Form revised May 26, 2009

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

Department:

Contact Person/Phone:

CBO Analyst/Phone:

Seattle Public Utilities

Jeff Smith/4-4615 (SPU)

Sherell Ehlers/5-0040 (DPD)

Karen Grove (4-5805)

Legislation Title: AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities, amending Seattle Municipal Code Chapters 21.16 and 21.24, to clarify existing requirements, consolidate fee language, clarify authority, update definitions, modify enforcement process and provisions, modify build-over requirements, clarify side sewer reuse requirements, and clarify grease pretreatment requirements.

· Summary of the Legislation:

This legislation would revise Seattle’s Side Sewer Code, Chapter 21.16 SMC, and the Permit Fee Code, Chapter 21.24 SMC, along with associated joint SPU/DPD director’s rules, to clarify existing requirements, address past stakeholder comments and concerns, and improve City regulatory decisions and policies. These revisions include: clarifying SPU’s and DPD’s roles in implementing the code; improving enforcement practices; clarifying side sewer ownership; changing the registered side sewer contractor program; adding definitions and wastewater quality testing references; clarifying the indemnification and agreements section for shared side sewers; clarifying grease pretreatment requirements; revising side sewer reuse provisions; adding language addressing the construction of private structures over public sewer and drainage infrastructure (build-overs); clarifying side sewer as-built document requirements; and transferring permit fee language from SMC 21.24 to the Side Sewer Code.

· Background: (Include brief description of the purpose and context of legislation and include record of previous legislation and funding history, if applicable):

The City’s side sewer code and the associated rules are being revised to more accurately reflect current practices, update side sewer construction and permitting requirements, and make the code consistent with the City’s stormwater code revisions. The proposed changes to the Side Sewer code fall into the following categories:

Code Authority – The existing code has conflicting references to SPU’s and DPD’s authority to administer the code with regard to issuing permits, collecting fees, and evaluating applications. Prior to 2006, the last time the code was modified, the code gave SPU the authority over side sewer issues. The 2006 code revision gave DPD the responsibility for side sewer permitting and inspection, creating confusion instead of clarifying the roles of the two departments. This code revision would return the permitting role to SPU. However, DPD will continue to collect permit fees, review permit application materials, and issue permits, and inspect permitted side sewer work through an interdepartmental agreement with SPU.

Enforcement – Depending on the violation, different groups at SPU and DPD enforce code violations. Construction violations are enforced by DPD’s Site Development Team, broken side sewers are enforced by SPU’s Side Sewer Repair Program, and illicit and prohibited discharges are enforced by SPU’s Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) inspection program. To improve enforcement and make enforcement more consistent across City departments, the revised code incorporates enforcement language similar to the City’s recently revised Stormwater Code.

Side Sewer Ownership – The code states side sewers are owned by the private parties served by them. It has been common practice and knowledge, however, that the tee — the connection fitting that attaches the side sewer to the main — is owned by SPU and is not included in the definition of a side sewer, which is privately owned. This detail would be clarified in the side sewer definition.

Definitions – New definitions would be added to the code to support changes discussed below, including enforcement, side sewer contractor registration, and FOG requirements.

Water and Wastewater Testing References. The code currently references a standard publication for testing and analytical methods for wastewater and sewer discharges. New reference documents would be added for more recent and specific test methods not covered by this publication.

Indemnifications and Agreements. Current code language states that no more than one building may connect to a side sewer, unless authorized by SPU. Furthermore, current code requires all affected property owners indemnify the City when a shared side sewer connection is proposed by one or several parties. The code language would be clarified to require indemnification of the City only by the party applying for the shared side sewer connection. For reconnections to existing shared side sewers, agreements would be required only for increasing the number of units using the existing side sewer.

Grease Pretreatment Requirements. SPU has an interest in keeping grease out of its sewer system because once grease enters the system it solidifies and accumulates, contributing to blockages, backups, and excessive maintenance. The code revision would further define existing language that requires grease pretreatment devices be maintained at all times by specifying that accumulated grease, solids, or food waste must not displace more than 25 percent of the effective grease interceptor volume. This creates an objective measure for identifying and enforcing violations.

Side Sewer Reuse. Development projects that are planned to connect to an existing unused side sewer stub or an existing side sewer are not required to have the existing portions of the side sewer meet today’s standards for water tight joints, adequate slope and other technical standards. This may impact existing sewer customers when multiple properties share a side sewer and one user proposes to increase the load on the existing system by increasing the total number of units. To assure future owners that the side sewer meets standards and to assure that connections to the public utility are in acceptable condition, project proponents seeking to reconnect or make a new connection to an existing side sewer system would be required to certify that the existing system meets current performance standards. Side sewers that cannot be certified to meet these requirements would either need to be rehabilitated or a new connection to the main would be required.

Build-over Requirements. When property owners propose to build structures over existing public sewer or storm drains, SPU must protect access to these systems so that they can be cleaned, repaired, and otherwise maintained. The code protects SPU’s need for access by requiring property owners sign an agreement with SPU before their structure is permitted. This agreement must be recorded against the property with King County Department of Records and added to the project plans. A side sewer permit would be issued to assure coordinated and thorough inspection between various departments and to assure that record drawings of the work are submitted before the project construction is approved.

As-built Requirements. Construction as-builts (record drawings) have always been required for City records when side sewers are constructed. The specific as-built drawing requirements, including format and appropriate details, have previously been explained in the side sewer rule and Client Assistance Memos. The authority for requiring as-builts has not, however, been explicit in the code, and proposed language has been added to clarify this issue.

Side Sewer Permit Fees. References in the Permit Fee Code, SMC 21.24, are in conflict with SMC 21.16. Because permit fees are so closely related to side sewer construction, enforcing side sewer fee-payment violations should be similar to enforcing other side sewer violations. To improve clarity, all portions of the Fee Code that relate to side sewer permitting are proposed to be moved into 21.16, and the subsection related to fee payment is proposed to be modified to exclude the specifics on what department money is paid to and what City fund refunds are paid from. Existing provisions for the Special Connection Charges for the public sewer system will still reside in SMC 21.24. None of these proposed changes will, however, change how side sewer permitting and inspection fees are collected or how SPU and DPD administer side sewer permitting.

Refunds for side sewer permit fees are still allowed, less administrative fees incurred by the City. However, a proposed paragraph is also added disallowing refunds for side sewer repair permits.

A more concise summary of the code changes enacted by this ordinance is contained in Attachment A to this fiscal note.

Please check one of the following:

____ This legislation does not have any financial implications. (Stop here and delete the remainder of this document prior to saving and printing.)

__X__ This legislation has financial implications. (Please complete all relevant sections that follow.)

Notes:

Although no new appropriations are required, there would be minor financial impacts on SPU and DPD. The proposed amendments to the legislation would require more detailed DPD review of development proposals involving side sewer reuse. DPD review of “small” projects, defined as having less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface, would increase from one-half hour per project at $165 per hour to approximately three-quarter hour per project at $165 per hour. Review time associated with “large” projects, defined as having 5,000 square feet or more new plus replaced impervious surface, would not change. This work would be performed by existing staff and no new positions are required.

Many of the provisions of this legislation would help maintain or improve the condition of the sewer system, for example by reducing the amount of fats, oils and greases entering the system. These code revisions therefore help minimize SPU’s operations and maintenance costs. In addition, the proposed build-over requirements would reduce SPU costs by protecting the utility’s ability to access its infrastructure and prevent operations and maintenance costs from escalating as they would if buildings were constructed over sewer and storm drains and no access agreements were in place.

· What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation? (Estimate the costs to the City of not implementing the legislation, including estimated costs to maintain or expand an existing facility or the cost avoidance due to replacement of an existing facility, potential conflicts with regulatory requirements, or other potential costs if the legislation is not implemented.)

Without this legislation, SPU will see increased operations and maintenance costs due to fats, oils, and grease or other illicit discharges to the sewer system. Over time, increased pipe cleaning decreases the pipe life, so that increased cleaning costs also lead to increased capital expenses to rehabilitate or replace sewer pipe sooner than would be needed with less frequent cleaning.

This legislation strengthens the foundation of a strong fats, oils, and grease program, which is required by the EPA Administrative Order regarding the Combined Sewer Overflow NPDES Permit. Not implementing this legislation puts the City at risk of noncompliance with that Administrative Order, potentially leading to penalties and costs of EPA-ordered program requirements.

· Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? • If so, please list the affected department(s), the nature of the impact (financial, operational, etc)., and indicate which staff members in the other department(s) are aware of this Bill.

SPU and DPD, the joint originating departments, are solely responsible for the implementation of these legislative changes. Other departments, such as Parks, Fleets and Facilities, Seattle Center, and Transportation that manage facilities with side sewers would be impacted in the same ways that any other side sewer customer of the City would be affected by this legislation.

· What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives? (Include any potential alternatives to the proposed legislation, such as reducing fee-supported activities, identifying outside funding sources for fee-supported activities, etc.)

There are no other alternatives to the legislation that will achieve the same or similar objectives.

· Is the legislation subject to public hearing requirements: (If yes, what public hearings have been held to date, and/or what plans are in place to hold a public hearing(s) in the future.)

This legislation is not subject to public hearing requirements. SPU has conducted numerous meetings with external stakeholders in 2007 and 2008 and in January and May 2010.

A summary listing of stakeholder outreach meetings is contained in Attachment A to this fiscal note.

· Other Issues (including long-term implications of the legislation):

· List attachments to the fiscal note below: (Please include headers with version numbers on all attachments, as well footers with the document’s name (e.g., DOF Property Tax Fisc Att A)

Attachment A: Summary and Comparison of Major Changes to Seattle’s Side Sewer Code 2010

Chapter 21.16
SIDE SEWERS

21.16.030 Definitions

Current Code (2006)

Proposed Code (2010)

Remarks

Not applicable.

Added approximately 5 new definitions

Changes to ≈ 15 others

Necessary to clarify certain provisions. Necessary to implement changes to FOG program

Key New or Significantly Revised Definitions (new definitions indicated by underline)

Authorized Agent

Certified Individual

Food Waste

Grease Interceptor

Responsible Party

Public Sewer System

Registered Side Sewer Contractor

Side Sewer

Standard Plans and Specifications

Watercourse

21.16.060 Registered side sewer contractor--Qualification--Registration--Insurance--Bond--Registration expiration and renewal

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Requires Registered Side Sewer Contractors (RSSCs) to submit a roster of individuals who have completed the RSSC test (defined as Certified Individuals).	Revised to require a roster of Certified Individuals and employees authorized to apply for permits on behalf of the RSSC (defined as Authorized Agents).	Allows City to track which employees are authorized by each RSSC to do work in the public place or apply for permits on their behalf.
Requires contractors to complete an oral examination to become RSSCs.	Removes requirements for Oral Exam; no longer used by City as requirement.	Updating Code to reflect current practices.

21.16.065 Suspension of registration

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Allows City to suspend RSSC registration for non-payment of invoices for work performed by the City on the RSSC’s behalf.	Added language that this suspension would occur after invoice for services is unpaid for 90 days.	Clarifying timeframes and responsibilities for suspension of registration.

21.16.070 Permit and fee required for connection and repairs

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Four paragraphs addressing permit requirements for side sewer work. The first paragraph basically states that a side sewer permit is required for all side sewer construction, repairs, additions, alterations, capping, etc	Deleted existing first paragraph and inserted existing language from Section 21.24.010 of the SMC as a replacement.	More clearly states that a permit is required for this same work and that it is unlawful to do any of this work without a permit.

21.16.071 Permit application and fees

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Not applicable. No fee schedule is shown in current Code.	Cut and pasted entire Section of SMC 21.24.021 relating to fees charged for side sewer permitting and inspection work.	Allows side sewer construction requirements and permitting and inspection fee requirements for this work to be in one code. Also allows enforcement provisions to be clearly applicable to fee violations as well as construction violations. No change in fees or practices.

21.16.077 Refund of sewer permit fees

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Not applicable. No refund provisions are shown in the current code.	Cut entire section from SMC 21.24.090 and pasted portions into this new section of 21.16. Simplified existing refund language, and eliminated specific fund and department references. Added new subsection disallowing refunds for repair permits.	As above, this places side sewer permit requirements and fee provisions in the same code. References to specific departments and funds for fees and refunds were deleted as unnecessary.

21.16.080 Permit--Application--Authority of the Director of the Seattle Public Utilities

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Not applicable.	Added new subsection regarding SPU’s authority to not issue side sewer permits to applicants for not paying City invoices or for not complying with enforcement notices issued by SPU.	Replicates similar existing language that applies to Registered Side Sewer Contractors

21.16.190 Ownership of side sewers

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Establishes side sewers as being owned by the properties that they serve.	Clarifies that side sewer ownership does not include the tee or connection at the public main.	This is the common understanding in Seattle, but has not been clear in the Code previously. This section formalizes the authority for what is already common practice.

21.16.200 Use of existing sewer for new building; PROPOSED AS Reserved

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Allows City to regulate and approve the use of existing side sewers.	Renumbered as Section 240, see below.	Part of reorganization of the Construction and Agreements sections of this Code. See Section 240 for changes to regulations for use of existing side sewers.

21.16.230 Reserved; PROPOSED AS Connections to new or converted buildings

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Current language for side sewer connections in Subsection 270C of this Code. States policy of one building per side sewer connection. Discretion for City to allow multiple connections is reserved but is limited.	Moved language from Subsection 270C to this section. Added language disallowing shared side sewers between non-residential properties or buildings with other properties or buildings. Discretion for City to allow multiple connections is still reserved, but less limited.	Part of reorganization of the Construction and Agreements sections of this Code. Clarified intent of existing language regarding overall City policy of “one building, one side sewer”. Side Sewer Code Director’s Rule has examples of when more than one building or property may share a side sewer.

21.16.240 Reserved; PROPOSED AS Use of existing side sewer

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Current language for reuse of existing side sewers in Section 200 of this Code (see above). Current language establishes City authority to regulate use of existing side sewers, but does not have specific requirements.	New code language clarifies requirements for existing side sewers to “conform to all requirements of this chapter” if reused. Includes evaluation by licensed engineer, certification of capacity, and rehabilitation requirements if side sewer is non-conforming. Applies to new developments and to developments that increase density/dwelling units.	Part of reorganization of the Construction and Agreements sections of this Code. This new section allows reuse of existing side sewers while still assuring the City and existing side sewer users that the pipe system is up to standards (doesn’t leak, has proper slope, etc). Some relief from these requirements is outlined in the Side Sewer Code Director’s Rule.

21.16.250 Easements and agreements

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Requires all affected property owners (including existing users) to indemnify the City for shared side sewer connections.	Requires only indemnification of the City by the permit applicant requesting a shared side sewer connection.	Based on input from DPD, SPU, and City Attorney’s Office, the City cannot require an existing side sewer owner to indemnify the City for a new applicant’s connection permit.
No current language regarding shared side sewer connection agreements for connections to existing side sewers.	Requires property owners served by new side sewer to sign a joint-use and maintenance agreement. Agreements are not required for reconnections if the proposed development does not increase units (i.e. does not propose increased density) that could adversely affect existing side sewer function.	Indemnification and connection agreement requirements were not clear in previous code.
No current language regarding private construction over public sewers or drains (buildovers).	New subsection establishes authority to prohibit construction work over existing public sewers or drains.	Mitigate impacts of construction to public infrastructure on private property.
No current language regarding minimum requirements for allowing private construction over public sewers or drains (buildovers).	Establishes minimum requirements when the City may allow a variance to construct over existing public sewers or drains.	Mitigate impacts of construction to public infrastructure on private property.

21.16.260 Installation when compliance impractical; PROPOSED AS Construction requirements and specifications

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Current language for side sewer construction requirements in Section 270 of this Code. Current language establishes City authority to require extensions when the public main does not abut the site.	Some previous text removed that was obsolete or irrelevant. Section number changed.	There is more detail about utility extensions in the Side Sewer Code Director’s Rules.

21.16.275 Side sewer construction as-builts (new)

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
No current language regarding side sewer as-built requirements.	New paragraph added establishing authority for City to require as-builts from side sewer work.	This is already accepted as a requirement with the City and contractors. This section formalizes the authority for what is already common practice.

21.16.310 Pretreatment facilities

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Requires pretreatment facilities for grease and oil to be maintained in continuously efficient operation at all times	New paragraph added to define “continuously efficient operation”. Also prohibits additives in pretreatment devices.	Terms not clear in current code. Additives can be damaging to public utility infrastructure.

21.16.330 Standards for measurements and analysis

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
References a common, technical text for waste and water quality sampling, testing, and analysis.	Added new references for recent and localized testing methods not referenced in this text.	Provide some clarity for new methods that may be referenced in side sewer work.

21.16.360, 370, 380 Authority to post notices, Unlawful destruction of notices, and Violation-Penalty

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
These three sections comprised the portions of the side sewer code regarding notices of violations and penalties.	These sections have been removed and amended. New language added directly from the City’s draft Revised Stormwater Code for enforcement, as shown below. Replaces existing language in current code under these sections.	Provides more consistent enforcement processes and actions across related City regulatory responsibilities.

21.16.352 Violations

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
No language defining violations. Section 21.16.370 states it is unlawful to tamper with notices posted pursuant to this chapter.	Clearly defines both civil and criminal violations, including non-compliance with standards and directives, vandalizing side sewers, tampering with notices, and aiding and abetting violation of this code.	Provides clarity and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.354 Liability and defenses of responsible parties

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
No language defining liability and defenses of parties.	Provides definitions of defenses for violations and compliance requirements.	Provides clarity and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.356 Right of entry for enforcement

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
No language providing authority for entry to enforce provisions of code.	Provides authority language for entry to enforce provisions of code.	Provides clarity and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.358 Enforcement actions

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Current code establishes City’s authority to post notices for violations under Section 21.16.360.	Expands and clarifies authority and requirements to investigate violations, issue stop work orders, and post notices of violations. Also explains review and appeals process for the Director and the City Attorney.	Provides clarity and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.360 Voluntary compliance agreement

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
No language providing authority for negotiating voluntary compliance agreements.	Provides authority language and definitions for entering into voluntary compliance agreements.	Provides clarity and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.362 Penalties and damages

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Current code establishes maximum penalty for violations of $300 or 90 days imprisonment, each day’s violation constituting a separate violation.	Penalties assessed using matrix-based approach that more closely aligns nature of violation with size of penalty. Maximum penalty $5,000 per each NOV issuance.	This is a matrix-based approach modeled after Washington State Department of Ecology’s enforcement procedures. It provides clarity and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.364 Collection of costs and penalties

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
No language regarding the collection of costs and penalties.	Establishes details and requirements for collecting invoices for violations and investigative and corrective costs accrued by the City, invoice requirements, collection following judicial review.	Provides clarity and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.366 Public nuisance

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
No language defining public nuisance.	Defines public nuisance, abatement of public nuisances by the City, and collection of costs associated with abatement.	Provides clarity and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.368 Additional relief

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
No language regarding additional relief or other enforcement actions by the City.	Establishes authority for the City to pursue other legal means of enforcement or relief to abate violations of the code.	Provides clear authority and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.370 Suspension or revocation

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
No language regarding the suspension or revocation of permits and approvals.	Establishes authority to suspend or revoke permits or approvals that were granted on the basis of inaccurate or misleading information.	Provides clarity and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.372 Financial assurance and covenants

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
No language regarding financial assurance and covenants.	Establishes authority and conditions for the city to require financial assurance or covenants.	Supports enforcement proceedings, and provides clarity and consistency for violations in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Code.

21.16.374 Severability

Current Code (2006)	Proposed Code (2010)	Remarks
Severability is captured in small paragraph under the table of contents.	A formal section was allocated for this authority.	It is standard to have severability language in its own section. This will also be consistent with the City’s Stormwater Code.

2010 Side Sewer Code Update

Summary of Public Outreach on Proposed Legislation

Date	Group
August 4, 2010	Seattle Chapter Board of WRA
June 2010	SEPA Determination – Pubic Process
May 2010	Meet with Creek Drainage & Wastewater Advisory Committee (CDWAC)
May 2010	Four city-wide public meetings held to meet with members of the restaurant community reviewing existing Fats, Oils, and Grease regulations and proposed code changes.
January 2010	Meet with Registered Side Sewer Contractors, Engineers and Consistently Prepared Applicants. Re-posted final Draft Code and Director’s Rule to Department of Planning and Development web site.
November 2008	Post final Draft Code and Director’s Rule to Department of Planning and Development web site
October 2008	Meet with Washington Restaurant Association work group on proposed Fats, Oils, and Grease code changes
August 2008	Launch SPU Fats, Oils, and Grease web site with information on proposed code changes
August 2008	Meet with Registered Side Sewer Contractors and General Contractors
July 2008	Received and addressed public and internal comments
June 2008	Meet with Washington Restaurant Association work group on proposed Fats, Oils, and Grease code changes
May 2008	Proposed Fats, Oils, and Grease code changes posted to Resource Venture (SPU business outreach) web site
April 2008	Outreach at booth at the Northwest Food Service Show
August 2007	Posted Draft Code and Director’s Rule for public review and comments
August 8, 2007	Meet with Master Builders Association
July 18, 2007	Meet with Master Builders Association
June 27, 2007	Meeting with Registered Side Sewer Contractors
June 2007	Posted Draft Code and Director’s Rule to Department of Planning and Development web site
May 2007	Meet with Washington Restaurant Association representative on proposed Fats, Oils, and Grease code changes