Sewer Feasibility Study - Edgewood, Washington of Edgewood 216-3045-002 (100/06) Edgewood Sewer...

March 2002Project No. 216-3045-002 (100/06)

Edgewood Sewer Feasibility Study

Prepared for

City of Edgewood2221 Meridian Avenue East

Edgewood, Washington 98371-1010

Prepared by

Parametrix1231 Fryar Avenue

P.O. Box 460Sumner, Washington 98390-1516

(253) 863-5128www.parametrix.com

and

FCS Group8642 154th Avenue NE

Redmond, Washington 98052(425) 867-1802

City of Edgewood 216-3045-002 (100/06)Edgewood Sewer Feasibility Study March 2002

CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER

The technical material and data contained in this document were prepared under the supervision anddirection of the undersigned, whose seal, as a professional engineer licensed to practice as such, is affixedbelow.

____________________________________________Prepared by April Huff

____________________________________________Prepared by Nathan I. Mozer, P.E.

____________________________________________Checked by Jeff Morgan, P.E.

____________________________________________Approved by Doug Berschauer, P.E.

City of Edgewood 216-3045-002 (100/06)Edgewood Sewer Feasibility Study i March 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................ES-1

1. SERVICE AREA/BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 1-11.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND..................................................................................... 1-11.2 LOCATION ........................................................................................................................ 1-11.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 1-3

2. POPULATION/FLOW PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................... 2-1

3. TREATMENT PURVEYOR ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 3-13.1 PIERCE COUNTY ............................................................................................................. 3-13.2 CITY OF TACOMA CENTRAL TREATMENT PLANT................................................. 3-13.3 LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT................................................................................. 3-13.4 CITY OF SUMNER WWTP............................................................................................... 3-33.5 CITY OF PUYALLUP WWTP .......................................................................................... 3-3

4. COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES...................................................................................... 4-14.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – LAKEHAVEN ................................................................................. 4-14.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – PIERCE COUNTY........................................................................... 4-24.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 – LAKEHAVEN/PUYALLUP............................................................ 4-24.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 – PIERCE COUNTY/PUYALLUP..................................................... 4-3

4.4.1 Purveyor Service Charges ...................................................................................... 4-34.4.2 Purveyor Capital Costs........................................................................................... 4-3

5. FINANCING OPTIONS (PREPARED BY FCS GROUP) ................................................................ 5-15.1 FUNDING OPTIONS......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Developer Extensions and Latecomer Agreements................................................ 5-25.1.2 Assistance Programs and Grants ............................................................................ 5-25.1.3 Issuing Debt ........................................................................................................... 5-5

5.2 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS AND GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES ........ 5-75.2.1 Local Improvement District ................................................................................... 5-85.2.2 LID Calculation...................................................................................................... 5-85.2.3 General Facility Charges........................................................................................ 5-95.2.4 GFC Calculation..................................................................................................... 5-95.2.5 Purveyor General Facility Charges ...................................................................... 5-125.2.6 Existing Customers .............................................................................................. 5-125.2.7 Short-Term Limitations to GFCs ......................................................................... 5-12

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

City of Edgewood 216-3045-002 (100/06)Edgewood Sewer Feasibility Study ii March 2002

5.3 SEWER UTILITY AND PROPOSED SEWER RATES ................................................. 5-125.4 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 5-14

6. FUTURE REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................................. 6-1

LIST OF FIGURES

1-1 Edgewood Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 1-2

2-1 Edgewood Sewer Planning Areas and Land Use Map........................................................ 2-2

2-2 Edgewood Sewer Planning Subbasins ................................................................................ 2-3

3-1 Locations of Potential Edgewood Sanitary Sewer Purveyors ............................................. 3-2

4-1 Edgewood Conveyance Alternative 1 ................................................................................. 4-5




LIST OF TABLES

2-1 Equivalent Population Projections ...................................................................................... 2-1

2-2 Projected Flows................................................................................................................... 2-4

4-1 Total Estimated Project Costs ............................................................................................. 4-1

4-2 Projected Phase I and II Peak Flows to Purveyors .............................................................. 4-2

5-1 Local Improvement District Assessment Example ............................................................. 5-8

5-2 General Facility Charge Calculation Summary................................................................. 5-10

5-3 General Facility Charge, Phase I Only.............................................................................. 5-11

5-4 General Facility Charge, Phases I and II ........................................................................... 5-11

5-5 First Year GFCs and Rates, Lakehaven and Pierce County.............................................. 5-13

5-6 Potential Monthly Utility Rates Alternate Scenarios ........................................................ 5-14

APPENDICES

A Feasibility Study Flow Projections

B Planning Cost Estimates

C Potential Purveyors’ Response Letters

D Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates

City of Edgewood 216-3045-002 (100/06)Edgewood Sewer Feasibility Study iii March 2002

ACRONYMSBANs Bond Anticipation Notes

CDBG Community Development Block Grant

CERB Community Economic Revitalization Board

CTP Central Treatment Plant

DOE Washington State Department of Ecology

DOE Washington State Department of Ecology

ERU Equivalent Residential Unit

ERU Equivalent Residential Units

G.O. General Obligation

GFC General Facility Charge

GSP General Sewer Plan

HB House Bill

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

JLARC Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee

lf lineal feet

LID Local Improvement District

mgd million gallons per day

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

PWTF Public Works Trust Fund

RCW Revised Code of Washington

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act

SRF State Revolving Fund

ULID Utility Local Improvement District

ULID Utility Local Improvement District

USP Unified Sewer Plan

WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

City of Edgewood 216-3045-002 (100/06)Edgewood Sewer Feasibility Study ES-1 March 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Currently, most of the City of Edgewood handles wastewater needs through the use of on-site septicsystems. The City is considering implementation of sewers primarily for the higher density “MeridianCorridor.” Prior to developing a General Sewer Plan, which must comply with strict state requirements,the City decided to prepare a “Feasibility Study” that would evaluate potential options and alternatives forsewers and treatment of wastewater.

The City of Edgewood will not be able to make any decisions about future sewers until a full GeneralSewer Plan is completed, including the associated environmental review process (SEPA). ThisFeasibility Study is simply a tool that the City can use to finalize the direction of the General Sewer Planand develop final alternatives to be included in said Plan. A General Sewer Plan must be completed andapproved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) before construction of sanitary sewerfacilities can begin.

Based on current and projected population densities and topography, the Edgewood sewer service areahas been divided into three phases according to the order in which these areas would likely be providedsewers. Phase I is along the Meridian Avenue corridor and exhibits the highest development density.Phases II and III are located in the more rural areas. This Study was conducted with the assumption thatthe Phase I area would be completely sewered within 20 years, Phase II within 50 years, and Phase IIIarea beyond 50 years.

The following treatment plants have been identified as potential purveyors of wastewater treatmentservices for Edgewood:

� Sumner Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

� Lakehaven Utilities District: Lakota WWTP or Redondo WWTP, Federal Way

� Pierce County Chambers Creek WWTP, University Place

� Tacoma Central Treatment Plant (CTP)

� Puyallup WWTP

The proposed sewer system is projected to cost between $26.5 and $32.2 million dollars for the Phase Itransmission system. The Phase I transmission system is necessary to serve 2,025 Equivalent ResidentialUnits (ERU) for the Phase I corridor. This estimate does not include purveyor costs necessary toconstruct the capacity required to treat the City’s sewage. Purveyor capital costs are not included in thisanalysis due to lack of information. However, these costs could escalate in the millions and arecumulative.

Four possible sewer collection system alternatives for the Edgewood Phase I area are presented.Alternative 1 would route Phase I peak flows of approximately 2.9 million gallons per day (mgd) to theLakehaven Utilities District Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This alternative wouldrequire seven pump stations, 30,000 lineal feet (lf) of gravity sewer main, and 15,000 lf of pressure sewermain, for a total estimated cost of $32,200,000.

City of Edgewood 216-3045-002 (100/06)Edgewood Sewer Feasibility Study ES-2 March 2002

Alternative 2 would route peak flows of approximately 2.9 mgd to the Chambers Creek WWTP or theTacoma Central Treatment Plant (CTP). Approximately six pump stations, 35,000 lf of gravity sewerline, and 8,500 lf of pressure sewer line would be constructed for an estimated cost of $27,400,000.

Alternative 3 would route peak flows of approximately 1.8 mgd to the Lakehaven Utility District and0.55 mgd to the Puyallup WWTP. This alternative would require six pump stations, 37,500 lf of gravitysewer pipe, and 13,500 lf of pressure sewer line to be constructed at an estimated cost of $30,500,000.

Alternative 4 would route approximately 1.8 mgd of peak flow to the Pierce County WWTP and0.55 mgd to the Puyallup WWTP. Construction of five pump stations, with 43,000 lf of gravity sewerline and 6,500 lf of pressure sewer line would be required to route the sewage to these two purveyors.The estimated cost is $26,500,000.

The City has multiple funding options available to partly mitigate both short- and long-term financialimpacts. However, after the proposed sewage transmission system is completed, it may be necessary forthe City to establish a sewer utility, authorized in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.67.020, anddevelop rates which equitably distribute costs among system users.

The City is not in a position to support the construction or operation of a sewer system through its generalfund. Washington State’s Sales Tax Equalization Program provided the City’s largest source of generalfund revenue prior to the passage of Initiative 695. With the repeal of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, theState extended supplemental local assistance to the City. This local aid amounted to $438,645 in 2000and $877,290 in 2001, as delineated in the 2000 State Audit Report. The State is projected to cease all“695 Backfill” local aid as of 2003 due to budgeting constraints. The passage of Initiative 747 placesfurther financial constraints on the City, limiting its taxing authority.

The City will likely be forced to rely on several financing options because not one option will besufficient to meet the City’s financial needs. Clearly, the City should pursue all available grants and loanassistance programs. Assisted loans offer low interest rates and no additional debt service coveragerequirements. As a condition of permitting, the City may require developers to pay for the section of thesystem adjacent to or section that services developed property. Finally, the City should consider using itscouncilmanic debt capacity to finance as much of the remaining costs as possible. Other expenses,including administration costs, can be recovered through the creation of a Local Improvement District.Once the system is financed, connections should be subject to a General Facility Charge or DeveloperLatecomer’s Agreement, whichever is appropriate.

City of Edgewood 216-3045-002 (100/06)Edgewood Sewer Feasibility Study 1-1 March 2002

1. SERVICE AREA/BACKGROUND

1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

The majority of the residences and businesses in Edgewood discharge sewage to septic tanks, with a smallnumber of exceptions along the Meridian Avenue corridor that are connected to the City of Milton sewerconveyance system. The purpose of this Sewer Feasibility Study is to present possible future sewerlocations, treatment purveyor alternatives, and estimates of associated costs for the construction of sewersin Edgewood. This Study could serve as a starting point for the development of a General Sewer Plan(GSP) to be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). Approval of a GSP isrequired before construction of a sanitary sewer system can begin.

In this Study, the Edgewood sewer service area has been divided into three phases based on current andprojected population densities and topography and according to the order in which areas would likely besewered. The first phase is along the Meridian Avenue corridor, an area that currently exhibits thehighest development density. The second and third phases are in more rural, less populated areas.

Potential purveyors of wastewater treatment services include the following nearby treatment plants:

� Sumner Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

� Lakehaven Utilities District: Lakota WWTP or Redondo WWTP, Federal Way.

� Pierce County Chambers Creek WWTP, University Place.

� Tacoma Central Treatment Plant (CTP).

� Puyallup WWTP.

1.2 LOCATION

The City of Edgewood is located in northern Pierce County, just north of the City of Puyallup (seeFigure 1-1). Edgewood borders the cities of Sumner and Pacific to the east, the City of Puyallup to thesouth, the cities of Milton and Fife to the west, and unincorporated King County to the north. Eightypercent of the city is located on what is referred to as North Hill, with twenty percent in the PuyallupValley. In addition, parts of Edgewood are within the boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation.

Edgewood is a small-town residential community with an approximate population of 10,830 according tothe Washington State Office of Financial Management’s 2000 estimate, as cited in the January 2001 Cityof Edgewood Comprehensive Plan. Over 80 percent of the existing dwellings are single-family homes.Commercial development is concentrated along Meridian in the west-central part of the city. Themajority of the businesses in Edgewood are small, with few employees.

��

��


1.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Edgewood is located in the Puyallup River, White River, and Hylebos Creek watersheds, and exhibits anabundance of environmental constraints that may hinder the construction and operation of a sanitarysewer collection system. These restraints include unstable slopes, high stormwater runoff and erosion dueto poor soils, a high water table, and saturated soils. The city’s natural environment will play animportant role in determining how and where future development occurs.

The topography within the city is characterized by rolling hills with slopes measuring between0–8 percent with scattered depressions or potholes. A prominent slope, which forms a portion of thePuyallup and White River Valley walls, characterizes the southern and eastern edges of the city.Elevations within the city begin at 20 feet above sea level and rise to approximately 500 feet above meansea level in the southeast corner of the city. The city has a maritime climate typical of westernWashington. Winters are wet and mild; summers are relatively cool and dry. Precipitation averages38.3 inches per year and annual temperature averages 50.8°F. The majority of the precipitation occursfrom October to March.

The city has several water bodies within its borders, a majority of which are fed by stormwater runoff.Lake Chalet is located in a depression in west-central Edgewood and often floods adjacent areas.Surprise Lake is located in the neighboring City of Milton, but an outlet creek enters Edgewood. Inaddition, several topographic depressions, locally known as “potholes,” dot the landscape. The largest ofthese are the Edgewood Bowl, 114th Avenue Pothole, the 122nd Avenue Pothole, and the 108th AvenuePothole. Four perennial creeks, Jovita Creek, Surprise Lake Creek, Simons Creek, and Wapato Creek,flow through the city.


2. POPULATION/FLOW PROJECTIONS

The City of Edgewood currently has approximately 10,830 residents within 8.9 square miles. Thepopulation projections presented in Table 2-1 are used to estimate future sewer flows and are based onassuming projected dwelling units per acre in conjunction with the associated zoning and land usedesignation outlined in the City of Edgewood Comprehensive Plan. Population shown does not matchComprehensive Plan numbers due to the assumption concerning commercial contributions within theplanning areas.

Table 2-1. Equivalent Population Projections

Subbasin Number Subbasin Name Population (2020)

Phase I1 Meridian North I 422 Meridian North 2 4243 Town Center North 7744 Town Center South 4985 Meridian South 103

Subtotal 1,841

Phase II6 Jovita Gateway 287 Puyallup Valley 6548 Meridian North East 3559 Town Center North East 311

10 Town Center North West 59511 Town Center South East 59912 Town Center South West 69813 Meridian South East 13314 Meridian South West 77915 Meridian South Southeast 1,29816 Sumner Heights 1,86917 West Edgewood 1,163

Subtotal 8,482

Phase III18 Entire Subbasin 4,780

Total Projected Population 15,103

Several factors were used to estimate future sewage flows from the City of Edgewood. As previouslynoted, the city sewer service area has been divided into three phases based on service priority. It isassumed that Phase I would be sewered within 20 years, Phase II within 50 years, and Phase III beyond50 years. The sewer service area was then further divided into 18 subbasins based on priority, land usedesignation, and existing topographic conditions. Subbasins 1 through 5 are contained in Phase I,Subbasins 6 through 17 are contained in Phase II, and Subbasin 18 represents the Phase III area in itsentirety (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2).

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!"��"��#��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

�� !�� !��"��"��

��#�$��%��&'��"&�((")�*�((�&+��,�� !�� !��-�� !�� !��-��

��.��"��-��"��"/��0��'��-��

��+��1��2��


Average residential flow projections are based on an average daily flow of 100 gallons/per capita/per day,as recommended in the 1998 DOE Criteria for Sewage Works Design. Commercial, mixed use, andindustrial flows were calculated using average sewage flows per acre based on land use: 3,000 gallonsper acre for commercial areas, 2,500 gallons per acre for mixed use areas, and 2,000 gallons per acre forindustrial areas. The peak flows for each subbasin were calculated based on a ratio of peak flow toaverage flow as outlined in the DOE Criteria for Sewage Works Design (see future projected flowcalculations in Appendix A). Table 2-2 presents the projected sewage flows for Phases I and II within thenext 50 years.

Table 2-2. Projected Flows

Subbasin Number Subbasin Name Average Flow (mgda) Peak Flowb (mgd)

Phase I1 Meridian North I 0.072 Meridian North 2 0.113 Town Center North 0.164 Town Center South 0.105 Meridian South 0.03

Average Flow Subtotal 0.47 1.52

Phase II6 Jovita Gateway 0.017 Puyallup Valley 0.118 Meridian North East 0.049 Town Center North East 0.03

10 Town Center North West 0.0611 Town Center South East 0.0612 Town Center South West 0.0713 Meridian South East 0.0114 Meridian South West 0.0815 Meridian South Southeast 0.1316 Sumner Heights 0.2017 West Edgewood 0.29

Average Flow Subtotal 1.09 3.17

Service Area Flow, Total 1.56 4.28c

a mgd = million gallons per day. b Peak flow is based on an accepted ratio between average and peak flow (1998 DOE Criteria for Sewage Works Design),

Qpeak = (18+SQRT [Qavg x 10]) / (4+SQRT [Qavg x 10]) x Qavg). Therefore, total peak flow is not represented by summing the peak flowsfor each subbasin, but by the ratio of the sum of the average flow.

c Peak flow for total service are is less than the sum of the peak flows because the model assumes that as flow and population increase, theratio of peak flow to average flow (Qpeak/Qavg) decreases.


3. TREATMENT PURVEYOR ALTERNATIVES

Four potential sanitary sewer service alternatives involving five possible purveyors are considered in thisFeasibility Study. They are the Pierce County Sewer Utility, the City of Tacoma (via its CentralTreatment Plant), the Lakehaven Utility District, the City of Puyallup, and the City of Sumner. Eachpurveyor is briefly described below. Potential purveyor WWTP locations are shown on Figure 3-1. Theprojected flows that would be routed to each purveyor under the four different alternatives are shown inSection 4 (Table 4-2).

3.1 PIERCE COUNTY

Located in the City of University Place, Pierce County’s Chambers Creek Regional WWTP serves morethan 60,000 households and businesses in the cities of DuPont, Lakewood, Tacoma, University Place, theTown of Steilacoom, and unincorporated portions of the county, including Parkland, Spanaway,Frederickson, and South Hill. This equates to a service population of greater than 162,000.

The Chambers Creek plant has a permitted maximum monthly flow of 21.1 mgd and a permitted peakflow of 45.2 mgd. Per the 2001 City of Tacoma Central Treatment Plant Facilities Plan, the currentaverage annual flow treated at the plant is 16.3 mgd, and the maximum monthly flow is approximately22 mgd. The plant discharges to the Gordon Point zone of south Puget Sound.

In addition to this treatment capacity, the County has agreements in place that allow the discharge of anaverage of up to 3 mgd to the Tacoma Central Treatment Plant and approximately 580,000 gallons perday to the Sumner facility.

3.2 CITY OF TACOMA CENTRAL TREATMENT PLANT

The Tacoma Central Treatment Plant (CTP) serves an area of approximately 50,000 acres with apopulation of 154,000, including much of the City of Tacoma as well as all or portions of Fircrest, Fife,Milton, Lakehaven Utility District, Pierce County, and unincorporated King County. The plant ispermitted for an average wet weather flow of 38 mgd; however, it currently experiences a maximum3-month average daily flow of 40.2 mgd. Estimated peak hourly flows have reached 103 mgd. The Cityis planning to upgrade the existing plant capacity to 150-mgd peak hourly flow. The CTP discharges intoCommencement Bay. The plant is in the process of preparing for future upgrades and expansion.

3.3 LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT

The Lakehaven Utility District operates two wastewater treatment facilities, Redondo WWTP and LakotaWWTP. The Lakota WWTP, located on SW Dash Point Road, collects and treats flow from the Lakotabasin, which encompasses the central and southern portions of the Lakehaven Utility District in FederalWay, adjacent to the Tacoma Central Treatment Plant service area. This WWTP currently serves apopulation of approximately 65,000. The Lakota plant is rated for a maximum monthly flow of 10 mgd.The current average annual and maximum monthly flows treated at the plant are 3.7 and 4.0 mgd,respectively. The Lakota WWTP discharges into Dumas Bay in Puget Sound at a depth of 184 feet.


The Redondo WWTP serves approximately 46,000 people and is located north of the Lakota plant on288th Street. It is designed for an average flow of 4.32 mgd, with wet weather flows of 5.47 mgd.Current average flow to the Redondo WWTP is approximately 3.0 mgd. If the Lakehaven Utility Districtbecomes the sewer service purveyor for Edgewood, it is likely that the Lakota WWTP would serveEdgewood.

3.4 CITY OF SUMNER WWTP

The Sumner WWTP discharges to the White River near its confluence with the Puyallup River. TheSumner WWTP has a permitted maximum flow of 2.62 mgd, of which 0.58 mgd is owned by the PierceCounty Wastewater Utility. The Sumner plant also treats wastewater from the City of Bonney Lake.Since the late 1980s, the Pierce County Wastewater Utility has provided sanitary sewer service for theLake Tapps area at the Sumner WWTP. The Sumner plant is in the process of being upgraded to amaximum monthly flow of 3.42 mgd. The maximum monthly flow recorded at the plant over the last3 years was 2.22 mgd. The plant has a currently permitted peak day flow of 8.55 mgd.

3.5 CITY OF PUYALLUP WWTP

The Puyallup WWTP service area encompasses all of the City of Puyallup, including its urban growtharea and the southern portion of the City of Edgewood. The Puyallup plant is rated for an average annualflow of 10 mgd and a maximum monthly flow of 14 mgd. The current average annual flow is 5.0 mgdand the maximum monthly flow has been 9.5 mgd. The Puyallup plant discharges to the Puyallup River.


4. COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

Four alternative collection system configurations for the Edgewood Phase I area are presented in thissection. Although only conveyance within the Phase I area is discussed here, preliminary conveyancelines and pump station sizing calculations assume that a majority of the Phase II flows will be routedthrough the Phase I conveyance when conveyance within Phase II is constructed. It is assumed that theSumner Heights area of Edgewood will discharge to the Sumner WWTP in each of these alternatives. Asit has not been established when the Phase II and Phase III areas are to be sewered, the estimated capitalcosts for the alternatives below are for Phase I peak flow collection only.

The costs for improvements to the service provider’s existing conveyance necessary to accommodate theflows from Edgewood have not been determined, and are therefore not included in these estimates. Asummary of the estimated costs for each alternative is shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Total Estimated Project Costs

Alternative

ConveyanceWithin CityTotal Cost

Conveyanceto Purveyor(s)

Total Cost

TotalEstimated

Project Costa

Lakehaven: Alternative 1 $19,900,000 $12,300,000 $32,200,000

Pierce County: Alternative 2 $20,300,000 $7,100,000 $27,400,000

Lakehaven/Puyallup: Alternative 3 $17,700,000 $12,800,000 $30,500,000

Pierce County/Puyallup: Alternative 4 $18,000,000 $8,500,000 $26,500,000

a Total Estimated Project Cost does not include capital improvements to service provider’s existing conveyance system

The project costs outlined in Table 4-1 above includes estimates for easement and land acquisition,permitting, legal fees, and project administration (approximately 10 percent of the total projected projectcosts). More detailed cost estimates for each of the four alternatives can be found in Appendix B.

4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – LAKEHAVEN

Alternative 1 would route sewage to the Lakehaven Utilities District. The Lakota Wastewater TreatmentPlant would most likely provide the service to treat a peak flow of approximately 2.9 mgd (see Table 4-2).Approximately seven pump stations would be required to serve the Edgewood Phase I area under thisalternative. This alternative assumes that a majority of Subbasins 7, 14, 15, and 17 will not be served, asthese areas are relatively isolated from the proposed collection system due to existing topography. TheEdgewood collection system would connect to an existing Lakehaven pump station located at MeridianAvenue and 19th Way South. See Figure 4-1 (see page 4-5) for the Alternative 1 preliminary collectionsystem layout.

The costs associated with Alternative 1 include the design and installation of approximately 30,000 linealfeet of gravity sewer main, 15,000 lineal feet of pressure sewer main, and seven pump stations. The totalestimated project cost for this alternative is approximately $32,200,000.


Table 4-2. Projected Phase I and II Peak Flows to Purveyors

Peak Flows to Purveyors (mgd)

Alternative Lakehaven Pierce Countya Puyallup Sumner

Alternative 1 2.9 – – 0.45

Alternative 2 – 2.9 – 0.45

Alternative 3 1.8 – 2.0 0.45

Alternative 4 – 1.8 2.0 0.45

a Includes both Chambers Creek and Central Tacoma WWTPs.

4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – PIERCE COUNTY

Alternative 2 would route sewage to the Pierce County jurisdiction. A peak flow of approximately2.9 mgd would be routed to the Chambers Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant or the Tacoma CentralTreatment Plant. Approximately six pump stations would be required to service the Edgewood Phase Isewer area. As with Alternative 1, this alternative assumes that a majority of Subbasins 7, 14, 15, and 17will remain unsewered. Connection to the Pierce County sewer system would be made at an existing 30-inch-diameter pipe between Milton Way and I-5. Figure 4-2 (see page 4-6) presents the preliminarycollection system layout for this alternative.

Under this alternative, it may also be feasible to connect to City of Fife conveyance rather than the PierceCounty system with a discharge to the Tacoma Central Treatment Plant. The current City of Fife PublicWorks Director, Mr. Russ Blount, has stated that their sewer conveyance system has adequate capacity toprovide interim service to the City of Edgewood. Mr. Blount has also indicated that he believes that theassumptions used during the design of the Fife conveyance system may have been sufficientlyconservative to allow permanent sewer service to Edgewood without additional capital improvements tothe existing system. We recommend that the City of Edgewood continue discussions with the City of Fifeto further assess the feasibility of this arrangement.

The costs for Alternative 2 include approximately 35,000 lineal feet of gravity sewer line, 8,500 linealfeet of pressure sewer line, and six pump stations. The total estimated project cost for Alternative 2 isapproximately $27,400,000.

4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 – LAKEHAVEN/PUYALLUP

Alternative 3 would route Phase I flows to both Lakehaven Utilities District and the City of Puyallup.The Lakehaven Utilities District would receive a peak flow of 1.8 mgd. The Puyallup WastewaterTreatment Plant would receive a peak flow of 0.55 mgd, with an additional approximate 1.45 mgd offuture Phase II flows within the next 20 years. Approximately six pump stations would be required toservice the Phase I area with this alternative. Flows from Subbasins 7, 14, 15, and 17 could be routed tothe Puyallup WWTP with this alternative. The Edgewood collection system would be connected to theLakehaven system at an existing pump station located at Meridian Avenue and 19th Way South.Connection to the Puyallup system would be made at an existing pump station located at MeridianAvenue and North Levee Road. Figure 4-3 (see 4-7) presents the collection system layout for thisalternative.


The total estimated project cost for Alternative 3 is approximately $30,500,000, which includes the designand installation of approximately 37,500 lineal feet of gravity sewer pipe, 13,500 lineal feet of pressuresewer line, and six pump stations.

4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 – PIERCE COUNTY/PUYALLUP

Alternative 4 would route sewage to both Pierce County and the City of Puyallup. Pierce County wouldreceive an approximate peak flow of 1.8 mgd. The Puyallup Wastewater Treatment Plant would receive apeak of approximately 0.55 mgd, and could receive an additional approximate 1.45 mgd of future Phase IIflows within the next 20 years. Subbasins 7, 14, 15, and 17 could be sewered under this alternative. Theconnection to the Puyallup system would be made at the existing Puyallup pump station located atMeridian Avenue and North Levee Road. The Pierce County connection would be made at the existing30-inch-diameter pipe located between Milton Way and I-5. It may also be possible to connect to the Fifesanitary sewer system rather than the Pierce County system under this alternative. See Section 4.2 forfurther discussion concerning connection to City of Fife conveyance. Figure 4-4 (see 4-8) presents thecollection system layout for this alternative.

The estimated costs for Alternative 4 include the design and installation of approximately 43,000 linealfeet of gravity sewer line, 6,500 lineal feet of pressure sewer line, and five pump stations. The totalestimated project cost for this alternative is approximately $26,500,000.

4.4.1 Purveyor Service Charges

Potential Edgewood sewer service providers were contacted to obtain monthly service fees andconnection charge information. The purveyors’ response letters are included in Appendix C.

4.4.2 Purveyor Capital Costs

It is important to note that the purveyors being considered have not fully identified the capitalimprovement costs that the City of Edgewood would be responsible for to upgrade existing downstreamsewer facilities necessary to convey additional flow from Phases I and II. These costs would need to beinvestigated in detail and negotiated with potential purveyors during preparation of a General Sewer Plan.It is likely, however, that the City could incur additional capital improvement costs in the range of severalmillions of dollars.

At this time, the Lakehaven Utility District has not stated that any existing facility improvements will benecessary for connection to the pump station on Meridian.

Pierce County has identified several additional costs that the City of Edgewood would be responsible forprior to connection to the County system. These costs are as follows:

� Amendment of the adopted Unified Sewer Plan (USP) to expand the County’s sewer service areato include the City of Edgewood. The County estimates that plan amendment costs may rangebetween $250,000 and $500,000.

� Upgrade of the existing sewer conveyance system along Lincoln Avenue or sharing proportionatecosts for the construction of new conveyance from the existing Hylebos Pump Station off62nd Avenue to the Tacoma Central Treatment Plant headworks. The current USP identifies thatapproximately $5,900,000 will be required for the Hylebos improvements. This amount does not


consider the additional flows from Edgewood, however, so it is not certain what apportionedcosts the City would be responsible for to improve existing facilities.

Puyallup proposes to structure their System Development Charges (Connection Charges) to includeupgrading the North Levee Road Pump Station and apportioned pump station operation and maintenancecosts. Therefore, it does not appear that the City of Edgewood would incur up-front capital improvementcosts for connection to the Puyallup system.

The City of Sumner has not responded to our requests for information. Therefore, existing facilityimprovements necessary to accommodate the flow from Edgewood are not known.

�� !�"��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�" #��$%&'�� (�)�� *�"�+ ,��%�"��'')��-��. �/�-�

$%&'��

0�)��& ��)��

1) #��,��)��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"�#$��%��&�'��($#�$��)��**+��,�� -�,�

!./*��$��

0�+��/$��+��

1+$"��#��+��

�� !�"��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ! ��"�#��$%�&�'��(��) #��%�� *�%�

��&�+�,�'��! ��"�#��-�,�.��,��) #��%��/ �*�%�

��! ��

0�#��!��#�&��

1#�'��#�&��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ! ��"�#��$%�&�'��(��) #��%�� *�%�

�� +��'��,��"��-��.��) #��%�� *�%�

��! ��

/�#��!��#�&��

0#�'��#�&��


5. FINANCING OPTIONS (PREPARED BY FCS GROUP)

This chapter is intended to analyze the financial feasibility of building a sewer system for the City ofEdgewood. As noted below, this project would place a significant financial burden on the City and itsconstituents. The City has multiple funding options available to partly mitigate both short-term and totalfinancial impacts. However, after the proposed sewage transmission system is completed, it may benecessary for the City to establish a sewer utility, authorized in RCW 35.67.020, and develop rates thatequitably distribute costs among system users.

The City is not in a position to support the construction or operation of a sewer system through its generalfund. Washington State’s Sales Tax Equalization Program provided a large source of the City’s generalfund revenue prior to the passage of Initiative 695. With the repeal of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, thestate extended supplemental local assistance to the City. This local aid amounted to $438,645 in 2000and $877,290 in 2001, as delineated in the 2000 State Audit Report. Due to budgeting constraints, thestate is projected to cease all “695 Backfill” local aid, as of 2003. The passage of Initiative 747 placesfurther financial constraints on the City, limiting its taxing authority.

The proposed sewer system is projected to cost between $26.5 and $32.2 million for the Phase Itransmission system necessary to serve 2,025 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) for the Phase Icorridor. This estimate does not include purveyor costs necessary to construct the capacity required totreat the City’s sewage. Purveyor capital costs are not included in this analysis due to lack of information.However, these costs will range in the millions and are cumulative. Potential purveyors includeLakehaven Utility District, Pierce County, Puyallup, Tacoma, and Sumner. Tacoma and Sumner are notincluded in the alternate scenarios discussed below.

This chapter is organized as follows:

� Funding Options:

� Developer Extensions and Latecomer Agreements

� Assistance Programs and Grants

� General Obligation and Revenue Bonds

� Local Improvement Districts (LID)

� General Facility Charges (connection charges)

� Potential Utility Rates and Rate Structures

5.1 FUNDING OPTIONS

The planned sewage transmission system necessary to serve both current and future needs will place asignificant financial burden on the City. The City might have several funding options available tomitigate this impact. Beyond outright grants or developer-constructed facilities, however, completefinancing will become the burden of the City and its constituents.


5.1.1 Developer Extensions and Latecomer Agreements

Cities may require new development to construct the infrastructure necessary to serve growth(RCW 35.91.020). While this infrastructure is usually an extension to an existing system, the statutes donot preclude the City from requiring developers to construct a new facility as a condition of permitting.Furthermore, the City may require developers to oversize mains and pumps beyond that which wouldotherwise be necessary to meet the needs of their own specific development. In so doing, the developercould be partly reimbursed by any latecomers wishing to connect to the system. This partialreimbursement would be made directly to the developer donating the facility, less any administration feesincurred by the City.

Developer extensions are commonly used to build necessary infrastructure. However, because of themagnitude of costs for the proposed system, it is doubtful that a single developer will have the financialcapacity to fund such a project or ever realize a return on their investment. This may or may not be trueof a group of developers or larger construction firm. However, the development community might beunwilling to shoulder the full financial burden or risk, particularly beyond the area directly adjacent to theimproved property. If this inability or unwillingness exists, the City might wish to consider dividing theburden. Oversizing of pipes to meet future needs can be financed through grants, if available, or long-term bonds (as long as there is an annual source of stable revenue to repay the debt).

5.1.2 Assistance Programs and Grants

Federal and state grant programs, once readily available for financial assistance, were mostly eliminatedor replaced by low-cost loan programs. The remaining grant programs are generally limited inapplication, lightly funded, and heavily subscribed. Nonetheless, the economic benefit of grants (ifapplicable) and low-interest loans makes the effort of applying worthwhile.

On January 22, 2001, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) issued its Investing inthe Environment: Environmental Quality Grant & Loan Programs Performance Audit. This report,passed by the legislature as House Bill (HB) 1785, provided for the further renovation of Washington’sgrant and funding programs. The report called for program agencies to shift from a distributive allocationprocess towards an “investment oriented” procedure – the financing of projects with high environmentalreturns.

The JLARC proposed that agencies direct funds to two forms of projects: systematic issues and traditionalissues. Systematic issues are higher risk, must be implemented over large geographical areas, and requireindividual entities to distribute information with all other agencies within the collective area. Further, theenvironmental benefits of systematic projects are difficult to determine in the short term. Traditionalissues, conversely, occur at individual sites, with low risk, and have immediate environmental impacts.The City’s proposed new sewer system may fall under the latter category if it can be proven thatindividual septic systems, at future or current densities, pose a health risk.

Most likely, the implementation of this report by the state’s program agencies will favor nonpoint sourcepollution control and environmental mitigation, stormwater facilities, and the upgrade and construction ofwastewater treatment facilities. Projects not oriented towards environmental or water quality, such asreplacements of mains, may become low funding priorities. It is important to note that HB 1785 does notchange original statutes, but is rather supplementary. House Bill 1785 essentially creates another criteriathat the loan agency must consider. This may or may not affect the funding programs listed below, or theCity’s ability to secure some level of financial assistance for its proposed capital program.


The impacts of HB 1785 notwithstanding, common state programs identified as potential funding sourcesas set forth in this Feasibility Study are summarized below:

� Public Works Trust Fund:

The Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) is a low-cost revolving loan program established toprovide financial assistance to local governments for public works projects. Eligible projectsinclude repair, replacement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or improvement of public workssystems to meet current standards for existing users. With recent revisions to the program,growth-related projects consistent with 20-year projected needs are now eligible for loans.

The applicant must be a local government, such as a city, county, or special purpose district, andhave an “approved” long-term plan for financing its public works needs. Local governmentsmust compete for PWTF dollars since more funds are requested each year than are available. ThePublic Works Board evaluates each application and transmits a prioritized list of projects to thelegislature. The legislature then indicates its approval by passing an appropriation from thePublic Works Assistance Account to cover the cost of the approved loans. Once the Governorhas signed the appropriations bill into law, the local governments receiving the loans are offered aformal loan agreement with the appropriate interest rate and term, as determined by the PublicWorks Board.

PWTF loans are available at interest rates of 0.5 percent, 1 percent, and 2 percent. These interestrates are tied to the amount of total costs directly contributed by the benefiting community. Loanapplicants must pay 5 percent of the project cost to qualify for a 2 percent loan, 10 percent for a1 percent loan, and 15 percent for a 0.5 percent loan. The useful life of the project determines theloan term, up to a maximum of 20 years.

The maximum loan amount is $10 million per jurisdiction per biennium.

� Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB):

Managed by the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development, CERB isstrategically focused to help business and industry create and retain jobs in partnership with localcommunities. CERB’s primary focus is to provide low-interest loans or (in uniquecircumstances) grants to local governments to help finance the construction of public facilityprojects necessitated by private sector development. Job creation and/or retention are the primarygoals of the CERB program.

Washington State counties, cities, towns, port districts, special purpose districts, and municipalcorporations may apply for CERB funding. Eligible public facilities include bridges, roads,domestic and industrial water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, railroad spurs, electricity, natural gas,buildings or structures, and port facilities. CERB funds public infrastructure that will result inspecific private development or expansions in manufacturing, production, food processing,assembly, warehousing, industrial distribution, recycling facilities, or businesses that substantiallysupport the trading of goods and services outside of the state’s borders. CERB assistance isprimarily directed at retaining manufacturing business and the relocation of businesses comingfrom outside the state. Applications must include evidence that a private development orexpansion is ready to occur and will only occur if CERB funds are provided. Further, businessindirectly benefiting from the construction of this infrastructure must be included on the


application. Applicants must demonstrate that no other timely sources of funds are available atreasonably similar rates.

Interest rates generally match the most current rate of Washington State bonds but do not exceed10 percent. The maximum loan amount is $1 million. The funding program is very specific infocus. Presently, CERB might not be an applicable nor viable financing option for the City.

� Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program:

A federal government program administered by the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD), the CDBG program provides grants and loans for infrastructureimprovements, including sewer projects, for business development that creates or retains jobs forlow and moderate-income residents. The CDBG program was first introduced in 1974 andprovides a flexible source of annual grant funds for local governments nationwide.

All cities and towns are eligible. Funding is available for projects (1) benefiting low- andmoderate-income families; (2) eliminating slums or blight; or (3) intended to meet other urgentcommunity development needs. These projects can include economic development projects orwastewater treatment systems.

Pierce County is considered an entitlement county, and therefore receives funding directly fromthe federal government. The County receives approximately $4 million annually for its CDBGprogram. However, of this amount only approximately 45 percent is available for facilityprojects. Further, annual requests exceed available funds by roughly three times. According toPierce County’s CDBG Program, Edgewood is not considered a low-income area. Consequently,the County’s CDBG could provide assistance on an individual basis, but not to the City as awhole.

� Department of Ecology (DOE) Water Quality Financial Assistance Program.

The DOE administers the following grant and loan programs:

� The Centennial Clean Water Fund: Provides grants and low-interest loans to constructwastewater treatment facilities and to fund related activities to reduce nonpoint sources ofwater pollution.

� State Revolving Fund Loans: Provides low-interest loans to construct wastewater treatmentfacilities and related activities, or to reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution.

� Section 319 Nonpoint Sources Grants Program: Provides grants to reduce nonpoint sourcesof water pollution.

While most of the funding goes to wastewater programs, projects such as development andimplementation of groundwater and wellhead protection programs are included. All DOE loansrequire a facilities plan, which is more comprehensive than an engineering plan. This is an addedexpense. There is only one application for all three loans and grant programs.


The following interest rates would apply:

� 0- to 5-Year Term: Fiscal Year 2003 interest rate is 0.5 percent

� 6- to 20-Year Term: Fiscal Year 2003 interest rate is 1.5 percent

Grants for nonpoint stormwater source activities are available for up to 50 percent of eligibleproject costs. Grants for constructing point source wastewater facilities are available only infinancial hardship cases.

The DOE considers hardship cases to exist when capital projects require user fees to exceed1.5 percent of an area’s median household income. This is of particular interest to the City. ForEdgewood to qualify, monthly rates must exceed approximately $67 per month, based on DOElocal income projections. Centennial Grants are available up to $5 million or 50 percent of thetotal project cost, whichever is lower. However, DOE will first attempt to bring rates below the1.5 percent ceiling by lowering interest rates and extending the repayment period.

Each of these programs might offer potential opportunities for below-market interest debt for projectfunding, as compared to more traditional general obligation or revenue bond funding. However, as notedabove, many of the loans programs offer limited benefit in terms of interest rates, while potentiallyintroducing additional costs to comply. An exception to this is the PWTF program, which offers low-interest rates without onerous qualification requirements. The Centennial and State Revolving Fund(SRF) programs could potentially offer the greatest financial support to the City. Either way, the Citywould need to fund applicable matching requirements

5.1.3 Issuing Debt

Without assisted funding and low-cost loan programs, the City will be forced to rely on conventionalmunicipal bond debt to finance the construction of its proposed capital program. There are some benefitsto this form of financing. First, as with all debt, debt service spreads capital costs over the term of thebonds. At present, the City is not in a financial position to pay for needed capital improvements withfund reserves or taxes. Further, bonds implement a level of equity by dissipating the burden amongcurrent and future customers. Finally, bonds allow flexibility that the aforementioned assisted programsdo not, through repayment options.

Municipal bond issues may be structured all or in part as a term bond, which requires only interestpayments for a number of years, with “balloon payments” of principal at specific points in theamortization schedule. Balloon payments can have both positive and negative consequences. “Nearloading” of debt principal may result in higher interest costs. Further, if developer financing does notoccur, balloon payments and term bonds may leave the City with large liabilities in future years withoutadequate reserves to call bonds. However, such a structured debt may still be appealing to the City if itprojects the immediate infusion of funds with growth.

Municipal bonds have several disadvantages. General Obligation (G.O.) and revenue bonds often havehigher interest rates than assisted programs. Use of revenue bonds would also require the City to exceedotherwise sufficient utility rate revenues in order to meet coverage requirements. One viable option mightinclude issuing tax-backed G.O. bonds to finance a significant portion of the project, repaying the debtwith rate revenues. In any case, the City should only issue debt in the absence of outside assistance.


5.1.3.1 Revenue Bonds

Revenue bonds are, by definition, backed by the revenue of a utility or enterprise fund. Because thepayment stream is less secured than tax-backed bonds, revenue bonds carry higher interest rates than G.O.bonds. This difference, however, may be minimal. There are also tax-backed or revenue-backed G.O.bonds, which are discussed later.

Revenue bonds are perhaps the most common source of funding for construction of major utility projects.To issue revenue bonds, the City will be required to commit to certain security conditions related torepayment, specifically reserve and coverage requirements for annual rate revenues. These conditions areincluded in the Bond Resolution to be adopted by the City, and essentially impose certain conservativefinancial practices on the City, as a way of making the bonds more secure.

The reserve requirement commits the City to maintain a bond reserve, which could be used to meetpayments if the utility is incapable of doing so. This reserve is often set at the least of (1) 10 percent ofthe issue price of all new and outstanding parity bonds, (2) maximum annual debt service on all new andoutstanding parity bonds, or (3) 1.25 times average annual debt service on all new and outstanding paritybonds. The reserve requirement is dictated by the terms of the bond resolution. Since the reserve can beinvested and earns interest, the net cost of providing the reserve is relatively small. The City has theoption of borrowing the reserve requirement as part of the total loan amount or funding it over a five-yearperiod through rates and interest.

Revenue bond coverage is a legal requirement binding a utility to demonstrate annual revenues exceedexpenses by a multiple of the debt service payment. This factor is usually at least 1.25, and is higher foragencies with unrated bonds or low bond ratings. Revenue bond coverage factors can require higherutility rates than otherwise necessary in order to meet the coverage target. However, the scope of thecoverage test is very specific, as defined in the Bond Resolution, and generally limited. The requirementonly considers operating expenses. Capital outlays, replacement funding, or any other expenses thatcould otherwise be delayed if necessary to meet debt-service payments, are excluded from the coveragetest. Further, the coverage test usually only includes revenue bond debt service or other debt issued onpar with the revenue bonds. Thus, other loans or obligations, such as the aforementioned assistance loans,would generally be held as subordinate and excluded from the test.

Coverage tests might impose unrealistic requirements on any utility established by the City. Within thenear term, a utility will have only a limited customer base to support expenditure needs. Whilemaintenance expenses on a new system are comparatively minimal and purveyor treatment costs shouldbe commensurate with flow, debt service coverage will impose draconian financial requirements on thislimited customer base. Revenue coverage is an annual test, with no consideration of fund reserves orassessment pre-pays, and usually excludes General Facility Charge (GFC) revenues. Consequently, evenif the utility has the necessary debt service payment available, coverage requirements will necessitate rateincreases.

Coverage requirement rate impacts can be somewhat assumed if the City is able to secure five- and ten-year calls. Consequently, any accumulated assessment reserves or other available fund reserves may beused to pay off all or some of the outstanding principal.


5.1.3.2 General Obligation Bonds

General Obligation (G.O.) bonds offer attractive conditions compared to revenue bonds. G.O. bonds areissued against the City’s general fund and its taxing authority. RCW 39.36.020 authorizes the City toissue councilmanic debt up to 1.5 percent of the value of taxable property located within the City’sjurisdiction and 2.5 percent with three-fifths approval at election. Councilmanic debt may be issuedwithout a public vote. The assessed value of all property within the City limits is $704 million, allowingfor $10.6 million in councilmanic debt and $17.6 million voted debt.

G.O. bonds offer slightly lower interest rates than revenue bonds, being backed by the City’s tax base.From the investor’s perspective, tax backed debt is more secure. These bonds also carry no additionalcoverage requirement, allowing the City to collect reserves necessary to meet annual debt service with nofinancial consequences. Further, shortages in annual debt service can be imposed on a utility. Annualdebt service is payable through interfund transfers from the utility to the general fund.

G.O. bonds can be politically unpalatable if the municipality’s constituency does not support the projectpurpose. A three-fifths majority, required to secure up to 2.5 percent of the taxable property, is oftendifficult to obtain, particularly in light of the current economic conditions. Furthermore, the City may notwish to exhaust its full debt capacity, reserving some for other capital projects, such as the construction ofa new city hall. The City currently has no outstanding debt.

General Obligation bonds, while issued against the taxing authority of the City, may be repaid by utilityrate revenues. This arrangement takes advantage of the more favorable terms, while still requiring systemusers to repay the debt. The general fund would ultimately remain responsible for debt repayment shouldrate revenues prove insufficient.

5.1.3.3 Bond Anticipation Notes

If the City believes it will be fully reimbursed for all capital expenditures by the end of the facilityconstruction, it may wish to consider issuing Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs). BANs are short-termfinancing instruments, usually issued for a two-year period to finance planning and design or inexpectation of near-term reimbursement. BANs require interest-only payments over the term of the issue.The principal is paid back in full on the termination date or rolled into a long-term debt issue.

Bond Anticipation Notes might provide a short-term financing mechanism for the City if it truly believesit will be fully reimbursed by the end of the instrument term. As with G.O. and revenue bonds, BANscarry issuance costs of 1.5 to 2 percent of the borrowed amount. Rolling the full construction costs intolong-term debt will result in double issuance costs. Consequently, BANs may have limited benefit, andregardless, must be repaid.

5.2 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS AND GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES

The construction cost of a new sewer transmission system is well beyond the limitations of the generalfund, notwithstanding Initiative 747 and the loss of Initiative 695 backfill funding. The City isconsequently dependent on other forms of revenue to finance this project. The Revised Code ofWashington provides several means of funding such an investment, including formation of a LocalImprovement District (LID) and imposition of General Facility Charges (GFC).


5.2.1 Local Improvement District

The City could consider trying to create a Local Improvement District (LID) or Utility LocalImprovement District (ULID) as a means of recovering the capital investment made on behalf of itsconstituents. RCW 35.43 specifically authorizes a municipality to impose assessments against a propertyspecifically benefiting from local improvements. ULIDs additionally pledge utility revenues for therepayment of bonds.

LIDs are a means of instituting equity. The RCW states that the amount assessed must be proportionatewith the benefit received. Moreover, the assessment may not exceed the increase in the fair market valuegained with the improvement.

Several assessment calculation methods are available. However, any method selected must meet thespecial benefit and fair market value tests identified above. Further, the City must necessarily beconcerned with imposing draconian financial constraints on low-income families, and RCW 35.43.250and 35.54.100 allow a four-year deferral for economically-disadvantaged households. RCW 84.38permits indefinite deferral for qualified low-income seniors. However, assessments are liens againstproperty, making deferrals payable at the time of transfer of ownership.

LIDs are created as a means of paying back G.O. debt, while ULIDs are established to pay the debtservice on revenue bonds. ULIDs are often useful instruments, but may be unreasonable in Edgewood’ssituation due to coverage requirements. Even if the City were able to secure short-term calls on anyissued revenue bonds, debt service and applicable coverage would have to be collected through rates.With a limited near-term customer base, the City would be unable to fairly distribute and recover thesecosts. Again, given the “benefit” tests and related issues, it will be difficult to establish a ULID that willbe able to show a $26.5 to $32 million “benefit.”

5.2.2 LID Calculation

A sample LID assessment has been calculated as shown in Table 5-1:

Table 5-1. Local Improvement District Assessment Example

Alternative 1Lakehaven

Alternative 2Pierce County

Alternative 3Lakehaven/Puyallup

Alternative 4Pierce County/

Puyallup

Total Capital Costs $32,188,905 $27,374,219 $30,505,294 $26,522,341

Chargeable Area(1,000 sq ft) 9,952 9,952 9,952 9,952

Basis/1,000 sq ft $3,234.44 $2,750.64 $3,065.26 $2,665.04

The assessment calculations presented above suggest that an LID may only be available to finance aportion of the total capital program, due to the limitations in property value increases with a seweravailability.


5.2.3 General Facility Charges

RCW 35.92.025 explicitly authorizes municipalities “to charge property owners seeking to connect to thewater or sewage system of the city or town as a condition to granting the right to so connect.” A GFC, or“connection charge,” is assigned to new or existing development wishing to connect to the system afterthe municipality has taken ownership of the facility. This connection charge serves two primarypurposes: reimbursement of investment made in the existing system, and financing of facility expansionto meet growth needs.

Allowing new development to connect to the sewer system without paying “a fair share” of the facilitycost dilutes the investment made by existing customers through rates, LIDs, and GFCs. Furthermore,deficiencies created by undercollection become the burden of the utility as a whole, requiring existingcustomers to subsidize new development. When built, the sewer transmission system will be oversized toaccommodate Phase II residents as well as growth. Presumably, Phase II members will pay for theirshare of the system costs through an LID, just as Phase I participants will. However, as growth occurs,new customers must also pay the appropriate portion of the system costs. Any costs incurred tophysically connect or install a meter are additive to the imposed GFC.

5.2.4 GFC Calculation

The sample GFC has been calculated as follows:

� Cost of Existing Facilities:

Washington State allows cities to impose a GFC on all new development as a condition ofconnecting to the existing system. The cost of the original investment made by the City and anyutility ratepayers may include the construction cost of the system, plus ten years of interest at arate commensurate with the rate given at the time of construction. The total facility costs shouldbe net of any grants or cost of developer-donated facilities and net of LID and ULID assessments,unless there is a provision to collect the GFC and pay it to the property owners who “overpaid”for capacity. Net facility costs are divided by total current and future serviceable units, asprojected by the General Sewer Plan.

� Cost of Future Facilities/Improvements:

Washington’s statutes do not preclude cities from including future planned facilities within theirGFC calculations. As the system is expanded to accommodate growth, future users requiring thiscapacity must pay a share of the costs to be incurred on their behalf. As with the existingfacilities, these costs should be net of grants or donations. Because these costs are incurred solelyto provide capacity for future customers, these customers may bear the full financial burden.Consequently, the costs of future facilities are divided by the total number of new serviceableunits created by the facility expansion. A summary of the GFC calculations is shown inTable 5-2.


Table 5-2. General Facility Charge Calculation Summary

I Cost of Existing Facilities $Utility Plant-in-Service

Plus: Construction Work in ProgressLess: Contributions in-aid-of Construction

Net Utility Plant

Plus: Accumulated Interest on Noncontributed Plant $

Net Allocable Existing Sewer Plant-in-Service Cost of Capital $

II Cost of Future Facilities/ImprovementsCost of Planned Future Facilities $32,188,905.00

Less: Developer/CIACLess: Grant Funding

Net Allocable Planned Future Facilities $32,188,905.00

III Total Allocable CostsTotal Allocable Existing Plant $Total Planned Future Facilities $32,188,905.00

Total Allocable Costs: $32,188,905.00

IV Capacity Analysis in Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs)Current System Capacity – ERUs –Increase in Capacity with Improvements – ERUs 2,025Total Estimated ERU Capacity with Improvements @ 100% capacity 2,025

V Calculation of General Facilities Charge

(Existing Plant plus Noncapacity Future Costs)/Total Capacity plus (FutureCapacity Costs/Growth)a $15,895.16

a Existing facilities plus nongrowth capital projects are divided by the total number of system ERUs, thus sharing expense proportionately amongcurrent and future customers. ($0/2025 = $0) Growth related capital is necessary to serve growth only, and thus the sole responsibility of growth.($32,188,905/2025 = $15,895 per ERU).

General Facility Charges are intended to reflect a proportional share of the system costs, and thereforeshould be applied based on potential demand. This potential demand or volume is best reflected by metersize. Quite simply, the bigger the meter size, the greater the potential volume. This method of estimatingpotential volume, however, cannot differentiate between steady usage versus peak usage. Thus, acustomer with a 5/8-inch by 3/4-inch meter who consistently fills the pipe may in fact discharge a larger


volume than a customer with a 3/4-inch by 3/4-inch meter who infrequently fills the pipe. Nevertheless,meter size is still the best way to estimate potential demand on the system.

The American Water Works Association publishes meter equivalency factors based on meter sizes andpotential volumes. For example, a 3/4-inch by 3/4-inch meter allows one and a half times the flow of a5/8-inch by 3/4-inch (typical residential) meter. Consequently, a new development customer wishing toconnect to the system using a 3/4-inch by 3/4-inch meter could be charged 1.5 times the City’s base GFC.

Two alternative GFCs have been developed. The City may wish to divide Phase I construction costs byonly those Equivalent Residential Units (ERU)1 projected at Phase I build out. The City may alsoconsider using Phase I and Phase II build-out projections as the GFC denominator. As Phase II isconstructed, an appropriate GFC will include both Phase II construction costs, as well as Phase I costsincurred to provide excess capacity to meet Phase II flow demands.

Potential General Facility Charges are shown in Table 5-3 and Table 5-4:

Table 5-3. General Facility Charge, Phase I Only



Alternative 3Lakehaven/

Puyallup


Puyallup


ERUsa 2,025 2,025 2,025 2,025

Potential GFC $15,896 $13,518 $15,064 $13,097

a One Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) equals 230 gallons per day based on flow projections.

Table 5-4. General Facility Charge, Phases I and II



Alternative 3Lakehaven/

Puyallup


Puyallup


ERUsa 6,279 6,279 6,279 6,279

Potential GFC $5,126 $4,360 $4,858 $4,224

a One Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) equals 230 gallons per day based on flow projections.

NOTE: This form of revenue is, at best, unstable and cannot be solely relied upon to pay debt service.

1 One Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) equals 230 gallons per day based on flow projections.


5.2.5 Purveyor General Facility Charges

Beyond any GFC imposed by the City, residents may be subject to purveyor imposed GFCs. As with theCity’s system, potential purveyors have oversized their existing facilities to accommodate growth,including outside service area treatment. New customers must in turn pay a proportionate share of thatinvestment. This connection charge will be in addition to any imposed by the City.

5.2.6 Existing Customers

It is important to note that any existing customers already sewered as a condition of development may notbe assessed or charged a GFC. These customers have paid for the existing system and any relevantpurveyor GFCs. Thus, expansion of the system or construction of a new system to accommodate growthshould become the sole burden of new customers. Any expansion or upgrade attributable to an existingcustomer must be reflected in sewer service rates.

5.2.7 Short-Term Limitations to GFCs

Finally, General Facility Charge revenues are collected over time as growth occurs. Due to fluctuationsin growth, GFC revenues are sometimes haphazard and should not necessarily be considered a reliablerevenue source, particularly to meet debt service payments. For this reason, most revenue bondresolutions to do not include GFC revenues in the coverage requirement test. The City has a near-termfinancial need, which GFCs cannot meet. Rather, GFCs provide supplementary revenue that can be usedfor future capital needs and to make debt service payments in lieu of other revenues, as long as debtservice coverage is met each year.

5.3 SEWER UTILITY AND PROPOSED SEWER RATES

RCW 35.67 authorizes a city to construct and operate a sanitary sewer system and collect necessary rates.There are several components to a city’s sewer rate: administrative costs, purveyor (treatment) costs,system operation and maintenance, and any deficiencies in outstanding debt or debt-coveragerequirements. Further, due to the limited short-term customer base, the state authorizes the City toimpose rates upon developed properties within a defined distance from an adjoining transmission main.RCW 35.67.190 states:

“All property owners within the area served by such sewerage system shall be compelledto connect their private drains and sewers with such city or town system, under suchpenalty as the legislative body of such city or town may by ordinance direct. Suchpenalty may in the discretion of such legislative body be an amount equal to the chargethat would be made for sewer service if the property was connected to such system. Allpenalties collected shall be considered revenue of the system.”

This statute recognizes the practical limitations of rates and consequently allows a city to subsidize afledgling sewer treatment system with adjoining properties.

Assuming that the average single-family residence will discharge 230 gallons per day, this becomes thebasis for an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). This is consistent with the engineering projections.


Projected purveyor costs are an important component of the potential rates. Proposed purveyors includeLakehaven Utility District, Pierce County, and Puyallup. Tacoma and Sumner have also been solicited aspotential purveyors. Alternatives 1 and 2 rely on Lakehaven and Pierce County, respectively, fortreatment. Alternatives 3 and 4 assume that some portion of the City’s corridor flow will ultimately betreated by Puyallup.

Projected treatment costs imposed by the six potential purveyors vary as much as $140,000 per year basedon 2005 usage projections. Pierce County and Sumner, respectively, set the lower and upper thresholds.We must state that these projected annual costs are highly dependent on our analytical assumptions andmay vary greatly from actual charges. Further, treatment costs may vary from the estimates provided bythe purveyors depending on infrastructure and operational needs necessary for the City’s connection.

Phase I will primarily rely on Lakehaven or Pierce County for treatment. Alternatives 1 and 3 assumethat Lakehaven provides treatment for Phase I. Alternatives 2 and 4 assume that Pierce County providestreatment for Phase I. With Phase II build out, Alternatives 3 and 4 assume Puyallup will treat 2.0 mgd ofpeak flow from Edgewood’s Phase I and Phase II sewer basins. Table 5-5 summarizes estimated andannual (year one) rates with the completion of the City’s transmission system.

Table 5-5. First Year GFCs and Rates, Lakehaven and Pierce County

Rates

GFCa Fixedb Volumec Total

LakehavenSingle Family $139,961 $6,409 $10,820 $17,230Mixed Residential $517,858 $23,715 $34,998 $58,713Non-Residential $1,200,302 $25,794 $156,151 $181,946

Total $1,858,121 $55,918 $201,970 $257,888

Pierce CountySingle Family $64,320 $12,010 $0 $12,010Mixed Residential $237,986 $40,302 $0 $40,302Non-Residential $576,683 $39,716 $92,537 $132,253

Total $878,989 $92,027 $92,537 $184,565a Assumes 683 ERUs in first year. b Assumes 683 ERUs in first year.c Assumes 76,585 ccf in first year

Potential utility rates are highly dependent upon annual debt service and applicable coveragerequirements. If the entire capital program was financed using bonds, annual debt service could rangefrom $2.3 and $2.8 million using 4.85 percent revenue bonds, and $1.4 and $1.7 million if a zero percentassisted loan was available. It is unlikely, however, that the entire program will be financed using utility-backed debt. Nonetheless, even with a fraction of the capital costs financed through utility-backed bonds,annual debt service will have a severe impact on rates due to the limited customer base.

A potential rate structure intended to recover cost on an ERU basis has been developed. Monthly ratesfor each alternative are as shown in Table 5-6.


Table 5-6. Potential Monthly Utility Rates Alternate Scenarios

Financing Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Alternative 1 – LakehavenRevenue Bonds $154.86 $154.91 $160.54 $200.06 $208.98 $218.38G.O. Bonds 113.84 119.29 124.99 164.59 173.58 183.070% Assisted Loan 72.40 75.92 79.59 117.07 123.84 131.00100% Contributed Capital 3.62 3.92 4.23 38.18 41.27 44.57

Alternative 2 – Pierce CountyRevenue Bonds $132.24 $132.32 $137.16 $167.59 $174.95 $182.71G.O. Bonds 97.35 102.03 106.93 137.42 144.85 152.680% Assisted Loan 62.12 65.15 68.32 97.00 102.55 108.40100% Contributed Capital 3.62 3.92 4.23 29.92 32.33 34.90

Alternative 3 – Lakehaven/PuyallupRevenue Bonds $146.95 $147.01 $152.37 $187.68 $195.98 $204.74G.O. Bonds 108.08 113.25 118.68 154.06 162.44 171.270% Assisted Loan 68.81 72.15 75.65 109.02 115.30 121.93100% Contributed Capital 3.62 3.92 4.23 34.27 37.05 40.02

Alternative 4 – Pierce County/PuyallupRevenue Bonds $128.24 $128.33 $133.03 $160.71 $167.72 $175.10G.O. Bonds 94.44 98.98 103.74 131.48 138.55 146.000% Assisted Loan 60.30 63.24 66.33 92.32 97.57 103.10100% Contributed Capital 3.62 3.92 4.23 27.33 29.53 31.89

5.4 CONCLUSION

Due to the financial constraints of this program, the City will likely be forced to rely on several financingoptions; no one option will be sufficient to meet all the City’s needs. Clearly, the City should pursue allavailable grants and loan assistance programs. Assisted loans offer low interest rates and no additionaldebt service coverage requirements. As a condition of permitting, the City may require developers to payfor the section of the system adjacent to the developed property, if not a greater share of a system thatinitially will be constructed solely to serve their needs. Finally, the City should consider using itscouncilmanic debt capacity to finance as much of the remaining capital costs as possible. Other expenses,including administration costs, can be recovered through the creation of an LID. Those wishing toconnect to the system after it has been financed should be subject to a GFC or developer latecomer’sagreement, whichever is appropriate.

The City must create a sewer utility to fund ongoing operational needs. There are practical limits topotential rates; and the City may, consequently, be forced to rely on its authority to charge adjoiningproperties a fixed base charge.


Please note, this financial analysis is preliminary, assuming that the conveyance necessary to service theentire Edgewood Phase I sewer area will be constructed at once, and presents presumably worst-caseestimates of potential GFCs, monthly utility fees required to mitigate sewer system capital, and operationcosts. The final financial analysis will consider construction of the sewer system in phases. Therefore,capital costs for construction of the conveyance system will be distributed over a period of several years,rather than immediately prior to initial construction.

The final financial alternative will be contained in the General Sewer Plan, which cannot be developeduntil the City selects the preferred sewer conveyance alternatives in compliance with SEPA.


6. FUTURE REQUIREMENTS

This Sewer Feasibility Study has laid some solid groundwork for the City. It has presented potentialoptions and alternatives that the City could use in a future sewer plan. There is still much work to becompleted. As the City moves forward, we would see the following actions to be a part of establishing a“sewer authority” in keeping with the City’s Comprehensive Plan:

City of Edgewood Sewer Authority Action Plan

1. Finalize alternatives to be included in the GSP. Prepare the General Sewer Plan inaccordance with WAC 173-240-050.

� This may include expanding the conveyance alternatives to include using the City ofFife system to “wheel” wastewater to the Tacoma Wastewater Treatment Plant.

� Alternatives presented in this study may be included in total or could be modified asrequired by the City.

2. Establish how the operation and maintenance of the system will be done.

� The City will need to decide if they will create their own utility or if they willcontract out the services while keeping control of the “sewer authority.”

3. Establish sewer standards and policies.

� These would be included in the GSP and provide a basis for sewer extensions andconnections in the future.

4. Determine the preferred alternative for implementation of a “sewer authority.”

� After sufficient public input and review of alternatives, the City Council will need todetermine the best course of action.

� The preferred alternative would include the selection of which purveyor wouldultimately provide treatment for wastewater from the City.

5. Negotiate an agreement with a purveyor or purveyors for wastewater treatment services.

� Prior to approval by Ecology, the City will need to have an agreement with apurveyor that will guarantee that the wastewater will be treated to state dischargerequirements.

� The agreement will also dictate the final costs and terms that the City will pay fortreatment and conveyance outside the city limits.


6. Finalize the GSP.

� Update the document to include the agreement and preferred alternative.

7. Comply with SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act).

� This allows the City to make a decision and is a required part of a GSP.

8. Submit GSP to Department of Ecology.

� Prior to development of any plans for construction, the GSP must be approved byEcology.

9. Ecology approves GSP.

� This approval is critical and may require modifications to the GSP based on input byEcology.

10. City adopts GSP.

� Upon approval by Ecology, the City may proceed with the preferred alternative asdefined in the GSP.

11. Prepare and adopt ordinance(s) to establish sewer authority or utility.

� This would include the ability to collect fees and charges to finance the sewers.

12. City moves forward with implementation and financing.

� This could include the creation of a Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) thatwould finance the design and construction.

� Obtaining permits to allow construction.

� Additional environmental review may be necessary.

� Construct sewers and connections.

One of the largest elements of the above action plan is the development of a General Sewer Plan (GSP).This Sewer Feasibility Study is a precursor to that study. Much of the information gathered for this studywill lay a foundation for the future GSP. This information includes:

� A vicinity map showing municipal boundary lines.

� Existing topographic conditions and how they relate to the proposed sanitary sewer conveyancesystem.

� The locations of existing waterways within the City of Edgewood, including water body type andWashington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) classification.


� The locations of existing and proposed gravity sewer conveyances within the Edgewood citylimits, and the areas served by each.

� The locations of existing and proposed sanitary sewer pump stations and pressure mains.

� Population projections, including the methods used to determine population trends.

� Discussion concerning the proposed sanitary sewer service area boundary.

Although briefly described in this report, discussion of the above issues would require greater detail tomeet the Department of Ecology (DOE) prerequisites for an acceptable General Sewer Plan. Additionalinformation that DOE will require to be included in the GSP is as follows:

� Discussion of who will own, operate, and maintain the sanitary sewer conveyance system withincity limits and who will be required to connect to the preferred sanitary sewer purveyor.

� Discussion of potential infiltration and inflow problems. Infiltration and inflow should not be anissue at this point since Edgewood does not currently maintain a sanitary sewer system, andtherefore all conveyance piping and structures will be new.

� Discussion of the provisions for sewage treatment, discharge, and reclaimed water reuse. Theseissues will be based on the policies and operations of the preferred sanitary sewer treatmentpurveyor as Edgewood is not currently proposing construction of their own treatment facility.

� Information on facilities producing industrial wastewater, including projected flows, possiblecontaminants, and pretreatment requirements.

� Information on the characteristics of the sewer conveyance alternatives evaluated, including asomewhat detailed discussion of the preferred alternative.

� Discussion of proposed service and connection fees.

� Discussion regarding compliance with water quality management requirements under the FederalWater Pollution Control Act, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA), as applicable.

� Information on the existing potable water system, wells, and other water supplies within theproposed sewer service area.

In summary, a GSP should include sufficient preliminary engineering and planning information anddesign aspects to verify the economic and technical feasibility of sanitary sewer conveyanceimplementation in the City of Edgewood. A GSP should be sufficiently complete to allow thedevelopment of engineering reports without substantial alterations to the basic concepts and intent of thePlan. Completion of a General Sewer Plan and subsequent approval by DOE would, as shown in theaction plan above, allow the City of Edgewood to move forward with the creation of a sewer authority.


APPENDIX A

Feasibility Study Flow Projections

CITY OF EDGEWOODSEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY FLOW PROJECTIONS

Land Use Population Flow Residential Avg. Residential Avg. Commercial/ Total Subbasin Total Subbasin Total Designation1 Acreage2 Density3 Factor4 Units5 HH Size6 Population7 Flow8 Industrial Flow9 Avg. Flow10 Avg. Flow11 Peak Flow12

(cap) (gal/day) (gal/day) (gal/day) (MGD) (MGD)PHASE I

Meridian North 1 - North of JovitaC1 BP 19.57 x 0.0 x 1.0 = 0 x 2.1 = 0.0 0 + 58,720 = 58,720

C26 SF-M 2.00 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 6 x 2.1 = 12.6 1,260 + 0 = 1,260C2 C 3.54 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 14 x 2.1 = 29.8 2,976 + 5,315 = 8,292

Subtotal 25.12 42.4 68,272 0.07 0.27Meridian North 2 - 16th to Jovita

C3 C 3.64 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 15 x 2.1 = 30.5 3,054 + 5,454 = 8,508C4 C 13.89 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 56 x 2.1 = 116.7 11,670 + 20,840 = 32,511C5 C 4.72 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 19 x 2.1 = 39.7 3,966 + 7,083 = 11,049E8 MR-M 10.10 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 40 x 2.4 = 96.9 9,691 + 12,619 = 22,311E9 MR-M 0.91 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 4 x 2.4 = 8.7 869 + 1,132 = 2,001

E15 MR-M 13.68 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 55 x 2.4 = 131.3 13,135 + 17,103 = 30,238Subtotal 46.93 423.9 106,617 0.11 0.40

Town Center North - 24th to 16thC6 C 2.94 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 12 x 2.1 = 24.7 2,468 + 4,408 = 6,876C7 C 5.74 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 23 x 2.1 = 48.2 4,824 + 8,615 = 13,439C8 TC 0.33 x 10.0 x 0.5 = 2 x 2.1 = 3.4 343 + 490 = 832C9 TC 18.04 x 10.0 x 0.5 = 90 x 2.1 = 189.4 18,943 + 27,062 = 46,005

C10 TC 12.07 x 10.0 x 0.5 = 60 x 2.1 = 126.7 12,674 + 18,106 = 30,780C11 TC 4.31 x 10.0 x 0.5 = 22 x 2.1 = 45.3 4,530 + 6,471 = 11,000C12 CITY HALL 2.85 x 0.0 x 1.0 = 0 x 0.0 = 0.0 0 + 5,700 = 5,700E26 MR 11.26 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 45 x 2.4 = 108.1 10,809 + 14,075 = 24,884W7 SF-H 16.90 x 5.0 x 1.0 = 85 x 2.7 = 228.2 22,819 + 0 = 22,819W8 P 11.05 x 0.0 x 0.5 = 0 x 0.0 = 0.0 0 + 0 = 0

Subtotal 85.49 774.1 162,337 0.16 0.59Town Center South - 32nd to 24th

C13 TC 11.42 x 10.0 x 0.5 = 57 x 2.1 = 119.9 11,995 + 17,135 = 29,130C14 TC 11.57 x 10.0 x 0.5 = 58 x 2.1 = 121.5 12,147 + 17,353 = 29,500C15 MUR 4.80 x 6.0 x 0.5 = 14 x 2.4 = 34.6 3,456 + 5,999 = 9,455C16 MUR 1.49 x 6.0 x 0.5 = 4 x 2.4 = 10.7 1,072 + 1,861 = 2,933C17 MUR 1.33 x 6.0 x 0.5 = 4 x 2.4 = 9.6 959 + 1,665 = 2,625C18 MUR 4.72 x 6.0 x 0.5 = 14 x 2.4 = 33.9 3,395 + 5,894 = 9,289W31 SF-H 12.40 x 5.0 x 1.0 = 62 x 2.7 = 167.5 16,746 + 0 = 16,746

Subtotal 47.73 497.7 99,676 0.10 0.38Meridian South - 36th to 32nd

C19 MUR 6.39 x 6.0 x 0.5 = 19 x 2.4 = 46.0 4,597 + 7,982 = 12,579C20 MUR 3.25 x 6.0 x 0.5 = 10 x 2.4 = 23.4 2,338 + 4,060 = 6,398C21 P 8.82 x 0.0 x 0.5 = 0 x 0.0 = 0.0 0 + 0 = 0C22 MUR 2.82 x 6.0 x 0.5 = 8 x 2.4 = 20.3 2,027 + 3,519 = 5,546C23 MUR 0.04 x 6.0 x 0.5 = 0 x 2.4 = 0.3 26 + 45 = 71C24 MUR 0.57 x 6.0 x 0.5 = 2 x 2.4 = 4.1 408 + 709 = 1,118C25 MUR 1.32 x 6.0 x 0.5 = 4 x 2.4 = 9.5 951 + 1,651 = 2,602

Subtotal 23.19 103.5 28,314 0.03 0.12



(cap) (gal/day) (gal/day) (gal/day) (MGD) (MGD)PHASE II

Jovita GatewayE4 C 2.50 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 10 x 2.1 = 21.0 2,101 + 3,752 = 5,854

E14 C 0.86 x 8.0 x 0.5 = 3 x 2.1 = 7.2 720 + 1,286 = 2,006Subtotal 3.36 28.2 + 7,859 0.01 0.03

Puyallup Valley +W28 MU 30.47 x 3.0 x 0.5 = 46 x 2.4 = 109.7 10,968 + 38,083 = 49,051W29 SF-M 51.74 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 155 x 2.4 = 372.5 37,250 + 0 = 37,250W30 SF-M 4.28 x 4.0 x 0.5 = 9 x 2.4 = 0.0 0 + 0 = 0E65 MR-L 3.87 x 4.0 x 0.5 = 8 x 2.4 = 18.6 1,856 + 4,834 = 6,691E71 SF-M 0.22 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 1 x 2.4 = 1.6 160 + 0 = 160E72 SF-M 24.05 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 72 x 2.1 = 151.5 15,153 + 0 = 15,153E73 I 1.04 x 0.0 x 1.0 = 0 x 0.0 = 0.0 0 + 2,088 = 2,088

Subtotal 115.67 653.9 110,392 0.11 0.42Meridan North - East

E10 SF-M 14.32 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 29 x 2.7 = 77.3 7,731 + 0 = 7,731E11 P 10.65 x 0.0 x 0.5 = 0 x 2.4 = 0.0 0 + 0 = 0E16 SF-M 12.29 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 25 x 2.7 = 66.4 6,636 + 0 = 6,636E17 SF-M 22.49 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 45 x 2.7 = 121.4 12,144 + 0 = 12,144E18 SF-M 2.36 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 5 x 2.7 = 12.8 1,276 + 0 = 1,276E19 SF-M 5.56 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 11 x 2.7 = 30.0 3,003 + 0 = 3,003E20 SF-M 8.70 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 17 x 2.7 = 47.0 4,698 + 0 = 4,698

Subtotal 76.37 354.9 35,488 0.04 0.14Town Center North - East

E25 SF-M 10.92 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 22 x 2.7 = 59.0 5,898 + 0 = 5,898E27 SF-M 12.60 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 25 x 2.7 = 68.1 6,806 + 0 = 6,806E28 SF-M 10.54 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 21 x 2.7 = 56.9 5,693 + 0 = 5,693E29 SF-M 12.75 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 26 x 2.7 = 68.9 6,886 + 0 = 6,886E30 P 12.23 x 0.0 x 0.5 = 0 x 2.4 = 0.0 0 + 0 = 0E31 SF-M 10.72 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 21 x 2.7 = 57.9 5,789 + 0 = 5,789

Subtotal 69.76 310.7 31,071 0.03 0.13Town Center North - West

W1 SF-M 2.75 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 8 x 2.7 = 22.3 2,225 + 0 = 2,225W2 SF-M 16.87 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 51 x 2.7 = 136.6 13,665 + 0 = 13,665W3 SF-M 6.26 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 19 x 2.7 = 50.7 5,071 + 0 = 5,071W6 SF-M 47.60 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 143 x 2.7 = 385.6 38,559 + 0 = 38,559

Subtotal 73.48 595.2 59,520 0.06 0.23Town Center South - East

E39 SF-M 1.95 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 6 x 2.7 = 15.8 1,580 + 0 = 1,580E40 SF-M 4.13 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 12 x 2.7 = 33.5 3,345 + 0 = 3,345E41 P 3.43 x 0.0 x 0.5 = 0 x 2.4 = 0.0 0 + 0 = 0E42 SF-M 42.92 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 129 x 2.7 = 347.6 34,761 + 0 = 34,761E43 SF-M 14.76 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 44 x 2.7 = 119.6 11,957 + 0 = 11,957E45 SF-M 10.16 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 30 x 2.7 = 82.3 8,226 + 0 = 8,226

Subtotal 77.34 598.7 59,869 0.06 0.24



(cap) (gal/day) (gal/day) (gal/day) (MGD) (MGD)Town Center South - West

W20 SF-M 30.59 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 92 x 2.7 = 247.8 24,780 + 0 = 24,780W21 SF-M 27.13 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 81 x 2.7 = 219.7 21,974 + 0 = 21,974W22 SF-M 27.13 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 81 x 2.7 = 219.7 21,974 + 0 = 21,974W23 SF-M 1.36 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 4 x 2.7 = 10.8 1,080 + 0 = 1,080

Subtotal 86.21 698.1 69,807 0.07 0.27Meridan South - East

E46 SF-M 9.99 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 30 x 2.7 = 80.9 8,091 + 0 = 8,091E47 SF-M 6.40 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 19 x 2.7 = 51.8 5,181 + 0 = 5,181

Subtotal 16.38 132.7 13,272 0.01 0.06Meridan South - West

W24 SF-M 63.84 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 192 x 2.7 = 517.1 51,713 + 0 = 51,713W25 SF-M 0.04 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 0 x 2.7 = 0.3 34 + 0 = 34W26 SF-M 13.76 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 41 x 2.7 = 111.5 11,149 + 0 = 11,149W27 SF-M 18.52 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 56 x 2.7 = 150.0 15,005 + 0 = 15,005

Subtotal 96.17 779.0 77,901 0.08 0.30Meridian South - Southeast

E58 SF-M 41.81 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 125 x 2.7 = 338.7 33,866 + 0 = 33,866E59 SF-L 14.60 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 29 x 2.7 = 78.8 7,881 + 0 = 7,881E60 SF-L 12.03 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 24 x 2.7 = 65.0 6,496 + 0 = 6,496E61 SF-L 17.74 x 2.0 x 1.0 = 35 x 2.7 = 95.8 9,580 + 0 = 9,580E62 SF-M 27.18 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 82 x 2.7 = 220.2 22,017 + 0 = 22,017E66 SF-M 30.81 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 92 x 2.7 = 249.6 24,956 + 0 = 24,956E67 SF-M 6.74 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 20 x 2.7 = 54.6 5,456 + 0 = 5,456E68 SF-M 10.43 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 31 x 2.7 = 84.4 8,444 + 0 = 8,444E69 SF-M 13.71 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 41 x 2.7 = 111.1 11,105 + 0 = 11,105

Subtotal 175.04 1,298.0 129,803 0.13 0.48Sumner Heights

E64 SF-M 56.84 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 171 x 2.7 = 460.4 46,041 + 0 = 46,041E74 SF-M 77.76 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 233 x 2.7 = 629.8 62,984 + 0 = 62,984E75 SF-M 3.46 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 10 x 2.7 = 28.1 2,806 + 0 = 2,806E76 SF-M 25.68 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 77 x 2.7 = 208.0 20,801 + 0 = 20,801E77 SF-M 26.79 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 80 x 2.7 = 217.0 21,701 + 0 = 21,701E78 SF-M 22.35 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 67 x 2.7 = 181.0 18,104 + 0 = 18,104E79 SF-M 12.28 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 37 x 2.7 = 99.5 9,950 + 0 = 9,950E80 SF-M 1.45 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 4 x 2.7 = 11.7 1,172 + 0 = 1,172E81 SF-M 2.86 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 9 x 2.7 = 23.2 2,316 + 0 = 2,316E82 SF-M 0.97 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 3 x 2.7 = 7.9 789 + 0 = 789E83 I 5.77 x 0.0 x 1.0 = 0 x 0.0 = 0.0 0 + 11,534 = 11,534E84 SF-M 0.24 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 1 x 2.7 = 2.0 197 + 0 = 197E85 P 0.10 x 3.0 x 0.5 = 0 x 2.7 = 0.8 84 + 0 = 84

Subtotal 236.56 1,869.4 198,478 0.20 0.71



(cap) (gal/day) (gal/day) (gal/day) (MGD) (MGD)West Edgewood

W4 MR 32.72 x 4.0 x 0.5 = 65 x 2.4 = 157.1 15,705 + 40,899 = 56,604W5 SF-M 12.03 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 36 x 2.7 = 97.4 9,743 + 0 = 9,743W9 BP 46.08 x 0.0 x 1.0 = 0 x 2.4 = 0.0 0 + 115,200 = 115,200W10 SF-M 7.77 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 23 x 2.7 = 62.9 6,292 + 0 = 6,292W11 SF-M 1.83 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 5 x 2.7 = 14.8 1,483 + 0 = 1,483W12 SF-M 1.92 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 6 x 2.7 = 15.6 1,556 + 0 = 1,556W13 SF-M 11.29 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 34 x 2.7 = 91.5 9,148 + 0 = 9,148W14 SF-M 9.53 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 29 x 2.7 = 77.2 7,722 + 0 = 7,722W15 SF-M 4.22 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 13 x 2.7 = 34.2 3,419 + 0 = 3,419W16 SF-M 6.07 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 18 x 2.7 = 49.2 4,917 + 0 = 4,917W18 SF-M 2.40 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 7 x 2.7 = 19.4 1,944 + 0 = 1,944W19 SF-M 67.11 x 3.0 x 1.0 = 201 x 2.7 = 543.6 54,363 + 0 = 54,363W34 MU 14.58 x 4.0 x 0.5 = 29 x 0.0 = 0.0 0 + 18,225 = 18,225

Subtotal 217.56 1,162.9 290,616 0.29 1.00

TOTAL 1,472.4 10,323.3 1,549,291.4 1.55 4.28

1 Land use as determined by the Edgewood Comprehensive Plan (See Figure 2-2).2 Net available buildable acreage.3 Maximum number of dwelling units per acre based on land use designation.4 Flow adjustment based on assumption that mixed use, commercial, and industrial areas are in use only during busines hours.5 Equivalent residential units.6 Household Size - Capita per equivalent residential unit. Varies based on subbasin.7 Subbasin subarea population.8 Population x 100 gallons per capita per day (1998 DOE Criteria for Sewage Works Design).9 Acreage x flow per acre x Flow Factor - Flow / Acre = 3000 gallons / acre Commercial

Flow / Acre = 2500 gallons / acre Mixed Use

Flow / Acre = 2000 gallons / acre Industrial10 Total Average Residential Flow + Total Average Commercial/Industrial Flow11 Total Average Flow (gallons per day) divided by 1,000,00012 Based on (((18+SQRT(Total Avg. Flow x 10))/(4+SQRT(Total Avg. Flow x 10)) x Total Avg. Flow) Per 1998 DOE Criteria for Sewage Works Design.


APPENDIX B

Planning Cost Estimates

City of EdgewoodSewer Feasiblity StudyAlternative 1:

Phase I: LakehavenPhase II: Lakehaven, Puyallup, Sumner

Planning Cost Estimate

Prepared by: David Roberts / Nathan MozerChecked by: Doug Berschauer, P.E.

Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total CostGeneral

1 Mobilization 1 LS $850,000 $850,0002 Traffic Control 1 LS $1,030,000 $1,030,0003 Locate Existing Utilities 1 LS $170,000 $170,0004 Temporary Water Pollution Erosion Control 1 LS $170,000 $170,0005 Trench Safety 1 LS $335,000 $335,0006 Pavement Removal and Replacement 33,158 LF $27 $895,2537 Roadside Restoration 1 LS $335,000 $335,0008 Dewatering 1 LS $335,000 $335,0009 Boring Under Roadway 780 LF $1,000 $780,000

10 Easement / Land Acquisition / Permits 1 LS $850,000 $850,000Sewer

11 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 8 In. Diam. 17,940 LF $65 $1,166,10012 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 10 In. Diam. 1,100 LF $70 $77,00013 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 12 In. Diam. 2,650 LF $75 $198,75014 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 15 In. Diam. 2,200 LF $80 $176,00015 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 21 In. Diam. 5,850 LF $90 $526,50016 Manhole 48-Inch or 60-Inch Diam. 93 EA $3,500 $325,28117 Pump Station #1 - 0.3 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $539,133 $539,13318 Pump Station #2 - 0.5 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $620,656 $620,65619 Pump Station #3 - 0.7 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $734,787 $734,78720 Pump Station #4 - 1.6 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,272,833 $1,272,83321 Pump Station #4 - 1.8 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,354,356 $1,354,35622 Pump Station #5 - 3.0 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,713,053 $1,713,05323 Pump Station #6 - 3.0 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,713,053 $1,713,05324 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 4 In. Diam. 4,000 LF $35 $140,00025 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 6 In. Diam. 1,250 LF $40 $50,00026 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 8 In. Diam. 1,200 LF $45 $54,00027 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 10 In. Diam. 3,500 LF $50 $175,00028 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 12 In. Diam. 5,300 LF $60 $318,00029 Air Release or Combination Valves 15 EA $1,000 $15,250

Subtotal $16,920,005

Contingency (35%) $5,922,000SUB-TOTAL $22,842,000

Sales Tax (8.4%) $1,918,700Total Estimated Construction Cost $24,760,700

Engineering (10%) $2,476,100Construction Management (15%) $3,714,100

Legal and Administration (5%) $1,238,000Total Estimated Project Cost $32,188,900

ENRCCI = 7337* Connecting to service provider accounts for approximately 38% of the Total Estimated Project Cost.** Estimates are presented in year 2002 dollars.

Assumptions:1. Cost per lf for sanitary sewer (gravity and forcemain) included all materials (pipe, import backfill, bedding)

and installation complete excluding restoration and dewatering.2. Each Pump Station Includes a $50,000 LS Odor Control bid item3. LF Pavement Restoration assumes sum of all sewer minus bore times 75% will be installed in roadway


Phase I: Pierce CountyPhase II: Pierce County, Puyallup, Sumner




1 Mobilization 1 LS $720,000 $720,0002 Traffic Control 1 LS $860,000 $860,0003 Locate Existing Utilities 1 LS $145,000 $145,0004 Temporary Water Pollution Erosion Control 1 LS $145,000 $145,0005 Trench Safety 1 LS $290,000 $290,0006 Pavement Removal and Replacement 31,995 LF $27 $863,8657 Roadside Restoration 1 LS $290,000 $290,0008 Dewatering 1 LS $290,000 $290,0009 Boring Under Roadway 780 LF $1,000 $780,000


11 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 8 In. Diam. 19,040 LF $65 $1,237,60012 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 10 In. Diam. 1,100 LF $70 $77,00013 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 12 In. Diam. 2,650 LF $75 $198,75014 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 14 In. Diam. 3,500 LF $80 $280,00015 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 15 In. Diam. 2,000 LF $80 $160,00016 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 21 In. Diam. 6,700 LF $90 $603,00017 Manhole 48-Inch or 60-Inch Diam. 109 EA $3,500 $382,70318 Pump Station #1 - 0.3 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $539,133 $539,13319 Pump Station #2 - 0.5 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $620,656 $620,65620 Pump Station #3 - 0.7 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $734,787 $734,78721 Pump Station #4 - 1.3 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,109,789 $1,109,78922 Pump Station #5 - 1.6 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,272,833 $1,272,83323 Pump Station #6 - 3.0 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,713,053 $1,713,05324 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 4 In. Diam. 4,000 LF $35 $140,00025 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 6 In. Diam. 1,250 LF $40 $50,00026 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 8 In. Diam. 2,300 LF $45 $103,50027 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 12 In. Diam. 900 LF $60 $54,00028 Air Release or Combination Valves 8 EA $1,000 $8,450










Phase I: Lakehaven, PuyallupPhase II: Lakehaven, Puyallup, Sumner




1 Mobilization 1 LS $800,000 $800,0002 Traffic Control 1 LS $965,000 $965,0003 Locate Existing Utilities 1 LS $160,000 $160,0004 Temporary Water Pollution Erosion Control 1 LS $160,000 $160,0005 Trench Safety 1 LS $320,000 $320,0006 Pavement Removal and Replacement 37,283 LF $27 $1,006,6287 Roadside Restoration 1 LS $320,000 $320,0008 Dewatering 1 LS $320,000 $320,0009 Boring Under Roadway 1,080 LF $1,000 $1,080,000


10 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 8 In. Diam. 17,590 LF $65 $1,143,35011 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 10 In. Diam. 6,900 LF $70 $483,00012 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 12 In. Diam. 4,850 LF $75 $363,75013 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 18 In. Diam. 8,100 LF $85 $688,50014 Manhole 48-Inch or 60-Inch Diam. 117 EA $3,500 $409,50015 Pump Station #1 - 0.5 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $620,656 $620,65616 Pump Station #2 - 0.5 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $620,656 $620,65617 Pump Station #3 - 1.0 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,028,267 $1,028,26718 Pump Station #4 - 1.2 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,109,789 $1,109,78919 Pump Station #5 - 2.2 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,517,400 $1,517,40020 Pump Station #6 - 2.2 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,517,400 $1,517,40021 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 4 In. Diam. 3,350 LF $35 $117,25022 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 6 In. Diam. 1,200 LF $40 $48,00023 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 8 In. Diam. 3,500 LF $45 $157,50024 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 10 In. Diam. 5,300 LF $50 $265,00025 Air Release or Combination Valves 13 EA $1,000 $13,350










Phase I: Pierce County, PuyallupPhase II: Pierce County, Puyallup, Sumner




1 Mobilization 1 LS $700,000 $700,0002 Traffic Control 1 LS $830,000 $830,0003 Locate Existing Utilities 1 LS $140,000 $140,0004 Temporary Water Pollution Erosion Control 1 LS $140,000 $140,0005 Trench Safety 1 LS $280,000 $280,0006 Pavement Removal and Replacement 29,408 LF $27 $794,0037 Roadside Restoration 1 LS $280,000 $280,0008 Dewatering 1 LS $280,000 $280,0009 Boring Under Roadway 1,080 LF $1,000 $1,080,000


11 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 8 In. Diam. 18,690 LF $65 $1,214,85012 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 10 In. Diam. 6,900 LF $70 $483,00013 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 12 In. Diam. 4,650 LF $75 $348,75014 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 14 In. Diam. 3,500 LF $80 $280,00015 PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe 18 In. Diam. 8,950 LF $85 $760,75016 Manhole 48-Inch or 60-Inch Diam. 133 EA $3,500 $466,92217 Pump Station #1 - 0.5 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $620,656 $620,65618 Pump Station #2 - 0.5 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $620,656 $620,65619 Pump Station #3 - 1.0 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,028,267 $1,028,26720 Pump Station #4 - 1.3 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,109,789 $1,109,78921 Pump Station #5 - 2.2 MGD w/Chemical Injection 1 LS $1,517,400 $1,517,40022 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 4 In. Diam. 3,350 LF $35 $117,25023 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 6 In. Diam. 1,200 LF $40 $48,00024 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 8 In. Diam. 1,100 LF $45 $49,50025 PVC Sanitary Sewer Force Main 10 In. Diam. 900 LF $50 $45,00026 Air Release or Combination Valves 7 EA $1,000 $6,550










APPENDIX C

Potential Purveyors’ Response Letters


APPENDIX D

Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates

City of EdgewoodSewer Feasibility Study - Estimated O & M Costs

ALTERNATIVE 1 - LAKEHAVEN

PUMP STATION OPERATION, MONTHS 12 MONTHANNUAL INFLATION RATE 0.04PUMP STATION LIFE 20 YEARS

UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS

UNIT POWER COST = 0.06 $/KWHUNIT LABOR COST = 40 $/HR

UNIT CHEMICAL COST = 0.4 $/#CHEMICAL DOSAGE = 175 #/MG

ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONSBreak Hp based on 70% pump efficiency and TDH + 5 ft for pump losses.PS check = 5 hrs/week, 52 weeks/year.FM annual maintenance = Pigging 4000 LF/day, 8 hrs per dayVacuum and Air release valve maintenance = 2 hr/valve, valves at 1000LF of FM.Peroxide at 175 #/MG for odor control.Gravity line annual maintenance = video inspection 2000LF/day, 8 hrs per dayVideo inspection @ $1/LF.10-year overhaul assumed to be 30% of initial capital cost.Annual inflation rate assumed to be 4%.

GRAVITY CONVEYANCE

ANNUAL LABOR COSTS

GRAVITY MAIN ANNUAL MAINTENANCE 120 HR

PRESENT ANNUAL LABOR COST = $4,80020 YEAR ANNUAL LABOR COST = $10,517

ADJUSTED ANNUAL LABOR COST = $7,147

VIDEO INSPECTION $1.00 /LF

PRESENT VIDEO INSPECTION COST = $30,0000 YEAR ANNUAL VIDEO INSPECTION COST = $65,734

ADJUSTED ANNUAL VIDEO INSPECTION COST = $44,667

City of EdgewoodSewer Feasibility Study

Alternative 1: LakehavenPage 1 of 9

ParametrixFebruary 2002



PUMP STATION 1 (0.3 MGD)

POWER COSTSBREAK HP 2 HP

ANNUAL POWER USAGE = 15,412 KWH/YEARPRESENT ANNUAL POWER COST = $925

20 YEAR ANNUAL POWER COST = $2,026

ADJUSTED ANNUAL POWER COST = $1,377

ANNUAL LABOR COSTSWEEKLY PS CHECK 260 HR

FM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE 4 HRANNUAL RELEASE VALVE SERVICE 4 HR

TOTAL 268 HR



ANNUAL OVERHAUL COSTS10-YEAR PUMP OVERHAUL $161,740 LS

ADJUSTED ANNUAL OVERHAUL COST = $19,941

ANNUAL CHEMICAL COSTS 17.5 #/DAYPRESENT ODOR CONTROL COST $2,555

20 YEAR ODOR CONTROL COST $5,598

ADJUSTED ANNUAL CHEMICAL COST = $3,804

PUMP STATION 1 TOTAL O & M $41,059








ANNUAL POWER USAGE = 81,590 KWH/YEARPRESENT ANNUAL POWER COST = $4,895





TOTAL 268 HR





















TOTAL 265 HR





















TOTAL 274 HR





















TOTAL 268 HR














ALTERNATIVE 1 ANNUAL O&M COST SUMMARY

POWER $46,189LABOR $119,172OVERHALL $293,970MISCELLANEOUS $184,153TOTAL $643,483





ALTERNATIVE 2 - PIERCE COUNTY





ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONSBreak Hp based on 70% pump efficiency and TDH + 5 ft for pump losses.PS check = 5 hrs/week, 52 weeks/year.FM annual maintenance = Pigging 4000LF/day, 8 hrs per day.Vacuum and Air release valve maintenance = 2 hr/valve, valves at 1000LF of FM.Peroxide at 175 #/MG for odor control.Gravity line annual maintenance = video inspection 2000LF/day, 8 hrs per day.Video inspection @ $1/LF.10-year overhaul assumed to be 30% of initial capital cost.Annual inflation rate assumed to be 4%.

GRAVITY CONVEYANCE

ANNUAL LABOR COSTS








Alternative 2: Pierce CountyPage 1 of 8





ANNUAL POWER USAGE = 15,412 KWH/YEARPRESENT ANNUAL POWER COST = $925





TOTAL 268 HR




















TOTAL 268 HR




















TOTAL 265 HR




















TOTAL 264 HR




















TOTAL 265 HR




















TOTAL 264 HR













ALTERNATIVE 3 - LAKEHAVEN/PUYALLUP






GRAVITY CONVEYANCE

ANNUAL LABOR COSTS








Alternative 3: Lakehaven/PuyallupPage 1 of 8










TOTAL 268 HR




















TOTAL 265 HR




















TOTAL 274 HR




















TOTAL 272 HR













ALTERNATIVE 4 - PIERCE COUNTY/PUYALLUP






GRAVITY CONVEYANCE

ANNUAL LABOR COSTS








Alternative 4: Pierce County/PuyallupPage 1 of 7










TOTAL 268 HR




















TOTAL 265 HR




















TOTAL 264 HR












Sewer Feasibility Study - Edgewood, Washington of Edgewood 216-3045-002 (100/06) Edgewood Sewer...

Documents

Transcript of Sewer Feasibility Study - Edgewood, Washington of Edgewood 216-3045-002 (100/06) Edgewood Sewer...