Form revised: July 12, 2011

 

FISCAL NOTE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS ONLY

 

Department:

Contact Person/Phone:

CBO Analyst/Phone:

Seattle Public Utilities

Ulysses Hillard/386-1518

Karen Grove/684-5805

 

Legislation Title:  AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into a license agreement with the Port of Seattle allowing Seattle Public Utilities to make a connection to a storm drain system owned by the Port of Seattle to receive water pumped from the Riverton Heights well field.

 

Summary and background of the Legislation:

This proposed legislation would allow the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) to enter into an agreement with the Port of Seattle allowing SPU to connect to a storm drain system owned by the Port and on the Port’s property.

 

Seattle Public Utilities must periodically flush its Riverton Heights wells so water from the wells remains potable.  Historically, SPU disposed of this flush water through its storm drain line that drains onto the shoulder of State Route 518, runs along the highway shoulder and then crosses under the highway before emptying into Lake Reba, a body of water on Port land. This flushed water is typically high in turbidity and could result in violations of water quality thresholds in the Port’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.  To prevent such violations, SPU proposes to construct and operate a new pipe on Port property that will receive discharge from SPU’s drinking water wells convey that discharge into the Port’s storm drain system during initial flushing. This system drains to a detention pond where suspended material would settle prior to the water emptying into Lake Reba. As part of the license agreement, the Port is requiring the City indemnify and hold the Port harmless for any liabilities caused by SPU’s use of its facilities. Such an indemnification clause requires approval from the City Council.

 

Project Name:

Project I.D.:

Project Location:

Start Date:

End Date:

Riverton Heights Drainage Imp

C110041

Port of Seattle

Mar 2012

Sep 2012

 

Please check any of the following that apply:

 

____    This legislation creates, funds, or anticipates a new CIP Project.

 

____    This legislation does not have any financial implications.

 

 _P_   This legislation has financial implications.

 

 

 

Appropriations:  

Proposed 2012 appropriations for the Water Supply Flexibility Program (C1507) in the Water Resources BCL (C150B) in the Water Fund are expected to be sufficient to cover this project, which is estimated to cost $92,000.    SPU will be within the budget for the overall BCL (C150B) even though spending for this project could exceed the 2012 allocation in the proposed budget for this project (C1507).   Allocations within the Fund will be adjusted during the Spending Plan process.   

 

 

Other Implications: 

 

a)      Does the legislation have indirect financial implications, or long-term implications?

If the Port’s property were to be damaged by SPU’s actions, either during construction of the facility or during annual flushing operations, the license obligates SPU to repair the damage. 

 

If the Port or any of its affiliates becomes liable for damages or any other expenses resulting from SPU’s construction or operation of the storm drain connection, the license obligates SPU to indemnify the Port and its affiliates and hold them harmless.  Accordingly, SPU would be required to reimburse the Port and its affiliates for those damages and expenses.

 

b)     What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation? 

SPU would incur the recurring expenses necessary to flush the wells to its own storm drain system. This cost is estimated to exceed the cost of flushing through the proposed connection by approximately $30,000 per operation. It is recommended the wells be flushed annually.

 

SPU would avoid the one-time $92,000 cost of constructing the connection to the Port’s storm drain line.

 

SPU could incur costs from any legal challenges by the Port should SPU choose to discharge the flush water without treatment.

 

c)      Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? 

No.

 

d)     What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives? 

SPU could continue to flush the wells as it has done in the past, with or without accommodations to mitigate for the high turbidity of the flush water.

 

e)      Is a public hearing required for this legislation? 

No.                                                                             

 

f)       Is publication of notice with The Daily Journal of Commerce and/or The Seattle Times required for this legislation?

No.

 

g)      Does this legislation affect a piece of property?

Not applicable.

 

h)     Other Issues:

Not applicable.

 

List attachments to the fiscal note below:

None.