ASSUMPTION
STUDY
City of Bellevue Water & Sewer Area in the
City of Issaquah City Limits
August 2013
Prepared for:
City of Issaquah
Prepared by:
RH2 Engineering, Inc.
22722 29th Drive SE, Suite 210
Bothell, WA 98021
(425) 951-5400
ASSUMPTION
STUDY
City of Bellevue Water & Sewer Area in the City of
Issaquah City Limits
August 2013
Prepared for:
City of Issaquah
Prepared By:
RH2 Engineering, Inc.
Bothell, WA
8/15/2013
8/15/2013
8/15/2013
8/15/2013
Table of Contents
Section 1 - Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1
1.1
Service Areas ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Water System Consumption ........................................................................................... 1
1.3
Sewer System Discharge ................................................................................................. 2
1.4
Single-family Residential Monthly Billing Impact ........................................................... 2
Section 2 - Boundary Review Board Objectives..................................................................... 2
2.1
RCW 36.70A Growth Management Act .......................................................................... 3
2.2
King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies ................................................. 3
2.3
Issaquah .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.4
RCW 36.93.180 Objectives of Boundary Review Board.................................................. 4
Section 3 - Assumption Summary Statistics .......................................................................... 6
Section 4 - Water Assets to be Assumed ............................................................................... 7
4.1
Storage Facilities ............................................................................................................. 7
4.2
Pump Stations ................................................................................................................. 7
4.3
Well and Well Pump Stations ......................................................................................... 7
4.4
Pressure Reducing Station .............................................................................................. 7
4.5
Interties ........................................................................................................................... 7
4.6
Water Source of Supply .................................................................................................. 7
4.7
Water Main ..................................................................................................................... 7
Section 5 - Water Cost Components ..................................................................................... 8
5.1
Existing Storage Facilities Valuation ............................................................................... 9
5.2
Existing Water Main Valuation ....................................................................................... 9
5.3
System Separation Cost Using Shared Facilities and Supply (preferred approach) ....... 9
5.4
System Separation Cost Without Shared Facilities or Supply (not preferred) ............. 11
5.5
Bellevue’s Water Comprehensive Plan Deficiency Cost ............................................... 12
Section 6 - Sewer Assets to be Assumed ............................................................................. 13
6.1
Gravity Sewer System ................................................................................................... 13
Section 7 - Sewer Cost Components ................................................................................... 14
7.1
Sewer Main Costs.......................................................................................................... 15
7.2
System Separation Cost Using Shared Facilities (preferred approach) ........................ 15
7.3
Physical System Separation Cost Without Shared Facilities (not preferred) ............... 16
7.4
Bellevue’s Sewer Comprehensive Plan Deficiency Cost ............................................... 16
Section 8 – Level of Service ................................................................................................ 16
Section 9 - Financial Analysis and Rate Impact.................................................................... 19
9.1
Current Bill Impact ........................................................................................................ 19
9.2
Separation Cost Impact ................................................................................................. 22
9.3
Operating Impact .......................................................................................................... 23
9.4
Financial Impacts .......................................................................................................... 24
9.5
Financial Viability Summary .......................................................................................... 25
9.6
References and Data Utilized in Analyses..................................................................... 27
i|Page
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Service Areas ................................................................................................................................ 6
Table 3-2: Assessed Values ........................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3-3: Water Consumption and Sewer Discharge .................................................................................. 7
Table 4-1: Water Main Size, Material, and Length Summary ....................................................................... 8
Table 4-2: Water Main Date of Installation Summary .................................................................................. 8
Table 5-1: Storage Facilities Valuation .......................................................................................................... 9
Table 5-2: Water Main Valuation.................................................................................................................. 9
Table 5-3: Water System Separation Project Costs .................................................................................... 10
Table 6-1: Sewer Main Size, Material, and Length Summary ..................................................................... 14
Table 6-2: Sewer Main Date of Installation Summary ................................................................................ 14
Table 7-1: Sewer Main Valuation ................................................................................................................ 15
Table 8-1: Policies Comparison ................................................................................................................... 17
Table 9-1: Billing Rates ................................................................................................................................ 21
Table 9-2: Average 1-Month Utility Bill....................................................................................................... 22
Table 9-3: Seperation Cost to Issaquah ...................................................................................................... 23
Appendices
Appendix A - Revised Code of Washington Sections
Appendix B - King County Countywide Planning Policies
Appendix C - City of Issaquah Comprehensive Plan - Utilities and Public Services Element
Appendix D - Pipe Cost Estimates
Appendix E - Programs in Bellevue’s 2006 Water Comprehensive Plan
Appendix F - Sample Shared Use Agreements
Appendix G - Operation and Maintenance FTE Analysis
Appendix H - Legal Boundary Description
ii | P a g e
Section 1 - Executive Summary
The City of Issaquah (Issaquah) owns, operates, and maintains water
and sewer systems within its incorporated city limits. However, not all
Issaquah residents are served by the city's water and sewer systems,
some customers are served by the City of Bellevue (Bellevue).
Consistent with its Comprehensive Plan Policy, Issaquah desires to serve
all residents within the incorporated city limits utilizing city-owned
water and sewer systems. The process by which this would occur is
called “assumption of jurisdiction” or simply “assumption”. Through this
process, Issaquah would assume jurisdiction for water and sewer
service responsibilities, property, facilities, and equipment held by
Bellevue that are located within the Issaquah city limits. The assumption
of jurisidction for water and sewer from Bellevue to Issaquah will follow
the procedures of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.13A,
which is consistent with RCW 70.116.090 (see Appendix A for RCWs).
This assumption would provide a uniform and efficient level of service
to all Issaquah residents and allow them reasonable and efficient access
to their water and sewer policymakers and, therefore, rate setting and
control. The citizens in the proposed assumption area currently must go
to the City of Bellevue for matters related to water and sewer service,
yet they do not have the ability to vote on policies and policy makers for
Bellevue because they do not reside within Bellevue city limits. The
proposed assumption would increase efficiency by reducing the
fragmentation and overlapping jurisdictions that currently exist.
In addition, the proposed assumption is consistent with a number of
existing statutes, including the State Growth Management Act, and City
and County policies related to land use and the provision of urban
services. These are detailed in Section 2 of this report.
Service Areas
1.8%
Issaquah
Assumption
Area
Remaining
Bellevue
Service Area
98.2%
There are a number of important details related to this proposed
assumption which are discussed further in the body of this report but
which are summarized here.
1.1 Service Areas
If the assumption is implemented, Issaquah will assume jurisdiction
over 380 acres or 1.8 percent of Bellevue’s current water and sewer
service area. Bellevue will retain jurisdiction over the remaining 20,488
acres or 98.2 percent of its current water service area.
1.2 Water System Consumption
Water consumption in millions of gallons of water per day (mgd) was
also reviewed to help identify the magnitude of the assumption. Based
1|Page
Water System Consumption
20
on available Bellevue data, Bellevue’s water consumption was 15.7 mgd
and is expected to be 15.481 mgd post-assumption, a reduction of
1.4 percent. Bellevue would continue to consume 98.6 percent of the
pre-assumption total. Issaquah’s consumption is expected to increase
14.0 percent from 1.52 mgd to 1.73 mgd.
1.3 Sewer System Discharge
15
M
G 10
D
5
PreAssumption
0
Post
Assumption
Sewer System Discharge
20
M 15
G 10
D 5
PreAssumption
Post
Assumption
0
Based on available Bellevue data, Bellevue’s sewer discharge was 15.24
mgd and is expected to be 15.03 mgd post-assumption, a reduction of
1.4 percent. Bellevue would continue to consume 98.6 percent of the
pre-assumption total. Issaquah’s consumption is expected to increase
11.2 percent from 1.958 mgd to 2.177 mgd.
1.4 Single-family Residential Monthly Billing Impact
In evaluating the impact to a typical single-family customer, it is
projected that after assumption a single-family customer using 190 gpd
(the City of Issaquah average from 2006-2010, per Issaquah Draft 2012
Water System Plan Update) will have a combined water and sewer bill
of $95.57 per month with Issaquah, versus $105.43 per month with
Bellevue (without assumption). See Section 9 of this report for more
information. The trend over time has been toward greater water
conservation. Issaquah’s 2012 single family average water consumption
is just 150 gpd.
Section 2 - Boundary Review Board Objectives
Monthly W+S Bill
Monthly Billing Comparison
$110
$105.43
$95.57
$100
$90
$80
Bellevue
Issaquah
Chapter 36.93 RCW establishes the Boundary Review Board (Board) for
King County (County). The Board provides independent, quasi-judicial
review of proposals for creation of or changes to boundaries by cities
and by special purpose districts. Through this review process, the Board
ensures logical growth in the communities of the County. The Board’s
role is to implement existing laws; the Board does not have the
authority to make law or policy.
State law provides in RCW 36.93.157 that Board decisions must be
consistent with three sections of the Growth Management Act:
•
RCW 36.70A.020 Planning Goals
•
RCW 36.70A.110 Urban Growth Areas
•
RCW 36.70A.210 Countywide Planning Policies
Following is a brief discussion of these areas and associated documents.
2|Page
2.1 RCW 36.70A Growth Management Act
The Growth Management Act encourages development in urban areas
with cities being the unit of local government most appropriate to
provide urban governmental services. RCW citations supporting this
development are as follows.
RCW 36.70A.020 (12) intends to ensure that adequate public services
and facilities are available to serve land use developments.
RCW 36.70A.110 (4) states, in general, “cities are the units of local
government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services.”
Bellevue staff have
indicated they support
this assumption.
RCW 36.70A.210 (1) states, RCW 36.70A.210 (1) states, “…cities are
primary providers of urban governmental services within urban growth
areas.”
For this particular assumption, the citizens of Issaquah are provided
water and sewer services by a different city than the one in which they
reside. The assumption would allow Issaquah to provide water and
sewer service to its residents. Bellevue staff have indicated they support
this proposed change.
2.2 King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies
The County's Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies FW-29 and FW30 address the need for jurisdictions to plan for and coordinate services.
Numerous County/Countywide Policies are also relevant, including, but
not limited to those policies that address requirements for urban
services for growth (e.g., CO-1, CO-3); support for conservation,
efficiency, cost effectiveness, new technologies and responsible growth
(e.g., CO-2, CO-4 through CO-9).
Again, water and sewer services are provide to the assumption area by
a city; however, it is not the same city in which those residents reside
and vote. This assumption of jurisdiction will correct that, allowing
Issaquah residents to be served by the City of Issaquah.
See Appendix B for King County Countywide Planning Policies.
2.3 Issaquah
According to Issaquah’s Comprehensive Plan – Utilities and Public
Services Element, the Vision and Values of the Utilities and Public
Services Element include the statement that, “the City of Issaquah is
committed to providing high quality and efficient public services and
utilities to its residents.” As part of Issaquah’s values, “the community’s
utility and public service vision…identify the City’s commitment to
providing all residents with the efficient and equitable services and
facilities.” Included with Issaquah’s Visions and Values is, “maintaining
and improving public services required by the community.”
3|Page
See Appendix C for Issaquah’s Comprehensive Plan – Utilities and Public
Services Element.
The assumption of jurisdiction by Issaquah from Bellevue for the
Issaquah citizens is consistent with Issaquah’s Comprehensive Plan.
2.4 RCW 36.93.180 Objectives of Boundary Review Board
These objectives primarily
apply to incorporations of or
annexations to cities and
districts, but also must be
considered for assumptions
of jurisdiction. Not all of the
objectives shown in this
study must be met for a
proposal to be approved.
The decisions of the Board shall attempt to achieve the following
objectives from RCW 36.93.180, as well as consider other statutes and
goals. The following are summary responses to assist the reader with
understanding the proposed assumption of jurisdiction by Issaquah.
Not all of the objectives shown in this section must be met for a
proposal to be approved.
Factors to be considered by the Board are outlined in RCW 36.93.170
and include, but are not necessarily limited to: land area and land uses;
comprehensive plans; topography and natural boundaries and drainage
basins; municipal services; costs and adequacy of services, future
needs/controls for services; effect on financial operations; effects on
mutual economic and social interests; and effects on local governmental
structures.
(1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities
Response: One-hundred percent of the service area to be assumed is
within Issaquah’s city limits. The existing neighborhoods and
communities will be preserved and Issaquah has already established
zoning for the undeveloped areas via its Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed utility assumption will not change these designations.
Issaquah has made a commitment to the constituents in the assumption
area to provide consolidated local services. Assumption by Issaquah
would provide uniform services from a sole provider. This will enhance
citizens’ relationships with their community and government, as well as
provide more convenient service.
(2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of
water, highways, and land contours
Response: The existing city limits were established through proper
annexations which provided review of physical boundaries at that time.
The proposed utility assumption will not change the established limits
and is identified by a legal boundary.
(3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas
Response: The proposed utility assumption will revise service areas for
water and sewer to match Issaquah and Bellevue city limits.
Constituents that reside in Issaquah and receive water and sewer
4|Page
service from Bellevue currently have a the ability to vote on policies and
policy makers for Issaquah water and sewer service because they reside
in Issaquah city limit. It is logical for constituents to have their voting
power in Issaquah aligned with the services they control with their
votes. Therefore, revisions of Issaquah’s water and sewer service areas
to match its city limits provides the most logical service area.
Additionally, Bellevue staff have agreed that the proposed assumption
is the preferred approach.
Issaquah has a regulatory authority and responsibility to provide public
services to all of its citizens, and the consolidation of service within
Issaquah’s city limits provides the logical service area. Issaquah has
sufficient facilities and financial resources to provide water and sewer
services to its citizens within the assumption area.
Following the assumption, Bellevue would continue to retain a logical
service area contiguous with its city limits. Bellevue will also retain
sufficient facilities and financial resources to provide water and sewer
services to Bellevue’s citizens.
No abnormal or irregular
boundaries are proposed
for the assumption. The
boundaries are consistent
with the existing
Issaquah city limits.
(4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries
Response: No abnormal or irregular boundaries are proposed for the
assumption. The boundaries are consistent with the existing Issaquah
city limits and Bellevue city limits.
(5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and
encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand
population in heavily populated urban areas
Response: Assumption would eliminate an overlapping layer of
government in the incorporated area of Issaquah. Assumption will not
change incorporated boundaries.
(6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts
Response: This objective does not apply as the assumption does not
involve special purpose districts, and Bellevue’s water and sewer
utilities will not become inactive as a result of partial assumption.
(7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries
Response: The existing water and sewer service boundaries are
considered impractical because they do not match Bellevue and
Issaquah city limits. The assumption will adjust the boundaries so they
match and are most practical.
5|Page
(8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of
unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and
Response: The proposed assumption will not change the current
designations of urban and rural lands. The levels of service (LOS) will
continue to be consistent with the character and density as designated
in the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan.
(9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for
long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive
plan adopted by the county legislative authority.
Response: Agricultural and rural lands are located outside the proposed
area of assumption and are generally protected by the King County
Comprehensive Plan. These lands will not be affected by this
assumption.
Service Areas
1.80%
Issaquah
Assumption
Area
Remaining
Bellevue Service
Area
98.20%
Assessed Values
1.30%
Issaquah
Assumption
Area
Remaining
Bellevue
98.70%
Section 3 - Assumption Summary Statistics
Based on information available to RH2 Engineering, Inc., (RH2), the
following tables summarize statistics for the assumption.
Table 3-1: Service Areas
Jurisdiction
Issaquah Assumption Area
Remaining Bellevue Service Area
Total Bellevue Service Area
Area
(acres)
380
20,488
20,868
Percentage
of Area
1.8%
98.2%
Table 3-2: Assessed Values
Jurisdiction
Issaquah Assumption Area
Remaining Bellevue
TOTAL
Assessed Value
$ 358,775,700
$ 27,138,948,337
$ 27,497,724,037
Percentage
of Value
1.3%
98.7%
Note: From http://info.kingcounty.gov/assessor/DataDownload/default.aspx
Since the assessed values of properties in the services areas are less
than 60 percent, RCW 35.13A.030 does not apply.
6|Page
Table 3-3: Water Consumption and Sewer Discharge
Jurisdiction
Issaquah Assumption Area
Remaining Bellevue Service Area
Total
Water
(mgd)
0.22
15.48
15.70
Sewer
(mgd)
0.21
15.03
15.24
Section 4 - Water Assets to be Assumed
The facilities to be assumed from Bellevue by Issaquah are necessary to
permanently serve the Issaquah constituents in the assumption area.
Figure 4-1: Existing System to be Assumed contains a map showing the
water facilities to be assumed by Issaquah.
4.1 Storage Facilities
Under the proposed assumption, Bellevue’s 270 Zone storage reservoir
would be assumed by Issaquah. The reservoir is a 1.0-million-gallon
(MG) concrete reservoir constructed in 1980.
4.2 Pump Stations
No pump stations will be assumed.
4.3 Well and Well Pump Stations
No well and well pump stations will be assumed.
4.4 Pressure Reducing Station
No pressure reducing stations will be assumed.
4.5 Interties
No water system interties will be assumed.
4.6 Water Source of Supply
No water supply sources will be assumed. The source of water supply
for the assumption is water purchased by Bellevue from the Cascade
Water Alliance (CWA). CWA purchases water from Seattle and provides
it to Bellevue and other CWA members.
4.7 Water Main
Under the proposed assumption, Issaquah would assume the following
water mains shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-2 summarizes the years the
pipes were installed.
7|Page
Table 4-1: Water Main Size, Material, and Length Summary
Water Main Size
(diameter)
4" and Smaller
6"
8"
10"
12"
TOTAL
% of TOTAL
AC
(feet)
317
6,019
19,229
4,736
30,301
49%
CI
(feet)
175
175
0%
DI
(feet)
6,780
508
20,517
53
2,847
30,704
50%
PVC
(feet)
337
252
589
1%
Total
Length
7,433
6,702
39,997
53
7,583
61,768
100%
% of
Total
12%
11%
65%
0%
12%
100%
Table 4-2: Water Main Date of Installation Summary
Water Main Year and Length (feet)
Water Main
(diameter)
4" and Smaller
6"
8"
10"
12"
TOTAL
% of TOTAL
After
2000
250
1990s
3,461
1,004
1980s
1,421
68
4,683
15
3,725
6%
110
1,114
2%
1,888
8,060
13%
1970s
5,530
5,547
27,287
53
1,055
39,472
64%
1960s
233
1,087
3,421
1950s
141
4,515
9,256
15%
Total
% of
Length Total
7,433
12%
6,702
11%
39,997 65%
53
0%
7,583
12%
61,768 100%
100%
Section 5 - Water Cost Components
This section provides an engineering basis for determining the value of
the existing physical facilities which serve the area to be assumed, costs
for separating the systems, and costs from Bellevue’s Capital
Improvement Plan. The costs provided are consistent with the Board’s
need to consider valuations; however, in accordance with RCW 35.13A
monetary transfers do not occur for the facilities. The cost components
include:
Existing system valuation;
o Replacement cost using present day costs;
o Replacement cost less depreciation (using straight line
depreciation through year 2012);
System Separation Cost Using Shared Facilities and Supply;
System Separation Cost Without Shared Facilities or Supply; and
Bellevue’s Capital Improvement Plan cost.
8|Page
The physical facilities that were analyzed under these cost components
include only those facilities which will be assumed. Refer to Section 9 of
this report for discussions regarding financial analysis.
5.1 Existing Storage Facilities Valuation
Valuation costs for the existing 270 Zone reservoir in the assumption
area are presented in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Storage Facilities Valuation
Reservoir
270 Zone
Replacement
Cost
$1,900,000
Replacement Cost
Less Depreciation
$700,000
1
Based on assumed service life of 50 years.
2
Year constructed is 1980.
5.2 Existing Water Main Valuation
Valuation costs for the existing water main in the assumption area are
presented in Table 5-2. Replacement costs were based on an average
cost per linear foot according to estimates shown in Appendix D.
Table 5-2: Water Main Valuation
Water Main Size
(Diameter)
4" and Smaller
6"
8"
10"
12"
TOTAL
Replacement Cost
$1,656,000
$1,696,000
$11,159,000
$14,000
$2,116,000
$16,641,000
Replacement Cost Less
Depreciation1
$964,000
$891,000
$6,509,000
$8,000
$1,064,000
$9,436,000
1
Based on a service life of 75 years per Bellevue’s 2006 Water Comprehensive
Plan Chapter 12.
5.3 System Separation Cost Using Shared Facilities and Supply
(preferred approach)
Table 5-3 lists projects and costs that are anticipated to be needed to
allow the systems to function separately using shared facilities while
maintaining existing hydraulic capabilities and LOS to customers. These
projects are shown in Figure 5-1: Proposed Improvements – Shared
System Operation Option. These projects are anticipated to separate
operational elements of the systems and, therefore it is assumed they
will be implemented with assumption; no phasing is shown.
Descriptions of the projects follow.
Planning-level total project costs are shown in Table 5-3 and should be
refined as project details evolve. Planning-level cost estimates in Table
5-3 were developed using bid tabs and/or historical pricing of similar
9|Page
facilities and projects. These projects could be paid for using water
rates, a bond and/or wholesale or other agreed rates between
jurisdictions.
Hydraulic modeling performed on the system indicated an area of low
pressure and inadequate fire flow per Issaquah standards. The area has
been identified and is shown in Figure 5-1. These areas of low pressure
and fire flow deficiency exist prior to assumption and would continue to
remain after assumption.
Table 5-3: Water System Separation Project Costs
Project
W-S1
W-S2
W-S3
TOTAL
Description
270 Zone Interties (two-way, 2 each)
Transfer Water Services (3 Each)
Telemetry/SCADA
Approx.
Cost
$188,000
$15,000
$25,000
$228,000
Restrictions
Traffic impact
Temp easement req’d
--
270 Zone Interties
This project would include construction of two interties, as shown in
Figure 5-1, each with two meters for each direction of flow and the 270
Zone Sammamish Reservoir would become a shared use facility. Water
supply for the assumption area in Issaquah (customers and the 270
Reservoir) would be provided by Bellevue, creating the need for the first
direction in metering. Then water from the 270 Reservoir could be
provided through intertie locations back to the Bellevue customers, if
desired, which would require the need for the second direction.
Bellevue has modeled its water system and indicated that Bellevue may
not need storage in the Sammamish Reservoir after assumption to
provide water to Bellevue customers. This could eliminate the need for
the second direction meter; however, elimination of the second meter
would not substantially reduce project costs and, therefore, the project
cost shown for the interties is sufficient for this planning analysis.
Transfer Water Services (3 each)
Based on available mapping, it is anticipated that three water services
will need to be transferred so that Issaquah and Bellevue residents will
be served by their corresponding city’s water system. These properties
are shown in Figure 5-1.
Telemetry
Telemetry improvements are required to integrate the water system to
be assumed, particularly the reservoir, into Issaquah’s existing
telemetry system.
10 | P a g e
5.4 System Separation Cost Without Shared Facilities or Supply
(not preferred)
It is possible for Issaquah and Bellevue to have their water systems
physically separated with no connection or intertie between them.
Issaquah could utilize its own sources of supply independent from
Bellevue.
Water system improvements are anticipated to be needed to provide
complete physical separation of the two water systems and allow the
systems to function separately while maintaining the existing hydraulic
capabilities and LOS to customers. These projects are shown in Figure 52: Proposed Improvements – System Separation without Share
Facilities and listed below. These projects are anticipated to be
implemented with assumption, therefore, no phasing is shown.
Descriptions of the projects follow.
Planning-level total project costs are shown below and should be
refined as project details evolve. Prices for water main projects were
based on estimated costs per linear-foot of water main, which are
shown in Appendix D. Planning-level cost estimates for facilities and
other water projects, not including water mains, were developed using
bid tabs and/or historical pricing of similar facilities and projects. These
projects could be paid for using water rates and/or a bond.
Similar to the situation described in Section 5.3, the results of these
separation projects include areas of low pressure and inadequate fire
flow as shown in Figure 5-2, and these areas of low pressure and fire
flow deficiency appear to exist within Bellevue’s systems even under
existing conditions prior to separation.
Project
W-P1
W-P2
W-P 3
W-P 4
W-P 5
W-P 6
TOTAL
Description
Lakemont Triangle Regional Main Tie-in*
Newport Way NW 12-inch Water Main
Newport Way NW PRV (520 => 270)
Construct 12-inch Fill Line for Reservoir
Emergency Interties
Telemetry
Approx.
Cost
$0
$377,000
$100,000
$363,000
$30,000
$25,000
$895,000
Restrictions
Traffic impact
Traffic impact
Traffic impact
Easement may be Req'd
---
*Already funded per Issaquah staff as of August
2013, so no cost to assumption
Lakemont Triangle Regional Main Tie-in
This project is the same as the one proposed in the Issaquah’s DRAFT
2012 Water System Plan Update and will provide a regional connection
for Issaquah to the CWA 24-inch water main (CWA main). According to
11 | P a g e
Issaquah staff, the project is already funded (as of report writing in
August 2013), hence the project cost has not been included for
assumption. Issaquah’s Lakemont 520 Zone is currently supplied by
Bellevue through an intertie meter. This project would eliminate
Issaquah’s connection to Bellevue’s system in the Lakemont area and
provide water supply direct from the CWA main to the Lakemont 520
Zone.
Newport Way NW 12-inch Water Main
This project would include construction of approximately 1,350 linear
feet of 12-inch water main to provide water supply to the assumption
area water mains and reservoir.
Newport Way NW PRV (520 Zone to 270 Zone)
This project would include construction of a pressure reducing valve
(PRV) station to reduce pressure from the 520 Lakemont Zone to the
assumption area’s 270 Zone.
Construct 12-inch Fill Line for Reservoir
This project would include construction of a dedicated fill line to the
Sammamish Reservoir (to be assumed by Issaquah). The dedicated fill
line is required so that the connection to the CWA main (described in
the Lakemont Triangle Regional Main Tie-In project) does not supply all
demand in the 270 Zone, leaving the water in the Sammamish Reservoir
stagnant without level fluctuation.
Emergency Interties
This project includes construction of three emergency interties between
Issaquah and Bellevue at existing locations. The emergency interties will
consist of closed valves and function only when manually opened during
an emergency.
Telemetry
Telemetry improvements are required to integrate the water system to
be assumed, particularly the reservoir, into Issaquah’s existing
telemetry system.
5.5 Bellevue’s Water Comprehensive Plan Deficiency Cost
Bellevue’s 2006 Water Comprehensive Plan identifies the following
recommended system improvements which impact the proposed
assumption area:
•
•
•
•
Service line and saddle replacement;
Fire hydrant improvements;
Small-diameter pipe replacement; and
Reservoir evaluation and structural/seismic rehabilitation.
12 | P a g e
The descriptions of these programs as shown in Bellevue’s 2006 Water
Comprehensive Plan are included in Appendix E.
Service Line and Saddle Replacement: Based on available data, there
are 1,164 water service lines in the assumption area. Water main
material was used as a guide to help determine age of the water service
lines, with the assumption that asbestos cement (AC) pipe has older
water service lines connected to it. With approximately 49 percent of
the water system listed as AC pipe (see Table 4-1), an estimated 570
water service lines are aged. RH2 estimated the cost to replace the
water service lines and saddles at $1,100 each, yielding a total cost of
$627,000.
Fire Hydrant Improvements: Based on information in Bellevue’s 2006
Comprehensive Plan, the fire hydrant program was to be completed in 7
years, or by 2013. Bellevue staff has confirmed that there are no
remaining fire hydrants in the assumption area to be replaced.
Small-diameter Pipe Replacement: This program will include
replacement of 4-inch and 6-inch distribution mains in order to improve
fire flow. This program also includes replacement of older 4-inch AC
pipe due to their vulnerability to failure. Issaquah must make a policy
decision whether to carry this program forward.
Reservoir Evaluation and Structural/Seismic Rehabilitation: This
program includes modification to existing water reservoirs to mitigate
potential earthquake damage and to maintain reservoir function during
seismic events. Bellevue’s 2011-2017 Capital Investment Program Plan
does not identify any water capital projects specific to the assumption
area.
Section 6 - Sewer Assets to be Assumed
The sewer facilities to be assumed from Bellevue by Issaquah are shown
in Figure 6-1: Existing System to be Assumed and are further described
in this section.
6.1 Gravity Sewer System
Under the proposed assumption, Issaquah would assume the following
sewer mains shown in Table 6-1. Table 6-2 summarizes the years the
pipes were installed.
13 | P a g e
Table 6-1: Sewer Main Size, Material, and Length Summary
Sewer Main
(diameter)
6"
8"
10"
12"
15"
18"
TOTAL
% of TOTAL
CON
(feet)
29,613
PVC
(feet)
388
10,068
29,613
50%
296
335
2,592
13,679
23%
AC
(feet)
CI
(feet)
HDPE
(feet)
DI
(feet)
Unknown
(feet)
8,861
1,676
283
102
300
641
125
1,067
1,724
2,061
4%
999
2%
766
1%
2,791
5%
8,861
15%
699
Total
Length
388
52,226
2,132
1,097
335
2,592
58,770
100%
% of
Total
1%
89%
4%
2%
1%
4%
100%
Table 6-2: Sewer Main Date of Installation Summary
Sewer Main Year and Length (feet)
Sewer Main
(diameter)
6''
8''
10''
12''
15''
18''
TOTAL
% of TOTAL
After 2000
0%
1990s
448
1980s
345
7,040
100
335
2,592
3,475
6%
7,385
13%
1970s
40,442
1,724
102
42,268
72%
1960s
43
3,731
283
Unknown
4,057
7%
1,585
3%
565
125
895
Total
Length
388
52,226
2,132
1,097
335
2,592
58,770
100%
% of
Total
1%
89%
4%
2%
1%
4%
100%
Other additional items that will need to be obtained include sewer
service records, property acquisition records, if applicable, and other
appurtenances associated with the O&M of the sewer system.
Section 7 - Sewer Cost Components
This section was developed using similar methodology as Section 5 Water Cost Components.
The physical facilities to be assumed include the gravity sewer mains
and associated manholes.
14 | P a g e
7.1 Sewer Main Costs
Valuation costs for the sewer mains and manholes in the assumption
area are presented in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Sewer Main Valuation
Sewer Main
(diameter)
6''
8''
10''
12''
15''
18''
TOTAL
Replacement
Cost
$90,000
$13,370,000
$571,000
$309,000
$102,000
$832,000
$15,274,000
Replacement Cost
Less Depreciation1
$61,000
$7,340,000
$264,000
$228,000
$75,000
$632,000
$8,600,000
1
Based on a service life of 75 years.
7.2 System Separation Cost Using Shared Facilities (preferred
approach)
It is possible to serve the area to be assumed by Issaquah with no
capital improvements by relying on joint-use facilities. The only joint-use
facilities needed would be some gravity sewer main in and around 181st
Avenue SE within Bellevue city limits.
It is anticipated that Issaquah and Bellevue could negotiate an
agreement for shared use of the gravity sewers that would convey
sewage flows from Issaquah via Bellevue to discharge to the County
sewer main interceptor. A simple approach to dividing costs would be
to:
1) Isolate the costs associated with the shared facilities;
2) Estimate the number of Equivalent Residential Units (ERU)
served by the shared facilities; and
3) Allocate the costs to the Bellevue and Issaquah on a per ERU
basis.
A sample of a shared use agreement between two municipalities is
included Appendix F for guidance, should Issaquah and Bellevue desire
to establish a shared use agreement. Both Issaquah and Bellevue have
contracts with King County to discharge sewage to the County
interceptor, so the cost per ERU for customers within the assumption
area would be paid by Issaquah instead of Bellevue following
assumption.
No capital improvements projects are required in this option.
15 | P a g e
7.3 Physical System Separation Cost Without Shared Facilities
(not preferred)
The sewer system improvements in Table 7-2 are anticipated to be
needed to provide complete physical separation of the two sewer
systems and allow the systems to function separately while maintaining
the existing level of service to customers. These projects are shown in
Figure 7-1: Proposed Improvements – System Separation without
Shared Facilities Option.
Planning-level total project costs are shown in Table 7-2 and should be
refined as project details evolve. Prices for sewer main projects were
based on estimated costs per linear foot of sewer main, which are
shown in Appendix D. These projects could be paid for using sewer
rates and/or a bond.
Table 7-2: System Separation Project Costs
Project Description
1
Construct 8-inch Gravity Sewer
2
Transfer Side Sewer Services (5 each)
Total
Approx. Cost Restrictions
$359,000 Easement req'd
$33,000 Easement req'd
$392,000
7.4 Bellevue’s Sewer Comprehensive Plan Deficiency Cost
No capital sewer projects were specifically identified for the assumption
area in Bellevue’s 2002 Comprehensive Wastewater Plan, nor Bellevue’s
2011-2017 Capital Investment Program Plan. Bellevue does have an
ongoing Pipeline Renewal and Replacement Program, which was
identified in 2002 Comprehensive Wastewater Plan and Bellevue may
have collected funds for this program as it is associated with the
assumption area, but the specifics are not detailed. The 2002
Comprehensive Wastewater Plan indicates that Bellevue was collecting
approximately $400,000 annually for the program system wide.
Section 8 – Level of Service
Both Issaquah and Bellevue provide water and sewer service. Below, in
Table 8-1, is a comparison of policies and level of service that will apply
to customers within the assumption area if their water and sewer
service is provided by Issaquah or by Bellevue. Following the table is
additional discussion of the key elements following assumption.
Generally, following assumption, Issaquah will be able to provide a
coordinated and consolidated approach to service provision and
emergency response, since the municipal services will be provided by
one municipality. Prior to assumption, municipal services are provided
16 | P a g e
via two separate entities in two separate locations, which can lead to
fragmentation for the municipal services.
Table 8-1: Policies Comparison
Element
Police Department
Fire Department
Emergency Management
Program
Issaquah
Internal to Issaquah
Eastside Fire and Rescue - Contracted
to work regularly with Issaquah.
Dedicated and updated website, phone
information hotline, email alerts, radio
station, and television station
Land Use Authority Control
Minimum sewer pipe cover
Sewer Manholes Maximum
Spacing
Sewer Manhole Depth
Internal to City of Issaquah
3 feet
400 feet
Side Sewer
Ownership/Maintenance
Property owner to maintain. (Policy
U3.4, pg 24)
Sewer Enforcement
Terminate domestic water service if
property owner fails to meet
connection policy or pay utility
charges.
Fluoridation will be maintained in the
assumption area.
Water Fluoridation
None specified.
Water Disinfection
Chlorination via Bellevue or CWA
Water Storage Volume
DOH Minimum, plus two storage
facilities per water operating area, in
single-family residential service areas a
maximum of three pressure zones can
be served by a storage facility, and a
storage facility is required for each
operating area. (Policy 7.3.1)
DOH Minimum plus a minimum of 40
psi at the second floor elevation with
storage at lowest operational level.
(Policy 7.3.2)
Water Pressure Minimum
Bellevue
External (Issaquah)
External (Eastside Fire and
Rescue through Issaquah)
Dedicated and updated
website, email and text alerts,
training by fire department,
reverse 911 calls
External – City of Issaquah
Unknown
400 feet
Minimums specified (Eng
Standards pg S3-6)
Bellevue owns and maintains
side sewer in right-of-way and
public easements. Property
owner maintains from
property line to structure.
Unknown
Fluoridation in assumption
area
Chlorination via CWA in
assumption area
DOH Minimum
DOH Minimum - 30 psi for
maximum day and 20 psi with
maximum day demand plus
fire (Ch 2 - Pg 2-4, Ch 4 - Pg 4-
17 | P a g e
Element
Issaquah
Bellevue
17)
Water Pressure Maximum
Water Main Velocity
Hydrant Spacing
Maximum of 100 psi at lowest
elevation. In difficult terrain (hills) a
maximum of 150 psi is allowable with
individual PRVs to 80 psi. (Policy
7.3.2)
Maximum of 7 feet per second at
Maximum Day Demand plus WAC
246-290-230.
500 feet in residential, 300 feet in all
other areas.
Maximum of 80 psi
Maximum of 10 feet per
second. (Ch 4 - pg 4-17)
500 feet in residential, to be
determine by fire marshal all
other areas. (Eng Standards
pg W3-5)
Police and Fire Department: The assumption area lies within the
Issaquah city limits and therefore police and fire service are provided by
Issaquah’s departments, not Bellevue’s. Issaquah contracts with
Eastside Fire and Rescue (EFR) for fire and safety services within the
city. EFR have regular, dedicated staff for Issaquah, so although it is
contracted for Issaquah, the staff members function similar to city
employees. Both EFR and Issaquah Police staff attend the regular
executive staff meetings with all other city staff. This affords Issaquah
the ability to use in-house staff that are acquainted with each other and
are accustomed to working together to respond to emergency
situations, natural disasters (e.g., floods, fire, etc.) or an unexpected
attack on Issaquah’s system. To respond to emergencies in the
assumption area, Bellevue would have to contact Issaquah’s police
and/or fire agency to respond to similar events.
Emergency management: Although there are minor differences,
Issaquah and Bellevue have reasonably comparable emergency
management programs.
Land Use Authority: Issaquah maintains land use authority and control,
which provides local control and a coordinated effort under one
municipality with regard to land use control. Controlling land use is an
important function to help ensure full protection of water and sewer
systems, and a coordinated approach via one entity will reduce
fragmentation.
18 | P a g e
Permit Authority: Issaquah retains permitting authority and can
properly process permits with expediency based on the need and level
of urgency. Bellevue must coordinate efforts with Issaquah to obtain
permits (right-of-way, site development, etc.)
Spill Response: Issaquah is responsible for streets and storm drainage
systems in the assumption area, so Issaquah is able to respond as a
coordinated team with water and sewer O&M staff in the event of a
spill that affects the water/sewer systems. Bellevue would need to
coordinate outside their agency (i.e., with Issaquah) to respond to a spill
in the assumption area.
Water Fluoridation: Bellevue customers in the assumption area
currently receive fluoridated water. Issaquah will maintain fluoridation
to the area assumed. Issaquah currently does not fluoridate water from
its existing city wells, however, Issaquah does receive fluoridated water
from CWA and Bellevue via wholesale purchase. Issaquah operates and
maintains the fluoridated water system separate from the nonfluoridated system, and would propose to do the same with the
assumption area. Emergency interties between the systems allow for
water transmission in the event of an emergency. Additionally, Issaquah
may fluoridate the entire water system in the future.
Section 9 - Financial Analysis and Rate Impact
9.1 Current Bill Impact
Water and sewer rates used in this section are posted 2013 rates for all
parties (Bellevue, Issaquah, and King County). Sewer bills for both
Bellevue and Issaquah include 1) city charges, and 2) King County
charges, which are pass-through charges collected by the city and paid
to King County. The King County monthly base charge for single family
residences increased in 2013 from $36.10 to $39.79. Non-residential
customers are charged $39.79 for each 750 cubic feet of water used.
King County rates affect all customers, without regard to assumption.
Issaquah has announced that its 2013 rates for both sewer and water
will remain the same as 2012 rates. In 2013 Bellevue raised water rates
by 12 percent and sewer rates by 7-10 percent (increase varies between
customer classes and base/volume rates).
Customer Demographics
Bellevue indicates approximately 995 metered customers reside within
the assumption area, nearly all of which are residential customers.
Approximately 950 are single-family residential customers and
approximately 45 are multi-family residential buildings, each containing
19 | P a g e
between two and seven household units (water meters are generally
installed at each building, rather that each household unit within that
building, therefore the number of multifamily customers listed in
Bellevue reports likely reflect the number of multifamily buildings rather
than the number of households within).
Typical single-family lot sizes within the assumption area average about
0.2 acres each. In addition, there are several larger single family
residential properties in the southwestern portion of the assumption
area with lots as large as 1.5 acres. Several properties include duplexes.
Multi-family units are located in the southwest portion of the
assumption area, just north of I-90 near East Lake Sammamish Parkway.
Single-family Residential Bill Impacts
A typical single-family customer will see a reduction in their combined
water and sewer bill as a result of the assumption.
Bill Impact Summary for
Single-family Residential
Customers
A single-family customer using 190 gpd (historically typical of Issaquah
residents from 2006-2010) will have a lower average bill (9.5 percent or
$9.86 lower) as a result of the assumption.
Table 9-1: Billing Rates
Water
Issaquah
$40.00.99
$54.59
$95.57
$9.86
(9.4%)
Sewer
Water
Sewer
Total
Savings
Bellevue
$42.25
$63.18
$105.43
Single Family
Residential
Fixed 1-mo. Base
Block 1 Rate (per ccf)
Rate notes
Block 2 Rate (per ccf)
Rate notes
Block 3 Rate (per ccf)
Rate notes
Block 4 Rate (per ccf)
Rate notes
King Co. Base
(incl. 7.5 ccf/mo.)
City/Dist 1-mo. Base
City/Dist Volume Rate
(per ccf)
Alt. Min. Mo.
Bellevue
$16.62
$3.32
0-20 ccf/2 mo.
$4.58
21-30 ccf/2 mo.
$5.87
> 30 ccf/2 mo.
N/A
Issaquah
$12.78
$1.65
0-4 ccf/2 mo.
$3.93
5-14 ccf/2 mo.
$7.30
15-30 ccf/2 mo.
$11.89
31-50 ccf/2 mo.
$39.79
$39.79
$1.73
$3.03
$2.17
$46.51
20 | P a g e
Table 9-2: Calculated Bill
Water
Single Family
Residential using 190
gpd
Average Monthly Water
Consumption (ccf/mo)
Fixed 1-mo. Base
Block 1 Rate (per ccf)
Rate notes
Block 1 Total
Block 2 Rate (per ccf)
Rate notes
Block 2 Total
Sewer
Block 3 Rate (per ccf)
Rate notes
Block 3 Total
Before
Assumption
(Bellevue)
After
Assumption
(Issaquah)
7.72
7.72
$16.62
$12.78
$3.32
$1.65
0-20 ccf/2 mo.
0-4 ccf/2 mo.
$25.63
$3.30
$4.58
$3.93
21-30 ccf/2 mo. 5-14 ccf/2 mo.
$0.00
$19.65
$5.87
$7.30
31-100 ccf/2 mo. 15-30 ccf/2 mo.
$0.00
$5.26
Total Water Bill
$42.25
$40.99
King Co. Base
(incl. 7.5 ccf/mo.)
$39.79
$39.79
City/Dist 1-mo. Base
City/Dist Volume Rate
(per ccf)
$1.73
$3.03
$2.17
City/Dist Volume
$23.39
$13.07
Calculated Total
$63.18
Alt. Min. Mo.
Total Sewer Bill
$63.18
$54.59
$46.51
$54.59
Total Water +
Sewer
$105.43
$95.57
Multi-family Residential Bill Impact
A typical multi-family residential household is expected to have lower
average utility bills as a result of the assumption. A multi-family
residential household with consumption typical of Issaquah’s
multifamily residences will save approximately 5% as a result of
assumption. Some customers with greater water consumption could
have higher bills following assumption.
21 | P a g e
Water Conservation Incentives in Billing Rates
Both Bellevue and Issaquah have “inverted” water billing rate structures
to encourage water conservation. Each includes a fixed fee and utilizes
a block rate structure for consumption, with low rates for initial water
use and increasingly higher rates for each additional block of water
used. Issaquah’s fixed monthly fee is lower than Bellevue’s ($12.78 for
Issaquah versus $16.62 for Bellevue). Block 1 rates are higher for
Bellevue ($1.65 for Issaquah versus $3.32 for Bellevue), but Bellevue’s
Block 1 includes a larger allowable consumption volume. Issaquah’s
rates increase more than Bellevue’s rates with increased water
consumption. Therefore, households with the smallest water use will
see the greatest savings under Issaquah’s rate structure, and
households with higher water use may have an increased bill as a result
of the assumption.
9.2 Separation Cost Impact
Two alternatives were considered for separating Bellevue’s water and
sewer systems from Issaquah’s water and sewer systems. The first,
referred to as the cooperative capital improvements approach, would
utilize existing facilities and facility sharing to the largest extent possible
to minimize costs to customers. With the shared-facility approach,
Bellevue and Issaquah would continue to serve customers using the
existing facilities already serving those customers. Cost adjustments to
Bellevue and Issaquah would be made via water and sewer interlocal,
wheeling or wholesale agreements between the two parties, and
meters would be installed at selected locations. Implementation of the
shared-facility alternative would cost about 11 cents per month per
single-family residential customer, and could be implemented by
Issaquah without increasing Issaquah’s utility rates.
The other approach, referred to as the system separation without
shared facilities approach, would employ complete system separation
so that Bellevue’s and Issaquah’s systems would be operated
completely independently of each other. Thus, no Bellevue facilities
would be used to serve Issaquah customers and no Issaquah facilities
would be used to serve Bellevue customers. It is not anticipated that
Bellevue will pursue adversarial capital improvements. Implementation
of the adversarial capital improvements approach would be more costly
– a cost of about 65 cents per month per single-family residential
customer, but could be implemented by Issaquah without increasing
Issaquah’s utility rates.
22 | P a g e
Table 9-3 Separation Cost to Issaquah
WATER
SEWER
TOTAL
Cooperative
Capital
Improvements
$230,000
$0
$230,000
Adversarial
Capital
Improvements
$900,000
$400,000
$1,300,000
9.3 Operating Impact
Proportionate Staffing Change
Information from Bellevue was analyzed to review the number of fulltime employees (FTEs) employed by Bellevue and their assignment to
water and sewer utilities. Based on the proportion of Bellevue to be
assumed by Issaquah for water (1.4%) and sewer (1.4%), FTEs were
reduced by those respective percentages. The result was a reduction of
one Bellevue FTE. Refer to Appendix G for the results of the analysis.
The proposed reduced staffing at Bellevue from 65 FTEs to 64 FTEs is
anticipated to provide a level of service to Bellevue customers
comparable to the service levels prior to assumption. The 1 FTE reduced
by Bellevue would be offered employment by Issaquah, according to
RCW 35.13A.090. Alternatively, Bellevue could elect to retain this
employee with no significant effect on billable rates.
Interlocal Wheeling/Wholesale Agreements
Agreements will be designed to reflect the true cost of service, including
operating and maintaining facilities that will serve the other party.
Issaquah and Bellevue already have a cooperative agreement for service
within the Lakemont triangle.
Water Facilities Changes
With cooperative capital improvements approach, ownership and
operation of the 1.0 MG 270-zone reservoir would transfer from
Bellevue to Issaquah in the assumption and the reservoir, following
assumption, would be used to serve only Issaquah customers and will
no longer be needed to serve any Bellevue customers. Issaquah would
take full responsibility for maintenance and operation of the reservoir
following assumption.
23 | P a g e
Sewer Facilities Changes
No significant sewer facilities except the collection system would be
impacted by the assumption.
9.4 Financial Impacts
Capital Costs
Capital costs discussed in this section include only capital costs directly
related to the assumption. Operation and Maintenance costs within the
assumption area will be assessed by Issaquah as part of ongoing service
following assumption.
Operating Costs
Operating costs identified in this section include employee costs,
equipment, and power, as well as other variable costs of operating
water and sewer facilities. It is assumed that operating costs will be
reduced in proportion to the customer base assumed. General and
Administrative costs, including management costs, are assumed to
remain unchanged as a result of the assumption.
Debt
At the end of 2011, Bellevue’s outstanding debt (both water and sewer)
totaled only $60,000. Within 2 years, Bellevue will have retired all of its
water and sewer debt.
With assumption, a proportionate share of any remaining Bellevue
utility debt would be defeased or paid annually by Issaquah.
Charges
New customers intending to develop or redevelop within the
assumption area can expect to pay similar sewer connection charges
but higher water connection charges with Issaquah following
assumption than they otherwise would have paid to Bellevue. The
following information reflects pricing included in Bellevue’s posted CRC
rates and 2012 Fee Schedule For Utility Permits and Issaquah’s Permit
Fee Worksheet.
New Water Connection Charges
Total approximate single-family residential water connection charge:
Bellevue: $10,892
Issaquah: $13,125
24 | P a g e
New Sewer Connection Charges
Total approximate single-family residential sewer connection charge:
Bellevue: $11,205
Issaquah: $11,253
9.5 Financial Viability Summary
After assumption, Bellevue’s revenue base is expected to be adequate
to support Bellevue’s expenses without requiring rate increases as a
result of the assumption. Note that future rate increases not related to
assumption are anticipated at Bellevue.
The following charts indicate the cost impact to Bellevue, by major
expense category, as a direct result of the assumption. Revenues
included are rate based revenues only and do not include growthrelated revenue, taxes, or pass-through costs to King County for sewage
treatment. This analysis assumes that management staffing and costs
will remain unchanged as a result of the assumption, but that operation
and maintenance costs and debt will be reduced by the same
proportion as reduced customer base, with Issaquah resuming
responsibility for O&M of assumed facilities, offering employment to
staff reduced by Bellevue as a result of the assumption, and defeasance
or shared payment of a portion of Bellevue’s debt in proportion with
the revenue base assumed. Capital costs associated with assumption
are assumed to be borne by Issaquah. Interlocal, wheeling or wholesale
agreements are expected to have a net neutral revenue effect on both
parties.
Bellevue’s remaining customers are not anticipated to incur an increase
in average monthly bill as a result of the assumption.
25 | P a g e
Issaquah is expected to be able to accommodate the assumption, with
cooperative capital improvements, without requiring rate increases as a
result.
26 | P a g e
9.6 References and Data Utilized in Analyses
The financial summary in this report utilizes the best information, to
date, that has been made available. It is anticipated that, as ongoing
rate studies and comprehensive planning documents are completed and
provided, the information may be later refined. It is not expected that
the results will vary by such a significant amount that it will invalidate
the conclusions within this report.
Cost and Consumption Basis In Lieu of ERU Basis
Each utility involved in providing water and/or sewer service to the
assumption area defines an ERU differently with respect to gallons per
month per household. Following are their definitions for a single-family
ERU:
•
•
•
•
Bellevue
Issaquah*
King County (winter use, for sewer)
Cascade Water Alliance
244 gallons per day
150 gallons per day
175 gallons per day
250 gallons per day
*Per Draft 2012 Water Comprehensive Plan
Therefore, in order to use an evaluation basis common to all parties,
this report utilizes cost (in dollars) and consumption (in gallons), rather
than ERUs, as the basis for evaluating the impacts to each utility as a
result of assumption.
27 | P a g e