state of the utility report 2007 - lott clean water...
TRANSCRIPT
State of the UtilityReport
2007
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
March 2007
Welcome to the LOTT Alliance’s annual State of the Utility Report for 2007.
On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am pleased to introduce this Report, which serves as the 2006 Annual Report and provides a look forward to 2007 activities. The year 2006 was a very special one. LOTT celebrated its 30th birthday in November, following a period of significant environmental, capital construction, and public service achievements, which are detailed in this Report. The utility has emerged as a recognized state and even national leader for its reclaimed water programs. During 2006, special attention was paid to programs for attracting and retaining skilled employees.
Along with the major accomplishments, challenges are still ahead. In the spirit of the “Highly Managed Plan,” under which LOTT operates, we continue to re-evaluate future facility needs – both at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant and in relation to future satellites. While addressing Capital Improvements Plan changes, we are also continuing to assure LOTT financial resources are managed in a fiscally conservative manner.
Personally, I look forward to 2007 as LOTT’s Board President, and I would like to express my appreciation to Doug Mah for his leadership over the past two years. Much has been accomplished, and we look forward to the challenges ahead.
Sincerely,
Bruce ZellerPresident, Board of Directors
Board of Directors
Nancy Peterson City of Lacey Doug Mah City of Olympia Bruce Zeller City of Tumwater Cathy Wolfe Thurston County
Executive Director
Michael D. Strub, P.E.
Acknowledgements
Text compiled and edited by Karla Fowler and Lisa Dennis-Perez
Photo and graphic selection and editing by Karen Tuomey
Graphic design by Cheri Huber
Text segments and content assistance provided by LOTT staff members Michelle Barnett, Ken Butti, Eric Hielema, Rick Hughes, Justin Long, Ben McConkey, Janna Mowatt, Laurie Pierce,
Wayne Robinson, Mike Seelig, Mike Strub, Brian Topolski, Karen Tuomey, Howard Weisberg, Paula Williamson and Tyle Zuchowski
Text segments and content assistance also provided by Chris Cleveland (Brown and Caldwell)
Photography by Erik Eikenberry (Graphic Concepts), Charlie Kirry (Washington Media Services), Aerolist Photographers Inc., Dr. Brennan Jordan and LOTT staff
Special thanks to Karen Tuomey for proofing, editing and production coordination support for the entire report.
Published March 2007
Chapter 1Achieving Major Milestones:An Introduction to 2006 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A Time to Look Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12006 Milestones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22006 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Chapter 2 Sustaining a Skilled Workforce:A Focus on Employees Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Collective Bargaining Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Non-Represented Pay Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Career Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7New Apprenticeships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Transitional FTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Safety Incentive Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Employee Recognition Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Employee Appreciation Event. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Performance Review and Development Plan Process . 11Staffing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Bring Your Child to Work Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter 3Demonstrating Environmental Stewardship:Agreements, Evaluations and Actions Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15MOU with Squaxin Island Tribe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Deschutes River Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Gull Harbor Conservation Easement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Kaiser Road Pump Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Property Acquisition and Conservation Easement . . 18 Environmental Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Chambers Prairie Satellite Property Evaluation. . . . . . 19Reclaimed Water Conveyance and Recharge Options Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21New Water Conservation Coordination Plan . . . . . . . . 22Vista Village Flow Reduction Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Industrial Pretreatment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Program Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Ordinance Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Silver-Bearing Waste Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Multi-Jurisdictional FOG Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Biosolids Management Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2514th Avenue/Kaiser Road Forcemain Environmental Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Budd Inlet Scientific Study Data Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . 27A Transition to Green Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table of Contents
Chapter 4Maximizing Operational Efficiency: The Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Outstanding Treatment Plant Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Master Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . 30Port Property Purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30New Laboratory and Administrative/Education Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Process Control Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Control System Automation Upgrade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Secondary Clarifier Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Securing the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . 32Asset Management Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Program Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Volume of Wastewater Treated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Volume of Biosolids Produced and Hauled . . . . . . . . 33 BOD and TSS Removal Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Chapter 5Letting It Flow:Reclaimed Water in the Community Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Making a “Splash!”: a Reclaimed Water Celebration . 35The Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite Starts Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Conveyance Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds/Recharge Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Interpretive Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Automation at the Hawks Prairie Satellite . . . . . . . . . 39 State Reclaimed Water Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Hawks Prairie Satellite is an Award-Winner . . . . . . . . 40
Chapter 6Making Connections: Pipelines, Outfalls and Emergency Response Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4114th Avenue/Grass Lake Emergency Repair. . . . . . . . . . 41Assessment of Old Kaiser Road Forcemain . . . . . . . . . . 4214th Avenue/Kaiser Road Forcemain Extension . . . . . . 42Martin Way Pipeline Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42R.W. Johnson Road/Mottman Road Sewer Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43DNR Outfall Easement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Fiddlehead Outfall Interlocal Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . 44Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Plan . . 44Washington State Department of Transportation Interlocal Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Chapter 7Meeting Future Needs: Capital Improvements Planning Capital Budget and CIP Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Building the CIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Model Recalibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Wastewater Flow Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Wastewater Generation Rate Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 ERU Growth and System Capacity Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Projected Total and New ERUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 LOTT Operating Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Operating Capacity . . . . . 49 Total LOTT Operating Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Flow Projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Average Summer Flow Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 At 3.0 mg/L TIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 At 2.25 mg/L TIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51CIP Project Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 System Upgrade Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 New Capacity Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Asset Management/LERF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Funding Allocations by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Capital Project Financial Metrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Projected Cash Investment in Capital Projects 2003-2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 CDC Revenue vs. CDC Cost 2003-2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54CIP Project List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2007-2025 Capital Improvements Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 55CIP Project Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Conveyance Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Miscellaneous Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 New Capacity Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Hawks Prairie Satellite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Chambers Prairie Satellite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 8Expanding Community Visibility: Pro-active Public Communications Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Elected Officials Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Special Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 30th Anniversary Celebration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Haunted Hike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Media Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67New Website Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68New Education Program Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Hands On Children’s Museum Partnership. . . . . . . . . . 68 Komachin Middle School Pilot Education Program . . . 69Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Responses to Information Inquiries and Public Records Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Tours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite Tours . . . . . . . 71Group Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Entry Signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Chapter 9Managing Costs: Operating and Capital Budgets Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Budget Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 2007 Combined Operating and Capital Budget Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Revenue Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Revenue Forecasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Projected Total and New ERUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Expense Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Expense Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Operating Budget Expenditure Summary by Category . 77Expense Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Cost Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Expenditure Summary by Division. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Expenditure Summary by Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 LOTT Facility Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Capital Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2007-2025 Capital Improvements Plan and 2007 Capital Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Six-Year Revenue and Expense Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Six-Year Revenue and Expense Forecast Summary . . . 83Financial Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 System Expense vs. System Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Year-End Cash Projections with Loan Funds . . . . . . . . 85Audited Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 2005 Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 2006 Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Chapter 1
Achieving Major Milestones
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�
Chapter 1Achieving Major Milestones:An Introduction to 2006
Introduction
LOTT celebrated its 30th birthday in 2006, adding to a year of significant organizational, environmental, capital construction and public service achievements. Many milestones were achieved in 2006. To fully appreciate how far we’ve come, it’s helpful to also take a brief look back.
A Time to Look Back
At the time of the first Interlocal Agreement, the wastewater treatment plant provided only primary treatment. By 1983, secondary treatment was added and, in 1994, nitrogen removal and ultraviolet disinfection followed. As the local communities continued to grow, it became clear that planning for future wastewater treatment capacity was needed. In 1998, the Partners completed a long-range public planning process that resulted in the 20-year LOTT Wastewater Resource Management Plan, with major focus on production and distribution of reclaimed water. Reclaimed water production became a reality in 2005, with the completion of the Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant. For the first time in LOTT’s 30-year history, a product − Class A Reclaimed Water − is being sent back out into the community for beneficial reuse.
Based on another result of the planning process, LOTT began its transition from a paperwork partnership to a new stand-alone entity. In 2000, the LOTT Wastewater Alliance was incorporated as a public non-profit organization, guided by the LOTT Board of Directors, made up of one elected official from each of the four partner jurisdictions. In 2005 and 2006, staff associated with LOTT were transferred from the City of Olympia to LOTT employment, and LOTT’s transition to a stand-alone organization was complete.
LOTT’s name has also been modified over the years. From informal references to “LOTT” in the early years, the name LOTT Wastewater Management Partnership came into use by 1990, along with LOTT’s first logo. The name was formally changed to LOTT Wastewater Alliance with adoption of the new long-range plan in January 2000. With the addition of reclaimed water service, a name change was needed to better reflect the spectrum of services provided. Thus, LOTT became the LOTT Alliance in 2005, with the accompanying tag line: “Cleaning and restoring water for our community.”
Today, the LOTT Alliance owns and operates physical facilities in all four partner jurisdictions. These facilities are valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and include the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant, Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant, three pump stations (Capitol Lake, Martin Way and Kaiser Road), a Southern Connection Control Structure and 23 miles of main sewer interceptor pipelines. In addition, LOTT completed construction of its first satellite system, including the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant and the Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds/Recharge Basins, in 2006. Operation of this reclaimed water satellite facility further expands LOTT’s regional wastewater treatment responsibilities.
DigestersThen and Now
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
2006 Milestones
Celebrating LOTT’s 30th Anniversary was a major milestone of 2006, but there were other important ones throughout the year, including several LOTT “firsts”:
• The signing of a Collective Bargaining Agreement• Memorandum of Understanding between LOTT and the Squaxin
Island Tribe• Two Conservation Easements with the Capitol Land Trust• Distribution of Class A Reclaimed Water to the community• Start-up of LOTT’s first satellite, including the Martin Way
Reclaimed Water Plant and Hawks Prairie Ponds/Recharge Basins• Authorization to purchase 100% of LOTT’s 2007 power from
Green Power sources
Other accomplishments included:• Receipt of an “Outstanding Treatment Plant” award from the Department of Ecology• Completion of the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Master Plan• Purchase of property for LOTT’s second satellite reclaimed water plant
(Chambers Prairie)• Approval of a new 6-year Water Conservation Coordination Plan• Extensive recalibration of the computer-based model used to predict capacity needs
Solids LoadingThen and Now
LOTT Organizational History
LOTT Treatment History
Reclaimed water hydrant at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
LOTT Treatment History
2006 Goals
In the early months of the year, LOTT Board members developed a series of objectives for the year, based on the following goals:
1. Sustain an effective and skilled workforce for LOTT into the future2. Sustain a safe workplace for LOTT employees3. Support and participate in external apprenticeship programs
in the community4. Manage LOTT financial resources in a fiscally conservative
manner5. Enhance and sustain the positive public image and
community support for the LOTT Alliance and its services and programs
6. Enhance and sustain community support for production, distribution and use of Class A Reclaimed Water
7. Gain informed public consent for siting of the Chambers Prairie facilities at preferred locations
8. Support and participate in cooperative efforts with other community leaders and organizations to plan and implement community-wide programs and projects to enhance water quality in the Budd Inlet watershed
9. Support conservation programs that result in additional wastewater flow reduction10. Continue to review and manage the Wastewater Resource Management (“Highly
Managed”) Plan to assure Public Values and plan goals are achieved11. Incorporate environmentally beneficial activities as part of LOTT projects12. Safeguard the long-term operational viability of existing and planned LOTT
treatment, conveyance and recharge facilities13. Establish service levels and a risk management plan
LOTT’s goals and programs are designed to meet the public values that guided our long-range planning, maintain maximum treatment capacity at our Budd Inlet Treatment Plant, and assure future facilities meet the community’s treatment capacity and reclaimed water production needs. As the following chapters show, all but the last goal were achieved in various ways. The project to establish service levels and a risk management plan is being initiated in 2007.
The entire community can be
proud of the success of the LOTT
Alliance as a public partnership.
The past 30 years of progress
could not have been achieved
without solid public support, a lot
of hard work, and the collaborative
efforts of the partner jurisdictions.
Protecting public health and
the environment is our primary
responsibility. The LOTT Alliance
looks forward to continuing this
tradition to provide for wastewater
management and reclaimed
water production services for the
community well into the future.
Partner 2006-2007 Jurisdictions Board Members Lacey Nancy Peterson
Olympia Doug Mah
Tumwater Bruce Zeller
Thurston County Cathy Wolfe
Doug Mah served as President of the Board for 2006. Bruce Zeller was elected President for 2007.
Chapter 2
Sustaining a Skilled Workforce
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Chapter 2Sustaining a Skilled Workforce:A Focus on Employees
Introduction
Following three years of significant organizational transitions, expansion and restructuring, the LOTT Board of Directors entered 2006 with two of its key goals focused on its workforce:
• Sustain an effective and skilled workforce for LOTT into the future• Sustain a safe workplace for LOTT employees
Both of those Board goals were achieved with creation of new programs for career development, succession planning, apprenticeships, safety incentives, employee recognition, performance review and development, and Bring Your Child to Work Day. The year also included a particularly significant “first” for LOTT – the utility’s first negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Collective Bargaining Agreement
In 2006, LOTT began the process of developing a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the first with its represented employees since the transition to an independent utility. LOTT’s former Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was transferred from Olympia to LOTT by mutual agreement between LOTT and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 618-0 as part of the transition of Operations and Maintenance employees from Olympia, which took effect January 1, 2005, and ran until the end of 2006. The term of the new contract is three years, from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009.
Bargaining teams representing management and labor conducted informal “information sharing” sessions several weeks prior to the first formal bargaining session on September 5, 2006. These informal sessions ensured both teams had sufficient information by which to analyze their needs and make reasonable requests for changes in the CBA. Leading up to actual bargaining, both teams had joint training in using a collaborative process rather than the usual positional type of bargaining. A comprehensive salary survey, conducted with the assistance of a consultant, OnCourse Group, helped to inform the bargaining process.
Agreement on a tentative CBA was reached after 6 bargaining sessions. Throughout negotiations, management kept the Board apprised of developments and received direction from the Board. The Board of Directors approved the new CBA at their meeting on November 8. The approved CBA provides benefits that both parties feel will contribute to employee satisfaction and improve LOTT’s ability to recruit new employees.
Brock Logan, AFSCME Union Representative, signing the Collective Bargaining Agreement
union agreement photo
Board Members and Bargaining Team Members
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Highlights of the Collective Bargaining Agreement include:
• Overall 6.2% pay increase (before COLA) at a cost of $102,789 annually
• Annual COLA of 90% of the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton CPI-W (June-July of the previous year)
• Pager pay increase to $2.50/hr. (from $2.00), at a cost of approximately $6,136 annually
• Dependant medical insurance premiums increased to 90% (from 85%) at a cost of approximately $7,065 annually
• Vacation accruals that match non-represented accrual rates
• Community Service Day once a year
• Sick leave balances to heirs up to 320 hours (out of total balance of 960 hours allowed)
• Direct deposit for all employees
• Ability to award increased vacation accruals to new employees with relevant experience as a recruitment tool
• Shorter notice (15 days) to Union when contracting out work, unless Board approval of contract required, then back to previous 30 days notice
Non-Represented Pay Plan
LOTT’s pay plan for non-represented employees had not been adjusted since 2003 when there were only five LOTT positions in the Administrative Office. With the organizational transition and addition of a diversity of non-represented positions since that time, there was a need to revise the pay plan to accommodate additional and varied positions. The former plan consisted only of four pay grades with nine steps. With only four available ranges, this resulted in placements that were not aligned well with the labor market.
A new pay plan for non-represented employees was developed in part from data gathered by the OnCourse Group as part of a comprehensive study of pay and benefits for all positions at LOTT. LOTT had commissioned the study to ensure that LOTT’s pay and benefits plan was competitive with comparable organizations, both for represented and non-represented employees. The new non-represented pay plan provides more options for classifying positions, resulting in closer alignment to the labor market, and creates additional placement options for staff pursuing career development plans.
Highlights of the new pay plan:
• Nine pay grades with seven steps, each resulting in a five percent increase over the previous step
• Annual step increases in Pay Grades 10-50, up to Step 7• Eligibility for Division Directors to have annual market and performance-based
salary reviews/adjustments• Flexibility to place new hires above Step 1 with Executive Director approval• Annual COLA of 90% of the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton CPI-W (June-June of the
previous year)• Identical benefits package for all regular employees• Clear procedure and guidelines for reclassifications
The total cost of salary adjustments necessary to place staff into the new pay plan resulted in an initial payroll increase of 3.2% or $55,479 for 2007 (excluding COLA). However, the payroll liability over time will decrease by 3.8% or $76,748, as a result of creating the new pay ranges. Additionally, the new structure provides more ranges with fewer steps than LOTT’s current salary structure, reducing the likelihood of overcompensation.
The new pay plan was approved by the Board of Directors at their November 8 meeting. It took affect on January 1, 2007.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Career Development Program
In 2006, LOTT staff members from the Labor-Management Committee began development of a Career Development Policy. The policy is part of LOTT’s recruitment and retention effort. It is intended to provide skill enhancement opportunities for current employees and will be a useful tool for knowledge transfer and succession planning.
This policy is critical to providing the framework for building a cross-functional, multi-skilled workforce at LOTT. The construction of off-site facilities has created the need for staff with multiple and cross-functional skill sets to minimize the number of individuals necessary to perform work at these remote locations. Under this Program, LOTT gains the flexibility to blend the knowledge, skills, and abilities traditionally found in two separate trades or job descriptions into new positions, developed specifically to address operations and maintenance of the satellite reclaimed water plants, distribution system, ponds and pump stations. This will allow LOTT to send fewer individuals to work at the satellite facilities, improving efficiency.
This Policy also supports recruitment and retention efforts. It has become increasingly difficult to fill some key, highly technical, highly skilled positions. Additionally, LOTT has a dedicated, talented staff that we wish to retain. Through the Career Development Program, LOTT will provide training programs that build on the talents of, and create professional growth opportunities for, current staff members. This will allow employees to meet many of their career objectives without leaving LOTT for other organizations.
Additionally, as staff in many key positions near retirement, the Career Development Program will help LOTT address the issues of knowledge transfer and succession planning. The Program creates a mechanism to identify successors, either internally or through external hiring procedures, for positions soon to be vacated due to retirement. These successors will then partner with the incumbents to gain institutional knowledge prior to the incumbent’s departure from the workforce.
The Policy was presented to LOTT Board members at their May 24 meeting. Based on feedback from the Board, staff further developed the Policy and returned to the Board with a proposal on June 14. Board members approved the Career Development Policy and Program at that time.
The Program will be funded through the Educational Assistance Program (tuition reimbursement) and standing training program as included in the annual budget. As employees begin to take advantage of the new Program, staff will be better able to predict future expenses and will adjust requests for program support through the annual budgeting process.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�
New Apprenticeships
LOTT uses apprenticeships to “grow our own” staff for hard to fill technical positions through a comprehensive program of on-the-job training and related supplemental instruction. This Program also helps support employee succession planning. LOTT made several changes and additions to the Apprenticeship Program in 2006. Two new apprenticeships were submitted to the State Department of Labor & Industries for approval. A Maintenance Technician Apprentice and a Control Systems Technician Apprentice, both 3 year programs, were approved by the State. A third apprenticeship, for a Wastewater Treatment Facilities Operator, was updated, changing the program from 2 years to 2.5 years and adding a requirement that the incumbent complete the Green River Community College Wastewater Technology program. All three of these positions were filled in 2006.
In addition to the in-house Apprenticeship Program, LOTT has a commitment to developing skilled workers within the broader community. As part of that commitment, the LOTT Board of Directors approved the concept of Apprenticeship Set-Asides. These Set-Asides require contractors who work on LOTT projects to support a certain number of apprentice hours on those projects. In this way, LOTT encourages the broader community to develop skilled technical workers through support of apprenticeships.
Transitional FTE
In light of the number of LOTT employees who are nearing retirement eligibility, staff identified the need for ensuring that institutional knowledge from incumbents be transferred to their replacements, especially in cases where the individual is the only employee in a critical position or role. LOTT has had difficulty recruiting for some of these critical positions in the past, which reinforces the need to have a new employee hired and ready to fill a critical position before it is vacant, rather than after the fact.
To ease these transitions and maintain continuity within the work force, staff proposed the concept of a Transitional Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) position to be added to the FTE complement for use during a retiring employee’s final six months with LOTT. This transitional FTE position will be used only as needed, for a maximum period of six months, and only to staff one transitional position at any one time.
This transitional position would not be filled until the incumbent gave official written notice of his or her intent to retire. Once the position is activated, it would be filled through a competitive hiring process. The individual in the transitional role would then move into the permanent position once the incumbent retires. This approach provides a flexible way of ensuring that LOTT does not lose the investment made in existing employees. The LOTT Board of Directors approved the transitional position policy at their Board meeting on May 10.
There are at least seven employees at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant who are eligible to retire immediately, and another who becomes eligible in just over two years. Four of these positions are one of a kind: Inventory Procurement Coordinator, Systems Analyst, Process Supervisor and Industrial Electrician. Adoption of this Transitional FTE helps assure that LOTT will be well prepared for these retirements.
Alex Desmonie, Maintenance Technician
Apprentice
Gabe Brannon, Control Systems Technician Apprentice
Mike Myers, Operator Apprentice
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�
The Transitional FTE will be used first to prepare for the retirement of the Industrial Electrician. This position must be filled with a licensed and experienced Industrial Electrician. The expertise required of this position cannot be provided safely by an inexperienced electrician, and most definitely not by an Apprentice. However, the transitional position will enhance the Control Systems Technician Apprenticeship Program by providing a Licensed Journey-Level Electrician under whom the Apprentice may earn credit toward a Wastewater Electrician’s Certificate.
Individuals in the transitional position will be compensated at whatever pay range is assigned to the position being vacated. To ensure adequate funds are available, the position will be budgeted at an annual expense of $30,833, which would fund the transition of our highest paid retiring represented employee.
Safety Incentive Program
LOTT’s Safety Committee developed a Safety Incentive Program as a way to motivate employees to become more active and involved in LOTT’s Safety Program. The Safety Incentive Program rewards employees for seeking out safety training, serving on the safety committee, attending safety meetings, participating in wellness activities, reporting hazards observed, making suggestions for improvements that would make an area or a task safer, and providing line-level assistance with inspections, accident investigations and training within their personal areas of expertise.
Traditionally, the burden of maintaining LOTT’s Safety Program has fallen on a single staff person assigned to that function. The more employees that get involved, the more eyes are focused on the potential risks confronted at LOTT facilities and in LOTT practices, and the more ideas will be generated regarding how to minimize these risks. Providing incentives will stimulate greater participation in the safety program, and the responsibility for workplace safety will be more evenly distributed among all LOTT staff. The Program will also create ownership as staff members take responsibility for their own safety as well as the safety of others.
Under the Safety Incentive Program, employees will be awarded points for participating in various safety activities. Points translate to dollars in the form of gift cards that are distributed to employees at the end of each year. Each employee’s level of involvement is strictly voluntary, and rewarded accordingly. This Program could potentially cost up to $12,000, which has been set aside in the safety line item of the annual budget. That figure is based upon a maximum annual incentive of $200/person for a staff of 60, although staff are not expected to utilize the full amount in any given year.
This is an incentive, not a bonus or gift. The incentive is intended to foster higher levels of safety awareness, more employee involvement, and improved working conditions resulting in fewer accidents, fewer injuries, fewer safety-related complaints, and an improved sense of empowerment and control over the work environment. The Safety Incentive Program was approved by the Board of Directors at their May 10 meeting.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�0
Employee Recognition Program
In 2006, the LOTT Recognition Committee rolled out a new Employee Recognition Program, called “Thanks A LOTT.” This program is designed to allow any LOTT employee to recognize the outstanding work and achievements of any co-worker. To nominate a co-worker, an employee picks up a nomination card at one of the “Thanks A LOTT” drop boxes located in the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant lobby or the Administrative Office workroom, completes the form, and places it in the drop box.
Awards of recognition are then presented at each quarterly All Staff Meeting. Each individual nominated receives a certificate of appreciation and their name is entered in the quarterly drawing for a $25 gift card to Batdorf & Bronson or the Olympia Farmers Market. At year’s end, the Recognition Committee selects a single winner based on merit who will receive a $100 gift card to a local restaurant.
This Program is part of an on-going effort to foster teamwork and recognize the hard work of LOTT’s dedicated employees.
Employee Appreciation Event
On October 4, LOTT held its first annual Employee Appreciation Event. Attendees enjoyed a catered lunch at the Phoenix Inn and had the opportunity to celebrate the many accomplishments made by staff over the past year. Special guests, including Board members and a former employee helped with the awards ceremony. Service awards were presented to tenured staff and the Recognition Committee rolled out and presented new annual awards.
To determine recipients of the annual awards, staff members nominated individuals in each of several award categories:
• This year, the John DeYoung Inspirational Award was presented to Dale Ackley, Maintenance Technician, for his contribution toward creating and fostering a positive work environment for all LOTT employees. Dale was recognized for inspiring team spirit, exhibiting an exceptionally positive attitude, and for his willingness to always go the extra mile and help out.
• The Commitment to Excellence Award was presented to Karla Fowler, Planning and Programs Director, for her professionalism, commitment to LOTT’s mission, and her dedication to continually raising the standard for programs and activities.
• The Innovation Award was presented to Gary Guttormson, Operator I, for creating “Wastewater 101,” a description of the treatment process that serves as a learning tool for new employees.
• The Blooper of the Year Award was presented to Ben McConkey, Operations Supervisor, for his notable misadventure rescuing a duck from one of the secondary clarifiers.
John DeYoung and Dale Ackley
Karla Fowler
Gary Guttormson receiving his award from Ben McConkey
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
��
Also at this event was the unveiling of an engraved memorial boulder, recognizing Mike McKinzie, LOTT’s long-time Systems and Applications Specialist, who had passed away at the beginning of the year. The marker will be installed at the Hawks Prairie Ponds/Recharge Basins site.
Performance Review and Development Plan Process
With recruitment for vacant supervisory positions and some further reorganization completed in 2006, the tasks of training the supervisory team and implementing a new performance evaluation process began.
One of the first team activities for this group of managers and supervisors was to attend a comprehensive, two-day supervisory skills workshop in mid-March. The goals of the workshop were to gain insight into individual communication styles, including the inherent strengths and weaknesses of these styles; to learn how to apply these insights to communication; and to jointly develop a consistent process for performance planning and appraisal to be used throughout the organization. These changes will ensure that a consistent method, timetable and format will be used for all LOTT Alliance employees. The new Performance Review and Development Plan Process will shift to a calendar year-based process rather than employee anniversary dates, with everyone setting and agreeing to performance expectations in January, conducting interim reviews mid-year and completing a final evaluation during December. The new process was introduced to employees in December. Use of the new Process will begin in 2007. To support the new process, uniform forms were developed, all class specifications were reviewed to ensure that they are an accurate reflection of each position, some class specifications and/or position titles were revised, and the management team developed position-specific performance expectations.
The new process will provide employees with the opportunity to gain feedback about how they are doing and validate how they contribute to the organization. Receiving feedback on performance and identifying needed training will help to improve employee development. The performance review process also provides an opportunity for staff to reflect on how to achieve the high level of performance that is essential to the success of the overall organization.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�2
Staffing Plan
LOTT’s full-time equivalent (FTE) positions totaled 60.0 in 2006 and will be 62.5 in 2007. The accompanying organization chart includes the new positions going into 2007. Five positions were new in 2006 – the Apprentice positions in Control Systems and Maintenance, Asset Management Coordinator, the Utility Planner/Engineer and a Community Relations Specialist. The latter two were the result of reviewing expenditures and performance for past work outsourced to consultants in the areas of planning and communications, and the determination that LOTT could be better and more cost-effectively served by bringing that work in-house.
The new 2007 positions include a one-half FTE for the transitional Industrial Electrician position, which will be discontinued when the incumbent retires, the conversion of contracted custodial services to an in-house custodial position, and the conversion of a work study office assistant position to a full-time staff position.
Executive Director
Engineering Director
Asset ManagementCoordinator
Planning & ProgramsDirector
General Counsel/Administrative Director
Finance Manager MaintenanceSupervisor
EnvironmentalCompliance Supervisor
Senior WastewaterEngineer
OperationsSupervisor
Executive Assistant(2 positions)
Senior MaintenanceTechnician
Community RelationsSpecialist
Safety Programs/Contract Manager
Lead OperatorAccounting Technician
Utility Planner
Contract/LoanAdiminstrator
Operator II(6 positions)
CommunicationsCoord/Web Designer
Operator I(7 positions)
OperatorApprentice(2 positions)
Network Administrator
Human ResourcesAnalyst
Engineer Tech/Construction Manager
(2 positions)
Payroll/AdministrativeServices Manager
Facilities Director
Inventory/ProcurementCoordinator
Office Assistant Industrial Electrician(2 positions)
Instrument/Electrical Technician(2 positions)
MaintenanceTechnician(2 positions)
MaintenanceScheduler Planner
MaintenanceWorker II
(4 positions)
Maintenance Tech.Apprentice
MaintenanceAssistant/Custodian
Process Supervisor
Systems Analyst
Process ControlTechnician
Water QualityAnalyst
(2 positions)
Process ControlTech. Apprentice
LaboratoryTechnician
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�3
Bring Your Child to Work Day
On April 27, 2006, staff had approximately 15 children between the ages of 7-17 attend the day-long event, with a couple more who were able to attend at least part of the day. The kids received an introduction to LOTT from Executive Director Mike Strub and Facilities Director Laurie Pierce, then spent the rest of the morning learning about how the work their parents perform keeps the Treatment Plant and the organization running smoothly. Participants were treated to a pizza and soda lunch, a Treatment Plant tour, and a visit to the Ponds site. Administrative Director Rick Hughes entertained the kids with a presentation demonstrating the different jobs available at LOTT and what classes they should take if they were interested in having similar jobs. Everyone seemed to enjoy the day and people have commented that they are already looking forward to next year’s event.
Chapter 3
Demonstrating Environmental Stewardship
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�5
Chapter 3Demonstrating Environmental Stewardship:Agreements, Evaluations and Actions
Introduction
One of the primary public values identified during development of LOTT’s Wastewater Resource Management Plan was to “Maximize benefits to the environment.” Since the Plan was completed the Board has taken several steps that help fulfill that goal. Among the Board’s Program Management and Engineering/Capital Projects goals for 2006 were five goals that involved significant environmental stewardship actions:
• Support and Participate In Cooperative Efforts with Other Community Leaders and Organizations to Plan and Implement Community-Wide Programs and Projects to Enhance Water Quality in the Budd Inlet Watershed
• Gain Informed Public Consent for Siting of the Chambers Prairie Facilities at Preferred Locations
• Support Conservation Programs that Result in Additional Wastewater Flow Reduction
• Incorporate Environmentally Beneficial Activities as Part of LOTT Projects• Safeguard the Long-Term Operational Viability of Existing and Planned LOTT
Treatment, Conveyance and Recharge Facilities
Translated into actions, the Board entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Squaxin Island Tribe, authorized funding for two important conservation easements, conducted a major environmental evaluation for its proposed second satellite plant site, approved a new Water Conservation Coordination Plan and made the decision to purchase 100% of its 2007 power from Green Power sources. LOTT also continued demonstrating environmental responsibility through its Industrial Pretreatment and Biosolids Management Programs, new Silver Recovery and Fats/Oils/Grease programs and environmental evaluations for other capital projects.
MOU with Squaxin Island Tribe
On January 11, 2006, the LOTT Board of Directors approved an important Memorandum of Understanding with the Squaxin Island Tribe, the first such agreement ever initiated between LOTT and the Tribe. The MOU was signed by Tribal Council Chairman Jim Peters on February 23. It is effective through December 2007.
For about two years, LOTT staff has been working with staff from the Squaxin Island Tribe to identify and develop a collaborative water quality or habitat restoration project within the Deschutes River/Capitol Lake/Budd Inlet watershed. The concept for a joint project arose during discussions between the Tribe, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Ecology regarding LOTT’s NPDES Permit. The Tribe had expressed concerns about the new permit, and has been on record opposing LOTT’s request for increased winter discharge. In addition, the Tribe’s past correspondence on LOTT’s Wastewater Resource Management Plan suggested that LOTT consider water quality improvements in other parts of the watershed as a means of helping to improve the body of water into which LOTT discharges treated effluent. Although the project concept was not directly connected to the Permit renewal, it is an important step in demonstrating LOTT’s commitment to work with the Tribe to address mutual interests.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�6
The Memorandum of Understanding documents the spirit of cooperation and commitment to jointly move forward on such efforts:
“The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to specify the cooperation between the parties to pursue water quality and habitat restoration projects within the fresh and marine waters of the Deschutes River Basin and Budd Inlet. The parties support the notion that an overall improvement of water quality and natural resource protection is a worthy goal within the basin that currently receives the majority of discharge from the metropolitan area treatment facilities.”
Deschutes River Project
While the Memorandum of Understanding was pending with the Squaxin Island Tribe, staff from both organizations continued work to identify a viable joint project. An earlier project concept in Budd Inlet proved to be more complex than initially anticipated, so attention had turned to an area off the Deschutes River that appears to offer several potential preservation, fish habitat restoration, and/or water quality project opportunities. Brown and Caldwell is assisting LOTT to conduct technical evaluations of the area.
Elevated water temperatures are a limiting factor for salmon in the Deschutes River system. During 2006, it was determined that this site off the main stem of the river may be viable as a thermal refuge for salmon, although further on-site testing would be needed. Questions related to dissolved oxygen, surface water hydrology, subsurface geology, fish access and relationship of wetlands still need to be answered. A site access agreement was completed with the property owner, but excessive fall rains prevented the site work from being started. That work will proceed in 2007, once the ground is dry enough following winter rains.
Gull Harbor Conservation Easement
Another project opportunity was suggested by Squaxin Island Tribe staff in spring 2006. Identification of this as a potential project was also an outgrowth of a regional South Puget Sound Forum held on April 29, 2006. The Capitol Land Trust had been working for several years to secure a conservation easement to permanently protect Gull Harbor, a high-quality 30-acre estuary with 2.2 miles of surrounding shoreline on the east side of Budd Inlet. In 2003, the Capitol Land Trust was awarded $756,872 from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board as the major funding for that project. Since then, other funds had been raised to a total of $1,256,000. Total cost to acquire the conservation easement was $1,450,000, leaving a $194,000 shortfall.
The Land Trust was facing some deadlines at the end of May 2006, including expiration of an agreement with the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, and the need to have the property and sale agreement and terms of the easement completed with the property owner.
Avoiding future potential water quality deterioration in Budd Inlet is a benefit to LOTT. As a point source discharger to the Inlet, LOTT’s NPDES Permit is subject to continually more stringent treatment and discharge requirements. The Gull Harbor project support is also consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between LOTT and the Tribe. When LOTT originally began working with the Tribe to identify a cooperative project that could ultimately benefit water quality in Budd Inlet, five key criteria and a list of potential projects were developed.
Environmental Award
The Capitol Land Trust
recognized LOTT’s conservation
easements support by
presenting LOTT with one of
three Conservation Awards
presented at its annual
breakfast event on February 6,
2007. The beautifully illustrated
plaque cites “exceptional
commitment to conservation of
Puget Sound’s marine nearshore
and freshwater habitats.”
The award was received for
LOTT’s contribution toward the
purchase of the conservation
easement to protect Gull
Harbor, one of the most pristine
estuaries remaining in the
southern Puget Sound region.
Memorandum of Understanding between LOTT and the Squaxin Island Tribe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�7
Project criteria include:
• Direct actions, not studies• Primary focus on Budd Inlet water quality, including inputs to the Inlet• Activities that benefit fish and/or shellfish• Ability to implement within five years• Projects that would otherwise not be implemented
The Gull Harbor project was consistent with the project criteria and potential project ideas originally developed in concert with the Tribe’s staff. Among specific habitat and property projects on the list, preservation of estuary land at Gull Harbor was identified as a potential project idea.
Gull Harbor had also been identified by the Department of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Program as one of the most functional and intact estuarine systems remaining in the southern Puget Sound region. The forested shorelines and undeveloped uplands filter stormwater runoff from surrounding roads and developed areas, benefiting water quality for endangered and threatened fish, bird and other wildlife species. Several important streams empty to Gull Harbor providing functional estuarine conditions. Other water quality and habitat benefits of this property were identified in the Capitol Land Trust’s newsletter of Summer 2003:
“Gull Harbor…is one of southern Puget Sound’s most intact estuarine environments, providing high-quality habitat suitable for chum, Coho, sea-run cutthroat and Chinook salmon, and prey species such as sand lance, surf smelt and Pacific herring. Gull Harbor is threatened by residential development. Current threats also include clearing of shoreline vegetation, contamination from septic systems, surface erosion, stormwater runoff, and construction of bulkheads and docks.
This project will add to adjacent habitat already protected by Capitol Land Trust through conservation easement. If future project phases are successful, the entire estuary, three miles of shoreline and as much as 700 acres of upland-riparian habitat will be protected. Together these lands encompass an entire small ecosystem. Protection will extend to beaver ponds in the forested tributaries, wetlands in the headwaters, surrounding vegetation and the open marine shoreline of Puget Sound.”
At the LOTT Board’s May 10 meeting, Eric Erler, the Capitol Land Trust’s Executive Director, offered a further description of the project. Tribal staff member Jeff Dickison read a supportive letter from Andy Whitener, Director of the Tribe’s Natural Resources Department. Following discussion, the Board approved Capital Budget funding, up to $194,000, to support acquisition of the negotiated conservation easement to permanently protect Gull Harbor. The conservation easement closed escrow on June 28.
Gull Harbor
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
��
Kaiser Road Pump Station
A second opportunity to partner with the Capitol Land Trust on a conservation easement occurred later in 2006, followed by an environmental evaluation. LOTT’s Kaiser Road Pump Station was constructed in 1971 and is in need of replacement due to safety, reliability and serviceability issues. It is presently located in the public right-of-way on Kaiser Road in an unincorporated portion of Thurston County.
Property Acquisition and Conservation Easement
A 15-acre parcel adjacent to the existing pump station was identified that would provide more than enough area to house a new pump station. However, a purchase and sale agreement for the parcel was already under negotiation between the owner and Capitol Land Trust, which was interested in placing the property under a conservation easement. LOTT and the Capitol Land Trust began discussing the possibility of
LOTT purchasing the property and providing Capitol Land Trust with a conservation easement for the portion of the property not needed for the pump station.
The purchase and sale agreement negotiated by the Capitol Land Trust was in the amount of $150,000. LOTT had obtained an appraisal in the amount of $155,000. The Capitol Land Trust agreed, subject to LOTT Board approval, to assign its purchase and sale agreement to LOTT in exchange for $5,000. LOTT would then convey a conservation easement covering the wetlands and buffer areas of the property back to Capitol Land Trust within 90 days of closing. This conveyance would be contingent upon LOTT obtaining a special use permit, and a positive critical areas administrative review from Thurston County.
Feasibility studies were conducted to ensure that the property would meet LOTT’s needs. These studies included an appraisal, an ALTA survey of property, wetlands, and buffer areas, a critical areas analysis and report, cultural assessment, a Phase 1 environmental assessment and consultation with the Squaxin island Tribe. LOTT also obtained the Department of Ecology’s approval of preliminary engineering design and met with Thurston County for a pre-submission conference. Feasibility studies did not raise any concerns regarding the property purchase.
The LOTT Board of Directors approved the property acquisition and conservation easement at their November 8 Board meeting. The transaction was completed in February 2007.
The conservation easement allows LOTT to use the property for construction and operation of a new pump station. LOTT also agreed to give the Capitol Land Trust the first right of refusal to purchase the property in the unlikely event that LOTT one day decides to sell the property.
Environmental Evaluation
An Environmental Checklist for the Kaiser Road Pump Station Replacement and Relocation Project was published in November 2006. On the basis of the Checklist, LOTT issued a Determination of Non-Significance on November 16. A letter and copy of the DNS were mailed to property owners and occupants surrounding the area and a legal notice was published in The Olympian. Written comment correspondence was received from one set of neighbors and from the Department of Ecology, and additional comments and questions were received by phone from another individual. The citizen comments were supportive of the conservation easement and offered some suggestions for securing and maintenance of the property.
Conservation Easement Map dated September 26, 2006
Existing Kaiser Road Pump Station
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
��
Chambers Prairie Satellite Property Evaluation
LOTT has approached planning for its reclaimed water satellite facilities with the goal of being a good neighbor to surrounding property owners, residents and tenants. As part of implementing its Wastewater Resource Management Plan, an extensive environmental evaluation for LOTT’s second reclaimed water satellite plant was conducted during 2006. The public communication program extended from February through October 2006. It was designed to assure neighbors received complete and accurate project information and were provided multiple opportunities to comment.
LOTT had identified property near Komachin Middle School as the potential site for one key piece of the future Chambers Prairie Reclaimed Water Project – the satellite treatment plant. The triangular-shaped site is located in the City of Lacey and, throughout the environmental process and public communication program, was owned by North Thurston Public Schools. The 5-acre parcel, part of the Komachin Middle School property, will be cut off from the school site when Lacey completes its long-planned extension of Mullen Road. Neighbors include Komachin Middle School to the northwest, residential neighborhoods on the east and south sides, and two churches to the west.
LOTT entered into an agreement with North Thurston Public Schools early in the year, which allowed LOTT to conduct feasibility testing prior to making the final purchase decision. During this contingency period, LOTT prepared and published a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), and obtained an appraisal, an ALTA survey, a wetlands analysis, a cultural resources assessment and a Phase I hazardous materials study.
Aerial photo of the Chambers Prairie project
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
Public, agency and tribal communication activities included:• Personal interviews with officials who live in or nearby the affected
neighborhood, plus property owner representatives• 3 mailings to neighbors living within a 1,000 ft. radius of the proposed site and
other interested individuals• Mailing project information packets and the Draft SEIS to Squaxin Island Tribe,
Nisqually Tribe and state agency SEPA representatives• Publication of legal ad in The Olympian at three key stages of the process – to
announce a Determination of Significance and request for comments on the scope of an SEIS, release of the Draft SEIS and release of the Final SEIS
• 2 Public Workshops, held at Komachin Middle School, to provide an overview of the potential project and reasons for selecting this site, opportunities for audience members to offer scoping comments for the SEIS, a summary of findings in the Draft SEIS and information about other public comment opportunities – attended by 22 and 14 citizens, respectively (April 25 and August 22, 2006)
• “Public Notice” signs posted at the site announcing the availability of the Draft SEIS, and opportunities for public participation
• Issuance of the Draft SEIS for public, Tribe and agency review (August 7, 2006)• Feature story published in The Olympian, including information about the
upcoming Public Workshop, Tours, Public Hearing and deadline for written comments (August 16, 2006)
• Meeting with a Science Teacher at Komachin Middle School about potential educational programs (August 16, 2006)
• Tours of the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant to show what this type of treatment plant looks like, how it operates and how it fits into the surroundings – attended by 20 citizens, including two Lacey Planning Commission members (August 26 and 29)
• A Public Hearing, St. Martin’s University Worthington Center, to accept public comment on the Draft SEIS – attended by four individuals, two of whom provided public comment (September 6, 2006)
• Written Comments – Two comment letters received, one from the Department of Ecology and one from an individual who also testified at the public hearing
• Issuance of Final SEIS (October 26, 2006)
Although concerns were raised by two individuals, the environmental evaluations did not identify any issues that would preclude purchase of the property. North Thurston Public Schools was satisfied with the appraisal amount and the School Board members approved sale of the property to LOTT at their November 6 Board meeting. The LOTT Board of Directors approved purchase of the property at their November 8 Board meeting. The transaction was completed in December.
Construction will require a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Lacey, which was also required prior to construction of the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant. This will involve an additional public comment process. LOTT submitted an application for the Permit on January 16, 2007.
In addition to a future plant site, staff has also been actively looking for potential recharge sites that would be developed in the region to receive reclaimed water from this plant. Hydrogeologic investigations have been underway during 2006, but no site commitments were made during the year. After specific sites are identified, an additional SEIS process will be conducted for the potential groundwater recharge areas.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2�
Reclaimed Water Conveyance and Recharge Options Study
A Business Case Evaluation (BCE) of future Reclaimed Water Conveyance and Recharge Options was started by Brown and Caldwell in 2006, which could result in a significant revision to LOTT’s Wastewater Resource Management Plan. The goal of the BCE is to determine the most fiscally, socially, and environmentally responsible options for providing future groundwater recharge of Class A Reclaimed Water, and the best pipeline routes for reaching those sites, while also providing access to reclaimed water for each of LOTT’s partner jurisdictions. The ultimate goal is to ensure LOTT’s ability to continue to meet the wastewater treatment needs of the community. LOTT’s Technical Sub-Committee is serving as the Steering Committee for this study.
Under the “Highly Managed Alternative” adopted as LOTT’s Wastewater Resource Management Plan, the vision for meeting future treatment needs involved construction of three reclaimed water satellite plants – one in or very near each partner jurisdiction – to supplement the main Budd Inlet Treatment Plant. Together, these plants would provide for a total of 30 million gallons per day (mgd) of treatment and discharge capacity. Disposition of treated wastewater was based on 15 mgd permitted discharge capacity for the Budd Inlet Plant during summer months and 5 mgd of Class A Reclaimed Water recharge capacity at each of three satellite recharge areas. The new 2005 NPDES Permit for the Budd Inlet Plant reduces discharge capacity into Budd Inlet from 15 to 12 mgd. Based on preliminary evaluations, two of the three planned recharge areas are now expected to be capable of less than the originally projected amounts. Completing the BCE provides an opportunity to reassess that Plan and assure that all viable options are considered.
The scope of the BCE was developed to allow ranking of various options. During 2006, several options were developed, analyzed and grouped in various ways to determine optimum combinations of methods for providing Class A Reclaimed Water recharge and use capacity. Initial indications from the BCE suggest that it may be more cost-effective to expand reclaimed water production at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant than to construct all three separate satellite plants. For example, Class A Reclaimed Water produced at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant could be pumped to the Tumwater/south service area for use and/or recharge, significantly delaying or avoiding the need for a satellite plant in Tumwater.
To support the Business Case Evaluation, hydrogeologic investigations are being conducted to identify opportunities to recharge shallow groundwater in several areas of north Thurston County. The intent is to identify areas that allow for significant infiltration of reclaimed water to recharge aquifers, while not presenting problems associated with seasonally high groundwater elevations. One of the areas tested was the Tumwater property acquired by LOTT in 2005 as a future recharge site. Testing shows that this property can support recharge of 1 mgd. Other properties in Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater are also being evaluated. Those areas with the greatest potential will undergo additional scrutiny and testing to estimate recharge potential. This information will be used to inform decisions regarding property acquisition. As viable recharge sites are identified, pipeline routing corridors to reach those sites will also be defined. This analysis is expected to continue through 2007.
Reclaimed water distribution pumps
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
New Water Conservation Coordination Plan
On October 22, 2006, the LOTT Board of Directors approved a new 6-year Water Conservation Coordination Plan. Accompanying the Plan was a new Interlocal Agreement allowing for continued partnership between LOTT and the LOTT Partner jurisdictions’ water utilities to work together to achieve wastewater flow reduction and water conservation goals. The Plan includes continuation of several existing programs as well as implementation of numerous new activities.
Since 1997, the LOTT Alliance has funded indoor water conservation projects to achieve wastewater flow reduction in the LOTT service area. The Water Conservation Coordination Program is a cooperative effort of LOTT and the three water utilities operated by Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater. The Program has been guided by a 1996 Water Conservation Coordination Plan and an Interlocal Agreement, which was due to expire at the end of 2006. From 1997 through 2006, the Program has reduced wastewater flows by an estimated 580,000 gallons per day.
The consulting firm of HDR completed a Technical Analysis of Program Options in July 2006 that provided a frame of reference for the new Plan. The Water Conservation Coordinating Committee then developed an Implementation Plan to guide program implementation. Components of the new program include:
• Program Work Plan – The Program Work Plan provides a framework for implementation of the Water Conservation Coordination Program for the period 2007-2012. A list of projects and a timeline indicating stages of implementation for each is included. Some of the program options are existing projects that would be implemented much the same as they are currently. These would be re-evaluated periodically to ensure that continuation contributes to the overall conservation goal. Other existing projects will undergo changes. For example, the WaterSmart Technology program will be reorganized to include all rebates for industrial, commercial, and institutional customers (toilet, urinal and washing machine rebates were previously treated as separate programs) and the maximum rebate level will be increased from 50% to 75% of the installed cost. New projects, such as the toilet rebates and direct installation options require more exploration and assessment, and may be implemented at the pilot program level prior to full implementation.
• Annual 2007 Work Plan – The 2007 Work Plan provides a detailed timeline for tasks to be completed in 2007. The 2007 Work Plan is purposely ambitious, as much work is needed to revitalize the Water Conservation Coordination Program and set the stage to achieve the new conservation goal. Costs associated with the 2007 Work Plan are estimated to be $342,600. This total was included in the LOTT Alliance 2007 Budget.
• Interlocal Agreement – The Interlocal Agreement (ILA) was modeled after the ILA for the regional stormwater modeling program. It provides the authority for the LOTT Alliance and the four partner jurisdictions to work together to implement the Water Conservation Coordination Program for the period 2007-2012.
At the August 9 and September 13 meetings, the LOTT Board reviewed the core elements of the Implementation Plan, including updated Policy Statements and new Criteria for Project Prioritization, as well as the Interlocal Agreement. At the September 13 meeting, the Board requested that the Interlocal Agreement be forwarded to the jurisdictions for approval before they took formal action. Each of the four jurisdictions did approve and sign the Agreement.
The Plan is available for review on LOTT’s website at www.lottonline.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Vista Village Flow Reduction Project
For the first time in several years, the Board was asked to consider a flow reduction project to remove Inflow and Infiltration from the system. On May 24, the Board approved a motion authorizing expenditure of Flow Reduction Program funds, not to exceed $64,040, for a second phase of the City of Lacey Demonstration Project for Elimination of Infiltration from Community Systems.
In 1997, LOTT provided $198,270 to Lacey for a demonstration project involving a community system with high infiltration rates – Vista Village. The project at that time involved replacement of mainlines and sidesewers in one portion of the community system. The new proposal, presented as a second phase of the demonstration project, involves replacement of six manholes in the same community system.
As proposed, staff and consultants determined this project would be cost-effective and would provide a flow reduction benefit to LOTT during peak flow periods. As a demonstration project, it would also provide useful information about the relative value of manhole vs. mainline rehabilitation. Based on experience during high infiltration periods earlier this year, the project would remove an estimated 11,000 gallons per day from the sewer system. Construction was completed during 2006.
Industrial Pretreatment Program
The LOTT Environmental Compliance Supervisor administers a regional industrial pretreatment program. Through a set of regulations appended to the LOTT Interlocal Agreement, the four LOTT partner jurisdictions have adopted identical pretreatment ordinances. The LOTT Pretreatment Program’s focus is on Significant Industrial Users (SIU) and high-strength dischargers. The Program successfully meets federal requirements designed to prevent introduction of pollutants that could interfere with treatment plant processes, impact receiving water or biosolids quality, and/or threaten workers’ safety. The Program is mandated by the Department of Ecology as part of LOTT’s NPDES Permit. The Industrial Pretreatment Program permits and monitors 12 industries on behalf of LOTT and the City sewer utility that serves each industry. An annual Pretreatment report is submitted to Ecology and presented to the LOTT Board.
In coordination with the Flow Reduction Programs, LOTT continues to assist permitted industries with reducing water consumption and wastewater volumes. Of the ten SIU industries permitted by LOTT, four achieved zero-discharge status in 2006, with an additional SIU having only minimal batch discharges totaling 7,075 gallons during the year. Compliance by permitted industries remained high during 2006, with a total of only two violations among the ten permitted SIUs.
Fish Brewing Company
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2�
The following are highlights from LOTT’s Industrial Pretreatment Program for 2006:
Program Audit
Ecology performed a Pretreatment Program audit of LOTT’s program in 2006. No significant deficiencies were noted. Ecology did suggest that LOTT implement the following improvements to its program:
1. Update the Industrial User Survey procedures2. Update the facility inspection form3. Develop additional local discharge limits4. Develop local discharge limits specific to LOTT’s new reclaimed water plant5. Implement new EPA regulation provisions6. Develop further Minor Industrial User oversight7. Train a backup program administrator8. Submit pollutant loading, concentration and removal efficiency trends with the Annual Report
LOTT responded with proposals for program enhancements and changes that addressed all of Ecology’s required improvements and will implement them beginning in 2007.
Ordinance Amendments
The Interlocal Agreement for Wastewater Management by the LOTT Alliance directs the LOTT Alliance to conduct an annual review of the LOTT Discharge and Industrial Pretreatment Regulations and prepare any revisions necessary to better implement the Pretreatment Program. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modified the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403), effective November 14, 2005. These modifications included both mandatory and optional provisions. The mandatory provisions include the following:
1. Slug Discharge Control Plans2. Sampling and Reporting Requirements3. Defining Significant Non-Compliance4. Report Signing5. Resampling Requirements6. Utilizing Best Management Practices in Permits
The mandatory provisions require modifications to the LOTT Pretreatment Program, including the LOTT Regulations, Pretreatment Program Manual and Enforcement Response Plan. Reviews of the EPA amendments and affected LOTT documents were completed in 2006 and draft revised regulations have been developed by LOTT and are being reviewed by the partner jurisdictions. A finalized draft will be submitted to Ecology in 2007 for review and approval prior to being presented to the LOTT Board of Directors for approval.
Free RV Dump Site
LOTT maintains an RV
holding tank dumping
facility on the west side of
the Budd Inlet Treatment
Plant off Franklin Street.
Use of the facility is free of
charge to the public and is
utilized by approximately
3,000 RVs per year.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
Silver-Bearing Waste Treatment
LOTT installed a silver recovery unit at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant in 2006 and, in June, began receiving silver-bearing waste streams from small quantity generators and hobbyists. The purchase of the unit had originally been approved by the LOTT Board of Directors in the 2005 Budget. In order to coordinate with the Thurston County Environmental Health Department’s photo processing and x-ray facilities technical assistance campaign, the project was postponed until 2006, at which time two units were installed – one at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant purchased by LOTT and one, purchased by Thurston County, installed at their Waste and Recovery Center. A vendor was found by Thurston County Environmental Health that provides all required servicing, eliminating the need to ship used treatment canisters for silver recovery. LOTT and Thurston County purchased identical units, standardizing the machines and services used in this effort. Significant reductions in influent (35%), effluent (29%) and biosolids (17%) silver loadings at LOTT’s Budd Inlet Treatment Plant have resulted since implementing this program.
Multi-Jurisdictional FOG Program
In 2005, LOTT and its Partners expressed a desire to develop a fats, oils and grease (FOG) educational and abatement program throughout the LOTT service area. In 2006, LOTT and Thurston County launched a new program to collect used cooking oil at the Thurston County Waste and Recovery Center. An educational campaign to spread the word to consumers about the evils of dumping fats, oils and grease down the drain included a brochure distributed at local bulk-food stores, a press release to radio stations and an article in the local newspaper.
Biosolids Management Program
The LOTT Alliance is permitted for biosolids distribution and use through the General Permit for Biosolids Management, issued by the Department of Ecology. The Permit governs the quality of biosolids applied to the land or transferred to other facilities. Approximately 350 facilities in Washington are covered by the Permit, including LOTT, and the beneficial use facilities contracted to land-apply LOTT’s biosolids. The Permit requirements include, but are not limited to, addressing pollutant concentrations, pathogen reduction, vector attraction reduction, agronomic rates of application, methods and timing of application, buffers to wells and other sensitive areas, crop harvest restrictions, and site management and access. Local County Health Departments permit composting facilities in much the same manner.
The LOTT Alliance produced 5,790 wet tons of Class B Biosolids in 2006. Biosolids can be beneficially used as a fertilizer or soil amendment, reducing the use of agricultural chemical fertilizers and increasing soil productivity by improving soil texture and water-holding capacity. Class B Biosolids can also receive further treatment through composting and be a key ingredient in composted soil blends used for landscaping. LOTT operates its biosolids distribution and use program based on a Biosolids Management Plan, produced for LOTT in 1994 by CH2M Hill. Consistent with its Biosolids Management Plan, the LOTT Alliance maintains both temporary and emergency biosolids management options by securing contracts with multiple beneficial use or composting facilities.
Silver recovery unit at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant
Class B Biosolids
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
In 2006, LOTT continued to utilize its long-term contracts with one beneficial use facility and one composting facility, each accepting biosolids management responsibilities for consecutive six-month periods. One contract is with Fire Mountain
Farms, Inc. in Lewis County, for receiving LOTT’s biosolids for land-application to range, feed crop and forest lands during the six-month period of April through September. During the remaining months, LOTT contracts with Soil Key, a composting facility in Tenino, Washington, to receive LOTT’s biosolids for use as an ingredient for their composted soil blends. Recycle Services, an affiliate of Harold LeMay Enterprises, Inc. based in Centralia, Washington, is contracted to haul biosolids year-round to both locations.
14th Avenue/Kaiser Road Forcemain Environmental Evaluation
On June 7, 2006, LOTT issued a Determination of Non-Significance for a 14th Avenue Sewer Forcemain Extension, along with a completed Environmental Checklist. The project was designed to extend an existing forcemain under 14th Avenue, on Olympia’s westside, to connect with the new Upper Grass Lake Interceptor, previously installed by Olympia in Cooper Point Road. The project would also provide environmental benefits by rerouting wastewater flows out of the environmentally sensitive Grass Lake area.
An Addendum to the Environmental Checklist was released on August 17, after LOTT received new information from the City of Olympia about the presence of the Olympic Mudminnow in an unnamed creek conveyed through a culvert beneath 14th Avenue. Since LOTT’s Forcemain project would cross above the culvert, LOTT intended to avoid the creek. Also, LOTT determined that using Best Management Practices to control groundwater and erosion was expected to eliminate any risks associated with this project to the Olympic Mudminnow and other organisms living in the stream channel. Thus, while the Addendum added new information, it did not change the conclusions or the Determination of Non-Significance.
The following table lists the quantities of biosolids managed by LOTT and rates paid in 2006:
Contractor Wet Tons Rate Per Total Managed Wet Ton Annual Cost
Fire Mountain Farms: Beneficial Use Facility 2,591 $25.31 $65,575Soil Key: Composting Facility 3,199 $24.75 $79,166Recycle Services: Hauler 5,790 *$11.69 $67,686
TOTAL $2�2,�27
*Average rate
��th Avenue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Budd Inlet Scientific Study Data Retrieval
In August 1998, LOTT published the final report of a $3.1 million Scientific Study of Budd Inlet. Over the last couple years, LOTT has received multiple requests for the original data from the Budd Inlet Scientific Study. Most of these requests have been in relation to Capitol Lake studies. During 2006, LOTT contracted with Evans-Hamilton, Inc., the oceanography consultant that had all of the archived data, to locate and retrieve the information. CDs with all the final data from the archives were received in July. Lab and nutrient data include BOD, Capitol Lake flow, dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll, LOTT final effluent, nutrient budgets, particulate nitrogen, and plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton). Supporting data include CTD, water currents, drift cards, freshwater inputs (stream flow/water quality), sediments (benthic lander and traps) and weather (from the Olympia airport).
A Transition to Green Power
On November 8, 2006, the LOTT Board of Directors received a briefing about Puget Sound Energy’s Green Power Program and was asked to consider whether or not LOTT should participate. LOTT is the second largest consumer of electric power in Thurston County. Green Power represents a viable avenue for LOTT to contribute to the development of renewable, non-polluting energy sources, thereby maximizing benefits to the environment.
Based on the previous 12 months, the additional estimated cost would be $130,000 for LOTT to use 100% Green Power at a rate of 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. This represented a 10 percent utility budget increase for 2007 and equates to an additional $2.80 per year (23 cents per month) for each LOTT customer.
A Public Hearing about the Green Power proposal was held on December 6. Two individuals testified, both in favor of the proposal. Phone and email communications were received from two other individuals also expressing support. As a result, the Board authorized inclusion of Green Power in the 2007 Operating Budget, which was approved on December 13.
With the decision to move forward with Green Power for 2007, Puget Sound Energy committed to highlighting LOTT’s efforts in its promotions, and to working together on potential grants for local renewable energy projects. An “Environmental Leader” certificate was received from PSE in early January 2007. In addition, it is likely that LOTT would qualify for recognition under EPA’s Green Power Partnership program.
Green Power
“Green Power” is electricity generated from renewable,
non-polluting resources such as wind, solar, biomass,
geothermal, hydrogen/fuel cells, and wave or tidal
action. Because Green Power comes from sources that
never run out, like the wind and the sun, renewable
energy is limitless. Green Power is also clean and does
not add pollution to the atmosphere.
Chapter 4
Maximizing Operational Efficiency
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2�
Chapter 4Maximizing Operational Efficiency:The Budd Inlet Treatment Plant
Introduction
The Budd Inlet Treatment Plant (BITP) was the focus of significant attention during 2006, featuring award-winning performance, completion of the long-awaited Master Plan for upgrading its facilities, preparing for significant improvements to come and the first full distribution and use of reclaimed water. As the heart of LOTT’s entire system, the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant is a focal point of the Board’s 2006 goal to safeguard the long-term operational viability of existing and planned LOTT treatment facilities.
Outstanding Treatment Plant Award
Representatives from the Washington State Department of Ecology presented LOTT with the “Outstanding Wastewater Treatment Plant” award at the LOTT Board meeting on August 9, 2006. The award is granted to treatment plants that achieve full compliance with their discharge permit. Of approximately 300 wastewater treatment plants statewide, the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant was one of only 46 plants to receive the award based on 2005 performance. Compliance is evaluated based on effluent limits, monitoring and reporting requirements, spill prevention planning, pretreatment and other regulatory activities. The award is testament to the hard work and dedication of LOTT staff, as well as to community support for LOTT’s mission. That support makes it possible for LOTT to build and maintain the infrastructure – tools, equipment, technology and facilities – that are essential to achieve full compliance. Operations staff members were on hand to receive the award, which is displayed proudly in the lobby of the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant.
Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant
For the first time in LOTT’s 30-year history, LOTT began sending a portion of the water it treats back out into the community for beneficial use. The product is Class A Reclaimed Water from the Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant, which is the newest addition to the BITP. Although the new sand filter system has been in operation since 2004, the Class A Reclaimed Water produced there had primarily been used in-house, for cleaning and process uses associated with the Treatment Plant. In 2006, the City of Olympia began supplying the reclaimed water to three users to meet their irrigation needs. The Port of Olympia, the State Department of General Administration, and the City of Olympia Parks Department connected to the purple pipe network and began using Class A Reclaimed Water to water landscaping along Marine Drive, Heritage and Marathon Parks, and Percival Landing.
With customers depending on a consistent supply of reclaimed water, uninterrupted operation of the Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant became a focus during the summer months. Unexpected shut-downs of the Plant for maintenance and repairs resulted in customer concerns and extra effort by LOTT staff, as they worked with the City of Olympia to minimize impacts to reclaimed water customers. LOTT and City staff worked to develop a communication plan to provide notice of plant shut-downs and to shift non-vital plant maintenance to times when irrigation water was not in use. Lessons learned from serving the first of the reclaimed water customers will help to guide development of utility infrastructure associated with the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant and future facilities.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Master Plan
The Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Master Plan was completed in July 2006 after three years of work. The Master Plan provides an update from the original list of improvements outlined in the 1998 Wastewater Resource Management Plan, along with a strategy to respond to changes in available Budd Inlet discharge capacity. The Master Plan focuses on increasing treatment efficiency, controlling costs, and retaining “good neighbor” status with the surrounding Downtown Olympia and Port community. The core of the Plan came from a study that evaluated the capacity of each of the Treatment Plant’s unit processes. From this evaluation, “pinch points” likely to limit treatment capacity in the future and projects necessary to alleviate those pinch points, were identified. The Budd Inlet Master Plan serves as a supporting technical document that will help guide the development of the annual Capital Improvements Plan. It also provided a starting point for the current Process Control Improvements Project and planning for the new Water Quality Laboratory and Administrative/Education Center.
Port Property Purchase
Acting on one of the topics from the BITP Master Plan, staff negotiated with Port of Olympia staff during 2006 about possible purchase of a strip of Port property along the southeast side of the Treatment Plant. With development continuing around the Plant, acquisition of this almost 2-acre parcel is important to LOTT to assure adequate space for future process facilities. Until the property is needed for facilities, the area could serve as a construction staging area for upgrades that are currently being planned. The southern section may be used for a portion of the planned Administrative/Education Center. Following extensive negotiations, a non-binding letter of intent was signed with the Port in January 2007.
New Laboratory and Administrative/Education Center
Planning for a new Water Quality Laboratory and Administrative/Education Center began in 2006 with selection of the architectural firm Miller/Hull Partnership for design services. A team comprised of LOTT staff members and one Board member was assembled to guide design. The team accompanied Miller/Hull on a tour of comparable facilities in the region. Miller/Hull also conducted a number of design charettes with the team to identify preferred and essential functions for each building. As one of their project objectives, the design team is working to achieve LEED certification for environmentally-responsible design and construction.
Concept designs for the Laboratory include remodeling and expansion of the current lab space to improve efficiency and upgrade air handling equipment to meet current standards. The Administrative/Education Center concept design includes a four-story structure, with an interpretive Education Center for the public, expanded office space and an Emergency Operations Center. The office space will enable staff currently working out of rented office space to move onto the Treatment Plant site. This includes the Engineering, Planning, Programs, and Administrative Services staff, and the Executive Director. The new structure will also feature a new and enlarged Board Room, so that LOTT will no longer have to lease space for that purpose.
Port of Olympia land purchase proposal outlined in blue.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3�
Other features of the overall design include a campus-like atmosphere, with a common lunch room, central garden, and a water feature utilizing reclaimed water that may flow to adjacent properties. The design team has worked closely with the Port of Olympia, the City of Olympia, and the Hands On Children’s Museum to create a broader design concept for redevelopment of a portion of East Bay that will serve the community as a whole.
Process Control Improvements
Many of the liquid stream facilities at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant will require improvements and modifications over the next several years. The changes will affect the Primary Sedimentation Tanks, the First Aeration Basin and the First Anoxic Basin. LOTT’s goals for the Process Control Improvements are:
• Provide treatment capacity for a maximum month flow of 28 million gallons per day (mgd) in 2027
• Provide hydraulic capacity to manage a peak hourly flow of 86 mgd• Produce high quality effluent with a maximum month Total Inorganic Nitrogen
(TIN) concentration of 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or less (see Chapter 7 for more information about how this helps maximize treatment capacity)
• Replace or rehabilitate existing primary sedimentation facilities• Minimize electrical power consumption• Minimize Microthrix bacteria and bulking sludge potential• Control primary scum processing and digester foaming• Minimize the need for supplemental carbon (methanol)• Meet a project budget target of $30 million or less
To select an engineering consultant to design the improvements, a design competition was held between two engineering firms – HDR and CDM. Both firms worked closely with LOTT staff members to evaluate existing processes and infrastructure and identify options for process improvements. In December 2006, they presented their Proposals and Conceptual Design Reports for the Process Control upgrades. HDR was selected to move forward with final design. HDR’s proposal included promising cost-saving measures such as rehabilitation of the existing Primary Sedimentation Tanks and realignment of the existing Aeration Basins, but components of both firms’ proposals will likely be included in the final Process Control Improvements design. Design work will extend through 2008.
Control System Automation Upgrade
In addition to Process Control improvements, another major project at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant involves the Control System, which was installed in 1992. Some of its components have reached the end of their useful life. The system controls 75% of all treatment process equipment and is vital to successful daily operations of the Treatment Plant. The Control System was provided by Metso Automation. With the help of CDM, a Request for Proposals was prepared for an engineering study to evaluate options for replacing the control system. Metso Automation was selected to conduct the engineering study and develop a comprehensive plan to upgrade the existing Metso system.
Metso developed a plan with several options for system replacement. Each option included upgrades that would benefit LOTT operations at the Treatment Plant. The upgrades include Ethernet capability, which will allow continuous operation of the Control System during the upcoming process improvements projects, ensures the upgraded system is compatible with any industry standard communications protocols and provides the capability to adapt the system to meet future expansion needs. The plan includes reuse of much of the present Metso proprietary equipment, which saves considerable cost and eliminates the need to shut down the system and lose automated control while new equipment is installed. The upgrade would have minimum impact on operations compared to the installation of any other type of system.
Major Upgrades Planned at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant
The Budd Inlet Treatment
Plant serves as the heart
of LOTT’s system and the
cornerstone of LOTT’s
Wastewater Resource
Management Plan. To ensure
continued reliable, safe,
cost-effective and efficient
operations at the Treatment
Plant, LOTT is planning over
$69 million in capital project
upgrades and additions over
the next several years, some
of which will change the
way wastewater is treated
at the Plant; others will add
new public education, staff
support and Board facilities.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
The LOTT Board reviewed the study findings and granted a $2.3 million contract to Metso Automation to complete the Control System upgrade. The upgrade is scheduled for 2007-2008. Including the Metso contract, the total project is expected to cost approximately $3.29 million.
Secondary Clarifier Rehabilitation
Construction on the Secondary Clarifier Rehabilitation project began in the summer of 2006. The project includes replacing the clarifier mechanisms, secondary scum handling equipment, and the Waste Activated Sludge and Return Activated Sludge pumping equipment. The project also includes installation of automated gates and an increase in the capacity of the mixed liquor channel to accommodate a peak flow rate of 112 mgd. Construction on Clarifiers 1 and 3 was completed in 2006. Clarifiers 2 and 4 will be replaced in the summer of 2007. The total project cost is estimated at $4.7 million.
Securing the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant
Efforts to complete a Stated Vulnerability Assessment were started in 2006 and will continue into 2007. LOTT purchased the Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool (VSAT), a software package that guides staff to evaluate risks and plan for risk mitigation. Several LOTT staff members traveled to San Francisco in August to complete VSAT training. Use of this tool will be on-going for the next several years to ensure that LOTT facilities are secure and risks are minimized.
In keeping with this focus on safety and vulnerability reduction, the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant was secured in 2006. Access to the Plant is restricted with locked gates and entries. Staff use automated key cards to gain access and members of the public must contact the front desk for entry, sign in, and be accompanied by staff at all times within the Treatment Plant.
Asset Management Program
Development of an Asset Management Strategic Plan began in 2004 led by the consultant team of Brown and Caldwell and Hunter Water Australia. During 2006, the process moved into the implementation stage with the hiring of an in-house Asset Management Coordinator. Once fully established, the Asset Management Program will be an ongoing effort to assess both repair and replacement needs and new capacity needs within the entire LOTT system.
Through 2006, a team of LOTT staff has been working to collect relevant information to develop an asset inventory and define criticality of those assets. This data is organized in a computerized maintenance management system, which tracks all work performed and money spent on any LOTT asset. The information this system stores can be used to determine when a piece of equipment will need to be serviced, when it has reached the end of its useful life, and when it will need to be replaced. This information also allows LOTT to budget and plan far in advance for equipment repair or replacement and even for building additional capacity. The system also identifies the weakest assets in LOTT’s system. This allows LOTT to focus planning efforts on the areas of highest risk first. Determining the risk of failure and the consequence of failure for each asset is a major part of the program.
At the policy level, in 2007, the Board of Directors will be asked to validate or redefine LOTT’s mission and core values, and define broad levels of service and measures of success. This information will be used as the basis for a Strategic Business Plan that will provide policy guidance for the Asset Management Plan.
Secondary Clarifier construction
Asset Management
Asset Management is a
structured program to
deliver defined service
levels, at an acceptable
risk, at the least life-cycle
cost of asset ownership.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
Performance Indicators
The tables below show 2006 performance indicators for the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant in comparison with previous years.
• Flow Volumes – Through most of 2005, the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant was permitted to treat an average of up to 22 million gallons per day during the wettest month of the year. Starting in October 2005, under a new NPDES Permit, flow was removed as a permit limit. Instead, LOTT’s discharges are now based on loadings. However, flow is still a useful indicator of the volume of wastewater being treated. The design capacity of the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant is 28 million gallons per day. LOTT’s flow volumes are heavily influenced by rainfall, because storm and sanitary sewers are combined in the oldest parts of the system (primarily the Downtown Olympia area).
• Biosolids Production – Biosolids production had decreased significantly in 2004 due to the closure of the Miller Brewing Company in early 2003, and subsequent operational changes at the Treatment Plant. Additional decreases occurred during 2006 as the result of improved sludge quality and dewatering through process control efforts.
• BOD and TSS Removal Efficiencies – LOTT’s permit requires 85 percent removal of Biochemical Oxygen Demand material (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
Volume of Wastewater Treated(million gallons per day, or mgd)
200� 2002 2003 200� 2005 2006
Average Daily 10.39 10.75 11.00 10.43 10.60 12.10Min Monthly Average 8.61 8.66 8.39 9.43 9.02 8.40Max Monthly Average 16.25 15.90 13.82 13.20 13.07 19.3Peak (Highest) Day 43.19 32.70 34.67 22.29 22.74 38.19
Volume of Biosolids Produced and Hauled
200� 2002 2003 200� 2005 2006
Total Wet Tons Produced �,�2� ��,32� �,3�� 5,660 6,70� 5,7��Average Wet Tons per Day 25.01 31.03 25.75 15.47 18.38 15.86Total Truck Loads Hauled 3�5 ��3 3�0 ��3 235 227Average Truck Loads per Week 6.1 7.9 6.5 3.5 4.5 4.4Average Wet Tons per Load 28.98 27.42 27.64 30.93 28.55 25.50
Volume of Wastewater Treated(million gallons per day, or mgd)
BOD and TSS Removal Efficiency
200� 2002 2003 200� 2005 2006
BOD 97.3% 98.1% 97.6% 97.8% 98.5% 97.3%TSS 97.6% 97.8% 97.1% 97.5% 98.4% 97.0%
Volume of Biosolids Produced and Hauled
BOD and TSS Removal Efficiency
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3�
Definitions
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) – Biological or chemical material
which consumes (demands) dissolved oxygen when introduced
into water bodies like lakes, rivers or marine water (Budd Inlet)
is called BOD. Maintaining adequate levels of dissolved oxygen
in receiving water like Budd Inlet is aided by restricting the BOD
(oxygen demanding materials) discharged into the water body. The
material is usually measured by concentration (milligrams per liter)
and weight (pounds). Through 2004 and most of 2005, the monthly
average BOD discharge from LOTT’s Budd Inlet Treatment Plant
was limited to 20 mg/L and 3670 lbs per day April through October.
Limits from November through March were 30 mg/L and 5504 lbs per
day. These limits are being substantially reduced in the new NPDES
Permit.
TSS (Total Suspended Solids) – Small particles of organic or inorganic
materials that float on the surface of, or are suspended in, sewage or
other liquids and which cloud the water are described as TSS. This
may include sand, mud, and clay particles as well as waste materials.
In 2004 and most of 2005, LOTT’s discharge permit allowed a
maximum monthly average discharge of 30 mg/L and 5265 lbs/day of
TSS. That limit will remain in the new Permit.
Chapter 5
Letting It Flow
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
Chapter 5Letting It Flow:Reclaimed Water in the Community
Introduction
The year 2006 was an exciting and historic one for LOTT. This was the first year that reclaimed water was being distributed to the community on a continuous basis. This new commodity is coming not just from one facility, but from two – the Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant and the newly constructed Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite. Two special events during the year helped address the Board’s goal to enhance and sustain community support for production, distribution and use of Class A Reclaimed Water. LOTT joined with Olympia in July to sponsor a community celebration of reclaimed water and, in October, LOTT held an open house for neighbors of its Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds and Groundwater Recharge site.
Making a “Splash!”: a Reclaimed Water Celebration
LOTT and the City of Olympia “made a splash” during the summer by kicking off their first uses of reclaimed water with a community event. Using free hot dogs, cookies, and purple snow cones as incentives, along with live music and water-oriented kids’ activities, the event attracted over 300 people on July 8, a warm, sunny Saturday. The event was held at Heritage Park, along the shore of Capitol Lake, which is one of the first sites to use LOTT’s Class A Reclaimed Water for irrigation.
Two booths provided educational information and displays – one focused on reclaimed water and one on water conservation. The local Hands On Children’s Museum provided a booth featuring a simplified sand filter into which kids could pour dirty water and watch it come out clean at the bottom.
A ceremony was held during which purple recognition awards were presented to the first three reclaimed water users – State of Washington Department of General Administration (GA), Port of Olympia, and City of Olympia – all of whom are using the water for irrigation in the Downtown Olympia area. The awards were followed by a “valve-turning ceremony,” with each of the dignitaries helping to turn a large purple valve wheel to “let it flow” as a section of the park’s irrigation system was turned on behind them. Valve-turners included Jay Manning, Director of the State Department of Ecology; Doug Mah, President of the LOTT Board of Directors; Mark Foutch, Mayor of Olympia; Steve Pottle, President of the Port Commission; Nathaniel Jones, Facilities Director for the State Department of General Administration; and LOTT Board Members Nancy Peterson and Cathy Wolfe.
Most of the visitors were excited about reclaimed water, expressing their support that it be used as a resource and recognizing the potential for serving at least a portion of the community’s growing demand for water. Comments such as “I think it’s a brilliant idea to use the water like this” were common. Others commented that this was a wonderful way to introduce reclaimed water to the community. Several people asked if the event would be an annual affair! “Splash” valve turning ceremony
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Hawks Prairie Ponds/Recharge Basins
Local partnerships were essential to the event’s success. The Hands On Children’s Museum hosted the kids’ activity area. Intercity Transit provided a shuttle bus for tours of LOTT’s Reclaimed Water Facility at its Budd Inlet Treatment Plant. Washington State GA staff helped with event planning and set up. A local Kiwanis Club barbequed the hot dogs, which were sponsored by Brown and Caldwell, the engineering firm that designed and managed construction of LOTT’s Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant. Numerous local and state agencies, businesses and the Olympia Downtown Association helped spread the word about the event.
In all, the event was a resounding success and a true celebration of a valuable new community resource. While the “Splash!” committee breathed a sigh of relief that all their work culminated in success, there is no rest ahead. More celebrations will be forthcoming…
The Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite Starts Operation
At almost the same time the first reclaimed water distribution was being celebrated, LOTT’s second reclaimed water facility, which is also the first Reclaimed Water Satellite in LOTT’s system, started operation. Wastewater diverted from the Martin
Way Pump Station, serving the core of Lacey’s urban area and a portion of Olympia, is treated at this Satellite. Although officially still in testing mode, the Plant has been consistently producing Class A Reclaimed Water since its startup.
The Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite consists of:• Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant;• Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds/Recharge Basins; and • Conveyance pipelines between the Plant and the Ponds/Recharge
Basins site, and between the Plant and the Martin Way Pump Station.
Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant
The Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant is the first satellite reclaimed water treatment plant and the first publicly-built membrane plant in the state. A membrane bioreactor system is used to treat wastewater to Class A Reclaimed Water standards. Construction of the Plant began in mid-2004 and was completed in spring 2006. This phase of construction includes tanks and equipment that allow treatment of up to two million gallons per day (mgd). The completed construction also included tanks for a 3rd mgd. Equipment for the 3rd mgd will be installed as a future project. Additional increments of treatment capacity will be added in the future, just in time to meet treatment needs, with the Plant eventually capable of treating 5 mgd.
In May, the newly constructed Plant was tested using potable water. In July, activated sludge from the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant was trucked in to seed the new Plant. Within three weeks, the Plant was producing Class A Reclaimed Water. By August, the Plant was running at one mgd. Only liquids are treated at this plant. Solid material is returned to the sewer and sent to the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant for treatment.
With start-up of the new Plant, operations, maintenance and process staff members have taken on new responsibilities. While the treatment processes are familiar to staff members who are used to working at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant, the equipment and controls at the new Plant are radically
different. Extensive training on major systems, including the biological, membrane bioreactor and grit removal systems, was completed in 2006. Training on the more minor systems and equipment will continue into 2007.
Budd Inlet Treatment Plant
Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant
Membrane filters
Grit cyclone
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
Challenges are expected with the start-up of any major facility, and the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant was no exception. It was designed to function as an automated facility, with sensors and monitoring indicators that trigger controls and manage the treatment process. Start-up of the Plant revealed several initial deficiencies that have required staff to manually conduct some of these monitoring and control functions until those challenges can be resolved. Issues with foam build-up and primary screening have also presented challenges, which continue to be addressed in 2007. Despite these initial operational issues, the Plant continued to produce high quality Class A Reclaimed Water through 2006 and staff members began regular monitoring and reporting to the State Department of Ecology for permit compliance. The experience and ingenuity of LOTT’s skilled staff members helped them meet many of these challenges and will continue to play a critical role in transitioning the new Plant from start-up mode to standard operation in 2007.
Conveyance Pipelines
Construction of the conveyance pipelines for the satellite system began in July 2005 and was completed in May 2006. Getting wastewater from the Martin Way Pump Station to the new Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant required installation of a 12-inch sewer line about 1,200 feet down and across Martin Way.
Three miles of 14-inch reclaimed water pipeline, color-coded purple, were installed to carry reclaimed water from the Martin Way Plant to the Hawks Prairie Ponds/Recharge Basins. This 14-inch purple pipeline runs from the Plant, north on Carpenter Road and east along Britton Parkway to the Pond site on Hogum Bay Road. Because the pipeline runs along heavily used traffic corridors, an intensive public information campaign was implemented during construction. Newsletters detailing project progress were updated weekly, posted at nine locations along the construction area, and distributed to local media, Intercity Transit, and other interested parties. By August, Class A Reclaimed Water from the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant was being pumped through the new pipeline to the Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds/Recharge Basins.
Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds/Recharge Basins
The Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds and Recharge Basins receive reclaimed water from the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant. This 41-acre site in northeast Lacey features five constructed wetland ponds and eight groundwater recharge basins. The ponds and recharge basins were designed and built to handle the full 5 mgd build-out capacity of the Martin Way Plant. Fulfilling one of the public values that guided LOTT’s long-range planning, the site provides multiple community benefits, including walking trails, benches, and valuable wildlife habitat. Construction of the Ponds/Recharge Basins began in 2004 and was completed in July 2006.
Following construction of the ponds, thousands of newly-installed wetland plants were sustained with water from the City of Lacey’s potable system. Class A Reclaimed Water from the Martin Way Plant replaced the potable water in the ponds in early August. Reclaimed water was allowed to flow from the ponds into the Recharge Basins for the first time on August 27. LOTT staff visit the site at least once a week to collect samples and complete maintenance functions. Grounds staff spend an average of one day per week tending to the thousands of plants at the site. Because of the relative isolation of the site, a security company was hired in 2006 to patrol the site at least once each evening.
Color-coded reclaimed water pipes
A wide variety of flowers, shrubs and trees thrive at the Hawks Prairie Ponds site.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3�
The park-like site and walking trails are already proving to be popular with the neighbors and wildlife. Wildlife spotted at the site includes bald eagles, heron, deer, ducks, and geese. As a result of questions from people using the trails, a map was prepared showing the walking distances around the ponds. Pet waste stations were installed in early September to encourage users of the site to clean up after their pets.
An Open House was held October 6 for neighbors of the Ponds/Recharge site. Invitations were distributed to nearby residential areas and businesses, and signs at the site advertised the event. An information booth was the focus of the Open House, with staff on hand to talk with neighbors about the purpose of the ponds and the benefits of reclaimed water. Fact sheets about reclaimed water, the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant and the Ponds/Recharge Basins site were provided, as well as light refreshments. The Open House was attended by residential neighbors, employees from adjacent commercial businesses, staff members from partner jurisdictions and LOTT Board members.
Cost of the Satellite
The entire Hawks Prairie
Reclaimed Water Satellite has
cost $32.7 million, including
all construction, engineering,
construction management and
associated costs. Costs broken
down by project include the
following:
Martin Way
Reclaimed Water Plant
$21.1 million
Hawks Prairie Reclaimed
Water Ponds/Recharge Basins
$7.2 million
Conveyance Pipelines
$4.4 million
As of the end of 2006, the
Ponds/Recharge Basins and
Conveyance Pipelines projects
have been closed-out. Final
punch list items remain to be
completed at the Plant.
0.1 mile0.5 mile0.4 mile0.4 mile0.1 mile
Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds
Friday, October 6*11 am to 2 pmHawks Prairie Pond Site3001 Hogum Bay Road NE*In case of heavy rain, we’ll postpone until October 9
For more information, call Lisa at 360-664-2333, # 1119.
Neighbor Appreciation
Open House
Join Us to Celebrate
Completion of the Hawks Prairie Ponds
Enjoy a Light Lunch - Free!
Walk the Trails and Look for Wildlife
View New Educational Displays
Learn More About LOTT’s
Reclaimed Water Program
Walking trails map with distance key provided for visitors of the Hawks Prairie Ponds/Recharge Basins.
Ducks and deer (above photo) are just some of the residents at the Ponds/Recharge site.
Dog waste station
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3�
Interpretive Exhibits
Both the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant and the Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds feature interpretive displays, which were installed in September 2006. The Interpretive Exhibits were designed by Lehrman Cameron Studio, with guidance from LOTT staff members and representatives from the interjurisdictional Reclaimed Water Policies Task Force.
Interpretive panels at the Martin Way Plant provide an introduction to Class A Reclaimed Water and an overview of LOTT’s long-range plan. Additional panels are technical in nature, providing illustrations of the treatment process and “green” aspects of the Plant’s design. They are designed to complement information provided by staff members during site tours.
At the Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds/Recharge Basins, entry signage provides an introduction and orientation to the site. Each of four large kiosks along the walking trails feature a series of three interpretive panels. One panel focuses on reclaimed water, another highlights a natural feature at the site, and the third corresponds to the rain garden located adjacent to the kiosk. Since the site is open to the public from dawn to dusk, the interpretive exhibits were designed as stand-alone sources of information for visitors browsing the site. Signs notifying visitors that reclaimed water is used for irrigation have been installed at both the Plant and Pond/Recharge sites. These are the same kinds of signs posted at community locations where reclaimed water is used.
Automation at the Hawks Prairie Satellite
One of the most asked about features of the entire satellite system is the level of electronic inter-connection, automation and control. All of the systems excepting the conveyance line have a series of monitoring stations, controls and computers that automate processes and connect with the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant. Ultimately, the system is very autonomous. However, it is interlaced with many levels of protection to ensure the quality of the product and the integrity of the facilities.
In order to ensure consistent operation, all of the systems are monitored 24 hours a day via the computer control system at LOTT’s Budd Inlet Treatment Plant (BITP). If something occurs in the system, alarms are electronically sent to the central control system, which notifies the operator on duty at the BITP. This operator must then determine the severity of the issue and visit the site if necessary.
The Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant has several computer systems to operate key portions of the Plant. The pump at the Martin Way Pump Station that sends wastewater to the Plant is controlled at the Martin Way Plant. The elevations of wastewater in the plant, determine the amount of wastewater that is pumped from the Pump Station.
There are numerous valves throughout the Plant that control where reclaimed water, wastewater and air flow. These valves are automated and are actuated by a computer depending on specific conditions and processes that are occurring. One example is the cleaning of a filter; an operator has to hit a button to initiate the process, but the majority of the process is automated. This involves filling a 14,000-gallon tank with water, adding cleaning chemicals, heating the water and recycling the cleaning solution through the filter tank.
Reclaimed water sign at the Ponds/Recharge site
Interpretive sign at the Martin Way Plant
14,000 gallon tank used for maintenance operations at the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant.
Four unique rain gardens were installed at each of the interpretive kiosks.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�0
Reclaimed water is monitored for many water quality parameters in several locations in the treatment and conveyance process. In fact, some of the permit requirements that allow LOTT to operate the Plant are more stringent than drinking water requirements. These monitoring stations are tied into the control system and allow the control system to adjust or stop processes if necessary. If for instance, something happens to one of the filters and substandard reclaimed water is produced, the control
system will automatically open a valve that sends the substandard reclaimed water into the sewer and to the BITP instead of being pumped to the ponds.
The pond site also has many controls. Each of the ponds has valves that allow operators to remotely stop flow into or out of a pond. There is a monitoring station at the ponds that alerts operators if substandard reclaimed water enters the facility. In the event that this were to occur, operators can close the first pond to contain the substandard water, giving them time to address whatever is causing the substandard reclaimed water.
State Reclaimed Water Permit Before any operation of a new reclaimed water facility can begin, it is necessary to obtain a State Reclaimed Water Permit. These permits are issued jointly by the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health. A draft permit for reclaimed water produced at the new Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant was issued for public review on January 9, 2006, with comments due by February 8. LOTT submitted comments, as did the Reclaimed Water Policies Task Force, which includes representatives from each of the four LOTT Partner jurisdictions. Following review of comments, Reclaimed Water Permit No. ST 6206 was issued in March with an effective date of April 1, 2006.
Hawks Prairie Satellite is an Award-Winner
LOTT and its contractors have received two awards for Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite facilities:
• The “Silver Award (2nd Place) in Engineering Excellence” was presented to LOTT and Brown and Caldwell by the American Council of Engineering Companies of Washington. The award was presented in recognition for design of the Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite Facilities. As a result of this state-level award, the project has also been forwarded to their national awards competition.
• The “2006 Excellence Award” was presented to LOTT and Hamer Electric by the Independent Electrical Contractors for the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant.
Computer system located at the Martin Way Plant
Chapter 6
Making Connections
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
��
Chapter 6Making Connections:Pipelines, Outfalls and Emergency Response
Introduction
The success of LOTT’s work depends heavily on the ability to collect and transport wastewater to the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant and the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant for treatment, and to relay the treated water to its intended destinations. From the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant, final advanced secondary effluent is piped to an outfall off the north end of the Port peninsula. Class A Reclaimed Water is piped to areas where it can be used, or to the Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds/Recharge Basins. Continual attention to these remote facilities is necessary to ensure their effective, efficient function. LOTT’s pipelines extend into all three cities and portions of unincorporated Thurston County. During 2006, LOTT worked on several different pipeline projects, entered into a new easement for the North Outfall, initiated a new Interlocal Agreement related to the Fiddlehead Outfall and completed new emergency spill response plans.
14th Avenue/Grass Lake Emergency Repair
On Tuesday, January 10, 2006, LOTT staff members were notified of a sewage spill at 14th Avenue in West Olympia, just upstream of LOTT’s old Grass Lake Interceptor. Staff responded immediately and determined that the cause of the sewage overflow was a collapsed sewer line. LOTT’s Executive Director declared an emergency and a contractor, IMCO General Construction, was hired to complete repairs. The overflow was stopped within two hours of LOTT’s notification of the spill. A by-pass pumping system was installed by the contractor by Tuesday evening, allowing the wastewater flow to be re-routed and emergency repair to begin. Because of the risk associated with open trench methods near saturated, steep embankments, a specialized subcontractor, Trenchless Construction, Inc., was hired to assist with repairs. A 400-foot long HDPE 10-inch pipeline was pulled into place behind a drilling apparatus and pipe-bursting machine. By Saturday, sewer flow was re-established through the new line. The cost of the emergency repair was $155,675. The project was completed with minimal disruption to the neighbors and with no disruption in service to sewer customers.
Interceptors
Interceptors are large main
sewer pipelines. Wastewater
from the city sewer collection
systems serving homes,
agencies, and businesses flows
into the interceptors, which
carry the wastewater to the
treatment plants.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�2
Assessment of Old Kaiser Road Forcemain
In light of the sewer line collapse and emergency repair at 14th Avenue/Grass Lake, LOTT staff members identified the need to evaluate the old Kaiser Road Forcemain. The pipeline connecting the Kaiser Road Pump Station, and the section of line replaced during the emergency repair, is over 7,000 feet long and more than 40 years old. Evaluation of the line confirmed that it is in need of replacement. A cost assessment was completed and the project was added to the Capital Improvements Plan. Replacement of the forcemain is anticipated in 2008. Total project cost is estimated at $2.7 million.
14th Avenue/Kaiser Road Forcemain Extension
At the east end of the forcemain under 14th Avenue, an extension of the pipeline was needed to connect it to the new Upper Grass Lake Interceptor, previously installed by Olympia in Cooper Point Road. The new Upper Grass Lake Interceptor and the 14th Avenue/Kaiser Road Forcemain Extension were needed for two purposes – to increase sewer capacity and to re-route the wastewater flows out of the environmentally sensitive Grass Lake area.
The Forcemain Extension project included installation of 1,200 feet of 10-inch ductile iron forcemain sewer pipe and 550 feet of 10- and 12-inch ductile iron gravity sewer pipe. The project extended from Cooper Point Road approximately 1800 feet to the west along 14th Avenue. Construction began in late September and was completed in early November. Total project cost was $488,575.
During construction, traffic was restricted to a single lane on 14th Avenue, with flaggers to direct motorists. A communications plan was implemented to keep the neighbors, motorists, and nearby public schools informed regarding traffic delays and project progress. Newsletters, updated biweekly, were posted at either end of the project area and delivered to local schools. Neighbors in the immediate area received a direct mail notice regarding the project and an email update list was developed to keep agency staff and interested public informed of project progress.
Martin Way Pipeline Rehabilitation
Construction to rehabilitate 2,136 feet of sewer pipeline under Martin Way began in November 2006. The pipeline was over 30 years old and in critical need of replacement. Analysis of the existing sewer line showed severe corrosion and risk of pipeline failure. Slip line technology – slipping new pipe through the old pipe using centralized jacking pits – was selected for this project. That approach avoided the need to dig up the entire street length of the project to remove and replace the old pipe. The project was designed in two phases to minimize traffic impacts. Phase 1 was located on Martin Way between Mary Elder Road and Lilly Road. It involved installation of a temporary jacking pit, a new 96-inch manhole, 24 feet of new sewer line, and slip lining of approximately 1,000 feet of sewer line. This phase was
completed in early January 2007. Construction on Phase 2 of the project, on Martin Way west of Sleater-Kinney Road, includes installation of a second temporary jacking pit and slip lining of 1,100 feet of sewer pipe. Phase 2 work will continue into 2007.
Both project areas affected traffic patterns and access to local businesses, public transportation, and apartments. A communications plan was implemented to keep neighbors, commuters, and the general public informed of potential impacts. Residents and business owners in the area received a direct mail notice and The Olympian published several notices regarding the project. Newsletters describing the project were posted at the Phase 1 site and hand-delivered to businesses in the immediate area. Electronic reader boards and flaggers directed motorists and pedestrians. LOTT staff coordinated
closely with staff from Intercity Transit and several business owners to ensure that public access to businesses and public transportation was not impeded.
Construction News14th Avenue NW Sewer Pipeline Construction
For InformationConstruction updates will be available every two weeks on signs posted near the start and end points of the construction along 14th Ave NW. Information is also available at www.lottonline.org. If you would like to receive email updates or if you have questions about this project, please contact Lisa Dennis-Perez at [email protected] or 360-664-2333, ext. 1119.
Alternative RoutesPlease use 20th Ave NW, Road Sixty Five, and Cooper Point Road as alternatives to the affected portion of 14th Ave NW (marked in red above). The westbound lane of 14th Ave NW east of Road Sixty Five will remain open during construction, but delays are expected. The routes marked in green above will be unaffected by the sewer pipeline construction.
An IntroductionIn September 2006, the LOTT Alliance will begin construction to install a sewer pipeline along 14th Ave NW from Cooper Point Rd west to 3147 14th Ave NW.
A start date for construction has not yet been determined, though it will likely begin in mid-September and last about six weeks. This newsletter is being produced to keep you informed about construction activities and potential traffic impacts.
MarshallMiddleSchoolHansen
ElementarySchool
RO
AD
SIX
TY F
IVE
Thank you for your patience as we complete this necessary work.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�3
R.W. Johnson Road/Mottman Road Sewer Replacement
Through an Inlerlocal Agreement between the LOTT Alliance and the City of Olympia, LOTT was able to replace 1,400 feet of sewer pipeline as part of a City of Olympia road construction project on Mottman Road, which has been renamed R.W. Johnson Road. During 2006, Olympia reconfigured and reconstructed Mottman Road from Black Lake Boulevard to 14th Avenue. Under that roadway, LOTT had an existing 24-inch diameter interceptor sewer pipeline that was built in 1972 and was in need of replacement. Collaborating with the City’s roadway project provided a cost-effective opportunity to replace this deteriorating line. Under the Interlocal Agreement, LOTT agreed to contribute an estimated $785,326 of the total estimated $2,900,000 project cost. Any overpayment or underpayment was to be reconciled between LOTT and the City within 30 days of discovery. The LOTT Board of Directors approved the Interlocal Agreement on April 12, 2006. Olympia completed the sewer project in October and the final roadwork after that.
DNR Outfall Easement
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for managing state-owned aquatic lands for the benefit of the public. As part of that responsibility, DNR issues and manages leases for easements across aquatic lands, including easements for wastewater treatment plant outfalls. LOTT’s outfalls for discharging treated water to Budd Inlet were covered under old easements that pre-dated LOTT’s existence. The original easements for both the North Outfall and the Fiddlehead Outfall were issued in May 1972 with the City of Olympia for a period of 30 years. Those easements expired in 2002. LOTT submitted an application for a new outfall easement in 2003, but DNR determined they would not issue a new easement until LOTT received its new NPDES Permit. That Permit was received from Ecology in late 2005, so work to develop the new easement resumed in 2006.
The new easement covers the North Outfall only, since it was determined that the Fiddlehead Outfall does not extend into the state-owned land. The easement imposes requirements that include reporting to DNR and progress toward implementation of reasonably practical disposal alternatives that reduce reliance on receiving waters of the State for disposal of wastewater effluent. LOTT’s efforts toward developing reclaimed water facilities are consistent with this requirement. The new easement is for a 30-year term. The LOTT Board of Directors approved the new Outfall Easement at a work session on September 27, 2006. DNR approval occurred on November 7.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
��
Fiddlehead Outfall Interlocal Agreement
While working on the DNR Easement, staff identified some historical record inconsistencies regarding ownership of the Fiddlehead Outfall. The Interlocal
Agreement that formed the LOTT Alliance identified joint facilities – including all those in the 1976 Agreement that formed the original LOTT Partnership. That Agreement refers to “the saltwater outfall” rather than citing both the North Outfall and Fiddlehead. The exhibit that was attached shows both, but Fiddlehead was not labeled. Historical documents are clear that LOTT owns improvements to both outfalls. However, the 1979 modification to the Fiddlehead Outfall resulted in removal of the diffusers; thus, those are no longer there to own or maintain.
In addition, actual use of the Fiddlehead Outfall has changed over the years. Modifications were made at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant in 1997 to discontinue LOTT’s daily use of that outfall for treated effluent, restricting future LOTT use to emergencies only. It’s now used primarily by the City of Olympia as a municipal stormwater outfall.
Clarification of the ownership issue was needed in conjunction with completing the new DNR Easement. An Interlocal Agreement between the LOTT Alliance and the City of Olympia was proposed to split ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the Fiddlehead Outfall pipeline into two sections. LOTT assumes ownership from the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant to Capitol Way; Olympia owns from that point to the discharge point. The Fiddlehead Outfall Interlocal Agreement was approved by the LOTT Board of Directors on August 9, 2006.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Plan
LOTT worked in conjunction with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. to complete a “Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Plan” (ERP) in June 2006. The Plan provides a higher level of service to LOTT customers by minimizing the potentially damaging effects (such as the threat to public health and the environment) of sanitary sewer overflows. The Plan also correlates with the latest EPA guidance regarding Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance.
The ERP is designed to ensure that every report of a sewage overflow from a sanitary sewer in the LOTT service area will be immediately dispatched to the appropriate crews so that the overflow can be confirmed and the effects of the overflow can be minimized with respect to impacts to public health, adverse effects on the beneficial uses and water quality of surface waters, and customer service. The ERP further includes provisions to ensure public safety pursuant to the directions provided by the Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Departments and the Washington State Department of Health ensuring that notification and reporting is made to the appropriate local and state authorities. The policies and guidelines of this document cover all overflows within the LOTT system.
The primary objectives of the ERP are to protect public health and the environment, satisfy the regulatory agencies, satisfy the waste discharge permit conditions that address procedures for managing sewer overflows and minimize the risk of enforcement actions against the LOTT Alliance.
Location of the Fiddlehead Outfall
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�5
Additional objectives of the ERP are as follows:
• Provide quality customer service• Protect wastewater treatment plant and collection system personnel• Protect the collection system, wastewater treatment facilities and all
appurtenances• Protect private and public property beyond the collection and treatment facilities• Provide for the protection of surface water and the environment• Protect the region’s groundwater by limiting the release of sewage into the
ground or infiltrating surface waters
Washington State Department of Transportation Interlocal Agreement
Development of LOTT’s Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Plan (ERP) revealed the need for a reciprocal agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for response to sewer overflow emergencies. The ERP provides coordinated response to sewer overflow emergency situations utilizing the personnel and equipment of LOTT’s partner cities and Thurston County. This additional Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT provides the same benefit to LOTT to utilize WSDOT personnel, labor, materials and equipment, on a cost reimbursable basis, to respond to sewer emergencies. The Agreement further stipulates that any request for assistance be made by the LOTT Executive Director or Facilities Director. It also stipulates procedures for requesting services utilizing a special Task Order form, and for managing the requested work. Similarly, this Agreement also gives WSDOT the ability to use LOTT resources, also on a cost-reimbursable basis, in the event of emergencies to which it responds.
This Agreement recognizes that, during an emergency situation, it is in the public interest to make the most efficient use of labor, equipment and materials by sharing them on a reimbursable basis when available. These reciprocal resources could be important in responding quickly and efficiently to sewer overflow or similar situations. The Agreement clarifies the responsibilities, and thus reduces the opportunity for misunderstanding associated with coordinating emergency response. It was approved by the LOTT Board of Directors on June 14, 2006.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�7
Chapter 7
Meeting Future Needs
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�7
2006 Flows and Loadings
Report
Chapter 7Meeting Future Needs:Capital Improvements Planning
Capital Budget and CIP Summary
LOTT’s Wastewater Resource Management Plan is also known as “The Highly Managed Plan” because it relies on a constant process of data gathering and monitoring, leading to annually updated Capital Improvements Plans (CIPs). In 2006, the model used to predict capacity needs was extensively recalibrated, resulting in a comprehensive refinement of flows, loadings and capacity projections. This has resulted in a high level of management confidence in the new projections. This is important because projections resulting from analyzing the data play a critical role in the choice of, and timing for, capital projects to be included in each annual CIP.
Also affecting development of the CIP, 2006 was the first full year of operation under LOTT’s new NPDES performance-based discharge permit. A clear link between operational efficiency and treatment capacity has now been defined, which led to identifying some system improvement needs. Process control improvement options are being evaluated in an effort to maximize treatment capacity at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant. This will further affect capital project choices and timing for the future.
Building the CIP
Continuous and accurate projections of future wastewater flows and loadings are essential in planning for new wastewater treatment capacity. To support and strengthen this ongoing planning process, the underlying data findings were described in three newly reformatted 2006 reports – a Flows and Loadings Report, Capacity Assessment Report, and Inflow and Infiltration Report. Copies of the full reports can be found in the “library” on LOTT’s website at www.lottonline.org.
• Flows and Loadings Report – The primary goal of the annual Flows and Loadings Report is to define the current and projected wastewater characteristics of the LOTT service area in terms of both current and future wastewater flows and pollutant constituents (loadings).
• Capacity Assessment Report – The Capacity Assessment process uses the projected flows and loadings to analyze LOTT’s system and identify when and where limitations will occur.
• Inflow and Infiltration Report – The Inflow and Infiltration Report quantifies the amount of unwanted water that is entering the sewer lines.
Over the past six years, reports were developed by Brown and Caldwell under a Plan Management contract. In 2006, the process of bringing this work in-house was begun by hiring LOTT’s first Utility Planner, who assumed responsibility for ongoing data gathering and monitoring, and development of these critical annual assessments. The information from these reports is used to identify, evaluate and help prioritize capital projects included in the annual Capital Improvements Plan.
“Inflow” is surface water
from rain or snowmelt events
that enters the sewer via
manholes, flooded sewer
vents, illicitly connected
storm drains, basement
drains and other means.
“Infiltration” is groundwater
that enters the sewer, usually
through leaky sewer pipe
joints, manholes and service
connections.
2006Capacity
AssessmentReport
2006Inflow & Infiltration
and Flow MonitoringReport
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
��
Model Recalibration
For the development of this year’s Flows and Loadings Report, the Capacity Assurance Planning Environment (CAPE) computer model was completely repopulated and calibrated. CAPE was developed by Brown and Caldwell as the primary tool for projecting LOTT’s future treatment, discharge/use, and conveyance capacity needs. Enhancements in the model included:
1. New population forecasts from the Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC), which were updated in 2006;
2. Additional flow monitoring data, collected as part of LOTT’s ongoing inflow and infiltration evaluation program;
3. Updated timelines for sewering of non-sewered areas, provided by each of the jurisdictions (Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater); and
4. Updated sewer line maps, allowing for a more precise delineation of the current sewered area.
Results of the more precise analysis include a decrease in sewered area and reduced projections of sewered population. The refined sewered area is reduced from 23,100 acres to 19,387 acres. Within this area, LOTT currently (in 2006) serves an estimated residential population of 80,331 and employment population of 83,620. The sewered residential population is projected to nearly double to 159,789 by the year 2021.
Wastewater Flow Profiles
The base sanitary flow, which is the lowest 7-day average flow, also decreased from last year’s projections – from 8.32 million gallons a day (mgd) to 8.27 mgd. This is likely the result of the extremely dry summer in 2006 and the cumulative effects of the various water conservation programs. The additional flow monitoring data allowed for a more accurate calculation of each jurisdiction’s wastewater generation rate.
The calculated rates reflect a general decline (23 percent since 2002) in actual per capita wastewater generation compared to previous years. Wintertime (November through February) drinking water production numbers obtained from the jurisdictions support this finding. These per capita wastewater generation rates are multiplied by the projected ERUs to estimate future wastewater system demands.
Wastewater Generation Rate Profiles
Source Base Flow Residential Commercial (MGD) (gal/capita/day) (gal/employee/day)
Lacey 2.634 71.0 33.0Olympia 4.313 63.7 34.8Tumwater 1.730 60.9 33.0Other (TESC, etc.) 0.150
Weighted Average �.�27 66.0 3�.3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
��
ERU Growth and System Capacity Plan
Based on population and employment projections within the sewered area, the table below displays projected total ERUs and new ERUs to be added to the system through 2012.
LOTT Operating Capacity
In addition to projecting future sewered population and employment, LOTT needs to evaluate available capacity in its system. LOTT considers three types of capacity – treatment capacity, discharge/use capacity and conveyance capacity. Together these are described as operating capacity.
Treatment capacity is defined in terms of flows and loadings. “Flows” refers to the volume of water that needs to be handled, while “loadings” refers to the strength of the constituents in the water. LOTT’s new NPDES Permit, effective October 1, 2005, no longer uses flow volume as a permit limit. Instead, the new Permit limits are based on loadings. This has changed the way LOTT needs to consider future treatment and discharge/use capacity needs.
During the dry summertime period, the most restrictive period of the year for discharges of treated water to Budd Inlet, Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) is now the most restrictive operating limit for the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant. The tables below show the volume of water LOTT could discharge at two different TIN limits – the current 3.0 mg/L permit limit and a lower limit of 2.25 if greater process control efficiencies can be obtained. For both examples, the table factors in 1.5 mgd of reserve capacity as a capacity buffer, ensuring that LOTT would be able to respond to unexpected changing conditions.
When operating capacity from the new Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant is added, net system operating capacity totals 12.0 to 15.8 mgd depending upon what level of TIN can be achieved.
Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Operating Capacity
Source At 3.0 mg/L At 2.25 mg/L TIN TIN
Budd Inlet Treatment Plant (BITP) 11.5 mgd 15.3 mgdReserve (freeboard) 1.5 mgd 1.5 mgdBITP Operating Capacity (less reserve) 10.0 mgd 13.8 mgd
Total LOTT Operating Capacity
Source At 3.0 mg/L At 2.25 mg/L TIN TIN
BITP Operating Capacity (less reserve) 10.0 mgd 13.8 mgdMartin Way Reclaimed Water Plant 2.0 mgd 2.0 mgdNet Operating Capacity 12.0 mgd 15.8 mgd
Counting ERUs
Connections are counted as Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs). LOTT defines an ERU as 900 cubic feet of wastewater volume per month. This is the amount pre-sumed to be discharged by an average connected single-family household. For multi-family hous-ing, such as apartment complexes, each living unit counts as 7/10 of an ERU. Commercial and industrial dischargers are charged according to water consumption converted to ERUs.
Projected Total and New ERUs
Projected ERUs 2007 200� 200� 20�0 20�� 20�2
Lacey 16,630 17,813 19,075 20,408 21,475 22,600Olympia 24,899 25,403 25,949 26,538 27,219 27,934Tumwater 8,085 8,477 8,889 9,318 9,763 10,225
Total Projected ERUs ��,6�� 5�,6�3 53,��3 56,26� 5�,�56 60,75�
Projected New ERUs Lacey 1,107 1,183 1,262 1,333 1,067 1,126Olympia 363 504 546 589 681 715Tumwater 373 392 412 430 445 462
Total ProjectedNew Connections �,��� 2,07� 2,220 2,35� 2,��2 2,303
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
Flow Projections
Comparing the new lower ERU projections with available operating capacity is the next step in determining capacity needs. Using the new flow projections, the figure below shows the comparison between the flows projected for the 2006 CIP and the lower ones now projected for the 2007 CIP. A need for new capacity by 2011 or 2012 was identified in the 2006 CIP. As the new blue line indicates, that need is now later in time.
Average Summer Flow Projections
Under the new NPDES Permit, with its performance-based loadings approach, the timing for adding new treatment capacity to the system is dependent upon what level of operating efficiency the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant can achieve. The pair of line graphs that follows compares timing for new capacity based on 3.0 and 2.25 TIN limits.
The graphs visually show the presence of the 1.5 mgd reserve capacity at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant and include 2 mgd of treatment at the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant. When projected flows reach the reserve capacity threshold, starting at the 12.0 mgd line, it’s time to bring a new increment of capacity – of both treatment capacity and discharge/use capacity – on-line. With the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant operating at 3.0 TIN level in the summer, new capacity would be needed in 2013. By operating at a 2.25 TIN level, this new increment could be delayed further.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5�
Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Capacity
At 3.0 mg/L TIN
Caution needs to be used in reviewing this lower graph, however, because TIN is not the only limiting factor. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and operational complexities during the cooler shoulder seasons (another new feature of the new NPDES Permit) are other factors that would affect timing for new capacity. Although the lower, more efficient TIN figure suggests potential delay until 2020, BOD and shoulder season considerations would likely cause the need to fall somewhere between 2015 and 2020.
At 2.25 mg/L TIN
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
CIP Project Categories
System Upgrade Projects
System Upgrade Projects include improvements or capital modifications of existing facilities. Upgrades may be necessary to improve efficiency or meet higher water quality standards for water treated and discharged or distributed for use. One of the public values guiding LOTT’s operations is to maximize capacity at existing facilities before building new ones. To achieve lower TIN limits, thus allowing more wastewater to be treated at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant, significant process control upgrades will be needed. LOTT has initiated a design competition with two major engineering firms, HDR and CDM, to recommend the best combination of improvements. A Folded Tanks project and replacement of the Primary Clarifiers are listed on the 2007 CIP as placeholders. Recommendations from the design competition could result in future changes to this project list.
New Capacity Projects
New Capacity Projects are those that provide new facilities to serve additional wastewater flows. Consistent with the Wastewater Resource Management Plan, future
treatment capacity could take several forms, including construction of a new Chambers Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite, addition of a 3rd increment of treatment capacity at the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant, and/or adding membranes at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant to produce more Class A Reclaimed Water. Increasing reclaimed water production at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant would allow for the potential to distribute that water to Tumwater and possibly other locations via pipelines. LOTT has a major study in process to evaluate groundwater recharge and pipeline alternatives. Brown and Caldwell is conducting that study. Membrane filtration, recharge and conveyance projects are included on the 2007 CIP as placeholders pending results of that analysis.
The 2006 CIP envisioned construction of the Chambers Prairie Satellite by 2012. The 2007 CIP still includes that project, but pushes it out to 2015. The ultimate decision between building that Satellite or the other
options for adding new capacity may be influenced by other considerations, such as when and where reclaimed water is needed.
Asset Management/LERF
The Asset Management/LERF category includes implementation of LOTT’s Asset Management Program and equipment replacement projects. Projects in this category are funded through the LOTT Equipment Replacement Fund.
Land was acquired in Chambers Prairie in 2006
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
Funding Allocations by Category
Funding sources for each CIP project generally involve some combination of new connection fees (CDCs) and monthly rates (WSC), and may include LERF funds. The allocation between CDCs and WSC depends on the type of project involved, as specified by Exhibit F of the Interlocal Cooperation Act Agreement for Wastewater Management by the LOTT Wastewater Alliance, dated November 5, 1999, and approved by the LOTT Partners as of January 2000:
• System Upgrade Projects – Funded 9% from CDCs and 91% from the WSC.
• New Capacity Facilities – Funded as a general average 88% from CDCs and 12% from the WSC. The detailed split is based on the specific facility
involved – 90%/10% for satellite treatment plants, 80%/20% for reclaimed water ponds, recharge basins, and associated pipelines, and 100% for new sewer interceptors, piping and pipe modifications to convey wastewater to the satellite plants.
These allocations are applied as budgets for each project are established. Consistent with the specified allocations, LOTT has only split capital project costs on either a 9% CDC and 91% WSC basis for system projects, or 88% CDC and 12% WSC for new capacity projects. Some of the upcoming projects on the Capital Improvements Plan may not fit these definitions as clearly as past projects. As more of the capital improvements become reality, or go through more rigorous design, these options for splitting the cost are not always realistic. As the LOTT Board considers future rate increases, the balance of assigning costs between the CDC and the WSC may need to be reconsidered.
Capital Project Financial Metrics
The bar graph below displays cash investment in projects. This is a reflection of equity based on how heavily the utility relies on borrowed money to fund capital projects. LOTT maintains a very healthy debt to equity ratio in projects, based on comparing the total projected dollars in funded projects to projected dollars borrowed. This ratio has dropped slightly from 2006 projections at 58% to 2007 projections at 57%, primarily due to the rise in construction costs.
Projected Cash Investment in Capital Projects 2003-2025
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5�
The table and bar graph below represent the current estimate of balance between the cost of new capacity and the Capacity Development Charge (CDC). The comparison is derived from the data in the table as projections of cost from 2003 through 2025, and projections of revenues based on new connections. It must be recognized that the accuracy of these numbers is subject to the vagaries of attempting to project costs and revenues out over the next 18 years. The level of reliability of these projections is most likely in the range of plus or minus 15%.
Currently the estimated costs and revenues appear to be relatively well balanced. However the current costs reflect only brick and mortar construction and interest on debt. There may be future discussions as to whether costs should be assigned to new capacity based on staff, and related ancillary costs, utilized to support new development. Because LOTT develops new capacity “just in time” the utility invests significant staff and other resources in the ongoing development activities, such as planning, engineering, land acquisition, permit acquisition and other related activities. Current estimates put this investment at approximately 15% of operations cost annually. All operational costs are charged to the WSC at this time.
CDC Revenue vs. CDC Cost 2003-2025
Estimated CDC Cost $196,978,607 Estimated CDC Revenue $193,575,514Average Rate Cost $3,597Average Rate Charge $3,535Average Cost vs. Average Charge % 98%
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
CIP Project List The following table provides the complete project-by-project listing for the new CIP. For 2007, the list of projects has been restructured and grouped into categories with total dollar amounts at the top of each category for easy reference. Narrative descriptions for each of the projects follow the table.
A major challenge in developing the CIP has been the rapid rise in construction costs. Many of these projects are “place holders” for known future needs and detailed cost estimates have yet to be developed, however staff and consultants reviewed all costs projected in the CIP and adjusted those costs based on the best current available information.
2007-2025 Capital Improvements Plan
Year Year Total Auth. Online Project Cost
SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECTS $��3,766,35� BUDD INLET TREATMENT PLANT $6�,�3�,3�0
1 SOP’s and Electronic O&M Manuals 2005 2008 $326,025 2 Secondary Clarifier Rehabilitation 2005 2008 $5,404,300 3 Administrative-Education Center 2005 2008 $9,340,000 4 Lab and Control Center 2005 2008 $3,322,000 5 Digester Roof Cover Repair 2006 2006 $567,000 6 Foam Control Flow Modifications 2006 2006 $378,000 7 Digester Sludge Improvements 2006 2008 $895,540 8 Surveillance Cameras 2006 2007 $224,326 9 Analytical Field Samplers 2006 2006 $93,240 10 Scum Handling System 2006 2006 $0 11 Control System Upgrade 2004 2009 $3,290,490 12 Port of Olympia Land Purchase 2007 $3,912,300 13 Thickening System Equipment Replacement 2006 2008 $470,631 14 Effluent Meter Installation 2007 $782,460 15 Instrument Air 2008 $99,504 16 Primary Sedimentation Tanks 2005 2012 $23,423,239 17 Folded Tanks 2006 2012 $11,798,372 18 Emergency Power Phase II 2006 2010 $1,676,381 19 North Outfall Evaluation/Upgrade 2015 $3,434,501 20 Class A Solids Project Unknown $0 CONVEYANCE PROJECTS $�5,25�,0�3
21 Kaiser Road Forcemain 2005 2006 $651,000 22 Kaiser Road Pump Station Improvements 2005 2007 $1,935,772 23 Martin Way/Sleater-Kinney Interceptor Repair 2005 2007 $1,845,879 24 Southern Connection Line Abandonment 2006 2006 $142,500 25 Percival Creek/Mottman Road Interceptor 2006 2008 $3,051,594 26 Upper Grass Lake Interceptor 2006 2006 $1,158,998 27 Kaiser Road Forcemain Replacement 2008 $2,669,888 28 Henderson/Indian Creek Improvements 2006 2010 $462,725 29 East Corridor Upgrade (Marvin to Carpenter) 2006 2012 $3,339,688
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
Of the $301,326,557 in total CIP project costs, $254,826,066 represents new anticipated costs. The remainder includes project costs already spent for projects that were under way in 2006 or before.
Year Year Total Auth. Online Project Cost
MISCELLANEOUS $2�,070,000
30 Annual Miscellaneous Professional Service 2004 2025 $4,000,000 31 Internal Engineering Support 2006 2025 $12,000,000 32 Flow Monitoring 2006 2025 $3,000,000 33 Flow Reduction Programs 2006 2025 $4,400,000 34 Budd Inlet Habitat Improvement Project 2006 2010 $1,890,000 35 Miscellaneous Small Projects 2006 2006 $3,780,000 NEW CAPACITY PROJECTS $�70,2�3,�5� BUDD INLET RECLAIMED WATER PLANT $53,6�2,235
36 Tumwater Land Acquisition 2004 2006 $2,000,000 37 Membrane Filtration (3 mgd) 2022 $22,617,209 38 Tumwater 3 mgd Recharge & Conveyance 2005 2022 $29,075,026 39 Other 4 mgd Recharge & Conveyance 2025+ $0 HAWKS PRAIRIE SATELLITE $56,573,���
40 Martin Way 2 mgd Plant 2005 2006 $26,665,533 41 Ponds/Recharge Basins 2005 2006 $7,591,378 42 Conveyance Pipelines 2005 2006 $6,308,652 43 3rd mgd Equipment 2016 $4,121,402 44 4th mgd 2023 $11,886,526 45 5th mgd 2025+ $0 46 Recharge Basins Expansion to 8 mgd 2025+ $0 CHAMBERS PRAIRIE SATELLITE $60,0��,�25
47 Land Acquisition 2005 2006 $3,600,000 48 1 mgd Plant 2015 $31,802,245 49 Recharge/Conveyance 2015 $10,652,722 50 Mullen Road Improvements 2009 $2,361,699 51 SE Olympia Diversion 2025+ $0 52 Lacey Boulevard Diversion 2015 $11,601,459 53 2nd mgd 2025+ $0 ASSET MANAGEMENT/LERF $�7,276,353
1 Asset Management Program 2003 2008 $3,300,000 2 Estimated AMP Projects (AMP (LERF)) 2006-2025 2025 $13,976,353
Total CIP Project Costs $30�,326,557
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
CIP Project Descriptions
Summary descriptions for each project on the CIP list are provided below. The projects are numbered to match their position on the preceding table.
Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Projects
1. SOP’s and Electronic O&M Manuals – The Budd Inlet Treatment Plant has never had a comprehensive set of Standard Operating Procedures. Additionally, SOP’s will be needed for all of LOTT’s satellite facilities. A consultant was hired in the Fall of 2005 to begin the large task of quantifying SOP needs, providing a hierarchy of the SOP’s, to create a production and review process for SOP’s, and to produce as many SOP’s as time allows. SOP development is on-going.
2. Secondary Clarifier Rehabilitation – In 2004, the four secondary clarifiers’ effluent discharge channels (launders) were replaced at a cost of $2.2 million. This next phase replaces the clarifier mechanisms, secondary scum handling facilities, and Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) and Return Activated Sludge (RAS) pumping facilities. Construction began in summer of 2006.
3. Administrative-Education Center – To bring all LOTT staff onto the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant site and provide space for a new education center with interpretive exhibits, a new Administration Building is needed. Three site options were considered as part of the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Master Plan process. The site at the south end of the Treatment Plant, to the south of the existing Administration building, was chosen. The Miller/Hull Partnership was selected to design this center and the new Lab and Control Center. Design began in 2006. Final design will be dependent on the outcome of the proposed purchase of an adjoining piece of property from the Port of Olympia (Project #12). The project is being coordinated with three other public projects currently being planned in the same general area – a new Olympia City Hall, a new Hands On Children’s Museum, and the Port’s overall East Bay redevelopment. The completion date for this project is 2008-2009, with an estimated cost of about $9.3 million.
4. Lab and Control Center – The existing Lab and Control Center are located in the current Treatment Plant Administration Building. Initially, it was assumed this building would be demolished to make room for the new Primary Sedimentation Tanks. Given experiences with recent high bids on construction projects, Miller/Hull was asked to look at remodeling the existing building to accommodate the new updated Lab and some other functions that might have otherwise gone into the new Administration Building, including a lunchroom and staff support facilities.
5. Digester Roof Cover Repair – Design elements were completed in 2005, and construction is scheduled to begin in 2006.
6. Foam Control Flow Modifications – A study was conducted to evaluate options for controlling foam at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant, which identified several items for further review. In the spring of 2006, chemical and/or polymer additions at the Diversion Structure were pilot tested with additional tests scheduled for spring of 2007. Additional options for foam control will be considered as part of the Budd Inlet Folded Tanks Project.
7. Digester Sludge Improvements – The heating and pumping systems for the four digesters at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant have reached the end of their useful life. This project will evaluate the efficiency of the existing systems, offer alternate equipment and configuration options and then design and construct the chosen alternative. This project will begin in 2007.
Foam comparison
Architectural drawing of the new Lab and Control Center
Electronic O & M Manual
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5�
8. Surveillance Cameras – This project has been under study for some time and, with the advent of LOTT’s satellite facilities, is becoming critical in ensuring employee and facility security. Several brands of cameras have been demonstrated for staff, and the brand with the best resolution and flexibility was chosen. These cameras will be purchased and installed in conjunction with the start-up of the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant in 2007. The remaining phase of the surveillance camera upgrade will take place after the Folded Tanks, Laboratory and Administration building construction is completed.
9. Analytical Field Samplers – The laboratory will purchase additional field samplers, which will be used in a variety of applications. The existing samplers are failing, and often unreliable. In order to maintain LOTT’s current levels of accuracy and precision, these samplers will be replaced with newer technology by the end of 2006.
10. Scum Handling System – The existing primary scum handling system is outdated and in poor condition. In conjunction with the bio-augmentation process, which is currently in place, LOTT will evaluate and upgrade this system to provide necessary storage, aeration and pumping capabilities to optimize our bio-augmentation process.
11. Control System Upgrade – Enhancements to the main control system at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant will include upgrading the current Metso Automation Distributed Control System with the ultimate goal of an open architecture PLC computer control platform. The complete project will enable the control system to be easily expanded to meet future needs. Emphasis is on maintaining and extending the useful life of the existing control system.
12. Port of Olympia Land Purchase – LOTT has submitted a request to the Port of Olympia to purchase approximately two acres of property immediately adjacent to the southeast side of the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant. Negotiations began in 2006. The property would support possible future process facilities and a portion of the Administration-Education Center.
13. Thickening System Equipment Replacement – Staff is currently looking into newer, more efficient methods of thickening primary and secondary solids. Evaluation of the existing system and options for its replacement/refurbishment will be done in 2006.
14. Effluent Meter Installation – Installation of a magnetic flow meter to accurately measure final effluent discharge to Budd Inlet. Actual flow data is relevant to permit compliance and capacity development.
15. Instrument Air – This project consists of an Instrument Air compressor replacement to allow for emergency generator back up.
16. Primary Sedimentation Tanks – This project potentially involves a complete replacement of the primary sedimentation tanks at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant. The existing primary sedimentation tanks continue to function, but are more than 50 years old and have exceeded their useful life. The project is estimated to take two years to accomplish. New tanks may be built adjacent to the existing ones, while the old ones remain in service. A bypass pipeline and a coagulant addition system will be constructed in the interim, so that high flow events can be adequately treated without negatively affecting the primary clarifiers. Construction of the new primary clarifiers will be delayed until the Folded Tanks project (#17), or until an alternative Process Improvement Project, is completed.
Port of Olympia land purchase proposal outlined in blue.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5�
17. Folded Tanks – This $10.5 million project will provide staff with finer control of the secondary treatment process, and eliminate the First Anoxic, Second Anoxic and Final Aeration Basins, as well as the excessive recycle pumping rates required to accomplish biological nutrient removal with the current treatment plant configuration. This project will allow operations staff to minimize power that is currently consumed by oversized blowers, pumps and mixers. It will also serve to further optimize methanol addition to the secondary process.
18. Emergency Power Phase II – This project is slated for 2010, pending the results of a Business Case Evaluation (BCE) comparing costs to risks.
19. North Outfall Evaluation/Upgrade – The current outfall was lined in 1992 at the location of the Cascade Pole dangerous waste site on the Port of Olympia peninsula. The outfall will eventually become a limiting bottleneck for effluent flows from the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant. An engineering report will be required to determine the best alternative for improving effluent discharge capacity. Replacement would require removal of 10,000 tons of dirty dirt at $200 per ton and installation of 1200 feet of 48-inch pipe.
20. Class A Solids Project – This line item on the Capital Improvements Plan list is a placeholder for a potential project in 2025 to upgrade the biosolids treatment system to produce Class A Biosolids.
Conveyance Projects
21. Kaiser Road Forcemain – The Kaiser Road Forcemain pipeline was designed and constructed in 2006. The project extended the pipeline an additional 1,800 feet to the new Upper Grass Lake Interceptor in Cooper Point Road, which was completed in partnership with the City of Olympia in 2005.
22. Kaiser Road Pump Station Improvements – Reliable operation of critical equipment is necessary to ensure that wastewater overflows do not occur at this package pump station, built in 1971. A backup generator has recently been replaced, and there has been a complete upgrade to the telemetry and PLC control system. A detailed engineering study is now underway to make improvements to the pumps, surge tank, electrical equipment and odor control equipment. Before engineering design work begins, additional property must be acquired, which is scheduled for the end of 2006. This project also includes the evaluation of the existing mile-long 14-inch diameter forcemain pipeline. The evaluation will analyze the condition and recommend improvements.
23. Martin Way/Sleater-Kinney Interceptor Repair – Engineering design is complete, and this project will be completed in early 2007.
24. Southern Connection Line Abandonment – This project, to abandon the old Tumwater sewer interceptor that was replaced by the new Southern Connection Pipeline, is proceeding in 2007 in coordination with the City of Tumwater.
25. Percival Creek/Mottman Road Interceptor – The City of Olympia is designing road improvements to Mottman Road and R.W. Johnson Boulevard. As part of the overall road construction, LOTT has the opportunity to replace 1500 linear feet of 24-inch sewer line, which is 35 years old, with a new 30-inch line. This is a very cost-effective means of sewer utility construction. The project was completed in the summer of 2006.
26. Upper Grass Lake Interceptor – Replacement of this sewer interceptor, located in Cooper Point Road from Mud Bay Road to 14th Avenue, is needed to relieve chronic surcharging in several sections of the old Grass Lake Interceptor built in 1972. The new gravity sewer is located parallel to the existing route. The sewer interceptor was constructed in 2005, and will be connected to the Kaiser Road Forcemain pipeline extension.
Kaiser Road Forcemain project
Martin Way/Sleater-Kinney Interceptor Repair
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
27. Kaiser Road Forcemain Replacement – This project replaces the 7000-foot-long 40-year old Asbestos Concrete pipe forcemain. This project requires property acquisition in conjunction with the Kaiser Road Pump Station project.
28. Henderson/Indian Creek Improvements – This project is scheduled to come online in 2010, and will improve sewer flow hydraulics at a key point where the East Interceptors in Lacey join the South Interceptors in Olympia, and branch out into the Downtown Olympia Interceptor.
29. East Corridor Upgrade (Marvin to Carpenter) – A 1.5 mile expansion of the Martin Way pipeline, between Marvin Road and Carpenter Road, is scheduled for 2012. This project involves the installation of a 12-inch interceptor, to run parallel to the existing 12-inch interceptor pipeline, for increased capacity.
Miscellaneous Projects
30. Miscellaneous Professional Service – This line item on the Capital Improvements Plan list is a placeholder for various unexpected small projects that get identified during the year, and for projects needed to respond to emergency situations.
31. Internal Engineering Support – Engineering programs to support current and future projects include: facility planning, permitting, engineering design, construction management and documentation. In-house staff has been expanded over the last three years to assist in that effort; the new staff positions replace the need for more costly consultant services to provide construction management and inspection services, thus effectively reducing direct project costs.
32. Flow Monitoring – The Flow Monitoring Program supports an existing contract with SFE Global for flow monitoring services through out the collection system. The annual cost is $144,000, which includes the monthly fees, annual calibration, relocation, maintenance and acquisition of permanent meters.
33. Flow Reduction Programs – To help maximize capacity at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant, LOTT works with the three City water utilities to offer residential and commercial conservation projects that cost-effectively reduce wastewater flows. After careful evaluation of water conservation projects, reassessment of the wastewater flow reduction goal, and consideration of potential policy changes, development of a new six-year Water Conservation Coordination Plan was completed
in 2006. Implementation of the new Plan will begin in 2007. Projects include rebates of up to 75% to industrial, commercial, and institutional customers who install water-saving technologies, free replacement pre-rinse spray heads, coin-operated washing machine rebates for Laundromats and multi-family laundry rooms, residential washing machine rebates, free water saving kits, composting toilet rebates, free
flapper valve replacements, and development of new projects, such as incentives for installation of high-efficiency toilets in residential and commercial settings.
34. Budd Inlet Habitat Improvement Project – LOTT is working with the Squaxin Island Tribe to identify one or more water quality or habitat improvement projects that would be beneficial to fish and/or shellfish.
35. Miscellaneous Small Projects – Various conveyance system improvement projects, and the need for diversion lines, will be identified and evaluated.
Martin Way and Carpenter Road intersection
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6�
New Capacity Projects Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant
36. Tumwater Land Acquisition – To prepare for future distribution and use of reclaimed water in the Tumwater area, LOTT has started looking for suitable groundwater recharge sites. LOTT is looking for soil and drainage conditions that will accept high volumes of water and allow movement of the recharged water either east toward the Deschutes River or north toward Budd Inlet. Two adjacent properties were purchased during 2006 to facilitate further hydrogeologic evaluations. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the two parcels was completed in 2005.
37. Budd Inlet Membrane Filtration (3 mgd) – The Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Master Plan proposes a future upgrade intended to treat more of LOTT’s wastewater to Class A Reclaimed Water standards. A membrane filtration system at the Treatment Plant is scheduled for 2022. The initial project will include 3 mgd of capacity with an eventual total capacity of 6 mgd. In addition to reclaimed water production, the main driver for this project will be secondary clarification solids loading capacity at the Treatment Plant. This project will relieve clarifier limitations by diverting a portion of mixed liquor flow away from the secondary clarifiers for membrane filtration. The ultimate timing of this project is also somewhat subject to future discussions about the overall process improvements at the Treatment Plant and the final feasibility and timing of the Chambers Prairie Satellite projects. It is possible that this project or parts of it could be moved up to a much earlier schedule. Final decisions should be made during the development of the 2008 CIP.
38. Tumwater 3 mgd Recharge & Conveyance – By increasing the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant’s capability to treat more effluent to Class A Reclaimed Water quality (Project #37), and utilize the Treatment Plant’s full treatment capacity, a pipeline could transport reclaimed water to one or more potential recharge sites in Tumwater. This project and project #39 are currently being evaluated by the Technical Sub-Committee in conjunction with Brown and Caldwell engineers.
39. Other 4 mgd Recharge & Conveyance – LOTT will continue its feasibility investigation, research, and hydrogeologic studies of multiple potential recharge sites.
Hawks Prairie Satellite
40. Martin Way 2 mgd Plant – This satellite reclaimed water facility, named the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant, cleans and restores wastewater to Class A Reclaimed Water standards, so it can be productively used for irrigation, non-drinking commercial uses and industrial purposes. Most of the treatment process occurs in large tanks, which are underground. The process tanks are covered with an above-ground eco-roof featuring water-efficient plants. Landscaping was designed to provide effective visual enhancement and appropriate screening. Frontage improvements include a sidewalk, trees and landscaping. Construction began in 2004 and was largely completed by mid-2006, with many final punch-list construction activities still in process. An extensive start-up and commissioning process began mid-year, with consistent and reliable Class A Reclaimed Water production anticipated by early 2007.
Membrane filters
Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
41. Ponds/Recharge Basins – Construction began in 2004 on the Hawks Prairie Wetland Ponds and Groundwater Recharge Basins and was completed in 2006. The Ponds receive Class A Reclaimed Water produced at the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant. The 40.9 acre site includes 11.8 acres for 5 lined wetland ponds, 8 acres of groundwater recharge basins for infiltration of reclaimed water to the underground aquifer, a 1.65 acre mitigation wetland, 11.95 acres of walking trails and native landscaping, kiosks with interpretive exhibits, 2 acres of access roads, and 5.5 acres of undisturbed forest. The ponds and mitigation wetland features approximately 225,000 wetland plants. Half-street frontage improvements along Hogum Bay Road include a sidewalk, bike lane, and street lights, in addition to widening the road.
42. Conveyance Pipelines – Approximately three miles of pipeline (color-coded purple to identify it as a reclaimed water line) have been installed to carry the Class A Reclaimed Water produced at the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant to the Hawks Prairie Wetland Ponds and Recharge Basins site. Key elements of this project include a major pipeline crossing under Martin Way, a pipeline hung under the Carpenter Road overpass of Interstate 5, and a wastewater pipeline connection between the Martin Way Pump Station and the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant. Construction began in July 2005 and was complete in late spring 2006.
43. 3rd mgd Equipment – LOTT constructed the concrete structure and mechanical piping necessary for the 3rd mgd of treatment capacity at the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant along with the construction of the initial 2 mgd plant, but no equipment was installed for the 3rd increment. This later project will add the necessary equipment, including the membrane filter equipment.
44. 4th mgd – This project will add the 4th mgd of treatment and membrane bioreactor filtration to the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant, and includes the concrete aeration treatment basin as well as all other necessary equipment.
45. 5th mgd – This project adds the 5th increment of treatment plant structure and equipment to the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant.
46. Recharge Basins Expansion to 8 mgd – Recognizing the total potential recharge capacity of the existing Hawks Prairie Groundwater Recharge Basins, this item is a placeholder for future potential recharge capacity. An analysis of other alternatives began in 2006.
Hawks Prairie Recharge Basins
Hawks Prairie Ponds
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
Chambers Prairie Satellite
47. Land Acquisition – To prepare for constructing a future reclaimed water satellite in the Chambers Prairie area by about the year 2015, LOTT has been seeking suitable properties. Multiple sites are needed – one for the reclaimed water treatment plant and one or more for groundwater recharge basins. During 2006, LOTT purchased a 5.3-acre parcel for the future plant site, following completion of an extensive Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and public communications process. The property is in the City of Lacey, just south of Komachin Middle School. Potential recharge sites must have hydrogeologic characteristics suitable for recharging the groundwater. Once sites have been identified, LOTT will also conduct environmental evaluations for those.
48. 1 mgd Plant – Engineering design of LOTT’s second Satellite Reclaimed Water Plant is scheduled to begin in the Chambers Prairie area in 2011 with final construction to be completed by 2015. The Plant will be designed to produce 1 mgd of Class A Reclaimed Water for irrigation, decorative ponds and fountains, industrial processes, groundwater recharge, stream augmentation, and many other non-potable, beneficial uses.
49. Recharge/Conveyance – A pipeline, color-coded purple to indicate conveyance of reclaimed water, will be installed to carry the Class A water produced at the Chambers Prairie Reclaimed Water Plant to the Chambers Prairie Recharge Basins sites. Engineering of this multi-year project is presently scheduled to begin in 2011.
50. Mullen Road Improvements – This is one of the pipeline projects necessary to divert sewer flows and/or carry reclaimed water in conjunction with the new Chambers Prairie Reclaimed Water Plant and is scheduled earlier to potentially coincide with Lacey’s construction of the extension of Mullen Road, which goes by the new plant site.
51. SE Olympia Diversion – This is one of three projects to construct pipelines necessary to divert sewer flows to the new Chambers Prairie Reclaimed Water Plant.
52. Lacey Boulevard Diversion – This is one of three projects to construct pipelines necessary to divert sewer flows to the new Chambers Prairie Reclaimed Water Plant. The Lacey Boulevard Diversion would be the first of the three projects to be implemented to make the Chambers Prairie project feasible and is scheduled for 2015.
53. 2nd mgd – In 2025+, the Chambers Prairie Reclaimed Water Plant is planned for a 1 mgd expansion.
Reclaimed water pipeline
Chambers Prairie Satellite Reclaimed Water Plant property
Chapter 8
Expanding Community Visibility
Published Saturday, December 2, 2006, reprinted with permission of The Olympian
Published Saturday, July 15, 2006, reprinted with permission of The Olympian
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
Chapter 8Expanding Community Visibility: Pro-active Public Communications
Introduction
Enhancing and sustaining the positive public image and community support for the LOTT Alliance and its services and programs was one of the Board’s goals for 2006, along with enhancing and sustaining community support for production, distribution and use of Class A Reclaimed Water. These are formidable responsibilities, but critically important to help LOTT achieve its mission to preserve and protect public health, the environment and water resources.
Deeply involved in construction activities and organizational restructuring, LOTT’s activities have been relatively low-key over last few years since adoption of the Wastewater Resource Management Plan and accompanying Interlocal Agreement in early 2000. With start-up of reclaimed water distribution to the community, and plans for several major new capital projects, staff and the Board recognized that LOTT would once again be involved in some high-profile activities during 2006, facing community scrutiny on many fronts. For that reason public communications became one of the themes of the Board’s 2006 Retreat and the annual State of the Utility Workshop for our Partner jurisdiction elected officials. In 2006, as has been reported in earlier chapters of this report, LOTT forged new partnerships with the Squaxin Island Tribe and the Capitol Land Trust, conducted a major public involvement program for its proposed Chambers Prairie Satellite Reclaimed Water Plant property evaluation, hosted a community celebration recognizing the first uses of reclaimed water, and conducted public information campaigns for construction of three major pipeline projects.
The current year, 2007, holds more high profile public communication needs, focused on a potential rate increase starting in 2008, design and possible construction start-up for a new Administrative-Education Center and design for process control improvements at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant.
Elected Officials Workshop
Elected officials of LOTT’s partner jurisdictions – the three City Councils and the Board of County Commissioners – are the “shareholders” of this public utility. Once a year, LOTT invites all 25 of these officials together for a State of the Utility workshop, including an overview of accomplishments of the past year and a sense of where the organization is heading in the next year. The 2006 Elected Officials Workshop was held on March 29 at Lacey City Hall.
Elected Officials WorkshopMarch 29, 2006
Flying BackFlying BackInto the RadarInto the Radar……
Published Friday, May 19, 2006, reprinted with permission of The Olympian
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
Topics covered included:• Updating the Wastewater Resource Management Plan through re-evaluation
of treatment, conveyance and use capacity needs• Changes to the 2006-2025 Capital Improvements Plan to address evolving
capacity needs and issues• LOTT’s financial health and outlook• Implementation of Class A Reclaimed Water distribution and use from the
Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant• Planned start-up of the Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite• Upcoming public involvement activities
The Workshop was well attended, with elected official and staff representation from each of the four partner jurisdictions. All the attendees received copies of the 2006 State of the Utility Report. They took the opportunity to ask questions of LOTT Board members and staff and offered feedback, with special emphasis on the potential of reclaimed water to help meet future water supply challenges faced by the community. Attendees also remarked that while public perception and media attention tends to focus on disagreements between the local governments, LOTT is an excellent example of a positive and fruitful collaboration of the partner governments.
Special Events
30th Anniversary Celebration
November 30, 2006, marked the 30th anniversary of the Interlocal Agreement between the Cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater and Thurston County that formed the LOTT partnership. To celebrate, a public event was held the evening of November 13. Invitations were sent to past and present employees, Board members, partner staff members and others involved in the development of the LOTT Alliance. Notice of the event also was published in The Olympian.
Attendees enjoyed reminiscing about the past and catching up on current events. A looping slide show provided images of LOTT over the years and a 30th anniversary brochure summarized significant changes for LOTT since
the signing of the Interlocal Agreement in 1976. A brief program included remarks from Board President Doug Mah and Executive Director Michael Strub. Former Executive Director Mike Sharar also participated in the festivities.
Haunted Hike
LOTT staff participated in a community outreach event called the Haunted Hike: Tale of the Disappearing Forest. The event was held October 14 at the City of Olympia’s Priest Point Park. The public was invited to walk the forest loop trail while meeting a cast of characters who explained how human actions can affect water resources and the health of the forest, and the creatures that live there. Hikers traveled through the Land of Denial, the Land of Consequences, and the Land of Change, picking up ideas for protecting our environment along the way. LOTT staff developed two stations – the Water Waster family in the Land of Denial and the Water Conservation Booth in the Land of Change. Hikers learned how to conserve water around their homes and picked up shower timers and rain gauges to help them put their new knowledge into practice. Over 700 people attended this free community event. The Hike was a collaborative effort between the City of Olympia, Capital Playhouse, Stream Team, the LOTT Alliance, City of Lacey, Thurston County and others.
Haunted Hike 2006
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
Media Coverage
While purchase of classified and legal advertising for public hearings, job openings, consultant contracts and required permit and environmental evaluation notices is a regular occurrence for LOTT, news and editorial coverage of our actions offers important channels for communication with the broader community.
In 2006, LOTT activities were the subject of significant feature stories in The Olympian. • LOTT’s financial support for the Capitol Land Trust’s Gull Harbor conservation
easement• Use of reclaimed water at Heritage Park and other downtown sites• Coverage of the “Splash” reclaimed water celebration• Potential reclaimed water plant site near Komachin Middle School• Property purchase for the Kaiser Road Pump Station and planned
conservation easement • The proposed 2007 Budget and potential changes to LOTT rates in 2008• LOTT’s decision to purchase 100% green power in 2007
Stories about Lacey’s planned Gateway Project also noted that reclaimed water would be used for irrigation and toilet flushing in that major new development.
LOTT was also a prominent subject on The Olympian’s editorial page. Not since the peak of the long-range planning process during the late 1990s has LOTT received so much editorial attention. Four editorials followed specific project actions LOTT took during the year:
• “LOTT Alliance seals the deal” (May 19) – This editorial following LOTT’s decision to provide the final piece of funding for the Capitol Land Trust to acquire the Gull Harbor Estuary conservation easement. (see page 65)
• “Reclaimed water is cause for celebration” (July 15) – This “thumbs up recognition followed the “Splash” event celebrating the first uses of Class A Reclaimed Water in the community. The event was also the subject of a news feature story. (see opposite page 65)
• “Preservation merits praise” (December 2) – Another “thumbs up” editorial recognized LOTT’s second conservation easement transaction with the Capitol Land Trust, completed as part of purchasing property for relocation and expansion of the Kaiser Road Pump Station. (see opposite page 65)
• “LOTT mirrors area’s values” (December 13) – This editorial recognized the Board’s decision to purchase 100% of LOTT’s 2007 power from “Green Power” sources. (see page 70)
While each of these editorials provided very positive recognition, LOTT staff and Board members recognize that this kind of recognition must be earned. Working with the community to make responsive and responsible decisions is a high priority. The fifth editorial challenges us to look ahead to communication priorities LOTT will need to address in 2007:
• “Prepare to pay higher rates” (December 27) – Following a meeting with the Editorial Board, this editorial recognizes that LOTT’s rates haven’t changed since 1999 and that a potential change in 2008 is likely to be accompanied by a renewal of the “growth should pay for growth” community discussion.
Super Bowl Flush
As part of a feature story about the annual Super Bowl, a reporter from The Olympian
visited the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant to see if there would be “flush effect” during half-time.
There was. From 5:07 to 5:12 p.m., as quoted in the February 6 story, wastewater volume
climbed from a flow rate of 19.3 million gallons to 20 million gallons per day.
Published Wednesday, December 27, 2006, reprinted with permission of The Olympian
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6�
New Website Design
A new and improved LOTT website was launched, without a hitch, on December 22, 2006. It not only resolves some issues with the prior site, but was designed to be much more visually appealing.
Early in 2006, the Department of Information Services, which currently hosts LOTT’s internet website, notified staff that their search engine would no longer support websites created in FrontPage. In addition, the existing site was proving somewhat difficult to navigate and, as it grew, the layout became cumbersome. With that in mind, a complete overhaul was initiated in May.
Utilizing new software and the technical assistance of a web consultant from Skillings Connolly, the Communications Coordinator redesigned the site with a simplified, cleaner design. The homepage now features a slideshow that highlights many aspects of LOTT, including staff, facilities, and the surrounding area. The navigation structure is straight forward, allowing quick access to LOTT’s history and governance, water conservation programs, planning and permitting, job openings, bid information, and current news and events. The site also has a comprehensive reorganized library and addresses frequently asked questions.
The new site has been well received by staff, colleagues and professionals in the industry. Plans for expanding the site in 2007 are
already underway. An extensive student/teacher portal will be a new addition and help support expanded educational opportunities for our community.
New Education Program Planning
Hands On Children’s Museum Partnership
During 2006, LOTT took steps to initiate a partnership with the Hands On Children’s Museum to help extend water conservation, reclaimed water and wastewater treatment educational messages to younger children. Museum volunteers staffed a booth during the summer “Splash” reclaimed water celebration, with customized activities for children, including:
• A simplified filtration system where children poured dirty water through a filter of sand, gravel and pebbles and saw cleaned water come out below
• Reclaimed Water wristbands assembled with a purple cord (symbolizing reclaimed water pipe color), and appropriate colored beads – blue “because we all depend on water every day,” clear sparkly “because reclaimed water is clean Class A water,” green “because reclaimed water is good for the environment,” white “to remind you to conserve water whenever you can.”
Discussions for future education partnerships with the Museum are under way. The potential siting of the future new Hands On Children’s Museum next to the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant will offer significant educational partnership opportunities.
www.lottonline.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6�
Komachin Middle School Pilot Education Program
During LOTT’s public involvement process for evaluation of property near Komachin Middle School for the future Chambers Prairie Reclaimed Water Plant, officials from North Thurston Public Schools (the property owner) and a teacher from Komachin Middle School expressed interest in collaborating with LOTT on educational opportunities relating to the future plant. Komachin has a strong focus on science and plans to integrate a new curriculum called “Water: Issues, Evidence and You.” LOTT staff members met with one of the teachers on the school’s science team to discuss options for partnership. Since construction of the plant adjacent to the school is not scheduled for several years, the group decided to develop a pilot program with a focus on the wastewater treatment process. The pilot effort would include classroom sessions for three classes of 50 students each, which would help prepare students for a field trip to the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant. This series of activities would be completed each quarter in order to cycle all the students through the program. LOTT included funds in the 2007 annual budget to cover the cost of buses to transport students to the Treatment Plant. The pilot project is scheduled to begin in 2007.
Publications
As part of public involvement and outreach activities, various informational materials are produced and/or updated during the year. In 2006, two major publications were produced:
• State of the Utility Report 2006 – Each year, LOTT staff members prepare and publish the State of the Utility Report. The 2006 Report included information about LOTT programs and projects completed in 2004 and 2005 and activities planned for 2006. The Report included information regarding LOTT’s history, organizational restructuring, regulatory requirements, reclaimed water, operations and maintenance, planning and capital projects, public outreach and budget. The Report was distributed to the elected City Council members, Board of County Commissioners, key staff of the partner jurisdictions, regulatory agency representatives and other interested parties. The Report was also made available on the LOTT website and to the public upon request. While preparation of such an extensive document is a considerable undertaking, annual publication of the State of the Utility Report ensures that the public has access to information regarding the management and activities of this essential public utility. It also documents significant annual activities for the future.
• Kid’s Activity Booklet – A prototype version of a children’s activity booklet, LOTTs of Fun Water Activities, was completed in 2006. The 14-page booklet describes basic concepts regarding wastewater treatment, reclaimed water and water conservation. It features a variety of activities, such as word search, maze, mad libs, and more. The book was distributed during the “Splash” reclaimed water celebration in July, to test its appeal. A revised version will be finalized in 2007 and distributed to students who attend tours at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant.
LOTTsofFun WaterActivities
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
Responses to Information Inquiries and Public Records Requests
LOTT staff members respond to varied and constant requests for information throughout the year. Requests are received from the general public, partner staff, regulators, media, college students, consultants, water conservation program participants, staff from other wastewater utilities, and others. Many of the requests for information involve gathering statistics regarding LOTT operations and programs or distributing LOTT publications and documents. Still others come from wastewater utility staff and consultants who wish to learn more about LOTT facilities and treatment processes. In 2006, there were over 326 requests.
Staff also responded to seven formal public records requests, seeking documents such as the Wastewater Resource Management Plan, Budd Inlet Scientific Study, Board Agenda packets, apprenticeship reports and performance/payment bonds.
Dozens of other uncounted questions come in for information regarding the water conservation program, eligibility requirements for rebates and status of rebate applications.
Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Tours
Tours of the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant are offered throughout the year. These tours take approximately an hour and a half, and are conducted by Treatment Plant Operators. Student tours are generally limited to 5th grade classes and above, due to safety concerns. In 2006, 544 people toured the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant.
School Groups:Lincoln Elementary (January)The Evergreen State College (February & April)Avanti High School (March & September)St. Martin’s University (April)Seven Oaks Elementary School (May & June)Garfield Elementary School Summer Program (June)New Market Skills Center Summer Program (June)Centennial Elementary School (October)Clover Park Technical College (November)
Other Groups:LOTT Alliance Staff (March)LEAD Thurston County (April)Rotary Group Study Exchange Team from India (April) YWCA – Girls Without Limits (July)City of Eugene Staff (July)William H. Reilly Company (August)EPA Staff (September)
Published Wednesday, December 13, 2006, reprinted with permission of The Olympian
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7�
Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite Tours
Interest in touring the Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite has been very high, due to the unique nature of this membrane bioreactor plant. Tours were offered upon request and conducted by the Project Engineer or Operations Supervisor. Depending upon the wishes of the groups, tours included either or both the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant and the Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds/Recharge Basins. In 2006, an estimated 111 people toured the Satellite.
Government Organizations:Reclaimed Water Task Force Members (August)LOTT Administration Staff (August)LOTT Board of Directors (August)City of Olympia Operations & Maintenance Staff (August)City of Lacey Operations & Maintenance Staff (September)City of Centralia Staff (October)State Department of Ecology & Kitsap County Staff (December)
Other Groups:Nicaraguan visitor (May)Korean visitor from the Rural Research Institute (April)Neighbors of future Chambers Prairie property (August, 4 groups)Clients of Siemens, Inc. (September & November)Contractor for Plant in Hungry Horse, Montana (October)
Group Presentations
In addition to tours of LOTT’s facilities, staff members accommodate requests for presentations to various local civic, student and other groups. Presentations provided to local groups and organizations in 2006 included:
• Kiwanis Club of Olympia – presentation about LOTT’s purpose, governance, recent changes and an update of the Capital Improvements Plan (January 23)
• LEAD Thurston County class members – general presentation about LOTT as part of their “Environment Day” activities (April 6)
• Tumwater Rotary – presentation describing LOTT, reclaimed water, LOTT’s reclaimed water facilities and the first uses of reclaimed water in our community (September 20)
• Olympia Capital Centennial Rotary Club – presentation about the first uses of reclaimed water in our community (September 26)
• Rotary Club of Olympia – presentation about LOTT’s 30th anniversary, a brief history and the role of reclaimed water production in LOTT’s future (November 20)
In addition to local groups, LOTT receives requests for presentations from various professional groups or conferences. During 2006, presentations about LOTT’s reclaimed water program were provided for one in-state group and two national conferences:
• National Association of Clean Water Agencies (July 20, Seattle, WA) • WateReuse Association (September 12, Hollywood, CA)• King County Reclaimed Water Technical Advisory Committee (December 1,
Tukwila, WA)
Board President Doug Mah during a tour of the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
Entry Signage
Entry signage was developed during 2006 for Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite sites and the LOTT Administrative Offices.
Lehrman Cameron Studio was hired in 2006 to design the main entry signs for both the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant and the Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds/Recharge Basins. The entry sign for the Martin Way Plant features metal lettering on an existing brick wall adjacent to the entry driveway off Martin Way. The design was chosen to reflect the industrial, high tech nature of the facility. At the Hawks Prairie Pond site, the name will be sand-blasted onto a large rock set near the main entrance and the LOTT logo will be attached. This design focuses on the use of rock and wood, natural materials that reflect the park-like nature of the site. Doty + Associates was chosen to fabricate and install the entry signs. Installation is scheduled for spring 2007.
LOTT staff worked with Huber Design to design entry signs for the LOTT Administration Office and Board Room. The sign design features a prominent logo on etched, tinted glass. They were fabricated by C J’s Glass Etching. The signs were needed to clearly differentiate the main office from the Board Room and to improve visitor visibility. They were installed in September.
Interior etched glass sign at LOTT’s Administration Office
Illustration of the Martin Way Plant entry sign
Chapter 9
Managing Costs
Current Sewer Charges inLacey, Olympia and Tumwater
- continued on back -
May 2006
Monthly Service FeesLOTT’s customers pay a monthly sewer service fee in two parts:
• The LOTT portion – $25.50 per month for a typical single-family residence covers the cost of debt repayment, operatingthe Treatment Plant, replacing equipment, running the pre-treatment program, and maintaining the regional pump stationsand interceptors. The LOTT fee has not changed sinceDecember 1999.
• The City portion – ranging from $12.05 to $14.50 per monthfor each residential unit. This covers the cost of constructingand maintaining the local city sewer system that serves homesand businesses.
City of Olympiabills on a bimonthly basis.
City of Tumwaterbills on a monthly basis.
Water Conservation Makes CentsSewer customers can get a financial return by installing certainwater-efficient equipment, fixtures and appliances.
Commercial Customers –
• Water Smart Technology Rebates can equal up to 50% ofinstalled water-saving retrofit project costs.
• Rebates of $250 are available to Laundromats with purchase orlease of resource-efficient coin-operated washing machines.
Residential Customers –
• Rebates of $100 are available with purchase and installation ofresource-efficient washing machines.
• Free Water Saving Kits include kitchen and bathroom faucetaerators, low-flow showerhead, toilet leak detection tablets,and more.
�
�
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
Chapter 9Managing Costs:Operating and Capital Budgets
Introduction
This chapter presents the 2007 Operating and Capital Budgets and provides information about Audited Financial Statements. Consistent with the Board’s goal to manage LOTT financial resources in a fiscally conservative manner, LOTT has continued demonstrating sound financial management while facing some budget challenges.
The LOTT Operating Budget has increased by approximately 10% this year due primarily to three factors:
• First, LOTT commissioned a study of pay and benefits to ensure that the retention and recruitment of highly qualified staff would continue in an environment of 30% staff loss due to retirements in the next 10 years. The overall payroll and benefits budget is up 13% due to a one-time market adjustment increase, cost of living increase, normal step increases and benefits costs.
• Second, LOTT projected an anticipated 36% increase in utility costs. About 26% of this increase is due to inflationary pressures and the addition of two new facilities to full operation in 2006-2007, and the remaining 10% is due utilization of “Green Power” for the first time in 2007.
• Third, two new facilities have been added to the system – the Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant (BIRWP) and the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant (MWRWP). These two new plants have added up to 3 million gallons per day (mgd) of Class A Reclaimed Water production capacity to the communities’ water reuse program. However, this new resource comes with increased costs that are estimated at approximately $350,000 for supplies and power, and $1 million with personnel and other operating costs included. These numbers will continue to shake out over the next year as the MWRWP becomes fully operational.
LOTT’s current rates, set in 1999, were not set to accommodate inflation. Through cost saving measures and optimal use of resources LOTT has managed to operate and build new facilities for the past seven years with the same rates absorbing about three percent annual inflation. The same rate structure will be retained for 2007.
Although rates have remained stable, rapid increases in both general inflation and construction material costs have severely impacted LOTT due to the number of construction projects planned and underway, and the significant use of power and electronic equipment. Since this inflationary pressure has been surprisingly more rapid than originally predicted, the Board will need to consider future rate increases to insure that the cost of service can continue to be met. Based on the LOTT Interlocal Agreement, the Board will have to notify the jurisdictions of any increases in rates for 2008 by June of 2007.
An additional unknown exists with the anticipated completion of the State’s Budd Inlet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study, now scheduled for 2008. The resultant waste load budgets could cause LOTT to institute currently unplanned capital projects necessary to meet future limitations.
Salary structure for non-represented employees approved November 8, 2006
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7�
Revenues
Revenue Sources
LOTT receives revenue from two major sources:
Wastewater Service Charge and LOTT Equipment Replacement Fund (WSC/LERF) – the monthly rate of $25.50 is charged for each connection. Of
that amount, $1.25 goes to the LOTT Equipment Replacement Fund (LERF). These fees have not been changed since 1999.
Capacity Development Charge (CDC) – a one-time charge collected from each new connection to the sewer system tributary to LOTT. The CDC is also com-monly described as a “connection fee” or “hook-up fee.” For 2007 the CDC will be $3,448.70. This charge increases by $64.10 each year through 2019, as long as annual reviews by the Board confirm the increased revenue is still needed.
Budget Summary
The table below provides a summary overview of the 2007 Combined Operating and Capital Budgets.
2007 Combined Operating and Capital Budget Summary
2005 2006 2007 Actual Budget Budget
REVENUE
Wastewater Service Charge (WSC) $12,488,531 $13,653,016 $13,901,119 LOTT Equipment Replacement Fund (LERF) $632,805 $703,764 $716,553 Capacity Development Charge (CDC) $5,201,211 $5,652,106 $5,722,859Miscellaneous Revenue $1,148,262 $474,817 $959,692
Net Revenue from Rates and Charges $��,�70,�0� $20,��3,703 $2�,300,223
Estimated Transfers from Loans $20,�70,7�� $�0,7��,577 $2,353,�22Total Revenue and Loans $3�,���,527 $3�,265,2�0 $23,653,3�5
EXPENSES LOTT Operations $7,627,029 $8,754,366 $9,653,365Capital Fund Transfer $0 ($1,240,000) ($730,000)Net Operating Expense $7,627,029 $7,514,366 $8,923,365Debt Service $4,000,340 $4,042,520 $4,151,955
Total Operations and Debt Service $��,627,36� $��,556,��6 $�3,075,320Capital Fund Expense $23,��6,�67 $3�,�2�,�6� $3�,��3,3�5
Total Expenses $3�,���,236 $�3,3��,050 $�7,�6�,705
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
In addition, LOTT receives revenues from other miscellaneous sources. LOTT collects excess-strength wastewater fees from select industrial dischargers and disposal fees from waste haulers. In 2003, the LOTT Board passed a Resolution establishing methods for setting septage and non-septage dumping fees that are tied to the WSC. In 2005, the LOTT Board revised the “LOTT Discharge and Industrial Pretreatment Regulations,” which included standardizing the excess-strength charges formula. LOTT also earns interest on invested reserves. 2007 revenue estimates also include an anticipated portion of loan proceeds at approximately $2,353,122 reflecting amounts from both the State Revolving Fund Loan and Public Works Trust Fund loans.
Revenue Forecasting
For 2007, ERU growth projections are reduced from 2006 as the result of recalibrating LOTT’s capacity planning model with new data and redrawing of the sewered areas. The new recalibrated model uses region-al growth information, parcel data and flow modeling. The revenue forecast is drawn from this same information. For financial planning, it is important to use conservative projections to avoid overestimating revenues.
Projected service revenues (WSC/LERF) are derived from the total annual ERUs, and projected CDC revenues are derived from the estimated new connections each year. The above table shows total ERUs based on these new projections and estimated new connections for the next six years.
Projected Total and New ERUs
Projected ERUs 2007 200� 200� 20�0 20�� 20�2
Lacey 16,630 17,813 19,075 20,408 21,475 22,600Olympia 24,899 25,403 25,949 26,538 27,219 27,934Tumwater 8,085 8,477 8,889 9,318 9,763 10,225
Total Projected ERUs ��,6�� 5�,6�3 53,��3 56,26� 5�,�56 60,75�
Projected New ERUs Lacey 1,107 1,183 1,262 1,333 1,067 1,126Olympia 363 504 546 589 681 715Tumwater 373 392 412 430 445 462
Total ProjectedNew Connections �,��� 2,07� 2,220 2,35� 2,��2 2,303
Counting ERUs
Connections are counted as
Equivalent Residential Units
(ERUs). LOTT defines an ERU
as 900 cubic feet of waste-
water volume per month.
This is the amount presumed
to be discharged by an aver-
age connected single-family
household. For multi-family
housing, such as apartment
complexes, each living unit
counts as 7/10 of an ERU.
Commercial and industrial
dischargers are charged
according to water consump-
tion converted to ERUs.
Current Population Density
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
A New Water Resource - LOTT’s Reclaimed Water Facilities
For the first time in LOTT’s 30-year history, the product we’re treating is being sent back out to the communities for beneficial use. The Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant and the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant have added up to 3 million gallons per day of Class A Reclaimed Water production to the communities’ water reuse program. The Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant experienced initial operation in 2005 and full operation, distribu-tion and use in 2006. The new Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite started operation in mid-2006 and is expected to be fully operational at 2 million gallons per day in 2007. The Satellite includes the Martin Way Pump Station, the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant, and the Hawks Prairie Ponds/Recharge Basins.
Expenses
Expense Analysis
The 2007 LOTT Operating Budget has increased by approximately 10%. LOTT is an organization that has experienced tremendous growth in responsibility and facility development over the last four years. With the acquisition of the operation and admin-istrative functions from the City of Olympia, the completion and initial operation of two new Class A Reclaimed Water plants, and the assumption of significant planning and engineering functions from consultants, the utility has seen increases in both staff and operational costs. Much of the staff cost has been offset by reductions in costs either paid to the City of Olympia or previ-ously to consultants. It is estimated that LOTT will save over $8 million in engineering costs alone in the capital budgets over the next several years. Additionally, the professional services budgets are being reduced in the areas of planning and development sup-port as a result of LOTT adding its own staff to accomplish these functions.
It is important to recognize that the Wastewater Resource Management Plan, also referred to as the “Highly Managed Plan,” called for the development of new facilities to accommodate growth on a “just in time” basis rather than build one large plant at a tremendous up-front cost. This concept relied on the steady development of smaller satellite reclaimed water plants to add capacity to the system. This method of providing for new capacity comes with the recognition that staff is needed to carry out the constant state of planning and development. From land acquisition and negotiation – to flow monitoring and planning – to engineering and construction, the Highly Managed Plan requires a significant investment in staff costs. Thus, while the operational budget has grown to accommodate this increased responsibility over the last few years, the LOTT Board has sought to ensure that there were corresponding reductions in costs paid to contractors or consultants, even while recognizing that increased cost comes with system expansion.
Martin Way and Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plants
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
Expense Summary
The table below provides a summary of anticipated 2007 expenditures, compared with 2005 and 2006 amounts.
Expense Highlights
• Salaries and Benefits: LOTT commissioned a study of pay and benefits to ensure that the retention and recruitment of highly qualified staff would continue in an environment of 30% staff loss due to retirements in the next ten years. This is an industry-wide phenomenon that has already created, and will continue to create, tremendous competition for the skilled employees required to run LOTT’s facilities. The adjusted pay standards necessary to meet market conditions will create a one-time increase of approximately 7%. The remaining increase in the salaries and benefits budget is due to cost of living increases (4.1%), normal step increases, and benefits costs, as well as the addition of 2.5 positions. LOTT’s total FTE’s were 60.0 in 2006 and will be 62.5 for 2007. This currently includes one-half FTE for the transitional Industrial Electrician position, which will be discontinued when the incumbent retires, the addition of a custodial position, and the conversion of a work study office assistant position to a full-time position. As LOTT adjusts to running the two new reclaimed water facilities, some increases in operational staff may be needed in the future.
• Operating Supplies: Operating supplies are up due to increased costs related to the new reclaimed water facilities. Some continued upward adjustment in costs for future budgets may be needed as we gain full experience with operation of the Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant.
Operating Budget Expenditure Summary by Category
Fiscal Year Difference Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2007 Budget 2007-2006 2006 2005 2005 Requests % ± ± Budget Budget Actual
Salaries & Benefits $5,372,355 13.0% $617,264 $4,755,091 $3,842,306 $3,450,843 Operating Supplies $787,200 18.0% $120,050 $667,150 $681,164 $708,661 Fuel Consumed $18,500 -43.1% ($14,000) $32,500 $15,200 $15,161 Small Tools & Minor Equipment $83,800 -26.5% ($30,200) $114,000 $76,000 $116,511 Professional Services $520,500 -20.3% ($132,300) $652,800 $454,550 $635,370 Communication $80,230 19.9% $13,289 $66,941 $59,840 $78,040 Travel $66,460 23.8% $12,760 $53,700 $73,000 $36,412 Advertising $24,000 -25.0% ($8,000) $32,000 $14,000 $61,405 Operating Rentals & Leases $223,800 23.8% $42,980 $180,820 $142,938 $135,577 Insurance $277,200 32.2% $67,496 $209,704 $122,000 $200,860 Utility Services $1,421,900 35.6% $243,512 $1,048,388 $1,007,280 $936,131 Repairs & Maintenance $159,350 -19.6% ($38,870) $198,220 $223,494 $116,317 Miscellaneous $467,995 25.9% $96,145 $371,850 $368,605 $526,560 Permits $106,325 -4.0% ($4,475) $110,800 $183,600 $113,087 Flow Reduction Programs $0 100.0% ($319,200) $319,200 $195,400 $146,453 Taxes & Operating Assessments $3,000 0.0% $3,000 $0 $0 $2,733 Capital Outlays $41,000 0.0% $41,000 $0 $126,953 $124,355 City of Olympia Administration $0 0.0% $0 $0 $575,892 $222,554 Total Operations $�,653,365 �0.3% $76�,��� $�,75�,366 $�,�62,222 $7,627,02�
Capital Fund Transfers ($730,000) -41.1% $510,000 ($1,240,000) $0 $0 Net Operating Budget $8,923,365 18.8% $1,278,999 $7,514,366 $8,162,222 $7,627,029
LOTT staff, each with over 20 years of service
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7�
• Professional Services: LOTT staff positions authorized by the Board continue to take on work formerly done by consultants, resulting in a decrease in this budget item.
• Communication: This budget is increasing as a result of LOTT’s increased emphasis on education and outreach in the areas of water conservation and reclaimed water use.
• Travel: LOTT’s travel budget has adjusted upward over the last two years to reflect the increased number of employees and the emphasis on education and certification for our highly trained staff.
• Operating Rentals and Leases: This budget item has increased as LOTT has leased additional space in the Market Centre building for the Engineering Division. Most of this budget will disappear when the new Administrative Center is completed in 2009.
• Insurance: LOTT has adjusted the insured value of its assets upward over the last two years to reflect the replacement value of nearly $300 million. Additionally the new Hawks Prairie Satellite facilities and the Budd Inlet Reclaimed Water Plant have been added to our coverage in the last year.
• Utility Services: LOTT is the second largest consumer of electric power in Thurston County. While about 26% of this increase is due to inflationary pressures and the addition of two new facilities to full operation in 2006-2007, the remaining 10% is due to utilization of “Green Power” for the first time in 2007. Green Power is electricity generated from renewable, non-polluting resources such as, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydrogen/fuel cells, and wave or tidal action. Because Green Power comes from sources that never run out, like the wind and the sun, renewable energy is limitless. Green Power is also clean and does not add pollution to the atmosphere.
One of the primary public values identified in the Highly Managed Plan, is to “Maximize benefits to the environment.” Green Power represents a viable avenue for LOTT to contribute to the development of renewable, non-polluting energy sources, thereby maximizing benefits to the environment. PSE has committed to highlighting LOTT’s efforts in its promotions, and working together on potential grants for local renewable energy projects. It is likely that LOTT would qualify for recognition under EPA’s Green Power Partnership program. The cost of Green Power is typically 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity above the normal electricity rate. Puget Sound Energy offers a bulk purchaser the discount rate of 1 cent per kilowatt-hour for purchases of 1,000,000 kilowatt-hours or more. Based on the last 12 months, annually it would cost an additional $132,502 for LOTT to use 100% Green Power at a rate of 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. This equates to an additional $2.80 per year (23 cents per month) for each LOTT customer based on current ERU numbers.
• Repairs and Maintenance: These costs have been reduced in part because of the
replacement of old equipment and facilities over the last four years with new or rehabilitated equipment. LOTT’s development of an Asset Management Program will continue to optimize the investment of resources in existing facilities.
• Miscellaneous: This category includes training and education funds as well as other employee programs that have been increasing with staff growth over the last two years. This category also includes items such as printing and binding, signage and biosolids disposal fees.
• Flow Reduction Programs: With the passage of the new Water Conservation Coordination Plan, the expenditures in this line item have become mostly capital expenditures such as replacement or upgrade projects for LOTT customers. As such, the decision was made this year to move this budget group to the Capital Budget.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7�
Cost Centers
Cost centers, or “lines of business” provide an alternative way of looking at the overall expense picture. They display the overall costs sorted into categories by work output or facilities. For 2007, all costs other than capital projects and debt service are sorted by categories shown in the following tables and charts. The table and pie chart below display the costs by the various operating divisions of the organization. The table and chart on the following page display the cost centers distributed by LOTT’s various facilities.
2007 % of Operations Cost Centers 2007 Budget
Administration $1,360,892 14%Planning and Programs $831,047 9%Engineering $689,876 7%Legal/Human Resources $352,253 4%Facilities $6,419,297 66%
Total $�,653,365 �00%
LOTT Organizational Divisions
Administration: This category is used to track costs that are related to running the general business and governmental functions of LOTT. It includes costs dedicated to Board business, general accounting and business management, miscellaneous other committees and jurisdiction issues.
Planning and Programs: The Planning and Programs Division encompasses many functions essential to implementing the Wastewater Resource Management Plan. These include planning, flow reduction, reclaimed water distribution and use, regulatory permitting, environmental evaluations, industrial pretreatment, biosolids management, all public information and involvement functions for LOTT and its capital projects, and internal communications.
Engineering: The Engineering Division represents general engineering, construction management, and technical support for capital projects and other Divisions, including Operations and Planning and Programs. Again, because LOTT is involved in nearly constant construction to accommodate the “just in time” capacity philosophy, this Division manages a disproportionate number of projects when compared to a more conventional utility of comparable size.
Legal/Human Resources: The Legal Department provides legal and human resources services, maintains labor relations, and oversees property acquisition.
Facilities: The Facilities Division is responsible for all aspects of operating and maintaining LOTT facilities including treatment, pumping, conveyance and ultimate disposition. The Division is divided into three functional departments: Process Control, Operations and Maintenance.
Expenditure Summary by Division
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�0
2007 % of Facilities Cost Centers 2007 Budget
Budd Inlet Treatment Plant (BITP) $8,320,465 86.2%Kaiser Road Pump Station (KRPS) $37,415 0.4%Capitol Lake Pump Station (CLPS) $178,066 1.8%Martin Way Pump Station (MWPS) $434,475 4.5%Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant (MWRWP) $603,913 6.3%Hawks Prairie Ponds/Recharge Basins (HP Ponds) $72,540 0.8%Conveyance Lines $6,490 0.1%
Total $�,653,365 �00%
LOTT Facility Descriptions
Budd Inlet Treatment Plant (BITP): The BITP is the main wastewater Treatment Plant and the central hub for the LOTT system. It is located in Downtown Olympia at the south end of the Port of Olympia peninsula. The original primary Treatment Plant began operation in 1952. It was upgraded to secondary treatment in 1983, and further upgraded to add nitrogen removal and ultraviolet disinfection in 1994 and initial production of Class A Reclaimed Water in 2005. The Treatment Plant currently treats an annual average of 10.6 million gallons per day (mgd) and has a peak hourly flow capacity of 64 mgd. Water treated to advanced secondary standards is released into Budd Inlet. Up to 1 mgd of that treated water is diverted to a sand filter system for further treatment to Class A Reclaimed Water standards.
Kaiser Road Pump Station (KRPS): The KRPS is located on Kaiser Road, southeast of The Evergreen State College. The Pump Station collects wastewater from the College and surrounding areas and pumps it south to the New Grass Lake Gravity Interceptor, which ultimately flows to the BITP.
Capitol Lake Pump Station (CLPS): The CLPS is located on the west side of Capitol Lake and pumps wastewater collected from Tumwater and parts of Olympia to the BITP.
Martin Way Pump Station (MWPS): The MWPS is located in Lacey to the east of the Martin Village Shopping Center. It was originally built by and for the City of Lacey in 1991. LOTT bought the Pump Station in 2002, and initiated a major upgrade so it could divert flows and serve as the headworks for the new Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant. The Pump Station provides initial screening and pumping of wastewater to the MWRWP. The remainder is pumped west to Sleater-Kinney Road where it enters the Martin Way gravity interceptor and flows to the BITP.
Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant (MWRWP): The Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant is located on Martin Way in Lacey. The Plant treats wastewater pumped from the MWPS to Class A Reclaimed Water standards. The reclaimed water is available to the Cities of Lacey and Olympia and their customers for irrigation, commercial and industrial uses, and environmental purposes including streamflow augmentation, wetland enhancements, and groundwater recharge. Construction of the Plant was completed in 2006. It currently has a capacity to treat 2 mgd, and is expandable to 5 mgd. The Plant includes a series of interpretive exhibits.
Hawks Prairie Ponds/Recharge Basins (HP Ponds): The Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Ponds and Groundwater Recharge Basins are located on a 40.9-acre site on Hogum Bay Road in Lacey. Class A Reclaimed Water generated at the MWRWP is pumped three miles to the site. Reclaimed water that has not been drawn off for other purposes along the pipeline route circulates through the HP Ponds and is percolated into the aquifer via a series of infiltration basins. The park-like setting is open to the public during daylight hours and includes walking trails and interpretive exhibits.
Conveyance Lines: LOTT owns and maintains approximately 29 miles of gravity and forcemain sewer lines throughout the Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater and urban Thurston County area. These lines, also know as interceptors, are the main trunk lines that convey wastewater generated from each city’s sewer collection system to the BITP or MWRWP for treatment. In addition, LOTT owns 4.5 miles of reclaimed water lines that convey Class A Reclaimed Water from the MWRWP to the HP Ponds, and from the BITP’s Reclaimed Water Plant to the CLPS.
Expenditure Summary by Facility
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
��
Capital Budget The following table provides the complete project-by-project listing for the Capital Budget. The last column displays the expenditures anticipated for projects in 2007.
A major challenge in developing this Budget has been the rapid rise in construction costs. Staff and consultants have reviewed all projected costs and adjusted them based on the best current available information.
2007-2025 Capital Improvements Plan
and 2007 Capital Budget
2007 Year Year Total Capital Auth. Online Project Cost Budget
SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECTS $��3,766,35� $2�,���,2�0 BUDD INLET TREATMENT PLANT $6�,�3�,3�0 $20,50�,��7
1 SOP’s and Electronic O&M Manuals 2005 2008 $326,025 $115,2732 Secondary Clarifier Rehabilitation 2005 2008 $5,404,300 $1,766,4253 Administrative-Education Center 2005 2008 $9,340,000 $7,084,3774 Lab and Control Center 2005 2008 $3,322,000 $2,524,7205 Digester Roof Cover Repair 2006 2006 $567,000 $303,8116 Foam Control Flow Modifications 2006 2006 $378,000 $101,6407 Digester Sludge Improvements 2006 2008 $895,540 $53,7328 Surveillance Cameras 2006 2007 $224,326 $224,3269 Analytical Field Samplers 2006 2006 $93,240 $010 Scum Handling System 2006 2006 $0 $011 Control System Upgrade 2004 2009 $3,290,490 $1,505,36612 Port of Olympia Land Purchase 2007 $3,912,300 $2,503,87213 Thickening System Equipment Replacement 2006 2008 $470,631 $470,63114 Effluent Meter Installation 2007 $782,460 $602,49415 Instrument Air 2008 $99,504 $99,50416 Primary Sedimentation Tanks 2005 2012 $23,423,239 $2,099,09217 Folded Tanks 2006 2012 $11,798,372 $1,052,85418 Emergency Power Phase II 2006 2010 $1,676,381 $019 North Outfall Evaluation/Upgrade 2015 $3,434,501 $020 Class A Solids Project Unknown $0 $0 CONVEYANCE PROJECTS $�5,25�,0�3 $�,�3�,533
21 Kaiser Road Forcemain 2005 2006 $651,000 $10,11522 Kaiser Road Pump Station Improvements 2005 2007 $1,935,772 $812,95123 Martin Way/Sleater-Kinney Interceptor Repair 2005 2007 $1,845,879 $705,03724 Southern Connection Line Abandonment 2006 2006 $142,500 $142,50025 Percival Creek/Mottman Road Interceptor 2006 2008 $3,051,594 $106,68626 Upper Grass Lake Interceptor 2006 2006 $1,158,998 $55,45027 Kaiser Road Forcemain Replacement 2008 $2,669,888 $106,79628 Henderson/Indian Creek Improvements 2006 2010 $462,725 $029 East Corridor Upgrade (Marvin to Carpenter) 2006 2012 $3,339,688 $0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�2
Of the $301,326,557 in total CIP project costs, $254,826,066 represents new anticipated costs. The remainder includes project costs already spent for projects that were under way in 2006 or before.
Capital fund transfers account for the dollars utilized from the Capital Budget for in-house staff for engineering and asset management, which were formerly performed by consultants and were budgeted in the Capital Budget. In order to employ true cost accounting, there are line items in the Capital Budget showing internal costs for engineering and asset management. Conversely there is a line item deduct in the Operating Budget to reflect this. This practice is employed in order to accurately track capital project costs and insure that operational costs are not over-reported.
2007 Year Year Total Capital Auth. Online Project Cost Budget
MISCELLANEOUS $2�,070,000 $2,���,560
30 Annual Miscellaneous Professional Service 2004 2025 $4,000,000 $351,00031 Internal Engineering Support 2006 2025 $12,000,000 $625,00032 Flow Monitoring 2006 2025 $3,000,000 $144,00033 Flow Reduction Programs 2006 2025 $4,400,000 $350,10034 Budd Inlet Habitat Improvement Project 2006 2010 $1,890,000 $756,00035 Miscellaneous Small Projects 2006 2006 $3,780,000 $215,460 NEW CAPACITY PROJECTS $�70,2�3,�5� $�,76�,5�3 BUDD INLET RECLAIMED WATER PLANT $53,6�2,235 $30�,0�5
36 Tumwater Land Acquisition 2004 2006 $2,000,000 $12,26537 Membrane Filtration (3 mgd) 2022 $22,617,209 $038 Tumwater 3 mgd Recharge & Conveyance 2005 2022 $29,075,026 $288,75039 Other 4 mgd Recharge & Conveyance 2025+ $0 $0 HAWKS PRAIRIE SATELLITE $56,573,��� $6,�3�,77�
40 Martin Way 2 mgd Plant 2005 2006 $26,665,533 $4,744,14541 Ponds/Recharge Basins 2005 2006 $7,591,378 $50,54242 Conveyance Pipelines 2005 2006 $6,308,652 $2,045,09143 3rd mgd Equipment 2016 $4,121,402 $044 4th mgd 2023 $11,886,526 $045 5th mgd 2025+ $0 $046 Recharge Basins Expansion to 8 mgd 2025+ $0 $0 CHAMBERS PRAIRIE SATELLITE $60,0��,�25 $�,62�,7��
47 Land Acquisition 2005 2006 $3,600,000 $1,510,71548 1 mgd Plant 2015 $31,802,245 $049 Recharge/Conveyance 2015 $10,652,722 $050 Mullen Road Improvements 2009 $2,361,699 $118,08551 SE Olympia Diversion 2025+ $0 $052 Lacey Boulevard Diversion 2015 $11,601,459 $053 2nd mgd 2025+ $0 $0 ASSET MANAGEMENT/LERF $�7,276,353 $�,23�,5��
1 Asset Management Program 2003 2008 $3,300,000 $396,0002 Estimated AMP Projects (AMP (LERF)) 2006-2025 2025 $13,976,353 $838,581
Total CIP Project Costs $30�,326,557 $3�,��3,3�5Capital Fund Transfers $730,000
Engineering Staff $625,000 Asset Management $�05,000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�3
Six-Year Revenue and Expense Forecast
In addition to annual budgets, LOTT also typically projects a six-year Revenue and Expense Forecast. Six years is the typical planning window for utilities and public works projects, and is considered an appropriate short-term time period for predictability. The table below displays the six-year forecast.
Six-Year Revenue and Expense Forecast Summary
2007 200� 200� 20�0 20�� 20�2 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
REVENUE
Wastewater Service Charge (WSC) $13,901,119 $13,901,119 $13,901,119 $14,735,535 $15,309,717 $15,912,768 LOTT Equipment Replacement Fund (LERF) $716,553 $716,553 $716,553 $759,564 $789,161 $820,246 Capacity Development Charge (CDC) $5,722,859 $6,572,352 $7,145,820 $7,705,299 $7,310,669 $7,811,063 Miscellaneous Revenue $959,692 $543,241 $868,842 $684,520 $498,932 $366,675
Net Revenue from Rates and Charges $2�,300,223 $2�,733,265 $22,632,333 $23,���,��7 $23,�0�,�7� $2�,��0,753
Estimated Transfers from Loans $2,353,�22 $35,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Revenue and Loans $23,653,3�5 $56,733,265 $22,632,333 $23,���,��7 $23,�0�,�7� $2�,��0,753
EXPENSES
LOTT Operations $9,523,365 $9,969,979 $10,439,919 $10,934,208 $11,454,191 $12,001,291Capital Fund Transfer ($730,000) ($751,900) ($774,457) ($797,691) ($821,621) ($846,270)Net Operating Expense $8,793,365 $9,218,079 $9,665,462 $10,136,517 $10,632,570 $11,155,021Debt Service $4,151,955 $6,074,128 $6,074,128 $8,649,489 $8,649,489 $8,649,489
Total Operations and Debt Service $�2,��5,320 $�5,2�2,207 $�5,73�,5�0 $��,7�6,007 $��,2�2,05� $��,�0�,5�0 Capital Fund Expense $3�,��3,3�5 $22,���,73� $�7,��2,��7 $��,�32,7�3 $�0,2�2,��6 $5,�07,���
TOTAL EXPENSE $�7,�3�,705 $3�,236,��5 $33,222,53� $33,6��,720 $2�,57�,555 $2�,��2,���
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
��
Financial Metrics
LOTT uses several metrics to gauge the financial health of the utility. While some of these are general industry standards, others have been adopted as specific to LOTT based on standards accepted by the Board.
The table and graph below show the relationship between system expenses and revenue. System expenses are defined as expenses for operating the existing system plus debt service for loans borrowed for related capital costs. System revenue is defined as revenue from the service charges (WSC/LERF) and miscellaneous revenue. The current observed benchmark for this measure has been defined as not allowing projected system costs to exceed 85% of projected system revenue. If revenue consistently met or exceeded projections the remaining “unspent” funds would increase the equity in capital projects and fund reserves for emergency purposes.
System Expense vs. System Revenue
2007 200� 200� 20�0 20�� 20�2
Operating Expense $8,923,365 $9,351,979 $9,803,379 $10,278,572 $10,778,886 $11,305,727System Portion of Debt Service $2,858,147 $3,267,340 $3,267,340 $5,610,918 $5,610,918 $5,610,918
Total Operating Expense $��,7��,5�� $�2,6��,3�� $�3,070,7�� $�5,���,��0 $�6,3��,�0� $�6,��6,6�5
Service Charge Revenue (WSC/LERF) $14,617,671 $14,617,671 $14,617,671 $15,495,098 $16,098,878 $16,733,014Miscellaneous Revenue $959,692 $540,966 $864,184 $677,367 $489,168 $354,180
Total Operating Revenue $�5,577,363 $�5,�5�,637 $�5,���,�55 $�6,�72,�65 $�6,5��,0�6 $�7,0�7,��� System Expense vs. System Revenue 75% 83% 84% 98% 98% 99%Benchmark 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%
Without an adjustment in service charges, the system expenses will exceed 85% of service revenue by 2010. This is primarily due to loan repayment required to complete the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Improvement projects discussed in Chapter 7.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�5
The table and chart below show the projected year-end cash balance. The primary reason for retaining a year-end balance is to ensure year-to-year that the utility has funds for emergencies. Traditionally, LOTT has used a figure of 10% of revenue as a benchmark, resulting in an average of about $2.3 million in cash reserves as a minimum. However, based on current national security issues and trends, a more recent benchmark consists of maintaining at least five months of operating capital on hand. For LOTT this would amount to approximately $5 million, and this figure has been used as the benchmark. It is important to note that while there is a relationship between cash balance and rates, cash balance also includes borrowed funds, which are utilized to maintain a positive cash balance.
Year-End Cash Projections
with Loan Funds
2007 200� 200� 20�0 20�� 20�2
Projected Balance $15,684,640 $34,044,785 $23,312,005 $13,428,995 $7,606,838 $7,441,890 Benchmark $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�6
Audited Financial Statements
The LOTT Alliance was established as an entity in April 2000 and became financially independent in July 2001. Since that time, LOTT’s financial records have been audited annually by the Washington State Auditor’s Office.
2005 Audit
An audit of the 2005 records was conducted in 2006, with the final report issued in May. For the fifth year in a row, the Auditor’s Office reported no “findings” for the LOTT Alliance.
The results of the audit are included in two separate reports. Each of these is available on the Auditor’s web site (www.sao.wa.gov) and on the “Library” page of LOTT’s website (www.lottonline.org).
• Accountability Audit Report, April 6, 2006
• Financial Statements Audit Report, May 12, 2006
The Accountability Audit Report notes: “The Alliance complied with state laws and regulations and its own policies and procedures in the areas we examined. Internal controls were adequate to safeguard public assets.”
The Financial Statement Report notes: “In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the LOTT Alliance, as of December 31, 2005, and the changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, thereof, for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.”
2006 Audit
The audit of the 2006 records had not yet been conducted at the time this State of the Utility Report was published. When those reports are issued, probably in May 2007, they will be posted on the LOTT Alliance and State Auditor’s websites.
www.lottonline.org
www.sao.wa.gov
