenged the County's efforts to comply with those GMA requirements
in their appeal to the state Growth Management Hearings Board ("Board").
The central issue in the case explored the extent to which the County is required to assess building
proposals that rely on so-called "exempt"wells for groundwater withdrawals. The County's measures
that were the subject of the appeal prohibited development that relied on a proposed well in an area
where the Department of Ecology has "determined by rule that water for development does not exist."
With that approach,the County incorporated Ecology's governing instream flow rule into its regulations
to determine whether a proposed permit-exempt withdrawal was legally available. The County also
relied significantly on Ecology's interpretation of that rule. In Ecology's friend-of-the-court brief,the
department took the position that the instream flow rule does not preclude new permit-exempt
withdrawals.
In a 6-3 decision,the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the Board's decision.
The Court concluded that the"GMA places an independent responsibility to ensure water availability on
counties, not on Ecology." While the Court agreed that the instream flow rule did not prohibit new
1
•
•
permit exempt withdrawals,the Court rejected the County's exclusive reliance on Ecology's
interpretation of its instream flow rule, holding that the County's inquiry should not end there. Instead,
the Court held that the GMA imposes an obligation on counties to conduct a pre-approval impairment
analysis of permit-exempt withdrawals,even though the water code expressly exempts those
•
withdrawals from that part of the Ecology permitting process:
...[T]he rule in Washington is that groundwater appropriations cannot impede minimum
flows. It would be incongruous to limit Postema to the holding that Ecology must
consider the effect of groundwater appropriations on minimum flows when issuing
permits but that the county does not need to consider these same impacts when issuing
building permits.
Thus,even though Ecology does not engage in pre-approval impairment analysis for permit-exempt
withdraws, "the GMA explicitly assigns that task to local governments."
As noted by the dissenting opinion,the Court's decision has significant practical consequences in the
building permit and subdivision context. It would "require individual building permit applicants to
commission a hydrogeological study to show that their very small withdrawal does not impair senior
water rights, and then have the local building department evaluate the adequacy of that scientific data."
Additionally,the decision may open the door to more litigation of specific development approvals. Even
though Hirst is a GMA case challenging the adequacy of GMA development regulations,the Court's
analysis of statutory criteria of permit approval may have a broader reach and could be used by
appellants of specific building permits or subdivisions under the Land Use Petition Act. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly,the practical effect of the decision may be to limit significantly the ability to
develop land outside of public utility service areas where permit-exempt withdrawals were the only
source of water.
Finally,this case also addressed protection of water quality under the GMA in addition to water
availability. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's holding that the County's measures protecting
water quality did not comply with the GMA, While the Court confirmed that the GMA standard does not
require the County to adopt measures that enhance water quality issues,the Court emphasized the
County's duty to protect water quality and confirmed the Board's holding that the County did not
comply with that requirement on the basis of generalized evidence of water quality problems.
2
BILL REQUEST - CODE REVISER'S OFFICE
•
BILL REQ. it : S--0002 .2/17 2nd draft
ATTY/TYPIST: ML: akl
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Identifying certain water rights held by
municipal water suppliers as water rights
available for municipal water supply purposes .
•
1 AN ACT Relating to identifying certain water rights held by
2 municipal water suppliers as water rights available for municipal
3 water supply purposes; amending RCW 90. 03. 560; and creating a new
4 section.
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
6 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The legislature recognizes that
7 certain irrigation water rights held by municipal water suppliers in
8 critical water supply service areas with developing residential,
9 commercial, or industrial areas should be available for use by those
10 municipal water suppliers for municipal water supply purposes.
11 Municipal water suppliers operating in the counties identified in
12 this act have encountered severe difficulties in ensuring that they
13 . will be able to provide needed water for municipal water supply
14 purposes to communities in those areas, many of which have continued
15 to experience above-average population growth in recent years. The
16 legislature intends to relieve the burden on those communities, which
17 are uniquely dependent on the ability of irrigation districts and
18 others to serve as municipal water suppliers, by permitting municipal
19 water suppliers to have water rights amended by the department of
20 ecology to identify certain irrigation water rights as being
21 available for municipal water supply purposes .
Code Rev/ML: akl 1 S-0002 . 2/17 2nd draft
1 (2) The legislature further intends that, once identified as
2 water rights available for municipal water supply purposes, the water
3 rights should be retained by the municipal water supplier to be used
4 for future growth, or, if not retained, only transferred among
5 municipal water suppliers that are using the same waterbody as the
6 source of water for municipal water supply purposes in a critical
7 water supply service area, for future growth.
8 (3) This act is consistent with the general declaration of water
9 utilization and management fundamentals expressed in RCW 90 .54 . 020
10 because it encourages the development of water supply systems that
11 provide water to the public generally in regional areas within the
12 state.
13 Sec. 2 . ROW 90 . 03. 560 and 2003 1st sp.s . c 5 s 3 are each
14 amended to read as follows :
15 (1) When requested by a municipal water supplier or when
16 processing a change or amendment to the right, the department shall
17 amend the water right documents and related records to ensure that
18 water rights that are for municipal water supply purposes, as defined
19 in ROW 90. 03. 015, are correctly identified as being for municipal
20 water supply purposes . This section authorizes a water right or
21 portion of a water right held or acquired by a municipal water
22 supplier that is for municipal water supply purposes as defined in
23 RCW 90 . 03. 015 to be identified as being a water right for municipal
24 water supply purposes . However, it does not authorize any other water
25 right or other portion of a right held or acquired by a municipal
26 water supplier to be so identified without the approval of a change
27 or transfer of the right or portion of the right for such a purpose.
28 (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, upon request
29 by a municipal water supplier the department shall amend the water
30 right documents and related records to identify irrigation purpose of
31 use water rights or agricultural irrigation purpose of use water
32 rights, or such portions of water rights, as being for municipal
33 water supply purposes without reducing the amount of water available
34 under the water rights if:
35 (a) The irrigation or agricultural irrigation purpose of use
36 water rights were acquired by the municipal water supplier prior to
37 September 9, 2003;
Code Rev/ML:akl 2 S-0002 . 2/17 2nd draft
1 (b) The irrigation or agricultural irrigation purpose of use
2 water rights are not currently being used for commercial agricultural
3 purposes; and
4 (c) The amended water rights will be used within a critical water
5 supply service area under a coordinated water system plan, as defined
6 in ROW 70. 116. 030.
7 (3) A municipal water supplier operating under a coordinated
8 water system plan may transfer all or a portion of water rights that
9 were amended and identified as being for municipal water supply
10 purposes under subsection (2) of this section to other municipal
11 water suppliers that are operating under the coordinated water system
12 plan and using water from the same waterbody as the transferor.
13 (4) A municipal water supplier that owns or operates separate
14 water systems using water from the same waterbody and operating under
15 a coordinated water system plan may transfer all or a portion of
16 water rights that were amended and identified as being for municipal
17 water supply purposes under subsection (2) of this section for use in
18 any of the municipal water supplier's water systems.
19 (5) Subsections (2) through (4) of this section do not limit the
20 ability of a municipal water supplier to apply for a change or
21 transfer of any water right or portion of a water right.
22 (6) Subsections (2) through (5) of this section only apply in
23 counties east of the crest of the Cascade mountain range with a
24 population greater than four hundred fifty thousand.
--- END ---
Code Rev/ML•akl 3 S-0002. 2/17 2nd draft
Department of Ecology Website www.eyc.wa.gov
• Municipal Water Law
•
P,1L-2030 WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM POLICY
•
2003 Municipal Water Law Interpretive and Policy�tatc�nent
•
Contact; Program Development and Operations Support Section Effective Date:February 5,2007
Revised Date:May 7,2012
References: Chapter 90.03 Revised Code of Washington
Purpose: To describe and provide interpretation of parts of the Municipal Water Law,and describe
generally applicable procedures that the Department of Ecology(Ecology)will use in
identifying and managing municipal water rights.
• Application: This interpretive and policy statement is a review of the applicable sections of the state Water
Code(Ch. 90.03 RCW)that were amended or added by the 2003 Municipal Water Law. The
document describes how Ecology intends to apply the various sections of the law to municipal
water rights and management.
The 2003 Municipal Water Law(SECOND ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1338;
Chapter 5,Laws of 2003;58th Legislature;2003 1st Special Session;MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY--
EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS)clarifies municipal water rights.
http://ww v.eey.wa.gov/programs/wr/rights/Images/pdfl2E2SHB_1338.pdf]
•
Ecology has chosen to develop this Interpretive and Policy Statement(IPS)for carrying out the 2003 Municipal
Water Law under the authority of the Administrative Procedure Act(RCW 34.05.230). This IPS clarifies the
Department of Ecology's position and management approach for carrying out that law. This IPS supersedes
earlier statements relating to the Municipal Water Law and has been issued subsequent to the Washington
Supreme Court's decision inLumnu Indian Nation v.State of Washington,Washington Supreme Court No.
81809-6,which held that all sections of the Municipal Water Law are constitutional on their face,and thus valid
and operative.
This document's primary audience is those interested in,and affected by,management of water rights for
municipal supply purposes. It clarifies Ecology's approach in interpreting and implementing the law. It enables
Ecology staff to have a common understanding and consistency of application.
Wherever possible,Ecology's goal is to be consistent in review and decisions on municipal water supply issues.
While the following statements address many situations,exceptions based on case-by-case review may arise that
do not conform to these statements. This interpretive and policy statement interprets the 2003 Municipal Water
Law but is not a formal rule adopted through a rulemaking process. Thus,pursuant to RCW 34.05.230(1)this
interpretive and policy statement is advisory only.
This document is organized by sections of the Water Code(Ch.90.03 RCW)added or amended by SESSI-IB
1338. Each of the sections states what Ecology believes the section addresses,what it means,and how Ecology
will apply that section.
1
RCW 90.03.015(3)&(4)DEFINITIONS of"Municipal Water Supplier"and`Municipal Water Supply
"'poses". This section defines 1vater rights that are for municipal water supply
purposes.
1. Municipal water suppliers can hold water rights for municipal water supply purposes.
2. Municipal water suppliers can hold water tights that are not for municipal water supply purposes.
3. Ecology evaluates conformance with the definitions in this section on an individual water right basis. In
reviewing individual water rights however,relationships between water rights must be identified and given
consideration. Such relationships between water rights include but are not limited to"alternate"and other
linkages(as more fully described in.paragraph 9 below),
4. If one purpose of use on a water right is for a municipal water supply purpose,then another purpose of use
under the same water right is for a municipal water supply purpose when it is a use generally associated with
a municipality.
5. Beneficial purposes of use generally associated with a municipality include but are not limited to residential,
governmental or governmental proprietary,commercial,industrial,irrigation of parks and open spaces,
institutional,landscaping,fire flow,water system maintenance and repair,and the uses described in RCW
90.03.550.
6. If a municipal water supplier holds one water right that is for municipal water supply purposes,other water
rights held by the municipal water supplier may or may not qualify as rights for municipal water supply
purposes.
7. If a municipal water supplier holds or acquires a water right not for municipal water supply purposes,the
purpose of use may be changed to municipal water supply purposes under RCW 90.03.380. The statutory
tests for a change must be satisfied. Also,the beneficial use following the change must meet a definition in
this section. Changes under RCW 90.03.380 require'a tentative determination of the extent and validity of
the water right proposed for transfer or change,
8. In general,agricultural irrigation purpose of use and dairy purpose of use water rights held or acquired by a
municipal water supplier cannot be conformed as rights for municipal water supply purposes. These
purposes are not generally associated with the use of water within a municipality. Water rights for other
purposes of use may also fall into this exclusive group. These situations will be considered by Ecology on a
case-by-case basis. [See"conformed water right"definition iii the section concerning RCW 90.03.560,
below.] Water rights for non-municipal purposes that cannot be conformed can still be changed to •
municipal purposes by filing and having approved an application for a water right change or amendment.
9. Ecology interprets the statute as requiring active compliance by conformance with the beneficial use
definitions in RCW 90.03.015(4). Examples of conformance with the definitions include but are not limited
to the following:
•
a. Conformance with the definition occurs where a water right holder uses water for one or more of the
categories of beneficial use included in the definition of a water right for municipal water supply
purposes(e.g.the residential connection or nonresident population thresholds under RCW .
90.03.015).
b. If the water right holder is a public water system participating in the water system planning process,
then conformance with the definition occurs when the water right is identified as being held for
2
•
existing customers,future growth or supply needs,standby/reserve,backup or emergency,or other
reasonable future use in a water system plan(WAC 246-290-100),project report(WAC 246-290-
110),construction document(WAC 246-290-120),source approval (WAC 246-290-130),existing
system as-built approval(WAC 246-290-140),or coordinated water system plan(WAC 246-293)as
approved by the Department of Health,or a small water system management program(WAC 246-
290-105)as required by the Department of Health.
•
c. A water right authorized for one or more of the categories of beneficial use included in the
definition of numlcipal water supply purposes that has been integrated or consolidated through
Ecology action(s)or statutory procedure(s)(e.g.new permit,change decision,replacement or new
additional well, showing of compliance under ROW 90.44.100(3),consolidation of rights for
exempt wells under RCW 90.44.105)such that two or more water rights or water sources have
alternate,well field,non-additive(formerly"supplemental"),or other relationships will be
recognized as in conformance with the definitions. .
d, If a water right does not meet the definition of a water right for municipal water supply purposes for
5 or more years,or does not otherwise qualify for the relinquishment exception under RCW
90.14.140(2)(cl),then the water right would be valid only to the extent it had been beneficially used
during that period,with any non-use resulting in relinquishment of the right unless the non-use is
excused by one of the other exemptions to relinquishment provided under RCW 90.14.140.
RCW 90.03.015(4)(a) DEFINITIONS—Defines Required Number ofResidential Connections and Non-
Residential Population for Municipal Water Supply Rights. The statutory definitions
in this subsection do not exactly match the Department of Health rules for Group A
water systems under WAC 246-290-020,
1, In this section,we provide examples of water systems that might or might not be considered municipal
water suppliers holding water rights for municipal water supply purposes.Whether or not the particular
system is considered municipal or not depends on the specific fact pattern.
2, RCW 90.03.015(4)(0 provides statutory definitions for municipal water suppliers holding water rights for
municipal water supply purposes. These definitions overlap Department of Health rules for Group A water
systems,but they are not exactly the same.
•
3. All municipal water suppliers under this section are Group A water systems. However,not all Group A
water systems are municipal water suppliers.
4. One difference between the definition in this section and Department of Health rules for Group A water
systems is the statute requires 15 or more residential commections.The Department of Health rules consider
both residential and non-residential connections. Therefore,a water right serving 15 homes would be for
municipal water supply purposes but a water right serving 14 homes and a business would not. It does not
meet the"municipal"definition,because it does not meet the"residential"criterion. However, both would
be Group A water systems.
5. The statute does not define the term residential service connection. Ecology considers this term to be as
defined in Department of Health rules for Group A community water systems in WAC 246-290-020.The
definition reads: "service connections used by year-round residents for one hundred eighty or more days
within a calendar year". This is a subset of Department of Health's general definition of a service
connection in WAC 246-290-010,i.e.a connection to a public water system serving both residential and
3
non.-residential populations. By contrast,the Municipal Water Law only considers residential service
connections.
•
6. Ecology interprets the term"connection"in a manner consistent with Department of Health rules. This
includes provisions for alternative means of calculating the number of connections far a Group A water
system.This can include counting"equivalent residential units"within a building. The determination on
number of residential units(connections)is done on a case-by-case basis.
7. In general,the following Group A water systems could be examples of municipal water suppliers because
the statutory definitions are equivalent to those adopted in role by the Department of Health: a city,
subdivision,mobile home park,or water association. The decisions on whether systems hold water rights
for municipal supply purposes depend On the particular factual situations.
8. Mother difference between the statutory definition and Department of Health rules for Group A water
systems is the statute does not include a definition for residential populations but Department of Health
rules do.
For example,tinder WAC 246-290-020,a water system can be classified as a Group A community
system if it serves at least 25 residents for 180 or more days within a calendar year.This is regardless of
the number of connections, A water right serving such a system would not be for municipal water
supply purposes under this section because the statute does not contain an equivalent definition. There
are stand-alone Group A community water systems that,under particular factual situations,may not be
municipal water suppliers because of this difference. These types of systems could include some
colleges,nursing homes,or other residential facilities.
9. The Municipal Water Law does not include a•minimum service connection requirement for nonresidential
connections. RCW 90.03.015(4)(a)defines a water right for municipal water supply purposes in tQrJns of
nonresidential populations (residential use of water for a nonresidential population of,on average,at least
twenty-five people for at least sixty days a year). Therefore,this category includes some Group A
non-community systems and excludes others,depending upon particular factual situations.
10. Ecology interprets the phrase"residential use of water for a nonresidential population"to mean that the full
range of residential water uses(e.g.drinking,cooking,cleaning,sanitation)are provided under the water
right, Further,such service is for temporary domiciles for non-residents(an average of 25 or more people
Iiving there for more than 60 days per year). Examples of Group A non-commuity systems that might hold
water rights for municipal water supply purpose under this section under particular factual situations could
include vacation homes and temporary farm worker housing.
11. The following Group A non-community systems would not typically hold rights under RCW
. 90,03.015(4)(a)for municipal water supply purposes under the residential water use for a non-resident
population definition:
o schools, •
o daycares,
o churches,
o campgrounds,
o fairgrounds,
o restaurants,
o businesses and •
o factories. - •
4
•
Actual.deternuination of whether such systems hold water rights for municipal supply purposes will depend
upon the particular factual situations.
•
12. Group B water systems are also defined in WAC 246-290-020 and are public water systems smaller than
Group A systems,either in terms of connections or population. Water rights serving Group B water systems
do not qualify as water rights for municipal water supply purposes under RCW 90.03.015(4)(a).
•
RCW 90,03,015(9) (b) Govermeil/al Entities wul Gavernmenlal_Proposes, Defines water rights for
municipal water supply purposes for a specific group of governmental entities.
I. The governmental entities Iisted in this subsection constitute an exclusive list. Those entitles are:
o cities, •
o towns,
o public utility districts,
o counties,
o sewer districts,or •
o water districts. •
If an entity is not on the list,it is not a municipal water supplier for the purpose of this subsection.For
example,neither a port district nor an irrigation district qualify as municipal water suppliers under RCW
90.03.015(4)(b)).
2. Governmental and governmental proprietary purposes generally refer to those purposes listed at the end of
RCW 90,03.015(4),including, but not limited to: •
o commercial, - • •
o industrial,
o irrigation of parks and open spaces,
o institutional,
o landscaping,
o fire flow, •
o water system maintenance and repair,or
o related purposes.
•
3. A governmental or non-governmental entity not qualifying as a municipal water supplier under this
subsection(e.g, a port district or irrigation district)may qualify under another subsection of RCW
90.03.015, However,domestic use rights issued to or acquired by a city,town,public utility district,county,
sewer district,or water district that do not qualify as municipal under the more specific requirements of
RCW 90.03.015(4)(a).c annot qualify under the more general"governmental or governmental proprietary
purposes"standard of RCW 90.03.015(6).
4. When considering whether a water right qualifies for a governmental purpose under this section(e.g.
. irrigation of parks),Ecology considers the entity that was originally issued the water right,as well as the
current owner of the right.
For exaample, if a water right was issued for irrigation of parks(or another governmental purpose)to a
"governmental entity",then the right is for a municipal water supply purpose. However,if the same
rightwere issued to a non-governmental entity(e.g. a private developer)and later acquired by a
"governmental entity",then the right would need to be changed to municipal water supply purposes
5
under RCW 90.03.380. The right as issued did not then qualify as a municipal water supply purpose
water right.
5. Municipal water rights held by entities listed in RCW 90.03,015(4)(b)may include agricultural irrigation as
a governmental purpose under au existing municipal water supply purpose water right,if such an entity has
statutory authority to provide agricultural irrigation water and the entity has used the right,at least in part,
for agricultural irrigation since the time the might was issued.
RCW 90,03.260(4) & (5)Applfcat o/is-Numbers of Connections and Population. These subsections provide
that the maximum population or number of connections specified on an application or
any subsequent water right documents for a municipal water supply right is no longer a
limitation of the water right.The municipal water supplier must have an approved water
system plan or an approval from the Department of Health to serve a specified number
of service connections to not be subject to this limit. These subsections do not relate to
water rights documented by statements of water right claims, •
1. If a water system serving 15 or more existing residential service connections has a water right for
community or multiple domestic supply,and the number of connections has been authorized by the
Department of Health,the water right is for municipal water supply purposes and any population or
connection limitations that may appear in water right documents are not limiting. Rather,the maximum
instantaneous quantity(Q;)and annual quantity a)are the controlling numbers,
2. If a water system serving less than 15 existing residential service connections has a water right that issued
for a project proposing more than 15 residential service connections,and any number of connections
specified on the application or any subsequent water right documents is 15 or greater,then such a water
right may be conformed as a right for municipal water supply purposes under RCW 90.03.560. This
conformance must follow actual physical serviceto at least 15 residential service connections.
3. If a water system serving less than 15 existing residential service connections has a water right that issued
for a project proposing fewer than 15 residential service connections, and any number of connections
specified on the application or any subsequent water right documents is 14 or less,then the number of
connections specified on the application or any subsequent water right documents is a limitation on the
water right'. Only a sufficient quantity of water necessary to serve those connections is authorized,
4, If a water system that qualifies as a municipal water supplier under RCW 90.03,015(3)physically
consolidates another water system into its distribution system,or takes ownership of another water system
and acquires a community or multiple domestic supply water right that was held by the acquired water
system for a project proposing fewer than 15 residential service connections,then the number of
connections specified on the application or any subsequent water right documents of the acquired system is
not limiting,so long as the municipal water supplier receives a water system plant or other approval from the
Department of Health to serve an authorized number of connections.
•
•
I"Smell a water right does not qualify as a right for municipal supply purposes. Changing the purpose of use of such a
water right to municipal supply purposes would require approval of an application to change the purpose of use of the right,
which,under RCW 90.44.100,is not permissible for an unperfected inchoate groundwater right."
•
6
5, If a water system is providing water for residential use to a nonresidential population numbering Tess than an
average of 25 people for sixty or more days per year,under a water right issued for a project proposing
residential use of water to a nonresidential population for an average of greater than 25 people for sixty or
more days per year,then such a water_right may be conformed as a right for municipal water supply
purposes under RCW 90.03.560 following actual service to an average of 25 or more people for sixty or
more days per year.
6. If a water system is providing vater for residential use to a nonresidential populations numbering leas than an
average of 25 people for sixty or more days per year;under a water right issued for a project proposing
residential use to a nonresidential population for an average of less than 25 people for sixty or more days per
year,then the population intended to be served by the water right is a limitation on the water right and only
a sufficient quantity of water necessary to serve that population is authorized.
RCW 90,03,330(2) Appropriation Procetlure Water Right Certificate;Exceptions to Prohibition of
Revocation or Diminishment of a Municipal Water,5'app&Propose Water Right.
This section provides that Ecology may not revoke or diminish a water right for
municipal water supply purposes documented by a certificate covered under RCW
90.03.330(3)except:
•
o when issuing certificates under RCW 90.03.240,
o issuing certificates following changes,transfers,or amendments under RCW
.90.03.380 or 90.44.100,or
o If Ecology determines a certificate was issued with ministerial errors or obtained
through misrepresentation.
1. Apart from the exceptions listed in this section,Ecology cannot rescind or diminish a certificate for
municipal water supply purposes and/or revert a certificate to permit status.
2, A certificate for municipal water supply purposes may be revoked or diminished if the revocation or
diminishment results from a genera!adjudication of water rights in superior court conducted pursuant to
RCW 90,03.110-245, •
3. When processing an application for change,transfer,or amendment of a water right documented by a
certificate covered under RCW 90.03330(3),Ecology may revoke the certificate,or issue a certificate for a
quantity less than that on the original certificate. Revocation or diminishment may occur based on:
•
o the tentative determination of validity and extent of the water right,
o to prevent impairment of other existing water rights, or
o to prevent detriment to the public welfare(for groundwater changes under RCW 90.44100),'
•
[See RCW 90,03.330(3),below,for discussion relating to tentative determination of validity and
extent.] - •
4. Upon determining that a certificate for municipal water supply purposes has been issued with ministerial
errors,Ecology may revoke the certificate and issue a superseding certificate containing modifications only
to the extent necessary to correct the ministerial errors.
7
5. Upon determining that a certificate for municipal water supply purposes has been issued through
misrepresentation,Ecology may revoke the certificate and issue a superseding certificate containing
modifications only to the extent necessary to correct the misrepresentation.
RCW 90.03,330(3) Appropriation Procedure--Water Right Certificates. This subsection provides that
water rightsfor municipal water supply purposes documented by certificates issued •
prior to September 9,2003 with maximum quantities based on system capacity(known
as"pumnps and pipes"certificates)are"rights in good standing."
1. "Pumps and pipes"certificates were issued based on the system capacity measure,rather than on the basis
of actual beneficial use. These water rights include inchoate quantities that have not yet been exercised.
See Department of Ecology Theodor emus, 135 Wn.2d 582,957 P.2d 1241 (1998). Such rights may
continue to be exercised to serve new growth. Ecology is not authorized to revoke or diminish water rights
for municipal supply purposes documented by such"pumps and pipes"certificates,except under the
circumstances set forth in RCW 90.03.330(2),discussed above.
2. RCW 90.44.100 authorizes changes of points of withdrawal and places of use for inchoate ground water
rights. In the context of exceptions provided under RCW 90.03.330(2),such as when a conservancy board
or Ecology evaluates au application for change or transfer of a water right documented by a"pumps and
pipes"certificate and must perform a tentative determination of the validity and extent of the water right,an
assessment must be performed to determine whether any of the inchoate quantity specified in the certificate
I•emains,valid. This requirement is based on the proposition that by including the term"in good standing"
for such certificates,the Legislature intended that holders of such rights would still have to meet other water
law principles,such as reasonable diligence in project development,to keep the rights in good standing.
In assessments under RCW 90.03.330(2),to determine if inchoate quantities remain in good standing,the
conservancy boards and Ecology will consider at least the following parameters:
a. The original intent described in water righ documents,including the nature of the project that the
applicant sought to pursue through issuance of the permit;
b. Whether the water right holder has exercised reasonable diligence to complete the project sought to
be developed through the water right2,and
c. Whether or not approval of the change would be contrary to the public interest, 1'ublie interest
analysis can involve consideration of whether the proposed change or transfer is speculative in
nature. As an example,evidence of speculation could be no continued involvement by the selling
municipal water supplier in the water use served by the receiving entity. Additional evidence could
be no discussion or rationale for the transfer indicated in planning documents,such as a water
system plan,
Inchoate portions of water rights for municipal supply purposes found to be in good standing through this
assessment(mentioned above),are eligible for change or transfer. This approach may, among other things,
allow for the inchoate portion to be transferred to another municipal water supplier or integrated into a
regional water system.
2 RCW 90.03.320 provides guidance oil factors to consider when evaluating whether a water right permittee has exorcised
reasonable diligence.
8
•
For inchoate surface water rights,the additional requirements in RCW 90.03.570 must be met before
changes and transfers may be approved. Further;RCW 90.03.380 and 90.44.100 authorize changes and
transfers of perfected surface and ground water rights for municipal supply purposes when the criteria of
those statutes are met.
•
RCW 90.03.330(4) Issuance of Certificates—Beneficial Use Requirement. This section requires that for
water rights represented by permits,after September 9,2003,water right certificates
may only be issued that document maximum quantities based on actual beneficial use
of water,
•
1. Ecology will issue certificates,upon proof of appropriation by permit holders,based only on actual
beneficial use of water,rather than system capacity. Such certificates will not include quantities of inchoate
water,
2. Ecology will consider a permit holder's request to split a partially developed permit by issuing a certificate
for the developed portion and issuing a superseding permit for the inchoate portion with a development
schedule. The permit holder must demonstrate reasonable diligence in working toward full development.
3. In reports of examination authorizing changes and transfers of water rights for municipal supply purposes,
Ecology may specify development schedules.The schedule may inchude an estimated date of final
development. Extensions may be granted as described in Ecology Policy POL-1050. Upon completion of
development,Ecology will issue superseding water right certificates.
RCW 90.03.386(I) Coordination between Department of Health and Department of Ecology. This
section requires coordinated review and approval procedures to ensure compliance and
consistency with water system plans/small water system management programs.
Ecology and the Department of Health developed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)to outline the agencies' roles and responsibilities.
htt ://www.ec .►va. ov/ ro_rams/wr/ri!his/1 ma les/,df/SinedDOHMOU5107. df
RCW 90.03.386(.2) Place of Use and Determinations of"Not Inconsistent"with Specified Local Plans.
This section provides that a municipal water supplier's authorized place of use on its
water right or rights can change to its current service area,provided that: •
o a planning or engineering document describing the service area has been approved by the
Department of Health; •
o the municipal water supplier is in compliance with the terms of its water system plan or small water
system management program;and
•
o the alteration of the water right place of use is"not inconsistent"with other local planning
documents(see section 5(2)of Municipal Water Law Agency.Rcsponsibilities Outline-June 23,
2006 created by DOH and Ecology relating to implementation of this section
llttp:Ilwww.eey.wa.gov/programshw/rights/lmages/pdfhnw1_62306 agncyrespons_fnldrft.pdf
•
9
•
Ecology and the Department of Health included detailed implementation and coordination information
from this document into an MOU that outlines the agencies'roles and tasks.
http://ww w.ecy.wa,gov/programs/wrh•ights/Images/pdf/SignedDOHMOU5107.pdf
RCW 90;03,386(3) Wafer Conservation as a Part of an Approved Water System Plan/S Small Water
System Management Program. This section describes the responsibility for a
municipal water supplier to implement a water use efficiency/water conservation
program. It directs Ecology to consider such implementation when considering
development schedules for municipal water supply rights.
•
1, Ecology supports the Department of Health's rule on water use efficiency/water conservation for municipal
water suppliers. Ecology generally intends to be consistent with the Department of Health's water
conservation requirements,but believes there may be exceptions when more stringent requirements may be
necessary.
2. Ecology Inas statutory mandates to encourage conservation and eliminate waste. In some cases,Ecology•
may base water al location decisions on conservation criteria more stringent than those in the Department of
Health's rule, Such instances may include,but are not limited to:
o evaluations of applications for water right permits under RCW 90.03.290,
• o waste of water determinations under RCW 90.03,005,
o coordination with watershed planning efforts under Chapters 90.54 and 90.82 RCW,
o drought permitting under Chapter 43,83B RCW,
o general adjudications of water rights,or •
o settlements of administrative appeals and court cases,
Many factors could come into play when making the determination for more stringent conservation
requirements. Ecology will address these instances on a case-by-case basis.
For example,Ecology could require more stringent conservation measures when issuing a new water
right permit authorizing a withdrawal from a watershed with instream flows established by rule. In its
decision,Ecology could determine that water is not available,or that it would impair other existing
water rights or be contrary to the public interest,to allow water use at a level that would be allowed
under the DOH rile, With proper mitigation and a requirement to conserve additional water over what
the DOH rule might require,Ecology could be able to approve the application and issue a permit,
3. In its review of water system plans and related documents,Ecology might comment on those areas within its
jurisdiction,including those listed above in number 2.
•
4, When Ecology believes it must be more stringent than DOH's water use efficiency rules,Ecology will
consult with DOH before imposing more stringent conditions.
5, Ecology policy POL-1 050 provides guidance on the agency's criteria for extending development schedules
for all water rights, including those for municipal water supply purpose. Under this policy,Ecology may
10
require additional conservation provisions and conditions at the time of a permit extension for a municipal
water supply purpose right. See the policy at: .
• http:/Avww.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wrfrules/images/pdfipoll 050r.pdf
•
RCWW 90.03.550 Municipal Water Supply Purposes—Beneficial Uses.
1. Beneficial uses of water under a municipal water supply purposes water right may include water withdrawn
or diverted under such a right and used for
o Uses that benefit fish and wildlife,water quality,or other instream resources or related habitat
values;
o Uses that are needed to implement environmental obligations called for by:
o a watershed plan under Ch, 90.54 RCW or Ch.90.82 RCW,
o a federal habitat conservation plan,
o a hydropower license of the federal energy regulatory commission,or
o a comprehensive irrigation district management plan.
RCW 90.03.560 Municipal Water Supply Purposes—Identification. "Courant,ing Documents"and
Municlpui.WaterRiglrt Changes and Transfers. Nater rights meeting the definition
under RCW 90,03,015 are for rmulieipal•Water supply purposes. The water right
documents can be conformed to correctly identify the purpose ofuse.
1. A"conformed water right"is one in which water right documents have been amended by the department to
properly indicate it is for municipal water supply purposes. For a qualifying right,this can occur during the
process of changing some other attribute of the water right under RCW 90.03,380 or 90.44.100. This call
also ocenr when a municipal water supplier requests a correction of the listed purpose of use,pursuant to
this section and not just during a change or transfer.
2. Purposes ofuse that can be conformed to a municipal water supply purpose generally include those
identified in RCW 90.03.015 and RCW 90.03.550.
3. A municipal water supplier can hold or acquire water rights for non-municipal purposes(e.g.agricultural
irrigation and daily purposes ofuse). However,these rights may not be conformed to a municipal water
supply purpose of use under-this section,They must undergo a purpose of use change under RCW 90.03.380
to become municipal purpose rights.
6p
ñ1 -
Mala
Belton
Program Manager
Water Resources Program .
Special Note;These policies and procedures are used to guide and ensure consistency among water resources program staff in the
administration of laws and regulations. These policies and procedures are not formal administrative regulations that have been adopted
through a ride-making process. In some cases,the policies may not reflect subsequent changes in statutory law or judicial findings,but
they are indicative of the department's practices and interpretations of laws and regulations at the time they are adopted. If you have any
questions regarding a policy or procedure,please contact the department. .
•
City of Spokane Valley
?ransportation & lnfrastruictire
Funding - Taxes
November 17,2016
Background
Council discussion related to funding current and projected future deficits in
transportation &infrastructure goes back to 2004.
Proposed Utility Tax Ordinance in 2004
Did not advance to a 2nd reading.
Telephone Utility Tax Ordinance 08-014
Discussions during 2016:
March 15,2016—Council Workshop;
May 11,2016—Mayor's State of the City Address
June 14, 2016—Budget Workshop;
2017 Budget Development—August 9th,September 13th,September 27th,October 11th,
October 25th;and
Finance Committee Meetings—May 12th,September 12th,October 10th,
Fall 2016 Hot Topic Newsletter—Mayor's Corner
1
Street Fund 4101
o The Street Fund generally accounts for the operations and maintenance of City
Streets.
Includes street pavement repairs,traffic signals and signs,landscaping and vegetation
control,snow and ice control,etc.
Major Revenue Sources:
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
Telephone Utility Tax
SVMC 3.70--Provides for a tax of 6%on telephone services within the City including both
landline telephones and cell phones.
Has decreased at an average annual rate of 4.92%since implementation.
Currently collected$135k less in 2016 than the same period in 2015.
Street Fund #101
Telephone Utility Tax
$4.00
$3.00 =—a-
o � .4410,
E.:
$2.00
$1.00 --
$-
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Actual 2009 to 2015,Budget 2016 and 2017
2
•
•
Street Fund #101 e Projection
r 10 lru&d 0'.[91143
[ 00131 1911 [ 2015 I Nd161 2t;' I 20th 1 20.9'1.4'h3.3 I 9921_1 .
IREOVi-7Ni RC Parr
1.7-17.1.111 JI'EZTa[_ 2.5.2321 1,431335 225),161.'1,343,000. 2203 033 0. 0 0.174
�3: el?�(Te[ U 9. 9.. 0' 0- 2,!93.555 0110,36 '3,631553.3,547,6$1
1 1'4ye F1J 5Gaa1 311 ,1,!56,055.1.075.475 1,935,!)3'2,00(9•)) 2143303. 2043.3:9 2,140,X3',2.6]3,33 2040300' 1
1,...,6,1'411,4-4,42,5 10420 0 0 0 0 66006 53,2-5 03001 37(00 1020,)
FO 4 Nay E' (04 0- 0 0 50,003 53,000 54E01 50 003 51009 50.003
1-45,-4,1-14.4,1 190) 2,037 3-211 1,030. 4,000 4.033 4,033 40:0 4000
hl (r..--.2-4-1 8(. a 6703 4.2:1' 4,313 0 00. (9 9 0
� .
11,,4,1 12911 51i9r 9,643 13.[19, 1)0:3 13AU. 10003, 1)0.9 19,00)
1 417 "^3 Fe 4441230 43505.9 4,233,013 44_7.933, 1,515,17E 1073,133.5,1E1.137.5233 P21 5,41021 l
0.043.4034 .
3'L4,2467,0417.776 Tues 13204) 001,165 733.331 731E04 144,573 761,803 721,043- 740591 04.4)5(9 '1
8.-acrn 148110 430.644 116.444 111.50) 103003 107,102 104,242 111.427 113.855
5 0...z.4 6 C2,5 015034 2181049 2,052457 2030754 2051151 2,541.921 2,522.834 2.644091 2.027.524
5,...054.5:., 435117 0 465.232 439003 401003 477,359 415.007 040.143 9..314
05 t.I Pap-re,. 727.371 01 15) 141..5.31 11 000 236109 011.220 425.153 64(721 231.615'
1-341241,-...14-73,4 6331 29.733 33.703 2.200 3313 '43)) )9.700 39.703 30700 55.703
E1e1..,T-.114,1-....2 3315 4 - F 647] 202so 022,000 245.616 0.342 67,342 0 0 0 0 17
63efr4'Pa 370zc-.1-0534(-✓.'ewv_1.cle slue) 10,777 11,777, 124-7! 31E3.. 23,2250 43.2),) 23,259 13,353 71,3353
1:x71 TEa-1eza11-75012,'[:..s3..) I 3.0010') 75,0?) 0 )4!0 77.619 3,3030 70003 12.114 7040). 1
594 Er,:.0050.3(00.-4-40109.11 - 00 El 0 4;147 4,4 41.0x) 40,4[0'
1030550,0 8674:x-4.1 Port's 0- 0 43,001 4350) 100,0.0 204.0- 2:6c03
TVI Fr.,,430.74751011 €07.1-1 2423455 4.371117 43594.0 4731244 •5.071,151..5,141.137.5 233 0.21.5140574
R Pe:,r-.,E.,1t,2e5 13503434 3074,7)1- 1123.5561 510-3. P-50762 _ 0' 0' 0' ,
I,0)07 0,Tur I. 0.7151 115.7211 5131,767) 105.5 0 11204)21 9' 0 _ 0: 0.
. .
1.11, Ice 7 17_1111.04,1 . i
041.(...---!1•)T1161700x201 4165]6) 047,403 30).3,15.7) 25,063 5141,177) 0 0 0 0
1340h-514-40.. .0223.435 2063.234 1,705244 1443077 1.4.5 C77 1031091: 1723061.1,037,1. 1024001'. ,
Ery:34.4E a 2011234 1.705244 1,441079 1,.4 On 1033031 1024141.1031031-1.0.3 C.1 102'10,
614 1(- N- .F.-e4elsiT 2'..'15 a,1,e0r7474,40,,.1.,34 01J7.14y5,2916 Mary in,5407!0x04•+34 Fe:,Par4,34pacee3_
(1)3 px'-e )Is /s uatr..2 1044 Mr lata E4#rr Lerma t.npanew.l a 6,291[u7 lun.a-.e steam AN 04,72 lr e". 3.11. .
V II1•u al 3..,e fed aL339wCar 0120111.}ag5204L )
144 TY 4 Frxs 70.797071 a Ye-u•. x'f 10217-014 P1r11l na111507 la tang 4.4.49 11-..%45 la 3.3 10.4 1,..14 caws 740ul.,1446.3.074 l2,
1,..11.1.1 2011 I'r:.30 322
191, 4072[,2 - -14.2:154,2e21r4ra1•-+re.,90 31,-Mi1r 0120 '001-4 FM er'e3., (4,24111423007lre7
e/5145.15..,n1. z s,29901r0.0e..p)ea h(14,kwr 1501 eve Hl ;.[...0)01
171*-51,41 F..,-In1 65_710 Nn Pees C.Jo/ fa L'e P._-457 Pm 4153;1 Fwdlas 20111.2 2)21.
r II
Pavement Preservation Fund #311
6 The Pavement Preservation Fund accounts for pavement preservation projects
within the City.
The City has committed to funding pavement preservation through transfers in an
amount equivalent to 6%of General Fund recurring expenditures.
Equals about$2.3 million in the 2017 Budget.
• Transfers in come from the General Fund#001,Street Fund#101, REET 1 Fund#301,and
REET 2 Fund#302.
Transfers in from the Civic Facilities Replacement Fund#123 end after 2016.
o The City is committing an increasing amount of REET revenues toward pavement
preservation,which is beginning to impact the City's ability to match grant funding
for other street projects,
Negative REET fund balance projected in 2019.
721:
___.:__
3
IMP
Pavement Preservation Fund #311
Actual 2014-#311 Funding Budget 2017-##311 Funding
Transfers in Transfers in
0%
�`-
29% E 001 11001
41% , 101 41% } 101
j 301&302 56% 301&302 •
17% / i 123 r 123
13% '
3% :*'
Pavement Preservation Fund #311
ill 1 1,3.10x5 F101011l
22,13 I 2011 I 221115 I 2915 2917 I 2013 L 2212-1-2503 1 2021
R2.254...2 4i' -
0. 00 0 • ,01, 0 3245,000 3255100 3145,640 3,NS NA 14
Txe116 x 05.1131 101.4 _.1' 6545 920.020" 2000 , 202', 65320' 053203 951204 033,20].7
Ta-410153.61415,0112✓• 22x,[63. 2221-1 235.613 • 67,342 . 63,34 . 0' 0. 0. 0
T.52.4%.54 15 e11l GJ.Fxt1Jces:-.-e-11175 615 1,1 610231 615.254 559.104 0 0 0 0 0
T2-a5.11.1Yn 642011 45 9 0, 122.107 251.04 303250 61,469 200.000 230.003 220 000 223.027
7,24.,14/322 F.501211)5,0 24.1
173 231,003 13.3475 220.030 230,003 200.003 200.02 -
6215 25 45 2312155 053,201 2.1961,050 3..633 1.00.000 1100.000 1.03]403 1.000.000
275114242.5.-9. 3.2.754 1323 3.521 0 • 0; 0 0 0.
:11912-541 1231.021 4.20,519 3161114 4124222 7.6e1300 '5.50.620 5523.000 5.543000 5.02.010
30121e.34400212 ;1220.452 3.01210 24)3275 (551,033 3.0.6 5.014.420- 5.323.000 5.`:9.000 5.522.000 09
44i041.r22(0244 ea 420440 1 00149 1121494 631206" 1155.4529 (102,6092 0' 0. 0
B44514141Lel^ce14173.15 70359 1.922653 2675219 2.415.611, 2412441 2052141'2052041 20:2411
5412 W
61J2a}rce •. 223l04I 164201 ;x35113 -2419.441 2054041 74542041, 7052941 2.052041 2022440
Pen(9'631 TV.,a-4 F55,514 92_z55
1.554.54 Pre.¢203 And 6311 ,1.327.153!30112.15 25101!.6 1353005 3060000 5,501000 557303 5520.400 5.904.000
31914+3R251 - 655,141. 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0
.2222234,3CT7115 2001x3 '1551410-.3 003 000 -5.55.000. 5.52240 55500 5:24.210 - 1
..1
0 2060212 a-ri P12m-0.91 .--i-e-1
Cr_snlFw#«v:ry 21Fe'6.`..1/A113143C:1
'0164 9414643116% .33,£29156 31,4191-1 33,351,033 19.925.622
Jt.e2i 693.0'6'6106% 5103'6 609.4 6093 ' 6IX%
i...'--,I P'esva=ni e0pel46,41 - '2017]]3.2.24%133. 2051.52]'-1333.513' •
2.052054,22%6 01.E 1156^0516213,FYrc-�,0 ,
1201 f'^e^9 Fvd 653.643 673.0[0 513623 261.200 _
!1615046 Fold w542, 0 47,]4 -
!12]6RFx 16543:.5-2.11420 616234 446,162 5:S3,401
03:111544 Fr11d1 fvJ 153,151 451,044 725.593 269.421
2302 664:9 GOY F.:i:45 f.14 124.4 ri 001,625:, ±45,542 602,41
1 1056431:22:5290 •23.1522 :2942509 •,.
107.'4x14003-es,552q,e265S315 a3 pe.:x17.k/4.5 e)p41144,o.N1133x3 we 14=20134 14x4 c5*6kle L's s.pa.e53. is -
•
44 Ib p4esni1cr4`a a1era.a.1501111 e�i 0,. 4 4414%.4.1.69,-5594424,255.495444.2.4.2%-444 7104 w
6 e 0ae Jane.,la Anl OIL -
24 2.0^4, .5-,...22
40255 e.645r.a.90,2,,..,0 .,,c,lreass 219 PSO-sMFW1at6slo5 REE Ib Ps aav62/447400436r1N 2e
6,4550001e00 d 3l,053,va3:e36161ey�s?621095.7e2226.
44 2125.#2P�14.5,0211 an-10220. 5136212102 e6061902 .
4
Combined #101 and #311
ii.
Projected(in millions)
2018 + 2016 + 2020 2021-
Projected Funding Needs:
Street Fund#101 $ 2.9 $ 3.0 $ 3.1 $ 3.2
Pavement Pres Fund#311 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
Combined Funding Needs $ 6.1 $ 6;2 $ 6.3 $ 6.4
II
it
I
Utility Taxes
Utility tax limited by state law to 6%(without voter approval)for:
Electricity
Natural gas
Steam
Telephone i
= Utility tax NOT limited by state law for:
Sewer/Stornlwater
Solid waste
Water
Cable television (cannot be discriminatory)
A
5
Utility Taxes
▪ There are no statutory limitations on the use of utility tax revenues.
f Any changes in the tax rate cannot take effect until the end of 60 days after the
enactment of an ordinance by the City.
O Taxation of Other Municipalities
Clarified through a court case in 2014 that a city may impose utility taxes on other
jurisdictions if they are acting in a proprietary capacity.
•
Utility Taxes
Revenue Estimates
1%Utility 2%Utility 3%Utility I 4%Utility 5%Utility 6%Utility
Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax
Electric5ervices $762,811 $1,525,621 $2,288,432 $3,051,243 $3,814,053 $4,576,864 •
Natural Gas Services 261,662 523,325 784,987 1,046,649 1,308,312 1,569,974
Sewer Services 140,827 281,654 422,482 563,309 704,136 844,963
Solid Waste Disposal Services 60,566 121,132 181,698 242,264 302,830 363,396
Water 68,813 137,627 206,440 275,253 344,066 412,880
$1,294,679 $2,589,359 $3,884,039 $5,178,718 $6,473,397 $7,768,077
6
•
llti- it37 Taxes
Comparison to Neighboring Jurisdictions
Natural Solid
Municipality Electricity Gas Telephone CableN Waste Water Sewer
Spokane 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.030
Liberty take 3.03 3.01' 3.0%, 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% _ 0.0% j
Cheney (?)..-_. ._ ?)_ .. 60% .. ... 0_ . 663 I3.% z, - ` 11
Deer Park6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% -'O 1
Ainvayl nights 6.01 6:0% 6.430 3.0% 100•%, 198% 15090 r
Pullman 8.0% 8.0% 8.0%.-. 8.0% 110% $0% 80%
Millwood 6.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0'% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% i
SpokaneValley-current 0.030 0.0°/ 60% 0.0% 0.035 0.07 00%
Spokane Valley-Proposed 6.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0%(2) 6.0% 6.0%
(I) Rates are 6%for Regular,4%for Residential Street and 4.75%for Parks.
(2)Solid Waste utility tax Just proposed for disposal services(not collection services).
Note:Utility tax rates forotherJuddlctions were taken from the AWC 2015 MunicipalTaxes
and fees Survey,whkh war obtained at
haps://tn w.awcnelorg/DataResaurces/resourcesbytopic/TaxandUserFeeSurvey,aspx
or from the municipal code of the jurisdiction.
Amo
Draft uilIty tax ordinance
Draft Ordinance repeals chapter 3.70 Spokane Valley Municipal Code,Utility Tax, in
its entirety. •
This eliminates the current 6%utility tax on telephone services. •
•
•
7
Draft utility tax ordinance
c 3.71.010-definition section.
3.71 .020--establishes a utility tax on provision of the following services:
electrical distribution
solid waste disposal
sanitary sewer
water
natural gas distribution `..
3.71.030—establishes the rate at which the tax would apply at 6%for each of the
taxed services.
Draft utility tax ordinance
• 3.71.040-requires submittal of a monthly report for each entity providing such
services to document taxable activity.
3.71.050—providers will be allowed to deduct certain amounts from gross income
that will not be taxed.
• 3.71.060—addresses record retention requirements to be able to document gross
income for purposes of calculating the tax so that the City may perform appropriate
audits.
3.71,070—establishes penalties for utility companies failing to pay the taxes on time, =sk
that the City may collect past due amounts in any manner authorized by law,and
that intentional non-payment of taxes due is a criminal violation.
;t tig
8
Draft utility tax ordinance
• 3.71.080—in the event a utility company quits doing business,or consolidates with
another entity,the taxes due and owing before such an act are still due and owing to
City.
• 3.71,090--utility taxes due under this chapter are in addition to any other fee due
under SVMC or other applicable law.
• 3.71.100—any future rate changes may only occur after at least 60 days notice under
state law.
• 3.71.110—any utility provider believing it has been assessed an incorrect amount of
taxes may appeal to the City Hearing Examiner.
Draft utility tax ordinance
3.71.120—if a utility company believes it paid too much in tax based on its gross
income,it can request a refund of the overpayment.
3.71.130—requires that all revenue generated from these utility taxes shall be
"exclusively used for funding City road projects,including but not limited to road
construction,operation,maintenance,and preservation,sidewalks, railroad grade
separation,and other similar projects which are directly related to vehicular and
pedestrian transportation."
9
Questions?
10
Slide#5-Street Fund#101 Projection
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/712016
Fund#101-Street Fund 918/2016
Projection through 2021 11/1/2016
(1) Amended Proposed
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected
2013 2014 2015 2016 20.17 2018 I 2019 I 2020 I 2021
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Telephone Utility Tax 2,562722 2,461,060 2,257,184 2,340,000 2,200,000 0 0 0 0"(2)
Alternative Utility Tax 0 0 0 0 0 2,869,965 2,963,969 3,059,853 3,157,654 (3)
Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,868,055 1,878,476 1,935,629 2,004,900 2,040,300 2,040,300 2,040,300 2,040,300 2,040,300
Multimodal Transportation Revenue 0 0 0 0 98,868 98,868 98,868 98,868 98,868
Right-of-Way Maintenance Fee 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Investment Interest 2,920 2,037 3,212 3,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Insurance Premiums&Recoveries 1,790 4,204 4,319 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Revenue 12,911 5,209 9,649 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total Recurring Revenues 4,448,398 4,350,986 4,209,993 4,407,900 4,403,168 5,073,133 5,167,137 5,263,021 5,360,822
Expenditures
Wages 1 Benefits 1 Payroll Taxes 582,013 681,165 738,381 734,604 746,872 761,809 777,046 792,587 808,438 (4)
Supplies 108,110 460,844 116,660 111,500 105,000 107,100 109,242 111,427 113,655
Services&Charges 2,152,294 2,197,089 2,052,457 2,132,754 2,167,151 2,541,994 2,592,834 2,644,691 2,697,584
Snow Operations 485,717 0 465,232 430,000 468,000 477,360 486,907 496,645 506,578
Intergovernmental Payments 797,275 876,680 707,967 771,000 796,000 811,920 828,158 844,722 861,616
Interfund Transfers-out-#001 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700
Interfund Transfers-out-#311 (pavement preservation) 282,000 282,000 206,618 67,342 67,342 0 0 0 0 (5)
InterfundTransfers-out-#501 (non-plow vehicle rental) 10,777 10,777 12,077 31,000 23,250 23,250 23,250 23,250 23,250
Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (plow replace.) 150,000 75,000 0 40,000 77,929 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
Signal Detection Replacement Program 0 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Traffic Signal Replacement Program 0 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Total Recurring Expenditures 4,607,886 4,623,255 4,339,092 4,357,900 4,731,244 5,073,133 5,167,137 5,263,021 5,360,822
Recurring Revenues over(under)
Recurring Expenditures (159,488) (272,269) (129,099) 50,000 (328,076) 0 0 0 0
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY (5,716) (85,721) (133,068) (25,000) (120,000) 0 0 0 0
Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues
Over(Under)Total Expenditures (165,204) (357,990) (262,167) 25,000 (448,076) 0 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 2,228,438 2,063,234 1,705,244 1,443,077 1,468,077 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001
Ending fund balance 2,063,234 1,705,244 1,443,077 1,488,077 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001
Assumptions •
(1) The actual numbers presented for 2015 are preliminary and unaudited as of July 6,2016,They are subject to change as we complete the audit process.
(2) For purposes of this analysis,we assumed that the telephone utility tax will be replaced with a different utility tax revenue stream.As such,telephone
utility taxes are projected at$0 for the years of 2018 through 2021.
(3) The projection for the alternative utility tax equals the amount necessary to bring recurring revenues to an amount that covers recurring expenditures for
the years 2018 through 2021.
(4) For purposes of this projection,expenditures from 2018 to 2021 are calculated at an increase of 2%annually. The expenditures for 2018 were increased
by$395,000 in order to eliminate service reductions that had taken place in previous years due to budget constraints.
(5) The Street Fund is assumed to have no contributions to the Pavement Preservation Fund from 2018 to 2021.
H:\Utility Taxes\101 and 311 Forecast for Utility Tax Projection
Slide#8-Pavement Preservation Fund#311 Projection
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/7/2016
Fund#311-Pavement Preservation 9/812016
Projection through 2021 11/1/2016
(1) Amended Proposed
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget r Projected
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 l 2019 1 2020 j 2021
Revenues
Alternative Utility Tax 0 0 0 0 0 3,245,800 3,245,800 3,245,800 3,245,800 (2)
Transfers in-#001 General Fund 0 888,823 920,000 943,800 953,200 953,200 953,200 953,200 953,200 {3)
Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 282,000 282,000 206,618 67,342 67,342 0 0 0 0
Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund 616,284 616,284 615,284 559,808 0 0 0 0 0
Transfers in-#301 REET 1 150,000 184,472 251,049 365,286 660,479 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Transfers in-#302 REET 2 150,000 184,472 251,049 365,286 660,479 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Grants 35,945 2,042,665 835,224 2,063,000 340,800 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Miscellaneous 2,800 1,903 3,390 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total revenues 1,237,029 4,200,619 3,083,614 4,364,522 2,682,300 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000
Total expenditures 1,387,153 3,077,215 2,400,408 4,550,000 3,050,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 (4)
Revenues over(under)expenditures (150,124) 1,123,404 583,206 (185,478) (367,700) 0 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 948,733 798,609 1,922,013 2,605,219 2,419,741 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041
Ending fund balance 798,609 1,922,013 2,605,219 2,419,741 2,052,041 2,052,941 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041
Pavement Preservation Project Totals and Revenues Sources
Pavement Preservation Fund#311 1,387,153 3,077,215 2,400,408 4,550,000 3,050,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000
General Fund#001 855,841 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,242,994 3,077,215 2,400,408 4,550,000 3,050,000 5,599,000 5.599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000
Computation of Pavement Preservation Commitment
General Fund recurring expenditures prior to addition
of pavement preservation 33,529,496 37,418,882 38,357,999 38,925,602
Amount equivalent to 6% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00%
Pavement preservation expenditures 2,017,770 2,245,133 2,301,500 2,335,500
Components of Pavement Preservation Financing
#001 General Fund 888,823 920,000 943,800 953,200
#101 Street Fund 282,000 206,618 67,342 67,342
#123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 616,284 616,284 559,808 0
#301 Capital Projects Fund 184,472 251,049 365,286 660,479
#302 Special Capital Projects Fund 184,472 251,049 365,286 660,479
2,156,051 2,245,000 2,301,522 2,341,500
Assumptions
(1) The actual numbers presented for 2015 are preliminary and unaudited as of June 6,2016.They are subject to change as we complete the audit process.
(2) The projection for the alternative utility tax equals the estimated pavement preservation funding needs less other revenue sources for Fund#311.
(3) For purposes of this analysis,the only assumed revenue streams are the General Fund contribution,REET in the amount of$400,000/year and average
grant proceeds of$1,000,000/year for the years 2018 through 2021.
(4) For analysis purposes, we have assumed expenditures equal to revenues. •
Fl:\Utility Taxes\101 and 311 Forecast for Utility Tax Projection
a
rt Ir i r
Cary Driskell
Cit Attorney, City of Spokane Valley
November 17, 2016
Cicy of5pakanctblley-OAiceofthe Ow thimcy
Big picture goal of the City
o Adopt regulations that make each utility provider responsible for
removing the facilities it places in the public rights-of-way at their cost.
o Such actions are considered an essential authority of a city pursuant to
RCW 35A.u.o2o, which states that"each code city shall have all powers
possible for a city or town to have under the Constitution of this state, and
not specifically denied to code cities by law. Byway of illustration and not
in limitation, such powers may be exercised in regard to . . . regulation . . .
of public ways. . . ."
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 2
1
•
Factual scenario for project
O The City contracts out a street project to reconstruct Fancher from Sprague to
Broadway;
o The City is not aware of abandoned water and natural gas pipes in ground;
® PIans and specs do not account for work to remove and dispose of the
abandoned facilities;
o Depending on the nature and location of the pipes, this could result in delays to
the project, which could result in delay claims and damages, both of which cost
the City money.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the CityAttorney 3
What facilities are we talking about?
o The City is not asking that all facilities be removed immediately upon
abandonment.
O The City would, however, require that each district be financially
responsible for its facilities,whenever they are removed.
o Facilities more than three feet underground are not likely to impact road
projects, although they may impact other utility providers so could be left
there for a while. Even at that, only that portion that would likely
interfere with the project would need to be removed.
Q Facilities Which create or are likely to create a risk of damage or are a life,
health, safety risk would have to be removed. This would be rare.
City of SpokaneValley-Office of the City Attorney 4
2
Why? v Impact to road budget
O The amount of money available to the City for road-related projects decreases
everyyear for a variety of reasons, hence the discussion on utility taxes.
O The City is working to identify ways it can save money on these projects to
stretch these shrinking funds the best we can.
O The City understands the County did not hold utility providers financially
responsible for facilities in the ground.
a That was neither an appropriate practice fiscally, nor was it likely legal.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the Cityhttorney 5
Avoid violating state law
o To do otherwise would result in City subsidizing a number of independent
districts, some of which are private. Continuing such a subsidy would
violate Article VIII, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, which
prohibits a city from giving"any money, or property, or loan its money, or
credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation,
except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or become
directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association,
company or corporation."
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the Cityhttorney 6
3
Avoid violating state law A continued
n As cited in several recent cases, RCW 43.09.21.o (referred to as the Government
Accountancy Act) requires a governmental entity that is receiving services from
another governmental entity to pay for them at their true and full value by the
department receiving those services.
o Lane v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn.zd 875, "The statute reads: `All service rendered
by . . . one department . . . to another, shall be paid for at its true and full value
by the department . . . receiving the same, . .' This law applies to services that
one governmental body provides for another, including when one city provides
another city with services."
o Tacoma v. Bonney Lake, 173 Wn.2d 584, "RCW 43.09.210 requires a governmental
entity to pay for any services it receives from another governmental entity at
their'true and full value."
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 7
--
fes..----
Avoid subsidizing districts
o Aside from the legal issues, there is a basic fairness argument that the
City, and its citizens, should not subsidize a separate entity;
O Only residents within each district may vote on the Commissioners for
that district, have ability to provide input on expenditures via that vote.
o City and County have provisions in all their interlocal agreements that
neither jurisdiction will subsidize the other.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 8
4
Requirement already exists for Consolidated
0 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as the predecessor in interest to
Consolidated Irrigation District, executed an agreement with Spokane
County in 1962 which required Consolidated to remove any structures and
restore the road to its prior condition. That agreement is still in effect,
with no termination date.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 9
_ . - -
Requirement already exists for Consolidated
ABxx F E_S_ST.111.1C11111g
15. In the event the United States abandons any of its water'
tray works or tranaminsioe lines uj on •or across n*y► goad! the United
States shall, at its sole cost nxni expense, remove the etructuze or
at ructurea constructed by or for it and restore the road to its con-
dition prior to the construction of such structure or structures by
ox for the United States, or do whatever is .required by the Couuty
to leave th( road in a condition satisfactory to the County.
•
CityefSpokaneValley-Office ofthe City Attorney to
5
What would this look like?
Q Each utility entity shall be responsible for removal of its facilities from the
public rights-of-way that are no longer used to provide service, including all
costs.
O At such time that a facility is no longer used to provide service to the utility
company's customers, the responsible district shall be responsible for removal of
all such facilities, except that those facilities may be temporarily abandoned in
place with express prior written approval of the City.
O The City has the discretion and authority to allow a district to temporarily
abandon underground facilities until such time that the City requests their
removal, and such written approval shall be freely granted by the City except
when emergency conditions exist involving a hazard to health, safety, or welfare
of the public require immediate removal. "Temporary" can be for years.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney Il
What would this look like?
O When the City subsequently requests removal of the facilities, a district
shall remove them within 6o days unless emergency conditions involving
a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public which requires their
removal in such shorter time as identified by the City.
O Any request to the City to allow the temporary abandonment of facilities
shall be accompanied by drawings showing the location of all
underground facilities.
City ofSpof:ane Valley-Office of the City Attorney I
6
•
Financial responsibility for facilities
O The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the
subject property that were damaged by a district's facility or by the
removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the district placing the
facilities in the rights--of--way.
o If a district fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the
above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities
and restore the subject property, and is entitled to reimbursement from
the district for such costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and any
other related costs resulting from the failure to remove the facilities.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney t3
Financial responsibility for facilities
o In the event removal of a district's facilities would occur during a City project,
the City shall take steps to identify the costs reasonably related to removal of a
district's unused facilities and shall bill those to the district.
a Under any scenario, a district shall be responsible for any delay costs incurred by
the City, or delay claims made against the City by a third arty, related to the
facilities being in the rights-of-way
O The City would, of course, continue to recognize those areas impacted by any
prior reservation of rights (easements) occurring in the past from dedications.
My understanding is that these relate only to Modern and Vera.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney µ
7
Conclusion
a The City seeks to use its regulatory authority pursuant to RCW 35A.n.o2o
to ensure that it is not incurring unnecessary costs in its road fund by
apportioning those costs to the entities actually and legally responsible for
them.
This will help the City stretch its scarce road fund resources farther and
ensure compliance with Washington law.
CftyofSpokaneValley•Office ortheCilyAttoi- y
8
cITY Or Public Works Department
aneCapital Improvement Program
4 a 0 1 0 0 ValleY' 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000. Fax: 509,688.0261 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org
Memorarndri
Date: February 26, 2013
To: Steve
From: Pete Fisch
Re: Abandoned Utilities within City ROW
Here is a list of projects that I, as Inspector,encountered abandoned utilities.
Sprague/Bowdish PCCP Intersection-
A 6" concrete irrigation/drainage pipe was in the way when we ran the new traffic signal conduit
across the intersection. We had to stop, call various utility companies to have them try to identify
it. No one claimed to have owned the pipe. We went ahead and broke out a chuck and ran the
conduit through the broken out piece. •
Broadway/Sullivan PCCP Intersection-
A 6"PVC conduit(photo below left)was discovered when the Contractor was installing a storm
line. It was a concern since PVC means it was installed recently. I had the Contractor halt work
until I called various utilities to try and identify whose it was.It ended up going unclaimed so I
had the Contractor cut it off,in place, and continue installing the storm line,
e
l
J) G r .. tom. c
} ;Ira ,�"::
iA f
1. ,-,i.fq:1.-,,,'.' '-:-7,T,"?‘ 'I:: -,,--,i,---- ::-...1,-- 7-:;.'z',0 — •';'i T-- , ' -
L.
_e.i.:.,1.,. %:,,, ,.. :,„;:zy..,„1,..,.„,,..1.z.::,,,,,..; , —.1 ,.2 .'T.,._.*: '17-7:1Y:0' tll tf(:'
fat,. 0:,.-1.,..„•:.,-.pi.;
' '
SsC ' ' r r•yr ,,0 - ,, vv :€'-`1:;•z•!
•z
r .A� ir 7 r"^ r� -i � I", L � s 3- N S 'qtr
t-,tii .is�.YJ:r�. _-n_- 71 ' �, , eL 7.{T��.i .._ >vite.
A
15" steel line{photo above right)was also discovered that went unclaimed.I stopped and had
the Contractor cut it off at the curb line and remove it. Fortunately, this was done without paying
for a change order,.
The Contractor also unearthed an 8" concrete pipe lying just below the subgrade. The operator
scraped the top off while cutting the grade. I made the Contractor stop work until we could hand
dig around it to find the limit of the pipe and see if it was live or connected to anything
important. It was determined after a half hour of down time that it could be crushed in place and
covered over with gravel.
P:1Public Works\Capital ProjectslUtility NotificationlAbandoned Utility memo
•
McDonald/Sullivan PCCP Intersection-
The Contractor was installing storm lines and came across an old corrugated metal pipe (CMP)
that halted construction for some time until it was determined that it was an old abandoned-in-
place pipe.
Sprague/Pines PCCP Intersection-
The Contractor,while cutting subgrade, unearthed a 2"steel conduit running across the street in
about the location of the existing traffic signal conduit. Work was halted until we could get a
locate on the existing signal conduit.By that time the Contractor had unearthed a longer stretch
of the conduit in question and determined that it was abandoned in place. When the Contractor
hit the conduit some wires were exposed and since the signal did not go down we determined
that maybe it was an old conduit for a past center island turn signal that was left in place.
Sprague/Sullivan PCCP Intersection-
The Contractor unearthed a 2" steel gas main running along the north curb line while installing
storm structures. The line was located by the gas company but the trouble was it was lying right
next to a new 6"plastic gas main. The gas company apparently left the steel main in place when
they installed the new plastic line.This did not cause too much wasted time because it had been
found earlier and the Contractor knew it was there as they installed a couple more storm
structures.
`' .,,4,..z.-� i ..r i .. _•j••a
ih
—..---1..-.. ,=,i,-,-. . J!'�r
'! •;}ty r •;11 i'1:-.•-•::::,-,'!-,:`,,••-•,-a ' • ..t ,
t ,,T.:4,:.1:" i '
iiiit
T vF
:•¢�'t•1' 31044 .4 s.'� L S is_ • .ice'„ /41
..„..i,844,:! ,-,::_..,..„:)..,,:k„-:::-..,;m
. ./ .--.., ,, ,
Sprague Ave.Reconstruction-
The Contractor,while excavating for a storm structure,came across a 1"steel conduit lying
under the sidewalk, about 18"down.At the time the Contractor did not know if it was a live
water line or sprinkler line,possibly a water service or a even a live gas service. More times than
not utilities are found by the Contractor while digging that are not located, or not located
properly.The rule is that the locate mark can be within two feet of the actual utility. After
calling the gas company and the water purveyor of that particular district,nobody would claim
the line. The Contractor made sure not to upset the line or damage it.The Contractor unearthed it
numerous times while placing storm structures and each time was careful not to break it.The
Contractor was very careful and I'm sure it cost them some time by having to dig carefully
around this line each time they installed a storm structure.
PAPublie Works\Capital Proiects\Utility Notification\Abaridoned Utility memo
Abandoned Utility Problems
The Broadway Avenue Reconstruction project called for placing stoim water piping in the intersection of
Broadway Avenue and Flora Road where Consolidated Irrigation District 19 had abandoned a 5 foot
diameter pipe that was part of an irrigation ditch siphon system.
The location of the pipe was indicated on the plans and a special provision Included in the contract to
"Remove Irrigation Pipe",measured per horizontal linear foot along the length of the pipe. The special
provision stated the Bid Item"shall be full payment for furnishing tools, labor,equipment,and materials
required to remove and dispose of 5 foot diameter steel irrigation pipe. Furnishing and installing backfill
ditto resulting void shall be paid under"Select Borrow Incl.Haul"and"Embankment Compaction
Method C".
The unit bid price was$4.52ILF. The project paid for removal of 133 feet at a total cost of$601.16.
Shallow inn-located Utility Problems
Th:.e 24`'Avenue Reconstruction project(CIP 053)plans showed the location of underground
communication cables and fiber optic lines that had been painted on the ground prior to the project
basel-nap topographic survey. During construction the Contractor discovered some lines that had not been
located and also cut some flues that were shown on the plans but were only buried in the crushed
surfacing ehe of two inches below the bottom of the existing asphalt pavement. The Contractor worked
with the utility to lower the shallow lines. Several months afterward the Contractor-claimed$47,576 in
"lost production"due to the shallow and un-located communication lines. The City settled the claim for
$16,112;92.
Utilities that do not participate with the One Call Utility Locate
On the Broadway Avetrue.Recoiistruction project(CIP 088),the Contractor dug up an umarked Central
Valley School District fiber optic line owned by Erman Networks. The fiber optic was again encountered
by staff on the Indiana Avenue Extension Project(CIP 0112) and the University Overlay.Project(CIP
0162).
Eman is owned by Ed Jacobs, 888-399-0297,31706 40`r'Ave S.,Roy,WA 98580. Although encouraged
several times by staff to join the Washington Utility Coordinating Council(WUCC)Mr,Jacobs has pot
and this utility is not located by the One-Call utility locate process.