Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020/02/10 - Briefing Packet BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DRAFT BRIEFING MEETING AGENDA 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton WA 98584 Week of February 10, 2020 Monday, February 10, 2020 Commission Chambers 9:00 A.M. Executive Session — RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) — Potential Litigation 10:00 A.M. Executive Session — RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) — Potential Litigation 10:30 A.m. BREAK 10:35 A.M. Support Services — Frank Pinter 11:00 A.M. Community Services — Dave Windom 11:15 A.M. Public Works — Loretta Swanson Utilities & Waste Management 11:30 A.M. Auditor— Paddy McGuire Commissioner Discussion — as needed BREAK— NOON 2:30 P.M. Support Services/Public Works — ER&R Transition of vehicle fleet Commissioner Discussion — as needed Tuesday, February 11, 2020 Commission Chambers 10:00 A.M. Public Works/Utilities — Loretta Swanson Belfair Sewer Extension Wednesday, February 12, 2020 Commission Chambers 2:30 P.M. Enterprise Fleet Management Introduction Meeting Briefing Agendas are subject to change,please contact the Commissioners' office for the most recent version. Last printed 02/06/20 at 1:46 PM If special accommodations are needed,contact the Commissioners'office at ext.419,Shelton#360-427-9670;Belfair #275-4467,Elma#482-5269. MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONER BRIEFING INFORMATION FOR WEEK OF February 10, 2020 In the spirit of public information and inclusion, the attached is a draft of information for Commissioner consideration and discussion at the above briefing. This information is subject to change, additions and/or deletion and is not all inclusive of what will be presented to the Commissioners. Please see draft briefing agenda for schedule. v+' 18.54 Mason County Support Services Department Budget Management Street 411 North 5 th Commissioner Administration Emergency Management Shelton, WA 98584 Facilities, Parks&Trails 360.427.9670 ext. 419 Human Resources Information Services Labor Relations Lsr Risk Management MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONER BRIEFING ITEMS FROM SUPPORT SERVICES February 10, 2020 • Specific Items for Review o Resolution creating Motor Pool Department- Diane o Resolution establishing Fund 141 for Sheriff Boating & Fund 142 for Narcotics Investigation — Diane/Jenn o Budget Amendments for March 17 hearing—Jenn o Current Expense buy-out of vehicles purchased from Traffic Diversion Dollars -Jenn o Emergency Medical Services Council update—Frank o Partnership introduction meeting with Enterprise Fleet Management on February 12, 2:30 p.m. • Commissioner Discussion J:\DLZ\Briefing Items\2020\2020-02-10.docx RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 23-07 AND CHAPTER 2.02, MASON COUNTY CODE, DEPARTMENTS REPORTING TO THE BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, RCW 36.16.070 states that"In all cases where the duties of any county office are greater than can be performed by the person elected to fill it, the officer may employ deputies and other necessary employees with the consent of the board of county commissioners. The board shall fix their compensations ..."; and WHEREAS, the Support Services Department was established by adoption of Resolution 82-13 and includes the Board of Equalization, Budget Manager, Civil Services, Commissioner Administration Support, Emergency Management, Facilities and Grounds, Information Technology, LEOFF 1, Human Resources, Parks and Trails, and Risk Management; WHEREAS, Current Expense and Public Health vehicles and equipment were removed from the Equipment Rental and Revolving Fund by adoption of Resolution 20-07 on January 21, 2020 and for efficient management of these vehicles and equipment it is recommended to create a Motor Pool Department in the Current Expense Budget that will be managed by the Director of Support Services; and WHEREAS, this Motor Pool Department may include vehicles and equipment from Current Expense and other Funds, as determined by the Mason County Commissioners; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Mason County that Chapter 2.02.010 of the Mason County Code be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 2.02.010 Departments established. The following departments are established to serve the board of Mason County commissioners and shall serve at the pleasure of the board: 1. Community Services Department which includes Building, Planning, Community Health and Human Services, Environmental Health, Fire Marshal and Vital Records; 2. Support Services Department which includes Board of Equalization, Budget Manager, Civil Services, Commissioner Administration Support, Emergency Management, Facilities and Grounds, Information Technology, LEOFF 1, Human Resources, Parks and Trails, Risk Management and Motor Pool; 3. Public Works Department which includes Utilities and Waste Management. DATED this day of , 2020. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: Sharon Trask, Chair Melissa Drewry, Clerk of the Board Randy Neatherlin, Commissioner APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kevin Shutty, Commissioner Tim Whitehead Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney J:\RESOLUTIONS&ORDINANCES\RESOLUTIONS-ORDINANCES Word Files\2020\Dept reporting to Board.doc MASON COUNTY BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Diane Zoren DEPARTMENT: Support Services EXT: 747 BRIEFING DATE: February 10, 2020 PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information ITEM: Resolution to establish Fund 141 as the Sheriff's Boating Program, establish Fund 142 as the Narcotics Investigation Fund, delete Fund 140 and places Prisoner Welfare Program monies (aka Commissary) and General Donations into Current Expense as Committed Revenues EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mason County Sheriff's Office requested an accounting fund be established to facilitate better fiscal management of the Boating Safety Program and the Mason County Audit Committee supports this request. The Audit Committee is also recommending a separate fund for Narcotics Investigations and move the Prisoner Welfare Program monies, which includes revenue from Jail Commissary purchases and video visitation proceeds, to Current Expense as Committed Revenues. Also move Sheriff's Office General Donations to Current Expense as Committed Revenues. Fund 140 which currently has these various revenues would be deleted. This proposal has been thoroughly reviewed by the Audit Committee and Sheriff's office. BUDGET IMPACTS: Deletes Fund 140 and creates Fund 141 and Fund 142 and creates committed revenues in Current Expense for the Sheriff's Office. RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Resolution to establish Fund 141 as the Sheriff's Boating Program, establish Fund 142 as the Narcotics Investigation Fund, delete Fund 140 and places Prisoner Welfare Program monies (aka Commissary) and General Donations into Current Expense as Committed Revenues Briefing Summary 1/30/2020 Resolution No. Establish Fund 141 as the Sheriff's Boating Program and Amending Mason County Code 3.132 and Establish Fund 142 as the Narcotics Investigation Fund and Amending Mason County Code 3.52 and Delete Fund 140 and Place Prisoner Welfare Program monies (aka Commissary) and General Donations into Current Expense as Committed Revenues WHEREAS, RCW 36.32.120 (5) states that the Board of County Commissioners have responsibility to "Allow all accounts legally chargeable against the county not otherwise provided for, and audit the accounts of all officers having the care, management, collection, or disbursement of any money belonging to the county or appropriated to its benefit" and; WHEREAS, RCW 88.02.650 authorizes the Washington State Department of Licensing to allocate revenue from vessel registration fees to Mason County to finance the Sheriff's Boating Safety Program and further designates, "Jurisdictions receiving funds under this section shall deposit the funds into an account dedicated solely for supporting the jurisdiction's boating safety programs. These funds may not replace existing local funds used for boating safety programs." and; WHEREAS, there are other funds available in the form of grants available to Mason County and the Mason County Sheriffs Office. WHEREAS, the Mason County Sheriff's Office requested an accounting fund be established to facilitate better fiscal management of the Boating Safety Program and the Mason County Audit Committee supports this request; and WHEREAS, Resolution 29-07 established the Sheriff's Boating Fund 140 however, in 2010 other functions were rolled into this fund and it is now recommended by the Mason County Audit Committee and the Mason County Sheriff's Office to abolish Fund 140 and create Fund 141 for the Sheriff's Boating Program; and WHEREAS, the Narcotics Investigation Fund was established by Resolution No. 3-86 and deleted from the Mason County Budget by adoption of Resolution 104-10 and it is now recommended by the Mason County Audit Committee and the Mason County Sheriff's Office to reestablish the Narcotics Investigation Fund as Fund 142 and close the Criminal Investigation Revolving checking account at Columbia Bank but make no changes to the imprest account established in Resolution No. 33-95 of$20,000; and WHEREAS, Jail Operating Standards, Chapter 2.21.370, state proceeds from the jail facility commissary shall be used for operation and maintenance of the commissary service and/or prisoner welfare expenses; and WHEREAS, the Mason County Audit Committee and the Mason County Sheriff's Office recommends the Commissary monies, including video visitation proceeds, and General Donations deposited into Fund 140 be transferred to Current Expense as Committed Revenues in two separate programs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Mason County Board of Commissioners to amend Mason County Code Chapter 3.132 reestablishing the Sheriff's Boating Program Fund as Fund 141 and delete Fund 140; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend Mason County Code Chapter 3.52 reestablishing the Narcotics Investigation Fund as Fund 142 and close the Criminal Investigation Revolving checking account at Columbia Bank and deposit the $1500 into Current Expense; and Resolution No. FURTHER RESOLVE to transfer the Commissary monies, including video visitation proceeds, and General Donations from Fund 140 into Current Expense as Committed Revenues under two separate programs and change the title of the Commissary monies to the Prisoner Welfare Program; and FURTHER RESOLVE THAT: The Mason County Sheriff or his/her designee shall administer these funds and Committed Revenues and shall provide the information on the amount of money, as of April 1, 2020, that will be transferred to Fund 141 and Fund 142 and the amounts to transfer to Current Expense as Committed Revenues; and The Sheriff's Boating Program Fund may be used for any purpose related to Mason County's enforcement of federal, state, and local boating laws. This will include, but is not limited to training, specialized equipment, and employee wages and benefits. Interest on investment of Boating funds shall accrue for the benefit of said operating fund; and The Sheriffs Narcotics,Investigation,and Felony Forfeiture Program Fund may be used for any purpose related to Mason County's enforcement of federal, state, and local laws.This will include but is not limited to training, specialized equipment, professional services, and state confiscation reimbursement. Interest on investment of Narcotics Investigation and Felony Forfeiture funds shall accrue for the benefit of said operating fund; and The Prisoner Welfare Program may be used for any purpose benefiting Mason County's inmate population whether or not they are housed in the Mason County jail facility. This will include, but is not limited to, providing supplies, tools, and equipment for the benefit of the inmates subject to applicable laws and statues; and The General Donations may be used for any purpose related to the Mason County Sheriff's Office subject to applicable laws and statues; and The Mason County Treasurer shall establish separate and distinct special funds to be designated Sheriff's Boating Program Fund and Narcotics Investigation Fund and transfer the appropriate Prisoner Welfare Program monies (aka Commissary) and General Donations into Current Expense as Committed Revenues. DATED this day of February, 2020. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: Sharon Trask, Chair Melissa Drewry, Clerk of the Board Randy Neatherlin, Commissioner APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tim Whitehead Kevin Shutty, Commissioner Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney MASON COUNTY BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Jennifer Beierle DEPARTMENT: Support Services EXT: 532 BRIEFING DATE: February 10, 2020 PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information INTERNAL REVIEW (please check all that apply): ❑ Budget/Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Other— please explain ITEM: Requests for Supplemental Appropriations and Amendments to the 2020 Budget EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Requests for 1st quarter supplemental appropriations and amendments to the 2020 budget are attached. This is the fist scheduled budget hearing to amend the 2020 budget. BUDGET IMPACT: Total of increase to 2020 authorized expenditure appropriations: General Fund (001): $350,433 County Road (105): $324,911 Crime Victims (110): $966 Victim Witness Activity (114): $781 Sheriff's Special Funds (140): $330,000 Sheriff's Boating Program (141): $208,947 Narcotics Investigation (142): $96,797 Community Services Health (150): $4,502 Law Library (160): $72 Mason County Landfill (402): $2,259 NBCI Sewer Utility (403): $1,506 Rustlewood Sewer &Water (411): $540 Beards Cove Water (412): $242 Belfair Sewer (413): $684 Information Technology (500): $881 Equipment Rental & Revolving (501): $3,585 Unemployment (502): $150 Total impact to ending fund balances: General Fund (001): Decrease of $241,001 County Road (105): Decrease of $285,986 Crime Victims (110): $966 Victim Witness Activity (114): $781 Community Services Health (150): $4,502 Law Library (160): $72 Mason County Landfill (402): $2,259 NBCI Sewer Utility (403): $1,506 Rustlewood Sewer &Water (411): $540 Beards Cove Water (412): $242 Belfair Sewer (413): $684 Information Technology (500): $667 Equipment Rental & Revolving (501): $3,585 PUBLIC OUTREACH: RCW 36.40.100 requires the Board to publish notice in the official county newspaper for two consecutive weeks prior to the budget hearing. RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Request to set a public hearing for March 17th at 9:15 a.m. to consider and approve supplemental budget requests and budget transfers to the 2020 budget. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed 2020 Budget Amendment #1 Detail & Detailed Budget Entries ATTACHMENT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENT#1 DETAIL 2020 2020 FUND REVENUE EXPENDITURE LINE NO. FUND NAME DEPARTMENT CHANGE CHANGE DESCRIPTION 1 001 GENERAL FUND WSU 2,235 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 2 001 GENERAL FUND ASSESSOR 1,456 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 3 001 GENERAL FUND AUDITOR 3,509 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 4 001 GENERAL FUND DEM 647 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 5 001 GENERAL FUND FACILITIES 1,575 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 6 001 GENERAL FUND HR/RISK 5,177 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 7 1001 IGENERAL FUND CLERK 1,299 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 8 001 GENERAL FUND SUPPORT SERVICES 10,187 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 9 001 GENERAL FUND DISTRICT COURT 1,823 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 10 001 GENERAL FUND DCD 4,756 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 it 001 GENERAL FUND PARKS&TRAILS 647 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 12 001 GENERAL FUND JUVENILE CT SRVS 3,650 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 13 001 GENERAL FUND PROSECUTOR 4,851 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 14 001 GENERAL FUND CHILD SUPPORT ENF 1,143 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 15 001 GENERAL FUND SHERIFF 10,722 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 16 001 GENERAL FUND OPD 3,261 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 17 001 GENERAL FUND SUPERIOR COURT 5,369 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 18 001 GENERAL FUND THERAPEUTIC CRT 3,180 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 19 001 GENERAL FUND TREASURER 1,520 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 20 105 COUNTY ROAD 23,986 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 21 110 CRIME VICTIMS 966 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 22 114 VICTIM WITNESS 781 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 23 150 COMM SRVS HEALTH 4,502 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 24 160 LAW LIBRARY 72 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 25 402 MC LANDFILL 2,259 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 26 403 NBCI SEWER UTILITY 1,506 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 27 411 RUSTLEWOOD S&W 540 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 28 412 BEARDS COVE WATER 242 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 29 413 1 BELFAIR SEWER 684 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 30 500 INFO TECHNOLOGY 667 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 31 501 ER&R 3,585 NU GENERAL WAGE INC 1.75%Res#101-19 ADD .5 FTE RECORDING MNGR BACK FROM 32 001 GENERAL FUND AUDITOR 41,189 AUDITOR'S O&M FUND 104 ADD 1 FTE FOR 9 MONTHS TO COVER FOR MATERNITY LEAVE&TRANSITION FOR 33 001 GENERAL FUND AUDITOR 35,082 SUCCESSION OF RETIRING EMPLOYEE 34 001 GENERAL FUND AUDITOR 3,063 ADD TRAVEL THAT WAS CUT IN 2020 BACK IN 35 001 GENERAL FUND FACILITIES 40,000 JANITORIAL SERVICES CONTRACT INCREASE TO FUND REMAINING PORTION OF.5 FTE IN 36 001 GENERAL FUND FACILITIES 6,805 FACILITIES DEPT($20,632 IS IN BUDGET) 37 001 GENERAL FUND CLERK 5,366 RECLASS CHIEF DEPUTY-RANGE 27 TO 29 38 001 IGENERAL FUND JUVENILE CT SRVS 5,051 RECLASS DEPUTY ADMIN-RANGE 33 TO 35 TRANSFER CASH FROM SHERIFF SPECIAL FUNDS TO PRISONER WELFARE & GENERAL DONATIONS 39 001 GENERAL FUND SHERIFF 80,00. 0 80,000 TO CLOSE OUT FUND 1.40 CREATING BUDGETED REVENUE& EXPENSE LINES FOR PRISONER WELFARE & DONATIONS 40 001 GENERAL FUND SHERIFF 29,432 29,432 PREVIOUSLY PART OF FUND 140 41 001 GENERAL FUND MOTOR POOL 10,000 INITIAL OPERATING BUDGET AUTHORITY .5 FTE BUDGETED TO MP DEPARTMENT(.5 FTE 42 1001 GENERAL FUND MOT_OR POOL 27,438 WILL BE BUDGETED TO FACILITIES 43 105 COUNTY ROAD 38,925 38,925 FHWA GRANT-HARSTINE ISL BRIDGE DECK Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENT#1 DETAIL 2020 2020 FUND REVENUE EXPENDITURE LINE NO. FUND NAME DEPARTMENT CHANGE CHANGE DESCRIPTION 44 105COUNTY ROAD 262,000 PATCH TRUCK ORDERED IN JULY OF 2019 SHERIFF'S SPECIAL TRANSFER OUT CASH BALANCES TO PRISONER FUNDS WELFARE, DONATIONS, BOATING,&NARCOTICS 45 140 330,000 330,000 INVESTIGATION SHERIFF'S BOATING TRANSFER CASH FROM SHERIFF SPECIAL FUNDS 46 141 PROGRAM 160,000 160,000 TO CLOSE OUT FUND 140 CREATING BUDGETED REVENUE&EXPENSE SHERIFF'S BOATING LINES FOR BOATING PREVIOUSLY PART OF FUND 47 141 PROGRAM 48,947 48,947 140 NARCOTICS TRANSFER CASH FROM SHERIFF SPECIAL FUNDS 48 142 INVESTIGATION 90,000 90,000 TO CLOSE OUT FUND 140 CREATING BUDGETED REVENUE&EXPENSE NARCOTICS LINES FOR NARCOTICS INVESTIGATION 49 142 INVESTIGATION 6,797 6,797 PREVIOUSLY PART OF FUND 140 INC TRANSFER IN DUE TO FACILITIES ADDITIONAL 50 '500 INFO TECHNOLOGY 214 214 .5 FTE INC TRANSFER IN DUE TO FACILITIES ADDITIONAL 51 502 UNEMPLOYMENT 150 150 .5 FTE GENERAL FUND TOTAL 109,432 350,433 OTHER FUNDS TOTAL 675,033 976,823 ALL FUNDS GRAND TOTAL 784,465 1,327,256 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENT#1 DETAILED BUDGET ENTRIES Proposed Budgeted EFB Account Type I/D Revenue Expenditure EFB Change Total Description 001.000000.010.000.571.21.510030.0000.00. 1 1 1,264 OFFICE MANAGER 001.000000.010.003.553.60.510060.0000.00. 1 1 971 _ COORDINATOR 001.000000.020.000.514.24.510020.0000.00. 1 1 1,456 CHIEF DEPUTY 001.000000.030.031.514.23.510020.0000.00. 1 1 2,009 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 001.000000.030.034.514.40.510010.0000.00. 1 1 _ 1,500 ELECTIONS SUPERINTENDENT 001.000000.050.000.525.10.510010.0000.00. 1 1 647 DEM MANAGER 001.000000.055.000.518.30.510010.0000.00. 1 1 1,575 FACILITIES MANAGER 001.000000.057.000.518.10.510010.0000.00. 1 I 1,575 HUMAN RESOURCE RISK MANAGER 001.000000.057.000.518.10.510020.0000.00. 1 1 1,246 PERSONNEL ANALYST 001.000000.057.100.518.90.510030.0000.00. 1 1 1,198 RISK SAFETY COMPLIANCE MANAGER 001.000000.057.200.514.20.510010.0000.00. 1 1 579 ADMIN CLERK 001.000000.057.200.521.10.510010.0000.00. 1 1 579 ADMIN CLERK 001.000000.070.000.512.30.510020.0000.00. 1 1 1,299 CHIEF DEPUTY 001.000000.090.000.511.30.510010.0000.00. 1 1 1,158 CLERK OF BOARD CLAIMS ADMIN 001.000000.090.000.513.10.510005.0000.00. 1 1 2,645 _ SUPPORT SERVICES DIRECTOR 001.000000.090.000.513.10.510010.0000.00. 1 1 1,575 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR 001.000000.090.000.513.10.510030.0000.00. 1 1 912 SECRETARY RECEPTIONIST 001.000000.090.000.513.10.510040.0000.00. 1 I 987 SECRETARY RECEPTIONIST 001.000000.090.000.514.20.510020.0000.00. 1 1 1,694 BUDGET MANAGER 001.000000.090.000.514.20.510030.0000.00. 1 1 1,216 FINANCIAL ANALYST 001.000000.100.000.512.40.510020.0000.00. 1 1 1,203 COURT ADMINISTRATOR 001.000000.100.173.523.33.510020.0000.00. 1 1 620 ADMINISTRATOR 001.000000.125.140.558.50.510005.0000.00. 1 1 451 COMMUNITY SRVCS DIRECTOR 001.000000.125.140.558.50.510007.0000.00. 1 1 1,693 PERMIT ASSISTANCE CENTER MNGR 001.000000.125.145.558.60.510005.0000.00. 1 1 451 COMMUNITY SRVCS DIRECTOR 001.000000.125.145.558.60.510052.0000.00. 1 1 855 PLANNING MANAGER 001.000000.125.146.558.60.510005.0000.00. 1 1 451 COMMUNITY SRVCS DIRECTOR 001.000000.125.146.558.60.510010.0000.00. + 1 1 855 PLANNING MANAGER 001.000000.146.000.576.80.510780.0000.00. 1 1 647 PARKS&TRAILS MANAGER 001.000000.170.000.523.31.510010.0000.00. 1 1 1,914 ADMINISTRATOR 001.000000.170.000.523.31.510020.0000.00. 1 1 1,736 DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 001.000000.180.000.515.31.510040.0000.00. 1 1 1,496 ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER 001.000000.180.000.515.31.510050.0000.00. 1 1 1,065 LEGAL SECRETARY 001.000000.180.000.515.31.510090.0000.00. 1 1 1,065 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 001.000000.180.000.515.31.510091.0000.00. 1 1 433 SECRETARY RECEPTIONIST 001.000000.180.000.515.31.510092.0000.00. 1 I 533 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 001.000000.180.000.515.31.510100.0000.00. 1 I 259 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 001.000000.185.000.515.80.510050.0000.00. 1 I 78 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR 001.000000.185.000.515.80.510090.0000.00. 1 1 1,065 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 001.000000.205.265.521.10.510010.0000.00. 1 1 2,648 SHERIFF 001.000000.205.265.521.10.510020.0000.00. 1 1 2,523 UNDERSHERIFF 001.000000.205.265.521.10.510100.0000.00. 1 1 1,499 FINANCE MANAGER 001.000000.205.270.523.60.510001.0000.00. 1 1 2,231 JAIL CHIEF 001.000000.205.270.523.60.510152.0000.00. 1 1 1,821 LIEUTENANT 001.000000.240.200.515.91.510010.0000.00. 1 1 2,086 CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000000.240.200.515.91.510080.0000.00. 1 1 1,175 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 001.000000.250.000.512.21.510030.0000.00. 1 1 1,816 COURT ADMINISTRATOR 001.000000.250.000.512.21.510130.0000.00. 1 1 1,234 COURT RECORDER JUDICAL ASSIST 001.000000.250.000.512.21.510140.0000.00. 1 1 1,085 COURT RECORDER JUDICIAL ASSIST 001.000000.250.000.512.21.510150.0000.00. 1 1 1,234 COURT RECORDER FACILITATOR 001.000000.256.100.512.22.510025.0000.00. 1 1 1,427 PROGRAM MANAGER 001.000000.256.100.512.22.510035.0000.00. 1 1 894 _ CASEWORKER 001.000000.256.100.512.22.510045.0000.00. 1 1 859 . FRC CASEWORKER 001.000000.260.000.514.22.510020.0000.00. 1 1 1,52.0 CHIEF DEPUTY 001.000000.320.000.508.80.500000.0000.00. 1 D - 67,007 529,791 END FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED 105.000000.000.000.542.10.510035.0000.00. 1 1 670 OPER&MAINT/ER&R ADMINISTRATO 105.000000.000.000.542.10.510100.0000.00. 1 1 1,176 ROAD OPERATIONS MANAGER 105.000000.000.000.542.10.510110.0000.00. 1 1 1,780 ASSISTANT ROAD OPER&MAIN SUP 105.000000.000.000.542.10.510120.0000.00. 1 1 1,569 ROAD SUPERVISOR 105.000000.000.000.542.10.510130.0000.00. 1 1 1,575 ROAD SUPERVISOR 105.000000.000.000.542.10.510140.000_0.00. 1 1 1,575 ROAD SUPERVISOR 105.000000.000.000.543.10.510010.0000.00. 1 1,221 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 105.000000.000.000.543.10.510020.0000.00. 1 1,817 COUNTY ENGINEER 105.000000.000.000.543.10.510030.0000.00. 1 1 653 FINANCE MANAGER Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENT#1 DETAILED BUDGET ENTRIES Proposed Budgeted EFB Account Type I/D Revenue Expenditure EFB Change Total Description 105.000000.000.000.543.10.510070.0000.00. 1 1 1,070 OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR 105.000000.000.000.544.20.510020.0000.00. 1 1 227 COUNTY ENGINEER 105.000000.000.000.544.20.510025.0000.00. 1 1 1,957 TECHNICAL SERVICES MANAGER 105.000000.000.000.544.20.510150.0000.00. 1 1 1,201 ENGINEERING&CONST MANAGER 105.000000.000.000.544.20.510200.0000.00. 1 1 1,736 __ _ TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SUPVSR 105.000000.000.000.544.20.510210.0000.00. 1 I 1,354 ENGINEER 105.000000.000.000.544.20.510230.0000.00. 1 1 I 1,736 ENGINEER HYDRAULIC ENGINEER 105.000000.000.000.544.20.510240.0000.00. 1 1 385 ENGINEER 105.000000.000.000.595.10.510020.0000.00. 1 1 227 ENGINEER 105.000000.000.000.595.10.510150.0000.00. 1 1 801 ENGINEERING&CONST MANAGER 105.000000.000.000.595.10.510240.0000.00. 1 1 1,153 __ENGINEER 105.000000.000.100.543.10.510025.0000.00. 1 1 103 TECHNICAL SERVICES MANAGER 105.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 23,986 1,623,814 END FUND RESERVED 110.000000.000.000.515.70.510091.0000.00. 1 1 433 CRIME VICTIM'S ASSIST 110.000000.000.000.515.70.510100.0000.00. 1 1 533 CRIME VICTIM'S ASSIST 110.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 966 85,131 END FUND RESERVED 114.000000.000.000.515.70.510091.0000.00. 1 1 781 VICTIM WITNESS ASST 114.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 781 16,852 END FUND RESERVED 150.000000.100.000.562.10.510010.0000.00. 1 1 1,354 COMMUNITY SRVCS DIRECTOR 150.000000.100.000.562.10.510015.0000.00. 1 1 1,575 FINANCE MANAGER 150.000000.300.000.562.50.510015.0000.00. 1 1 1,573 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER 150.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 4,502 15,372 END FUND RESERVED 160.000000.000.000.572.20.510140.0000.00. 1 1 72 LAW LIBRARIAN CLERK 160.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 72 60,008 END FUND RESERVED 402.000000.000.000.537.80.510995.0000.00. 1 1 1,351 PROGRAM MANAGER 402.000000.000.000.538.10.510010.0000.0_0. 1 1 579 UTILITIES PUB WORKS DIRECTOR 402.000000.000.000.538.10.510030.0000.00. 1 1 232 FINANCE MANAGER 402.000000.000.000.538.10.510070.0000.00. 1 1 1 97 PUB WKS OFFICE MGR 402.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 2,259 486,373 END FUND RESERVED 403.000000.100.020.535.83.510045.0000.00. 1 1 1,069 WATER&WASTEWATER MANAGER 403.000000.100.020.538.10.510010.0000.0_0. 1 1 279 UTILITIES PUB WORKS DIRECTOR 403.000000.100.020.538.10.510030.0000.00. 1 1 112 FINANCE MANAGER 403.000000.100.020.538.10.510070.0000.00. 1 1 46 PUB WKS OFFICE MGR 403.000000.100.020.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 1,506 593,841 END FUND RESERVED 411.000000.100.000.535.81.510045.0000.00. 1 1 179 OPERATOR 411.000000.100.000.538.10.510010.0000.00. 1 1 58 UTILITIES PUB WORKS DIRECTOR 411.000000.100.000.538.10.510030.0000.00. 1 1 23 FINANCE MANAGER 411.000000.100.000.538.10.510070.0000.00. 1 1 10 PUB WKS OFFICE MGR 411.000000.200.000.534.81.510045.0000.00. 1 1 179 OPERATOR 411.000000.200.000.538.10.510010.0000.00. 1 1 58 UTILITIES PUB WORKS DIRECTOR 411.000000.200.000.538.10.510030.0000.00. 1 1 23 FINANCE MANAGER 411.000000.200.000.538.10.510070.0000.00. 1 1 10 PUB WKS OFFICE MGR 411.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 540 5,706 END FUND RESERVED 412.000000.200.000.534.82.510045.0000.00. 1 1 144 OPERATOR 412.000000.200.000.538.10.510010.0000.00. 1 1 63 UTILITIES PUB WORKS DIRECTOR 412.000000.200.000.538.10.510030.0000.D0. 1 1 25 FINANCE MANAGER 412.000000.200.000.538.10.510070.0000.00. 1 1 10 PUB WKS OFFICE MGR 412.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 242 585,080 END FUND RESERVED 413.000000.000.000.535.84.510045.0000.00. 1 1 392 OPERATOR 413.000000.000.000.538.10.510010.0000.00. 1 1 187 UTILITIES PUB WORKS DIRECTOR 413.000000.000.000.538.10.510030.0000.00. 1 1 75 FINANCE MANAGER 413.000000.000.000.538.10.510070.0000.00. 1 1 30 PUB WKS OFFICE MGR 413.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 684 376,352 END FUND RESERVED 500.000000.000.000.518.80.510780.0000.00. 1 1 667 INFORMATION SERV MANAGER 500.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 667 31,137 END FUND RESERVED 501.000000.000.DD0.548.30.510030.0000.00. 1 I 490 FINANCE MANAGER 501.000000.000.000.548.30.510035.0000.00. 1 I 670 OPER&MAINT ER&R ADMINISTRATO 501.000_000.000.000.548.30.510070.0000.D0. 1 I 66 PUB WKS OFFICE MGR 501.000000.000.000.548.30.510100.0000.00. 1 784 DEP DIRECTOR ER&R 501.000000.000.000.548.30.510760.0000.00. 1 1 1,575 EQUIPMENT MAINT SUPERVISOR 501.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 3,585 2,413,276 END FUND RESERVED 001.000000.030.031.514.23.510050.0000.00. 1 1 27,793 FINANCIAL ANALYST 001.000000.030.031.514.23.520010.0000.00. 1 1 107 JINDUSTRIAL INSURANCE Page 2 of 4 ATTACHMENT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENT#1 DETAILED BUDGET ENTRIES Proposed Budgeted EFB Account Type I/D Revenue Expenditure EFB Change Total Description 001.000000.030.031.514.23.520020.0000.00. 1 1 2,126 : SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE 001.000000.030.031.514.23.520030.0000.00. 1 1 3,574 _ STATE RETIREMENT 001.000000.030.031.514.23.520040.0000.00. 1 1 7,548 MED DENT IS LIFE 001.000000.030.031.514.23.520045.0000.00. 1 1 41 WASHINGTON PAID FMLA 001.000000.320.000.508.80.500000.0000.00. 1 D 41,189 488,602 END FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED 001.000000.030.032.514.30.510014.0000.00. 1 1 24,305 RECORDING MGR ARCHIVE COORD 001.000000.030.032.514.30.520010.0000.00. 1 1 86 INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE 001.000000.030.032.514.30.520020.0000.00. 1 1 1,859 SOCIAL SECURITY MEDICARE 001.000000.030.032.514.30.520030.0000.00. 1 1 3,126 STATE RETIREMENT 001.000000.030.032.514.30.520040.0000.00. 1 1 5,670 MED/DENT/VIS/LIFE 001.000000.030.032.514.30.520045.0000.00. 1 1 36 WASHINGTON PAID FMLA 001.000000.320.000.508.80.500000.0000.00. 1 D 35,082 453,520 END FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED 001.000000.030.030.513.10.543010.0000.00. 1 1 1,150 TRAVEL 001.000000.030.031.514.23.549020.0000.00. 1 1 1,063 TRAINING/DUES/REGISTRATION 001.000000.030.033.514.81.543010.0000.00. 1 1 850 TRAVEL 001.000000.320.000.508.80.500000.0000.00. 1 D 3,063 450,457 END FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED 001.000000.055.000.518.30.541030.0000.00. 1 1 40,000 JANITORIAL SERVICES 001.000000.320.000.508.80.500000.0000.00. 1 D 40,000 410,457 END FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED 001.000000.055.000.518.30.510030.0000.00. 1 1 6,805 MAINTENANCE 001.000000.320.000.508.80.500000.0000.00. 1 D 6,805 403,652 END FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED 001.000000.070.000.512.30.510020.0000.00. 1 1 4,452 DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 001.000000.070.000.512.30.520020.0000.00. 1 1 341 SOCIAL SECURITY MEDICARE 001.000000.070.000.512.30.520030.0000.00. 1 1 573 STATE RETIREMENT 001.000000.320.000.508.80.500000.0000.00. 1 D 5,366 398,286 END FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED 001.000000.170.000.523.31.510020.0000.00. 1 1 4,191 DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 001.000000.170.000.523.31.520020.0000.00. 1 1 321 SOCIAL SECURITY MEDICARE 001.000000.170.000.523.31.520030.0000.00. 1 1 539 STATE RETIREMENT 001.000000.320.000.508.80.500000.0000.00. 1 D 5,051 393,235 END FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED 001.000000.205.290.397.00.300140.0000.00. 2 1 60,000 TRANSFER IN-SHERIFF'S SPECIAL FUNDS 001.000000.205.290.341.70.300000.0000.00. 2 1 15,939 MERCHANDISE SALES 001.000000.205.290.369.91.300010.0000.00. 2 1 3,720 SECURUS VIDEO 001.000000.205.290.369.91.300000.0000.00. 2 1 473 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 001.000000.205.290.523.60.531010.0000.00. 2 1 3,650 INMATE SUPPLIES 001.000000.205.290.523.60.535010.0000.00. 2 1 300 SMALL TOOLS&MINOR EQUIPMENT 001.000000.205.290.523.90.541010.0000.00. 2 1 76,182 FOOD SERVICES 001.000000.205.295.397.00.300140.0000.00. 2 1 20,000 TRANSFER IN-SHERIFF'S SPECIAL FUNDS 001.000000.205.295.367.00.300000.0000.00. 2 1 9,300 DONATIONS 001.000000.205.295.521.10.520011.0000.00. 2 1 2,000 VOLUNTEER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE 001.000000.205.295.521.10.520050.0000.00. 2 1 200 VOLUNTEER UNIFORMS 001.000000.205.295.521.10.531010.0000.00. 2 I 1 100 VOLUNTEER SUPPLIES 001.000000.205.295.521.23.520050.0000.00. 2 1 600 UNIFORMS 001.000000.205.295.521.23.531010.0000.00. 2 1 1,935 SUPPLIES&EQUIPMENT 001.000000.205.295.521.23.535099.0000.00. 2 1 3,250 TRACKABLE TOOLS&EQUIPMENT 001.000000.205.295.521.23.541010.0000.00. 2 1 19,070 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 001.000000.205.295.521.23.543010.0000.00. 2 1 545 TRAVEL 001.000000.205.295.521.23.549020.0000.00. 2 1 1,600 TUITION,REGISTRATIONS,&MEMBER. 001.000000.305.000.548.70.531010.0000.00. 1 1 10,000 SUPPLIES 001.000000.320.000.508.80.500000.0000.00. 1 D 10,000 383,235 END FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED 001.000000.305.000.548.70.510030.0000.00. 1 1 17,029 MAINTENANCE 001.000000.305.000.548.70.520010.0000.00. 1 1 833 INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE 001.000000.305.000.548.70.520020.0000.00. 1 1 1,303 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE 001.000000.305.000.548.70.520030.0000.00. 1 1 2,190 STATE RETIREMENT 001.000000.305.000.548.70.520035.0000.00. 1 1 390 TEAMSTERS PENSION 001.000000.305.000.548.70.520040.0000.00. 1 1 1 I 1 1 5,436 MED/DENT/VIS/LIFE Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENT#1 DETAILED BUDGET ENTRIES Proposed Budgeted EFB Account Type I/D Revenue Expenditure EFB Change Total Description 001.000000.305.000.548.70.520045.0000.00. 1 1 25 WA PD FMLA 001.000000.305.000.548.70.520050.0000.00. 1 1 50 UNIFORMS 001.000000.305.000.548.70.541501.0000.00. 1 107 RESERVE FOR TECH 001.000000.305.000.548.70.546096.0000.00. 1 1 75 UNEMPLOYMENT 001.000000.320.000.508.80.500000.0000.00. 1 D 27,438 355,797 END FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED 105.000000.000.000.333.20.320000.0000.00. 2 1 38,925 FED FHWA VIA WS ST DOT 105.000000.000.000.544.20.541000.0000.00. 2 1 38,925 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 105.000000.000.000.594.44.564000.0000.00. 1 1 262,000 CAPITAL MACHINERY&EQUIPMENT 105.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 D 262,000 1,361,814 END FUND RESERVED 140.000000.000.000.308.10.300000.0000.00. 2 1 330,000 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 140.000000.000.000.597.00.500290.0000.00. 2 1 60,000 TRANSFER OUT-PRISONER WELFARE 140.000000.000.000.597.00.500300.0000.00. 2 1 20,000 TRANSFER OUT-DONATIONS 140.000000.000.000.597.00.500300.0000.00. 2 1 160,000 TRANSFER OUT-BOATING 140.000000.000.000.597.00.500300.0000.00. 2 1 90,000 TRANSFER OUT-NARCOTICS 141.000000.000.000.397.00.300140.0000.00. 2 1 160,000 TRANSFER IN-SHERIFF'S SPECIAL FUNDS 141.000000.000.000.333.97.301010.0000.00. 2 1 12,947 WA STATE PARKS GRANT 141.000000.000.000.336.00.384000.0000.00. 2 1 33,000 VESSEL REGISTRATION FEES 141.000000.000.000.361.10.300000.0000.00. 2 1 3,000 INVESTMENT INTEREST 141.000000.000.000.514.21.541510.0000.00 2 1 1,093 STATE AUDITOR CHARGES 141.000000.000.000.521.22.512000.0000.00 2 1 22,000 OVERTIME 141.000000.000.000.521.22.520010.0000.00 2 1 512 INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE 141.000000.000.000.521.22.520020.0000.00 2 1 1,727 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE 141.000000.000.000.521.22.520030.0000.00 2 1 1,249 STATE RETIREMENT 141.000000.000.000.521.22.520040.0000.00 2 1 2,564 MED/DENT/VIS/LIFE 141.000000.000.000.521.22.520045.0000.00 2 1 I 1 34 WA PD FMLA 141.000000.000.000.521.22.532010.0000.00 2 1 3,031 FUEL USED 141.000000.000.000.521.22.535010.0000.00 2 1 330 SMALL TOOLS&MINOR EQUIPMENT 141.000000.000.000.521.22.541019.0000.00 2 1 5,330 INTERNAL ALLOCATION 141.000000.000.000.521.22.546010.0000.00 2 1 157 LIABILITY INSURANCE 141.000000.000.000.521.22.548010.0000.00 2 1 160 BOAT REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 141.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00 2 1 170,760 END FUND RESERVE 142.000000.000.000.397.00.300140.0000.00. 2 1 90,000 TRANSFER IN-SHERIFF'S SPECIAL FUNDS 142.000000.000.000.351.50.301000.0000.00. 2 1 3,637 DRUG FUND 142.000000.000.000.361.10.300000.0000.00. 2 I 1 160 INVESTMENT INTEREST 142.000000.000.000.369.30.300000.0000.00. 2 1 3,000 142.000000.000.000.521.21.541010.0000.00. 2 1 242 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 142.000000.000.000.521.21.544010.0000.00. 2 1 126 10%STATE CONFISCATION PAYMENT 142.000000.000.000.521.21.548011.0000.00. 2 1 101 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 142.000000.000.000.521.22.541019.0000.00. 2 1 3,058 INTERNAL ALLOCATION 142.000000.000.000.521.21.549010.0000.00. 2 1 2,516 INVESTIGATING REVOLVING REIMB. 142.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 2 1 90,754 END FUND RESERVE 500.000000.000.000.348.40.300000.0000.00. 1 1 214 RESERVE FOR TECH 500.000000.000.000.508.10.500000.0000.00. 1 1 214 END FUND RESERVED 502.000000.000.000.341.97.300001.0000.00. 1 1 150 UNEMPLOYMENT 502.000000.000.000.517.78.520060.0000.00. 1 1 150 UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS General Fund Total: 109,432 350,433 241,001 Other Funds Total: 675,033 976,823 301,790 All Funds Grand Total: 784,465 1,327,256 542,791 Page 4 of 4 MASON COUNTY BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Jennifer Beierle DEPARTMENT: Support Services EXT: 532 BRIEFING DATE: February 10, 2020 PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: December 2, 2019 ITEM: Buy-out remaining vehicles purchased in 2018 with Traffic Diversion dollars EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2018 the General Fund purchased 4 Sheriff's vehicles with Traffic Policing Dollars. In order to maintain Road Arterial Trust Account (RATA) funding for Mason County the purchase of those vehicles cannot be born entirely by Road funded diverted dollars because those vehicles are not 100% used for traffic policing purposes. The General Fund repaid to Roads that component of the cost of the four vehicles that are not eligible for Traffic Policing Diversion in December of 2019, and also bought out the two Chevrolet Tahoes completely. The purchase of Sheriff vehicles using Traffic Diversion dollars creates an administrative burden on the Sheriff's Office. According to CRAB, the vehicle usage must be tracked in detail for the life of these vehicles. The vehicle usage must always be above the percentage that was paid using Traffic Diversion, or RATA funds may be at risk. This differs in the way the Sheriff is allowed to account for traffic policing staff time, which may be done using a sampling of time for a period each year. In order to avoid the tracking of each hour of time to these vehicles, the Sheriff's Office and Support Services are recommending to the Board that the general fund buy-out the vehicles with a retro-active effective date of 12/31/19. Attached is the calculation of the buy-out. The same methodology was used as in the buy-out of the Chevy Tahoes in December. BUDGET IMPACTS: $66,917 out of Current Expense Non-Departmental RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Approve the buy-out of two Ford Explorers purchased with 75% traffic diversion by the General Fund to the Road Fund ATTACHMENTS: The previous buyout of the two Chevrolet Tahoes and the option to buyout the two Ford Explorers C:\Users\jb\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\IE\XP5N42DP\Briefing Summary 2.10.2020-Traffic Vehicles.doc 12/31/19 Buy-Out of two Ford Explorers purchased using 75%Traffic Diversion Dollars in 2018 February 10,2020 BOCC Briefing jr Option to Option 1 Buyout Ford approved by Explorers at BOCC in 12131119 in December of addition to 2019 Tahoes Total 2018-4 vehicles paid out of the Sheriffs Budget $ 245,035.09 Total 2018 of the 4 vehicles paid out of Traffic Funds $ 212,107.50 2018 Chevy Tahoes Depreciation $ 24,342.39 Chevy Tahoes 2018 depreciation charged to Traffic $ 12,779.76 Ford Explorers charged to Traffic at 75% $ 83,646.49 $ 83,646.49 Total Allowable Traffic Policing Vehicles $ 96,426.24 $ 83,646.49 Ford Explorers 2018 depreciation charged to Traffic $ 16,729.30 Buy-out amount due back to Roads from Current Expense $ 66,917.19 Total 2018 Traffic Policing Expenditures $ 2,180,456.05 Remove uniform allowance-inelligible per CRAB $ (7,200.00) Remove 2018 amount paid from Traffic $ (212,107.50) Add back allowable portion of 2018 vehicles $ 96,426.24 $ 66,917.19 Total allowable Traffic Policing $ 2,057,574.79 Total 2018 collected Traffic Diversion $ 2,160,000.00 2018 Traffic Diversion due back to Roads $ 102,425.21 Total Chevy Tahoe(s)paid for with General Fund Dollars during 2018 Reconciliation:: $ 13,256.05 Total Chevy Tahoe(s)paid for with General Fund Dollars in 2019 for 2018: $ 102,425.21 Total General Fund Dollars used to purchase Tahoe(s) $ 115,681.26 Buy out two Chevy Tahoes completely(using strai htline depreciation over 5 yrs-no salvage value K9 Equipment $ 11,794.48 Remove K9 Equipment-not traffic policing eligible per CRAB $ 245,035.09 $ 233,240.61 C:\Users\b\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\IE\UAXNOC80\2018 Traffic Diversion Payback-2 Mason County, WA Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 2 Chapter 2.18 - EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL 2.18.010 - Established. A Mason County emergency medical services advisory council is hereby established. (Res. 92-86 (part), 1986). 2.18.020 - Composition. The council shall be composed of one representative from each of the following: (1) Hospital District#1 board of commissioners. (2) Hospital District#2 board of commissioners. (3) City of Shelton board of commissioners. (4) Mason County sheriff's office. (5) City of Shelton police department. (6) Washington State Patrol. (7) Mason County division of emergency management. (8) Privately owned ambulance company(ies). (9) Medical program director. (10) Mason County emergency communications (MACECOM). (11) Skokomish Tribal Nation. (12) Squaxin Island Tribal Nation. Plus: (1) One fire district representative from each fire jurisdiction. (2) One citizen/consumer(nonfire/EMS affiliated) representative from each of the three Mason County commissioner districts. (Res. 92-86 (part), 1986). (Res. No. 11-2011, 3-15-2011) 2.18.030 - Representatives—Appointment and term. about:blank 2/6/2020 Mason County, WA Code of Ordinances Page 2 of 2 Each representative and his/her designated alternate who shall serve in the representative's absence shall be appointed by the county commissioners for a term of years as determined by his/her group. (Res. 92-86 (part), 1986). 2.18.040 - Representatives—Organizational requirement. Any group represented on the council must be actively organized to be eligible for membership on the council. (Res. 92-86 (part), 1986). 2.18.050 -Advisory capacity. The council shall act in an advisory capacity for the analysis, coordination, evaluation, planning, development of standards and regulations and other related aspects of the county emergency medical system(s); provided that the implementation, management, and control of such system(s) shall be solely at the discretion of the county, hospital district, city of Shelton, and fire districts within their authority and jurisdiction as defined by law. (Res. 92-86 (part), 1986). about:blank 2/6/2020 RCW 70.168.120: Local and regional emergency medical services and trauma care counci... Page 1 of 1 RCW 70.168.120 Local and regional emergency medical services and trauma care councils—Power and duties. (1) A county or group of counties may create a local emergency medical services and trauma care council composed of representatives of hospital and prehospital trauma care and emergency medical services providers, local elected officials, consumers, local law enforcement officials, and local government agencies involved in the delivery of emergency medical services and trauma care. (2) The department shall establish regional emergency medical services and trauma care councils and shall appoint members to be comprised of a balance of hospital and prehospital trauma care and emergency medical services providers, local elected officials, consumers, local law enforcement representatives, and local government agencies involved in the delivery of trauma care and emergency medical services recommended by the local emergency medical services and trauma care councils within the region. (3) Local emergency medical services and trauma care councils shall review, evaluate, and provide recommendations to the regional emergency medical services and trauma care council regarding the provision of emergency medical services and trauma care in the region, and provide recommendations to the regional emergency medical services and trauma care councils on the plan for emergency medical services and trauma care. [ 1990 c 269 § 15; 1987 c 214 § 6; 1983 c 112 § 8. Formerly RCW 18.73.073.] https:Happ.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.168.120 2/6/2020 MASON COUNTY BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: David Windom DEPARTMENT: Community Services-CFH EXT: 260 BRIEFING DATE: 2/10/2020 PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information INTERNAL REVIEW (please check all that apply): ❑ Budget/Finance Human Resources G Legal ❑ Other — please explain ITEM: Begin hiring process to re-fill the Community Family Health division position of Health Education Specialist. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and potential solutions): Our Community Health Education Specialist position will be vacated near the end of March and need to be filled. BUDGET IMPACT: None: Already included in 2020 budget PUBLIC OUTREACH:(Include any legal requirements, direct notice, website, community meetings, etc.) HR will advertise per protocol RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Approve hiring process to fill position. ATTACHMENTS: Briefing Summary 2/5/2020 Health Education Specialist Full-Time 1.0 FTE Posting #20- MASON COUNTY EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Note: Internal posting with Teamsters Community&Family Health is concurrent with posting to the public. Therefore if a qualified candidate from within the bargaining unit applies, that person could be selected for the position. Opening Date: February 10, 2020 External Closing Date: February 24, 2020 Department: Community Services- Public Health Internal Closing Date: concurrent Monthly Salary: $5,138-5,746 Job Summary Develops and maintains a system-wide process for producing internal and external health assessment data, for interpreting this data, and disseminating health information and reports to the community. Assesses community health education needs, plans, organizes, and participates in providing health education services through community presentations, information distribution and working with various community organizations, coalitions and workgroups. Coordinates and maintains Public Health's communication image and health education, including but not limited to web presence, social media, press releases and printed materials. Develops new health programs in collaboration with community partners. Examples of Skills & Duties Work in conjunction with community agencies and groups in the development of health education strategies to address priority community health and social issues, including coordination of available resources, development of new community resources and programs, and referral of information requests to the respective service organizations. Track the status of identified county health indicators as well as trends in health, illness, injury and death at the state and local levels and the factors affecting these trends. Collect, analyze, and disseminate Mason County public health data in a timely manner that enables citizens to be informed of the health issues in the county. Conduct/organize and publish public health assessments, including the Community Health Assessment (CHA). Coordinate, update, and develop Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP). Develop and maintain effective working relationships with area organizations, public agencies, health care organizations, schools, environmental agencies and organizations, tribes etc., in order to increase collective impact of community health strategies. Helps facilitate community coalition's strategic plans to impact priority health improvement. Minimum Requirements Bachelor's Degree in Community Health, Health Promotion, Health Education, Public Health, or a closely related field. Prefer At least one (1) year experience in assessment, research, data collection and interpretation/analysis, program evaluation, and quality improvement. Proficient in writing community profiles and reports. Master's degree Preferred. May consider new graduate. Valid Washington State Driver's License. Application & Selection Process Applicants are required to submit a Mason County Application. The completed application may include additional pages of employment history using the application format, and a resume may be attached. The completed application will be used as the primary document to determine if minimum qualifications are met for this recruitment. Misrepresentation, incomplete, or inaccurate entries may be the cause of application rejection, removal from the employment list, or discharge from county service. Applicants will be screened based upon education and experience, and the top candidates will be scheduled for interviews. Selection factors will include demonstrated knowledge and abilities for the particular position. Only candidates selected for interviews will be notified of final selection. Please read the reverse side for additional information. This selection process may be subject to change. Submit Applications to: Mason County Human Resource Department 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton, WA 98584 360 427-9670 Ext 268 or Job Line 427-7265 Equal Opportunity -Affirmative Action Employer Drug-free Work Environment MASON COUNTY BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Kell Rowen DEPARTMENT: Planning EXT: 286 BRIEFING DATE: February 10, 2019 PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: November 18, 2019 If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information INTERNAL REVIEW (please check all that apply): X Budget/Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Other— please explain ITEM: Place on the February 18, 2020 Action Agenda to have the BOCC Chair sign the Grant Contract in the amount of $84,000, with the Department of Ecology (ECY) for the required periodic update of the County's Shoreline Master Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and potential solutions): There is no required grant match. Grant monies will be used for existing staff time. Consultants will not be utilized. BUDGET IMPACT: Grant award for Counties, including Mason County is $84,000 to be used from July 2019 through June 30, 2021. Planning staff anticipates starting the update in January 2020 through June 2021. PUBLIC OUTREACH:(include any legal requirements, direct notice, website,community meetings, etc.)There is no public outreach requirement to formally apply for the grant, but there will be a public outreach component, with public meetings, including public hearings during the SMP update process. RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Place on the February 18, 2020 Action Agenda to sign Agreement No. SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057. ATTACHMENTS: Copy of the Agreement Briefmg Summary 2/3/2020 DEPARTMENT OF coma ECOLOGY State of Washington Agreement No. SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 SHORELANDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND MASON COUNTY This is a binding Agreement entered into by and between the state of Washington,Department of Ecology,hereinafter referred to as"ECOLOGY,"and Mason County,hereinafter referred to as the"RECIPIENT,"to carry out with the provided funds activities described herein. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Total Cost: $84,000.00 Total Eligible Cost: $84,000.00 Ecology Share: $84,000.00 Recipient Share: $0.00 The Effective Date of this Agreement is: 07/01/2019 The Expiration Date of this Agreement is no later than: 06/30/2021 Project Type: Periodic Review of the Shoreline Master Program Project Short Description: The RECIPIENT will conduct a periodic review of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)that is developed in a manner consistent with requirements of the Shoreline Management Act(SMA),RCW 90.58,and its implementing rules, WAC 173-26,including the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines(SMP Guidelines). Project Long Description: The purpose of the Shoreline Master Program periodic review is to(a)assure that the master program complies with applicable law and SMP Guidelines in effect at the time of the review,and(b)assure consistency of the master program with the local government's comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under chapter RCW 36.70A,if applicable.Local governments should also consider amendments needed to address changed circumstances,new information,or improved data. State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 2 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County Please note:Beyond the scope of this agreement,the RECIPIENT will continue the SMP formal adoption process as stated in the SMA and WAC 173-26. Work related to these activities and formal adoption by the local governing body is eligible for reimbursement under this grant,provided it is completed by June 30,2021.The adoption process includes the activities shown below. 1.Complete SEPA review and documentation Conduct SEPA review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(RCW 43.21C). 2.Provide GMA 60-day notice of intent to adopt For local governments planning under the Growth Management Act,notify ECOLOGY and the Department of Commerce of intent to adopt the SMP amendment at least 60 days in advance of final local approval,pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. 3.Hold public hearing Hold at least one public hearing prior to local adoption of the draft SMP or Findings of Adequacy,consistent with the requirements of WAC 173-26-100 or WAC 173-26-104. 4.Prepare a responsiveness summary Prepare a summary responding to all comments received during the public hearing and the public comment period.The names and mailing addresses of all interested parties providing comment shall be compiled. 5.Adopt SMP and submit to ECOLOGY Complete the adoption process for the SMP update under either WAC 173-26-100 or WAC 173-26-104 and submit the locally-adopted Draft SMP amendment or Findings of Adequacy and Periodic Review Checklist to ECOLOGY under WAC 173-26-110. The RECIPIENT will be using grant funds to pay for the following tasks: Task 1 Project Oversight: Coordination,Management and Administration. Task 3 Public Participation. Task 4 Review Shoreline Master Program and Draft Revisions,If needed. Task 5 Final Draft SMP or Findings of Adequacy. The RECIPIENT will be paying for the following task themselves: Task 2 Secure Consultant Services,If Needed. Overall Goal: Periodic Review Checklist and final draft SMP amendment or Findings of Adequacy. Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 3 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County RECIPIENT INFORMATION Organization Name: Mason County Federal Tax ID: 91-6001354 DUNS Number: 695801751 Mailing Address: 615 West Alder Shelton,WA 98584 Physical Address: 615 West Alder Shelton,Washington 98584 Contacts Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 4 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County Project Manager Kell Rowen Planning Manager 615 West Alder Shelton,Washington 98584 Email: krowen@co.mason.wa.us Phone: (360)427-9670 Billing Contact Kathy Chaussee 615 West Alder Shelton,Washington 98584 Email: kathyc@co.mason.wa.us Phone: (360)427-9670 David Windom Authorized Director Signatory 615 West Alder Shelton,Washington 98584 Email: dwindom@co.mason.wa.us Phone: (360)427-9670 Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 5 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County ECOLOGY INFORMATION Mailing Address: Department of Ecology Shorelands PO BOX 47600 Olympia,WA 98504-7600 Physical Address: Shorelands 300 Desmond Drive SE Lacey,WA 98503 Contacts Kim Van Zwalenburg Project Manager PO Box 47775 Olympia,Washington 98504-7775 Email: kvan461@ecy.wa.gov Phone: (360)407-6520 Layne Slone Financial Financial Manager Manager PO Box 47600 Olympia,Washington 98504-7600 Email: Inak461@ecy.wa.gov Phone: (360)407-7540 Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 6 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-M4,CoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES RECIPIENT agrees to furnish the necessary personnel,equipment,materials,services,and otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of work as set forth in this Agreement. RECIPIENT acknowledges that they had the opportunity to review the entire Agreement,including all the terms and conditions of this Agreement,Scope of Work,attachments,and incorporated or referenced documents,as well as all applicable laws, statutes,rules,regulations,and guidelines mentioned in this Agreement. Furthermore,the RECIPIENT has read,understood, and accepts all requirements contained within this Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties,and there are no other understandings or representations other than as set forth,or incorporated by reference,herein. No subsequent modifications or amendments to this agreement will be of any force or effect unless in writing,signed by authorized representatives of the RECIPIENT and ECOLOGY and made a part of this agreement.ECOLOGY and RECIPIENT may change their respective staff contacts without the concurrence of either party. This Agreement shall be subject to the written approval of Ecology's authorized representative and shall not be binding until so approved. The signatories to this Agreement represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement and bind their respective organizations to this Agreement. Washington State Mason County Department of Ecology By: By• Gordon White Date David Windom Date Shorelands Director Program Manager Template Approved to Form by Attorney General's Office Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 7 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County Sharon Trask Commissioner Date Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 8 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County SCOPE OF WORK Task Number: 1 Task Cost: $8,400.00 Task Title: 1.Project Oversight:Coordination,Management,and Administration Task Description: The RECIPIENT will provide necessary project oversight to complete the scope of work in compliance with this ECOLOGY agreement,which includes project coordination,project management,and project administration. A.The RECIPIENT will coordinate with ECOLOGY throughout the SMP review process.The RECIPIENT will provide ECOLOGY opportunities to review draft deliverables at appropriate intervals.ECOLOGY will provide ongoing technical assistance,and will evaluate consistency of deliverables with the Shoreline Management Act and applicable guidelines throughout the review process. B. The RECIPIENT will coordinate with other applicable federal,state and local agencies,neighboring jurisdictions,and Indian tribes as provided in the Guidelines and SMA procedural rules.In addition,the RECIPIENT will consult with other appropriate entities which may have useful information if necessary. C. The RECIPIENT will conduct project management activities including compliance with state statutes and rules,project scheduling,adherence to the scope of work,timelines,and due dates;request for,and if applicable,conducting the competitive procurement process including preparation of contractor bidding documents,advertisements,and grant monitoring. D. The RECIPIENT will submit quarterly progress reports and payment requests(PRPRs)with supporting documentation; maintain project records;and submit ECOLOGY-approved deliverables by the due dates established between ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT. Task Goal Statement: Properly manage and fully document the project in accordance with ECOLOGY's grant administration requirements. Task Expected Outcome: Timely and complete submittal of requests for reimbursement,quarterly progress reports and recipient closeout report. Properly maintained project documentation. Recipient Task Coordinator: Kell Rowen 1.Project Oversight: Coordination,Management,and Administration Deliverables Number Description Due Date 1.1 Progress reports are due quarterly. 1.2 Recipient Close Out Report 06/30/2021 Template version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 9 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County SCOPE OF WORK Task Number: 2 Task Cost: $0.00 Task Title: 2. Secure Consultant Services,If Needed Task Description: If applicable,the RECIPIENT will: A. Secure qualified consultant services In accordance with the RECIPIENT or State of Washington procurement procedures,the RECIPIENT will enter into a contract with the selected consultant(s)and prepare a sub agreement in accordance with the scope of work in this agreement. Task Goal Statement: To ensure the RECIPIENT has qualified personnel to conduct the scope of this project. Task Expected Outcome: If applicable,signed contract and sub-agreement with consultant(s). 2.Secure Consultant Services,If Needed Deliverables Number Description Due Date 2.1 Final signed consulting contract.Upload to EAGL per the date in the Deliverable Due Dates form. 2.2 Update in quarterly progress report. Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 10 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County SCOPE OF WORK Task Number: 3 Task Cost: $8,400.00 Task Title: 3.Public Participation Task Description: The RECIPIENT will: A. Develop a Public Participation Plan Prepare and disseminate a public participation plan to invite and encourage public involvement in the SMP periodic review consistent with WAC 173-26-090. The public participation plan should include applicable local requirements such as planning commission review and formal hearings,as well as applicable state notice requirements. B. Conduct public participation activities Implement the public participation plan throughout the course of the SMP periodic review process. Task Goal Statement: To inform and involve all stakeholders in the SMP periodic review process. Task Expected Outcome: Continuous public participation activities throughout the SMP periodic review process. Recipient Task Coordinator: Kell Rowen 3.Public Participation Deliverables Number Description Due Date 3.1 Public Participation Plan.Upload to EAGL per the date in the Deliverable Due Dates form. 3.2 Updates of public involvement activities in progress reports. Template Version 10/30/2015 Page 11 of 25 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County SCOPE OF WORK Task Number: 4 Task Cost: $40,320.00 Task Title: 4.Review Shoreline Master Program and Draft Revisions,If Needed Task Description: The RECIPIENT will: A. Review the SMP to determine if revisions are needed 1. Review amendments to chapter 90.58 RCW and Ecology rules that have occurred since the Shoreline Master Program was last amended,and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance.Ecology will provide a checklist of legislative and rule amendments to assist local governments with this review. 2. Review changes to the comprehensive plan and development regulations to determine if the Shoreline Master Program policies and regulations remain consistent with them.Document the consistency analysis to support proposed changes to the Shoreline Master Program or Findings of Adequacy. 3. Conduct additional analysis deemed necessary to address changing local circumstances,new information or improved data. B. Draft revised SMP goals,policies and regulations,or prepare Findings of Adequacy 1. Prepare amended goals and policies or regulations identified through the review process.Use the checklist to identify where in the SMP changes are made to address applicable statutory or regulatory changes. 2. Where the review conducted under Task 4A concludes no changes are necessary,prepare draft Findings of Adequacy. Task Goal Statement: To review the SMP to determine if changes are necessary,and revise the SMP if changes are deemed necessary. Task Expected Outcome: A completed Periodic Review Checklist documenting the initial staff review of the SMP,and either initial draft SMP amendments or draft Findings of Adequacy. Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 12 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—PeriodicReview Recipient Name: Mason County Recipient Task Coordinator: Kell Rowen 4.Review Shoreline Master Program and Draft Revisions,If Needed Deliverables Number Description Due Date 4.1 A Periodic Review Checklist documenting consideration of statutory amendments,and internal consistency review. Upload to EAGL per the date in the Deliverable Due Dates form. 4.2 Initial draft SMP amendments or Findings of Adequacy and supporting documentation. Upload to EAGL per the date in the Deliverable Due Dates form. Template version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 13 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County SCOPE OF WORK Task Number: 5 Task Cost: $26,880.00 Task Title: 5.Final Draft SMP or Findings of Adequacy Task Description: The RECIPIENT will: A. Conduct public review process Conduct a local public review process for the proposed Shoreline Master Program as provided in the SMA and WAC 173-26. Where amendments to the SMP are proposed they shall contain applicable shoreline goals,policies,or regulations With copies of any provisions adopted by reference.Where no changes are needed,the local process will include a formal Findings of Adequacy. B. Assemble final draft amendment or Findings of Adequacy Assemble a complete SMP final draft amendment in preparation for review and approval by the local jurisdictional governing body.Where the review determines that no changes are needed, the Recipient will prepare a formal Findings of Adequacy. Task Goal Statement: Complete a Shoreline Master Program final draft amendment or Findings of Adequacy. Task Expected Outcome: A Shoreline Master Program final draft amendment or Findings of Adequacy. ReciRient Task Coordinator: Kell Rowen 5.Final Draft SMP or Findings of Adequacy Deliverables Number Description Due Date 5.1 Updates of public review process activities in progress report. 5.2 Submit an SMP final draft amendment or Findings of Adequacy,with relevant supporting documentation and a complete Periodic Review checklist. Upload to EAGL per the date in the Deliverable Due Dates form. Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 14 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County BUDGET Funding Distribution EG200423 NOTE: The above funding distribution number is used to idents this specific agreement and budget on payment remittances and may be referenced on other communications from ECOLOGY. Your agreement may have multiple funding distribution numbers to idents each budget. Funding Title: Model Toxics Control Operating Account(MIFunding Type: Grant Funding Effective Date: 07/01/2019 Funding Expiration Date: 06/30/2021 Funding Source: Title: Model Toxics Control Operating Account(MTCOA) Type: State Funding Source%: 100% Description: Model Toxics Control Operating Account(MTCOA) Approved Indirect Costs Rate: Approved State Indirect Rate:30% Recipient Match%: 0% InKind Interlocal Allowed: No InKind Other Allowed: No Is this Funding Distribution used to match a federal grant? No Model Toxics Control Operating Account(MTCOA) Task Total 1.Project Oversight: Coordination,Management,and $ 8,400.00 Administration 2. Secure Consultant Services,If Needed $ 0.00 3.Public Participation $ 8,400.00 4.Review Shoreline Master Program and Draft Revisions,If $ 40,320.00 Needed 5.Final Draft SMP or Findings of Adequacy $ 26,880.00 Total:$ 84,000.00 Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 15 of 25 AgreementNo: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County Funding Distribution Summary Recipient/Ecology Share Funding Distribution Name Recipient Match % Recipient Share Ecology Share Total Model Toxics Control Operating 0.00 % $ 0.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 84,000.00 Account(MTCOA) Total $ 0.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 84,000.00 AGREEMENT SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS N/A SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Deliverable Due Date Form: The RECIPIENT will negotiate the task deliverable due dates with the ECOLOGY Project Manager,and the ECOLOGY Project Manager will enter the information in the Deliverable Due Date EAGL form.The RECIPIENT will keep track of these due dates,and will note any date changes on the quarterly progress reports.The Deliverable Due Date form can be found on the Application Menu-Forms page in EAGL.(Note:This form does not automatically print out with the agreement.) Document Accessibility Requirements(as described in the General Terms and Conditions of this Agreement: ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR COVERED TECHNOLOGY): For documents produced under this agreement intended to be published,posted, or hosted on ECOLOGY's external web site,the RECIPIENT shall provide the documents in both their"native format" (such as Word,Excel,PowerPoint)and in PDF format(latest version of Adobe Acrobat Pro or compatible).The PDF documents must satisfactorily pass the Adobe Acrobat Pro Accessibility Checker(Full Check).The RECIPIENT will provide ECOLOGY the Accessibility Checker's report. ECOLOGY will review the PDF Accessibility results and may request the RECIPIENT remedy any known issues. ECOLOGY reserves the right to perform independent testing to validate accessibility and may require the RECIPIENT remedy any identified issues before acceptance of the document. For assistance concerning Accessibility,visit state of Washington,Office of the Chief Information Officer,OCIO Policy no. 188,Accessibility (https:Hocio.wa.gov/policy/accessibility). GENERAL FEDERAL CONDITIONS If a portion or all of the funds for this agreement are provided through federal funding sources or this agreement is used to match a federal grant award,the following terms and conditions apply to you. A.CERTIFICATION REGARDING SUSPENSION DEBARMENT INELIGIBILITY OR VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION: 1. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR,by signing this agreement,certifies that it is not suspended,debarred,proposed for Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 16 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County debarment,declared ineligible or otherwise excluded from contracting with the federal government,or from receiving contracts paid for with federal funds. If the RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR is unable to certify to the statements contained in the certification,they must provide an explanation as to why they cannot. 2. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR shall provide immediate written notice to ECOLOGY if at any time the RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or had become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 3. The terms covered transaction,debarred,suspended,ineligible,lower tier covered transaction,participant,person, primary covered transaction,principal,proposal,and voluntarily excluded,as used in this clause,have the meaning set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact ECOLOGY for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 4. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR agrees it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under the applicable Code of Federal Regulations,debarred,suspended, declared ineligible,or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction. 5. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR further agrees by signing this agreement,that it will include this clause titled "CERTIFICATION REGARDING SUSPENSION,DEBARMENT,INELIGIBILITY OR VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION"without modification in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 6. Pursuant to 2CFR180.330,the RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR is responsible for ensuring that any lower tier covered transaction complies with certification of suspension and debarment requirements. 7. RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR acknowledges that failing to disclose the information required in the Code of Federal Regulations may result in the delay or negation of this funding agreement,or pursuance of legal remedies,including suspension and debarment. 8. RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR agrees to keep proof in its agreement file,that it,and all lower tier recipients or contractors,are not suspended or debarred, and will make this proof available to ECOLOGY before requests for reimbursements will be approved for payment.RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR must run a search in <http://www.sam.gov>and print a copy of completed searches to document proof of compliance. B.FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT(FFATA)REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: CONTRACTOR/RECIPIENT must complete the FFATA Data Collection Form(ECY 070-395)and return it with the signed agreement to ECOLOGY. Any CONTRACTOR/RECIPIENT that meets each of the criteria below must report compensation for its five top executives using the FFATA Data Collection Form. • Receives more than$25,000 in federal funds under this award. • Receives more than 80 percent of its annual gross revenues from federal funds. • Receives more than$25,000,000 in annual federal funds. Ecology will not pay any invoices until it has received a completed and signed FFATA Data Collection Form.Ecology is required to report the FFATA information for federally funded agreements,including the required DUNS number,at www.fsrs. og v<hM://www.fsrs.gov/>within 30 days of agreement signature. The FFATA information will be available to the public at www.usaspending o�ttp://www.usaspending.gov/>. For more details on FFATA requirements,see www.fsrs. og� v<hqp://www.fsrs.gov/>. Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 17 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Pertaining to Grant and Loan Agreements With the state of Washington,Department of Ecology GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS OF LAST UPDATED 7-1-2019 VERSION 1. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS a) RECIPIENT shall follow the"Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans—EAGL Edition." (https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1701004.html) b) RECIPIENT shall complete all activities funded by this Agreement and be fully responsible for the proper management of all funds and resources made available under this Agreement. c) RECIPIENT agrees to take complete responsibility for all actions taken under this Agreement, including ensuring all subgrantees and contractors comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.ECOLOGY reserves the right to request proof of compliance by subgrantees and contractors. d) RECIPIENT's activities under this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval by ECOLOGY for the extent and character of all work and services. 2. AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS This Agreement may be altered,amended,or waived only by a written amendment executed by both parties. No subsequent modification(s)or amendment(s)of this Agreement will be of any force or effect unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties. ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT may change their respective staff contacts and administrative information without the concurrence of either party. 3. ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR COVERED TECHNOLOGY The RECIPIENT must comply with the Washington State Office of the Chief Information Officer,OCIO Policy no. 188, Accessibility(https:Hocio.wa.gov/policy/accessibility)as it relates to"covered technology."This requirement applies to all products supplied under the agreement,providing equal access to information technology by individuals with disabilities, including and not limited to web sites/pages,web-based applications,software systems,video and audio content,and electronic documents intended for publishing on Ecology's public web site. 4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES RECIPIENT shall take reasonable action to avoid,minimize,or mitigate adverse effects to archeological and historic resources. The RECIPIENT must agree to hold harmless the State of Washington in relation to any claim related to historical or cultural artifacts discovered,disturbed, or damaged due to the RECIPIENT's project funded under this Agreement. RECIPIENT shall: a) Contact the ECOLOGY Program issuing the grant or loan to discuss any Cultural Resources requirements for their project: • For capital construction projects or land acquisitions for capital construction projects,if required,comply with Governor Executive Order 05-05,Archaeology and Cultural Resources. • For projects with any federal involvement,if required, comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. • Any cultural resources federal or state requirements must be completed prior to the start of any work on the project site. b) If required by the ECOLOGY Program,submit an Inadvertent Discovery Plan(IDP)to ECOLOGY prior to implementing any project that involves ground disturbing activities. ECOLOGY will provide the IDP form. RECIPIENT shall: • Keep the IDP at the project site. Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 18 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County • Make the IDP readily available to anyone working at the project site. • Discuss the IDP with staff and contractors working at the project site. • Implement the IDP when cultural resources or human remains are found at the project site. c) If any archeological or historic resources are found while conducting work under this Agreement: • Immediately stop work and notify the ECOLOGY Program,the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation at (360)586-3064, any affected Tribe,and the local government. d) If any human remains are found while conducting work under this Agreement: • Immediately stop work and notify the local Law Enforcement Agency or Medical Examiner/Coroner's Office,and then the ECOLOGY Program. e) Comply with RCW 27.53,RCW 27.44.055, and RCW 68.50.645,and all other applicable local,state,and federal laws protecting cultural resources and human remains. 5. ASSIGNMENT No right or claim of the RECIPIENT arising under this Agreement shall be transferred or assigned by the RECIPIENT. 6. COMMUNICATION RECIPIENT shall make every effort to maintain effective communications with the RECIPIENT's designees,ECOLOGY,all affected local,state,or federal jurisdictions,and any interested individuals or groups. 7. COMPENSATION a) Any work performed prior to effective date of this Agreement will be at the sole expense and risk of the RECIPIENT. ECOLOGY must sign the Agreement before any payment requests can be submitted. b) Payments will be made on a reimbursable basis for approved and completed work as specified in this Agreement. c) RECIPIENT is responsible to determine if costs are eligible. Any questions regarding eligibility should be clarified with ECOLOGY prior to incurring costs. Costs that are conditionally eligible require approval by ECOLOGY prior to expenditure. d) RECIPIENT shall not invoice more than once per month unless agreed on by ECOLOGY. e) ECOLOGY will not process payment requests without the proper reimbursement forms,Progress Report and supporting documentation. ECOLOGY will provide instructions for submitting payment requests. f) ECOLOGY will pay the RECIPIENT thirty(30)days after receipt of a properly completed request for payment. g) RECIPIENT will receive payment through Washington State's Office of Financial Management's Statewide Payee Desk. To receive payment you must register as a statewide vendor by submitting a statewide vendor registration form and an IRS W-9 form at website,https://ofm.wa.gov/it-systems/statewide-vendorpayee-services. If you have questions about the vendor registration process,you can contact Statewide Payee Help Desk at(360)407-8180 or email PayeeRegistration@ofin.wa.gov. h) ECOLOGY may,at its sole discretion,withhold payments claimed by the RECIPIENT if the RECIPIENT fails to satisfactorily comply with any term or condition of this Agreement. i) Monies withheld by ECOLOGY may be paid to the RECIPIENT when the work described herein,or a portion thereof, has been completed if,at ECOLOGY's sole discretion, such payment is reasonable and approved according to this Agreement, as appropriate,or upon completion of an audit as specified herein. j) RECIPIENT must submit within thirty(30)days after the expiration date of this Agreement,all financial,performance,and other reports required by this agreement. Failure to comply may result in delayed reimbursement. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS RECIPIENT agrees to comply fully with all applicable federal,state and local laws,orders,regulations,and permits related to this Agreement,including but not limited to: a) RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws,regulations,and policies of the United States and the State of Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 19 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County Washington which affect wages and job safety. b) RECIPIENT agrees to be bound by all applicable federal and state laws,regulations,and policies against discrimination. c) RECIPIENT certifies full compliance with all applicable state industrial insurance requirements. d) RECIPIENT agrees to secure and provide assurance to ECOLOGY that all the necessary approvals and permits required by authorities having jurisdiction over the project are obtained. RECIPIENT must include time in their project timeline for the permit and approval processes. ECOLOGY shall have the right to immediately terminate for cause this Agreement as provided herein if the RECIPIENT fails to comply with above requirements. If any provision of this Agreement violates any statute or rule of law of the state of Washington,it is considered modified to conform to that statute or rule of law. 9. CONFLICT OF INTEREST RECIPIENT and ECOLOGY agree that any officer,member,agent,or employee,who exercises any function or responsibility in the review,approval,or carrying out of this Agreement,shall not have any personal or financial interest,direct or indirect,nor affect the interest of any corporation,partnership,or association in which he/she is a part, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. 10. CONTRACTING FOR GOODS AND SERVICES RECIPIENT may contract to buy goods or services related to its performance under this Agreement. RECIPIENT shall award all contracts for construction,purchase of goods,equipment,services,and professional architectural and engineering services through a competitive process,if required by State law. RECIPIENT is required to follow procurement procedures that ensure legal,fair,and open competition. RECIPIENT must have a standard procurement process or follow current state procurement procedures. RECIPIENT may be required to provide written certification that they have followed their standard procurement procedures and applicable state law in awarding contracts under this Agreement. ECOLOGY reserves the right to inspect and request copies of all procurement documentation,and review procurement practices related to this Agreement. Any costs incurred as a result of procurement practices not in compliance with state procurement law or the RECIPIENT's normal procedures may be disallowed at ECOLOGY's sole discretion. 11. DISPUTES When there is a dispute with regard to the extent and character of the work, or any other matter related to this Agreement the determination of ECOLOGY will govern,although the RECIPIENT shall have the right to appeal decisions as provided for below: a) RECIPIENT notifies the funding program of an appeal request. b) Appeal request must be in writing and state the disputed issue(s). c) RECIPIENT has the opportunity to be heard and offer evidence in support of its appeal. d) ECOLOGY reviews the RECIPIENT's appeal. e) ECOLOGY sends a written answer within ten(10)business days,unless more time is needed,after concluding the review. The decision of ECOLOGY from an appeal will be final and conclusive,unless within thirty(30)days from the date of such decision,the RECIPIENT famishes to the Director of ECOLOGY a written appeal.The decision of the Director or duly authorized representative will be final and conclusive. The parties agree that this dispute process will precede any action in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. Appeals of the Director's decision will be brought in the Superior Court of Thurston County. Review of the Director's decision will not be taken to Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office. Pending final decision of a dispute,the RECIPIENT agrees to proceed diligently with the performance of this Agreement and in Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 20 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County accordance with the decision rendered. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit the parties'choice of another mutually acceptable method,in addition to the dispute resolution procedure outlined above. 12. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STANDARDS a) RECIPIENT shall prepare a Quality Assurance Project Plan(QAPP)for a project that collects or uses environmental measurement data. RECIPIENTS unsure about whether a QAPP is required for their project shall contact the ECOLOGY Program issuing the grant or loan. If a QAPP is required,the RECIPIENT shall: • Use ECOLOGY's QAPP Template/Checklist provided by the ECOLOGY,unless ECOLOGY Quality Assurance(QA) officer or the Program QA coordinator instructs otherwise. • Follow ECOLOGY's Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies,July 2004 (Ecology Publication No.04-03-030). • Submit the QAPP to ECOLOGY for review and approval before the start of the work. b) RECIPIENT shall submit environmental data that was collected on a project to ECOLOGY using the Environmental Information Management system(EIM),unless the ECOLOGY Program instructs otherwise.The RECIPIENT must confirm with ECOLOGY that complete and correct data was successfully loaded into EIM,find instructions at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim. c) RECIPIENT shall follow ECOLOGY's data standards when Geographic Information System (GIS)data is collected and processed. Guidelines for Creating and Accessing GIS Data are available at: https:Hecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Standards.RECIPIENT,when requested by ECOLOGY, shall provide copies to ECOLOGY of all final GIS data layers,imagery,related tables,raw data collection files,map products,and all metadata and project documentation. 13. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington,and the venue of any action brought hereunder will be in the Superior Court of Thurston County. 14. INDEMNIFICATION ECOLOGY will in no way be held responsible for payment of salaries,consultant's fees,and other costs related to the project described herein,except as provided in the Scope of Work. To the extent that the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington permit,each party will indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any liability for any or all injuries to persons or property arising from the negligent act or omission of that party or that party's agents or employees arising out of this Agreement. 15. INDEPENDENT STATUS The employees,volunteers,or agents of each party who are engaged in the performance of this Agreement will continue to be employees,volunteers,or agents of that party and will not for any purpose be employees,volunteers,or agents of the other party. 16. KICKBACKS RECIPIENT is prohibited from inducing by any means any person employed or otherwise involved in this Agreement to give up any part of the compensation to which he/she is otherwise entitled to or receive any fee,commission,or gift in return for award of a subcontract hereunder. 17. MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES(MWBE) Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 21 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County RECIPIENT is encouraged to solicit and recruit,to the extent possible,certified minority-owned(MBE)and women-owned (WBE)businesses in purchases and contracts initiated under this Agreement. Contract awards or rejections cannot be made based on MWBE participation;however, the RECIPIENT is encouraged to take the following actions,when possible,in any procurement under this Agreement: a) Include qualified minority and women's businesses on solicitation lists whenever they are potential sources of goods or services. b) Divide the total requirements,when economically feasible,into smaller tasks or quantities,to permit maximum participation by qualified minority and women's businesses. c) Establish delivery schedules,where work requirements permit,which will encourage participation of qualified minority and women's businesses. d) Use the services and assistance of the Washington State Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises(OMWBE) (866-208-1064) and the Office of Minority Business Enterprises of the U.S.Department of Commerce,as appropriate. 18. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE In the event of inconsistency in this Agreement,unless otherwise provided herein,the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (a)applicable federal and state statutes and regulations;(b) The Agreement;(c) Scope of Work;(d)Special Terms and Conditions;(e)Any provisions or terms incorporated herein by reference,including the "Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans";(f)Ecology Funding Program Guidelines;and(g) General Terms and Conditions. 19. PRESENTATION AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS ECOLOGY reserves the right to approve RECIPIENT's communication documents and materials related to the fulfillment of this Agreement: a) If requested,RECIPIENT shall provide a draft copy to ECOLOGY for review and approval ten(10)business days prior to production and distribution. b) RECIPIENT shall include time for ECOLOGY's review and approval process in their project timeline. c) If requested,RECIPIENT shall provide ECOLOGY two(2)final copies and an electronic copy of any tangible products developed. Copies include any printed materials,and all tangible products developed such as brochures,manuals,pamphlets,videos,audio tapes,CDs,curriculum,posters,media announcements,or gadgets with a message,such as a refrigerator magnet,and any online communications,such as web pages,blogs,and twitter campaigns.If it is not practical to provide a copy,then the RECIPIENT shall provide a description(photographs,drawings,printouts,etc.)that best represents the item. Any communications intended for public distribution that uses ECOLOGY's logo shall comply with ECOLOGY's graphic requirements and any additional requirements specified in this Agreement. Before the use of ECOLOGY's logo contact ECOLOGY for guidelines. RECIPIENT shall acknowledge in the communications that funding was provided by ECOLOGY. 20. PROGRESS REPORTING a) RECIPIENT must satisfactorily demonstrate the timely use of funds by submitting payment requests and progress reports to ECOLOGY. ECOLOGY reserves the right to amend or terminate this Agreement if the RECIPIENT does not document timely use of funds. b) RECIPIENT must submit a progress report with each payment request. Payment requests will not be processed without a progress report. ECOLOGY will define the elements and frequency of progress reports. c) RECIPIENT shall use ECOLOGY's provided progress report format. d) Quarterly progress reports will cover the periods from January 1 through March 31,April 1 through June 30,July 1 through Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 22 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County September 30,and October 1 through December 31. Reports shall be submitted within thirty(30)days after the end of the quarter being reported. e) RECIPIENT must submit within thirty(30)days of the expiration date of the project,unless an extension has been approved by ECOLOGY,all financial,performance,and other reports required by the agreement and funding program guidelines. RECIPIENT shall use the ECOLOGY provided closeout report format. 21. PROPERTY RIGHTS a) Copyrights and Patents. When the RECIPIENT creates any copyrightable materials or invents any patentable property under this Agreement,the RECIPIENT may copyright or patent the same but ECOLOGY retains a royalty free,nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce,publish,recover,or otherwise use the material(s)or property,and to authorize others to use the same for federal,state,or local government purposes. b) Publications. When the RECIPIENT or persons employed by the RECIPIENT use or publish ECOLOGY information; present papers,lectures,or seminars involving information supplied by ECOLOGY;or use logos,reports,maps,or other data in printed reports,signs,brochures,pamphlets,etc.,appropriate credit shall be given to ECOLOGY. c) Presentation and Promotional Materials. ECOLOGY shall have the right to use or reproduce any printed or graphic materials produced in fulfillment of this Agreement,in any manner ECOLOGY deems appropriate.ECOLOGY shall acknowledge the RECIPIENT as the sole copyright owner in every use or reproduction of the materials. d) Tangible Property Rights. ECOLOGY's current edition of"Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans,"shall control the use and disposition of all real and personal property purchased wholly or in part with funds fumished by ECOLOGY in the absence of state and federal statutes,regulations,or policies to the contrary,or upon specific instructions with respect thereto in this Agreement. e) Personal Property Furnished by ECOLOGY. When ECOLOGY provides personal property directly to the RECIPIENT for use in performance of the project, it shall be returned to ECOLOGY prior to final payment by ECOLOGY. If said property is lost,stolen,or damaged while in the RECIPIENT's possession,then ECOLOGY shall be reimbursed in cash or by setoff by the RECIPIENT for the fair market value of such property. f) Acquisition Projects. The following provisions shall apply if the project covered by this Agreement includes funds for the acquisition of land or facilities: 1. RECIPIENT shall establish that the cost is fair value and reasonable prior to disbursement of funds provided for in this Agreement. 2. RECIPIENT shall provide satisfactory evidence of title or ability to acquire title for each parcel prior to disbursement of funds provided by this Agreement. Such evidence may include title insurance policies,Torrens certificates,or abstracts,and attorney's opinions establishing that the land is free from any impediment,lien,or claim which would impair the uses intended by this Agreement. g) Conversions. Regardless of the Agreement expiration date,the RECIPIENT shall not at any time convert any equipment, property,or facility acquired or developed under this Agreement to uses other than those for which assistance was originally approved without prior written approval of ECOLOGY. Such approval may be conditioned upon payment to ECOLOGY of that portion of the proceeds of the sale,lease,or other conversion or encumbrance which monies granted pursuant to this Agreement bear to the total acquisition,purchase,or construction costs of such property. 22. RECORDS,AUDITS,AND INSPECTIONS RECIPIENT shall maintain complete program and financial records relating to this Agreement, including any engineering documentation and field inspection reports of all construction work accomplished. All records shall: a) Be kept in a manner which provides an audit trail for all expenditures. b) Be kept in a common file to facilitate audits and inspections. c) Clearly indicate total receipts and expenditures related to this Agreement. Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 23 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County d) Be open for audit or inspection by ECOLOGY, or by any duly authorized audit representative of the State of Washington, for a period of at least three(3)years after the final grant payment or loan repayment,or any dispute resolution hereunder. RECIPIENT shall provide clarification and make necessary adjustments if any audits or inspections identify discrepancies in the records. ECOLOGY reserves the right to audit,or have a designated third party audit,applicable records to ensure that the state has been properly invoiced. Any remedies and penalties allowed by law to recover monies determined owed will be enforced. Repetitive instances of incorrect invoicing or inadequate records may be considered cause for termination. All work performed under this Agreement and any property and equipment purchased shall be made available to ECOLOGY and to any authorized state, federal or local representative for inspection at any time during the course of this Agreement and for at least three(3)years following grant or loan termination or dispute resolution hereunder. RECIPIENT shall provide right of access to ECOLOGY,or any other authorized representative,at all reasonable times,in order to monitor and evaluate performance,compliance, and any other conditions under this Agreement. 23. RECOVERY OF FUNDS The right of the RECIPIENT to retain monies received as reimbursement payments is contingent upon satisfactory performance of this Agreement and completion of the work described in the Scope of Work. All payments to the RECIPIENT are subject to approval and audit by ECOLOGY,and any unauthorized expenditure(s)or unallowable cost charged to this Agreement shall be refunded to ECOLOGY by the RECIPIENT. RECIPIENT shall refund to ECOLOGY the full amount of any erroneous payment or overpayment under this Agreement. RECIPIENT shall refund by check payable to ECOLOGY the amount of any such reduction of payments or repayments within thirty(30)days of a written notice. Interest will accrue at the rate of twelve percent(12%)per year from the time ECOLOGY demands repayment of funds. Any property acquired under this Agreement,at the option of ECOLOGY,may become ECOLOGY's property and the RECIPIENT's liability to repay monies will be reduced by an amount reflecting the fair value of such property. 24. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid,such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision,and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. 25. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA) RECIPIENT must demonstrate to ECOLOGY's satisfaction that compliance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act(Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC)have been or will be met. Any reimbursements are subject to this provision. 26. SUSPENSION When in the best interest of ECOLOGY,ECOLOGY may at any time,and without cause,suspend this Agreement or any portion thereof for a temporary period by written notice from ECOLOGY to the RECIPIENT.RECIPIENT shall resume performance on the next business day following the suspension period unless another day is specified by ECOLOGY. 27. SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES In order to sustain Washington's natural resources and ecosystems,the RECIPIENT is fully encouraged to implement sustainable practices and to purchase environmentally preferable products under this Agreement. a) Sustainable practices may include such activities as: use of clean energy,use of double-sided printing,hosting low impact meetings,and setting up recycling and composting programs. b) Purchasing may include such items as: sustainably produced products and services, EPEAT registered computers and Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 24 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County imaging equipment, independently certified green cleaning products,remanufactured toner cartridges,products with reduced packaging, office products that are refillable,rechargeable,and recyclable, 100%post-consumer recycled paper,and toxic free products. For more suggestions visit ECOLOGY's web page,Green Purchasing, https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Sustainable-purchasing. 28. TERMINATION a) For Cause ECOLOGY may terminate for cause this Agreement with a seven(7)calendar days prior written notification to the RECIPIENT,at the sole discretion of ECOLOGY,for failing to perform an Agreement requirement or for a material breach of any term or condition. If this Agreement is so terminated,the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. Failure to Commence Work.ECOLOGY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement if RECIPIENT fails to commence work on the project funded within four(4)months after the effective date of this Agreement,or by any date mutually agreed upon in writing for commencement of work, or the time period defined within the Scope of Work. Non-Performance. The obligation of ECOLOGY to the RECIPIENT is contingent upon satisfactory performance by the RECIPIENT of all of its obligations under this Agreement. In the event the RECIPIENT unjustifiably fails,in the opinion of ECOLOGY,to perform any obligation required of it by this Agreement,ECOLOGY may refuse to pay any further funds, terminate in whole or in part this Agreement,and exercise any other rights under this Agreement. Despite the above,the RECIPIENT shall not be relieved of any liability to ECOLOGY for damages sustained by ECOLOGY and the State of Washington because of any breach of this Agreement by the RECIPIENT. ECOLOGY may withhold payments for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due ECOLOGY from the RECIPIENT is determined. b) For Convenience ECOLOGY may terminate for convenience this Agreement,in whole or in part,for any reason when it is the best interest of ECOLOGY,with a thirty(30)calendar days prior written notification to the RECIPIENT,except as noted below. If this Agreement is so terminated,the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. Non-Allocation of Funds. ECOLOGY's ability to make payments is contingent on availability of funding. In the event funding from state,federal or other sources is withdrawn,reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date and prior to the completion or expiration date of this Agreement,ECOLOGY,at its sole discretion,may elect to terminate the Agreement,in whole or part, or renegotiate the Agreement,subject to new funding limitations or conditions. ECOLOGY may also elect to suspend performance of the Agreement until ECOLOGY determines the funding insufficiency is resolved. ECOLOGY may exercise any of these options with no notification or restrictions, although ECOLOGY will make a reasonable attempt to provide notice. In the event of termination or suspension,ECOLOGY will reimburse eligible costs incurred by the RECIPIENT through the effective date of termination or suspension.Reimbursed costs must be agreed to by ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT. In no event shall ECOLOGY's reimbursement exceed ECOLOGY's total responsibility under the agreement and any amendments. If payments have been discontinued by ECOLOGY due to unavailable funds,the RECIPIENT shall not be obligated to repay monies which had been paid to the RECIPIENT prior to such termination. RECIPIENT's obligation to continue or complete the work described in this Agreement shall be contingent upon availability of funds by the RECIPIENT's governing body. c) By Mutual Agreement Template Version 10/30/2015 State of Washington Department of Ecology Page 25 of 25 Agreement No: SEASMP-1921-MACoCs-00057 Project Title: Shoreline Master Program—Periodic Review Recipient Name: Mason County ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT may terminate this Agreement,in whole or in part,at any time,by mutual written agreement. d) In Event of Termination All finished or unfinished documents,data studies,surveys,drawings,maps,models,photographs,reports or other materials prepared by the RECIPIENT under this Agreement,at the option of ECOLOGY,will become property of ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials. Nothing contained herein shall preclude ECOLOGY from demanding repayment of all funds paid to the RECIPIENT in accordance with Recovery of Funds,identified herein. 29. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY RECIPIENT shall ensure that in all subcontracts entered into by the RECIPIENT pursuant to this Agreement,the state of Washington is named as an express third party beneficiary of such subcontracts with full rights as such. 30. WAIVER Waiver of a default or breach of any provision of this Agreement is not a waiver of any subsequent default or breach,and will not be construed as a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless stated as such in writing by the authorized representative of ECOLOGY. Template Version 10/30/2015 MASON COUNTY BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Kell Rowen DEPARTMENT: Planning EXT: 286 BRIEFING DATE: February 10, 2020 PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: February 3, 2020 If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information INTERNAL REVIEW (please check all that apply): ❑ Budget/Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Other— please explain ITEM: Request for Proposals (RFP) for Consultant Services: Planned Action EIS for Belfair Subarea Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and potential solutions): Mason County Community Services (Planning Department) requests consultant services to assist in preparing a Planned Action EIS for a defined area of the Belfair Urban Growth Area in order to streamline the environmental permitting process for future proposed development. BUDGET IMPACT: Depends on final consultant selection and contract PUBLIC OUTREACH:(include any legal requirements, direct notice,website, community meetings, etc.)The RFP will go out to the MRSC roster. Once the Planned Action work is underway, there will be several opportunities for public participation and action. RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Set Action Agenda to approve Draft RFP for distribution. ATTACHMENTS: Draft RFP; Map of MINIMUM inclusion area. Briefing Summary 2/5/2020 MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health Mason County Request for Proposals Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Belfair Urban Growth Area (UGA) 1. Project Overview: Mason County intends to develop a Planned Action EIS for the Belfair UGA. Unincorporated Belfair is a small but thriving commercial center in north Mason County. Belfair is situated at the crossroads of key corridors that connect rural Mason County to urban centers in Kitsap and Pierce Counties and beyond. Since the recent completion of the State Route 3 widening project and the anticipation of a new state bypass, Belfair is on the verge of a growth boom. It is anticipated that the Belfair UGA Plan, adopted in December 2004, will be updated as part of the process. Mason County Department of Community Services (Planning Department) is the assigned coordinator for this project. 2. Project Purpose and Description: Mason County is seeking consultant services to assist in the preparation of a Planned Action EIS consistent with RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164 through WAC 197- 11-172, along with an update to the Belfair UGA Plan. This planning effort is expected to be consistent with the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) SR 3 —:Freight Corridor— New Alignment project that is currently underway. 3. Required Qualifications: • Demonstrated experience and expertise in preparation of Planned Action EISs including environmental documents. • Experience and expertise in preparation of GMA compliant Comprehensive Plans and/or Sub Area Plans. • Experience working:in small urban (growth) areas relating to long-range planning and zoning. • Experience in community outreach and facilitation. 4. Project Scope-of-Work: • Determine project area (may include all, or a portion of, Belfair UGA). See attached map for MINIMUM inclusion area. • Scoping of appropriate environmental documentation • Public Outreach plan and efforts; • Utilization of the Draft Belfair Mobility Plan (Transportation Supplement to the 2004 Belfair UGA Plan) and coordination with WSDOT for impacts of the Belfair Transportation Corridor. • Analyze existing land use/zoning designations and propose necessary changes; • Analyze population and employment growth projections and their distribution into Belfair area subplan. 5. Project Timeline: The Proposal shall provide a timeline for the project including the anticipated start date, milestone dates and project completion date. 6. Costs/Budget: The Proposal shall explain what is included for each budget item. Describe exactly what is included in the pricing for the proposal broken down by Phase and Tasks. The County is interested in considering a range of Tasks-within each Phase that can be included or excluded depending on budget constraints and/or timing. The Planned Action EIS shall include, at a minimum, the area within the"yellow boundary as depicted on the attached map. 7. Proposal Requirements: The Proposal must be submitted on letter size paper with a minimum 11-point font, not to exceed 10 pages in length and contain the following components: 1. Contact name; address, telephone number and e-mail address. 2. Detailed description of skills, experience and ability to prepare a Planned Action EIS with all necessary supporting documents and required public outreach. 3. Identification and designation of roles/responsibilities of key project staff. 4. Minimum of three, maximum of five client references including project type, dates, contact information and description. 5. Proposed Scope of Work in Phases that leads to a Final Planned Action EIS (County will be responsible for drafting and adopting the Planned Action Ordinance). 6. Proposed-budget per Phase and Tasks including time (salary and benefit costs or hourly fee), travel, supplies and other expenses as allowed. 7. Anticipated timeline of proposed activities based on the stated performance start and end date. 8. Statement of acceptance, ability and willingness to enter into a Professional Services Contract. 9. Statement as to whether the Proposer is a minority- and/or women-owned firm. Note-Proposers are to refrain from submitting proposals that will not be easily duplicated such as those with spiral binding, photos or over-sized paper. 8. Proposal Submission: Interested firms should submit five (5) copies their proposal pursuant to this RFP. The proposal coversheet should include the following information: firm name, address, phone numbers; and name of Principal-in-Charge and Project Manager. The submittal shall also include resumes of key personnel who will perform the work, including descriptions of similar projects they have been involved with, their role in each project, and professional certifications. Resumes are in addition to the 10-page maximum. Mason County will review all proposals and may request interviews. The County will select the qualified applicant in a priority ranking and will negotiate the estimated professional services based on the general scope of work outlined in the proposal. If agreement with the top-ranking applicant is not reached, the County may negotiate with the next ranked applicant, or reopen the RFP process. Mason County encourages disadvantaged, minority,-and women-owned consulting firms to respond. Please note that information obtained from sources other than the Project Manager or with respect to this project may not be accurate. Notices related to revisions or updates to the RFP will be provided via e-mail, unless the Applicant requests to receive it by regular mail. Regular mail will be post marked the same date any e-mails are sent. All costs for proposal preparation and negotiation incurred by the proposer, whether they lead to execution of a contract and agreement with Mason County or not must be borne entirely and exclusively by the proposer. Mason County reserves the following rights for acceptance, modification, and/or rejection of submitted proposals such as: • Rejection of any,or all proposals. • Rejection of any proposal not in compliance with proposal requirements. • Providing of addenda, amendments, supplementary material or other modifications to the proposal specifications. • Cancellation of this Request for Proposals without issuance of another Request for. Proposals. • Issuance of subsequent requests for new proposals. • Request for submission of further information by the proposer in order to complete evaluation by Mason County. • Determination to select one or more proposers for attempted negotiation of a final contract(s). Decisions made by Mason County will be final. Mason County further reserves the sole right to determine which proposal best serves the County's interest or to'reject any or all proposals. 9. Request for Proposal Process and Timeline Issuance of RFP February 11, 2020 Last Day to Submit Questions February 25, 2020 Proposals Due March 3, 2020 Short List of Consultants* March 6, 2020 Interviews if required) * Week of March 9, 2020 Final Selection* March 16, 2020 Execute Contract* March 24, 2020 *Dates with an asterisk are estimated dates and are for informational purposes only. 10. Proposal Evaluation Criteria: Proposals will be reviewed to ensure that they meet the specifications as detailed in this RFP. Proposals that do not meet the requirements will not be scored and will be removed from further consideration. Proposals that pass the technical review will be scored by a Review Committee based on the following criteria: The scoring criteria are subject to change without notice. Proposal Component Rated from 140 with 1 being the lowest Demonstrated project experience and skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Capabilities of key project staff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Creative Public Outreach practices 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Experience working in project area i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Proposed approach the narrative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Proposed scope-of-work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Proposed timelines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Proposed deliverables 1 2 3 .� 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Project budget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Inclusion of required Statements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Client references 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Minority and Women's Business Enterprises 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12. Contact Information: Questions should be directed to Kell Rowen, Planning Manager, Mason County Department of Community Services. Kell Rowen can be reached by phone at (360) 427- 9670 ext. 286,or by email at krowen@co.mason.wa.us. 13. Relevant Plans and Information: • Belfair Urban Growth Area Plan (2004) • Belfair UGA 2018 Basin Plan • Belfair Mobility Plan (2018) • Belfair Urban Growth Area Development Regulations • Mason County GIS with Current Zoning and CARA • SR 3 — Freight Corridor— New Alignment • Final Programmatic EIS — Belfair/Lower Hood Canal Water Reclamation Facilities Plan • Supplemental EIS —2009 Mason County WA GIS Web Map P wo ♦ I t i ' Y I I j I I �1 I I i �r' I ?` A p I t .F I YM I I 2/5/2020, 11:32:10 AM 1:43,489 0 0.38 0.75 1.5 mi County Boundary General Commercial&Business Industrial Belfair Zoning �I�II 0 0.5 1 2 km t—I Long Term Agricultural Low Density Residential , ? Mixed Use Business Industrial Single Family Residential Esri, HERE, Gannin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user 17 t s community, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, Festival Retail k`< CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User t Medium Density Residential Community General Commercial El Multi Family Residential Mason County WA GIS Web Map Application Richard Diaz I Esri,HERE,Garmin I Earthstar Geographics I MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS—COMMISSIONER BRIEFING FEBRUARY 10,2020 Briefing Items • Belfair Financial Plan Update—Amendment No. 1 Discussion Items Commissioner Follow-Up Items Upcoming Calendar/Action Items 1. Public Hearings February 18, 2020 @ 1:15pm • Multiple Water Systems Franchise Renewals • New Water System with Erickson Lake Homeowners Association Attendees: Commissioners: Public Works: Other Dept. Staff: Public: _Randy Neatherlin _Dave Smith _Kevin Shutty _Loretta Swanson Sharon Trask _Others:(List below) MASON COUNTY BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Loretta Swanson, Director & Richard Dickinson Deputy Director/U&W Management DEPARTMENT: Public Works EXT: 450 BRIEFING DATE: February 10, 2020 PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATE: April 16, 2018 ITEM: Belfair Financial Plan Update—Amendment No. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mason County and FCS GROUP entered into an agreement for professional services on April 25, 2018, under which FCS GROUP provides financial analysis in support of the Belfair Sewer System and its potential expansion. A part of the original scope of work involving the City of Bremerton is ongoing, but the analysis for the County was completed and reported to the Board of Commissioners. Since then, the County has made more progress on the design of a potential sewer expansion into the northeast part of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. The County now desires an updated financial analysis, further documentation, and another meeting with the Board of Commissioners. As a result, the contract budget needs to be increased and the termination date extended. Therefore, the Parties agree that: 1. The scope of work for the contract is revised to add a new Task 11-Updated Analysis: a. Update financial analysis related to the expansion of the Belfair Sewer System; b. Prepare a memo documenting the updated analysis; and c. Attend a Board of Commissioners briefing to explain the analysis and answer questions. 2. The contract budget is increased by $8,200, for a new total of $72,200. 3. The contract term is extended to September 30, 2020. RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Recommend the Board authorize the Public Works Director to execute Amendment No. 1 to the contract agreement with Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. to update and revise the Belfair sewer financial plan and complete an updated financial plan. Attachment: Amendment 1 Briefmg Summary January 31, 2020 Page 1 AMENDMENT #1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS Mason County GROUP, INC. (FCS GROUP) AND Department of Public Works Redmond Town Center 100 West Public Works Drive 7525— 166'Ave.NE, Suite D-215 Shelton,WA 98584 Redmond, Washington 98052 PROJECT: Belfair Sewer Financial Plan update Mason County and FCS GROUP entered into an agreement for professional services on April 25, 2018, under which FCS GROUP provides financial analysis in support of the Belfair Sewer System and its potential expansion. A part of the original scope of work involving the City of Bremerton is ongoing, but the analysis for the County was completed and reported to the Board of Commissioners. Since then, the County has made more progress on the design of a potential sewer expansion into the northeast part of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. The County now desires an updated financial analysis, further documentation, and another meeting with the Board of Commissioners. As a result,the contract budget needs to be increased and the termination date extended. Therefore,the Parties agree that: 1. The scope of work for the contract is revised to add anew Task 11-Updated Analysis: a. Update financial analysis related to the expansion of the Belfair Sewer System; b. Prepare a memo documenting the updated analysis; and c. Attend a Board of Commissioners briefing to explain the analysis and answer questions. 2. The contract budget is increased by$8,200, for a new total of$72,200. 3. The contract term is extended to September 30, 2020. All other terms and provisions of the contract remain the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals this day of , 20 APPROVED: APPROVED: FINANCIAL CONSULTING Mason County SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Department of Public Works �r sd -7 `* Jo Ghilardueci Loretta Swanson P sident Public Works Director Date: 1 /Zozo Date: ATTEST: $4 FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com MASON COUNTY BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Paddy McGuire DEPARTMENT: Auditor's Office EXT: 468 BRIEFING DATE: 02/10/2020 PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: n/a If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information ITEM: Budget Supplemental requests EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and potential solutions): See attached letter BUDGET IMPACTS: None RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: None ATTACHMENTS: Letter to Commissioners and budget request forms 411 N 5th Street Paddy McGuireShelton,WA 98584 Mason County Auditor Phone(360)427-9670 Fax(360)427-1753 uorra February 3, 2020 The Honorable Sharon Trask Chair Mason County Board of Commissioners 411 N 5`h St Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Chair Trask, I submit to you budget change requests for the 2020 Auditor's budget. Each of these is important to the functioning of my office and in two cases,the entire Mason County government. I would be happy to discuss them in detail at the appropriate time and urge you to approve them. 1. Add a Financial Analyst position beginning July 1. Paige Hansen intends to retire in the spring of 2022 and I had intended to make this request in the 2021 budget. However, leave this summer so it makes sense to bring someone to learn the processes and procedures that the county uses to prepare us for an easy transition. The State Auditor recommends advance planning for such transitions and this seems like a common sense solution. In addition to learning our processes and procedure, this person will be able to assist Leo Kim with the capital asset project. You will recall that the Commission did not approve our budget request for an outside firm to handle this, so this effort falls on Leo's already full plate. I do not intend to keep the additional position beyond Paige's retirement. 2. Add travel and training money back into the budget. The Commission zeroed out much of the travel and training money from our 2020 budget. I am requesting a total of$3,063 for travel and training, with$1,150 going to the Auditor, $1,063 going to Financial Services and$850 to Licensing. This funding will allow me to complete the state- mandated election certification and will allow staff to attend state conferences in their disciplines. 3. Restore funding for the Recording Manager to Current Expense. During the downturn, my predecessor shifted 50 percent of the Recording Manager's salary from Current Expense to the Auditor's O&M fund. This would reverse that shift beginning April 1 by increasing the Current Expense budget by$34,996 and decreasing the O&M budget by the same amount. The Legislature intends the O&M fund to provide archiving and records management services to the entire county, services that my office has had to curtail because of lack of funds due to the salary shift. While technically allowable, the current funding scheme does not align with the intent of the O&M fund and could draw scrutiny from the State Auditor. The current situation prevents my office from providing much-needed services to other offices and departments and leads to a disjointed approach to records management countywide,opening the door to costly litigation. Other county offices and departments are feeling the pinch and coming forward with requests that should be covered by the O&M fund. Finally,as part of my 2020 budget request, I made a one-time request of$10,000 to improve the security of our elections by beefing up the physical security of the ballot processing room. The Commission did not fund that request. Since then,the Congress has appropriated$425 million to the states for election security and Secretary of State Kim Wyman has signaled a willingness to share a portion of that money with the counties to meet our security needs. I am monitoring legislative action and hopefully will be back to request approval to receive and expend grant funding from the state. The need to secure the ballot processing room to help ensure the protection of our election infrastructure remains. It is my hope to work with the Secretary of State and our Legislative delegation to be able to utilize grant money,rather than Current Expense funds, to meet these critical needs. I will keep you informed as the Legislative session progresses. Thank you for your consideration of these important needs for my office and all of Mason County. I am, Sincerely yours. Paddy McGuire Auditor Cc: Commissioner Randy Neatherlin Commissioner Kevin Shutty Jennifer Beierle Attachments 2020 BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST Date: Change Request# PLEASE SUBMIT BUDGET CHANGE REQUESTS TO BUDGET MANAGER - SUPPORT SERVICES Supplemental Appropriation Non-Debatable Emergency Debatable Emergency X Budget Amendment For increased expenditures due to unanticipated For the relief of a stricken community For a Public emergency other than a For increased expenditures to be funded from federal,state,or local funds requiring immediate address;to meet non-debatable emergency which Current Expense funds mandatory expenditures required by law could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of making the budget,requiring the expenditure of money not provided for in the budget. REVENUE/SOURCE ai rn c EXPENDITURES ar From 001.320.000 508.80.500000. < $ 45,225.00 > Ending Fund Balance unreserved rn To + 001.030.031 514.23.510050. 27,793.00 July-Dec 2020 Financial Analyst v To + 001.030.031 514.23.520010. 107.00 July-Dec 2020 Industrial Insurance amici To + 001.030.031 514.23.520020. 2,126.00 July-Dec 2020 SS/Medicare oTo + 001.030.031 514.23.520030. 3,574.00 July-Dec 2020 State Retirement CL To + 001.030.031 514.23.520040. 7,548.00 July-Dec 2020 Med/Dent/Vis/Life a, To + 001.030.031 514.23.520045. 4,077.00 July-Dec 2020 WA Paid FMLA 0 Reason for Change:Six months salary and benefits for Fianancial Analyst to cover employee leave and prepare for future employee retirement. 0 a N N Authorizing signature for department requesting transfer: "' "� EXT:468 Title of authorizing signature: Auditor Date: 2/3/2020 rn rn Acton taken by Budget Manager. �Change Approved �— Change Denied .o a � c 00 Budget Manager signature: Date: 2020 BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST Date: Change Request# PLEASE SUBMIT BUDGET CHANGE REQUESTS TO BUDGET MANAGER - SUPPORT SERVICES Supplemental Appropriation Non-Debatable Emergency Debatable Emergency X Budget Amendment For increased expenditures due to unanticipated For the relief of a stricken community For a Public emergency other than a For increased expenditures to be funded from federal,state,or local funds requiring immediate address;to meet non-debatable emergency which Current Expense funds mandatory expenditures required by law could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of making the budget,requiring the expenditure of money not provided for in the budget. REVENUE/SOURCE ai o► c a EXPENDITURES 0 From 001.320.000 508.80.500000. < $ 3,063.00 > Ending Fund Balance unreserved rn To + 001.030.030 513.10.543010. 500.00 Auditor travel N d c To + 001.030.030 513.10.543010. 650.00 Auditor mandated election cert v To + 001.030.031 514.23.549020. 1,063.00 FS Training/Registrations E To + 001.030.032 514.81.543010. 850.00 Licensing travel 0. �+ To + v w To + o` Reason for Change: To restore funding for travel and training in the Auditors office,including state-mandated election certification. 0 U U 4) N N Authorizing signature for department requesting transfer: EXT: 468 Title of authorizing signature: Auditor Date: 2/3/2020 oAction taken by Budget Manager: _]Change Approved Change Denied a° :E Budget Manager signature: Date: 2020 BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST Date: Change Request# PLEASE SUBMIT BUDGET CHANGE REQUESTS TO BUDGET MANAGER - SUPPORT SERVICES Supplemental Appropriation Non-Debatable Emergency Debatable Emergency X Budget Amendment For increased expenditures due to unanticipated For the relief of a stricken community For a Public emergency other than a For increased expenditures to be funded from federal,state,or local funds requiring immediate address;to meet non-debatable emergency which Current Expense funds mandatory expenditures required by law could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of making the budget,requiring the expenditure of money not provided for in the budget. REVENUE/SOURCE a; rn c a EXPENDITURES 0 w From 001.320.000 508.80.500000. < $ 35,082.00 > CE Ending Fund balance rn From 001.030.032 514.30.510014. 24,305.00 Recording Manager/Archive N d From 001.030.032 514.30.520010. 86.00 Recoring Industrial Insurance From 001.030.032 514.89.520020. 1,859.00 Recording SS/Medicare From 001.030.032 514.89.520030. 3,126.00 Recording State Retirement a From 001.030.032 514.89.520040. 5,670.00 Recording Med/Dent/Vis/Life a� To + 001.030.032 514.89.520045. 36.00 Recording WA State FMLA N Reason for Change: Nine months of the position currently in Auditors O&M budget moving to Current Expense. 0 u m N N Authorizing signature for r department requesting transfer: EXT:468 Title of authorizing signature: Auditor Date: 2/3/2020 CoActiontaken by Budget Manager: Change Approved Change Denied � c °O Budget Manager signature: Date: MASON COUNTY BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Frank Pinter / Loretta Swanson DEPARTMENT: Support Services / Public Works - EXT: ER&R BRIEFING DATE: February 10, 2020 PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information INTERNAL REVIEW (please check all that apply): ❑ Budget/Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Other — please explain ITEM: County Fleet Management—Transition from One to Two Fleets EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Resolution 20-07 established a separate fleet management for Current Expense and Public Health vehicles and equipment (Current Expense Motor Pool, CEMP), separate from ER&R. The objective for this work session is to identify organization, financial, asset management and communication objectives necessary for a smooth transition to be complete by a date no later than March 31, 2020 . ORGANIZATION • Identify what services and assets CEMP may want from ER&R, o For ER&R Motor Pool Vehicles, emergency service work, fuel station use, radio mechanic service work, parking spaces in the Public Works yard o Services to include charges o Assets to include an auditable inventory • Update/prepare fleet management plans and organization needed to carry out FINANCIAL • Establish date when ER&R services are no longer available to Current Expense and Public Health (no later than March 31, 2020) • Complete first quarter accounting • Complete ER&R equity share reconciliation for years 2014-2020 using the method similar to that used to balance in 2013 • Compare budgeted and new rates for ER&R fleet for Roads, Utilities, and Landfill • Discuss status of ILA agreements • Discuss use by CEMP of ER&R motor pool vehicles and rates • Calculate space rental rate for spare vehicle parking • Amend budgets Briefing Summary 2/6/2020 ASSET MANAGEMENT • Transfer of vehicle titles if needed (Auditor Question) • Return inventory to vendors, which ones and why? • Identify and dispose of all 'obsolete or of no usable value" items • Transfer vehicle and equipment inventory in an auditable manner, i.e. with lists that are defined for specific attributes (year, make, model, serial number, quantity, etc.) and signed by both ER&R and Current Expense • The vehicle inventory list should include last, oil change, tire rotation, tire replacement, brake service and warranty service. • Have ER&R keep historical maintenance records and archive appropriately COMMUNICATION • Identify/respond to questions regarding change BUDGET IMPACT: None PUBLIC OUTREACH: No public outreach is planned but open communication is necessary for a smooth transition. RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Make recommendations on how to proceed ATTACHMENTS: None Briefing Summary 2/6/2020 MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS—COMMISSIONER BRIEFING FEBRUARY 11,2020 WORKSHOP 6 2:30 • Belfair UGA/PSIC Sewer Extension Project w/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Attendees: Commissioners: Public Works: Other Dept. Staff: Public: _Randy Neatherlin _Dave Smith _Kevin Shutty _Loretta Swanson Sharon Trask _Others:(List below) Department of Public Works/Utilities and Waste Management-Loretta Swanson,Director Mason County Board of County Commissioners February 11, 2020-Workshop DISCUSSION ITEM Belfair UGA/PSIC Sewer Extension Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mason County contracted for engineering and financial services to improve the financial health of the Belfair system and meet other important objectives: 1. Provide service to PSIC and increase the number of users 2. Maximize design and construction opportunities in coordination with the WSDOT Freight Corridor 3. Utilize existing system capacity and improve system operations Kennedy-Jenks recently completed a pre-design report identifying a preferred alternative and probable cost estimate. Four alternatives were evaluated ranging in cost from $10 — 14.2 million. Based on project partner, stakeholder and Commissioner input a preferred alternative with an estimated cost of$8.3 million is recommended. FCS Group updated the financial analysis assuming an $8.3 million project, incorporating $2.5 million in Commerce grants and a $4.9 million loan, $1 million from partner City of Bremerton, and considering the Belfair operating budget. The Commerce grants are executed and the Public Works Board has provided a loan contract offer of up to $8 million at 0.79% interest that is to be executed soon. The loan offer includes 5% loan forgiveness after project completion, so the financial analysis assumes debt principal of about $4.65 million. OUTREACH Kennedy-Jenks conducted stakeholder outreach and workshops to identify and evaluate sewer extension options. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The county can consider the following options or some variation: • Remain status quo and not extend sewer — increase rates to $137/month to balance revenue/O&M expenditures • Build $8.3 million project and accept $4.9 million loan — increase rates to $108.14/month in 2020 and increase 3% thereafter, add another $252,000 per year debt service. If an average of 28 new ERUs per year are connected to sewer, the system would be financially self-supporting by 2034. • Do something in between. For example, build $8.3 million project and accept $2 million loan — $2.65 million constructed by private development, increase rates, add an average of 28 ERUs per year, and continue county subsidy. RECOMMENDATION Request commissioner discussion/direction on which financial scenario is supported assuming the project is acceptable. ATTACHMENT: Kennedy Jenks Commission Meeting Doc FCS Group Technical Memorandum •:;> FCS GROUP I Technical Memorandum Solutions-Oriented Consulting; Date: February 5, 2020 To: Loretta Swanson, Mason County Public Works Director From: Gordon Wilson,FCS GROUP (Q`��ti Subject: Update to Belfair Sewer System Fi?tliancial Analysis INTRODUCTION This memo is to update the financial analysis provided to Mason County in July 2019 regarding the Belfair Sewer System. Since July 2019, several variables have changed. • The County learned that the Washington State Department of Transportation is planning a limited-access highway for the Belfair Freight Mobility Corridor("Belfair Bypass"), and it turns out that there would be very few economies of scale in constructing a sewer transmission line as part of the highway project. • As a result of preliminary design work undertaken by Kennedy Jenks, the sewer extension now envisioned by the County has changed. The City of Bremerton is still a partner,and the planned sewer extension would still provide a connection to the Puget Sound Industrial Center(PSIC) and capacity for PSIC flows,but the City may take some number of years to make the investments in water, sewer, and roads that are needed in the south part of PSIC. In the meantime,the County's extension would be more focused on providing sewer service to the Northeast part of the Belfair Urban Growth Area(UGA) near State Route 3. This area, sometimes referred to as the"Newkirk Road connection," is the area originally designated as Phase 3 in the initial Belfair sewer planning. • Capital cost estimates have been updated,and there is more clarity now about the funding package offered by the State. At this time the County needs to decide whether to accept the loan offered by the State and commit to this project. The purpose of this memo is to help County officials with this decision. We will present the implications of moving forward, including the needed growth in Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) and the impact of additional debt on Belfair sewer system finances. Analytical Approach As with our July 2019 memo,this update does not follow the logic of a typical financial plan. The Belfair system is financially out of balance at present, and it is being subsidized by other County resources. Growth in the number of customers is an important way to improve the financial sustainability of the sewer utility. However, growth is not directly controllable by the County. In a typical financial plan, the amount of growth is taken as a given assumption, and the outcome of the analysis is the level of rates needed to bring the utility into balance financially. In this case, the analytical flow is the reverse. We start with an assumed"maximum tolerable" level of rates and then ask what amount of growth would be needed to bring the system into financial balance over a given time period. By looking at the Belfair system in this way, we hope to help the County Board of Commissioners decide which choices offer the most realistic chance of achieving long-term independence for the Belfair sewer utility. Firm Headquarters Locations page 1 Redmond Town Center Washington 1 425.867.1802 7525166^Ave NE,Ste D-215 Oregon 1503.841.6543 Redmond.Washington 98052 Colorado 1719.284 9168 February 2020 FCS GROUP Technical Mery"- • ! im Mason County Update to Belfair Sewer System Financial Analysis REVISED SEWER EXTENSION ROUTE Exhibit 1 shows the revised sewer extension plan under consideration. Exhibit 1: Map of Proposed Sewer Extension to NE Belfair Urban Growth Area CA G J i OM r� '10000= a .?� t 3RD 6ypas5 - - - i f legend Eiusaxg Gnuclum I O Prppoieo PUr'Ip Statlo^ ' MMMM\Prw6ea Sewer Force Mari Pmposeo W20y ewer /✓- ':y�_._, • I r.• , PSIC Borger f t r ' UGA border "Obt. I N OOdlt M!M1Mo+"Me :.Ekr�ball CO�br Mrw1.SQ� The project is now broken into three phases. The current funding plan is for Phase 1 only. While it includes a connection to PSIC, Phase 1 is primarily in the Northeast Belfair UGA,near SR 3 and Log Yard Road. It includes crossings of SR 3, the railroad, and the Bypass alignment. Rather than run along the Bypass alignment, it discharges its flows into the existing Belfair collection system. Phases 2 and 3 would depend on the pace of development in PSIC. Phase 2 would be the Freight Corridor Lift Station,and Phase 3 would be a transmission line directly from PSIC to the Belfair Wastewater Reclamation Facility(WRF) along the Bypass alignment. iX* FCS GROUP Paget February 2020 Mason County Update to Belfair Sewer System Financial Analysis CURRENT BELFAIR SYSTEM FINANCES Exhibit 2 shows the degree of financial imbalance in the current Belfair sewer utility, updated to 2020 costs. Current rates are still $96/month/ERU, and there are 416 Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs). The system generates about $479,000 in revenue, O&M costs are about $684,000/year in 2020—growing by about $20,000 each year—and debt service is about $982,000 per year. The result is that the utility is heavily subsidized by other County resources. Exhibit 2: Current Financial Status of Belfair Sewer System Current Financial Status January Needed to Balance Needed to Balance Tota I CostsO&M Costs Either Or Or Higher Rates More ERUs -Higher Rates More ERUs No. ERUs 416 416 1,447 416 594 Monthly Rate per ERU $ 96.00 $ 333.85 V$ 96.00 $ 137.09 $ 96.00 Annual Re\,enue per ERU $ 1,152 $ 4,006 $ 1,152 $ 1,645 $ 1,152 Total Annual Re\,enue $ 479,232 $ 1,666,571 $ 1,666,571 $ 684,371 $ 684,371 O&M Costs $ 684,371 $ 684,371 $ 684,371 $ 684,371 $ 684,371 Existing Debt Ser\Ace 982,200 982,200 982,200 Total Costs Assuming No New Capital $ 1,666,571 $ 1,666,571 $ 1,666,571 $ 684,371 $ 684,371 2020 Gap Before New Capital $ (1,187,339) 2020 Gap O&M Costs Only $ (205,139) If Balanced without Growth: % Rate Increase Needed 248% 43% Additional Monthly Charge/ERU $ 237.85 $ 41.09 If Balanced without Rate Increases: % Growth Needed 248% 43% No. New ERUs Needed 1,031 178 These figures are shown to convey the scale of the problem, not predict reality. They assume no new capital needs. In order to balance costs and revenues, the system needs either higher rates or more ERUs or some combination of the two. Exhibit 2 shows the extremes for those two variables. To balance revenue against total costs including debt service, there would need to be either 1,447 ERUs or monthly rates of$334—a 248% increase in either rates or ERUs. Just to cover O&M costs without debt service, there would need to be either 594 ERUs or monthly rates of$137, an increase of 43%. Of course, we are not proposing that the County adopt rates of$334 per month. But this comparison gives us an updated picture of how deep the financial hole is for the Belfair sewer system. Maximum Tolerable Rate Our assumed maximum tolerable rate is $108.14 per month in 2020. This is about 2.2% of the County's median household income. It is equivalent to $96—which was determined by the County Commissioners to be the maximum tolerable rate in 2012—plus eight years of inflation at 1.5% per year. Another way to think of it is that it represents four years of inflation at 3.0% since the end of 2016, which was the last year of the County's five-year commitment to $96 rates. For a frame of reference: the North Bay/Case Inlet utility is a nearby, unsubsidized sewer utility owned and operated by the County that—like the Belfair system—is also relatively new. Its 2020 monthly sewer rate is $113.52, in the same ballpark. Our projections also assume future rate increases of 3% per year. ••�> FCS GROUP Page 3 February 2020 Mason County Update to Belfair Sewer System Financial Analysis UPDATED PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING Capital Costs Exhibit 3 shows the updated capital costs for the proposed sewer extension. The costs include inflation, assuming that construction begins in mid-2021 and is complete by April 2022. Our forecast assumes that new ERUs resulting from the extension would begin by 2023. Exhibit 3: Capital Cost of Sewer Extension to NE Belfair UGA CostsSewer Extension to NE Belfair UGA-Capital • Freight Corridor Force Main $ 319,519 Freight Corridor Gravity Main $ 776,212 UGA Lift Station $ 1,831,896 UGA Lift Station Force Main $ 1,235,484 UGA Lift Station Gravity Main $ 3,940,343 Grant-funded Planning Costs $ 300,000 Total Capital Costs $ 8,403,455 Costs include inflation The updated cost is considerably less than what was projected last July. That forecast was for a total of$13.5 million, including $2.5 million for a reclaimed water line. The current Phase 1 proposal does not include a reclaimed water line, and the revised route for the new sewer lines takes advantage of the existing collection system, which reduces the estimated costs. Potential Project Funding Exhibit 4 shows the potential project funding for this project. Two State grants have provided a total of$2.5 million. This forecast also assumes a $1 million cost share from the City of Bremerton. The assumed cost share consists of part of the Phase 1 project (about $320,000 for the Freight Corridor Force Main) that is mostly inside PSIC, plus a conservative guess about the City's willingness to fund the oversizing of other facilities to accommodate PSIC flows. The City of Bremerton had earlier committed $1 million toward design costs, but the City and County have not yet determined a cost share for this revised plan. The revised plan does identify future capital investment (Phases 2 and 3) that is primarily to benefit PSIC. The City would presumably fund these phases later, as PSIC develops. Exhibit 4: Sewer Extension to NE Belfair UGA— Capital Funding Sources Sewer Extension to NE Belfair UGA-Capital Funding Total Funding Legislative Appropriation 2017 $ 500,000 Legislative Appropriation 2019 $ 2,000,000 Assumed City of Bremerton Cost Share $ 1,000,000 Total Grants or Cost Sharing $ 3,500,000 Initial Debt-State Loan $ 4,903,455 5%Loan Forgiveness After Project Completion $ 245,173 Debt Principal After Loan Forgiveness $ 4,658,282 •:;> FCS GROUP Page 4 February 2020 - . _ �-i'i,,I". Mason County Update to Belfair Sewer System Financial Analysis The State loan offer is for up to $8 million. With the updated cost estimates and the assumed $1 million from the City of Bremerton, the County would not need all of the $8 million; only about $4.9 million would be the initial loan amount. After project completion, the County can receive forgiveness of 5% of the amount borrowed. After loan forgiveness, the County's debt principal for this project would be about $4.65 million. With a 20-year term and 0.79% interest rate, the County would be responsible for $252,716 in new debt service as a result of this loan. That is in addition to $982,200 in existing debt service for the construction of the Belfair WRF and the initial collection system. PAYING FOR THE SEWER EXTENSION TO NE BELFAIR UGA There are three ways to pay for the additional debt service: higher rates, more ERUs, or an increased County subsidy. Two of those ways are under the County's control; one is not. Increasing the County subsidy is the last resort—the backup option. To whatever degree ERU growth is delayed or rates are not raised, the County subsidy would have to make up the difference. Raising Rates Exhibit 5 shows that by bringing the monthly rates up to the $108.14 level in 2020 and then increasing it by 3% per year thereafter, the County would generate enough additional revenue to cover 44% of the new debt service, even with no growth at all. Raising rates is difficult, of course, but it is an important part of making the pieces fit financially. Exhibit 5: Impact of Raising Rates (Without Growth) Impact of Raising Rates(without Growth) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Assumed monthly rate per ERU $ 96.00 $ 108.14 $ 111.37 $ 114.72 $ 118.17 Percentage increase in monthly rate 12.6% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Arg % increase in monthly rate since 2016(1) 3.0% Revenue from rate increases (without growth) $ 60,619 $ 16,131 $ 16,683 $ 17,257 Cumulative revenue from rate increases $ 76,751 $ 93,434 $ 110,691 New debt service 252,716 Cumulative revenue from rate increases as % of new debt service 44% (1)Note: The County's 5-year commitment to$96 rates ended after 2016. How Much Growth Is Needed to Pay for the New Debt? Assuming rates are raised, how much growth would be needed to pay for the new debt? Exhibit 6 shows the breakeven point—the number of new ERUs that would generate revenue equivalent to the new debt service beginning in 2023. With the assumed rate increases, annual revenue per ERU in 2023 would be $1,418. At that level of revenue per ERU, it would take 178 ERUs to pay for$252,716 in debt service. This breakeven point declines over time as the annual revenue per ERU increases. Exhibit 6: ERU Growth Needed to Cover Cost of New Debt Service in 2023 Breakeven Analysis-New Debt Service New Debt Service per Year, Beginning 2023 $ 252,716 2023 Revenue per Year per ERU $ 1,418 Growth Needed to Recover Cost of New Debt Svc 178 ERUs Assumes $108.14 monthly rate in 2020, escalation by 3%/year. •:;> FCS GROUP Page 5 February 2020 y r, �cr�i i'�leniorand�,n Mason County Update to Belfair Sewer System Financial Analysis How Much Growth Is Needed to Balance the Forecast? Simply paying for the incremental cost of the new debt is not the real goal. The real goal is a financially independent sewer utility in Belfair. How much growth would be needed to balance the forecast? Exhibit 7 addresses that question. A detailed picture of this forecast is in Appendix A. Exhibit 7: Summary of ERU Growth Needed to Cover O&M and New Debt Service by 2034 Sunnnnary of ERU Growth Scenarios Belfair Sewer System Basic assumptions: CFCs used for future capital costs. Sewer rates: $108.14/ERU/month in 2020, growing by 3%/year. Sewer lines to NE Belfair UGA completed in 2022, new ERUs beginning 2023. Average 1 ERU per year in new development within existing Belfair service area. Debt service on existing debt declines after 2029, fully paid off by 2034. Extension to NE Belfair UGA and Puget Sound Industrial Center(PSIC) Assumed Funding: $2.5 million grant, $1 million Bremerton cost share Total Project Cost $ 8,403,455 including inflation Assumed New Debt $ 4,658,282 New Annual Debt Svc $ 252,716 ERUsNear Needed if Level Growth: Long-term Goal: To Cover O&M and New Debt Svc by 2034 2020-2022 2023-2029 2030-2034 From Existing Belfair Svc Area 1 1 1 From NE Belfair UGA or PSIC 27 27 Total New ERUs/Year 1 28 28 Avg Annual Subsidy Required $1,129,831 $1,267,735 $345,449 Current ERUs: 416 ERUs Total ERUs by end of Planning Period 766 ERUs This forecast shows that an average of 28 ERUs per year of new development would be needed starting in 2023 in order to cover all O&M costs and new debt service costs by 2034. Rate revenue does not ever cover the original debt service on the WRF and the initial collection system, because that debt will be retired by 2034. Currently the system has 416 ERUs. If it were to achieve 766 ERUs by 2034, the system would be financially balanced—partly because of the growth in revenue and partly because of the payoff of the original debt. In other words, at an average pace of 28 new ERUs per year—which would be a development surge—it would take 12 years after the completion of the Phase 1 sewer extension to bring the Belfair utility into financial balance. The County subsidy is projected to be substantial while the Belfair system is scaling up. During the 2020-2022 period, before the project is complete and new debt service begins, we project the subsidy at about $1.1 million per year. This is after the assumed rate increases. The subsidy consists of about $982,000 of existing debt service and an average $147,000 operating subsidy. After the new debt service payments begin in 2023, the subsidy would rise to $1.36 million, after which it would gradually subside if growth occurs as assumed here. In that case, the average subsidy during the 7- year period from 2023-2029 would be about $1.27 million. The original debt service for the construction of the WRF and initial collection system will begin to decline in 2030, until it drops off completely in 2034. As a result, the average County subsidy from 2030-2034 would be about $345,000, and it would be zero by 2034. •:;> FCS GROUP Page 6 February 2020 FCS GROUP TFrhnical Memorandum Mason County Update to Belfair Sewer System Financial Analysis Capital Facilities Charge Assumptions This forecast assumes that Capital Facilities Charge(CFC)revenue is set aside for future capital costs rather than being used for debt service. This sewer extension is not the last one needed by the Belfair system—the Old Belfair Highway area, Romance Hill, and possibly the Beard's Cove/Lynch Cove area will need sewers sooner or later. It will be important to have a source of funding for future capital projects. In addition,CFC revenue is an unstable revenue source to rely on for debt service. The CFC for new development is assumed to be$11,300. For septic conversions, this forecast assumes a CFC of$3,000 per ERU, consistent with the conversion CFC used by the County in 2012. This lower CFC is an incentive for timely connection, and it also recognizes that a septic system that is decommissioned before the end of its useful life represents a lost investment to the property owner. The County staff estimates that there are about 10 ERUs of existing commercial development within range of the Phase 1 sewer extension. Our forecast assumes that those properties connect within three years of sewer availability, paying the$3,000 CFC per ERU. These septic conversions are in addition to the assumed 28 ERUs of new development per year. SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS • The forecast presented here is similar to the Scenario 3 presented in July 2019. In the July 2019 analysis, Scenario 3 was intended as the"in between" scenario that might be reasonably close to reality. This revised plan is more favorable than that. The total debt(after 5%loan forgiveness) is now$4.65 million instead of$5.8 million, and instead of annual debt service of$315,000 per year last July,the County is now looking at annual debt service of about $252,000 per year. The reason for the improved forecast is the fact that the capital cost of the revised plan is so much less--$8.4 million instead of about $10.8 million last July. Even though the Scenario 3 forecast last July assumed$4 million in State grants and the current reality is $2.5 million,the fact that the current project is so much less costly helps make the forecast more favorable. • Financially, the Belfair system is still in a deep hole, and it will take years of sustained growth to achieve financial balance. Unfortunately, the only way to put the utility in a position to achieve sustained growth is by extending more sewer lines,which means borrowing more money, which means digging the hole deeper at first. That's the basic dilemma County leaders face. Accepting a $4.9 million State loan has the effect of"increasing the bet"—the bet that eventually enough development will occur to generate economies of scale for the Belfair WRF and collection system. By extending the sewer lines as proposed into the NE Belfair UGA and PSIC, the County cannot guarantee development on a particular schedule,but it can ensure that the land is developable. • If the County does not carry out any further extensions of the Belfair sewer system and little or no growth is expected, a sewer rate increase of about 43% (to about$137 per month)would balance system revenues against O&M expenses. This is one approach the County could take. • However, without making further investment, the Belfair system will not achieve its purpose, which is to serve the entire UGA and protect the environmental quality of the lower Hood Canal. Declining to extend the system would also leave existing Belfair customers paying very high rates for the O&M cost of a system that was originally designed for a much larger customer base. • Under any realistic growth scenario, the County should expect to have to subsidize the debt service for the initial treatment plant construction through the life of the debt. Relief for the ���> FCS GROUP Page 7 February 2020 FCS GROUP Technical Memora"' – Mason County Update to Belfair Sewer System Financial Analysis existing debt burden could conceivably come from the State legislature, but it won't be generated by Belfair sewer system revenues before that debt is scheduled to be paid off. • In the revised forecast,if development occurs at the pace of 28 new ERUs per year—which would be a development surge—it would take 12 years after completion of the Phase 1 extension for the Belfair sewer utility to achieve financial balance. That balance would be achieved by 2034 partly because of ERU growth and partly because of the retirement of the last of the debt used to build the WRF and the original sewer collection system. At that pace of development, it would take five years—through 2027 just to recover the incremental cost of the new debt service. • In our July 2019 memo, we documented that the Belfair treatment plant has plenty of capacity. In addition, our analysis in that memo showed that the NE Belfair UGA(the Newkirk Road area) has more than enough land that is vacant and potentially developable to support the ERUs needed to balance the forecast. That is even before considering potential ERUs within PSIC. • Also in our July 2019 memo,we also described the risks inherent in the funding sources the County has been using to subsidize the Belfair system. The County has been relying on".09 sales tax" increment and real estate excise taxes to fund the subsidy. The economic cyclicality of these funding sources is still a concern. • The revised route of the proposed extension appears to be an improvement on earlier plans.Not only is the revised plan less costly because it takes advantage of the existing collection system, but the new route opens up sewer service to more of the NE Belfair UGA, which has some existing commercial development,an existing highway,and an existing Belfair Water District water line extending along SR 3. The previous plan was focused more on PSIC only. The south end of PSIC does have 1,500 acres of undeveloped land with development potential, but the City of Bremerton would need to make significant investments in water, sewer, and road infrastructure to make it developable,and that may take several years. The NE Belfair UGA is a more promising area for short-term development. • The prospect of development in the next few years is not entirely speculative. County officials have been coordinating with a major property owner, David Overton,with land in both NE Belfair UGA and in PSIC,who is interested in developing his land. Other property owners have also expressed development interest to County staff members. ���> FCS GROUP Page 8 February 2020 FS GR JU `ech -ai P lemoranqum Apperdiz A Mason County Update to Belfair Sewer System Financial Analysis APPENDIX A: DETAILED ERU PROJECTIONS FOR SEWER EXTENSION FORECAST ***4 FCS GROUP Page February 2020 FCS GROUP Technical Memorandum. Appendix A Mason County Update to Belfair Sewer System Financial Analysis Financial Forecast: Extension to NE Belfair UGA and PSIC Belfair $8,403,455 Total Cost including Irritation Sewer Financial Plan Update $2,500,000 State Grants ERU Analysis $1,000,000 Bremerton Cost Share January 2020 Cost Updates $4,903,455 Total Debt-State loan $4,658,282 Debt after 5%Loan Forgiveness 20 Years $ 3,000 Septic Conversion CFC 0.790/6 Interest $ 10,700 New Development CFC 2023 First Payment Year $252,716 Annual Payment 125%Assumed%Variable O&M Expenses EXPENSE FORECAST 3 r r r 2030 r r r Fixed O&M Expenses 480,317 51278 528,616 544,478 560,885 577,860 595,425 613,605 632,425 651,911 672,090 692,993 714,649 737,090 760,350 784,463 Variable O&M Expenses 160,106 171,093 177,052 182,801 202,713 223,687 244,822 266,087 288,462 312,001 336,763 362,811 390,210 419,028 449,339 481,220 O&M Expenses 640,422 684,371 705,668 727,279 763,598 801,547 640,247 879,693 920,887 963,911 1,008.853 1,055,804 1,104,859 1,156,118 1,209,689 1,265,683 Existing Debt 983,700 982,200 984,912 981,662 983,262 984,562 979,812 984,519 983,318 961,496 964,171 743,926 364,691 187,324 9,956 - New Debt:Extension to NE Belfair UGA - - - - 252,716 252,716 252,716 252.716 252,716 252,716 252,716 252,716 252,716 252,716 252,716 252,716 TOTAL 1,624,122 1 666 571 1,690,580 1708941 l,"9,576 2 038825 2,072,776 2 116 927 2,156,921 2 178 123 2,225,740 2 052 446 1,722,266 1 596 158 1,472,362 1 518 399 2.6% 1.4% 1.1% 17.0% 2.0% 1.7% 2.1% 1.9% 1.0% 2.2% -7.8% -16.1% -7.3% -7.8% 3.1% REVENUE BASIS 2019 2020 2021 2022r r25 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Monthly ERU Rate(assumed max tolerable) $ 96.00 $ 108.14 $ 111.37 $ 114.72 $ 118.17 $ 121.75 E 125.45 $ 129.28 E 133.25 $ 137.35 $ 141.60 E 146.01 $ 150.57 $ 155.30 $ 160.20 $ 165.28 O&M Escalation% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% Annual Revenue per ERU 7,152 1.298 1.336 1,377 1,418 1,461 1,505 11551 1,599 1.648 1,699 1,752 1,807 1.864 1,922 1,983 AssumedLon -term Goal:Cover 08M and New Debt Service b 2074 .Onzl ,RUsNeeded 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 20U Septic Conversions-NE Belfair UGA 4 4 2 New Development-NE Belfair UGA or PSIC 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 New Development-ExistingBelfair Svc Area 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ERU and CFC Summary 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 20U Total Septic Conversions - - - - 4 4 2 Total New Development 1 1 1 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 Total Additional ERUs - 1 1 1 32 32 30 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 CFC Revenue(reserved for future capital) 10,700 10,700 10,700 312,109 312,109 306,109 300,109 300,109 300,109 300,109 300,109 300,109 300,109 300,109 300,109 Cumulative CFC Revenue 10,700 21,400 32,100 344,209 656,318 962,427 1,262,536 1,562,645 1,862,753 2,162,862 2,462,971 2,763,080 3,063,189 3,363,298 3,663,407 Surplusi(Deficit) 2021 ERUs 416 r r417 418 2022 419 2023 451 2024 2025 483 513 2026 2027 2028 541 569 597 2029 625 r r653 2031 2032 681 709 r33 2034 738 766 %GroWh 0.2% 02% 0.2% 76% 7.1% 6.2% 5.5% 52% 4.9% 4.7% 4.5% 4.3% 4.1% 4.0% 3.8% Cumulative ERU growth 1 2 3 35 67 97 125 153 181 209 237 265 293 322 350 Rate Revenues 479,232 541,149 558,656 576,796 639,623 705,802 772,491 839,589 910,187 984,460 1,062,593 1,144,782 1,231,234 1,322,166 1,417,807 1,518,399 less.Expenses 1,624,122 1,666,571 1,690,580 1,708,941 1,999,576 2,038,825 2,072,776 2,116,927 2,156,921 2,178,123 2,225,740 2,052,446 1,722,266 1,596,158 1,472,362 1,518,399 Surplus/(Deficit)from Rate Revenue 1,144,890 1,125,422 1,131,925 1,132,146 1,359,953 1,333,023 1,300,285 1,277,338 1,246,734 1,193,663 (1,163,14L7 (907,664) 491,032 273,992 54,555 0 Total ERUs needed to balance-new debt 0 ERUs 0 ERUs 0 ERUs 178 ERUs 173 ERUs 168 ERUs 163 ERUs 158 ERUs 153 ERUs 149 ERUs 144 ERUs 140 ERUs 136 ERUs 131 ERUs 127 ERUs Total ERUs needed to balance-O&M&new debt 527 ERUs 528 ERU3 528 ERUs 717 ERUs 722 ERUs 726 ERUs 730 ERUs 734 ERUs 738 ERUs 742 ERUs 747 ERUs 751 ERUs 756 ERUs 761 ERUs 766 ERUs Total ERUs needed to balance-all costs 1,284 ERUs 1,265 ERUs 1,241 ERUs 1,410 ERUs 1,395 ERUs 1,377 ERUs 1,365 ERUs 1,349 ERUs 1,321 ERUs 1,310 ERUs 1,171 ERUs 953 ERUs 857 ERUs 766 ERU: 766 ERU •:;> FCS GROUP Page 10 f f A 1$SQ I I I � I _ _ \•�:�wvw. ru...0 d i 1 i February Kj Kennedy Jenks ■� ...� ,� BELFAIR UGA EXISTING � �.■`�,.,- �.�, .� SEWER SYSTEM .r r •• r• model of existingsanitarysewer system •' •/� hydraulic • r • software 10. odel Components Three pun-)p slatiot�s Approximately ® Gravity sewer pipe diameters rang�ingiTrb—hm I nchesI inches ►!►i...■.■ VAPLO S■ on III-OVA ,� .� • PRELIMINARY MODEL RESULTS •• ■. ,,,� ■ ��'-- fir.• �'-� � IS on mm Hill ON Wm -- p SON nd it capac.ty ■ ► =�_- I, ..■�� HGL Profile for Peak Flow Scenario L- —ryM. _H-1 —G—J 1...• b '411 t 1 41 A > 47 A Y = a 650 700 lio 000 650 100 HO IOW IOW tt00 1150 IOOp Olstance(H) PUMP STATION CAPACITY ANALYSIS I Pump, I • 2 Pumps, Force Main 2 Force Mains 2 Force Mains Pump 700 gpm 1 ,300 gpm 1 ,950 gpm KENNEDY JENKS Station 1 Pump � � 50 gpm 1 ,500 gpm 2,300 gpm Station 3 ' Note: Pump Station 2 has adequate capacity to convey full build-out flows. FLOW PROJECTIONS FOR NEAR TERM DEVELOPMENTS IN BELFAIR UGA �,■:r� : Average peak Hour Flow ��j��= �. • ' _ i ��, .....ice Development Annual Flow �` -,U„m d m d m 'MEN gp gP gp gP � AI Romance Hill 21,500 15 86,000 ./ Iron Horse 30,000 21 120,000 84 Apartment Complex 14,400 10 57,600 40 Belfair Gateway15,000 11 60,000 42 River . 111 18 104,00073 �% ��•"��•Total 106,900 75 427,600 300 `'.3 = ,+. a , 1. 80 gpcd was used as the wastewater demand,with 65 gpcd for domestic flow gpcd and 15 __ • • • • • • • Table E-1:Growth by PSIC Analysis Area • PSIC Development Employment Acro Square Feet of Analysis Area Developed' Butldimp" y _ A 500 23 350,000 B 1,500 69 1,175,000 C 1,50o 69 775,000 D 400 18 225,000 60 gal/employee/day for commercial/industrial E 850 39 425,000 wastewater unit demand in PSIC F 1.150 53 575,000G 600 28 325,000 Total 6.500 299 3,850,000 Areas A, B, and G (see Figure E) continue t o be 1 The De•.W opeo Acre;column Is mtenaea:o snow the projecvd total acres of derelooed land w th n each anat:vs area o served by the Port of B re m e rt o n's LOSS 1 - The Sgwrc Feet at 3_Aamg:column is inen tded to snow the proleeed total estmaces square feet of decehope. _ilzing area ,n each anatyz:a•ea C, D, E, and F convey wastewater to Mason Figure E-1:Analysis Areas and Development Assumptions yeas County's Belfair WRF ' G 13 • • • • • � 111 • • • • • �. A • r� E F • • • 1 1 1 1 • • I ,; 1 — — ,..ew.r.r►.r.arwawn w From 2012 PSIC Subarea Plan PROJECTIONS FOR AVAILABLE CAPACITY IN EXISTING SYSTEM PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS _ Allowable• Surcharge Surcharge1 1 • • 1050 • • Known Development in Belfair UGA' 240 240 Available for Belfair UGA or PSIC 460 810 Build-out of PSIC Areas C, D, E, and F -650 -650 Additional Belfair UGA Buildout? -222 _222 1. Developments include Iron Horse, Apartment Complex, Belfair Gateway, and River Hill i Criteria Description Weighting J�Iternahve 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternat Total Cost of Installation 1 1.00 1.02 0.93 1.21 OVA Cost 1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.31 Operational Flexibility 1.1 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.10 Phased Construction 1.5 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.60 WSDOT Dependent Design 0.8 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 ROI Risk 1.3 1.00 0.90 0.75 1.25 Maximize Use of Existing Infrastructure 1.5 1.00 0.50 0.75 1.20 Total Cost of Installation 1.00 1.02 0.93 1.21 © OVA Cost 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.31 Operational Flexibility 1.10 0.99 1.10 1.21 Phased Construction 1.50 1.53 1.49 2.40 WSDOT Dependent Design 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.80 ROI Risk 1.30 1.17 0.98 1.63 ® Maximize Use of Existing Infrastructure 1.50 0.75 1.13 1.80 Rollup 8.20 7.26 7.08 01 0 I 0 2 160 18 �O ryo ,U�1 U Miles � O" NecoG� 16 ^ iy/SrtFeeRRy�o ' Y 4 �P�� �EY CREEK LN " E �2U v Y ryOO � LA RD c 5� Q U � F� m NE NEWKIRK RDZ �OCOC SpA,_ O O O I m UGA Y r m z Lift Station � 2ieER(/NECK o z I? NE MCKNIGHT _ `T r 0 o -- p,RM RDEY - �� y...,.... _ 4 > W o W NE JAKE DR ; Freight Corridor �° /* : Lift Station w mI �o �•: v7 Z� O �p /z \\NES Z w NES Z mEr_R Sr SR3 Bypass z� Alignment U c o PS#1 ti g Ps#1 Legend 0 Existing Pump Station o ^� Existing Structures Proposed Pump Station Belfair WRF 2i PS#3 PS#3 Proposed Sewer Force Main a NEgYER Proposed Gravity Sewer N ,, PSIC Border E Ay o M UGA Border 1ocations are approximate. r 2.Elevation Contour Interval=20 feet -c OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Client: Mason County Project: Belfair Sewer Extension Location: Mason County,Washington Estimate Type: Conceptual Phase 1 Improvements Lift Stations Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Freight Corridor Lift Station 700 m $ 1,460,000 UGA Lift Station 700 m $ 1,422,312 Conveyance Frei ht Corridor Force Main 1 $ 247,746 $ 516,250 Linear Feet of Force Main 212 1,483 CosNLinearFoot $ 146 $ 305 Freight Corridor Force Main 2 $ 1,950,000 Linear Feet of Force Main 6645 CosULinear Foot $ 293 Freight Corridor Gravity Sewer $ 593,085 Linear Feet of Gravity Sewer 1,510 Cost7Linear Foot $ 393 UGA Force Main $ 954,980 Linear Feet of Force Main 2,897 CosULinear Foot $ 330 UGA Gravity Sewer $ 3,015,302 Linear Feet of Gravity Sewer 3,100 Cost7Linear Foot $ 973 SUBTOTALS 6,233,427 $ 1,976,250 $ 1,950,006 Soft Costs(Engineering,permitting,CM,Admin,Legal)@ 30% $ 1,870,028 $ 592.875 $ 585,000 SUBTOTALI$ 8,103,455 1$ 2,569,125 $ 2,535,000 TOTAL(ALL 3 PHASES) $ 13,207,580 Notes: 1.Costs include state and local taxes,contractor overhead and profit,a 30%estimating contingency,and escalation to the midpoint of construction. 2.Costs shown are commensurate with an AACE Class 5 estimate with an expected accuracy range of+50%to-30%. 3.Costs assume improvements are constructed prior to proposed SR3 realignment and that WSDOT would pay for right-of-way crossing improvements. OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS Project: Belfair Sewer Extension-Phase 1 Prepared By: ACP/NTW Date Prepared: 28-Jan-20 Building,Area: K/J Proj.No.: 1997006 Months to Midpoint of Construct 36 Estimate Type: Conceptual SUMMARY BY AREA ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION MATERIALS INSTALLATION EQUIPMENT SUB-CONTRACTOR TOTAL 1 Freight Corridor Force Main 57,655.20 45,807.61 26,968.23 1,050.00 131,481.05 2 Freight Corridor Gravity Main 85,219.92 196,828.71 31,051.45 6,308.40 319,408.47 3 UGA Lift Station 440,879.77 103,931.11 11,501.67 197,506.26 753,818.82 4 UGA Lift Station Force Main 209,287.89 246,516.67 37,510.49 15,082.20 508,397.26 5 UGA Lift Station Gravity Main 464,061.60 1,062,758.84 59,084.71 35,532.00 1,621,437.15 Subtotals 1,257,104.39 1,655,842.94 166,116.55 255,478.86 3,334,542.75 Division 1 Costs @ 10% 125,710.44 165,584.29 16,611.66 25,547.89 333,454.27 Subtotals 1,382,814.83 1,821,427.23 182,728.21 281,026.75 3,667,997.02 Taxes-Materials @ 8.50% 117,539.26 117,539.26 Subtotals 1,500,354.09 1,821,427.23 182,728.21 281,026.75 3,785,536.28 Taxes-Labor 0.00 0.00 Subtotals 1,500,354.09 1,821,427.23 182,728.21 281,026.75 3,785,536.28 Contractor MU for Sub @ 10% 28,102.67 28,102.67 Subtotals 1,500,354.09 1,821,427.23 182,728.21 309,129.42 3,813,638.96 Contractor OH&P 15% 225,053.11 273,214.09 27,409.23 525,676.43 Subtotals 1,725,407.20 2,094,641.32 210,137.44 309,129.42 4,339,315.39 Estimate Contingency 30% 1,301,794.62 Subtotal 5,641,110.00 Escalate to Midpt of Const. @ 3.5% 592,316.55 Subtotal 6,233,426.55 Soft Costs(Engineering,permitting, o CM,Admin,Legal) 30 1,870,027.97 8,103,454.52 Estimate Accurac +50% -30% Estimated Range of Probable Cost +50% Total Est. -30% 12,155,182 $8,103,455 $5,672,418 N ZqU a o � _ 0 0 I 025 y 160 o0 o U� U L Q ya Miles $�N 60 '�a `y NFrr �` oc0 4F1 p y/Sr �' N S� C N <Fe CG R rNfV CREEK LN _ ... -.. Q KELA RD o ' T �G ,, r•r- J UGA o s� 4 Lift Station w ' U ( �0 N NE NE WKIRK RDWZ � � � � � � I R W, w W Fl Fm Phase 1 • ; o `m "efR�N o oR w • Phase 2 Z Project Area :� , Project Area LO �o ��`•�.� boo NE MCKNIGHT - o _ p,RM RD " _ LL O > ! Q ���� / W W Z NE JAKE DR ,:; , Freight Corridor Lift Station 0 SPZ��DujE Z N� Phase 3 w ��� I Project Area m z mELFAIR Sr SR3 Bypass Alignment (I C C PS#1 M NGE N\LL Rp - Legend o NE ROMA /'� Existing Pump Station m ti" G I Y Existing Structures N 5J Proposed Pump Station Belfair WRF ' Proposed Sewer Force Main PS#s a -• Proposed Gravity Sewer ' PSIC Border NE WJ WAY 111, UGA Border 0 Notes:ll locations are approximate t 2 Elevation Contour Interval=20 feet m a FIGURE 4A FI URE 3 > J IGURE 4B FIGURE SB FIGURE SA d , w 5 s F10JRE g % a N Kennedy/Jenks Consultants NOTES. MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHELTON,WASHINGTON { 1. Pi ALTERNATIVE 4B 19970006.00 JANUARY 2020 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 1 February 2020 FCS GROUP Technical Memorandum Mason County Update to Belfair Sewer System Financial Analysis Current Belfair System Finances Exhibit 2 shows the degree of financial imbalance in the current Belfair sewer utility, updated to 2020 costs. Current rates are still $96/month/ERU, and there are 416 Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs). The system generates about $479,000 in revenue, O&M costs are about $684,000/year in 2020—growing by about $20,000 each year—and debt service is about $982,000 per year. The result is that the utility is heavily subsidized by other County resources. Exhibit 2: Current Financial Status of Belfair Sewer System Current Financial Status January Needed to Balance Needed to Balance of Belfair Sewer System 2020 Total CostsO&M Costs Either Or Or Higher Rates More ERIJs Higher Rates More ERUs No. ERUs 416 416 1,447 416 594 Monthly Rate per ERU $ 96.00 $ 333.85 rr$ 96.00 $ 137.09 $ 96.00 Annual Reoenue per ERU $ 1,152 $ 4,006 $ 1,152 $ 1,645 $ 1,152 Total Annual Revenue $ 479,232 $ 1,666,571 $ 1,666,571 $ 684,371 $ 684,371 O&M Costs $ 684,371 $ 684,371 $ 684,371 $ 684,371 $ 684,371 Existing Debt Service 982,200 982,200 982,200 Total Costs Assuming No New Capital $ 1,666,571 $ 1,666,571 $ 1,666,571 $ 684,371 $ 684,371 2020 Gap Before New Capital $ (1,187,339) 2020 Gap O&M Costs Only $ (205,139) If Balanced without Growth: % Rate Increase Needed 248% 43% Additional Monthly Charge/ERU $ 237.85 $ 41.09 If Balanced without Rate Increases: % Growth Needed 248% 43% No. New ERUs Needed 1 1,031 1 178 These figures are shown to convey the scale of the problem, not predict reality, They assume no new capit needs. In order to balance costs and revenues, the system needs either higher rates or more ERUs or some combination of the two. Exhibit 2 shows the extremes for those two variables. To balance revenue against total costs including debt service, there would need to be either 1,447 ERUs or monthly rates of$334—a 248% increase in either rates or ERUs. Just to cover O&M costs without debt service, there would need to be either 594 ERUs or monthly rates of$137, an increase of 43%. Of course, we are not proposing that the County adopt rates of$334 per month. But this comparison gives us an updated picture of how deep the financial hole is for the Belfair sewer system. Maximum Tolerable Rate Our assumed maximum tolerable rate is $108.14 per month in 2020. This is about 2.2% of the County's median household income. It is equivalent to $96—which was determined by the County Commissioners to be the maximum tolerable rate in 2012—plus eight years of inflation at 1.5% per year. Another way to think of it is that it represents four years of inflation at 3.0% since the end of 2016, which was the last year of the County's five-year commitment to $96 rates. For a frame of reference: the North Bay/Case Inlet utility is a nearby, unsubsidized sewer utility owned and operated by the County that—like the Belfair system—is also relatively new. Its 2020 monthly sewer rate is $113.52, in the same ballpark. Our projections also assume that the rate increases at 3%per year. ��> FCS GROUP Page 3 jII TIE WEMENTSSNONNHERBWSHALL BEINCGRPDRATEDINTO _SJR AND LW YARD ROAD INTERSECTION CONFORMED NGS(CONFORMED SET)DATED 13 SERTEMBER N19 ] SAO— INFORMATION i I ­STING IPROPo YED WT AND SURVEY INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY MMASCHCOUNT, 0WTSET ONDCAPROECRT ➢ WSW THE TaTONSJFO ONSIRCTIONWCHARENERE8YREFERENCEDASPAT THESE RUANB A THE ON Of� SHOWN UTILITIES NN HEREON ARE ACRO%MA ­TRIG-11.1 TE AND SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED BY THE CONTMCTOR. APPRD% I ` STORM GRAIN AND STRUCTURES PER •\� CANFORMEOIXtAW]NGS. Icy TI`S INETSANITANY SEWER MAINS IN ACCORDANCE I.TYPICAL TRENCH 11a'PVC ce00.MtB I •\,..'y. ryP HAL EET wA LCONFORMEDEETSH2 BE, 1 IST­EAHITARY SEVVER FORCE MAIN 1 TH 8'AIN BE DIN I •2.°y' 3 OaEwER MAIN CASING 0ETaC CARING EO SET S1rtETAwA-] N ANO—I.MAIN RMNG Aro CASING LOCATION D CONTRACTOR TO HELD VENBFY END DURABLE MAR%EP • A NSTKLISAHIARY SEW ER FCRCE Mary THRUST BIOCNS WHERE EE WNST NOT1", 86i REWIREDINPCCOROWCE WITH CONCRETE BLWIONG DETAIL, L 51.03 1,188'LT WATFR MAIN w 110 8 THE SAwTARED SET SEWER FORCE MAIN SHALL BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE • BTEEI CAS NO )(ZB. M ° I by olntR3 ••�P(.bPoSED T WTI WBOOT9ANDARO SPEC FMATW SECTON74MX3)STEFILEATCN R ARNiO% OF RPE S NOT REW REO THE SAN iMY SEWER GMV N MNN SHALL A eTA•81•Ne 18SLT BE RORC"INSIite SEiTONI.IN RE WITN-1ST—RDBPECF-- 11]e'NORMBEND • �� r •\_ .� C'IE"INSSECTION 8 FO`RCEGMAIN'33WLI LINVE CONSTPNT MOPE UPWARDOF•O.s%N MMUTA .BTA•eNla e.leO Li I � I.. !\ _ CIP END FROM t=TH WE ST TO THESOUTH EAST MAL HAVE RESTM NED.K%NTS.CERTAION OR EODAL ' BEGIN 30'O STEEL CASING ` A SEE CONSTNOTESMUE XER HAS E%iEND NLLE%TENL OF WSOOTRGHT#WAY FILL e GSING Sa 5'MNCWER 150 LF]0'B SIEES CABWO LIINE ARPRRN BACIt .-ABTA= ll eFi LT ANNu.wRSPACEWTHBLOANSAND w L%� ,STA 5A•OSse SF TNOTE96THR000NB NE APRtO% BB•tBi UM VERTICAL BE TION BETWEEN EEER AND �`sr "' CEN C RO'S"'S INSTAL SEWER LINES UNDER VMTER LINES AT CROSSI Tt"., t aIN,OMWMUM HORRONTA CLEARANCE BETWEEN WATER PND END—STEE. SEwERlNE315]LT 3-T- ERJy T.%•las,1]•LiLOGYARD ROAD ' ;> , • IeSOLF,,zawv FOOT (a) 58GRANTY LM N • '. INCH I CONSTRUCTION A 99MH, • _...xF>.J.—...–.t CONS MY ID.WSWiTYPE( ""` FT FWi .. ..J -- HDR HOR ZONTA "BE°EE AIEVBCM ON ,E,;== E N 308.5 WOPE�05%WMIN SSMN2 SMH IE NV 9TAHR•s1EN AT 308A _ ARID. DOT TYPEt I �• SDD iYGE1 AB ID, rPEt ,_ LF LIENEAR FEEiAT 11 TLT - iE IN=3066 • ` ' =3]12 T MMS=333e MN M—T E \\ `/ 310T rya 9TA•eEEP As RT I 11OP­All lT7P/•� ` ST T=311FUTURE IWN:V RT RT RIGHT VLCHLpilOE \7 ` W 3=IS56.1113aa AT BTA•56.-1-a'RT RT RIGHT R ROPo PROPoSED WSWT SDR STANDARD DIMENSION RATIO R I ROGNDABOUT RIGHTOF-VNY AR•ROX sT 9ANR-Y SEWER STA `B �•• BY OTHERS TIP WAeWNGTON STATE DEPM WBDOT TYENi OF TRINSPoRTATgN W 5 ' P EAUTHO AUTHORITY PARK AND RIDE d A BY OTHERS xf,, 0 30 BD iI I APPRrMATE SCALE IN FEET ! 100%DRAFT-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION E cesIONED FIL MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �*SwN�''Po NTN STATE ROUTE 3 SCALES - 8 �MSEAOFDOC M�NµS ® SHERF SEWER EX SANITARY SEWER CROSSING B �A`+N BELFAIR WRF SEWER EXTENSION CKED Kennedy/Jenks ConsulianTs. AA�DF a X c 1 10 Kennedy Jenks 32001 32nd Avenue South, Suite 100 Federal Way, Washington 98001 253-835-6400 DRAFT Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report 4 February 2020 \' J I` 4 r OFWAszi, ' ' c5'2'. k - 1 (, . _. , 4t 1 : l 50596 5 - °�ScrsT069(� S)IONALE1 n k . I� !i Prepared for Mason County Public Works Department 100 W Public Works Drive Shelton, Washington 98584 KJ Project No. 1997006*00 Table of Contents List of Tables ii List of Figures ii List of Appendices iii Executive Summary I Section 1: Background 1-1 1.1 Existing Wastewater System 1-1 1.2 Belfair Sewer System PSIC Extension Planning 1-1 Section 2: Alternatives Development 2-1 2.1 Hydraulic Modelling of Existing Collection System 2-1 2.2 Sewer Extension Alternatives 2-3 Section 3: Methods of Evaluation 3-1 3.1 Weighted Criteria Evaluation 3-1 3.1.1 Evaluation Discussion 3-2 3.1.1.1 Total Cost of Installation 3-2 3.1.1.2 Operational and Maintenance (O&M) Cost 3-2 3.1.1.3 Operational Flexibility 3-2 3.1.1.4 Phased Construction 3-3 3.1.1.5 WSDOT Dependent 3-3 3.1.1.6 Return on Investment (ROI) Risk 3-3 3.1.1.7 Maximize Use of Existing Infrastructure 3-4 3.2 Summary of Results 3-4 Section 4: Basis of Design 4-1 4.1 Alternative 4A 4-1 4.2 Project Phasing 4-2 4.2.1 Phase 1 4-2 4.2.2 Phase 2 4-2 4.2.3 Phase 3 4-2 4.3 Codes, Standards, and References 4-2 4.3.1 Codes 4-3 4.3.2 Design Standards and References 4-3 4.4 Phase 1 Design Criteria 4-3 4.4.1 Gravity Sewers 4-4 4.4.2 Force Mains 4-4 4.4.3 UGA Lift Station 4-5 4.4.4 Pump Selection 4-6 4.5 Wet Well Configuration 4-7 Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report v(201911997006.00_mason_city_befair_wrP redesign_rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx Table of Contents (cont'd) Section 5: Other Design Considerations 5-1 5.1 Environmental 5-1 5.2 Permitting 5-1 5.3 Geotechnical 5-2 5.3.1 Surface and Anticipated Soil Conditions 5-2 5.3.2 Groundwater 5-2 5.3.3 Reuse of Soils 5-2 5.4 Constructability 5-3 5.5 Disruption to Belfair 5-3 5.6 Schedule 5-4 5.7 Easements 5-4 5.8 Cultural Resources 5-5 List of Tables Table 1: Weighted Scoring Criteria Table 2: Evaluation Results Table 3: Modeling Results Table 4: Weighted Scoring Criteria Table 5: Evaluation Results Table 6: Gravity Main Design Criteria Table 7: Force Main Design Criteria Table 8: Lift Station Design Criteria Table 9: UGA Lift Station System Design Elevations List of Figures Figure ES-1: Proposed Freight Corridor Figure ES-2: Alternative 1 — UGA LS Connects to Existing Collection System Figure ES-3: Alternative 2—Combined Pumping to Mason County LS Figure ES-4: Alternative 3— Freight Corridor LS Pumps to Mason County LS Figure ES-5: Alternative 4— Freight Corridor LS Pumps to UGA LS Figure ES-6: Alternative 4a — Phased UGA LS and Freight Corridor LS Figure 1: Proposed Freight Corridor Figure 2: Alternative 1 — UGA LS Connects to Existing Collection System Figure 3: Alternative 2 —Combined Pumping to Mason County LS Figure 4: Alternative 3— Freight Corridor LS Pumps to Mason County LS Figure 5: Alternative 4— Freight Corridor LS Pumps to UGA LS Figure 6: Alternative 4a — Phased UGA LS and Freight Corridor LS Figure 7: UGA LS Pump Curve vs. System Curve Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report ii w:\20 I911997006.00_mason_city_betlair_wrtlpredesign_rpd1997006.00 dral<_report_200131.docx Table of Contents (cont'd) List of Appendices A Initial Hydraulic Analysis Results B Opinion of Probable Costs C Proposed Alignment Plan Drawings D Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation E Permit Summary Table F Draft Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Technical Memorandum G Conceptual Schedule H Summary of the Archival Research Study Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report w1201911997006.00_mason_city_betai_wrPpredesgn_rp01997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks Executive Summary Mason County (County) owns and operates the Belfair Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), which was built in 2012. The WRF produces Class A reclaimed water(RW)that is discharged to a spray field. The WRF is permitted for flows up to 125,000 gallons per day (gpd)and is currently receiving approximately 60,000 gpd. The County is looking to expand the sewer collection system to increase flows and loads to the WRF. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is preparing a bypass route (Freight Corridor)for State Route 3 (SR-3) to alleviate traffic congestion through downtown Belfair during peak travel periods. This bypass involves construction of a new highway that will parallel SR-3 to the east. The County intends to use the construction of the Freight Corridor as an opportunity to increase flows to the WRF by extending sewer along the Freight Corridor within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) and to the Puget Sound Industrial Center(PSIC), northeast of Belfair. The proposed Freight Corridor is shown on Figure ES-1. N MASON r«w.ad 444, •Nfalr • I i KITSAP 10K� A it _ • I 3022 3 PIERCE • Future proposed alignment I / _ \ Figure ES-1: Proposed Freight Corridor The majority of the PSIC subarea was annexed into the City of Bremerton (COB) in 2008 and has since been included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The PSIC is recognized as an important industrial employment center, containing 3,700 acres planned for industrial development and use, but lacks sufficient sewer infrastructure to support the planned growth. In 2018, the County and the COB entered into an interlocal agreement to work cooperatively to Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page ES-I w1201911997006.00_mason_city_be Ifair_wrfpredesign_rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks design new sanitary sewer transmission facilities to provide improved sewer service to the PSIC-Bremerton and within the Belfair UGA. Other stakeholders include the Port of Bremerton, which owns and operates the PSIC and local landowners affected by the installation of these improvements within their property. During the planning for this project, four(4) sewer extension alternatives were developed that included improvements to serve both the County's UGA and the PSIC. Initial examination of potential improvements began with an evaluation of available capacity in the existing collection system. A hydraulic model was developed, and the results of the evaluation identified that approximately 700 gallons per minute (gpm) of capacity are available within the existing collection system for new sewer service (either from within the Belfair UGA or the PSIC) before downstream improvements would be required. If targeted improvements were made to the existing collection system, the available capacity could increase to approximately 1,050 gpm. Likewise, a topographical evaluation of the area indicated that one or more sewer lift stations would be needed to service both the PSIC and the project focus areas within the Belfair UGA. The initial hydraulic analysis results are provided in Appendix A. During the evaluation of the four alternatives, the County learned that WSDOT intended the Freight Corridor to be a limited access corridor, meaning that utilities within the Right-of-Way (ROW)were limited to utility crossings. This impacted the development of alternatives, which removed the sewer improvements proposed within the ROW and replaced them with perpendicular utility crossings, as needed. The alternatives considered were: Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page ES-II w:1201911997006.00_mason_city_beNar_wrPpredesgn_rptl1997006.00_draft_rep t_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks Alternative 1: This concept includes three lift stations. The Freight Corridor Lift Station is located near the southwestern corner of the PSIC and delivers flows along the Freight Corridor to the Mason County Lift Station which delivers flows to the WRF. The UGA Lift Station serves the UGA area north and east of the downtown corridor and connects to the existing collection system. The opinion of probable construction cost(OPCC)for this alternative is $9.5 million. See Figure ES-2. c c 3 / l-i o 1 1 �;1 U?9 C) a x A;,�„ 4. � Y ����a ,.A J__L 1 :' —! �/ I _ ; / _____/` . / >.�s ni _ UGA ,t d ee„ . = Lift Station p i A . /e , •c tr / _ ___ r _, -- / f Freight c_orocinr Lift S anon - / Mason County p - - / •.f Lift Station l ., e. f t - SR3 Bypass " tor' ' ,,3 • .. Alignment sV ' 1 t PJ. V Legend F5q Q Existing Pump Station t i y ;'. Existing Structures ` it LA Proposed Pump Statorr Bellew WRF g 1 I ' Proposed Sewer Force hlam t'' c --••- Proposed Gravity Sewer - PSIC Border - UGA Border ■ % Notes: -.. . _ 41 b 3'> s are apom n'a'e ql _ o tt Crrt to a = tee[ Figure ES-2: Alternative 1 — UGA LS Connects to Existing Collection System Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page ES-III w1201911997006.00_masoncity_befair_wrftpredesgn_rpt11997006.00_draft report_200131.docx K I Kennedy Jenks Alternative 2: This concept includes similar Freight Corridor improvements and the Freight Corridor Lift Station as in Alternative 1, but in this alternative, the UGA Lift Station connects to the Freight Corridor improvements rather than connecting to the existing system. The OPCC for this alternative is $9.3 million. See Figure ES-3. J. - �..- fi 4 bo r Ed, c Z. = / c a j _p r CO - / : ,b0 45) 49' r,1 . /: , \, ''.t441:e y v� c ;)(,A 40 — Lift stallion ott .-: '>/ , I 1 '--- -7-P — , — 1 _ I Freight Corridor _ — _ / Mason County P', I Lift Station Lift Station r' ' j ; ' ' \ - ii Fis- SR3 Bypass /' .„-i— Alignment II FS•1 AI r Legend r i _77 I F Q Existing Pump Station { Iri Existing Structures - Belfair bVRF Cl Proposed Pump Station Fs.] ' Proposed Sewer Force Mi r Proposed Gravity Sewer y t `/� PSIC Border t r ry UGA Border tiglo i-r / 1.All booboos are approximate 1 1 _ E1,1tor:orttti••,ter:at= fe i 1 Figure ES-3: Alternative 2 - Combined Pumping to Mason County LS Draft Mason County Be/fair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page ES-IV w:12019\1997006.00_mason_ciry better_w-rpredesign rptl1997006.00_draft_report_200131 docx K Kennedy Jenks Alternative 3: This alternative expands the improvements along the Freight Corridor by locating the Freight Corridor Lift Station farther north. A gravity connection to the Freight Corridor Lift Station is provided from the PSIC subarea to the east. Instead of a UGA Lift Station, a short gravity extension to the existing sewer collection system is provided to serve the UGA to the east of SR-3. The alternative would likely require either deep sewers or low-pressure gravity mains to extend sewer connections to the surrounding developments. The OPCC for this alternative is $10.2 million. See Figure ES-4. isli licj• , o)/0 1 _ .00r� / } / a o' w ` -c r / I � t Fre,g�t nor idor rft Stat on t---/\ r r L , -. \ / '.4,s, A ''• I i r ; •) : :ram ;� Mason Count, I :_77 Lift Station >R3 6pas, 1II � �I gnnient If PS tt r I Legend .. I El Existing Pump Station CC1 ,j / /T i'a:r FF ''�'; I �Proposed Sewer Farce AA) /�^� .�. Proposed Grawrty Sewn — PSIC Border ij_� -- UGA Border / ' Notes: Figure ES-4: Alternative 3 — Freight Corridor LS Pumps to Mason County LS Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page ES-V w 1201911997006.00_mason_city_be f ar_wrf predesig n_rpt11997006.00_dr aft_report_200131.d ocx K Kennedy Jenks Alternative 4: This alternative includes a UGA Lift Station, force main, and gravity connection to the existing collection system similar to Alternative 1. A connection to improvements along the Freight Corridor in the PSIC is provided along an alignment which is assumed to match that of a future access point to the Freight Corridor. This connection allows for a split of flows from the Freight Corridor Lift Station to existing system or to the improvements along the Freight Corridor to the WRF. The OPCC for this alternative is $7.9 million. See Figure ES-5. 77. �,1 I o - 1?\_. A�+ "p�. -c " 60 �,. C-,q+ � row y / ■ p 7' W, { 1 ,0 � • ,c. ,/ �� to ' N s f - L i x // I 1 UGA %� Lift Station s ` � Freight Corridor7, — -1, / I. Lift Station IW . x I J Alignnleii 11 PS•1 m PS„ Legend i1.lI ;;Mn Q Existing Pum 75 Bel ,RF PS3PS•3 R J Proposed Gravity Sewer /�f I n — PSIC Bader v — UGA Border /� 1are cabon9 approximate-iii / 1 1 2 Efevaticr Cortout nterral-20 feet Q. Figure ES-5: Alternative 4 — Freight Corridor LS Pumps to UGA LS Draft Mason County Be/fair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page ES-VI w120 1 911 99 70 06.00_mason_city belae_wrfpredesign rpt11997006.00_draft report_200131.docx KJ Kennedy Jenks The four alternatives were ranked using the weighted criteria selection shown in Table 1, below. Table 1: Weighted Scoring Criteria Criteria Description Proposed Weighting 1 Total Cost of Installation 1 2 O&M Cost 1 3 Operational Flexibility 1.1 4 Phased Construction 1.5 5 WSDOT Dependent Design 0.8 6 ROI Risk 1.3 7 Maximize Use of Existing Structure 1.5 The criteria were developed by the project team in collaboration with the project stakeholders at the Concept Development Workshop held in September 2019. Weighting for each criterion was also finalized during the workshop and memorialized in the meeting notes. The baseline weight is 1 and scores above 1 are noted as more important/preferable, while scores below 1 are less important/preferable. Following the workshop, the design team scored the alternatives and presented the findings at the Alternatives Selection Workshop that followed in October 2019. The results of the evaluation yielded Alternative 4 with the highest score of 10.50 as compared to Alternative 3 with the lowest score of 7.09. After careful consideration by the project stakeholders, Alternative 4 was selected as the preferred alternative. The alternative featured the lowest installation cost, lowest operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, most operational flexibility, high return on investment(ROI) risk, and used existing infrastructure to the greatest extent when compared to the other alternatives. However, one of the most significant benefits was the opportunity Alternative 4 provided to spread the proposed improvements across multiple phases to better match basin growth. With this approach, construction of a sewer force main parallel to the proposed Freight Corridor could be deferred until sufficient growth was observed within the PSIC to justify the investment. The results of the evaluation are found in Table 2. Table 2: Evaluation Results Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Criteria Description Weighting 1 2 3 4 1 Total Cost of Installation 1 1.00 1.02 0.93 1.21 2 O&M Cost 1 1.00 1.08 0.86 1.46 3 Operational Flexibility 1.1 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.10 4 Phased Construction 1.5 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.60 5 WSDOT Dependent Design 0.8 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 6 ROI Risk 1.3 1.00 0.90 0.75 1.25 7 Maximize Use of Existing 1.5 1.00 0.50 0.75 1.20 Structure Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page ES-VII w1201911997006.00_masoncity_bedar_wrPyredesign_rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx 1 , Kennedy Jenks Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Criteria Description Weighting 1 2 3 4 1 Total Cost of Installation 1 1.00 1.02 0.93 1.21 2 O&M Cost 1 1.00 1.08 0.86 1.46 3 Operational Flexibility 1.1 1.10 0.99 1.10 1.21 4 Phased Construction 1.5 1.50 1.53 1.49 2.40 5 WSDOT Dependent Design 0.8 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.80 6 ROI Risk 1.3 1.30 1.17 0.98 1.63 7 Maximize Use of Existing 1.5 1.50 0.75 1.13 1.80 Structure Rollup 8.20 7.34 7.09 10.50 Alternative 4 was revised after selection to adjust lift locations and construction phasing to better fit the geographic area served by proposed improvements and optimize the project funding. The revisions did not affect the weighted scoring and proposed phased improvements are shown on Figure ES-6 and are identified as Alternative 4a. Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page ES-VW w120 1 911 99 70 06.00_mason_city_bellair_wrflpredesgn rpt11997006.00_draft_repat_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks e;' -.! -4° i r+ ;mot _ O _ / !- • U U a r c a fJ Y t`- -2 I () ,—I UGA J _/ / Lift Station f ' 0 ir _ f / �. . ERG Phase I Phase 2 �_ Protect Area` +: Project Area r "�- ._17 ( ' ( F _ ) f Freight I:orndnr —�= / , / Lift station x I Phase 3 Project Area -=' �R3 Bypass Aluanment !� PS.I 1 2 1 Legend n g y !_, t / �..___ 0 Existing Pump Station C / -� E�asting Structures Q Proposed Pump Station n Felfalr V, Ps Proposed Sewer Force Rtar I-/ n.---• Proposed Gravity Sewer I - PSIC Border A - UGA Border 0 /hi Nan 1.All bcasons are approximate . + , c'. ..;,-,- .,terval. fee“ Figure ES-6: Alternative 4a — Phased UGA LS and Freight Corridor LS Phase 1 improvements, which are discussed in further detail in this Pre-Design Report, will include the UGA Lift Station with a capacity of 700 gpm, associated force main and gravity sewer mains, and the utility crossing which consists of a force main stub out across the Freight Corridor and gravity connection to the UGA Lift Station. Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page ES-IX w1201911997006.00_mason_city_beMav_wrflpredesign_rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks Section 1: Background 1.1 Existing Wastewater System Belfair is an unincorporated community in Mason County (County), Washington, at the mouth of the Union River on Hood Canal and is home to approximately 4,000 residents. After over a decade of planning, construction of the backbone of the collection system and the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) began in 2009 and was finished in 2012. The WRF utilizes membrane bioreactors (MBRs) to achieve Class A Reclaimed Water(RW) standards for effluent. During drier periods, the RW is discharged via irrigation to a forested 39-acre spray field east of the WRF. During wetter months, the RW is stored in a 13-acre pond at the WRF for use in the drier months. The pond is sized to hold up to 175-acre feet. The Belfair wastewater collection system includes three lift stations, approximately 3.9 miles of force mains ranging from 6-inch to 10-inch (dual force mains from two of the three lift stations contribute to this length), 2.5 miles of gravity sewer ranging in size from 8-inch to 15-inch, and 0.9 mile of 3-inch low pressure sewer force mains. Short segments of 18-and 42-inch pipe are also installed in proximity to lift stations to build storage volumes for purposes of pumping. The WRF is currently permitted by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit#ST0006224 to treat 125,000 gallons per day (gpd), but projected connections and system growth have not met initial projections and the facility is currently receiving around 60,000 gpd. The lack of observed growth puts the County behind in its financial projections and impacts its ability to cover debt service associated with the original construction. 1.2 Belfair Sewer System PSIC Extension Planning The Puget Sound Industrial Center(PSIC) is a 3,700-acre parcel located within the City of Bremerton (COB) in Kitsap County. The subarea is designated as one of eight Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MICs) in the region by the Puget Sound Regional Council in their Vision 2040 Plan. As such, the PSIC is recognized as an important regional employment location. The PSIC is currently sewered by a large, on-site septic system (LOSS). Planning documents for the Vision 2040 Plan include future inclusion of an MBR treatment facility for the PSIC and calls for maximizing groundwater recharge. In 2016, WSDOT proposed the Freight Corridor, which is a bypass highway for State Route 3 (SR-3). SR-3 currently runs through downtown Belfair and that section of highway experiences significant traffic during peak commute times. The corridor, as seen on Figure 1, extends from the intersection of SR-3 and Highway 302 to SR-3 near Lake Flora Road on the southern end of the PSIC. When the County learned of this proposed improvement, they sought to utilize it as an opportunity to extend sewer service from the WRF to the PSIC along with sewer service extensions to areas of the existing UGA slated for near-term development. The initial concept involved construction of a several lift stations and associated collection system to connect the Port of Bremerton (POB)to the WRF. Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 1-1 w1201911997006.00_mason cny_bettair_wrPpredesgn_rpt11997006,00_draff_report_200131.docx KY ' Kennedy Jenks The County began discussions with the COB, and in 2018, the two agencies entered into an interlocal agreement to apply for state funding and work cooperatively with the goal of improving sewer service to the PSIC and areas within the Belfair UGA. In 2019, the interlocal agreement was extended to include the POB. After initial discussions, the POB indicated that they did not wish to abandon the existing LOSS and convey existing flows to the WRF. However, plans for future growth within the PSIC indicate that the capacity of the LOSS will be insufficient to serve the entire subarea. Several planning workshops were held to discuss the proposed sewer alternatives and included representatives for the County, COB, and POB. During these workshops, the alternatives were revised to relocate the proposed Freight Corridor Lift Station from the intersection of SR-3 and Lake Flora Road to the southwestern corner of the PSIC's service area in anticipation of near-term future connections. Initial workshops were also held between the County, the County's design team, and WSDOT to discuss the sewer extension project as it relates to the Freight Corridor project. During this time, the County learned that WSDOT intended the Freight Corridor to be a limited access corridor, and as such, utilities within right-of-way (ROW)would be limited to utility crossings. WSDOT also advised against joining the two projects together into one bid package as the County had originally intended. This impacted the development and evaluation of the sewer alternatives, which required some revision. Alk i N 4 3 1 O •affair 30011 KITSAP 4/ i 106,/ f i, A i i , , , . 1 r -- -#- - 3 I PIERCE Ar / i _ Future proposed alignment Figure 1: Proposed Freight Corridor Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 1-2 w1201911997006.00_mason_dry_beMair_wrllpredesgn_rpt 1997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx KJ Kennedy Jenks Section 2: Alternatives Development 2.1 Hydraulic Modelling of Existing Collection System The sewer extension alternatives concept development began with a hydraulic evaluation of the existing collection system. Analysis of the collection system is a critical component in evaluating the ability of the existing infrastructure to accommodate future growth. To accomplish this, a hydraulic model was developed using InfoSWMM Version 14.5 software. The Belfair wastewater collection system was analyzed using a truncated model, simulating trunk and interceptor gravity mains larger than 8 inches, existing lift stations, and existing force mains. The primary information source used to develop the model was the as-built drawing set for the 2009 Belfair Wastewater Conveyance Project, which first established sewer service in the Belfair Urban Growth Area (UGA). This project consisted of constructing gravity sewers, force mains, low-pressure sewer force mains for septic conversions, and lift stations to convey flows generated within the Belfair UGA to the WRF for treatment. Existing wastewater flows were calculated for the collection system after the physical components of the system were input to the model. Wastewater flow consists of two separate elements: sanitary sewer flow and infiltration and inflow(I/I). Sanitary sewer flow represents the component of conveyance system flows generated from typical municipal uses such as residential, commercial, and industrial. Ill represents ground or surface water within the collection system environment that enters the system through leaks and loose seals found along the pipes and manholes; most prevalently during wet weather months. Ill contributions are loaded into the model as an external source of flow at model "nodes", which are representative of manholes in gravity systems. A total of 11 model loadings were added to nodes in the model to simulate the sanitary sewer flow component. To derive the loadings for each designated loading node, the total number of sewered parcels in the system was first calculated. WRF records were then assessed to establish an existing average sanitary sewer system flow rate of 60,000 gpd. On average, the difference between dry and wet weather month flows to the WRF was small, reflective of a collection system with newer infrastructure with low infiltration and inflow(I&I)from groundwater and stormwater. This number was then divided by the total number of sewered parcels to calculate the loading per parcel, resulting in a unit parcel loading of approximately 0.22 gallons per minute (gpm) or approximately 320 gallons per parcel per day. The number of parcels tributary to each loading node were then tabulated and multiplied by the unit parcel loading to generate a flow rate for each of the 11 model loadings. It was assumed that parcels located within 50 feet of the existing collection system are sewered. Flow was distributed uniformly across the modeled parcels since population data were not available on a per parcel basis. The difference between the recorded maximum day flow over a 1-year period (128,000 gpd) and the average sanitary flow of 60,000 gpd was used to evaluate the total system-wide peak Ill. This number was then divided by the total number of sewered parcels to calculate the Ill loading per parcel for peak flow scenarios. Model Ill rates were assigned to the 11 model loadings using the same parcel methodology used to distribute the sanitary sewer component. Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 2-1 w:1201911997006.00_mason_city_belfair_wrfpredesi9n_rpd1997006.00_drafl report_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks The model was then analyzed to evaluate the available capacity of the existing system to accept flows from planned development in the COB's PSIC and other developments within the Belfair UGA. To accomplish this, flows were added to the node along SR-3 at the most northeastern extent of the collection system, which is assumed to be the location where flows from the PSIC would enter. Flows were then incrementally increased in the hydraulic model to evaluate which flow scenarios trigger capacity limitation in the existing system under peak hour flow modeling scenario. The modeling results are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Modeling Results Flow Scenario Pipe Capacity Lift Station Capacity Flow <_ 700 gpm No surcharging occurs All lift stations have adequate capacity 700 gpm < Flow < 1,050 gpm Minor surcharging along All lift stations have adequate 550-foot stretch of 8-inch pipe capacity More significant surcharging Lift Station 3 slightly under Flow>_ 1,050 gpm along 550-foot stretch of 8-inch g y capacity pipe Note: For modelling purposes,simulated flow may originate from within the Belfair UGA along the Freight Corridor Highway or from the PSIC. The results indicated that capacity limitations arise when flows greater than 700 gpm are added to the existing system. While no aboveground surcharging is predicted, flows are not contained within the crown of the pipe for a 550-foot section of sewer main located at the base of a hill just upstream of Lift Station 1 (and downstream of the manhole where the flows from the PSIC and other developments enter the system). If the Belfair collection system accepts additional flows from the PSIC and other planned developments, the degree to which surcharging is allowable should be examined. When additional system flows exceed 1,050 gpm, the pumping capacity of Lift Station 3 becomes deficient. This lift station is the largest of the three existing lift stations and conveys the entire flow generated within the collection system to the WRF. Lift Station 3 currently operates as a duplex station (one duty and one standby) but was designed to accommodate an additional pump if warranted by future sewer service expansion. It also has a dual force main configuration with two 10-inch force mains. Installing dual force mains ensures that velocities will remain within the recommended range of 2 to 8 feet per second (fps) if the lift station capacity were increased by adding an additional pump. In order for Lift Station 3 to support additional flows in excess of 1,050 gpm, the station would need to be converted to a triplex station by installing an additional pump and utilizing both 10-inch force mains to keep velocities within the recommended range. These lift station modifications could increase lift station capacity from 1,050 gpm capacity to 2,300 gpm. Accompanying collection system upgrades, including the 550-foot section discussed, would likely become necessary to maintain acceptable surcharge levels in conveying flows commensurate with the ultimate triplex capacity of Lift Station 3. Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 2-2 w1201911997006.00_mason_ccity_bettair_wrfpredesign_rpt 1997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx la I Kennedy Jenks 2.2 Sewer Extension Alternatives Sewer extension alternatives for possible construction were considered in the context of the existing geographic conditions and reducing construction costs. Four alternatives were formally considered with modifications made to the alternatives between workshops (see Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5). Each alternative featured connections between the PSIC, WRF, and UGA lift stations of varying degrees. The four sewer extension alternatives considered are presented in the following paragraphs. Alternative 1: This concept includes three new lift stations. The Freight Corridor Lift Station is located near the southwestern corner of the PSIC and delivers flows along the Freight Corridor to the Mason County Lift Station which delivers flows to the WRF. A third lift station will be required to extend service to the UGA area north and east of the downtown corridor and connects to the existing collection system. The opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC) for this alternative is $9.5 million. See Figure 2. 1 0 z,, / II i ) '!' & /r3: . J \'/F; � / ��,/ `\ � i 3 1- PGA i r '— . j Ldt Statioft P A r-- --- ------ P' _) i IIj /- / % Freight Corridor , i t.ls,� on< r,nr, '% I Lift Station - � Litt S'd'ir,r zi & - _ �R3 aypacs Ali Inment Legend ._y.. 0 Existing Pump Station Fit, - I —Exsbng Structures I si „,.';k:r • GI Proposed Punp Statan ' w Proposed Seer Force Main /' .....Proposed GravitySener PS1G Border 41--�/ 1 -UGA Border 1 " uaConto Irval ._.. _ 2 bvason coma,i r ai.te:o rear ` ", Figure 2: Alternative 1 — UGA LS Connects to Existing Collection System Draft Mason County Be/fair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 2-3 w`201911997006.00_mason_city_beifair_wrfpredesgn_rptl t 997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx • K. Kennedy Jenks Alternative 2: This concept includes similar Freight Corridor improvements and Freight Corridor Lift Station as in Alternative 1, but in this alternative the UGA Lift Station connects to the Freight Corridor improvements rather than connecting to the existing system. The OPCC for this alternative is $9.3 million. See Figure 3. 5 iv A. ; l' - -'(1 S 4 S . ""` , Al O o G 02F s ,� • es oliip , : ,, / 1. t. ,,,, / i _� UGA ,r SV r,eE4� _ .ot- Lift Sizthrn �� � ' / : ` -`A•G ..GM' , le 300 'e, e-. . - • ,t,, :___ aft 'y ; j / P` Ir I Freight Corridor / Mason County Lift Station — '1 Lift Station Pr I i . r SR3 Bypass Alignment t t. at,Inale. - r Legend 1 i• -. .... - (� Existing Pump Statbn 1 ipx:ospIngsseeitrpseuuc:turessFutomboenNi■_ Q•y / _ a, `��, -' } i ' --��- Proposed Grarfty Sewer PSIC Border i `„ ,�� ' UGA Border /,tifasi:caoons are veto one* K .:ncr_art-,ot-r:1i=?0 feet / Figure 3: Alternative 2 - Combined Pumping to Mason County LS Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 2-4 w1201911997006.00_mason ciry_belfair_wrf\predesign rpt11997008.00 draft report_200131.docz K Kennedy Jenks Alternative 3: This alternative expands the improvements along the Freight Corridor by locating the Freight Corridor Lift Station farther north. A gravity connection to the Freight Corridor Lift Station is provided from Bremerton County to the east. Instead of a UGA lift station, a short gravity extension to the existing sewer collection system is provided to serve the UGA to the east of SR-3. The alternative would likely require either deep sewers or low-pressure gravity mains to extend sewer connections to the surrounding developments. The OPCC for this alternative is $10.2 million. See Figure 4. i / l . T - .. \Af.‘r Oft t .)/ !•,.' _ 0 7(..) �l '43� I j - \-. i Freight Corridor /' ` Lift Station C \ 6 41.' , IF , P'., / ...... " , 1 j L._ ,ir „.... ) 7..\./..-1. _ -:I /' - 'I/.:: ::: i-}'/ ' :.� -Lgnrne r } p PS sl / Legend . • 17 Existrg Pump Stator, ,�].'� { 41 Existrg Structures - .. y ' +i� Proposed Pump Static-,Static-,/ Proposed Sewer Face 413 i 's s7 ( ' Proposed Gravity Sewe• ,SIC Saner / I __. UGA Bader // I No s: -1 1 2 C vanon C nto /// a7P'�mate Qevaoon Contour Interval _'-- 1 I Figure 4: Alternative 3 - Freight Corridor LS Pumps to Mason County LS Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 2-5 we1201911997006.00_mason_city_befair_wrfpredesign rpt 1997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks Alternative 4: This alternative includes a UGA Lift Station and gravity connection to the existing collection system similar to Alternatives 1 and 2. A connection to improvements along the Freight Corridor in the PSIC is provided along an alignment which is assumed to match that of a future access point to the Freight Corridor. This connection allows for a split of flows from the Freight Corridor Lift Station to existing system or to the improvements along the Freight Corridor to the WRF. The OPCC for this alternative is $7.9 million. See Figure 5. ti 7 / _ C c i / o= ` 1 /U.c a Clt 2 Y r 17 ( ..'/' / ''' . / , , . UI;A t I '.l_ Q a Lift Station V „. ritc = 4,e, .... I )./ .•- _ \ ✓ -i / / Freight Corridor LL Lift Station -1 - - 'sR3 Bypass 11 / J Alignment 111, P$•I .: P;., 4( Legend Fi -' r ' i _ 0 Exist ry?urnp Station /r I — Existing Structures % BIfair!^:R- Proposed Pump Station t�Proposed Sewer Force Man• -�!PS s3 PS•3 I t f�!P _ ' �• Proposed Grav y Sewer f/j_ , � PSICUGABorder Border Roc I I 1 buttons one approximats 1 2.Elevation Contour ntrnai=S,r= - ' Figure 5: Alternative 4 — Freight Corridor LS Pumps to UGA LS Draft Mason County Be/fair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 2-6 w\201911997006.00 mason_city_betlair_wrfpredesign_rpr 1997006.00 dra1t_report_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks Section 3: Methods of Evaluation 3.1 Weighted Criteria Evaluation Each of the four alternatives was evaluated using the weighted criteria found in Table 4. The criteria were developed by the project team in collaboration with the project stakeholders at the Concept Development Workshop held in September 2019. Weighting for each criterion was also finalized during the workshop and memorialized in the meeting notes. The baseline weight is 1 and scores above 1 are noted as more important/preferable, while scores below 1 are less important/preferable. Following the workshop, the design team scored the alternatives and presented the findings at the Alternatives Selection Workshop that followed in October 2019. Table 4: Weighted Scoring Criteria Criteria Description Proposed Weighting 1 Total Cost of Installation 1 2 O&M Cost 1 3 Operational Flexibility 1.1 4 Phased Construction 1.5 5 WSDOT Dependent Design 0.8 6 ROI Risk 1.3 7 Maximize Use of Existing Structure 1.5 Total Cost of Installation: This criterion includes the total cost to construct the proposed improvements shown on each of the alternative figures. Cost opinions do not include design, permitting, construction management, contingencies, easements, etc. The estimates, found in Appendix B, are Class 4 estimates. This criterion was given a weight/multiplier of 1. Operational and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: This criterion includes the annual cost of O&M of the new assets. This includes routine scheduled maintenance of the lift stations, force mains, gravity sewer lines, and the associated valving, control systems, etc. This criterion was given a weight/multiplier of 1. Operational Flexibility: This criterion includes the proposed improvements operational flexibility such as system redundancy, having the ability to distribute flows across multiple paths, difficulty of bypass pumping, etc. This criterion was given a weight/multiplier of 1.1. Phased Construction: This criterion includes the proposed improvements ability to be installed in phases to allow for sewer improvements to match the rate of growth within the Belfair UGA and the PSIC subarea. The scoring was based on the minimum investment required to support early growth in both the Belfair UGA and the Bremerton PSIC. This criterion was given a weight/multiplier of 1.5. WSDOT Dependent: This criterion involves the proposed improvements dependency on WSDOT in terms of schedule and design. Because most of the proposed improvements will be Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 3-1 w:1201911997006.00_mason city_beWair_wr0predesign rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx K. Kennedy Jenks constructed as separate projects from the Freight Corridor, any improvements requiring coordination with WSDOT creates a dependency. This criterion was given a weight/multiplier of 0.8. Return on Investment (ROI) Risk: This criterion involves the proposed improvements' potential to recuperate initial capital costs through late-corners agreements, sewer connection and capacity fees, etc. Scoring was based on the minimum investment required to service any of the two proposed project areas (Belfair UGA and PSIC subarea). This criterion was given a weight/multiplier of 1.3. Maximize Use of Existing Infrastructure: This criterion involves the proposed improvements' leveraging of existing infrastructure and maximizing its capacity and capabilities to reduce stranded assets within the collection system. This criterion was given a weight/multiplier of 1.5. The four alternatives were scored based on their relative comparison to the baseline using the weighted criteria selection shown in Table 4. Table 5 below presents the results of the evaluation. The lower the overall score the less preferable the alternative ranks to others in the evaluation. Alternative 4 ranked the highest, followed by Alternative 1, then Alternative 2, with Alternative 3 ranking the lowest of the four alternatives. 3.1.1 Evaluation Discussion 3.1.1.1 Total Cost of Installation Alternative 4 yielded the lowest total construction cost. Although this alternative is similar to Alternative 1 in many ways, the main difference that impacts the cost opinion is the elimination of the third lift station by extending force main from the PSIC Lift Station the entire length to the Belfair WRF. Alternative 3 scored the lowest for this criterion due to the increased pipe length necessary to eliminate the third lift station while maximizing the potential service area. Alternatives 1 and 2 have similar installation costs. 3.1.1.2 Operational and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Alternative 4 yielded the lowest O&M cost mainly due to only having two lift stations. Additionally, lift station and sewer configuration take advantage of the surrounding topography and maximize the use of gravity sewer. Although Alternative 3 also requires only two lift stations, the location the lift stations and alignment of the sewer are such that more power will be required to overcome the elevation gain of the surrounding topography and the additional dynamic losses associated with the longer force mains. Alternatives 1 and 2 have similar O&M costs. 3.1.1.3 Operational Flexibility Alternative 4 ranked highest for operational flexibility due to the ability of the Freight Corridor Lift Station to send flow to either the UGA Lift Station or directly to the Belfair WRF. Additionally, because both lift stations are intended to have their own discharge path to the WRF and do not rely on tandem pumping, each of the two lift stations remain relatively small, improving the ease of bypass pumping in the future, if required. Alternative 2 ranks the lowest in this category Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 3-2 w:\2019\1997006.00_mason_ciy_betlaw_wrflpredesgn_rpn1997006.00_draft_repai_200131.dxx KJ Kennedy Jenks because all the future sewer resulting from this project flows through the proposed Mason County Lift Station with no connection to the existing collection system. This creates a single point of failure with the potential for large volume of sewer flow, which can be difficult to bypass. Alternatives 1 and 3 rank similar as alternatives rely on some form of tandem pumping and a connection to the existing collection system. 3.1.1.4 Phased Construction Alternative 4 ranked the highest in this criterion due to having the lowest installation cost required to provide service to both the Belfair UGA and the PSIC. The future force main from the Freight Corridor Lift Station, which parallels the Freight Corridor, can be deferred to a later date when growth within the surrounding area of the Belfair UGA the PSIC subarea has exceeded the capacity of the existing sewer downstream. This allows the project stakeholders to defer approximately $2 million in capital improvements until a later date. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 ranked similar to one another(all of which were lower than Alternative 4) as nearly the entire project would need to be constructed to provide minimum services to both areas, requiring the greatest Phase 1 cost. 3.1.1.5 WSDOT Dependent Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 ranked similar to one another for this criterion as all three have little to no construction activity near the terminus of the Freight Corridor highway, which was still undetermined. This results in a low risk of impact by the Freight Corridor due to the various terminus alternatives that were being discussed. One of the potential highway terminus alternatives runs through the proposed Freight Corridor Lift Station in Alternative 3. Therefore, Alternative 3 is ranked the lowest for this criterion. 3.1.1.6 Return on Investment(ROI) Risk Alternative 4 yields the most favorable score in this criterion because the option for phased construction associated with this alternative allows segments to be constructed commensurate with timing of developer construction activity. This reduces the risk of overextending sewer in advance of development activity, reducing the potential for standing new assets. Alternative 3 carries the largest ROI risk due to the potential for improvements to be less accessible to developers through increased connection costs. This alternative requires more investment by developers to either extend low pressure sewer, run deep gravity, or provide developer-built lift stations and force mains to connect to the proposed conveyance system. As a result, this may discourage or slow the rate of growth in the area. Alternative 2 also carries more ROI risk as compared to Alternatives 1 and 4 due to the amount of investment that is required to service any future growth. Not having a connection to the existing collection system requires construction of lift stations and force mains from the UGA all the way to the Belfair WRF to serve any additional connections, exposing the project stakeholders to a significant investment without any guarantee of future flows. Alternative 1 ranked second in this criterion due to the ability to extend sewer from the existing collection system at a relatively low cost to serve near- term development within the Belfair UGA. Draft Mason County Be/fair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 3-3 w1201911097006.00_mason ciry_belIai_wrttpredesign rpt11997006.00_draf_report_200131.docx Kj Kennedy Jenks 3.1.1.7 Maximize Use of Existing Infrastructure Alternative 4 ranks the highest in this criterion due to the ability to split flows from the Freight Corridor Lift Station to maximize use of the existing collection system, both in the near-term and in the future. Alternative 2 ranks the lowest due to the lack of connection between the proposed improvements and the existing collection system. Alternative 3 ranks third in this criterion. This alternative utilizes unused capacity, but not as effectively as compared to Alternatives 1 and 4. The Freight Corridor Lift Station on this alternative may likely serve portions of the County's UGA which may reduce the amount of flow that is directed to the existing sewer collection system, limiting the use of the existing collection system's unused capacity. 3.2 Summary of Results The results of the evaluation yielded Alternative 4 with the highest score of 10.50 as compared to Alternative 3 with the lowest score of 7.09. Alternative 1 ranked second with a score of 8.20 followed by Alternative 2 in third with a score of 7.34. After study of the evaluation results and consideration by the project stakeholders, Alternative 4 was selected. This alternative scored the highest on each of the seven criteria and therefore, highest overall. It offered both the lowest initial capital cost and the lowest ongoing O&M cost. It provided operation flexibility for the Freight Corridor lift station by allowing two different discharge destinations (UGA lift station and WRF). Likewise, it had the highest ROI, and maximized the use of existing infrastructure (see Table 1). One of the most appealing features provided by this Alternative is the opportunity to sequence the proposed improvements across multiple phases to match basin growth. With this approach, construction of a sewer force main parallel to the proposed Freight Corridor could be deferred until sufficient growth was observed within the PSIC to justify the investment. The results of the evaluation are found in Table 5. Table 5: Evaluation Results Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Criteria Description Weighting 1 2 3 4 1 Total Cost of Installation 1 1.00 1.02 0.93 1.21 2 O&M Cost 1 1.00 1.08 0.86 1.46 3 Operational Flexibility 1.1 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.10 4 Phased Construction 1.5 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.60 5 WSDOT Dependent Design 0.8 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 6 ROI Risk 1.3 1.00 0.90 0.75 1.25 7 Maximize Use of Existing 1.5 1.00 0.50 0.75 1.20 Structure Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 3-4 w1201911997006.00_mason_ciry beMar_wrfpredesgn201997006.00_draft_repat_200131.docx KJI Kennedy Jenks Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Criteria Description Weighting 1 2 3 4 1 Total Cost of Installation 1 1.00 1.02 0.93 1.21 2 O&M Cost 1 1.00 1.08 0.86 1.46 3 Operational Flexibility 1.1 1.10 0.99 1.10 1.21 4 Phased Construction 1.5 1.50 1.53 1.49 2.40 5 WSDOT Dependent Design 0.8 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.80 6 ROI Risk 1.3 1.30 1.17 0.98 1.63 7 Maximize Use of Existing 1.5 1.50 0.75 1.13 1.80 Structure Rollup 8.20 7.34 7.09 10.50 Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 3-5 w 1201911997006.00_manon_city_betfar_wrf predesign_rpt11997006.00_draft_rapart_200131.dccx K Kennedy Jenks Section 4: Basis of Design 4.1 Alternative 4A After the selection of Alternative 4, several modifications were made including relocation of the UGA Lift Station location to increase the geographic area served by proposed improvements. Potential project phasing was added to further optimize the funding needs for the project and defer portions of the sewer extension to a later date. Figure 6 presents the proposed improvements and phasing described in this section. , 7 /I j) / C C / / _ i //o.71 w /\-/ \� I ,_It_ t,t;nn ,,, / i T .. \ Ft , ' ,tAraa / Pr) rt Arr,i , t _t I lI Freight Corridor f _t ' Lift Station I , J I II Pro,ef,area l' ,1— nr,en 4i. - — fiend ,,/ �` r i I F- .,T.._ 'I U Existing Pump Stati on Existing Structures a / / � J E-It ':, Proposed Pump Station 6r w� , Proposed Ser Force R1ar te a4' `s•} IproposedGrav�werysuerPSIC Border .3 J, 'h UGA Border ` . r I I Al bcatxme are approximate / ` , 2.Elevation Conbur Inter.'.=C ter Figure 6: Alternative 4a - Phased UGA LS and Freight Corridor LS Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 4-1 w:1201911997006.00_mason_ciry belfav_wrfwredesgn_rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx 10 I Kennedy Jenks 4.2 Project Phasing The project is anticipated to be broken out into three phases with specific"triggers" necessitating the initiation of each subsequent phase of work. 4.2.1 Phase 1 Phase 1 includes proposed improvements exclusively within the existing UGA, with exception of the force main serving the Freight Corridor Lift Station, which will be deferred until Phase 3. Phase 1 allows for immediate sewer service to the areas of the UGA north of downtown Belfair and east of SR-3 and facilitates the connection of the Freight Corridor Lift Station at a future date by installing the bulk of the discharge lines and the Freight Corridor utility crossing. 4.2.2 Phase 2 Phase 2 includes the Freight Corridor Lift Station, the remaining segment of its associated discharge force main to the UGA and its connection to the utility crossing that would be installed in Phase 1. It is the COB's intention to construct Phase 2 improvements once development activity within this area of the PSIC is sufficient to require sewer service to the area. However, this activity is not expected until approximately 2025, and the COB does not wish to install improvements that will sit idle for several years without better certainty of development. 4.2.3 Phase 3 Phase 3 includes the direct connection of the Freight Corridor Lift Station to the WRF via a force main parallel to the Freight Corridor. This will provide operational flexibility to the Freight Corridor Lift Station by allowing for connection to both the UGA Lift Station and a direct connection to the WRF. Since the ultimate build-out of both the existing UGA and the PSIC is greater than the 700 gpm currently available within the existing collection system, this will allow the PSIC to expand as needed without encumbering the UGA's existing sewer capacity. It is recommended that the County and the COB develop an agreement in the future to agree upon how the available capacity will be divided between the two service areas. The agreement can be modified as needed but will help to establish the point to where the future force main serving the Freight Corridor Lift Station will be required to accommodate future growth. Phasing the project in this manner will also provide time to secure any easements, outside of WSDOT's ROW, required to install the line; although there may be a benefit to securing the ROW in advance so future development does not interfere and complication construction of the proposed future force main. 4.3 Codes, Standards, and References The Belfair Sewer Extension design will conform to the following codes, standards, and references: Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 4-2 w Q01911997006.00_mason_city_betlav_wrflpredesign_rptl1997006.00_draft_reporl_200191.docx KJ Kennedy Jenks 4.3.1 Codes • The Mason County Code • Washington Administrative Code (WAC) • Revised Code of Washington (RCW) • 2018 International Building Code (IBC) • 2018 National Electrical Code (NEC 70) • 2018 International Fire Code (IFC) • 2018 International Mechanical Code • 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) • 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (ECC). 4.3.2 Design Standards and References • Criteria for Sewer Works Design (Orange Book) • WSDOT Utilities Manual (M 22-87.10) • BNSF Utility Accommodation Policy. 4.4 Phase 1 Design Criteria Phase 1 of the collection system extension originates approximately 50 feet east of the edge of the proposed Freight Corridor ROW as it crosses the Mason/Kitsap County line. The force main will terminate just east of the Freight Corridor with a cap and utility marker. After crossing under the Freight Corridor, a gravity main, to which the future Freight Corridor Lift Station can connect, heads west and connects to the proposed future extension of Log Yard Rd east of SR-3. It crosses under SR-3 and continues along Log Yard Road until it terminates at the UGA Lift Station, near the intersection of Log Yard Road and NE Katchemak Lane. The UGA Lift Station will discharge via a force main, which will flow parallel and opposite of the incoming gravity main along Log Yard Road for aprozimately1,135 linear feet (LF). It will cross underneath SR-3 in a steel casing for approximately 250 LF before turning right 90 degrees and heading southwest. It will travel along the edge of the proposed Mason Transit Authority Park N Ride, sweeping left after approximately 1,540 LF following the existing unimproved road terminating into a manhole along the existing WRF access road. From there, a gravity main will continue west where it will parallel SR-3 and ultimately connect with the existing collection system within SR-3 near NE Ridgepoint Boulevard. Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 4-3 w120 1 911 9 97006.00_mason city_beIair_wrPp edesign rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks The routing and preliminary plan of the improvements is found in Appendix C. The following subsection describe the design standards and criteria that will be the basis for the preliminary design. 4.4.1 Gravity Sewers Gravity piping will be designed in general accordance with Ecology's Orange Book. Gravity piping will be sized to convey flows at a minimum velocity of 2 fps at approximately 60 percent (%) full. The pipe material selected for the basis of design was polyvinyl chloride (PVC) SDR 35 sewer pipe. The gravity main pipe sizes are anticipated to range from 8 inches to 12 inches and will be selected to maintain a velocity above 2.0 fps at 60% full and a minimum slope of 0.005 feet per foot(ft/ft). A Manning's n value of 0.013 was selected in accordance with the Orange Book. WSDOT Standard Type 1 manholes were provided at 300 feet maximum spacing and at bends in the gravity main. Table 6 summarizes the gravity main design criteria. Table 6: Gravity Main Design Criteria Description Criteria Pipe Material PVC SDR 35 Pipe Size 8-inch to 12-inch Manning's n 0.013 Pipeline Velocity Minimum—2 fps Target Flow 700 gpm for UGA Lift Station discharge pipeline Manholes WSDOT Standard Type 1 Manhole Spacing Maximum — 300 feet 4.4.2 Force Mains Force mains will be designed in accordance with Ecology's Orange Book. Force main piping will be sized to convey flows at a minimum velocity of 2 fps at reduced pump speeds. The pipe material selected for the basis of design was HDPE sewer pipe. The force main pipe sizes are anticipated to range from 6 inches to 10 inches. A Hazen-Williams C-value of 130 will be used for the force main when calculating friction loss through the force mains. Table 7 summarizes the gravity main design criteria. Table 7: Force Main Design Criteria Description Criteria Pipe Material HDPE DR 20 or less/PVC C900 DR18 or less Pipe Size 6-inch to 10-inch Hazen-Williams C-value 130 Pipeline Velocity Minimum —2 fps Target Flow 700 gpm for UGA Lift Station discharge pipeline Draft Mason County Be/fair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 4-4 w 2019 1997006.00_mason_city_belair_wrflpredesgn_rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks 4.4.3 UGA Lift Station The proposed improvements will include features to improve flexibility via phasing to allow for optimal system expansion over an extended period. Therefore, sizing of the initial improvements began with an analysis of the existing available capacity in the collection system, as discussed previously. The proposed site for the UGA Lift Station is near eastern corner of intersection of Log Yard Road and NE Katchemak Lane, approximately 1,000 feet northwest from the intersection of Log Yard Road and State Route 3. Maintenance access to the lift station is proposed to be provided from Log Yard Road. The UGA Lift Station will discharge into approximately 3,000 LF 8-inch force main before turning to gravity. A transient analysis will be conducted to determine any necessary improvements to mitigate water hammer. Based on the construction of other lift station operated by the County, the site will be enclosed by a chain link fence with black vinyl slats to provide a visual barrier between the lift station equipment and nearby houses and businesses. Table 8 summarizes key design criteria, equipment types, and other considerations for the lift station. Where recommendations were not provided by Mason County, common design standards for wastewater lift stations were used. In general, lift station design criteria were coordinated with the County's existing lift stations to improve operation and maintenance consistency. Table 8: Lift Station Design Criteria Description Criteria Pump mode of operation Duplex, lead/lag Pump suction sizing Capable of passing a minimum 3-inch solid sphere Pumping cycle 10 starts per hour, maximum, six starts per hour, design Lift station piping Ductile Iron Class 52 Net positive suction head available 5 feet greater than net positive suction head required Check valve Acceptable type: swing check type with outside lever Isolation valve Acceptable type: non-lubricated eccentric plug; ANSI/AWWA C517 Wet well isolation Acceptable type: non-rising stem sluice gate valve Utility power Minimum 480V, 3-phase Motor starter Acceptable type: solid-state soft start controller or variable frequency drive Backflow prevention system Washdown water required for all lift stations. Acceptable type: reduced pressure principle, automatic operation. Note: V= volt The UGA Lift Station will be a duplex submersible station constructed of a concrete precast wet well. The facility will be designed for code required seismic, wind, and gravity loading specific to Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 4-5 w\20 1 911 997 0 06.00_manon_city_belfair_wrf predesign_rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131,docx Kennedy Jenks the station site. The station will be designed as an essential facility following the requirements of risk category IV as defined by the IBC. The site will also feature a valve vault, meter vault, backup diesel generator with sub-base mounted storage tank, and a three-sided CMU structure to provide weather protection to the above grade on-site electrical equipment. Power will be provided from the local utility at 3-phase, 480V alternating current. A permanent onsite diesel engine generator will provide pumping capacity during a power failure. The electrical system will accommodate a roll-up engine generator if the permanent generator fails. The motors will be controlled by soft starters. The power service will be sized to NEC requirements and designed to meet local codes. The telemetry system will monitor the wet well level, status of the pumps, and outgoing station flow. The telemetry system will transmit the lift station measurements and alarms to central supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) servers through radio links. The SCADA servers will record and display the lift station status and notify operators when alarms occur. The station will have NEMA 4X control panels installed in an electrical enclosure. The electrical enclosure will house the soft starters and power distribution equipment, as well as the control panels. The control panels contain a programmable logic controller(PLC)which is programmed to monitor the wet well level using a submersible level transmitter. Backup floats will also start the pumps in the event of a PLC or level transmitter failure. 4.4.4 Pump Selection An AFT Fathom hydraulic model was used to determine that the existing collection system had approximately 700 gpm of available capacity for future connections without additional improvements. Two, 35 horsepower(hp), submersible pumps are anticipated to be required to produce a design flow rate of at least of 700 gpm. As shown on Figure 7, the pump curve for the best available pump and impeller combination was evaluated against the system curve for near and long-term force main conditions, using C-values of 140 and 130, respectively. The calculated TDH is anticipated to range between 113.5 feet and 111.7 feet at flows between 708 gpm and 738 gpm, respectively. The calculated flow and TDH ranges demonstrate the selected pumps will pump at least the design flow during near and long-term force main conditions. The pumps will operate at variable speed and be controlled in a lead/lag operation. Draft Mason County Be/fair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 4-6 w1201911997006.00_mason_cily betlair_wdtpredesign_rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx Kennedy Jenks Pump vs. System Curve 300 250 0 200 Flow=708 gpm Head=113.5ft in Efficiency=70.5% S 150 co m 100 Flow=738 gpm 50 Head= 111.7 ft Efficiency=70.9% 100 200 300 400 500 603 700 800 900 1000 Flow(gpm) —Pump Curve —System Curve(C=130) —System Curve(C=140) Figure 7: UGA LS Pump Curve vs. System Curve 4.5 Wet Well Configuration A 108-inch-diameter, precast concrete manhole was selected as the wet well structure for the lift station. The wet well will be lined using methods developed during detail design to reduce corrosion by hydrogen sulfide. The required wet well working volume is the volume between Pump On and Pump Off set points and was calculated as approximately 1,750 gallons, assuming six pump starts per hour. The Pump Off-level set point was selected to maintain the required minimum submergence for the pump as recommended by the manufacturer. The low- level alarm was set at 6 inches below the Pump Off set point, and the high-level alarm was set at 6 inches above the Pump On set point. approximate wet well and pump set point elevations are depicted in Table 3. Calculations for pump selection are provided in Appendix A. Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 4-7 w.1201911997006.00_mason_city_befair_wrPyredesgn_rpt11997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx KJ Kennedy Jenks Table 9: UGA Lift Station System Design Elevations Elevation Feature (feet) Lift Station Rim 285.0 High Water Alarm 271.0 Lag Pump On 270.5 Lead Pump On 270.0 Pumps Off 266 Low Water Alarm 265.5 Lift Station Bottom 263.5 Force Main Centerline at Discharge Manhole 339.67 Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 4-8 1r1201911997006.00 mason_city_belfar_wrfpredesgn_rpt1997006.00_draft_report_200131,docx jKennedy Jenks Section 5: Other Design Considerations The following section discusses other key design considerations that will impact the detailed design for the proposed improvements. The study identified several relevant facts concerning the proposed improvements. These findings are summarized below. 5.1 Environmental A preliminary wetland and waterway reconnaissance of the proposed project site was conducted in December 2019 by Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI)to determine the approximate locations of existing wetlands and waterways and their buffers, which may be regulated by local, state, and/or federal agencies. During the reconnaissance, four potential wetlands (A, B, C, and D)were identified within the study area of the project. No waterways were identified during the reconnaissance and the actual boundaries of the potential wetlands are subject to a field delineation. The complete report, to include figures, can be found in Appendix D. Wetland A Wetland A is roughly estimated to be 1,050 square feet and located in a ditch north of the intersection of Log Yard Road and SR-3. Surface stormwater runoff from SR-3 and the surrounding upland areas is the main source of the wetland's hydrology. Wetland B Wetland B is roughly estimated to be 1,000 square feet and is located on the proposed gravity sewer alignment on the eastern side of the study area along the proposed alignment of the line from the proposed Freight Corridor Lift Station, west of the Freight Corridor. Precipitation is the main source of the wetland's hydrology. Wetland C Wetland C is roughly estimated to be 500 square feet and is located east of Wetland B. Precipitation and high groundwater table are the main sources of the wetland's hydrology. Wetland D Wetland D is roughly estimated to be 12,000 square feet and located on the eastern side of the study area within the COB. Precipitation and high groundwater table are the main sources of the wetland's hydrology. All four of the proposed wetlands have been provisionally rated as Category Ill wetlands, which have a moderate level of functions and required a moderate level of protection. During the design phase, field delineations of the wetlands may result in minor route changes to avoid impacting the wetlands, or mitigation may be required if impacts to a wetland cannot reasonably be avoided. 5.2 Permitting Permitting studies identified several major permits that will be required for the project. The permit requirements are summarized in Appendix E. Local permitting will generate some of the feeder documents for the state permitting process, including State Environment Policy Act Draft Mason County Be/fair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 5-1 w:1201911997006.00_mason_city_belfair_w predesign_rp01997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks (SEPA). Additional permits may include construction permits with the County, WSDOT, Navy, and COB. Permits with transportation agencies are anticipated to be a significant effort for the project. The specific agencies involved are WSDOT and the Navy. WSDOT has explicit manuals that address utility crossings of their ROWs [DOT Form 224-696 GP dated 06/2019, WSDOT Utilities Manual M22-87.07 dated November 2014, and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) Utility Accommodation Policy dated 18 May 2011]. BNSF lists a typical agreement processing time of 30 to 60 days. WSDOT makes no firm schedule commitments in its documentation (dependent on project details) and indicates utilities will be back charged for all efforts by WSDOT relating to the project. Both BNSF and WSDOT require utilities to be bonded for construction work in their ROWs. Existing easements between the utility and agency do not provide for any grandfathering of rights and new franchises/easements will need to be developed. 5.3 Geotechnical A preliminary geotechnical site reconnaissance of the proposed project site was conducted in December 2019 by LAI. The project corridor comprises predominantly undeveloped forestland east of SR-3. Based on LAI's review of geologic conditions at the site, the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The Draft Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Technical Memorandum is provided in Appendix F. 5.3.1 Surface and Anticipated Soil Conditions Topography along the proposed sewer extension is generally flat to gently or moderately sloped. Anticipated soil conditions are anticipated to include glacial ice-contact, glacial till, advance outwash, recessional outwash, and peat. Based on these soil characteristics, it will be assumed that glacial soils at the lift station site contain oversized boulders and cobble material. 5.3.2 Groundwater Groundwater occurrence will vary significantly throughout the site. Where the project corridor crosses soils mapped as glacial till and glacial ice-contact, perched groundwater layers are likely to be encountered. In these soil units, a true groundwater table is not anticipated within 30 feet of ground surface (Ecology; accessed 14 January 2020). Where the project corridor crosses recessional outwash or advance outwash soils, more substantial groundwater conditions may be encountered. Additionally, the potential wetlands are interpreted as closed depressions with the capacity to hold groundwater. In these areas, groundwater may be encountered near surface. 5.3.3 Reuse of Soils The areas of exposed soil observed during the site reconnaissance, the majority of site soil is estimated to consist of sand or gravel with a fines content between 5 and 20%. Provided it can be properly moisture conditioned prior to placement, the majority of site soil is anticipated to be Draft Mason County Be/fair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 5-2 w:1201911997006.00_m anon_city_belfair_wrPpredesign_rpt11997006.00_dratt_report_200131.docx K Kennedy Jenks feasible for reuse. Soil should be screened for constituents greater than 6 inches in diameter. Import of pipe bedding material will likely be required. 5.4 Constructability Constructability was a key consideration in the evaluation of alignments. It influences cost, permitting, schedule, and disruption to the County. Kennedy Jenks consulted internal and external resources in order to provide the best information possible for this study. Most of the piping construction involves conventional open cut trenching and burying of PVC and HDPE piping. Trench depth was assumed to be nominally 5 feet deep. Areas of paved streets, where trenching would occur, would be considered for repaving and other repairs to return the road to a functional condition. The risks and technical challenges of conventional, trenched pipe are well known, and little project risk or challenge was attributed to this. For this project 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch SDR 35 PVC were selected as the piping material. Key constructability challenges centered around crossing of transportation corridors, railroads, and wetlands. As mentioned above in Section 2.4, these improvements feature crossing underneath SR-3 and Navy railroad. A permit for the Navy railroad crossing will require a trenchless tunneling method in lieu of open-cut surface construction. However, the crossings underneath SR-3 are slated to be incorporated with an existing Mason Transit Authority(MTA) project involving construction of a roundabout. It is anticipated that MTA will install those crossings as open cut; however, a casing will still be required within the extents of the WDOT Right-of-Way. For the railroad crossing, this particular portion is expected to be a gravity line. The use of a casing and a separate carrier pipeline may not be required, but may improve constructability, and therefore, may be included in the design. 5.5 Disruption to Belfair The primary factor evaluated in considering the disruption to Belfair was the linear feet of trenching in paved areas, as well as which roads were impacted. Streets with private residences or small commercial operations were deemed to be less impactful to the overall community than primary thoroughfares. Most of the trenching will occur on unpaved roadways or similar open areas. The alignment of the gravity connection to the existing collection system is near Belfair Water District#1 assets that include water lines, water tanks, and wells on Romance Hill. Consideration will be given to the final alignment to avoid any unnecessary disruptions to the water system. Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 5-3 w1201911997006.00_mason_city_belfair_MPpredesgn_rpt11997006.00_draft repart_200131.docx Kennedy Jenks 5.6 Schedule Kennedy Jenks identified a likely minimum Phase 1 project duration of 3 years for the project with design authorized in 2020, permits being prepared and submitted in 2020, easements being identified and acquired in late 2020 or early 2021, bidding in 2021, and construction beginning in 2021 and completed in 2023. This included design, funding, permitting, and construction. See Appendix G. The construction duration was derived from the total linear feet of trenching divided by a typical productivity factor of 50 linear feet of installed pipe per day. Construction of the UGA Lift Station is assumed to run concurrent with the construction of the gravity sewers and force mains. Permitting is shown as a two-phase endeavor. First, the County will need to develop and approve a SEPA permit, and an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). These activities will then cascade into state review periods that gage issuance of final permits needed for the project. Durations for studies range from 60 to 90 days in this draft schedule. Actual durations of the studies will need to be confirmed and managed during the project to maintain the overall schedule. Initial design will likely be necessary to illustrate the project in sufficient detail to facilitate early permitting discussions. Two of the permits necessary in advance will be access to WSDOT and railroad lands for surveying and geotechnical investigations. Once the access permits and subsequent site investigations are complete, detail design can be completed. These studies may also inform the project of risk items, such as residual contamination from previous land use activities. Lastly, assumed durations for construction bidding and mobilization (10 weeks) are included which may be aggressive depending on the availability of contractors when the project is executed. A draft schedule was assembled to illustrate the overall project timeline and sequencing. In several areas, the exact duration of key activities is not firmly known at this time. For these situations, a baseline duration was estimated and included. Additional factors that may impact schedule, such as weather breaks, extended funding applications, and permit delays were not included but would have significant impacts on the total project duration. 5.7 Easements Kennedy Jenks considered possible easement acquisitions for the UGA Lift Station site and the proposed alignment for the gravity and force mains. To that end, Geographic Information Services (GIS) data were reviewed to determine the land holders for the proposed improvements. In addition to the private landowners, one WSDOT and one railroad easement were identified. Details of railroad and WSDOT easements/franchises were reviewed in the relevant publications of the agencies. Key items examined were procedures of franchise acquisition, available cost or schedule data, as well as technical requirements. Draft Mason County Be/fair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 5-4 w:'201911997006.00 mason_city_belfair_wrf1predesign rpt11997006.00_drafl_report_200131.docx Kennedy Jenks 5.8 Cultural Resources The Governor's executive order requires a cultural resource study(CRS) be performed in addition to preparing an area of potential effect document. These studies would document the boundaries of the work area and form the basis for discussions with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), as well as relevant tribes. The CRS will also include an inadvertent discovery plan for what actions to take should an artifact be discovered. DAHP, upon approval, will issue a concurrence letter. A specialist from Lithic Analysts performed an assessment for the project area in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA) of 1966, as amended. A summary of the Archival Research Study is provided in Appendix H. A Section 106 review involves a determination whether the proposed activity will adversely affect any cultural resources located within the proposed project area. Part of this assessment involves identifying archaeological and historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects over 50 years of age to determine whether they are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The assessment indicates that archaeological sites are not currently recorded within the project area. Four historic era archaeological sites are recorded within 1 mile of the project area. Historic structures eligible for the NRHP are also not recorded within the project area. However, two railroad bridges over 50 years of age located within the project area have been inventoried but are not recommended NRHP eligible. In conclusion, the proposed improvements are determined to not adversely affect any cultural resources with the proposed project area. Draft Mason County Belfair/PSIC Sewer Extension Pre-Design Report Page 5-5 wi02019\1997006.00_mason_ciry_betlair_wiflpredesgn_rytl 1997006.00_draft_report_200131.docx Appendix A Initial Hydraulic Analysis Results MASON COUNTY UGA LIFT STATION CALCULATIONS FOR 8-INCH FORCE MAIN Wetwell Volume V=t'Q/4 Cycle Time 10 min 6 starts per hour Flow 700 gpm Volume 1750 Gal 233.94 ft^3 PS Diam. 108 in 9ft PS Area 63.6 ft^2 Provided volume 1903 Gal Conditions Old Flow 700.00 gpm Hazen-Williams Coefficient(C) Defined Below #Pumps in Operation 1.00 Lift Station Rim 285.00 ft elevation Estimated Wetwell Depth 4.00 Based on 6 starts per hour Wetwell Bottom 263.50 ft elevation Estimated Low Alarm 265.50 ft elevation 6"below LWL Wet Well Low Water Level(LWL) 266.00 ft elevation 2.5'above wetwell bottom Wet Well High Water Level(HWL) 270.00 ft elevation LWL+Wetwell Depth High Alarm 270.50 ft elevation 6"above HWL Pump Elevation 264.00 ft elevation 6"above wetwell bottom Discharge EL 339.67 ft elevation 4'below grade Rim to Bottom Clearance 21.50 Lift station internal dimension Quantity/Section Length Pipe Diameter/ Frictional Head Minor Head Station Identification (ft) Section Material Valve Size Velocity (fps) C/K Loss (ft.) Losses(ft.) Entrance 1 4.0 17.87 0.50 2.48 _ E Suction Friction Losses(h%) 2.48 Water Column Height at Barometric Pressure(He.) 33.58 i ft Static Head of Water Level Above Impeller(he)LH1M VVL 2.0000 0000 ft Water Column Height at Vapor Pressure,100°F(H„„) 2.20 ft Partial Pressure of Dissolved Volitile Organic Matter,(h„a) 1.00 ft Safety Factor(FS) 5.00 ft Net Positive Suction Head Available,NPSHa LH1NL 24.90 ft Net Positive Suction Head Required,NPSHr 17.50 ft Net Positive Suction Head 7.40 ft 90°Elbow 1 Ductile/cast Iron 4.00 17.87 0.25 1.24 Reducer/Increaser 1 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 0.23 0.07 Pipe Inside Structure 17.0 Ductile 8.00 4.47 120 0.19 90°Elbow 1 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 0.25 0.08 LS to Valve Vault 9 Ductile 8.00 4.47 120.00 0.09 Check Valve 1.0 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 1 0.43 Plug valve 1 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 1.00 0.31 90°Elbow 1.0 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 0 0.08 Cross,Branch Flow 1 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 0.75 0.23 Plug valve 1.0 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 1 0.31 Reducer/Increaser 0 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 0.00 0.00 Valve Vault to HDPE Transition 15 Ductile 8.00 4.47 120 0.16 90°Elbow 1 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 0.25 0.08 Forcemain 40 HDPE 8.00 4.47 130 0.38 45°Bend 2.0 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 0.20 0.12 Forcemain 1330 HDPE 8.00 4.47 130 12.56 45°Bend 2.0 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 0.20 0.12 Forcemain 1005 HDPE 8.00 4.47 130 9.49 45°Bend 1.0 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 0.20 0.06 Forcemain 150 HDPE 8.00 4.47 130 1.42 45°Bend 1.0 Ductile/cast Iron 8.00 4.47 0.20 0.06 Forcemain 385 HDPE 8.00 4.47 130 3.63 Exit Loss 1 8.0 4.47 0.50 0.15 E Discharge Friction Losses(he) 31.27 69.67 ft Total Static Head,(Hstat)LHWL 73.67 ft Safety Factor!5% 5.37 Total Dynamic Head,TDH HWL 108.79 ft 1LWL 112.79 ft Estimated Pump Hp WHP=gpm'TDH(IC)/3960 BHP=WHP/eff WHP 19.9 hp eff 60% BHP 33.2 hp Appendix B Opinion of Probable Costs OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Client: Mason County Project: Belfair Sewer Extension Location: Mason County,Washington Estimate Type: Conceptual Alternative 4 Phase 1 Improvements Lift Stations Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Freight Corridor Lift Station(700 gpm) $ 1,460,000 UGA Lift Station(700 gpm) $ 1,422,312 Conveyance Freight Corridor Force Main 1 $ 247,746 $ 516,250 Linear Feet of Force Main 212 1,483 Cost/Linear Foot $ 146 $ 305 Freight Corridor Force Main 2 $ 1,950,000 Linear Feet of Force Main 6645 CosULinear Foot $ 293 Freight Corridor Gravity Sewer $ 593,085 Linear Feet of Gravity Sewer 1,510 Cost/Linear Foot $ 393 UGA Force Main $ 954,980 Linear Feet of Force Main 2,897 Cost/Linear Foot $ 330 UGA Gravity Sewer $ 3,015,302 Linear Feet of Gravity Sewer 3,100 Cost/Linear Foot $ 973 SUBTOTAL $ 6,233,427 $ 1,976,250 $ 1,950,000 Soft Costs(Engineering,permitting,CM,Admin,Legal)@ 30% $ 1,870,028 $ 592,875 $ 585,000 SUBTOTAL $ 8,103,455 $ 2,569,125 $ 2,535,000 TOTAL(ALL 3 PHASES) $ 13,207,580 Notes: 1.Costs include state and local taxes,contractor overhead and profit,a 30%estimating contingency,and escalation to the midpoint of construction. 2.Costs shown are commensurate with an RACE Class 5 estimate with an expected accuracy range of+50%to-30%. 3.Costs assume improvements are constructed prior to proposed SR3 realignment and that WSDOT would pay for right-of-way crossing improvements. OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS Project: Belfair Sewer Extension-Phase 1 Prepared By: ACP/NTW Date Prepared: 28-Jan-20 Building,Area: K/J Proj.No.: 1997006 Months to Midpoint of Construct Estimate Type: Conceptual SUMMARY BY AREA ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION MATERIALS INSTALLATION EQUIPMENT SUB-CONTRACTOR TOTAL 1 Freight Corridor Force Main 57,655.20 45,807.61 26,968.23 1,050.00 131,481.05 2 Freight Corridor Gravity Main 85,219.92 196,828.71 31,051.45 6,308.40 319,408.47 3 UGA Lift Station 440,879.77 103,931.11 11,501.67 197,506.26 753,818.82 4 UGA Lift Station Force Main 209,287.89 246,516.67 37,510.49_ 15,082.20 508,397.26 5 UGA Lift Station Gravity Main 464,061.60 1,062,758.84 59,084.71 35,532.00 1,621,437.15 Subtotals 1,257,104.39 1,655,842.94 166,116.55 255,478.86 3,334,542.75 Division 1 Costs @ 10% 125,710.44 165,584.29 16,611.66 25,547.89 333,454.27 Subtotals 1,382,814.83 1,821,427.23 182,728.21 281,026.75 3,667,997.02 Taxes-Materials @ 8.50% 117,539.26 117,539.26 Subtotals 1,500,354.09 1,821,427.23 182,728.21_ 281,026.75 3,785,536.28 Taxes-Labor @ 0.00 0.00 -Subtotals 1,500,354.09 1,821,427.23 182,728.21 281,026.75 3,785,536.28 Contractor MU for Sub @ 10% _ 28,102.67 28,102.67 Subtotals 1,500,354.09 1,821,427.23 182,728.21 309,129.42 3,813,638.96 Contractor OH&P @ 15% 225,053.11 273,214.09 27,409.23 525,676.43 Subtotals 1,725,407.20 2,094,641.32 210,137.44 309,129.42 4,339,315.39 Estimate Contingency @ 30% _ 1,301,794.62 Subtotal - 5,641,110.00 Escalate to Midpt of Const. @ 3.5% _ 592,316.55 Subtotal _ 6,233,426.55 Soft Costs(Engineering,permitting, 30 CM,Admin,Legal) _ 1,870,027.97 8,103,454.52 Estimate Accuracy +50% I -30% Estimated Range of Probable Cost +50% Total Est. -30% $12,155,182 $8,103,455 $5,672,418 Appendix C Proposed Alignment Plan Drawings 4*/\• \IGURE 2 \' pp.' '}, PAY% Y ,\ \.. N /' f Vie. „. ,„,,.„,.. , .. . .. ..,,,, 4_j « ., 1X ,-.. FIGURE % , � (f 4A FIs.URE3 ^ .J � �', IGURE ♦ 4B �` FIGURE 58 FIGURE SA /7 FIGURE ♦ 6A ♦ FIGURE >► 6B • FIGURE >► FIGURE 7 ,/11' • 11// Al Kennedy/Jenks Consultants NOTESi. MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHELTON,WASHINGTON 1. ALTERNATIVE 4B 000800 19970006'00 JANUARY 2020 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 1 HAVE /— O UGS LS PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT STEEL CASING OVER WATERMEGAL GAINT RESTRAINED JOINTS RIM=285' 8"SS FORCE MAIN 12"WATER MAIN 350 PSI FIELD LOCK GASKETS 8"SS FM CLOUTOUT=280.67, COVER=4'MIN. 12"WATER MAIN COVER=5'MIN. 10"SS IE IN=275' COVER=3.5'MIN. OPEN CUT TRENCH 8"SS FORCE MAIN LWL=266' ` 4'COVER,MIN. PUMP EL=264' . \ l FIRE HYDRANT TEE UGS LS VAI VI=VAULT �� !\ = CAP P S SE END L 247[S`,".- -"CI I -fir _—. z . \— LOGYARD ROAD / _ SSMH RIM=UNK / � \ CONNECT TO —/// IE IN=UNK SSMH i EXISTING 12" IE OUT=UNK SSMH RIM=324.3' STEEL CASING OVER WATER MAIN 8"SS FORCE MAIN RIM=UNK IE IN=301.77' OPEN CUT TRENCH SSMH SSMH IE IN=UNK IE OUT=301.71' RIM=330.7' SSMH RIM=UNK IE OUT=UNK IEIN=30817' IE IN=UNK I IE OUT=308.11' RIM=334.18 3 IE OUT=UNK IEIN=311.65 SSMH IE OUT=311.59 12"SS GRAVITY MAIN t \ RIM= I SLOPE=0.5%MIN. 1 1 IE IN= IE OUT= Pr f PROPOSED MASON COUNTY —___, TRANSIT AUTHORITY PARK �� / ( �� / M AND RIDE } 8"SS FORCE F 3 R / Q I i MAIN � SSMH COVER=4' RIM=UNK MIN \1 i IEIN=313.21 f T - i ___, _ _ __-- ( ` IE OUT=313.15 'III , I--c------) ') , LU s 10"SS GRAVITY MAIN 1. 1 I� U) SLOPE=0.5% MATCH LINE E,-s Kennedy/Jenks Consultants NOTES: t\L,, MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHELTON,WASHINGTON 1. ALTERNATIVE 4B I 19970006.00 5o too JANUARY 2020 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 2 FREIGHT CORRIDOR SSMH 2 SS GRAVITY MAIN ti %% APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT RIM= SI OPh s 0.5Y.MIN / IEIN= IE OUT= I 'Ixs, p t , \9 , j 6"SS FORCE MAIN / t'IC1� COVER=4'MIN. i 2 12"SS GRAVITY MAIN \ LOGYARD ROAD SLOPE 3r SSMH ,D00 RIM= —__ \ IE IN= __ '. IE OUT= ��J SSMH --„, RIM= �_ IEIN= -...� - -- \. IE OUT= SSMH RIM= IE IN= FORCE MAIN STUB Al 50' IE OUT= BEYOND FREIGH SSMH CORRIDOR RIGHT OF WAY / RIM= IEIN= •PROPOSED MASON COUNTY E OUT= SSMH Ss tH TRANSIT AUTHORITY PARK RIM= 4 AND RIDE IE IN= 'V IL IN = N= IE OUT= IL OUT= 8 \ 8 / l 4 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants NOTES: l MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT S 1 SHELTON,WASHINGTON ALTERNATIVE 4B i. w oo 19970006'00 JANUARY 2020 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3 MATCH LINE B-B O MATCH LINE C-C I -� 12"SS GRAVITY MAIN COVER=4'MIN. SLOPE=0.8% 7 WATER MAIN SLOPE=3.25% SEPARATION=11.5' / SSMH — ,. RIM=345.14 IE IN=33232.78 t IE OUT=332.72 / .sfik\„ `4Y. SSMH _ SSMH RIM= 7 SSMH RIM=346.88 E IN= RIM=323.77 �� IE IN=333.84 12"SS GRAVITY MAIN E OUT= •��---_y-,_ IE IN=316.83 IE OUT=333.78 COVER=4'MIN. IE OUT=316.73 8"SS FORCE MAIN SSMH COVER=4'MIN. RIM= 8"SS FORCE MAIN IE IN= COVER=4'MIN. E OUT= SSMH DISCHARGE STRUCTURE RIM=344.03 / Y SSMH IE=334.47 / RIM=327.92 • IE IN=322.06 IE OUT=322.00 WATER MAIN 10''SS GRAVITY MAIN SSMH SLOPE=0.8% SLOPE=325`/, RIM=344.03 IEIN=334.53 SEPARATION=12' IE OUT=334.47 • MATCH LINE C-C MATCH LINE D-D e , - III FIGURE 4A FIGURE 4B 7 & Kennedy/Jenks Consultants NOTES: MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 SHELTON,WASHINGTON I ALTERNATIVE 4B 0 50 100 19970006'00 JANUARY 2020 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 4 MATCH LINE D-D I W/ w /-------.........---d.' v 12"SS GRAVITYSLOPE=MAIN08% in COVER=4'MIN. ti k I �_ 12"SS GRAVITY MAIN I I ` COVER=4'MIN. SLOPE=2.1 I SSMII I I I I RIM= I - I I IE IN= SSMH SSMH E OUT= RIM= RIM= IE IN= IE IN= IEOUT= IEOUT= r' I I Ta i SFAy°M,ti I Rgto o/1 , T SSMH RIM=340.49 -, IEIN=321.06 i'� '` IE OUT=321.00 ' 4 I EXISTING \—/ WATER WELL Is MATCH LINE F-F g FIGURE 5A FIGURE 5B i s Kennedy/Jenks Consultants NOTES: # MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHELTON,WASHINGTON ; 1. ALTERNATIVE 4B x o 19970006'00 JANUARY 2020 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 5 MATCH LINE LL MATCH LINE G-G I 011 ' 12"SS GRAVITY MAIN COVER=4'MIN SLOPE=2.1"%1 . SSMH SSMH RIM= SSMH RIM= IF IN= RIM= IE IN= IE OUT= II UU I = If IN= If uU1 = 12"SS GRAVITY MAIN COVER=4'MIN. SSMH SLOPE=1 5% `._C? .: RIM=—310 IE IN=300.00 HSL11 I IE OUT=299.94 IE IN= 12"SS GRAVITY MAIN IF QuT= COVER=4'f.ilk SSMH RIM= If IN= IE OUI= 3 F \ 1 MATCH LINE H H MATCH LINE G-G \ \ FIGURE 6A FIGURE 6B Kennedy/Jenks Consultants NI J I i s # MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 SHELTON,WASHINGTON F ALTERNATIVE 4B i 19970006.00 JANUARY 2020 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 6 \ \ MATCH LINL G 1; MATCH I INF G G SSMH KIM= L IN= / ` IE OUT= SSMH RIM= 12"SS GRAVITY MAIN IE IN= A� COVER=4'MIN. IF OUT= , SSMH RIM= E IN= 111 IE OUT= -` !. \ 12"SS GRAVITY MAIN //// COVER=4'MIN. - SSMH RIM= —.��J \ IE IN= f IE OUT \ SSMH 7 „ RIM= � _--- IEIN= SSMH IE OUT= RIM= i \ _. II IN= _ CAP FOR TIE-IN TO FUTURE WORK L. lir: S 1 ' MATCH LINE H-H X , FIGURE 7A FIGURE 7B i 8 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 9 NOTES: ' MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT g 1 SHELTON,WASHINGTON F ALTERNATIVE 4B i 19970006.00 JANUARY 2020 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 7 Appendix D Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation Technical Memorandum TO: Michael Lubovich, Kennedy-Jenks FROM: Bruce Stirling and Heather Rogers DATE: January 16, 2020 RE: Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation Phase I Belfair Wastewater Reclamation Facility Sewer Line Extension Mason County, Washington Project No. 0133025.010.011 Introduction Mason County Public Works (County) is working in coordination with the City of Bremerton (City) on construction of a sewer collection system (project)that would expand the wastewater collection system between the Puget Sound Industrial Center(PSIC), unserved areas within the Belfair Urban Growth Area (UGA), and the Belfair Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) (Figure 1; Vicinity Map). The County has chosen to move forward with wastewater system improvements that generally include construction of one new wastewater pump station,4,000 linear feet (LF) of sewer force main, and 4,500 LF of sewer gravity main. A second (future) pump station will be constructed within the PSIC as growth within the campus develops. The proposed improvements will provide service to the southern area of the PSIC(adjacent to the proposed State Route 3 Bypass) and northeastern area of the UGA.The proposed Freight Corridor and UGA pump stations will direct new flow to an existing gravity main running to Pump Station#1. Service to the main PSIC campus and direct connections to the Belfair WRF are not included during this phase of the project. Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI), under contract to Kennedy-Jenks Consultants (KJ) and the County, conducted a preliminary wetland and waterway reconnaissance of the proposed project site on December 18 and 19, 2019 to determine the approximate locations of wetlands and waterways and their buffers, which may be regulated by local, state, and/or federal agencies (Figure 2; Site Features Map). LAI understands that the preliminary results of the wetland/waterway investigation will be used to assess the feasibility of designing, permitting, and constructing the proposed project. This technical memorandum reports the presence of wetlands and waterways and their buffers associated with the proposed project, and also documents the methods and results of the reconnaissance (identification and characterization) and wetland/waterway characterization in accordance with local, state, and federal guidelines (see below). This technical memorandum was prepared to assist the County with a planning-level evaluation of the proposed project and is not intended to support project environmental permitting or compliance. IA LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2107 South C Street • Tacoma,Washington 98402 • (253)926-2493 Landau Associates Site Description The study area is approximately 157 acres, including 300 feet on either side of the proposed sewer force main and gravity sewer alignments, and is located within the Kitsap watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area 15) in Sections 21, 22, and 28 of Township 23 North, Range 1 West. The study area crosses both Mason and Kitsap Counties, as well as the City of Bremerton (Figure 2). Methodology LAI conducted this wetland and waterway investigation in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (2010), which has been adopted by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-22-035. The investigation of waterways was based on the methodology provided by Ecology's Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Olson and Stockdale 2010). The USACE and Ecology recommend preliminary data gathering and synthesis of available background information,followed by a field investigation. Site features, including approximated wetland boundaries, were recorded in the field using aerial imagery and handheld GPS. Data collected with the GPS were used to create subsequent figures in the technical memorandum. Background Information Review LAI reviewed the following public domain resources to determine existing conditions and to identify potential wetlands and waterways within the study area (300 feet beyond the proposed alignment as shown in Attachment 1 and discussed below: • US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map (Figure 1-1) • US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) map (Figure 1-2) • US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (Figure 1-3) • Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain map (Figure 1-4) • Washington Department of Fish &Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape website (WDFW 2019a) • WDFW Priority Habitat and Species (PHS; WDFW 2019b) • National Hydric Soils List (USDA NRCS 2019a). Wetland Identification and Classification LAI conducted a field reconnaissance to characterize wetlands within the study area to determine preliminary wetland classification and applicable standard buffers. The USACE outlines a three- Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation 0133025.010.011 Phase I Belfair WRF Sewer Line Extension 2 January 16,2020 Landau Associates parameter approach to determine the presence or absence of wetlands,which requires evaluating vegetation, soil, and hydrology. A determination was made based on the presence of on-site vegetation and indicators of hydric soil and hydrology (such as sparsely vegetated concave surfaces and algal mats), as well as background information. Any wetlands identified as part of this proposed project were classified according to the USFWS Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the USACE's hydrogeomorphic(HGM) classification system (Brinson 1993). Preliminary ratings were completed in accordance with the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2014), which is accepted practice by both the County and the City. This system categorizes wetlands based on their existing functions including water quality, hydrology, and habitat as well as on the wetland's rarity, sensitivity to disturbance, or irreplaceability. Wetlands are classified into four categories: 1. Category I wetlands are those that 1) represent a rare wetland type, 2) are highly sensitive to disturbance, 3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime, and 4) provide a very high level of functions or are designated as high-value wetlands of local significance. 2. Category II wetlands are those that 1) are sensitive to disturbance, 2) are difficult to replicate, and 3) provide a moderately high level of functions or are designated as wetlands of local significance. These wetlands are difficult,though not impossible, to replace and provide high levels of some functions.These wetlands occur more commonly than Category I wetlands, but still require a high level of protection. 3. Category III wetlands are those with a moderate level of functions. These wetlands generally have been altered in some way or are smaller, less diverse, and/or more isolated in the landscape than Category II wetlands. For the purpose of this chapter, all "small lakes" shall be considered Category III wetlands. 4. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions and often have been heavily altered. These are wetlands that may be possible to replace and, in some cases, improve. These wetlands provide important functions and,to some degree, should be protected. Wetland buffers were determined based on category and habitat score according to Section 8.52.110 of the Mason County Code (MCC) and Section 20.14.300 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC). Habitat scores were calculated with the rating system (Hruby 2014) provided by Ecology to determine applicable buffer widths in accordance with the MCC and BMC for low impact use of a utility corridor for the proposed sewer line. Waterway Identification and Classification LAI conducted a waterway reconnaissance to characterize the ordinary high water mark(OHWM) line of streams and other waterways within the study area to determine classification. No waterways were identified during the site reconnaissance on December 18 and 19, 2019. Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation 0133025.010.011 Phase I Belfair WRF Sewer Line Extension 3 January 16,2020 Landau Associates Background Information Review Results The background information review revealed the following information related to wetlands, waterways, and soils within the study area (Attachment 1). Wetlands The PHS, USGS topographic, County critical areas, and NWI maps do not identify any wetlands in the study area (Figures 1-land 1-2). Waterways The NWI map identifies two waterways crossing the proposed alignment in three locations. No evidence of these waterways was found during the reconnaissance at the mapped locations. The Floodplain Map (Figure 1-4) does not identify 100-Year floodplain within the study area. Soils Soil information can be helpful when determining the likelihood of the presence or absence of wetlands. Hydric soil is one indicator necessary to classify an area as wetland. The Soils Map (Figure 1-3) identifies eleven soil series within the study area: • Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes (Ab)—This Alderwood soil is listed as hydric on the National Hydric Soils List (USDA, NRCS 2019a) • Everett gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (Ed)—This soil is not identified on the National Hydric Soil List (USDA, NRCS 2019a) • Everett gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes (Ee)—This soil is not identified on the National Hydric Soil List (USDA, NRCS 2019a) • Gravel pit (Ga)—This soil is not identified on the National Hydric Soil List (USDA, NRCS 2019a) • Everett gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes (Ef)—This soil is not identified on the National Hydric Soil List (USDA, NRCS 2019a) • Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (Ac)—This Alderwood soil is listed as hydric on the National Hydric Soils List (USDA, NRCS 2019a) • Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes (Eh)—This soil is not identified on the National Hydric Soil List (USDA, NRCS 2019a) • Indianola loamy sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes (Lb)—This Indianola soil is listed as hydric on the National Hydric Soils List (USDA, NRCS 2019a) • Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,0 to 8 percent slopes (1)—This Alderwood soil is listed as hydric on the National Hydric Soils List (USDA, NRCS 2019a) • Neilton gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes (34)—This soil is not identified on the National Hydric Soil List (USDA, NRCS 2019a) Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation 0133025.010.011 Phase I Belfair WRF Sewer Line Extension 4 January 16,2020 Landau Associates • Neilton gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes (36)—This soil is not identified on the National Hydric Soil List (USDA, NRCS 2019a). Field Investigation LAI scientists, Heather Rogers and Eve Henrichsen, conducted a site reconnaissance on December 18 and 19, 2019. The weather during the reconnaissance was cloudy and between 40 and 55 degrees Fahrenheit. Four potential wetlands (A, B, C, and D) were identified within the study area of the project during the reconnaissance, as shown on Figure 2. No waterways were identified during the reconnaissance. The actual boundaries of the potential wetlands identified are subject to a field delineation. Ratings are preliminary until verified through a delineation. Wetland A Wetland A is roughly estimated to be 1050 square feet (sf; 0.02 acres) and located in a ditch north of the intersection of Log Yard Road and Highway 3 (Figure 2). Wetland A is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, such as tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), redtop(Agrostis gigantea), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The soil in Wetland A is characterized as loamy mucky mineral (F1), which satisfies the hydric soils parameter. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology observed include Saturation (A3) and Surface Soil Cracks (B6). Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed were Drainage Patterns (B10) and Geomorphic Position (D2). Surface stormwater runoff from Highway 3 and the surrounding upland areas is the main source of Wetland A's hydrology. Wetland A appears to be isolated and has no outlet. Stormwater discharges are channeled into the east end of the wetland through a culvert. All three mandatory wetland criteria are satisfied for Wetland A, and LAI classified it as Palustrine (P) emergent (EM)/depressional (HGM)wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979). LAI rated Wetland A as a Category III wetland, with a total score of 17. Wetland A scored highest for hydrologic function with a score of 7; water quality functions and habitat scored 6 and 4 points, respectively. In accordance with MCC Section 8.52.110, buffers for Category III wetlands associated with habitat scores of 4 are prescribed a 40-foot (ft) buffer. Wetland B Wetland B is roughly estimated to be 1000 sf(0.02 acres), and is located on the proposed gravity sewer alignment on the east side of the study area (Figure 2). Wetland B is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, such as soft rush (Juncus effusus), and spirea (Spiraea douglasii). Wetland B appears to be forming in a depression left after the clear-cutting of the forest.The soil in Wetland B does not meet the hydric soils parameter at present, however it may meet the criteria for Depleted Matrix (F3) in the future.The primary indicator of wetland hydrology observed was Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8); Algal Mats (B4) were also observed within the wetland. Precipitation is the main source of Wetland B's hydrology. Wetland B also appears to be isolated and has no outlet.Two of three Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation 0133025.010.011 Phase I Belfair WRF Sewer Line Extension 5 January 16,2020 Landau Associates mandatory wetland criteria are satisfied for Wetland B, and LAI classified it as a potential Palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS)/EM/depressional (HGM)wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979), if given enough time to develop hydric soils. LAI rated Wetland B as a Category III wetland, with a total score of 17. Wetland B scored highest for water quality and habitat functions, both with a score of 6; hydrologic functions scored 5 points. In accordance with MCC 8.52.110, buffers for Category III wetlands associated with habitat scores of 6 are prescribed a 75-ft buffer. Wetland C Wetland C is roughly estimated to be 500 sf(0.01 acres), located on the proposed gravity sewer alignment to the east of potential Wetland B (Figure 2). Wetland C is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, such as slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and spirea (Spiraea douglasii). The soil in Wetland C is greasy to the touch and meets the hydric soils parameter for Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1). Primary indicators of wetland hydrology observed were Saturation (A3) and Algal Mats (B4). Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed were Drainage Patterns (B10) and Geomorphic Position (D2). Precipitation and high water table are the main sources of Wetland C's hydrology. Wetland C also appears to be isolated and has no outlet.The three mandatory wetland criteria are satisfied for Wetland C, and LAI classified it as PSS/EM/depressional (HGM)wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979). LAI rated Wetland C as a Category III wetland,with a total score of 18. Wetland C scored highest for habitat functions with a score of 7; water quality and hydrologic functions scored 6 and 5 points, respectively. In accordance with MCC 8.52.110, buffers for Category III wetlands associated with habitat scores of 7 are prescribed a 75-ft buffer. Wetland D Wetland D is roughly estimated to be 12,000 square feet (0.29 acres) and located on the east side of the study area within the City of Bremerton (Figure 2). Wetland D is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, such as slough sedge (Carex obnupta), willow species (Salix spp.),spirea (Spiraea douglasii), western red cedar(Thuja plicata), and common speedwell (Veronica officinalis).The soil in Wetland D is characterized as loamy mucky mineral (F1), which satisfies the hydric soils parameter. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology observed include Saturation (A3) and Surface Soil Cracks (B6). Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed were Drainage Patterns (B10) and Geomorphic Position (D2). Precipitation and high water table are the main sources of Wetland D's hydrology. Wetland D also appears to be isolated and has no outlet. All three mandatory wetland criteria are satisfied for Wetland D, and LAI classified it as Palustrine Forested (PF0)/SS/EM/depressional (HGM) wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979). LAI rated Wetland D as a Category III wetland, with a total score of 18. Wetland D scored highest for habitat functions,with a score of 7; water quality and hydrologic functions scored 6 and 5 points, Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation 0133025.010.011 Phase I Belfair WRF Sewer Line Extension 6 January 16,2020 Landau Associates respectively. In accordance with BMC 20.14.300, buffers for Category III wetlands associated with habitat scores of 7 are prescribed a 220-ft buffer. Regulatory Considerations Wetlands and certain waterways are regulated by federal, state, and local governmental agencies, and compliance with one agency does not necessarily fulfill the permitting requirements of the other agencies. Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires authorization by USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. Ecology requires compliance with the State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington [RCW]), and Ecology has administrative oversight of Section 401 of the CWA for state water quality certification in the case of impacts to USACE jurisdictional "waters of the U.S." Any work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or flow of state waters, including streams and rivers, must do so under the terms of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), issued by WDFW.The WDFW HPA is administered under RCW Chapter 77.55 and rules set forth in WAC 173-220-110. MCC Chapter 8.52 and BMC Chapter 20.14 have requirements for establishing wetland and stream buffer widths and building setbacks as well as requirements for alterations including fill of wetlands, streams, and their buffers. This planning-level investigation does not take into consideration County-or City-specific land use regulations that may add or reduce restrictions on the proposed project including, but not limited to, important habitat and species critical areas or floodplains. All wetlands/waterways described in this technical memorandum are preliminary determinations subject to formal jurisdiction, delineation and verification by the USACE.The USACE determines the jurisdiction of a wetland based on its connection, more commonly referred to as "adjacency",to other "waters of the U.S." Those wetlands determined to be "isolated" do not fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE (USACE 2008). If delineated wetlands are determined to be adjacent rather than isolated, any filling or dredging of on-site wetlands would require compliance with CWA Sections 404 and 401. Only the USACE can determine if a wetland is adjacent or isolated. If the wetlands are found to be isolated,they may still be subject to regulation by Ecology under the State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW Chapter 90.48). Use of This Technical Memorandum The findings presented herein are based on our understanding of the MCC and BMC, Ecology OHWM determination guidance, and USACE wetland delineation methodology, along with our preliminary interpretation of the vegetative, soil, and hydrologic conditions observed during the site reconnaissance on December 18 and 19, 2019. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the findings presented in this technical memorandum were prepared in accordance with generally Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation 0133025.010.011 Phase I Belfair WRF Sewer Line Extension 7 January 16,2020 Landau Associates accepted sensitive area investigation principles and practices in this locality at the time the document was prepared. We make no other express or implied warranty. This technical memorandum was prepared for the use of KJ and Mason County in association with a planning-level feasibility study. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of LAI. Further,the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by LAI, shall be at the user's sole risk. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. eather Roge Staff Environmental Scientist a. c41--- Bruce Stirling, PWS Senior Associate Scientist HER/BAS/kjg (C:\USERS\BSTIR\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\INETCACHE\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\O1VEBN92\BELFAIR WETLAND WATERWAY RECONNAISSANCE TM.DOCX] References Brinson, M. 1993. Final Report:A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. East Carolina University. August. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Publication No. FWS/OBS-79-31. US Fish &Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior. December. Hruby,Thomas. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington:2014 Update. Publication No. 14-06-029. Washington State Department of Ecology. October. Olson, P., and E. Stockdale. 2010. Second Review Draft: Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State. Publication No. 08-06-001. Washington State Department of Ecology. March. USACE. 2008. Regulatory Guidance Letter. Publication No. No. 08-02. US Army Corps of Engineers. June 26. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-10-3. US Army Corps of Engineers. Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation 0133025.010.011 Phase I Belfair WRF Sewer Line Extension 8 January 16,2020 Landau Associates USDA NRCSa. 2019. National List of Hydric Soils. US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/soils/use/hydric/. Accessed December 29, 2019. USDA NRCSb. 2019. Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSDs). https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.aspx. Accessed December 29, 2019. WDFWa. 2019. SalmonScape. Washington Department of Fish &Wildlife. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/. Accessed December 29, 2019. WDFWb. 2019. Priority Habitats and Species(PHS) on the Web. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed December 29, 2019. Attachments: Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site Features Attachment 1: Background Documentation Figure 1-1:Topographic Map Figure 1-2: National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 1-3: Soils Map Figure 1-4: 100-Year Floodplane Map Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation 0133025.010.011 Phase I Belfair WRF Sewer Line Extension 9 January 16,2020 J • ) , Bremerton National 1 Airport r 'Study Area i i / i. / mmmmo d LL O t0 V N 0_ L 5 N c O ,r > / W N N PA Belfair CO / —r----\ co 0 a z 0 N t\0 1: . eel. 0 n g 7/ ..."------161" 0 w `a Project Q Location w �. Everett cc 0 0.5 1 WA � N 1 Seattle Spokane. o i tf Tacoma o imm o Miles Olympia Washington m m l / c Data Source:Esri 2012 6 Phase I Belfair WRF Figure IALANDAU Sewer Line Extension Vicinity Map 1 ASSOCIATES Mason County, Washington z " st11 Hult Rd A_ F Ao O �e`rc`e/ e.40 o^a9� N , Ni Newkirk Rd z ♦ ♦ ♦ Wetland A ♦ S. (40-ft&rffer) P i ;t• I g . ♦I ? .s ..-- ... _ t 4) . - City of Bremerton A © I ,' \♦ Wetland Ba ` (75-ft Buffer) Wetland C n /// .•. - (75-k Buffer) .. NE n,nee,i�oe D, ' Wetland C NE M<knight Rd 9 � (220-ft Buffer) ' t 1 N / I q c I z x e I c ' o V V O ' V v O N o I 2 / '' / 2 0 � ilia-,0 —' to-° _.__/ -' .----'' /. et'end NoteMIIIIIMMIM _.---- ,.. t,600 0 Proposed Gravity Sewer Q Wetlands 1.Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and Scale in Feet Proposed Sewer Force Main Wetland Buffers lead to incorrect interpretation. Data Sources:Esri World ry Imag a Washington DNR;Washington Dept.of Ecology;US Fish and Wildlife. -Stream with SMA Jurisdiction Q County Boundary Phase I Belfair WRF Figure 0 Study Area(300-ft) Cl Bremerton Boundary 2 Sewer Line Extension Site Features ��LANDAU ASSOCIATES Mason County,Washington ATTACHMENT 1 Background Documentation , i 4 0V N 1 r . ri it • —.c , • P(') 40 411i. I : :I ilt .11 .Agit I 0 , . . _,004,„ok -1 A; , , .`,,,op....iti;;_..._ jiff • 11 . ' , ilrei.'41: 1Y--a :V it ! ' yfiffirlir,,,„; :7 0 — :: _.., g ,, . 1 iiki '\ I / . ,.' 4 .........iti 4 ,„ ,i-;tifif-v 0 . , , . . /*(4,.• /if 7.„'„e ) ' Aim 4#V,, a ,e, Zli (..• (-4 .1 )1,4 I .07,:.,,4 iVr '-14 , _„ ii Legend Note m 1.Black and white reproduction of this color N — - Proposed Gravity Sewer 0 original may reduce its effectiveness and o Proposed Sewer Force Main lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 o Q Study Area(300-ft) 0 1,200 2,400 f, Data Source:©2013 National Geographic Society,i-cubed. Scale in Feet -' 6 Phase I Belfair WRF Figure LANDAU Sewer Line Extension Topographic Map ASSOCIATES Mason County, Washington �- PFOC PSSC PEMC N PUBHx PEMF PEMF • • • • • ♦ PEMC Ok • A. I Pssc _ l • Pssc PUSH , •114b �� ' � -♦ m" - PUBH f IPP•.A PSSC ®mF PSSC 4.0 i PSSC PEMC 6 PSSC I 4=4 Olt O PSSC &- 444 X Z • LL .w • PEMC • a / PSSC Legend Note 1.Black and white reproduction of this color Proposed Gravity Sewer On PEMC/PEMF-Freshwater Emergent Wetland original may reduce its effectiveness and 0 Proposed Sewer Force Main PFOC/PSSC-Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland lead to incorrect interpretation. o Q Study Area(300-ft) PUBH/PUBHx-Freshwater Pond 0 1,200 2,400 Data Sources: USFW;Esri World Imagery. Scale in Feet Phase I Belfair WRF U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Figure IALANDAU Sewer Line Extension ASSOCIATES Mason County, Washington National Wetlands Inventory Map 1-2 N t (>4--\)1';'#° ♦ i i ft..... illk ^ti fti J Soils Key i 1 Alderwood Very Gravelly Sandy Loam,0-6%Slopes '' f - n, s 2 Alderwood Very Gravelly Sandy Loam,6-15%Slopes _- / '.• ©®McKenna Gravelly Loam =4 /F el Neilton Gravelly Loamy Sand,0-3%Slopes _ ,,OP •�r r 36 Neilton Gravelly Loamy Sand,15-30%Slopes `a 50 Shalcar Muck a s" '� -- - "�'^ Ab Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam,5-159'o Slopes ,,. Ac Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam,15-30%Slopes �, �,o• Ed Everett Gravelly Loamy Sand,0-5%Slopes -' / Ee Everett Gravelly Loamy Sand,5-15%Slopes _ / Ef Everett Gravelly Loamy Sand,15-30%Slopes €{ - Eh Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam,5-15%Slopes Legend Note Ga Gravel Pit lb Indianola Loamy Sand,5-15%Slopes 1.Black and white reproduction of this color Proposed Gravity Sewer Id Indianola Sandy Loam,0-5%Slopes - original may reduce its effectiveness and t Proposed Sewer Force Main lead to incorrect interpretation. le Indianola Sandy Loam,5 15%Slopes - Mg Mukilteo Peat,0-2%Slopes Q Study Area(300-ft) 0 1,000 2,000 Oa Orcas Peat,0-2%Slopes Q Soil Type nommom Sa Saxon Silt Loam,5-15%Slopes Scale in Feet Data Sources:USDA NRCS;Esri World Imagery. Phase I Belfair WRF Figure LANDAU Sewer Line Extension Soils Map ASSOCIATES Mason County, Washington 1-3 IN s I t I 71 O 5 a 2 - _ V Legend Note 1.Black and white reproduction of this color Proposed Gravity Sewer original may reduce its effectiveness and Proposed Sewer Force Main lead to incorrect interpretation. Q Study Area(300-ft) 0 1,500 3,000 100-Year Floodplain Data Sources: FEMA;Esri World Imager . Scale in Feet Phase I Belfair WRF Figure LANDAU Sewer Line Extension 100-Year Floodplain Map ASSOCIATES Mason County, Washington 1-4 Appendix E Permit Summary Table WSDOT Permitting Matrix Mason County-Belfair Water Reclamation Facility Updated: 1/20/2020 Permit/Authorization Project Stage Project Permit Lead Agency/Contact Regulatory Requirements Application Materials and Technical Permit Status Updates and Notes Supporting Documentation STATE AND FEDERAL Washington State law,RCW 47.32,47.44 and WAC 468-34. Design Phase-Prepared Before grants the Washington State Department of Transportation the authority to issue Permits and Franchises for the occupancy of WSDOT General Provisions,Special Meetings held with WSDOT Development Services and the Geotechnicand Construction activities gn WSDOT Project Office to discuss Utilityand Environmental WSDOT General Permit(DOT Form WSDOT Olympic state-owned highway right of way for the purpose of construction Provisions for Highway Encroachments, l 224-698) exploration and nWSDOT activities ICJ RegioNRafael Reyes and maintenance of lines for water,gas,electricity,telephone, Work Plans,Traffic Control Plans, Permitting efforts. WSDOT Permits will be further commence within WSDOT ROW/Limited telecommunications,The decision must be documented in an Photos,and VicinityMap. developed when existing/proposed ROW is defined and as Access FHWA-approved utility accommodation policy.A State may permit the design progresses. certain utilities and exclude others. Washington State law,RCW 47.32,47.44 and WAC 468-34, grants the Washington State Department of Transportation the DesigNROW Phase-Prepared after ROW authority to issue Permits and Franchises for the occupancy of Meetings held with WSDOT Development Services and the UtilityAccommodation Application is defined and UFD,Right of Way Plan/Exhibit,Work WSDOT Project Office to discuss Utility and Environmental ppl type,size,and locations of Jason Fritzler,KPG WSDOT Olympic state-owned highway right of way for the purpose of construction Plans,Traffic Control Plans,and Vicinity Permitting efforts. WSDOT Permits will be further (DOT Form 224-696) utilities are determined within WSDOT Region/Rafael Reyes and maintenance of lines for water,gas,electricity,telephone, ROW/Limited Access telecommunications,The decision must be documented in an Map. developed when existing/proposed ROW is defined and as FHWA-a roved utilityaccommodation policy.A State maythe design progresses. pp p y permit certain utilities and exclude others. Washington State law,RCW 47.32,47.44 and WAC 468-34, grants the Washington State Department of Transportation the Meetings held with WSDOT Development Services and the Desi NROW Phase-Accompanies Utilityauthority to issue Permits and Franchises for the occupancy of WSDOT ROW/Limited Access 9 P WSDOT Project Office to discuss Utility and Environmental Utility Facility Description(UFD)(DOTWSDOT Olympic state-owned highway right of way for the purpose of construction Encroachment Exhibit showing MP, Form 224-697) Accommodation Application(224-696)and Jason Fritzler,KPG Re ioNRafael Reyes and maintenance of lines for water,gas,electricity,telephone, station,crossings,pipematerial, Permitting efforts. WSDOT Permits will be further WSDOT Access Request Spreadsheet g y P 9 P developed when existing/proposed ROW is defined and as telecommunications,The decision must be documented in an depths,and offset from traveled way. the design progresses. FHWA-approved utility accommodation policy.A State may permit certain utilities and exclude others. Washington State law,RCW 47.32.47.44 and WAC 468-34, Desi NROWI Environmental PermittingWSDOT Olympic grants the Washington State Department of Transportation the Olympic Region Request 9Meetings held with WSDOT Development Services and the Phase-Pre erect after ROW is defined and Bruce Stirling, Re IoNRatael Reyes authority to issue Permits and Franchises for the occupancy of Form/Spreadsheet that must be P g• 9 Y WSDOT Project Office to discuss Utility and Environmental WSDOT Access Re est S readsheet t state-owned highway right of way for the purpose of construction accompanied by TCP,design plans,and Permitting efforts. WSDOT Permits will be furtherqu p y ,size,and locations of utilities are Landau and Jason and WSDOT HO if a and maintenance of lines for water,gas,electricity,telephone, the UFD Form(224-697). Request form detteermined within WSDOT ROW/Limited Fritzler,KPG Limited Access Break is telecommunications,The decision must be documented in an covers both Limited Access Breaks and developed when existing/proposed ROW is defined and as Access necessary. FHWA-a roved utilityaccommodation policy.A State maypermit Environmental supporting information. the design progresses. PP PP 9 certain utilities and exclude others. Rena,Water Reclamantion Facility Page 1 1/28/2020:8:53 AM Appendix F Draft Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Technical Memorandum Draft Technical Memorandum TO: Michael Lubovich, PE, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. FROM: Benjamin Ford, PE DATE: January 16, 2020 RE: Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Phase I — Belfair Water Reclamation Facility Sewer Extension Mason County, Washington Project No. 0133025.010.011 Introduction This memorandum summarizes the results of geotechnical engineering services provided by Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) in support of Phase 1 of the Belfair Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Sewer Extension project in Mason County, Washington (site; Figure 1). This memorandum has been prepared with information provided by representatives of Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. (project civil engineer) and Mason County (County; project owner), and with available subsurface data collected by others as well as observations made during LAI's site reconnaissance. Geotechnical services have been provided in accordance with the scope outlined in Exhibit 1 of the Master Services Subcontract Agreement, dated May 13, 2019. Project Understanding The County, in conjunction with the City of Bremerton (City), plans to expand wastewater collection between the Puget Sound Industrial Center(PSIC), unserved areas in the Belfair Urban Growth Area (UGA), and the Belfair WRF. The County proposes to improve the existing sewer system by constructing a new wastewater pump station (PS; UGA PS); 7,000 linear feet (LF) of force main; and 7,500 LF of gravity main. A small segment of force main and a second wastewater PS (Freight Corridor PS) will be constructed in the PSIC as the campus grows. The proposed improvements will provide service to the southern PSIC(adjacent to the proposed State Route 3 bypass) and the northeastern Belfair UGA.The proposed Freight Corridor PS and UGA PS will direct new flow to an existing gravity main that conveys wastewater to Pump Station#1. Service to the main PSIC campus and direct connections to the Belfair WRF will not be included in this phase of the project. The approximate locations of the proposed improvements are shown on Figure 2. LAI has assumed that force main and gravity main lines will have a maximum invert elevation of 10 and 20 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs), respectively. Additionally, LAI has assumed that excavations for the proposed pump stations will extend no more than 25 ft bgs. IA LANDAU ASSOCIATES 955 Malin Lane SW,Suite B • Tumwater,Washington 98501 • (360)791-3178 DRAFT Landau Associates Site Conditions The following sections summarize the surface conditions observed during LAI's December 18, 2019 site reconnaissance and the soil and groundwater conditions anticipated in the project corridor. LAI has divided the corridor into three segments, A through C, as shown on Figure 2. Interpretations of site conditions are based on LAI's review of available geologic and geotechnical information, and on the conditions observed during the site reconnaissance. Surface Conditions The project corridor comprises predominantly undeveloped forestland east of State Route 3. LAI observed the following surface conditions along each of the three segments: • Segment A: Beginning near the intersection of State Route 3 and Northeast Creelman Lane, this segment of corridor follows a gravel-surfaced roadway through private timberland (mature trees), and is then diverted across the timberland, to the north of the site. Near its midpoint, Segment A crosses a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad alignment, where the tracks are situated approximately 10 to 12 ft below existing grade. Following the crossing, Segment A continues to follow gravel-surfaced roadway before intersecting Segments B and C. Topography along Segment A is generally flat to gently sloped, with the exception of a steep slope that begins at the southern end. For the first 900 ft of Segment A,topographic relief is approximately 150 ft. • Segment B: Oriented northwest to southeast, this segment of corridor cuts through partially developed industrial property and timberland currently being developed. Segment B runs parallel to Log Yard Road before crossing State Route 3. Segment B then follows gravel- surfaced roads, eventually intersecting Segments A and C. Topography along Segment B is generally flat to gently sloped. One potential Class III wetland has been identified along Segment B (Figure 2; LAI 2020). • Segment C: Oriented east to west,this segment of corridor crosses through private timberland characterized by clear-cut areas and reprod (young trees). With the exception of gravel-surfaced road crossings, no development has occurred in Segment C. Topography along Segment C varies from flat to moderately sloped.Three potential Class III wetlands have been identified along Segment C (Figure 2; LAI 2020). Geologic Setting and Anticipated Soil Conditions Geologic information for the site and the surrounding area was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, Washington (Polenz 2009). According to the map, near-surface deposits in the vicinity of the site consist of: • Vashon Glacial Ice-Contact (Qgic):Vashon glacial ice-contact typically consists of variably sorted angular sand and gravel deposits with interbeds of minor silt and clay, and often includes lodgment till (formed/deposited below glacier) or flow till (deposited ahead of Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Phase 1—Belfair WRF Sewer Extension 2 January 16,2020 DRAFT Landau Associates glacier). Given its varying depositional characteristics, the unit may be encountered in a loose to highly compact condition. • Vashon Till (Qgt): Vashon till generally consists of a non-sorted, non-stratified mixture of boulders, cobbles, gravel, and sand in a matrix of silt and clay with some lenses of sorted, stratified sand and gravel. Till typically exhibits low permeability and high shear strength, characteristics resulting from its compaction by the weight of an overlying glacier. • Vashon Advance Outwash (Qga): Vashon advance outwash is deposited during glacial advance, and typically consists of a consolidated mixture of pebble to cobble gravel and sand with interbedded layers and lenses of silt and clay. Advance outwash is typically stratified, well rounded, and highly sorted. • Vashon Recessional Outwash (Qgo): Vashon recessional outwash is deposited during glacial retreat, and typically consists of an unconsolidated mixture of gravel and sand with minor silt and clay inclusion.This unit is typically loose, and can be highly permeable and water bearing. • Peat (Qp): Peat is composed of organics and organic-rich mineral sediments that may include muck, silt, and clay deposited in closed depressions, marshes, and wetlands. Cobble- and boulder-sized material is often present in glacial deposits, and was observed at ground surface during LAI's site reconnaissance. Photograph 1 shows a boulder with a 3-to 4-ft diameter. The boulder was observed at ground surface near the intersection of Segments A, B, and C. The design team should assume that glacial soils at the site contain oversized material. • Photograph 1.Boulder at surface. LAI reviewed logs for monitoring wells installed adjacent to the site (Ecology; accessed January 14, 2020), and found that anticipated soil conditions were generally consistent with documented site subsurface conditions. The locations of mapped soil units are presented on Figure 3. The boundaries/extent of the mapped soil units should be considered approximate. Peat soil may be present at the potential wetland locations shown on Figures 2 and 3. Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Phase 1—Belfair WRF Sewer Extension 3 January 16,2020 DRAFT Landau Associates Groundwater Groundwater occurrence will vary significantly throughout the site. Where the project corridor crosses soils mapped as glacial till and glacial ice-contact, perched groundwater layers are likely to be encountered. In these soil units, a true groundwater table is not anticipated within 30 ft of ground surface (Ecology; accessed January 14, 2020). Where the project corridor crosses recessional outwash or advance outwash soils, more substantial groundwater conditions may be encountered. Additionally,the potential wetlands shown on Figures 2 and 3 are interpreted as closed depressions with the capacity to hold groundwater. In these areas, groundwater may be encountered near surface. The groundwater conditions reported herein are based on a review of logs for nearby wells (Ecology; accessed January 14, 2020) and on the typical water-holding capacity of each site soil unit. Groundwater conditions will vary depending on local subsurface conditions, weather conditions, and other factors. Groundwater conditions are expected to fluctuate seasonally, with maximum groundwater levels occurring during late winter and early spring. Conclusion and Preliminary Design Considerations Based on LAI's review of geologic conditions at the site, the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The following sections provide additional details regarding anticipated subsurface conditions along the project corridor and the impact those conditions could have on project design. Segment A Installation of a new wastewater force main and gravity main is proposed along this segment of corridor. Soil conditions at the anticipated foundation elevation will provide suitable support. There appears to be a very low risk of encountering settlement-sensitive soil along Segment A. Construction along this segment of corridor appears to be feasible using traditional cut and cover methods. At the BNSF railroad crossing, horizontal directional drilling (HDD) methods will be used. Based on the mapped geology, highly consolidated glacial till is likely to be encountered at the crossing.The HDD designer should select a trenchless construction method capable of drilling through very dense material. Significant groundwater occurrence is not anticipated across the HDD alignment. The HDD contractor should anticipate oversized material (cobbles and boulders) within the excavations. The majority of Segment A is located within glacial till soil, and conventional sump and pump methods should be sufficient for construction dewatering. Dewatering will likely only be needed to manage minor groundwater seepage within permeable zones of glacial till. Where wastewater lines cross Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Phase 1—Belfair WRF Sewer Extension 4 January 16,2020 DRAFT Landau Associates glacial outwash soil (advance or recessional), more significant quantities of groundwater may be encountered; however, conventional sump and pump methods should still be sufficient. Segment B Construction of the wastewater force main, gravity main, and UGA PS is proposed along this segment of corridor. Soil conditions at the anticipated foundation elevations will provide suitable support. With the exception of the area identified as a potential wetland (Figure 2),there appears to be a very low risk of encountering settlement-sensitive soil along Segment B. Compressible, organic-rich soils may be encountered in, and adjacent to, potential wetland areas. The conveyance pipe alignment should avoid these areas. Construction along the conveyance pipe alignment appears to be feasible using traditional cut and cover methods. Construction of the PS structure should be completed with open cuts (space dependent) or traditional shoring boxes may be used to minimize excavation footprint. Watertight shoring systems should not be anticipated. The contractor should anticipate oversized material (cobbles and boulders)within the excavations. The majority of Segment B is located within ice-contact and glacial till soil, and conventional sump and pump methods should be sufficient for construction dewatering. Dewatering will likely only be needed to manage minor groundwater seepage within permeable zones of the glacial till and ice- contact units. Shallow/perched groundwater may propagate to surface in areas mapped as potential wetlands. Segment C Construction of the wastewater force main, gravity main, and Freight Corridor PS is proposed along this segment of corridor. Soil conditions at the anticipated foundation elevations will provide suitable support. With the exception of the areas identified as potential wetlands (Figure 2), there appears to be a very low risk of encountering settlement-sensitive soil along Segment C. Compressible, organic- rich soils may be encountered in, and adjacent to, potential wetland areas. The conveyance pipe alignment should avoid these areas Construction along the conveyance pipe alignment appears to be feasible using traditional cut and cover methods. Construction of the PS structure should be completed with open cuts (space dependent) or traditional shoring boxes may be used to minimize excavation footprint. Watertight shoring systems should not be anticipated. The contractor should anticipate oversized material (cobbles and boulders)within the excavations. The majority of Segment C is located within glacial till soil, and conventional sump and pump methods should be sufficient for construction dewatering. Dewatering will likely only be needed to manage Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Phase 1—Belfair WRF Sewer Extension 5 January 16,2020 DRAFT Landau Associates minor groundwater seepage within permeable zones of glacial till. Where conveyance pipes cross recessional outwash soil, more significant quantities of groundwater may be encountered; however, conventional sump and pump methods should still be sufficient. Shallow/perched groundwater may propagate to surface in areas mapped as potential wetlands. Recessional outwash soil is mapped at the proposed PS location. Significant quantities of groundwater may be encountered if the soil is water bearing and highly permeable. Slide rail shoring systems can be used to limit groundwater inflow and facilitate construction dewatering. Continuous dewatering with trash pumps may be required. Reuse of Site Soils The suitability of excavated soil for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content, and adequate compaction may become more difficult to achieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines (material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a dense, unyielding condition when the water content is more than about 2 or 3 percent above or below optimum. Based on LAI's understanding of site geology and the areas of exposed soil observed during the site reconnaissance, the majority of site soil is estimated to consist of sand or gravel with a fines content between 5 and 20 percent. Provided it can be properly moisture conditioned prior to placement, the majority of site soil is anticipated to be feasible for reuse. Soil should be screened for constituents greater than 6 inches in diameter. Import of pipe bedding material will likely be required. Design-Phase Geotechnical Services Additional geotechnical services will be required to support design of the proposed improvements. During the design phase, LAI will perform subsurface explorations throughout the project corridor to gain a better understanding of site geology and identify potential design constraints not addressed in this memorandum. To support project design, LAI recommends that a field exploration program, as outlined on Figure 4, be completed at the site. Subsurface data collected from the explorations will be used to inform design parameters for the sewer system improvements, determine feasible HDD methods at the BNSF railroad crossing, further assess the feasibility of reusing site soils, identify areas of unsuitable foundation material along the project corridor, and determine construction dewatering requirements. Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Phase 1—Belfair WRF Sewer Extension 6 January 16,2020 DRAFT Landau Associates Use of This Technical Memorandum This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mason County and Kennedy/ Jenks Consultants, Inc.for specific application to the Belfair Water Reclamation Facility Sewer Extension project in Mason County, Washington. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI). Use of the information contained in this technical memorandum by others or for another project is at the user's sole risk. LAI warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, its services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. LAI makes no other warranty, either express or implied. Closing We trust that this technical memorandum provides you with sufficient information to proceed with the project. If you have questions or comments, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at (360) 791-3178. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Benjamin Ford, PE Associate BJ F/CAM/mcs [Y.\0133\025.010\R\PHASE 1 BELFAIR WRF SEWER EXTENSION DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1.16.2020.DO0(j Attachments: Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Surface Geology Map Figure 4. Subsurface Exploration Layout Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Phase 1—Belfair WRF Sewer Extension 7 January 16,2020 DRAFT Landau Associates References Ecology. 2019. Washington State Well Log Viewer. Washington State Department of Ecology. Accessed January 14, 2020. Available online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wellconstruction/map/WCLSWebMap/default.aspx. LAI. 2020. Technical Memorandum: Preliminary Wetland and Waterway Investigation, Phase I Belfair Waste Reclamation Facility Sewer Line Extension, Mason County, Washington. Landau Associates, Inc.January 15. Polenz, M., K. Alldritt, N.J. Hehemann, I.Y. Sarikhan, and R.L. Logan. Geologic Map of the Belfair 7.5- minute Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.July. Summary of Geotechnical Conditions Phase 1—Belfair WRF Sewer Extension 8 January 16,2020 I c/... .. / DRAF I/ 0 / Bremerton / National „----) Airport [Study Area 3 : , % 1 42L a LT c 7 >C N N /7� 1 / gl / J/ ` elfair / 0 Z 0 0 E z,. a --"--------/i / 2 C N N Project Q Location v 1 N ‘;•Everett m 0 0.5 1 Seattle Spokar o f Tacoma 0 9 Miles Olympia Washington m r. Data Source:Esri 2012 0 6 Phase I Figure IALANDAU Belfair Sewer Extension Vicinity Map 1 ASSOCIATES Mason County, Washington Legend } : . .YI n f _.T -, (• / ;:'ram` P Proposed Pump Station !'�- i t t .rFt I. y yVTT sr 't -... UGA Pump Station #. -——— Proposed Wastewater Force Main �' . f +, ' - IBA P w• d•t �'! Proposed Wastewater Gravity Main /` ' L t ---- Existing Wastewater Gravity Main t- - "-" - s Q Potential Class III Wetland(lAI 2020) � _ I.�! s Segment B i * Notes er 'X 4 _to Via' ° area t 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce ? 'C its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. ' .ri '�s.. 2. Proposed improvements are shown in their approximate - �` locations.Actual locations to be determined during final = 1 design. I • 's+e•' / .. �• 1 i -�— ��a� v /-_ - Future Pump Station and Force Main Area -. a • / ..,. v >„'� BNSF Radrued Al g, ..�t lir.,/..F �...._ / ,/ ,/ — w r / -, / r -.Segment C- a % / t t ti - ir ;: / Freight Corrado P r- SegmNntA $ �� 6 tut cn ry n. % / j/ v • - _ i j `BNSF Crossing 1 p //I\..... ..,,,..., ill % / [ /F L. . . . ...,•._„ _ . , _ . .... . • y ` / . .. g J ,=/ . . , /. / 2 Image Source:Goo le Earth 2018 0 800 1600 Phase 1 Figure iikLAN DAUBelfair Sewer Extension Site Plan 2 ASSOCIATES �� Mason County,Washington Landau Associates I Y:\CAD\0133\25.010\01330025.010_BM.dwg 11/16/2020 8:57 AM Legend / t P Proposed Pump Station i% P ,% DRAFT f t .• GA Pump Station Proposed Wastewater Force Main •(o\ \ •` N - - - - Proposed Wastewater Gravity Main e°`d�o\\ `\� / ,,, — — — — Existing Wastewater Gravity Main 'Poda�`\ x ) ^^ Q Potential Class Ill Wetland(LAI 2020) , ;..Oct \ ' \�` O \ \ Segment B l N Geologic Units // i ,/� Qgic Vashon Glacial Ice-Contact /' �' / 4f Qgt Vashon Till /, t I ✓ i Qga Vashon Advance Outwash (e i' f // 'y-C Qgo Vashon Recessional Outwash . .../-\ ( � Qp Peat — Q° \� t �\ Ocit ` ` Notes •-`" /' i ��, �� ,i_I 7 , 1. Black and white reproduction of this color / i -�„ _ /� �`—j— original may reduce its effectiveness and lead i t _ a P to incorrect interpretation. j_, i i/ i 2. Proposed improvements are shown in their /' i ` i ('� approximate locations.Actual locations to be �.� / _ � ` go ; determined during final design. / / e `N ---?— t• i /� 1 �t �% Segment C �. Q Se ;,A // %/ BNSF Crossing .7, p g / ': - t / /i / / ` / , j '` Freight Corridor Pump Station \LI.," / / / BNSF Railroad Alignment / / i' i / / l _.. Creelman Lane I '3 ` _ • ` , `' / ,,r-- y Op Q0.�; ,,, t / Source:Washington Department of Natural Resources 2009 0 1000 2000 Phase 1 Figure 104 LANDAU Belfair Sewer Extension Surface Geology Map 3 ASSOCIATES Scale in Feet Mason County,Washington Legend (30') Proposed Hollow Stem Auger Boring and Depth at t2k, ,/,4 , '• �'t� r L4 a j Q(30') Proposed Hollow Stem Auger Boring with Piezometer and Depth r 7 - 18 .t.- UGA Pump Station e B(IS') Proposed Test Pit Exploration and Depth i P Proposed Pump Station w ' - tYt^ n e , ./' Segment B y!E '® Proposed Wastewater Force Main ' ' "' . 'P°0' , o . ———— Proposed Wastewater Gravity Main - A �` � Existing Wastewater Gravity Main - ' Q Potential Class III Wetland(LAI 2020) ,n•® Notes »e /, % c i 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce *, ;f., j r its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. 1' 2. Proposed improvements are shown in their approximate ! locations.Actual locations to be determined during final �, ^_', JC Qo design. S f S` ! Future Pump Station and Force Main Area ‘1,::;,.1..,.(3 /' ::.,.. ,,._, . ,...., 'e. �+ K 4, NSF Railroad Alignment 1 / B R l d A gn t - i Et(30) 7 :" %% -b g ,c nt A 7. / / J i i , „rr.c.. i.,:,,i a. g r t t r y I=' • / is I1', ihJ ,_', I I /' / m r > y y _ t y r s - .� DRAFT 't • Image Source.Goo le Earth 2018 0 800 1600 Phase 1 Figure LANDAU ale in Feet LANDAU Sewer Extension Subsurface Exploration Layoutiik /I ASSOCIATES Mason County,Washington `•F Appendix G Conceptual Schedule ID task Name Duration ._tart IFinish 91radacassors 2019 h.It 2 1019 Nall L2020 NaM 2020 v MaH 1.loll .eq�l : v.�iv 1 .... _._..-_ F M I.d M....l / A S 0 9 D .. H�-O.. 1. f M 6 M > 0 5 o r n• n ai I Notice to Proceed)Comssloner Approval) 0 days Tue 4/23/19 Toe 4/23/19 4/27 2 Phase 1-Planning and Pre Design 466 dap Tue 4/23/19 TO.2/2/21 1 3 Task 1.Kickoff Meeting 0 days Tire 4/23/19 Tue 4/23/19 4 4/23 4 Task 2:Review Existing Background Data 60 dap Tue 4/23/19 Mon 7/15/19 4rneieniiiieep 7 Task 3:Prepare Pre-Design Report with Cost Estimates 179 dap Tue 7/16/19 Fri 3/20/20 15 Task 4:Complete GSP Amendment 258 dap Fri 2/7/20 Tue 2/2/21 ' ♦ 4 16 Draft GSP Table of Contents 0 days Fri 2/7/20 Fri 2/7/20 • 11 Finalized GSP Flow Projections 0 dap Fri 2/21/20 Fri 2/21/20 16F5+11 days 12/21 19 Surge Analysis Draft of Defined Alternatives 0 dap Fri 2/28/20 Fri 2/28/20 17F5+1 wk j 2/26 19 Review Meeting 0 dap Toe 5/5/20 Tue 5/5/20 16F5+63 dap 20 Key Deliverable:GSP Submittal 0 days Tue 6/30/20 Toe 6/30/20 19F5o40 days 4i 6/3D 11 Ecology Review of G5P Submittal 115 dap Wed 7/1/20 Tue 12/8/20 20 �1 22 Key Milestone:Receipt of Ecology Comments 0 dap Tue 12/8/20 Tue 12/8/20 21 +12/e 11 Incorporate/Address Ecology Comments 2 mons Wed 12/9/20 Tue 2/2/21 22 , 24 Finalize GSP/Ecology Approval 0 days Tue 2/2/21 Tue 2/2/21 23 • .2/2 25 Project 2-Design and Permitting 250 dap Fri 4/3/20 Fri 3/19/21 ♦ 4 26 Workshop e1-Reaffirm Objectives 0 days Fri 4/3/20 Fri 4/3/20 14F5+2 wks _ • 22 Task 1:Agency Coordination and Easements 155 days Fri 5/8/20 Fri 12/11/20 ♦ 4 • 28 WSDOT 155 days Fri 5/8/20 Fri 12/11/20 I •♦ 4 35 Navy Railroad 150 dap Pot 5/15/20 Fri 12/11/20 ♦ 4 42 Task 2 Geotechnical Engineering 60 dap Mon 4/6/20 Fri 6/26/20 , 43 Geotechnical Exploration 4 wks Mon 4/6/20 Fri 5/1/20 26 44 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing 2 wks Mon 5/4/20 Fri 5/15/20 43 45 Draft Geotechnical Report 6 wks Mon 5/18/20 Fri 6/26/20 44 46 Task 2:Complete Survey Work 30 dap Mon 4/20/20 Fri 5/29/20 47 Survey Alignment and LS Site 6 wks Mon 4/20/20 Fri 5/29/20 26,6355.2 wks 48 Task 2:Complete Engineering and Construction Specs 200 dap Mon 6/1/20 Fri 3/5/21 49 Key Deliverable-30%Design 3 owns Mon 6/1/20 Fri 8/21/20 47 SO Workshop 02 Pre-30%Submittal Workshop)Design/Layout) 0 days NI 6/26/20 Fri 6/26/20 4755.10 wks 6/26 51 Workshop 63 30%Design Review Workshop)Pumping/Piping Features) 0 days Fri 9/4/20 Fri 9/4/20 49F5+2 wks 9/ immil....., 52 Key Deliverable-60%Design 2 mons Mon 9/7/20 Fri 10/30/20 51 53 Workshop e4 60%Design Review Workshop)Operability) 0 days Fri 11/13/20 Fri 11/13/20 52F5+2 wks 4 11/13 54 Key Deliverable-90%Design 2 mons Mon 11/2/20 Fri 12/25/20 52 55 Workshop 1590%Design Review Workshop)Construction and Start-up) 0 dap Fri 1/8/21 Fri 1/8/21 54E562 wks 1/8 56 Key Deliverable-Final Design Bid Package 0 days Fri 3/5/21 Fri 3/5/21 60F5.4 wks,76 2 3/5 57 Task 3:Submit Design to Ecology 20 dap Fri 1/8/21 Fri 2/5/21 58 Submit Design to Ecology 0 days Fri 1/8/21 Fri 1/8/21 54F5+2 wks 3 59 Ecology Review of 90%design 1 non Mon 1/11/21 Fri 2/5/21 58 60 Major Milestone-Design Approved/Permitted 0 days Fri 2/5/21 Fri 2/5/21 59 61 Task 4:Environmental Permitting 250 dap Mon 4/6/20 Fri 3/19/21 ♦ 4 62 4.1:Wetland Delineation/Environmental Site Assessment 20 dap Mon 4/6/20 Fri 5/1/20 r• 64 4.2:ACE JD Determination 80 dap Mon 5/4/20 Fri 8/21/70 I)�.�wo 67 4.3:Prepare Critical Areas Report)CAR) 30 dap Mon 5/4/20 Fri 6/12/20 tf✓>—r• 69 4.4:Prepare Forest Practices Act Permitting 30 dap Mon 5/4/20 Fri 6/12/20 row.", 71 4.5:Prepare SEPA Submittals 121 dap Mon 8/24/20 Mon 2/8/21 �errw ....... 77 4.6:Construction Related Permitting 60 days Mon 12/28/20 Fri 3/19/21 1.4.61•••99.• 80 Task 5:Cultural Resource Survey 120 dap Mon 4/6/20 Fri 9/18/20 ♦ 4 83 Project 2-Provide Bidding Assistance 60 dap Mon 3/8/21 Fri 5/28/21 • 11 85 Project 2-Construction Period 220 dap Mon 5/31/21 Fri 4/1/22 ♦ 4 87 88 89 90 1 Task Summary 01 .44444440.01P Nadir.Milestn,e Durationro4y IIIIIIIIIIIMIMN Start-only I EMenel Milestone • MenuS Ravers Whir Sewer L4emwn Vasa lends, Split Date Mon 1/27/24 P Frojast Summary I I Wruve Summary ManuJ Summery Ramp eattostetse fmahron4/ J pMhw ♦ ♦ Inar.ve leak Manual last 91111111111 Manual Summary l 'i External leaks Ragwss Page 1 Appendix H Summary of the Archival Research Study ,./4qtrivp LITHIC ANALYSTS Ar • • January 14, 2020 Mr. Michael Lubovich, P.E., PMP Project Engineer/Project Manager Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Inc. 32001 32nd Avenue, South, Suite 100 Federal Way, WA 98001 Re: Archival Research Study for Belfair WRF Sewer Extension Project, Mason County Dear Mr. Lubovich: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. has entered into an agreement with Mason County to provide services for a proposed project known as the Mason County— Belfair WRF Sewer Extension project ("Project").The attached aerial provided by Kenned/Jenks with potential Project location is approximate, and the proposed Project description may vary at a later date. Currently, the proposed Project is located in Sections 21 and 28,Township 23 North, Range 01 West, W.M., Mason County.The Project abuts SR3 northeast of the town of Belfair and is in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Transportation SR 3 Bypass Alignment Project. The Project will progress in multiple phases and specific details haven't been determined. Completion of the proposed Project will require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. A Section 106 review involves a determination whether the proposed activity will adversely affect any cultural resources located within the proposed Project area. Part of this assessment involves identifying archaeological and historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects over 50 years of age to determine if they are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An archival research at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) was completed and detailed below.The DAHP maintains the state's digital repository(Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data or WISAARD) for architectural and archaeological resources and reports.The archival research detailed below does not constitute a full Section 106 review. A field visit has not been conducted at this time.This will be accomplished once the Project Area of Potential Effect (APE) has been defined. PO Box 2466, Silverthorne, CO 80498 • 403 73rd Ave NE, Olympia, WA 98506 Archival Research An archival file and literature research was conducted of archaeological and historical site records pertaining to the Project area and housed at the DAHP in Olympia. DAHP Predictive Model The DAHP provides a predictive model derived from statewide information on geology, soils, site types, and landforms to predict probabilities for the identification of cultural resources throughout the state. Criteria for predictions rates, from lowest to highest, are: Low Risk, Moderately Low Risk, High Risk, and Very High Risk.The model map indicates the various risk factors with the Project area from "Survey recommended"to "Survey highly advised: very high risk". Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites The DAHP WISAARD database, which includes maps and site forms, revealed that previously recorded archaeological sites are not located within the Project area.To date,Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are not recorded or documented at DAHP within the Project area or in the vicinity that have been evaluated for Bulletin 38 criteria (Parker and King 1996). Four previously recorded archaeological sites—all historic era—are located within one mile of the Project area (Table 1). Table 1. Archaeological Sites within one mile of Project area. Number Type Distance Recorded 45MS00160 Historic Homestead 3/4-mile SW Neil 2008a 45MS00161 Historic Logging Camp %:-mile W Neil 2008b 45MS00257 Historic Orchard Remnant 3/4-mile W Thorp 2117a 45MS00258 Historic Isolate 1 mile W Thorp 2117b Previously Recorded Historic Properties Elements of the built environment including buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects dating from the contact era are referred to as "historic properties". Properties over 50 years of age within a project's area must be inventoried and evaluated by a reconnaissance level survey and recorded in the DAHP WISAARD online database. This is to provide a determination if the property is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP based solely on the architectural qualities of the structure.Two historic structures—both railroad bridges—are currently recorded within the Project area. Naval Base Kitsap-Shelton-Bangor Railroad-Bridge No. 1-5(25.34),over Belfair Highway,SR-3 Bridge No. 25.34 was constructed in 1944. This railroad bridge is not individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, but it is a contributing resource to the Shelton-Bangor Railroad Corridor Historic District. Naval Base Kitsap-Shelton-Bangor Railroad -Bridge No.2-1(30.84)over Belfair Valley Road Bridge No. 30.84 was constructed in 1944. Like Bridge No. 25.34, this railroad bridge is not individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, but it is a contributing resource to the Shelton- Bangor Railroad Corridor Historic District. Mr. Michael Lubovich Page 2 Cultural Resource Surveys within Project area Six cultural resource surveys were previously conducted within the Project area (Table 2). All surveys listed were conducted for linear projects.They were conducted more than five years ago and are considered by DAHP to be outdated. Information in the areas surveyed must be updated and areas surveyed again. Table 2. Cultural Resources surveys within Project area*. Date Title Author NADB# 1996 WSDOT SR3: Belfair to Lake Flora Road Robinson 1339606 2001 Belfair Vicinity Improvements SR3: MP 23.52 to 28.79 Goetz 1340400 2002 Belfair Bypass No Adverse Effect,SR 3: MP 23.52 to 28.79 Goetz 1341003 2007 State Highways Safety Project,XL 2645 Bundy 1350738 2008 Belfair Water District's Pressure Zones Interconnection Neil 1351725 2009 Belfair Wastewater and Water Reclamation Facilities Bard 1353263 * Some of the titles listed in Table 2 have been abbreviated for clarity. Summary The above archival research indicates that archaeological sites are not currently recorded within the Project area. Four historic era archaeological sites are recorded within one mile of the Project area. Historic structures eligible for the NRHP are also not recorded within the Project area. However, two railroad bridges over 50 years of age located within the Project area have been inventoried, but are not recommended NRHP eligible. Any areas previously surveyed for cultural resources will have to be revisited because the studies are over five years old. Future Study Requirements A pedestrian level survey of the Project area should be conducted and a written report of findings prepared. Subsurface archaeological testing may be warranted where possible. Any archaeological site or historic property recorded during the pedestrian survey will be submitted to the DAHP using the web-based WISAARD database. If you have any questions or require clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely Yours, J. Jeffrey Flenniken, Ph.D. Senior Investigator (fet$11 "11-44444-\__ Pam Trautman, B.S. Cultural Resource Specialist Mr. Michael Lubovich Page 3 References Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1977 Historic Index for Township 23 North, Range 01 West, Willamette Meridian. Available on-line at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Retrieved January 2020. https://glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx. Neil, Stephanie 2008a Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form for 45MS00160 on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 2008b Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form for 45MS00161 on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Parker Patricia L., and Thomas F. King 1996 National Register Bulletin No. 38. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. U. S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. Washington, D.C. Thorpe, Kimberly 2017a Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form for 45MS00257 on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 2017b Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form for 45MS00258 on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. United States Surveyor General (USSG) 1872 Cadastral survey of Township 23 North, Range 01 West, Willamette Meridian. Cadastral Records available on-line at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Retrieved January 2020. www.blm.gov/or/Iandrecords/survey/ySrvyl.php. Mr. Michael Lubovich Page 4 Preliminary Project area map, provided by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Mr. Michael Lubovich Page 5 , . «1'17 .- ::I. �T C ' . - § ; ' O. for E, ,„,3 r at ao4,,,,i,, • . il,, g • 2 N. UGA Lift Station .-'!"'to2 lir, 6, ,,. Ili _ • NE NEWKIRK sh,.." y ' ( le e', O� O _ ' .� �^" .r r :• � ` vM f mi ' .�! ii • co LL 'T "of�1,6, , . :11:: , m Project Area ,� project Area .7..'t'BFR,.ti 0 'ici;" I• j, (Not in Project rp� e' " ' 1 ��t? 2 Contract) o, ) 300 r t T t • N * -1, 1b�, NE iMCKNIn HTi. �t ` .� III i` W; RM'RD . 7 +' r • et �P I o yi � �- + $14; -, ? k 4 Freight Corridor o _� .�. -- c�,3 y / Lift Station Q ii om• ,..oy9 ,I .. _ o .,N �. • '•'� �; Future Project it Z .NEPt� Area (Not in •e, y I •-- • �` � Contract) ,< `d7ca,'.,„-,,i,gi.:-. 0OLD:11R ST SR3 Bypass /4:,.i,f * I- ,- _... f .,,,, „',7/ — -- i Alignment / 7` k /fJ .. ir at ' r --:///- // C;i2/ 7-- ;,31pyriiiissia --z-_. git; ' ' j•-% ,D / . -LW. ro., ,, . ,„› -. % , ,. ...,,, ,,,t„ :,. n Ch �e . ��•, r Belfair WRF 1/7 i. ILitl sly' / /I L, P 4, 1 __.:-.: „..., �NEVdJ O r O L I--.I kg cP° i‘R 1 ! 4.. it ,t:',.7/1 ----.1._ / Legend Kennedy Jenks Consultants Existing Sewer Force Main County Line PSIC Border Mason County ----• Existing Gravity Sewer 320 Elevation Contours - UGA Border Belfair Sewer Extension ---- Existing Pressure Sewer D Existing Pump Station N SR3 Bypass Alignment I Proposed Sewer Force Main 0 Proposed Pump Station A Alternative 4 • Proposed Gravity Sewer0 ti Water Reclamantion Facility Notes: 1997006*00 1.All locations are approximate. 0 0.5 2. Elevation Contour Interval =20 feet �� Occtobertober2019 Miles