Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COM2010-00021 Replace Water Storage - COM Permit / Conditions - 3/1/2010
(V N N M V r O r- O .- O CD O N N 0 N o MCD O M M O LO O � � fn O O O J w W W O (n (I. (I. Cl. C (gyp r � D w , N ` cn r- ++ a N 2 ` N USX � � asm Eno p w w � � 8 cL (� N v> � o= n U) a o — N N = c y N U a o Y o M c O c ca O N U- d mc . o � � E d p m W U U c i D_ O (D = . d .4) 0 - a O U y O (°0 � 7 cl p C (j o U Z w o c U m $ '� w c FL rn o ' °� L° as �- U � o � o a 00 c 0 u y E w p g oL- c � CL U) aJ CU w ycoa � Z (n — c =T� Lii _wo (Q W > � .0c a w N Ca- N ' W JJ ° Q 0 Oop o W � 2 om w c G r� z z , o m mw 5 0 J co 0 .. � oz 5 � cn M H � c � 0 00 cu ar w m 00 O W 0 LO N z y y Z J 00 � p c�v c m a M 0 a LL o CL 00 U LAD(V J U C ox W w Z 0 0 IL 0 O O U) z z m LL La 0 � zz J p v froo m w X LLL a Q � � W d Q 2 o Q y A (D UZw v w0 o� LL 0 � ;� o a M °OUOo (n a ui ui QZ0� Ow € s s .. c o D °o z < w CD c o a)>>v_ z Om 0) p � I- M O Z m r J > .1 m (n N - N Q < U) CN Q € U) y o y z 0 20 w M z F- C 0 w (n U) d c (n C _p w 0 U) w tr Z O C� r V _N N '0 < c (a Q �` y of z 0 (� 3 v� QZJ � O a) o000 a CL U LU N 0000 U- co C p www (V00 tz U O M Q nQ a $ ii aQ yo 7 0 •- w p 7 w > zcn iL O J F- w O M .. .. O U o W g ate ' .. _ � � N o 0 I-- a Y 0) N Li Cr- ;O 'O_ O W ~ f0 0 N IL O2 1 U G c c c c c c C c _� a) c ° ar a) J V) O U O a) co c c c c w w o F- cv 0 (.) m 0 n c c a a o- c cr V a c .�- 0 Z N M _O c > Ef EF w c 3 U CL as c N U) m N c 0 �. O ° � � c Q O m � O o OCL 2 cn U n n n n n n ~ t En N C CL C n 3 _ c w ° w 3m aim 3 om U. ° 0 Qcc O U)N crn m 12 - Q Oc c CU i cuO cu 0 o U a) O F- + p a) U a) C Q Q cn N m (A y Q.' (0 ` to m C N . a� 3 m 0 cn Q v p c 3 LL M a� a� c a) Cl. �- c v W N l LL Y 0) .0 � a) fO p C O C7 LL > N E 7 Q _� fn C L cp W E N cuc 6 a) CL CD ) � (n d V p m U C m 3 m p c c c o o a a) E X ° C O X a) N co CL CL lLL m m � >ca O ��-� X a) -a m o N v) w N U 0 c CL An .� > °Q in aim = rn 0 D E o rn a ai CL m � c WOo 0oQ E Z aa)) N � .E > c acm U) so a) Q c v a) E 2 m in � O Q U O O cu m —O O C a) Q um) r U a) 4 Q 0 T- cn (DCY) m O Z O_ .n C m ui -c- -0 O cn c t- oo Q V cu Fu a) 0 a) CL 0 a) a) 3 c C (D Q� ° a V C 7 ,. � a) _X m d a � 2 O.. C Q m D r .0 v) m Q a) cn Zz-2 6 � 0 cn L)) C C i U c � 0 U c m CL0 0 _ (n m 0 N W O c CL a) a c a) t 70 w cn m ` en voi E O 0)() 0 •0 ate) "0 -0c m c U o C p -0 U c a) a) (n cn O a) 0 rn mm U c Z a) � CL cn tic c a) m cn cn ° cu 02 N .O •C m 0 .2 Q a) > Y Y J cn a) O a) ` a) O U > ~ U Zn � a) c +L+ 'Q Q 0 N m a) �. a) R O U p m U — -0 C in 0 p CL X L) O O w=3 p _0 ,C O (n F- C C V A 2 " 0 > a) c 0 a) Q N m 'C _ ca. m O mU � cn0 � Dc cn 0 O O Z cn a) N •2 c o E a cn — a) m a 0 c D C cn inc O a) cu a mm cu Q U) U u) Co cn a)E Q N .� cn0 a) Q C O c: E � x 2 cn E m :a Et:f cn LL ICTN a) CL 0 m C cm O) Q �- u) U CL a) a) C -0 C Q W m a) c a) 0) > N CL — 0 Q 0 5:17 C a0 ~ C cu -m a 3N a mQ ca Of CL ) OO - X QX Zfa- Xen oNo 0 o N ~ N M Ln CO O U 0 -0 2a a) o ° f0 C L a) C a O N cu F- L O CL N In E :� f0 ` c a 0 cu = a U L c O U 0) Q a) W T O C O N —cu O N a) C �' N O = C n N 0 X -0 O M � cn � � ooU 0 � � � Qxcn >, o - aci a (D rn� Z U Z in a a� cv m a) a) ° c a°i me > L co C = QZ Q a) � L fl c N a) N cvco m Qc U) < E ` " � iocn Ea) � E c N a Q) N 3 F- W z C co a) ° V U 0 E O c ` cn � Z W 0 0 U E c U cn L a) c � co .o a)-so wU Bc Om a) ° aoiN 3o Q vQ c ° � U F- ° � � O 0) � in c � W (n 0) �. c a) L co a) , O fC0 � Q' Q n Q m CO = ca c O m CU a) Q -0 c N � cn LU LU O 0 _U v°i a) m o tf O a m me Qo � . � � O Q tr ° Q- > " o c � UL .co Z - cUp a) — C a) E Q J a) s N 0 6 .� a O (0 c 'C — a .N ` L cu L a) cu p W E U a) M a) V a) L O O n �cn � UQ0 Ups m Cvi rn� E0M CD aa) aNia°i o a) o cv CO : aaia Qz CL0 o o � co c a� CLo 'c 3 L c a� M L a) z Q Z a� L �_ U `t rn rn o U x c° L S in E O2Q Z O y ° Qc a) c a°) ` p cn 000 c E N t Q } U co m �' cn � �, oU _0 a) 00 sQa� p Q) a� LO c0- ZZO U Q 2cr E aSw 00 rn c > L c ai a) a :3 Q m w ¢ Of OZ mQ U Q o o my c Q Q c E � '� Z O cq 0 c � 'cn '<n c 3 cu c ° c cn E E � a U � Zp � Q Q L) Q ate') co a) a) u°i >' a) - c O (0 C C W d O � a) m - C X a) Q O O _c o (D aCD � N cc LULU W � (� N X N c aoi CL o •= v r U — 0 .fl N O a) 0 LL � d O c0 '� c .� c ) O cn 0) a) = p)Q N Q� 0- Z U) O 0 M N c O T a — C C O N 0 -- in C O C +. L Jd of a) C Rf -C 0 - (m- - Q cacnaS� pr, vc) > Evi o Q a 0 C7 >, cv S o � c .. E m c c CO o `o aa) : pLuM w � a) a) c Q ° - Q cv co w O O 0 ca U > C '-- U ) Q' cn +: c o � o N a) - O U O a) O O >, J F- C Q:= co p = U O N i0 N a_ ° ° o(n CLO � � � • C OU) U o 0 cn iu � M Z L >_C CL .�' CO N C _0 Q$ p a 0 N -0 u j cv L N cm� c i) c 0 a) a 006 03 a� ° J w w Qcw o a '- CM a Y •o)' aci3 0 w in L . oCD C: .0 7 a) N cm N C ¢ Q W y ui 0 v .0 a) `°0 0 D - � rn-a '~ U a L -0 Mca) O cc E oQ_ ° cn'a) oc a D o � N `'' a) -0Q-.OE www O °� °� � � � �� a) CU � o cvcu U o ° a aa) arc co UI~- Z U uQi ° •9 U) ccuo o ° a 0) C CO Q- Q OE N aa)) W Q 0 U N E ca 0 .Q Uc in ar° `� j N C o C t0 cn E U > cn c w _W +. co a) 'a Q_ O •� O CU Y N U L .0 .a C p W U l.L. c� O _C .-� C U C ° Q_a O a cn = .Q a) a a w o co f a E a co C 3 m N 0 .N cn — N E a) -a Wwz m c) L c 0 a) cn a= co c � a) �o nQc O CL— m iu o a) a) a ° � ° o _c Q 3 Q — cn o � m wHF- O a c 0 >, ° c X c O- m oc a) (� cn C a 0) Q ~ .O U ca U a) N a) a) .. Q_ 0 (n o a) L V c 0) a) C O U ui m ca a) a) O a= �- > m a) ° o ° H N Qc c -0 Q � F- O N0 E c Q a� > aU m Q a) m c o O cn ° O D p w ` L in v M 0 cn a >. c o N 2 .o 6 (D Q U � w w L) a� a� L o c�o a) -a •� ° o 0 Q'C CCD O N ` C O z ~ L 0 C L c� a a) cv a) a) a) a) — C cn o Q � 3 cn _O �_ f- dZ .. L � co v) � 2 Q c E ° �� E o c . (n c N h ° a) F- J ZO "' � .� cLn n cor m L 3 a) N a) O Q U - O U fA O J c + m h - a) O a � C C cn a) y CL� U U C Q ` a) Z) W _ O a) E cn 3 ,� 0 N O c0 z+ N Q cn o a) s c � � > a F- � � � c :3 CL CL� Q °- c .` g L N ° a) Q Q_ M U c CL F- U U m U a) c _ Q O C x 0 c p) c0 a) c� - c `0 c c n 0). fnZZ p Q ,c0 a) - o ca > a o E •�) E ° Q � caa ZQ � Ofw N caV a) c) ` CL M E c o aa)) c ° (D U) o a ` �° U 0 > °3 O � J U) a. ° c Q ° o o Q0 E ° E cn � .- m a) a a) Q O >, N 0 U/ J U (A Z p U �p ° 7 U a) "- O C a) E ap '` E O N N C C Q.. cn C C O E J U w p 0 L CKin O_ 7 Q_ L 'C rL-+ U m U Oo � cn ._ .= X Q U UX QO � UQ F- ° Q Q ca cX Qom. X Q o a) c a 0 > X o C) CN 6c� O N M d O 0 { 0 k .2 S k 2CL j \ / • ƒ m e \ So r / k / ƒ m >/ _w0 / o U) 'n k ± ] ® � o § / 7 /» y mU a \ k2 ° � c " 0 § k0 tg o00 > 0 ƒ.\ U .§ 2 �e 2 0) § 0 t e { $ ® 2 = 0) � E % 'E / e co & » _ / £ 0 \ D -0 o % = u o > 7 e a) (D2 � k § \ 'In $ $ 2S » 2 � 22 = m coo 2 > . o n _j -0 � n e = $ f 0 / 2E2 }k ' c%2 h k \ . 7 § c \ %uc / / ( / a 0 k7G < cm E » ® 023 $ § \ fE\ | c S / / ° 0 � '� g012 of #77 $ �� 2 \ p /\ / / t � " (L) 0 S % ƒ 0-\ k o0 & o $ & / \ /f@ m o & e CU = -Cm 7 � 7 / m a § / / % ± / a) / 06 -0 � / E - K $ § # 8o m E u� / / f cx C: § \ $ � � 0) -0 f 0 § c = c ; � C: fk \ 0kk ® � _ a) a) E £ . a) / A k § c 'a a) m m E = 2 cn f 0 ca cu co > G E � @a :� E � o » '> o 0 ■ DeV)jcn - ° e o $ 7 .7 k # .@ \ $ � c o3: � / f2f0= t27 / h §c o . . 7cu a5c .- � 0 / x � / } \ % \ � ' ® 7 $f m -a) a % 3 a)a) 552E § cn S ¢ k c r 2 cU & e o 2 .2 m � � k cu� � \aL \ \ \ k uj \ / / / / o / / � / � � Fk o / § ± « 2 � ; « ; o \ E & § $ / § k / o O , , . O n K. CONCRETE MECHANICAL MANUFACTURED HOME D Dale By o Footin 1 Set � `1 backs � Ribbons Gas Piping O o Interior Date B interior-Date By Date By Z oN Exterior Date Exterior Date B Set-up D INSULATION 00 Point Load/Isolated Footings Date By m Date By BG/SLAB INSULATION --- n Data By FIRE DEPARTMENT = Foundation Wails Floors Date By Dare By Data By DECKS D FRAMING Walls Date By m Date By Data By PROPANE TANKS CA PLUMBING Vault Date By .< Date By OTHER U) Groundwork Attic m . Dale By Date By Type ZDate ay D.W.v DRYWALL Type. n Int.Brace Wall O Date aY Date By Date 3y ic FINAL INSPECTION ^� Water Line Fire Seperation Date By Date By Date By O O CD Pass or Request Inspect. o Type of Insp. Fail Date Date 009P,,13y Comments 0 Ln FORM MUST BE COMPLETED IN INK MASON COUNTY PERMIT NO." PLEASE PRESS HARD BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 426 W. Cedar• P.O. Box 186, Shelton, WA 98584 { Shelton (360) 427-9670 • Belfair (360) 275-4467 • Elma (360) 482-5269 On the web www.co.mason.wa.us APPLICANT INFORMATION CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Owner i . . . •�� + '__ �� Company Name_ Mailing Addressor ' ' P r l Mailing Address iA City' :t k State3"� r, Zip Code— _ City _. t State Zip Code' Phone '^ Other Ph. Phone Other Ph. Lien/Title Holder Contractor Reg. #S s E mail address E Mail Address , Drivers Lic. # DOB Drivers Lic. # DOB SEPTIC /WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION - Connect to New Septic Existing Septic Connect to Water System Name of Water System Well Sewer System Name of Sewer System PARCEL INFORMATION - 12 Digit P7rcel NoY, �, , . I - -�.t Fire District Legal Description Site Address (Please include street name, street number and city) Directions to site Will timber be cut and sold in parcel preparation?Yes/No Is property within 200'of Saltwater Lake River/Creek Pond Wetland Seasonal Runoff Stream Slopes or Bluff/o Is this permit submittal the result of a Stop Work Notice,Correction Notice or other enforcement action?Yes/No TYPE OF JOB - New ;:4 Add Alt Repair . �Othes Af t` '.PRIMARY RESIDENCE ❑ SEASONAL ❑ Use of Building Describe Work , . No. of Bedrooms No. of Bathrooms Square Footage- 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor Basement Deck Covered Deck Other Sq. ft. Garage Attached Detached Carport Attached Detached MANUFACTURED HOME INFORMATION - Make Model Year Length Width Serial No. No. of Bedrooms No. of Bathrooms Type of Heat Purchase Price $ Replacement Unit? Yes/ No Installer Name Certification No. OWNER/BUILDER Acknowledges submission of inaccurate information may result in a stop work order or permit revocation. Acknowledgement of such is by signature below. I declare that I am the owner, owners legal representative,or the contractor. I further declare that I am entitled to receive this permit and to do the work as proposed in the application. I declare that I have obtained the permission from all the necessary parties. If permission is required from any easement holder or any other party in interest regarding this application or the work proposed in the application, I have obtained permission from them to apply for this permit and conduct the work proposed. The owner or agent on owners behalf, represents that the information provided is accurate and grants employees of Mason County access to the above described property and structure for review and inspection. This permit/application becomes null & void if work or authorized construction is not commenced within 180 days or if construction work is suspended for a period of 180 days. PROOF OF CONTINUATION OF WORK IS BY MEANS OFA PROGRESS INSPECTION.INACTIVITY OF THIS PERMIT APPLICATION OF 180 DAYS WILL INVALIDATE THEAPPLICATION. X Date: Owner/Owners Representative/Contractor (indicate which one) FOR OFFICIAL USE BEYOND THIS POINT Accepted by: Date DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW AIPPROVED DENIED NOTES Building Department Planning Department Environmental Health Department Fire Marshal FEES Building Permit Fee Site Ins ection Plan Review Fee EH Review Fee Plumbing & Base Fee Planning Review Fee Mechanical & Base fee Other Wood /Gas/ Pellet Stove Fee State Fee Violation Fee Pre-Paid at Submittal Valuation $ TOTAL FEES OW 30 SKILLINGS C O N N O L LY RECH VED OCT 2 7 208 October 21, 2008 426 W.' CCDAR ST. #07612 Mason County Fire Marshall P.O. Box 186 Shelton, WA 98584 ATTN: Craig HaiJC,J.en RE: Madrona Beach Water System Dear Mr. Haugen: As you know, Madrona Beach Water System is in the process of replacing its existing water storage tank. Mason County PUD No. 1 was planning to provide fireflow storage, however, the Homeowners' Association has strongly opposed this decision. They have spoken with a lawyer and argued that 1) the Mason County Interim Fire Flow Standards are not applicable to them because they are not an expanding system; 2) the cost of the extra storage for fire flow would be excessive for such a small system; and 3) the addition of the extra fire flow storage could possibly be a violation of the purchase agreement that the PUD signed when it purchased the Madrona Beach Water System. The PUD's lawyer has reviewed these arguments and the documents in question and believes that there is merit to the Association's arguments. It is for this reason that the PUD has decided not in provide fire flow storage for Madrona Beach Water System. We will be submitting the water system plan for review shortly, so, if you have any comments or questions, please contact us within 30 days. Sii icerely, Mary W es, PE Design Engineer SKILLINGS CONNOLLY, INC. cc: Steve Taylor,Mason County Public Utility District Frank Meriwether, Department of Health http://skillings/projects/2007/07612/Project Files/Corres pond ence/2008-10-21-letter-MW-Haugen.doc ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • ENVIRONMENTAL • REAL ESTATE SERVICES PO Box 5080 Lacy, Washington 98509 360-491-3399 Fax 360-491-3857 www.skillings.com I (3/9/2010) Larry Waters - RE: Madrona Page 1 From: "Robert W. Johnson" <rjohnson@hctc.com> To: "'Larry Waters"' <Law@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 3/9/2010 9:46 AM Subject: RE: Madrona Larry: I am going off of memory here but I believe there were actually two connection made to adjoining properties many years before PUD 1 took over the ownership of the water system. They caused significant problems for Madrona when they managed their own system. I am pretty sure that one of those connections has since been terminated and the property owner drilled their own well. I believe that the other connection may still be in use. The problems that Madrona experienced was one of the primary reasons that the language was put into the contract with PUD 1. Madrona did not want any future connects to be made to their system. PUD 1 does not usually limit the ability to expand its water systems but this was a requirement for the transfer of the system to PUD 1. In this case we made an exception and limited any future ability to expand the system. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Larry Waters [mailto:Law@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 9:15 AM To: Robert W. Johnson Cc: Mark Core; Jocelyne Gray Subject: Re: Madrona Rob, Jocelyne Grey with the PUD sent me an e-mail copy of a letter dated Aug. 7, 2008 from a Mary Wilkes with Skillings Connolly, Inc. In the letter it states"The water system allowed a neighbor to connect to the system some years back, and it caused nothing but problems in the community " . Is this connection still in use? Was this connection made prior to the PUD taking over the system or was it allowed by the PUD. I am in agreement with your take on the system, that even if the tank will be larger than what is existing it is not an expansion of the system as long as no other service connections will be made. It is clear that at some time there was an exception made for at least one site. I see in the sales agreement between the PUD and Madrona beach that no other connections are to be made outside the development, that is why I need to know if the connection is still in use and when the connection was made, pre or post PUD. Can you help clarify this for the County. >>> "Robert W. Johnson" <rjohnson@hctc.com> 3/8/2010 10:09 AM >>> Larry &Craig: (3/9/2010)Larry Waters- RE. Madrona Page 2 I have been included on the a-mails between you and PUD No. 1. 1 am concerned that this issue may cause a delay in the project and increase the costs of the improvements necessary to the Madrona water system. Mason County's fire flow standards apply only to"new or expanding" systems as defined by (as defined in WAC 246-290). Here is the definition from WAC 246-290-010: Expanding public water system' means a public water system installing additions, extensions, changes, or alterations to their existing source, transmission, storage, or distribution facilities that will enable the system to increase in size its existing service area and/or its number of approved service connections. Exceptions: (a)A system that connects new approved individual retail or direct service connections onto an existing distribution system within an existing service area; or (b)A distribution system extension in an existing service area identified in a current and approved water system plan or project report." The Madrona system is by definition a nonexpanding system. By contractual agreement the system can never be expanded beyond the current connections. I am attaching a copy of the agreement between Madrona Inc. and PUD No. 1. Paragraph 8 of the agreement provides that the system cannot be expanded outside the current connections or service area. I hope that this clarifies that the fire flow requirements of the interim standards do not apply to the Madrona System. If there is still an issue, I would suggest we set up a meeting with Monty Cobb so we can resolved the issue and not delay the project. You should also be aware that the State Supreme Court recently held that providing fire flow is obligation of general purpose government which could not be passed on to utility rate payers. "Providing fire hydrants is a government responsibility." Lane v. City of Seattle,64 Wash.2d 875, 194 P.3d 977 (2008). 1 am also attaching a copy of that decision. Under Lane, if Mason County (a general purpose government)where to require fire flow in the Madrona System, the cost associated with those improvements would need to be borne by Mason County and not the Madrona ratepayers. Steve Taylor, Manager of PUD No.1, is meeting with representatives of the county very soon to discuss the implications of this decision on future fire flow requirements. (3/5/2010) Larry Waters-Re: Madrona Beach and Fire Flow Requirements Page 1 From: Larry Waters To: Jocelyne Gray Subject: Re: Madrona Beach and Fire Flow Requirements Jocelyne, Thank you for the information, I will speak to Craig regarding this, the e-mail from Skillings Connolly does not contain Craig's response. I do have a few question of my own about the new system, how many lots are served at this time and how many more are left to be developed. Also the letter from Skillings Connolly states that the slope the existing 6,000 gallon tank is located on will not support a larger tanks weight load yet the application my office received is for a 10,000 gallon tank? It sounds like a Geo-Tec report my need to be done to clarify this issue. It also states that the service area can not be increase because that 6,000 gallon tank is be replaced by a 6,000 gallon tank so that is no expansion. It appear's there is going to be an expansion based on the new size of the tank which would require the tank to meet the fire flow requirements. Larry Waters Building inspection IV/Fire Inspector Mason County DCD >>> "Jocelyne Gray" <jocelyneg(cDhctc.com> 3/5/2010 12:02 PM >>> Craig and Larry, Per my telephone conversation this morning with Larry, I have attached the original email from Skillings Connolly regarding fire flow at Madrona Beach. This communication was sent August 7, 2008. The Madrona Beach Water System is a Group A Transient Noncommunity system that is non-expanding. The interim fire flow regulations clearly state they apply to Group A Community systems that are new or expanding. Phase 1 of construction began January 2010 with the installation of service meters. The contractor, Dumpman Construction, has submitted the building permit application for Mt. Baker Silo to construct the reservoir which has been approved by Washington State Department of Health. I look forward to resolving this issue promptly. Sincerely, Jocelyne Gray, PE Director of Operations-Water PUD No. 1 of Mason County N. 21971 Highway 101 Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 877-5249 ext 221 jocelyneg hctc.com Page 1 of 1 Larry Waters -Madrona Beach and Fire Flow Requirements From: "Jocelyn Gray" <jocelyneg@hctc.com> To: "'Craig Haugen"' <craigh@co.mason.wa.us>, <law@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 3/5/2010 12:05 PM Subject: Madrona Beach and Fire Flow Requirements CC: <rjohnson@hctc.com> Attachments: Email from Skillings to Fire Marshall-08.07.2008.pdf Craig and Larry, Per my telephone conversation this morning with Larry, I have attached the original email from Skillings Connolly regarding fire flow at Madrona Beach. This communication was sent August 7, 2008. The Madrona Beach Water System is a Group A Transient Noncommunity system that is non-expanding. The interim fire flow regulations clearly state they apply to Group A Community systems that are new or expanding. Phase 1 of construction began January 2010 with the installation of service meters. The contractor, Dumpman Construction, has submitted the building permit application for Mt. Baker Silo to construct the reservoir which has been approved by Washington State Department of Health. I look forward to resolving this issue promptly. Sincerely, Jocelyne Gray, PE Director of Operations-Water PUD No. 1 of Mason County N. 21971 Highway 101 Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 877-5249 ext 221 jocelyneg@hctc.com "This institution is an equal opportunity provider and employer." file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\law\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B90F3 8... 3/5/2010 OCT-of-2008 WED 09:39 An SKILLINGS-CONNOLLY FAX NO. 3604913857 P. 01 AOREMMM T=S AGIZEEMIM, made this a2o day of &40A , 199.8 by Madxona, Inc. , as seller, and Mason County FUD No. 1, hereinafter called purchaser. WHEREAS, the .seller is the owner of a certain water system known as "Madrona, 'Inc. Water System". WHEREAS, the purchaser is desirous of purchasing the system. WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of entering into an agreement as set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually. agreed: 1. SALE OF WATER SYSTEK The seller agrees to sell and does hereby transfer the water system )mown as Madrona, Inc. Water System in accordance with the terms provided below, including but not limited to all tangible and intangible assets, the well, water mainlines, tanks, well house, pumps and related water system apparatus all known as the Madrone Inc. Water System, 2. BALE PRICE The sales price mf the system is One Dollar ($1.00) . The sale price includes all of the equipment and properties consisting of the water system now existing including but not Limited to the all water rights, engineering records, and accounts receivable due, 1997. Each party shall pay their respective closing and attorney fees. 3. SALE FREE OF ENCQMBRANCSO The seller warrants and agrees that this sale is intended to be a sale of the assets free of encumbrances and that the seller will satisfy all outstanding obligations accrued through duly 31, 1997 at closing. 4. WARRANTIES The• seller Makes no warranties of any kind whatsoever except that it will be free of encumbrances. This system is -used equipment which in being sold was is". The seller does not -know of any material defeat in the system other than that which has bee= previously disclosed. The purchaser has inspected the system.and has reviewed or had the mpportunity to review the engineering records which are on file. S. OPERATIONS / MAINTMMNCB / HOLD HARMLESS The purchaser took possession of the system as of August 1, 1997 and shall operate the system as required by the laws of the State of Washington which may have jurisdiction over the operations. SETTLE&JOHNSON.0 c ATTORNEYS A3•LAw ANGLE B=.P.O.BOX 1400 SKEL oN.wA3raaoroN sewn (360)4:6)-"A•FAX(360){Z&t90_ THIS PARCEL INCLUDES pLAN.. S, .BL.UEPRlNTS O R OVERSIZE IMAGES LARGEFORMAT IMAGES HAVE BEEN.. STORED IN FILE CABINETS) UNDER RGEL NUMBE-R- PA PARCEL # � CASE # O( . , . � OCT-01-2008 WED 09:39 AM SKILLINGS--CONNOLLY FAX NO, 3604913857 P. 02 The purchaser shall hold the seller harmless of any claims arising out of the operations by the purchaser after said date. 6. RECORDS AND COOPERATION The seller shall provide the purchaser with -all relevant records pertaining to the water system, customer names and address, engineering and copy of the water rights. The seller's representative shall cooperate and attempt to provide the purchaser with Information necessary for an easy transition at no further expense to the purchaser. Purchaser shall place its own keys on the well house at the date of closing. 7. ASSIGNMENT OF EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS The water company has made improvements in the road rights of way in the plat. The water company has certain rights at the well Bite which are described in a Restrictive Covenant of Record. 'There are easements where the well and atorage tank are located_ The seller will execute an "Assignment of Easements and Rights" in recordable form and deliver it to the purchaser. This assignment will be with warranty and shall list the areas where the seller bus easements, rights or claim of casements and rights S. WATER RIGHTS MAINTAINED FOR SYSTRM. Any and all water rights assigned or tranAferred pursuant to this Purchase and Sale Agreement shall be reserved for the Madrona, Inc. Water System and the Purchaser shall neither transfer nor attempt to transfer said water rights for the purpose of serving any of the Purchaser's customers or other properties located outside of the area currently served by the Madrona, Inc. Water system. $�ibLTrA: Kadrona, Inc. AJACKR�N�ZZKRS, president SARDARA-LEVETTE, Secretary PURCHASER: PUD No. 1 of MMON COUNTY r L- by: 'R04Nar& Mikc6an ?u0 AW I Mou,n9e>t. SETPLE&JOHNSONeu e AMPLNEY9 AT LAW ANGLE BLDG,-P.O.BOX 1400 SHELTON,WASHINGTON"SM (360)426-9M-FAX(360)426-1CO2 Page 1 of 1 Larry Waters -Madrona From: "Robert W. Johnson" <rjohnson@hctc.com> To: <Law@co.mason.wa.us>, "'Craig Haugen"' <craigh@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 3/8/2010 10:09 AM Subject: Madrona CC: "'Jocelyn Gray"' <jocelyneg@hctc.com>, <sntaylor@hctc.com>, "'Monty Cobb"' <MontyC@co.mason.wa.us> Attachments: SCAN 1440_000.pdf, Lane v City of Seattle.pdf Larry&Craig: I have been included on the a-mails between you and PUD No. 1. I am concerned that this issue may cause a delay in the project and increase the costs of the improvements necessary to the Madrona water system. Mason County's fire flow standards apply only to"new or expanding" systems as defined by(as defined in WAC 246-290). Here is the definition from WAC 246-290-010: "`Expanding public water system`means a public water system installing additions, extensions, changes, or alterations to their existing source, transmission, storage, or distribution facilities that will enable the system to increase in size its existing service area and/or its number of approved service connections. Exceptions: (a)A system that connects new approved individual retail or direct service connections onto an existing distribution system within an existing service area; or (b)A distribution system extension in an existing service area identified in a current and approved water system plan or project report." The Madrona system is by definition a nonexpanding system. By contractual agreement the system can never be expanded beyond the current connections. I am attaching a copy of the agreement between Madrona Inc. and PUD No. 1. Paragraph 8 of the agreement provides that the system cannot be expanded outside the current connections or service area. I hope that this clarifies that the fire flow requirements of the interim standards do not apply to the Madrona System. If there is still an issue, I would suggest we set up a meeting with Monty Cobb so we can resolved the issue and not delay the project. You should also be aware that the State Supreme Court recently held that providing fire flow is obligation of general purpose government which could not be passed on to utility rate payers. "Providing fire hydrants is a government responsibility."Lane v. City of Seattle,64 Wash.2d 875, 194 P.3d 977 (2008). I am also attaching a copy of that decision. Under Lane, if Mason County (a general purpose government) where to require fire flow in the Madrona System,the cost associated with those improvements would need to be borne by Mason County and not the Madrona ratepayers. Steve Taylor, Manager of PUD No.1, is meeting with representatives of the county very soon to discuss the implications of this decision on future fire flow requirements. Rob Johnson file://C:\Documents%20and%20 Settings\law\Local%20 Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B94CC... 3/8/2010 ' Page 1 of 9 Westlaw. 194 P.3d 977 Page 1 164 Wash.2d 875, 194 P.3d 977 (Cite as: 164 Wash.2d 875,194 P.3d 977) N son,J.,held that: Supreme Court of Washington, (1) charge imposed by utility on ratepayers to pay En Banc. for hydrants was an illegal tax; Arthur T.LANE,Kenneth Gorohoff and Walter L. (2) ratepayer had standing to challenge municipal- Williams,individually and on behalf of the class of ity's increased tax on water utility; all persons similarly situated,Respondents/ (3) municipality's tax on public water utility to pay Cross-Appellants, for fire hydrants was constitutional; V. (4) ratepayer was entitled to statutory interest on re- The CITY OF SEATTLE,Respondent/ payment of illegal hydrant charge;and Cross-Respondent, (5) charge imposed on surrounding municipalities King County Fire District No.2;King County Fire was valid fee. District No.4(a.k.a.Shoreline Fire Department); North Highline Fire District No. 11;King County Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Fire District No. 16(a.k.a.Northshore Fire Depart- ment);King County Fire District No.20;The City West Headnotes of Shoreline,a Washington municipal corporation; and King County,a Washington municipal corpora- 1l1 Municipal Corporations 268 Cz::>57 tion,Respondents, The City of Burien,a Washington municipal cor- 268 Municipal Corporations poration;The City of Lake Forest Park,a Washing- 26811 Governmental Powers and Functions in ton municipal corporation,Appellants. General No.80204-1. 268k57 k. Powers and functions of local gov- ernment in general.Most Cited Cases Argued Feb.28,2008. Governments are treated differently by the courts Decided Oct. 16,2008. depending on if they are acting as governments or as businesses. Background: Municipal water utility sued other municipalities and fire districts for payment for hy- 121 Municipal Corporations 268 C=63.1 drants. Ratepayers brought class action and sued the utility for hydrant payments made by ratepayers 268 Municipal Corporations for three-year period and sued municipality for rais- 26811 Governmental Powers and Functions in ing taxes on water utility to cover cost of hydrant General payments. Each party moved for summary judg- 268k63 Judicial Supervision ment. The Superior Court, King County, Michael S. 268k63.1 k.In general.Most Cited Cases Spearman, J., ruled that utility could not charge Supreme Court reviews most government decisions ratepayers for hydrants, municipal tax on utility to determine whether they had a rational basis and was valid, utility had to repay ratepayers, other mu- occasionally use this standard to strike down a gov- nicipalities had to pay for their share of hydrant ernment decision. costs, and fire districts had no obligation to pay. Ratepayers, municipality, and other municipalities [31 Municipal Corporations 268 C�-63.5 appealed. 268 Municipal Corporations Holdings: The Supreme Court, en banc, J.M. John- 268I1 Governmental Powers and Functions in General 268k63 Judicial Supervision ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov.Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=2&sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&mt=Was... 3/8/2010 Page 2 of 9 194 P.3d 977 Page 2 164 Wash.2d 875, 194 P.3d 977 (Cite as: 164 Wash.2d 875,194 P.3d 977) 268k63.5 k.Discretion.Most Cited Cases indiction in general.Most Cited Cases Supreme Court reviews business decisions made by Without jurisdiction, a court cannot hear a case, a governmental unit under the business judgment even if every party concedes standing. rule and infrequently reverse a business decision. 141 Taxation 371 C=2002 171 Waters and Water Courses 405 C=,203(12) 405 Waters and Water Courses 371 Taxation 4051X Public Water Supply 3711 In General 4051X(A)Domestic and Municipal Purposes 371k2002 k. Distinguishing "tax" and 405k203 Water Rents and Other Charges "license" or"fee".Most Cited Cases 405k203(12) k. Review by courts and There is a three-factor test to decide whether a gov- injunction against enforcement.Most Cited Cases emmental charge is a tax or a fee, and no single Ratepayer had standing to challenge municipality's factor determines the matter: (1) the purpose of the increased tax on water utility, even though ratepay- charge, (2) where the money raised is spent, and (4) er did not pay the tax directly; water utility in- whether people pay the cost because they use the creased its rates to pay for the tax charge by muni- service. cipality, and ratepayer had to pay the higher rates in [5]Waters and Water Courses 405 0-203(9) order for utility to pay the higher taxes. 405 Waters and Water Courses 181 Action 13 C=13 4051X Public Water Supply 13 Action 4051X(A)Domestic and Municipal Purposes 131 Grounds and Conditions Precedent 405k203 Water Rents and Other Charges 13k13 k. Persons entitled to sue. Most Cited 405k203(9) k. Hydrant rentals. Most Cases Cited Cases To have standing, a party must be in a law's zone of Charge imposed by municipal water utility on tax- interest and must suffer some harm. payers to pay for the cost of fire hydrants was an invalid tax; purpose of the charge was to increase [91 Municipal Corporations 268 4D-957(4) revenue, the money went to a hydrant fund, but ratepayers paid the same fixed amount whether they 268 Municipal Corporations used the hydrants or not. West's RCWA Const. Art. 268XIII Fiscal Matters 7,§ 5. 268XIII(D) Taxes and Other Revenue, and Application Thereof 161 Action 13 QC=13 268057 Constitutional Requirements and Restrictions 13 Action 268k957(4) k. Submission to voters, 131 Grounds and Conditions Precedent and levy, assessment, and collection. Most Cited 13k13 k. Persons entitled to sue. Most Cited Cases Cases Taxation 371 C=,2100 Courts 106 0=-39 371 Taxation 106 Courts 371111 Property Taxes 1061 Nature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction 3711I1(B)Laws and Regulation in General 371111(B)3 Constitutional Requirements 10609 k. Determination of questions of jur- and Restrictions ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov.Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=2&sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&mt=Was... 3/8/2010 Page 3 of 9 194 P.3d 977 Page 3 164 Wash.2d 875, 194 P.3d 977 (Cite as: 164 Wash.2d 875,194 P.3d 977) 371k2100 k. In general. Most Cited 405k203 Water Rents and Other Charges Cases 405k203(9) k. Hydrant rentals. Most Municipality's tax on public water utility to pay for Cited Cases fire hydrants was constitutional; municipality ex- Charge imposed by municipality on surrounding plicitly said it was taxing utility, the tax was prop- municipalities that required municipal water utility erly adopted, and tax expressly stated it was subject to provide hydrants to them was a valid fee to cover to referendum. West's RCWA Const. Art. 7, § 5; their fair share of the costs of the hydrants; there West's RCWA 35.21.710,82.16.010(4). was a direct relationship between the costs charged and the service provided.West's RCWA 43.09.210. 1101 Municipal Corporations 268 0=1002 **978 Michael Paul Ruark, Attorney at Law, Bel- levue, WA, Brian Richard Paige, Itron Inc., Liberty 268 Municipal Corporations Lake,WA,for Appellants. 268XV Claims Against Corporation 268k1002 k.Interest.Most Cited Cases Gregory Colin Narver, Suzanne Lieberman Smith, Seattle City Attorneys Office, William Howard Pat- Municipal Corporations 268 C;=1016 ton, Foster Pepper PLLC, King County Prosecutor's Office, Margaret A. Pahl, Howard Phillip Schnei- 268 Municipal Corporations derman, William E. Blakney, King County Admin- 268XVI Actions istrative Building, Seattle, WA, Ian Richard Sievers 268k1016 k. Capacity to sue or be sued in , City of Shoreline Attorney, Shoreline, WA, Kin- general.Most Cited Cases non William Williams, Joseph Halder Marshall, Governments cannot be sued for money without Williams & Williams, PSC, Bothell, WA, for Re- their consent, and local governments cannot be spondents. sued for interest without the state's consent. David Florian Jurca, Jennifer Suzanne Divine, Con- 1111 Waters and Water Courses 405 Cz�184.1 nie K. Haslam, Helsell Fetterman LLP, Seattle, WA,for Respondents/Cross-Appellants. 405 Waters and Water Courses 405IX Public Water Supply Brian K. Snure, Snure Law Office PSC, Des 405IX(A)Domestic and Municipal Purposes Moines, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of 405k184 Water or Waterworks Compan-ies Washington Fire Commissioner's Association. 405kl84.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases Ratepayer who paid improper charge for city hy- J.M.JOHNSON,J. drants was entitled to interest on the amount paid at the statutory rate, where governing statute waived *879 ¶ 1 In this case we must decide who will pay immunity and permitted suit against water compan- for fire hydrants in the city of Seattle and its rub- ies for "all" loss damage, or injury, which included urbs. Seattle Public Utility (SPU) used to pay for interest on the amount of the award. West's RCWA them, *880 passing the cost along to its ratepayers. 80.04.440. The ratepayers object and want Seattle to foot the bill. If Seattle has to pay for its hydrants, it wants 1121 Waters and Water Courses 405 4-203(9) Lake Forest Park to pay for the hydrants in Lake Forest Park. Lake Forest Park, in turn, wants fire 405 Waters and Water Courses districts in Lake Forest Park to pay. The fire dis- 4051X Public Water Supply tricts want someone, anyone, else to pay. On top of 4051X(A)Domestic and Municipal Purposes all that, the ratepayers want interest on improper ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov.Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=2&sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&mt=Was... 3/8/2010 Page 4 of 9 194 P.3d 977 Page 4 164 Wash.2d 875, 194 P.3d 977 (Cite as: 164 Wash.2d 875,194 P.3d 977) past hydrant payments they recover and want "Lane") sued SPU for hydrant payments made by Seattle's new tax on SPU declared illegal. Finally, ratepayers for the preceding three years. The statute the fire districts claim they are no longer even of limitations limits that claim to three years. RCW parties to the litigation. 4.16.080(6). Lane also sued Seattle to enjoin the newly raised city taxes on SPU, which had resulted ¶ 2 We affirm the trial court on most issues. The in SPU's raising its rates on ratepayers. court correctly held that providing fire hydrants is a government responsibility**979 for which a gov- ¶ 6 After a lengthy pretrial process, each party ernment must pay, that Seattle's new tax on SPU is moved for summary judgment. The trial judge held constitutional, and that municipality Lake Forest (1) SPU could not charge ratepayers to pay for hy- Park must pay for hydrants within its boundary. drants; (2) Seattle's tax on SPU was valid; (3) SPU The trial court erred only when it failed to give the had to pay back the Lane ratepayers, but only at one claiming ratepayers the statutory interest rate on the percent interest; (4) Lake Forest Park and Burien invalid hydrant fees. had to pay Seattle for their share of the hydrant costs; and (5) the fire districts had no obligation to pay. Each of these rulings has been challenged. We I granted direct review. ¶3 For years, SPU paid for hydrants by charging its ¶ 7 After review, but before oral argument, Burien water ratepayers a flat hydrant fee added to their decided it had spent too much money litigating and water charges. In 2003, this court held that Seattle withdrew. Thus, Burien was the only party origin- City Light could not charge its ratepayers for street- ally stating a claim against the fire districts. lights. Providing streetlights is a government func- Without an opposing party appealing their judg- tion, and the court held that a municipal govern- ment, the fire districts are no longer parties, and we ment must pay out of the city's general fund. do not reach the issue between Burien and the fire Okeson v. City of Seattle, 150 Wash.2d 540, 78 districts.The remaining issues are resolved below. P.3d 1279 (2003). Recognizing the legal equival- ence between hydrants and streetlights expressed in that decision (and argued by the city), Seattle had II SPU stop charging ratepayers for hydrants. Instead, Seattle began to pay for the hydrants out of its gen- eral fund. To make up the cost, Seattle raised taxes A. SPU Cannot Charge Ratepayers for Hydrants, on SPU, which led SPU to raise rates on water rate- which Are a General Government Responsibility payers to make up the difference. ¶ 8 "No tax shall be levied except in pursuance of ¶ 4 SPU also provides local hydrants to areas out- law; and every law imposing a tax shall state dis- side the city of Seattle and concluded that those tinctly the object of the same to which only it shall municipal governments should pay their share. SPU be applied," WASH. CONST. art. VII, § 5. If sent a bill for hydrants *881 to Lake Forest Park, providing hydrants is a government function, and if Burien, and to local fire districts, all of which re- charging ratepayers for those hydrants is a tax, not fused to pay. SPU then sued Lake Forest Park and a fee, the charge violates this part of the constitu- Burien for payment and later joined the fire dis- tion.*882 Seattle imposed a "charge" rather than a tricts. tax,which it was not authorized by law to impose. ¶ 5 Meanwhile, a class made up of ratepayers [1][2][3] ¶ 9 We treat governments differently if ("Lane et al.," as representatives, hereinafter they are acting as governments or as businesses. Okeson. 150 Wash.2d at 549, 78 P.3d 1279. We re- 0 2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=2&sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&mt=Was... 3/8/2010 Page 5 of 9 194 P.3d 977 Page 5 164 Wash.2d 875, 194 P.3d 977 (Cite as: 164 Wash.2d 875,194 P.3d 977) view most government decisions to determine [51 ¶ 13 Here, the purpose of charging ratepayers a whether they had a rational basis and occasionally hydrant charge is also to increase revenue for the use this standard to strike down a government de- city and not to regulate hydrants or water usage, in- cision. Eg., Associated Grocers, Inc. v. State, 114 dicating a tax. The money goes to a hydrant fund, Wash.2d 182, 187-88, 787 P.2d 22 (1990); making it more like a fee. But, ratepayers pay the O'Meara v. Wash. State Bd. Against Discrimina- same fixed hydrant cost whether they use hydrants tion, 58 Wash.2d 793, 799, 365 P.2d 1 (1961); In re or not, indicating a tax. All benefit by having water Hendrickson, 12 Wash.2d 600, 612, 123 P.2d 322 available to put out fires. Moreover, we had ex- (1942). In contrast, we review business decisions pressly discussed fire hydrants as an example of under the business judgment rule and infrequently government services in Okeson. Seattle had argued reverse a business decision. See Scott v. Trans- that the Okeson streetlights were just like hydrants, System, Inc., 148 Wash.2d 701, 709, 64 P.3d 1 and SPU had always charged ratepayers for hy- (2003). We must first decide if providing **980 hy- drants. The hydrant issue was not before us, but the drants is a government responsibility or a propriet- argument of Seattle and implication of our decision ary responsibility. were clear: for purposes of deciding a tax or fee, hydrants are very much like streetlights. Id. at 552, ¶ 10 It is conceded that Okeson decides that ques- 78 P.3d 1279.As in Okeson, the charge here is a tax. tion. We held that streetlights are a government function and strongly suggested that providing hy- ¶ 14 Lake Forest Park tries to distinguish Okeson. It drants is the same.We confirm that holding today. points out that water companies within cities must, by statute, provide hydrants (RCW 80.28.010), but [4] ¶ 11 The next step is deciding whether charging no similar law requires electric companies to ratepayers to pay for hydrants was a tax or a fee, provide streetlights. This is not determinative. After since a city must be authorized by statute to impose all, state law requires police to report accidents ( a tax but has broader power to impose a fee. RCW 46.52.070) and school districts to educate Okeson, 150 Wash.2d at 550, 78 P.3d 1279. We special education children (RCW 28A.155.040), but have created a three-factor test to decide whether a these laws do not justify taxing such transactions. charge is a tax or a fee; no single factor determines the matter. Covell v. City of Seattle, 127 Wash.2d ¶ 15 Lake Forest Park also claims a relationship 874, 879, 905 P.2d 324 (1995). The three factors between hydrant charges and user benefit by point- are the purpose of the cost, where the money raised ing out that houses near hydrants may have lower is spent, and whether people pay the cost because insurance rates. This might be more persuasive if they use the service.Id. SPU charged a different cost based on proximity to hydrants. The direct benefit of a hydrant system is ¶ 12 Our decision here directly follows our decision enhanced fire suppression, which is a shared bene- in Okeson. There, the purpose of the cost was to in- fit,and the record shows no differential. crease revenue for the city and not to regulate the installed streetlights, indicating a tax. Okeson, 150 ¶ 16 Amici also point to three cases where Wash- Wash.2d at 553, 78 P.3d 1279. The money did go ington courts upheld charges on customers when into a streetlight fund, which made it more like a first connecting to waterworks. Landmark Dev., fee. Id. But ratepayers bore the same streetlight cost Inc. v. City of Roy, 138 Wash.2d 561, 980 P.2d no matter how much electricity they used, leaning 1234 (1999); *884Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Pub. Util. *883 toward tax. Id at 554, 78 P.3d 1279. Since all Dist. No. 1, 105 Wash.2d 288, 714 P.2d 1163 citizens may use and benefit from lighted areas, we (1986); Irvin Water Dist. Ago. 6 v. Jackson P'ship, held the charge to be an invalid tax.Id. 109 Wash.App. 113, 34 P.3d 840 (2001). These ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=2&sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&mt=Was... 3/8/2010 Page 6 of 9 194 P.3d 977 Page 6 164 Wash.2d 875, 194 P.3d 977 (Cite as: 164 Wash.2d 875,194 P.3d 977) cases are inapposite. One-time connection fees are ceptions: for residents of other areas, their local different from monthly hydrant charges. Connec- government will repay the charges; for Seattle rate- tion fees capture start-up costs for new customers, payers, the tax charge is now subject to referendum which are costs of the waterlines for water service. or political efforts to change, including election of Hydrant fees capture the costs of hydrants, which council members opposing the tax. Lane still ob- are government costs. jects. This issue raises two subissues: whether Lane has standing and whether the tax is legal. ¶ 17 Finally, Lake Forest Park says, "the heights of irony will be scaled if SPU can purchase art for its facilities and recover the cost in rates ... but cannot 1. Lane Has Standing To Challenge Seattle's Tax recover the cost of complying with lawful regula- on SPU tions." Br. of Appellant Lake Forest Park at 9-10. This makes a mountain out of an irony molehill. [6] 120 Seattle challenged Lane's standing to chal- The question is not whether there will be art and lenge the tax at trial but has dropped the argument hydrants, but who must pay for them. Art for public here. However, standing is a matter of our jurisdic- facilities is a business expense (sometimes imposed tion. Without jurisdiction, we cannot hear a case, by statute or ordinance). **981 Hydrants, like even if every party concedes standing. High Tide streetlights, are a government expense for which a Seafoods v. State, 106 Wash.2d 695, 702, 725 P.2d government must pay. 411 (1986).-1 ¶ 18 Thus, charges for hydrants are taxes, not fees. FN1. This rule is in flux. Compare Bran- Since "[n]o tax shall be levied except in pursuance son v. Port of Seattle, 152 Wash.2d 862, of law; and every law imposing a tax shall state dis- 879-80 & n. 10, 101 P.3d 67 (2004) tinctly the object of the same to which only it shall (Chambers, J., concurring) (a case may be be applied." WASH. CONST. art. VII, § 5. Since heard even if a party lacks standing, as Seattle did not declare the charge to be a tax until long as the issue is one of great public in- 2005 or state a lawful object of a tax or statutory terest and well briefed), with High Tide, authority, the imposition was unconstitutional. See 106 Wash.2d at 702, 725 P.2d 411 Okeson, 150 Wash.2d at 556,78 P.3d 1279. (unanimously holding, "[i]f a plaintiff lacks standing to bring a suit, courts lack jurisdiction to consider it."). This case B. Lane Has Standing To Challenge Seattle's Tax does not lend itself to deciding whether and SPU's Rate Increases, but Those Increases Are standing is jurisdictional in Washington, Not Invalid since neither party briefed the matter. And in any event, even if we are not required to ¶ 19 Seattle recognized the legal similarity between raise the issue, we certainly have the dis- streetlights and hydrants, and so, in 2003, began cretion to. In re Recall of Jfest, 156 paying for hydrants out of the general fund. To pay, Wash.2d 244,248, 126 P.3d 798(2006). Seattle either had to raise tax revenue or take funds from other services. The city council decided to [7][8] ¶ 21 To have standing, a party must be in a raise revenue. It did so by raising the tax rate on law's zone of interest and must suffer some harm. SPU from 10 to 14 percent. Since it wholly controls Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 160 Wash.2d SPU, it had SPU make up the difference by raising 173, 186, 157 P.3d 847 (2007). Lane obviously has rates on customers. This situation has a similar res- suffered harm; if his argument is right, he must pay ult for nearly every party involved as if SPU just more in taxes than is legally allowed. His zone of charged *885 ratepayers for hydrants, with two ex- interest argument, though, is on shakier ground be- ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov.Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=2&sv=S plit&prft=HTMLE&mt=Was... 3/8/2010 Page 7 of 9 194 P.3d 977 Page 7 164 Wash.2d 875, 194 P.3d 977 (Cite as: 164 Wash.2d 875,194 P.3d 977) cause he does not directly pay the tax. After all, he CONST. art. 11, § l(b)). Such tax, if adopted, would is complaining about Seattle's tax on the water util- be subject to the applicable statutes and a six per- ity SPU. If Lane has standing at all, it is only as a cent total cap. taxpayer interested in making his government fol- low the law. ¶ 26 Seattle has complied here. It explicitly said it was taxing SPU, the tax was properly adopted, and ¶ 22 Lane points us to RCW 80.04.440, which al- the tax expressly stated it was subject to referen- lows any person harmed by a public utility's unlaw- dum. Also, the six percent limit referenced in ful acts to bring suit. Even though Lane's challenge Okeson does not apply to taxes on businesses is to Seattle's tax on SPU and not to SPU's illegal providing water. RCW 35.21.710; RCW 82.16.010 acts, he rests on *886RCW 7.24.020, allowing for (4). Seattle has statutory authority to impose this declaratory judgments of laws directly affecting a tax on SPU(RCW 35.22.280(32)). Ply• *887 ¶ 27 Lane's whole argument rests on our con- 1 23 The standing issue here was analyzed in our stitution's requirement that "[n]o tax shall be levied decision in Nelson. There, we held that a car buyer except in pursuance of law;...." WASH. CONST. has standing to challenge a tax applied directly to art. VII, § 5. He argues that imposing a tax with the his dealer and seller because the buyer ultimately same effect as SPU's charging ratepayers for hy- paid the tax. Nelson, 160 Wash.2d at 186, 157 P.3d drants is contrary to the law announced in Okeson. 847. In the same way, the tax on SPU is passed on to Lane directly, and so he is within the interest ¶ 28 This argument fails for the same reason as zone of RCW 80.04.440. He has standing to chal- above. The law is not that Seattle must charge for lenge the tax and rate increase. hydrants to a broad range of taxpayers. Instead, it is simply that cities must have statutory authority to impose taxes and must enact them properly as 2. Seattle's Tax and SPU's Rate Increases Are Con- "taxes." This tax meets both requirements. The tax stitutional and the resulting rate raise are lawful. ¶ 24 Lane complains that Seattle is frustrating the holding in Okeson. He argues that raising taxes on C. SPU Must Pay the Statutory Interest Rate on SPU and passing the increases along to ratepayers Back Payments is just the same as SPU charging ratepayers for hy- drants.**982 The problem with the argument is that ¶ 29 SPU illegally charged ratepayers for hydrant Okeson did not go so far as Lane would take it. costs before 2005, so it had to refund the charges for three years as allowed by the applicable statute [9] ¶ 25 We voided the charge in Okeson because of limitations. Lane wants his payments to be with Seattle did not adopt the charge as a lawfully au- interest; Seattle opposes. The trial court gave Lane thorized tax, violating article VII, section 5 of the interest at one percent. Lane appealed, saying he is state constitution, and because a tax would have ex- entitled to more. Seattle says he is entitled to none ceeded the six percent statutory limit. Either reason (or,at most,one percent). was sufficient to support our holding in its entirety. Okeson, 150 Wash.2d at 556-57, 78 P.3d 1279. We [10] ¶ 30 Governments cannot be sued for money simply held that if Seattle wanted to charge Seattle without their consent. Architectural Woods, Inc. v. City Light ratepayers for streetlights, it would have State, 92 Wash.2d 521, 526, 598 P.2d 1372 (1979). to comply with statutes in enacting the tax (with the More to the point, local governments cannot be attendant possibility of a referendum, WASH. sued for interest without the State's consent. Our Lady of Lourdes Hosp. v. Franklin County, 120 2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov.Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=2&sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&mt=Was... 3/8/2010 (3/8/2010) Larry Waters- RE: Madrona Beach and Fire Flow Requirements Page 1 From: "Jocelyne Gray" <jocelyneg@hctc.com> To: "'Larry Waters"' <Law@co.mason.wa.us> CC: <rjohnson@hctc.com> Date: 3/8/2010 9:21 AM Subject: RE: Madrona Beach and Fire Flow Requirements Attachments: Geotech Report-10.27.2008.pdf Larry, Attached is the geotech report from 2008. The report talks about two reservoirs, a lower and an upper. The lower reservoir was originally planned for fire flow, but was removed from the design after it was determined fire flow was not required for this system. The upper tank in the report is 11,500 gallons and located where the new tank will be located as described in the building permit application. Sincerely, Jocelyne Gray, PE Director of Operations-Water PUD No. 1 of Mason County "This institution is an equal opportunity provider and employer." -----Original Message----- From: Larry Waters [mailto:Law@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:17 AM To: Jocelyne Gray Subject: RE: Madrona Beach and Fire Flow Requirements Can I get a copy of the Geo-Tec report, Thank you for all your help. >>> "Jocelyne Gray" <jocelyneg@hctc.com> 3/5/2010 4:12 PM >>> Larry, Below are the answers to your questions. Madrona Beach is fully built out at 19 connections and cannot be expanded. This is not a new system, but an existing water system that is replacing an existing reservoir. Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services provided a geotech/soils report October 2008 which states the reservoir site can accommodate an 11,500-gallon concrete reservoir. I will get the answer regarding tank size next week from the design engineer. The water system plan was submitted October 2008. 1 hope we can resolve this issue quickly. Sincerely, Jocelyne Gray, PE Director of Operations-Water PUD No. 1 of Mason County "This institution is an equal opportunity provider and employer." -----Original Message----- From: Larry Waters[mailto:Law@co.mason.wa.us] (3/8/2010) Larry Waters RE. Madrona Beach and Fire Flow Requirements Page 2 Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 2:57 PM To: Jocelyne Gray Subject: Re: Madrona Beach and Fire Flow Requirements Jocelyne, Thank you for the information, I will speak to Craig regarding this, the e-mail from Skillings Connolly does not contain Craig's response. I do have a few question of my own about the new system, how many lots are served at this time and how many more are left to be developed. Also the letter from Skillings Connolly states that the slope the existing 6,000 gallon tank is located on will not support a larger tanks weight load yet the application my office received is for a 10,000 gallon tank? It sounds like a Geo-Tec report my need to be done to clarify this issue. It also states that the service area can not be increase because that 6,000 gallon tank is be replaced by a 6,000 gallon tank so that is no expansion. It appear's there is going to be an expansion based on the new size of the tank which would require the tank to meet the fire flow requirements. Larry Waters Building inspection IV/Fire Inspector Mason County DCD >>> "Jocelyne Gray" <jocelyneg@hctc.com> 3/5/2010 12:02 PM >>> Craig and Larry, Per my telephone conversation this morning with Larry, I have attached the original email from Skillings Connolly regarding fire flow at Madrona Beach. This communication was sent August 7, 2008. The Madrona Beach Water System is a Group A Transient Noncommunity system that is non-expanding. The interim fire flow regulations clearly state they apply to Group A Community systems that are new or expanding. Phase 1 of construction began January 2010 with the installation of service meters. The contractor, Dumpman Construction, has submitted the building permit application for Mt. Baker Silo to construct the reservoir which has been approved by Washington State Department of Health. I look forward to resolving this issue promptly. Sincerely, Jocelyne Gray, PE Director of Operations-Water PUD No. 1 of Mason County N. 21971 Highway 101 Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 877-5249 ext 221 -(3/9/2010) Larry Waters Re. Madrona Page 1 From: Larry Waters To: Robert W. Johnson Date: 3/9/2010 8:41 AM Subject: Re: Madrona Rob, Jocelyne Grey with the PUD sent me an e-mail copy of a letter dated Aug. 7, 2008 from a Mary Wilkes with Skillings Connolly, Inc. In the letter it states"The water system allowed a neighbor to connect to the system some years back, and it caused nothing but problems in the community" . Is this connection still in use? Was this connection made prior to the PUD taking over the system or was it allowed by the PUD. I am in agreement with your take on the system, that even if the tank will be larger than what is existing it is not an expansion of the system as long as no other service connections will be made. It is clear that at some time there was an exception made for at least one site. I see in the sales agreement between the PUD and Madrona beach that no other connections are to be made outside the development, that is why I need to know if the connection is still in use and when the connection was made, pre or post PUD. Can you help clarify this for the County. >>> "Robert W. Johnson" <rjohnson(@_hctc.com> 3/8/2010 10:09 AM >>> Larry &Craig: I have been included on the a-mails between you and PUD No. 1. 1 am concerned that this issue may cause a delay in the project and increase the costs of the improvements necessary to the Madrona water system. Mason County's fire flow standards apply only to"new or expanding"systems as defined by (as defined in WAC 246-290). Here is the definition from WAC 246-290-010: Expanding public water system means a public water system installing additions, extensions, changes, or alterations to their existing source, transmission, storage, or distribution facilities that will enable the system to increase in size its existing service area and/or its number of approved service connections. Exceptions: (a)A system that connects new approved individual retail or direct service connections onto an existing distribution system within an existing service area; or (b)A distribution system extension in an existing service area identified in a current and approved water system plan or project report." The Madrona system is by definition a nonexpanding system. By contractual agreement the system can never be expanded beyond the current connections. I am attaching a copy of the agreement between Madrona Inc. and PUD No. 1. Paragraph 8 of the agreement provides that the system cannot be expanded (3/9/2010) Larry Waters- Re: Madrona Page 2 outside the current connections or service area. I hope that this clarifies that the fire flow requirements of the interim standards do not apply to the Madrona System. If there is still an issue, I would suggest we set up a meeting with Monty Cobb so we can resolved the issue and not delay the project. You should also be aware that the State Supreme Court recently held that providing fire flow is obligation of general purpose government which could not be passed on to utility rate payers. "Providing fire hydrants is a government responsibility." Lane v. City of Seattle,64 Wash.2d 875, 194 P.3d 977 (2008). 1 am also attaching a copy of that decision. Under Lane, if Mason County (a general purpose government)where to require fire flow in the Madrona System, the cost associated with those improvements would need to be borne by Mason County and not the Madrona ratepayers. Steve Taylor, Manager of PUD No.1, is meeting with representatives of the county very soon to discuss the implications of this decision on future fire flow requirements. Rob Johnson Maa Wilkes From: Mary Wilkes (mwilkes a@skillings.com] Sent: Thursday,August 07,2008 11:17 AM To: Craig Haugen Cc: Brandon Staglund Subject: Madrona Beach Tank Replacement Dear Craig, I am working with Brandon Staglund on the Madrona Beach tank replacement. I know that you have been in discussions with Brandon regarding the size of the replacement tank, and we very much appreciate you help in this matter. The system would obviously very much like to have fireflow storage, however,the existing tank is a gravity feed tank on a hillside. It is believed that hillside will be unable to support a larger tank. In order for the system to install 15,000 gallons of storage,the system will likely have to find a new site for the storage tank. The new site would likely not allow for gravity feed,so the system would have to install a booster station. In short,replacing the existing tank with a larger tank would require a major system overhaul. This would be a major expense for such a small system(19 connections). I was reviewing the Mason County Interim Fire Flow Standards for Group A Public Water Systems,and it is my believe that the standards does not applicable to the Madrona Beach System for the following reason: The very first sentence in the standards states: "These...standards shall be applied to... new or expanding... systems ... only." The definition for an expanding system is given on page 2 of the standards,which states, "Expansion means...changes or alterations to an existing...storage ...facility that will allow the system to increase in size its existing service area and/or number of approved service connections." Replacing one 6,000 gallon tank with another 6,000 gallon tank will not allow the system to increase its service area or the number of approved connections,therefore the system is not an "expanding system". In fact, replacing a 6,000 gallon tank with a 15,000 gallon tank will not allow the system to increase its service area or its number of approved connections. The service area and number of approved connections are limited by other factors such as the system's distribution system, geography,and system policy. The water system allowed a neighbor to connect to the system some years back,and it caused nothing but problems in the community. The system is adamant that they will not allow any new connections to the system. Your consideration in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you concur with my interpretation of the County's Fire Flow Standards,and thank you once again for all your help in this matter. Sincerely, Mary Wilkes, PE Skillings Connolly, Inc. Mary Wilkes, PE Design Engineer Office : (360) 491-3399 VoiceMail: (360) 486-8969 Fax : (360) 491-3857 i S r � r V r i t f t Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services A Division of'The Bradley Group, Inc, PO Box 12267 - Olympia WA 98508 - 360-357-7883 t I a Bradlee-Noble Geotechnical Services A Division of _JJ)e E1fadle3' Grour3, Inc. PO Fox 12267, Olympia WA 98508-2267 ('hone 360-357-7883 p FAX .360-867-9307 i i SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE MADRONA INC. TANK REPLACEMENT MASON COUNTY PUD UNION, WASHINGTON f This report presents the results of our subsurface investigation for the proposed replacement of a 6000 gallon redwood storage tank for potable water storage with either a single 20,000 gallon concrete standpipe or two 11,500 gallon concrete standpipes. If a single replacement storage tank is constructed, we expect that this tank will be located southeast of the existing redwood tank. If two storage tanks are e tank will be constructed southeast of the existing constructed,we expect that on redwood tank and one tank for fire flow storage to the northwest of the pump house at the toe of slope. Our purposes in exploring the subsurface soil conditions were to evaluate the bearing capacity of the site soils, to present recommendations for foundation design, and to address other geotechnical considerations for the project. From the information provided to us, we understand that the reinforced concrete water storage tanks will be constructed by Mt. Baker Silo and onted by a reinforced he final design olution concrete foundation. Tank diameter and height will depend of either one large capacity tank or two tanks of smaller capacity. ro'ork civil sauthorized on behalf of PUD I by Ms. Mary Wilkes, Project Engineer oft p j engineering consultant, Skillings—Connolly. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The project site is located on Mason County Tax Parcel Number 322321400030 a ten acre parcel located between State Highway 106 and East level rive i areaarea U lope Washington. The site slopes down to the northeast from a nearly from the existing redwood storage tank to the toe of slope o the slope between the pump supplies water to the system is located. In the toe a P house and State Highway 106,we find a gravel surface to the Utility Districta of low relief that . s used for parking and access to the well that supplies potable water 08090301 Page I of 7 f i i 08090301 Page 2 of 7 i i A gravel surface roadway provides access to the existing redwood storage tank. From information provided to us, we understand that the water line between the storage tank and pump house and the potable water service line are located on the northwest side of the roadway. Pressure lines that pump effluent up to the level area above the existing storage tank are located on the southeast side of the roadway. { Two slopes are found in the immediate project area. Slopes in the 35 to 40 percent range or 19 to 22 degrees form the slope to the southeast of the existing tank. To the northwest of the existing tank, we find a shallow ravine that provides drainage for the upland area with water conveyed to the toe of slope. This ravine has steep side slopes. The slopes are well vegetated with low growing brush associated with the forests of this area. Douglas fir,western red alder,and big leaf maple comprise the larger trees growing on the slope. The trees growing on the slope are vertical which suggests that soil creep is not a major erosional process active on these slopes. Subsurface Conditions On 5 September- 2008, we explored the subsurface conditions at the lower proposed fire flow storage tank. This test boring is located on the enclosed site plan.This exploration was made using a truck-mounted drill and continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger to advance the borings and to provide borehole support between sampling intervals. Samples were obtained at standard intervals using a two-inch outside diameter, split-spoon sampler driven by a pin-guided, 140-pound weight free falling 30 inches. Because we could not access the upper drill site using a truck-mounted drill, we remobilized to the site on 7 October 2008 with a track-mounted drill. By use of the track-mounted drill with the assistance of a JD 650 Dozer, we were able to access the upper drill site adjacent to the existing redwood storage tank. This exploration was conducted using mud-rotary drilling methods to advance the boring. r r The blows per six-inch interval were recorded. The first six-inch drive interval is allowed for seating the sampler. The blow counts for two six-inch intervals, when combined, yield the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value) of the soils encountered r in the sample interval. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the consistency of 9 cohesive soils. When the number of blows exceeds 50 for a six-inch or less advancement of the sampler, refusal is inferred. The results obtained from the Standard 4 Penetration Test, along with other tests and geotechnical judgments, were used to l develop the recommendations of this report. r i 08090301 Page 3 of 7 At the lower drilling site, Boring One, three soil units were encountered in the exploration. We found the upper five feet to be loose soils comprised of colluvium. This is material that has been fluvially transported down the slope and deposited at the toe. Below the colluvium, we encountered firm to dense soils. The upper of these denser soils are Vashon advance outwash (Qga) of glaciofluvial sands and gravels. At thirty feet below the surface, we drilled into the Alpine outwash of pre-late Wisconsinan stratified sands and gravels with cobbles (Qapo) which is also mapped as the Skokomish Gravels in older geologic mapping of the area. The boring was terminated in this formation. In the boring conducted adjacent to the existing redwood storage tank, we found two soil units. The upper soil unit is colluvium that has been deposited over the slope and consists of soils derived from downslope transportation by erosional process of the Vashon recessional outwash gravels. This soil unit is thin, less than two feet. Underlying the colluvium and extending for the full depth explored is the Vashon advance outwash (Qga) of highly overconsolidated silty sandy gravels and silty gravelly sands. Ground water was encountered in water-bearing layers in Boring One. These are ` perched water layers above the Skokomish Gravels which are cemented and may be considered to be a restrictive layer to downward migration of water. In Boring Two, we did not encounter ground water or soils in the saturated range. Site geology is discussed in the Coastal Zone Atlas for Mason County. Site geology is consist in this publication with that discussed in this report. This publication also presents an opinion on slope stability, with is intermediate. Generally, intermediate slopes are stable unless disturbed by major construction activity. Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington by Mackey Smith and R.J. Carson Map I- 853-F and published by the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources 1977 places this site and adjacent slopes into a Class 2, areas believed to be stable. Site geology is presented in Geologic Map of the Shelton /;100,000 Quadrangle, Washington by Robert L. Logan 2003, Open file Report 2003-15 and published by the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources. 08090301 Page 4 of 7 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation We recommend that the foundation of the new storage tank for fire flow be founded on the firm soils that will be encountered about five feet below the existing ground surface. These soils offer good foundation support for either the casting of the tank foundation directly onto these soils or for support of a structural fill section between the tank foundation and the native bearing soils. We recommend for the structural fill section, if constructed, the use of 3-inch minus crushed basalt. This material is to be placed in lifts and compacted to a firm and non- yielding surface prior to theplacement of the next lift of material. This material cannot be tested using standard methods specified in the International Building Code (ASTM D 1557) as more than 30% by weight is retained above the 3/4-inch screen which makes this test method not applicable. The structural fill section is to extend a minimum of one foot horizontally for each foot of excavation below the foundation. Foundation preparation for the upper storage tank that will replace the existing redwood tank will only need the construction of a bench for foundation support into the very dense gravels. You need to be aware that to access this upper site for exploration, we constructed a pad for support of the track drill. This pad was constructed by excavation into the existing cut bank and placing this material as a side cast uncontrolled fill section. This fill section is not to be used for support of foundations. This fill section was placed over vegetation. We do not expect that ground water will have any adverse effect on site development work. Any flows of water into the lower tank excavation can be controlled by the , standard dewatering method of pumping. To prevent destabilization of the slope by water flowing downslope in new ditch lines, the trench backfill must be compacted. Use of bentonite seals at intervals along the new pipe should be considered to prevent water flowing downslope in the pipe bedding. Failure to control the flow of water in the ditch lines will have a risk of localized slope failure due to saturation and fluvial erosion. All excavation and trenching must be in conformance with the Department of Labor and Industries requirements for sloping or shoring of excavations and trenches as presented in Chapter 296-155 WAC, Part N, Excavation, Trenching and Shoring. We recommend a soil type C be used for control of sloping and shoring. 08090301 I Page 5 of 7 Foundation Support Foundations founded on the soils identified in this report or by compacted structural fill section constructed to the recommendations of this report and supported by the specified soils may use a design bearing value of 4000 p.s.f. A one-third increase in this value is permissible for short-term wind or seismic loading. Foundations for the upper tank must be founded behind the 3:1 line (horizontal to vertical) of the ravine as measured up from the flow line of the ravine. This will protect the foundation from any foreseeable slope erosion. We do recommend that the foundations be founded a minimum of 1.5 feet below adjacent finish grade for frost protection and confinement. I Settlement of structures designed to the recommended bearing value and placed on } soils prepared according to the recommendations of this report should not be significant. Generally, we expect combined total and differential settlements of one inch or less to occur. This settlement will be rapid as loads are imposed. Good subgrade compaction to densify any loosened soils created by excavation prior to casting of the foundation will limit the potential settlement. Lateral Soil Pressure Lateral loads my be resisted by either- passive soil pressure or by friction between footings and native soils or structural fill sections. We recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.5 between foundations and native soils or structural fill section of coarse crushed rock. Development of passive soil pressure to resist lateral movement will be controlled by the compaction of the backfill material against the foundation. Placement and compaction to the minimum density presented in this report or to a firm and non- yielding condition, may use a passive soil pressure of 300 p.c.f. Seismic Site Period The project area is in a zone of high spectral response acceleration. Figure 1613.5(2) in the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) has a site response of 0.4g of 1.0-second l spectral response for a Site Class B. Table 1613.5.2 Site Class Definitions would place this site into a soil site class C based on N-values. Actual ground motion during a seismic event is influenced by the distance from the focus, the depth to bedrock under the site, and conditions (degree of consolidation and saturation) of the soils supporting the structure. We do not believe that the underlying } soils are prone to spontaneous liquefaction under seismic loading. ` 08090301 Page b of 7 Earthwork Criteria In areas under structures, strip all topsoil and organic material. For structural fill in areas under footings, we recommend that all soils be compacted to a minimum density of 9S percent of ASTM D-1557 or to a firm and non-yielding surface for coarse material where this test is not applicable. This includes proof rolling native soils exposed in the bottom of the excavation before placing fill. i For imported structural fill,we recommend that a clean, three-inch minus, well-graded crushed basalt (classifying as GW as determined by ANSUASTM test method) be imported. This material is non-moisture sensitive and may be placed and compacted in all but the most inclimate weather. We have no objection to the placement and compaction of a thin Lift of 5/8-inch minus crushed rock on the surface of this material i to aid fine grading operations All fill should be placed in uniform horizontal lifts of eight-inch to 12-inch loose thickness. Each Lift should be conditioned to the optimum moisture content and compacted to the specified minimum density before placing the next lift.We further recommend that all utility trench backfill be compacted as specified above. f No fill is to be placed during periods of unfavorable weather or while the fill is frozen or thawing. When work is stopped by rain, placement of fill will not resume until the soils I engineer or engineering geologist determines that the moisture content is suitable for I compactive effort and that the previously placed fill has not been loosened. The contractor will take appropriate measures during unfavorable weather to protect the fill already placed. Measures that may be required include limiting wheeled traffic and grading to provide temporary drainage of the fill. At the direction of the soils engineer or engineering geologist, the contractor will be responsible for the removal and reworking of fill that has softened or has Less than the required compaction. Limits of Liability i BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHINCAL SERVICES is responsible for the opinions and l conclusions contained in this report. These are based on the data relating only to the specific project and locations discussed herein. This report was prepared with the standard and accepted practices of our industry. In the event conclusions and recommendations based on these data are made by others, such conclusions and recommendations are not the responsibility of the soils engineer or engineering geologist unless he has been given an opportunity to review them and concurs in such conclusions or recommendations in writing. J w ' I i 08090301 Page 7 of 7 The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained in the explorations at the locations indicated on the attached plan. This report does not reflect any variations that may occur between these explorations. The nature and extent of variations between explorations my not become evident until construction is underway. BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHNCIAL SERVICES Report prepared by: Ile 3 4 \ David,C Strong, L.E.G. j, 1�Y %.L` 27 October 2008 l JOB#: 08.09-03 DATE: 10/07/2008 TESTING BY: D.Strong Mason County PUD 1 Boring Z Upper Standpipe location 0' Blows/G"drive for N-value v N= for 3" Very dense yellow-brown silt sand N=100+ Y � Y sandy gravels i -5' large gravels i 510 for 3.5" Very derise reddish brown silty sandy gravels N=1004 50 for 3.5" Very dense reddish brown silty sandy gravels N=100+ •10.5' smaller gravels to -24' ' 50 for 5" Very dense reddish brown silty sandy gravels n=100+ -20' Very dense yellow-brown silty gravel) 50 for S.S" Y sands -24' N--100+ Vertical Scale 1':5' r f I i=< fi j Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services JOB#: 08.09-03 DATE:9/05/2008 TESTING BY: D.Strong Boring 1 ,lower standpipe site 0 approx elev 52' Blows/6"drive for N-value 2.2-3 Loose reddish brown moist silty gravelly N-5 sand; colluvium -5' -5' dense gravels i 8-14-1 5 Firm moist reddish brown N=29 silty gravelly sands -10, r 27- N=1 pp+ors" Very dense moist light brown -1 5' pebbly silty sands drilling resistance increasing 22-34-50 for4" Very dense interbedded gray silts and N=84+ water-bearing very fine sands -2 U' hard drilling (( 24-42-50 for 6" Very dense blue ra N-92 Y g y pebbly silts over -25' gravelly silty fine sands i P 50 for 4" Very dense yellow-brown fine to coarse N=100+ sandy gravels -30' I t SC for 5" Very dense reddish brown N=100+ silt coarse sand_3�. Y y gravels hard drilling to advance aucler I - i 50 for 5" Very dense reddish brown silty coarse -39' N =1 00+ sandy gravels Bradley-Noble Geotechnical services �..- ��- - ca t T Y�. 'r�l'j l• r t �j -- • �� Q o / ---- '/ $'b dE / , q J CV d W \ Z \ Q 3 \ \ N 1 \ n � \ r ♦\\ Y\ 2 / \` WIL to tu de lox 912 ou _AH 7 r age 3 g�// '//I - ;id 0 -~ W Ldl OR F \ „ ♦ ,, , 011 :Y!-s �k" �a € I�;•3 / ,/ \� , -- \ \ 1w fir, Wei iippg; Ld IN IN bf Mh o r �, ' /� �h ■s : 36a-----I---- Ifp m < 3 P +Q ^ 00 0 fig ' d zz W a o - 8511IMP UK =m=SOW Ix�Mhl t H -1E = - -- - - A X X§ X)