Docstoc

General Sewer Plan - July 2007 _pdf_ - Woodinville Water District

Document Sample
General Sewer Plan - July 2007 _pdf_ - Woodinville Water District Powered By Docstoc
					        WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT




General Sewer Plan
       July 2007




  BHC Consultants LLC
   720 Third Avenue
   Seattle, WA 98104
     206-505-3400
                                                                   SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                          Woodinville Water District
                            General Sewer Plan
                                                                                 Page
    1.      DESCRIPTION OF SEWER SYSTEM AND BACKGROUND                              1
            1.1 Purpose and Need for Plan                                           1
            1.2 Ownership and Management                                            2
            1.3 System History and Background                                       2
            1.4 Service Area Characteristics                                        3
            1.5 District Policies                                                   3

    2.      PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND DATA                                        5
            2.1 Service Area Description                                            5
            2.2 Surrounding Vicinity Characteristics                                5
                   2.2.1 Topography
                   2.2.2 Geology
                   2.2.3 Water Resources
            2.3 Land Use                                                            8
                   2.3.1 Growth Management Act
                   2.3.2 City of Woodinville
                   2.3.3 King County
            2.4 Relationships with Adjacent Sewerage Agencies                       9
                   2.4.1 City of Bothell
                   2.4.2 City of Redmond
                   2.4.3 Northshore Utility District
                   2.4.4 Alderwood Water District
                   2.4.5 Cross Valley Water District
                   2.4.6 King County Department of Natural Resources
            2.5 Population                                                         11
                   2.5.1 Existing Residential Population and Sewer Connections
                   2.5.2 Future Residential Population and Sewer Connections
                   2.5.3 Industrial Customers
            2.6 Public Involvement                                                 17
                   2.6.1 Citizen’s Advisory Committee
                   2.6.2 Public Meetings

    3.      EXISTING SANITARY FACILITIES                                           18
            3.1  Collection System                                                 18
                     3.1.1 Existing Pipe System
                     3.1.2 Bypass Manholes
            3.2  Lift Stations                                                     19
            3.3  Siphon Systems                                                    21
            3.4  King County Transmission Facilities                               22
            3.5  Public and Private Water Facilities Locations                     24
                     3.5.1 District Water Facilities
                     3.5.2 Wells



July 2007                                                                           1
                                                                       SEWER GENERAL PLAN

            3.6   Onsite Sewage Disposal Outside UGA                                   26
                     3.6.1 Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems
                     3.6.2 Schools
                     3.6.3 Shopping Center
                     3.6.4 Woodinville Water District Campus

    4.      WASTEWATER FLOWS AND DESIGN CRITERIA                                       32
            4.1 King County I/I Program                                                32
                   4.1.1 Program Overview
                   4.1.2 CALAMAR System for Rainfall Data
            4.2 Description of Mini-Basins                                             33
                   4.2.1 Overview
                   4.2.2 Supplemental Discussion
                   4.2.3 Future Sewer Extensions
            4.3 Existing Wastewater Flow Calculations                                  36
                   4.3.1 Comparison of Diurnal Variations
                   4.3.2 Infiltration
                   4.3.3 Sanitary Sewage
                   4.3.4 Residential Sewage
                   4.3.5 Rain Induced Inflow
                   4.3.6 Nonresidential Sanitary Sewage
                   4.3.7 Little Bear Trunk
            4.4 Future Wastewater Flows                                                43
                   4.4.1 Future Service Area Conditions
                   4.4.2 Future Unit Wastewater Flows
                   4.4.3 Build-Out Conditions
                   4.4.4 Intermediate Flow Conditions for 2012

    5.      COLLECTION SYSTEM EVALUATION                                               47
            5.1 Identification of Existing Deficiencies                                47
                   5.1.1 Maintenance Concerns Identified by Staff
                   5.1.2 Infiltration/Inflow Considerations
            5.2 Alternatives for Areas Served by Other Agencies                        48
                   5.2.1 Areas Served by Northshore Utility District
                   5.2.2 Areas Served by City of Bothell
                   5.2.3 WWD Served by the City of Redmond
                   5.2.4 Build-Out Conditions
            5.3 Technical Alternatives                                                 53
                   5.3.1 Water Conservation
                   5.3.2 Wastewater Reuse
                   5.3.3 Alternative Collection Systems
                   5.3.4 Alternative Treatment Systems
            5.4 Hydraulic Model                                                        57
                   5.4.1 Model Description
                   5.4.2 Tri-Triangle Method
                   5.4.3 Calibration



July 2007                                                                               2
                                                                      SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                      5.4.4   Input Parameters
                      5.4.5   Model Results
                                 5.4.5.1    Existing Condition Model Results
                                 5.4.5.2    Interim Condition Model Results
                                 5.4.5.3    Build-Out Condition Model Results

    6.      OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM                                        69
            6.1 District Management and Personnel                                     69
                    6.1.1 Organization
                    6.1.2 Certification and Training
            6.2 CMOM Program                                                          70
                    6.2.1 Program Goals
                    6.2.2 Administrative and Maintenance Functions
                    6.2.3 Legal Authorities
                    6.2.4 Activities to Meet Standards
                    6.2.5 Design and Performance Provisions
                    6.2.6 Monitoring Program
            6.3 Staffing Projections                                                  74
            6.4 Emergency Response                                                    74
            6.5 Safety Procedures                                                     74
            6.6 Asset Management                                                      74
                    6.6.1 Overview of Requirements
                    6.6.2 Implementation of an Asset Management Plan

    7.      DISTRICT STANDARDS                                                        79
            7.1  Performance and Design Criteria                                      79
                     7.1.1 Gravity Sewers
                     7.1.2 Laterals and Side Sewers
                     7.1.3 Manholes
                     7.1.4 Lift Stations
                     7.1.5 Force Mains
                     7.1.6 Inverted Siphons
                     7.1.7 Easements
            7.2  Policies and Requirements for Developers                             81
                     7.2.1 Standard Specifications for Developer Extensions
            7.3  Construction Materials and Methods                                   82
            7.4  Construction Inspection Procedures                                   82

    8.      CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM                                              83
            8.1  Identified Improvements                                              83
            8.2  Basis of Cost Estimates                                              86
            8.3  Capital Improvement Program                                          87

    9.      FINANCING                                                                 88
            9.1  Current Rate Structure                                               88
            9.2  Operations and Maintenance                                           88



July 2007                                                                              3
                                                                    SEWER GENERAL PLAN

            9.3   Sewer Capital Improvement Program                                 89
            9.4   Future Capital Needs                                              93
            9.5   Sewer Reserve Funds                                               93
            9.6   Capital Fund Options                                              94

GLOSSARY                                                                           viii

ABBREVIATIONS                                                                       ix

APPENDICES
A.   Model Calibration
B.   Plan Review Correspondence
C.   Public Involvement & Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
D.   SEPA Checklist and Determination
E.   Estimates of Capital Improvement Costs
F.   Interagency Agreements – Separately Bound Document

LIST OF TABLES
1-1   General Sewer Plan Requirements per WAC 173-240-050                            1
2-1   City of Woodinville and King County Population                                12
2-2   Population Projections by City of Woodinville                                 12
2-3   OFM Population Projections for King County & City of Woodinville              13
2-4   Population Projections for King County Community Planning Areas               13
2-5   Water Consumption of Selected Industrial Customers                            14
2-6   Woodinville Water District Major Industrial Customers                         15
3-1   District Collection System Inventory                                          19
3-2   District Water Pumping Facilities                                             24
3-3   District Water Storage Facilities                                             25
3-4   School Enrollment within WWD                                                  28
3-5   Summary of MBR Pilot Testing August 2005                                      30
4-1   Average Daily Flow in MGD                                                     37
4-2   Minimum Flow during 2001 and Infiltration                                     38
4-3   Derivation of Sewage Flow in GPD                                              39
4-4   Major Rain Events in 2001-2002 for Mini-Basin WDN 001                         40
4-5   Rain Induced Inflow to Mini-Basin WDN 001                                     41
4-6   Rain Induced Inflow to the Mini-Basins for Sunday 16, December 2001           42
4-7   Mini-Basin LBEAR A003 Flows in MGD                                            43
4-8   Future Unit Flow Rates                                                        45
4-9   Additional Household Distribution in 2012                                     45
4-10 2012 Estimated Additional Flow per Mini-Basin                                  46
5-1   Mini-Basin Build-out Conditions                                               53
5-2   Existing Condition Design Storm Surcharge Report                              64
5-3   Interim Condition (Year 2012) Surcharge Report                                65
5-4   Build-Out Condition Surcharge Report                                          66
6-1   Routine Operation & Maintenance                                               73
6-2   Performance Audit Outline                                                     73



July 2007                                                                            4
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

7-1     Minimum Pipe Slope Criteria for Sewer Mains                                       79
8-1     Woodinville Water District Summary Estimate of Capital Improvement Costs          86
9-1     Sewer Rate Structure                                                              88
9-2     Sewer Maintenance Fund                                                            88
9-3     Sewer Capital Improvement Program                                                 91
9-4     Sewer Capital Fund                                                                93
9-5     Sewer Reserve Funds                                                               94

LIST OF FIGURES
Unless otherwise noted, figures are located in the back of the document
1-1    Vicinity Map
1-2    District Sewer Service Area
2-1    Arial Photo
2-2    Topography
2-3    GMA Boundary
2-4    City of Woodinville Neighborhoods
2-5    City of Woodinville Zoning
2-6    King County Zoning
2-7    Surrounding Agencies
2-8    King County York Pumping Facility                                                  11
2-9    CAC Participants
3-1    Existing Sewer System
3-2    English Hill Pump Station                                                          20
3-3    Sunrise Lift Station                                                               21
3-4    King County Facilities
3-5    Woodinville Pump Station                                                           22
3-6    York Pump Station                                                                  23
3-7    Hollywood Pump Station                                                             23
3-8    District Water System
3-9    Wells Within District
3-10 School Locations
3-11 Membrane Bioreactor Installation                                                     29
3-12 Membrane Bioreactor Unit before Installation                                         30
4-1    Model Basins
4-2    Mini-Basins
4-3    Average Flow Monitoring Data                                                       37
5-1    Area Studies
5-2    Northshore UD Area 1
5-3    Northshore UD Area 2
5-4    Northshore UD Area 3
5-5    Northshore UD Area 4
5-6    Northshore UD Area 5
5-7    Northshore UD Area 6
5-8    City of Bothell Area 7
5-9    City of Bothell Area 8




July 2007                                                                                  5
                                                                    SEWER GENERAL PLAN

5-10    City of Redmond Sewer Line at WWD Southern Boundary
5-11    Build-Out Conditions
5-12    The Tri-Triangle Method                                                     60
5-13    Calibration of Simulated Storm Flow to Observed Flow Data in WDN 001        62
5-14    Calibration of Simulated Storm Flow to Observed Flow Data in WDN 002        63
5-15    Surcharged Pipes – Existing Condition
5-16    Surcharged Pipes – Build-Out Condition
6-1     Woodinville Water District Organization                                     69
6-2     Asset Reinvestment Decision Process                                         76
6-3     Asset Management – Contribution to Reserves                                 78
8-1     Capital Improvement Program




July 2007                                                                            6
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

GLOSSARY
100-year flood: The magnitude of a flood likely to occur, on average, once every 100 years.
Average Wet Weather Flow: Wastewater flow during period when groundwater table is high
and precipitation is at its peak, generally from October to May in the Woodinville area.
Class 1 Stream: A perennial or intermittent stream that is used by threatened or endangered fish
or larger numbers of other fish, or that is used as a direct source of water for domestic use.
‘Class A’ Water: This high quality water reclaimed by advanced treatment from sewage for
use in non-potable applications. It is oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected with < 30
mg/L of BOD and TSS, < 2 NTU of turbidity, and < 2.2 coliforms per 100 ml.
Infiltration: Groundwater entering the sewage collection system through defective joints, pipes,
and improperly sealed manholes.
Inflow: Sewage flows resulting from stormwater runoff entering the sewage collection system,
typically through manhole covers, roof leaders, and area drains connected directly to sewer, cross
connections from storm drains and catch basins, and direct flows into broken sewers.
Maximum Monthly Flow: Average daily flow during the highest flow month of the year.
National Flood Insurance Program: Federally funded program providing flood insurance to
property owners in flood plains provided the local government meets certain criteria for
management of flood damage risk.
Orange Book: Criteria for Sewage Works Design, published by the Washington State
Department of Ecology
Peak Hourly Flow: Wastewater flow during the highest flow hour.
Sensitive Area: Area in which development potential is limited by environmental factors such
as steep slopes, wetlands, and valuable natural habitat.
Sewer Lateral: A sewer with no other common sewers discharging into it.
Sewer Submain: A sewer that receives flow from one or more lateral sewers.
Sewer Main or Trunk: A sewer that receives flow from one or more submains.
Sewer Interceptor: A sewer that receives flow from a number of main or trunk sewers, force
mains, etc.
Urban Growth Area: Area in which urban development must be contained, as stipulated by the
Growth Management Act.




July 2007                                                                                       7
                                                                   SEWER GENERAL PLAN


ABBREVIATIONS

AWWF        Average Wet Weather Flow
CFR         Code of Federal Regulations
CIP         Capital Improvement Program
CWA         Clean Water Act
CWPP        County Wide Planning Policy
DOH         Washington State Department of Health
DOE         Washington State Department of Ecology
EPA         United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA         Endangered Species Act
FEMA        Federal Emergency Management Act
FPS         Feet per second
FWPCA       Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“The Clean Water Act”)
GMA         Growth Management Act
GPCD        Gallons per capita per day
GPAD        Gallons per acre per day
GPD         Gallons per day
HPA         Hydraulic Project Approval
I&I         Infiltration and Inflow
JARPA       Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application
MGD         Million Gallons per Day
mg/L        Milligrams Per Liter
NEPA        National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES       National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OCD         Washington State Office of Community Development
OFM         Washington State Office of Financial Management
PSRC        Puget Sound Regional Council
PVC         Polyvinyl Chloride
RCW         Revised Code of Washington
SEPA        State Environmental Policy Act
SRF         State Revolving Fund
UGA         Urban Growth Area
USFWS       United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WAC         Washington Administrative Code
WDFW        Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife




July 2007                                                                           8
                                                                                  SEWER GENERAL PLAN

CHAPTER 1 – DESCRIPTION OF SEWER SYSTEM AND
BACKGROUND

1.1     PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN

This 2005 General Sewer Plan (Plan) is prepared for Woodinville Water District (District) to
fulfill the requirements of Chapter 173-240-050 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
and Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The WAC requirements are
outlined in Table 1-1.

                                          Table 1-1
                           General Sewer Plan Requirements per
                                     WAC 173-240-050
 Reference Paragraph      Description of Requirement                            Location in Document
            3a            Purpose and need for proposed plan                    Section 1.1
            3b            Who will own, operate, and maintain system            Section 1.2
            3c            Existing and proposed service boundaries              Figure 1-2
            3d            Layout map showing boundaries; existing sewer         Figures 1-2, 2-2, 3-1,
                          facilities; proposed sewers; topography and           3-4, 3-8, 3-9, & 8-1
                          elevations; streams, lakes; and other water bodies;
                          water systems
            3e            Population trends                                     Section 2.5
            3f            Existing domestic and/or industrial wastewater        Figure 1-1
                          facilities within 20 miles
            3g            Infiltration and inflow problems                      Section 5.1.2
            3h            Treatment systems and adequacy of such treatment      Section 3.4
            3i            Identify industrial wastewater sources                Tables 2-5 & 2-6
            3k            Discussion of collection alternatives                 Sections 5.2 & 5.3.3
            3k            Discussion of treatment alternatives                  Section 5.3.4
            3k            Discussion of disposal alternatives                   Section 5.3.4
            3l            Define construction cost and O&M costs                Chapter 8 & 9
            3m            Compliance with management plan (City                 Section 2.3
                          Comprehensive Plan
            3n            SEPA compliance                                       Appendix A

The Plan provides a comprehensive guide to assist the District with managing and operating the
sewer system and coordinating expansions and upgrades to the infrastructure for the next twenty
years. The Plan serves as a guide for policy development and decision making processes for the
District. It also provides other agencies and the public with information on the District’s plans
for sewer system extensions to all of the area designated as within the boundary established
under the Growth Management Act.

The Plan will evaluate existing and future capacity of the sewer system based on current and
anticipated future wastewater flow rates. Future wastewater flow rates are estimated from
existing flow data and population growth projected within the sewer service area.




July 2007                                                                                                1
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

An implementation plan is provided, including an estimated timeline for constructing selected
projects and a method of distributing the capital costs along with operations and maintenance
fees of the sewer system to the customers.

1.2     OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

The Woodinville Water District is located in northern King County as shown on Figure 1-1,
Vicinity Map. The District is a public sewer and water system governed by an elected five
person board of commissioners, within a service area boundary on file with King County. The
water service area boundary extends considerably beyond the sewer service boundary authorized
under the Growth Management Act.

The District is under the general management of Ken Howe. Thirty-three employees comprise
the District staff.

1.3     SYSTEM HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

The District is located in King County, Washington, approximately 13 miles northeast of Seattle
with offices as shown in Figure 1-2. The District service area is generally bounded on the north
by Snohomish County, on the east by an unincorporated area of King County, to the south by the
City of Redmond, and on the west by the cities of Bothell and Kirkland

The Woodinville Water District (formerly Water District No. 104) was established in 1959 and
the first sewer system in the community was constructed in 1973. Figure 1-3 presents a map of
the District showing the water service area, the UGA boundary, and the City of Woodinville.

The District is responsible for providing sanitary sewer service to customers within that portion
of its boundaries inside the UGA that are not served by other agencies such as the City of Bothell
or the Northshore Utility District. Some of the area within the UGA may eventually be annexed
by the Cities of Woodinville or Redmond. Customers outside the UGA are required to use onsite
sewage systems. The District is presently the fifth largest district in King County, serving
approximately 13,000 water customers, but relatively small as a sewer district with
approximately 2,500 sewer customers.

Of the 2,500 sewer customers, there are approximately 2,100 residential accounts and 400
accounts designated as commercial, industrial or municipal. All sewer customers receive water
from the District, though some water customers send their sewage to adjacent agencies like
Northshore Utility District. The sanitary sewage flows are collected and conveyed through
District-owned sewer facilities and discharged into trunks and interceptors owned by King
County. The sewer service area presently includes only the City of Woodinville and a portion of
unincorporated King County. The District sewer service area is relatively small in relation to the
District water service area.

Planning for future wastewater operations requires the District to address the following:




July 2007                                                                                       2
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

        Land use decisions within the District water service boundary are determined by the City
        of Woodinville, the City of Redmond, the City of Bothell and King County. The sewer
        service area is directly affected now primarily by the City of Woodinville and by King
        County, as well as the Cities of Bothell, Kirkland, and Redmond.
        The District must coordinate its planning efforts with the planning efforts of King
        County, Department of Natural Resources, Wastewater Treatment Division (King County
        or Metro/WTD). King County is in the process of conducting a system wide infiltration
        and inflow evaluation, along with planning for future systems (including the Brightwater
        Wastewater Treatment Plant) and expansions to the current system.

1.4     SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS

The service area lies entirely within King County in the north end of the Sammamish River
Valley. The valley topography has steep, thickly-wooded slopes, which is where the majority of
the more dense residential developments are located. Woodinville Water District lies to the east
of Interstate 405, just east of the City of Bothell and due north of the City of Redmond. The City
of Woodinville is entirely within the District’s service area. The topography within the Sewer
District is flat within the Sammamish Valley, and rolling to hilly with a few steep slopes into the
stream corridors and several small to modest areas of wet soil outside of the Valley.

Ground surface elevations range from about 20 feet above sea level near the Sammamish River
to about 600 feet in the southeastern corner of the District’s service area.

The existing water service area encompasses approximately 18,200 acres. Woodinville UGA
includes the current City limits and parcels between the Sammamish River and 140th Avenue
NE. This Urban Growth Area covers approximately seven square miles. Sewer service is limited
to properties within the UGA boundary.

No changes or additions to the service area are presently envisioned.

1.5     DISTRICT POLICIES

Development of the District’s Comprehensive Sewer Plan is currently governed by the following
documents:

        Washington Administrative Code 173-240-050
        ‘Criteria for Sewage Works Design’ by Washington State Department of Ecology
        King County Regional Wastewater Services Plan
        King County Comprehensive Plan
        City of Woodinville Comprehensive Plan
        County-wide Planning Policies (CPP)

Sewer service to any properties outside the designated UGA boundary is not permitted by King
County. There are two exceptions to this policy as quoted below from King County
Comprehensive Plan 2000, Policy I. F-242:




July 2007                                                                                        3
                                                                             SEWER GENERAL PLAN



        “Public sewer expansions shall not occur in the Rural Area and on Natural Resource
        Lands except where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening the
        existing uses of structures or the needs of public schools or public school facilities.

        Public sewers may be extended, pursuant to this policy, only if they are tight lined and
        only after a finding is made by King County that no reasonable alternative technologies
        are technologically or economically feasible.

        Utility providers shall ensure, through a signed agreement between the school district and
        the utility provider, that any sewer service permitted for the school district is designed
        only to serve public school facilities.

        Public sewers which are allowed in the Rural Area or on Natural Resource Lands
        pursuant to this policy shall not be used to convert Rural Area land or Natural Resource
        Lands to urban uses and densities or to expand permitted non-residential uses.”

In conforming to the requirements of the County, the District’s policy for sewer service remains
unchanged from that presented in the 1979 “Comprehensive Sewerage Plan”, which stated that
the District recognized that its function was not to plan land uses for the service area, but to
respond to land uses planned by the community through the proper authorities. The District’s
facilities, their encumbrances, and their impact on the community are not to be used as tools for
implementing unscheduled changes in the planned land use for any area.

It is the District’s policy that property owners desiring sewer service are responsible for initiating
a sanitary sewer request. Property owners are responsible for the financing of new sewer
developments and/or extensions. Financing for these extensions can be through conventional
means as a Developer Extension, or a Utility Local Improvement District can be formed if
approved by the Commissioners.

New sewer facilities desired by a Developer within the District service area shall be constructed
by the Developer and then deeded to the District. The Developer must first apply for sewer
service, at which time the proposed sewer design will be reviewed by District engineers to ensure
compliance with the District and County standards and design criteria. Sewer extensions shall
follow the “Standard Sewer Specifications of the Woodinville Water District for Developer
Extensions” as approved by the District. Approval of Developer Extension Agreements is at the
discretion of the Board, and such DE Agreements will be approved when it is the interest of the
public.

District policies are set and reviewed by the District Board of Commissioners, to be consistent
with the policies of King County and the Woodinville City Council. The District may find it
necessary from time to time to reevaluate their policies based on County and City land use,
policies and ordinances.




July 2007                                                                                           4
                                                                              SEWER GENERAL PLAN

CHAPTER 2 – PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND DATA
2.1     SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION

The existing sewer service area for the District lies within the urban growth area as defined by
King County and can be described as comprising three distinct areas as shown on Figure 1-2 and
summarized below:

City of Woodinville lies generally along the valley formed by the junction of Little Bear Creek
and the Sammamish River, and the slopes to the east and west. Elevations reach about 300 feet to
the west, and crest to the east at about 450 feet above sea-level. Most, but not all, developed
properties between these crests are currently served by sewers. Farther east,
 topography slopes much more gradually towards Lake Leota. This area is within the city limits
and the UGA, so is eligible to be served by sewers; however none have yet been extended.

Sammamish River Valley south of the City of Woodinville includes a small area on the slopes
west of the river valley. Most of the valley floor is outside the UGA and not eligible for sewer
service, though still within the water service area for the District.

City of Redmond UGA includes a northern appendage known as English Hills and the area
around the Sunrise Elementary School. These uplands extend in elevation from about 200 to 500
feet above sea-level. That part north of NE 124th Street is served by the District.

No changes to the above service areas, or revisions to the urban growth area, are contemplated
by the District.

2.2     SURROUNDING VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS

2.2.1   Topography

Figure 2-1 is an aerial photograph of the District water service area and immediate surroundings.

The topography of Woodinville is characterized by rolling terrain. Along the eastern boundary
of the service area the elevation is approximately 300 feet. To the west from there, the ground
quickly rises to over 500 feet at the easterly ridge of the Sammamish Valley, drops to 25 feet in
the Sammamish Valley, and then once again rises to over 400 feet near the westerly edge of the
District. Figure 2-2 highlights the terrain and critical areas seen within the District’s boundary.

2.2.2   Geology

The retreat of glaciers at the end of the last ice age formed the rolling terrain characteristic of the
Woodinville area. Erosion and flooding of low lying areas during that period resulted in soil
deposits of three primary classifications as identified by the United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. These soil types are the Alderwood Association, the




July 2007                                                                                            5
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

Everett Association, and the Puget-Earlmont-Snohomish Association, which are described
below:

The Alderwood Association is the most prevalent soil type and represents approximately 75
percent of the soil in the Woodinville Water District. The soil is moderately well drained and
has a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches.
Permeability is moderately rapid in the upper horizons but very slow in the consolidated
substratum. These moderately well drained acidic forested soils formed in loamy glacial till and
occur on rolling till plains and moraines. A seasonally high water table rises to within 2 to 3-½
feet of the surface.

The Everett Association forms the primary soil around Cottage Lake, Cottage Lake Creek, and
Bear Creek. Soils of the Everett series are the second most extensive in King County. Everett
soils are located on outwash plains, terraces and fans and occur on slopes ranging from 0 to 65
percent. These soils are glacial outwash, characterized as somewhat excessively drained,
gravelly, gently undulating soil underlain by sand and gravel and found on terraces.

The Puget-Earlmont-Snohomish Association includes poorly drained and somewhat poorly
drained, nearly level soils that have layers of peat within a few feet of the surface. The seasonal
high water table usually varies from 0 to 2 feet below the surface. This classification is generally
found in major stream valleys, such as the Sammamish Valley.

2.2.3   Water Resources

Water Supply – The District purchases its water from the City of Seattle. The water is primarily
supplied from the City of Seattle’s Tolt River Pipeline, which collects water from the South Fork
of the Tolt River. As a backup, the City of Seattle’s Eastside Supply Line from the Cedar River
system can also serve the District.

Surface Water – The dominant surface water feature in the sewer service area is the Sammamish
River, which flows to the northwest. The Sammamish River basin and the Little Bear Creek
basin are the major drainage basins. Woodinville Creek is tributary to the river.

Lake Leota, which has an area of 10 acres, is located within the City of Woodinville, the UGA
and the District service boundary.

In addition, there are three other notable lakes within the District water service area, but outside
of the sewer service area allowed by the UGA. These lakes are Cottage Lake, Paradise Lake,
and Welcome (Holiday) Lake. Cottage Lake is the largest lake within the District service area at
63 acres in size.




July 2007                                                                                         6
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

Water Quality – Cottage Lake has been characterized, based on historical water data, as a
biologically highly productive water body since the early 1970s. The lake continues to
experience frequent and intense algal blooms in the spring and fall.

An in-depth limnological study of Cottage Lake was done in 1994, and examined the sources of
phosphorus entering the lake. It was found that 62 percent of the phosphorus loading was
contributed by creeks, 29 percent was the result of internal loading (recycling of phosphorus
from the sediments and from aquatic plants), 5 percent from groundwater, and 2 percent each
from near shore runoff and precipitation. It was recommended that the lake be aerated via an
aeration system along with aquatic plant management and several other watershed measures to
improve water quality.

Cottage Lake is part of the King County Lake Stewardship Volunteer Monitoring Program.
Twice a month from May to September volunteers collect total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, total
nitrogen, and phytoplankton samples to send to the King County laboratory. Temperature,
Secchi depth, precipitation and lake level are collected by volunteers weekly throughout the year.

Lake Leota’s water quality is fairly good. However, in recent years, the watershed has seen
substantial growth as the Woodinville area population has grown. As this growth continues and
as local shoreline alteration occurs, implementation of erosion and nutrient control measures will
become increasingly important to preserve lake water quality. Monitoring data has been
collected at Lake Leota by volunteers since 1998.

Road runoff is currently discharged into Lake Leota without treatment. According to the King
County Lake Monitoring Report, there has been an increase in algal productivity and sediment.
The City of Woodinville is considering a Lake Leota Regional Water Quality Facility to provide
regional water quality treatment for the runoff discharged into Lake Leota. This project is to be
included as a recommendation in the Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan prepared
by the City.

Paradise Lake has fair water quality. Wetland chemistry influences the lake, giving it its dark
color and shallower Secchi depth. Paradise Lake is eutrophic (high biological growth). Erosion
and nutrient control measures are important within the watershed to preserve the existing lake
water quality, especially as land develops in the watershed or local shoreline alteration occurs.
Monitoring data has been collected at Paradise Lake by volunteers since 1996.

Welcome (Holiday) Lake has good water quality. Erosion and nutrient control measures are
important within the watershed to preserve the existing lake water quality, especially as land
develops in the watershed or local shoreline alteration occurs. Monitoring data has been
collected at Welcome Lake by volunteers since 1996.

Groundwater – The Woodinville Water District is bisected by the King County Redmond-Bear
Creek Valley Groundwater Management Area. King County developed five Groundwater
Management Areas in concert with the provisions of WAC 173-100. These areas were developed
to promote the quality and quantity of groundwater supplies. There are several groundwater
monitoring wells located within the District service area.



July 2007                                                                                       7
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

Groundwater is threatened by several common human activities. As the region is developed and
an increase in paved surfaces is seen, water that used to soak in and replenish aquifers is instead
diverted into storm drains. Besides being depleted, groundwater can be contaminated by
landfills, septic systems, and underground fuel tanks. However, King County indicated that
sewers may dry up the landscape and in the Bear Creek basin groundwater may be recharged by
septic system drainfields.

2.3     LAND USE

2.3.1   Growth Management Act

The State of Washington adopted the Growth Management Act with the intent of concentrating
most new development and population gains within urban areas of the more populous and
rapidly growing counties. These counties are required to define an urban growth boundary within
which urban services like sewers are provided, and any new parcels created outside that
boundary must be low density with sufficient acreage to support onsite sewage disposal systems
conforming to State Health regulations.

Only two exceptions to the prohibitions of sewers outside the urban growth boundary are
recognized under state law:

        Public schools outside the urban growth boundary can be served by sewers, but are not
        required to be served.
        Areas of existing development outside the urban growth boundary where sufficient onsite
        sewage disposal systems have failed as to create a “severe public health hazard” can be
        served by sewers.

Sewers provided in either of these cases can be satellite systems limited to serving just the
qualified and defined parcels; or a sewer extension can be “tight-lined” to convey wastewater
from the qualified and defined parcels into the urban growth area for connection to the existing
sewer system. Figure 2-3 shows the UGA boundary in relation to the City of Woodinville and its
identified neighborhoods.

The District Campus is outside the UGA. After a temporary failure with its’ mound system, the
District has upgraded its onsite sewage treatment to a membrane bioreactor treatment (MBR)
facility with a capacity of 3,000 gallons per day (GPD). For now, this unit treats only the
wastewater generated within the Campus. This facility has the physical capacity to treat more
wastewater than the Campus generates. The District’s system can operate with or without the
MBR unit.

2.3.2   City of Woodinville

The City of Woodinville is presently organized into eight neighborhoods within the current city
limits as shown on Figure 2-4 and designated as follows:

        Town Center



July 2007                                                                                        8
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

        The Wedge
        North Industrial
        Valley Industrial
        Tourist District
        West Ridge
        Leota

Zoning for land use within the City of Woodinville is shown in Figure 2-5. The 2002 City of
Woodinville Comprehensive Plan estimated that there are approximately 2.61 persons per
household in the City.

2.3.3   King County

Land within the District’s service area, outside the City of Woodinville, outside the urban growth
boundary, is administered by King County, except for a portion of the District which is within
the City of Bothell. Figure 2-6 shows the zoning currently assigned by King County.

2.4 RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADJACENT SEWERAGE AGENCIES

Sewerage agencies surrounding the District are shown in Figure 2-7. Interagency agreements are
included in Appendix F as a separately bound document.

2.4.1   City of Bothell

Woodinville Water District Resolution 309, dated January 19, 1970, is included in Appendix F
and represents an agreement between the City of Bothell and the District regarding pending and
future annexations by the City of Bothell. The Bloomburg Hill area, west of 130th Avenue NE,
as shown in Figure 2-3, is within the District but served by the City of Bothell sewer system.
District sewers serving areas south of NE 186th Street and east 132nd Avenue NE flow through
Bothell lines to get to Metro. Interim agreements also exist between the District and the City of
Bothell.

2.4.2   City of Redmond

In July 1988, the District signed an interlocal agreement, included in Appendix F, with the City
of Redmond to set future water and sewer service area boundaries. The common service
boundary is the extension of NE 124th Street. The Trilogy at Redmond Ridge Urban Planned
Development (formerly known as Blakely Ridge) Master Planned Development in the
southeastern corner of the District’s water service area, and the development is bisected by the
District boundary. The District has agreed to consider allowing the City of Redmond to provide
sewer service to the portion within the District because the District does not have sewer facilities
in the vicinity; however, water service will be provided by the District.




July 2007                                                                                         9
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

2.4.3   Northshore Utility District

The Northshore Utility District is located along the southwestern corner of the District’s sewer
service area. Resolution 105, dated July 6, 1964, set the boundaries for sewer service and
annexation issues between the two agencies. Because of the topographical difficulty of
providing service to the Kingsgate area, the Northshore Utility District actually provides service
to this area within the District’s sewer boundary. The two agencies also have a number of
interim agreements where the Northshore Utility District is allowed to serve some parcels within
the District’s service area boundaries until such time in the future when the District has the
facilities to provide sewer service to these parcels.

2.4.4   Alderwood Water District

The Alderwood Water District is located in Snohomish County north of the District and west of
State Route 522. Currently, none of the Alderwood Water District’s facilities overlap with those
in the Woodinville service area. However, the sewer system comprehensive plan amendment
prepared for the Alderwood Water District and issued in 1992 provided for the construction of a
36-inch gravity sewer line that extended south into the District’s service area along 136th Avenue
NE, cross State Route 522 and connects into the northern terminus of King County’s Little Bear
Creek Trunk. This 36-inch trunk is complete and forms part of the King County interceptor
system.

2.4.5   Cross Valley Water District

The Cross Valley Water District is located in Snohomish County north of the District and east of
State Route 522 at the county line. Currently, the Cross Valley Water District provides sewer
service to a limited portion of their water service area via King County’s Little Bear Creek
Trunk, which flows through the City of Woodinville and the sewer service area of the
Woodinville Water District. However, a substantial part of the area served by Cross Valley
sewers is proposed as the site for the Brightwater treatment facility by the Wastewater Division
of King County and significant changes to the piping systems and the wastewater flows will
result when this facility is built.

2.4.6   King County Department of Natural Resources

In May 1973 and March 1989, the District entered into a long-term agreement with the
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), as the regional sewerage authority, to provide
sewage treatment and disposal as well as interception/conveyance of the District’s collected
wastewater. Figure 2-8 shows one of these facilities.




July 2007                                                                                      10
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN




                      Figure 2-8 – King County York Pumping Facility

King County and Metro merged in 1994, and the regional sewer system, established in the 1960s
to clean up the waters of Lake Washington and the central Seattle waterfront, became the
responsibility of the King County Department of Natural Resources, Wastewater Treatment
Division (Metro/WTD). Now the Department of Natural Resources is known as the Department
of Natural Resources and Parks. In this Comprehensive Plan, the regional sewer system is
referred to as the Metro/WTD system.

Metro/WTD owns and operates the Hollywood, Woodinville and York pump stations, the
Sammamish Valley Interceptor, the Little Bear Creek Trunk and all other downstream
conveyance, treatment and disposal facilities. District wastewater flows through these facilities
for treatment and disposal. A discussion of the King County facilities is found in Chapter 3.

2.5     POPULATION

2.5.1   Existing Residential Population and Sewer Connections

Of the 2,500 District sewer customers, there are approximately 2,100 residential accounts and
400 accounts designated as commercial, industrial or municipal. All sewer customers receive
water from the District, though some water customers send their sewage to adjacent agencies like
Northshore Utility District or the City of Bothell, and others are connected to on-site septic
systems. Most of the existing customers for sewer service by the Woodinville Water District are




July 2007                                                                                     11
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

within the City of Woodinville city limits; however, about 700 residential accounts are within the
City of Redmond UGA.

Table 2-1 shows the relationship between population within the City of Woodinville and for all
of King County in recent years based on data estimates provided by the Washington State Office
of Financial Management (OFM).

                                         Table 2-1
                      City of Woodinville and King County Population
                      2000 Census    2001 Est       2002 Est   2003 Est            2004 Est
    King County        1,737,046     1,758,312     1,774,312  1,779,300            1,788,300
    City                 9,809          9,825        9,830       9,905               9,915
    City/County %         0.56          0.56          0.55        0.56                0,55

City of Woodinville Comprehensive Plan states that the City has the largest average household
size of 2.61 persons of all the comparison cities and in King County as a whole. The City in 2004
had about 3,800 households.

The City household size is assumed to be typical for the 2,100 District sewer residential
connections and indicates the District serves about 5,500 people in residential accounts. Of that
total, about 1,400 households are estimated to be within the City of Woodinville and house about
3,600 people. The remaining 2,400 households within the City and within the UGA are not
served by District sewers and are believed to still use onsite sewage disposal systems.

2.5.2   Future Residential Population and Sewer Connections

Future population projections within the City of Woodinville are described in the 2002 City
Comprehensive Plan as summarized Table 2-2:

                                          Table 2-2
                        Population Projections by City of Woodinville
            Forecast Date                Population               Percent Increase
            2004 Estimate                   9,915                       ----
                2012                       12,647                       27.6
                2022                       14,425                       45.5

The City planners expect that this forecasted 45 percent population increase by 2022, or about
1,700 new households, can only occur if most of the new development is served by sewers, and a
significant portion, perhaps half, of the 2,400 households within the City now served by onsite
sewage systems become served by sewers extended by development. That indicates that the
number of District sewer customers will roughly double by the year 2022 to about 5,000
households.

The Office of Financial Management also provides population projections for all counties under
three different series of growth assumptions. This data is used by the counties in allocating




July 2007                                                                                      12
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

growth target to cities such as Woodinville. As supporting information to the City forecasts cited
above, Table 2-3 summarizes the OFM projection for King County by series with the assumption
that the City might maintain the same population share shown in Table 2-1 to be about 0.55
percent. Note that the low series assumed King County would actually loose population between
2000 and 2005, which Table 2-1 shows did not happen.

                                      Table 2-3
           OFM Population Projections for King County & City of Woodinville
                 2000        2005         2010      2015         2020        2025
   Low – KC    1,737,034 1,721,585 1,766,129 1,813,290 1,857,318 1,894,659
      City       9,809      9,469        9,714      9,973       10,215      10,421
   Medium KC 1,734,034 1,786,803 1,861,042 1,940.385 2,018,824 2,092,390
      City       9,908      8,827        10,236    10,672       11,104      11,508
   High – KC   1,737,034 1,852,128 1,961,538 2,080,093 2,200,518 2,318,368
      City       9,809      10,187       10,788    11,441       12,103      12,751

The City of Woodinville population forecast shown in Table 2-1 exceeds the OFM projections
shown in Table 2-3. This indicates that the City expects to have an increasing share of the
population within King County, and that the City will grow at a faster rate than the projection by
OFM for the City allocation.

In addition to the City of Woodinville planning guidance, the District service area is also
governed by two King County planning documents:

        Bear Creek Community Planning Area
        Northshore Community Planning Area

Only small portions of these planning areas are within the UGA and are eligible for sewer
service. Population projections for these two areas are summarized in Table 2-4.

                                        Table 2-4
           Population Projections for King County Community Planning Areas
                            2000            2010        2012            2022
    Bear Creek Area        28,200          33,200      34,196          39,346
      Annual % change         --             1.6         1.5             1.5
    Northshore Area        45,200          52,200      53,557          60,739
      Annual % change         --             1.5         1.3             1.3

The intent of the Growth Management Act is to concentrate most growth for the State of
Washington into major counties like, King County, within urban areas, like the City of
Woodinville. The land use planning and the population forecasts by the City facilitate that intent.
Sewerage facilities to support that pace of development will need to be provided by the District.




July 2007                                                                                       13
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

2.5.3   Industrial Customers

Selected major industrial customers served by the District sewers are shown in Table 2-5 to
indicate typical water consumption, which may or may not directly relate to wastewater
production.

                                      Table 2-5
                   Water Consumption of Selected Industrial Customers
    Account No         Company Name         Total ccf Months       Avg ccf /Month
   20390-1         Redhook Brewing Co        107,196       18          5,955
   24656-1         Redhook Brewing Co         85,449       22          3,884
   3639-0          Stimpson-Lane              44,793       20          2,240
                   Vineyards
   4172            Garden Fresh Foods          8,253        6          1,376
   27304           Garden Fresh Foods         49,143       22          2,234

Table 2-6 is a further list of some major industrial customers served by the District sewer system.
It depicts monthly charges for pollutants during October, November, and December of 2003; and
gives an indication of pollutant loading magnitudes.




July 2007                                                                                       14
                                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                               TABLE 2-6
                         WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT MAJOR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS

                                                               Monthly Charges
                                                                    Heavy        Oil and       Total of All
Account Number   Company Name                        Surcharge      Metals       Grease         Charges

10225-1          Universal Manufacturing                n/a         $154.49        n/a        $154.49 Oct.
                 14410 NE North Woodinville Wy.                                               $154.49 Nov.
                 Woodinville, WA 98072                                                          $308.98

1766-5           Precor USA – Plant 1                   n/a         $80.38         n/a           $80.38
                 20010 142nd Avenue NE                                                            $80.38
                 Woodinville, WA 98072                                                           $160.76

20390-1          Redhook Brewing Company             $18,179.38       n/a          n/a          $18,179.38
                 14300 NE 145th Street                                                          $18,179.38
                 Woodinville, WA 98072-9045                                                     $36,358.76

2423-2/5101300   Columbia Winery – Woodinville        $777.86         n/a          n/a           $777.86
                 14030 NE 145th Street                                                           $777.86
                 Woodinville, WA 98072                                                          $1,555.72

24656-1          Redhook Brewing Company (Kegging)   $1,480.99        n/a          n/a          $1,480.99
                 14300 NE 145th                                                                 $1,480.99
                 Woodinville, WA 98072-9045                                                     $2,961.98

28134-5          Precor USA – Plant 2                   n/a         $115.97        n/a           $115.97
                 14210 NE 203rd Street                                                           $115.97
                 Woodinville, WA 98072                                                           $231.94




     July 2007                                                                                                15
                                                                                        SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                                TABLE 2-6
                       WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT MAJOR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS (cont.)

                                                            Monthly Charges
                                                                 Heavy        Oil and       Total of All
Account Number    Company Name                    Surcharge      Metals       Grease         Charges

30555-7           Hi-Q Bakery                      $183.83         n/a          n/a           $183.83
                  17611 128th Place NE
                  Woodinville, WA 98072

3639-0            Stimson-Lane Ltd.                $2,569.90       n/a          n/a          $2,569.90
                  1411 NE 145th St.                                                          $2,569.90
                  Woodinville, WA 98072                                                      $5,139.80

8723-9            Universal Sheet Metal, Inc.         n/a        $80.38         n/a           $80.38
                  14400 NE 190th Street
                  Woodinville, WA 98072

Component Agency Total:                           $23,191.96     $431.22       $0.00




     July 2007                                                                                             16
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

2.6     PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

2.6.1   Citizen’s Advisory Committee

A Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed to aid in better defining the scope of the
Sewer General Plan, to provide input and review the Plan during the development, and to serve
as advocates of the completed Plan. Notes and participants from this process are included in
Appendix C.

The District published an advertisement in the local newspapers as well as the District
newsletter, “The Pipeline,” requesting interested citizens to participate in an advisory committee
that would assist in the development of the Sewer General Plan for the District. Fifteen people
expressed interest to serve on the CAC. The CAC convened three times during the summer, fall
and winter of 2004 to become informed of the Plan process, discuss community sewer-related
concerns and assist in developing solutions. These meetings allowed the CAC to review the
status of the project and confirm that the issues identified were being addressed.

2.6.2   Public Meetings

The First Meeting was held on August 23, 2004 at the District office. Ten community members
were present. Highlights of the meeting included discussions on:

        The intent of the CAC;
        Background used in preparation of the Plan including existing sewer system layout, UGA
        boundaries, land use;
        The District’s interaction with the City of Woodinville and King County;
        Reclaimed water opportunities;
        Future sewer service areas;
        Onsite sewage disposal.

The Second Meeting was held on November 17, 2004 at the District office. Six community
members were present. Highlights of the meeting included discussions on:

        Alternatives for sewer service within the District boundary
           o Areas served by Northshore Utility District;
           o Areas served by the City of Bothell;
           o Schools located outside the UGA boundary;
           o Membrane treatment facility located at the District’s campus;
           o Areas potentially served by the City of Redmond.

The Final Meeting was held in June of 2005 to review the Plan conclusions and
recommendations.

A map highlighting the residences of the interested and involved parties that made up the CAC is
shown on Figure 2-9. The CAC was made up of both rural and urban residences, most of which
were not connected to sewers.



July 2007                                                                                      17
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

CHAPTER 3 – EXISTING SANITARY FACILITIES
3.1     COLLECTION SYSTEM

3.1.1   Existing Pipe System

The District’s first sewer facilities were located in the Woodinville business area and were
constructed in 1974. These facilities were connected to the existing Metro Sammamish Valley
Interceptor and Bear Creek Trunk. Several additions occurred to the sewer system from 1974 to
1979 each of which required a separate connection to the Metro trunk. Currently, the District has
13 connection points to the King County trunk. Figure 3-1 details the District’s sewer collection
system.

Based on the available record drawings that went into the preparation of this Plan, the District
has approximately 34 miles of sewer main ranging in size from 8-inches to 18-inches. There
may be minor collector sewers, private systems, or force main that are not reflected in this total.
District standards require that gravity pipe up to 12-inches in diameter be constructed of
polyvinyl chloride and gravity lines larger than 14-inches, as well as all force mains, be of
ductile iron construction.

Sewer service is available within the City Limits of Woodinville and the King County UGA
boundary. A few relatively small areas within the District service area but outside of the City
Limits are served by other utilities. These areas are shown on Figure 3-1 and described below:

        The strip of land between 124th Avenue NE and the westerly district boundary, served by
        Northshore Utility District;
        The finger of land to the south near John Muir Elementary school, served by Northshore
        Utility District;
        West of 130th Avenue NE in the northwest corner of the District, served by the City of
        Bothell

Because of the location of the existing utilities and the existing topography, it is assumed that
these areas will continue to be served by others in the future.

The English Hill area is included in the District’s service area. This area is within the City of
Redmond urban growth area and their planned annexation area; however this area receives sewer
service from the District. Sewage is conveyed to King County facilities via the District pipe
system although a portion of the District conveyance facilities to the King County trunk extends
outside of the District boundary.

An inventory of the existing District collection system is seen in Table 3-1.




July 2007                                                                                       18
                                                                        SEWER GENERAL PLAN


                                      Table 3-1
                       District Collection System Inventory
                                 Pipe Length in Feet
 Pipe Size      Concrete     Ductile Iron        HDPE              PVC         Total
  8-inch         5,295           4,869            4,497          160,005      175,116
  10-inch        3,265           2,323            1,786           13,125      20,499
  12-inch                                                         3,277        3,277
  15-inch         6,002                                           1,208        7,210
  18-inch                                                          554          554
   Totals        14,562           7,192            6,733         178,169      180,996

In addition to the gravity sewers shown in Table 3-1, the District pipe system includes two
ductile iron force mains: one is 4-inch for 273 feet, and the other is 1,866 feet of 6-inch.

3.1.2   Bypass Manholes

Continuing development led to capacity concerns within the pipe system serving Town Center
within the City of Woodinville, and the construction of a new sewer connection into the Little
Bear Trunk. Three older manholes were reconstructed to divert normal wastewater flow into this
connection, while retaining an overflow or bypass capability for high flow conditions into the
older pipe system. These three manhole configurations are described below:

Manhole 185 in NE 178th street at 143rd Avenue NE collects normal flow from the north east and
east for discharge west through a 10-inch pipe (IE 117.08) in NE 178th Street. An 8-inch pipe
south in 143rd Avenue NE remains available as a bypass.

Manhole 976 on the Woodinville-Snohomish Road at NE 178th Street collects normal flow from
the north and east for discharge west through an 18-inch connection (IE 56.84) into the Little
Bear Trunk owned by King County. The bypass is the 15-inch pipe continuing south in the
Woodinville-Snohomish Road.

Manhole 981 in 140th Avenue NE at NE 178th Street collects normal flow from the north and
east for discharge west through a 12-inch pipe (IE 74.36) in NE 178th Street. The 8-inch bypass
remains available to flow south in 140th Avenue NE.

3.2     LIFT STATIONS

English Hill Lift Station This lift station is on NE 124th Street east of 172nd Avenue NE. The
lift station was sized to only serve the English Hill development. The lift station has two
submersible pumps with a design capacity of 200 GPM assuming, one pump out of service. This
capacity is sufficient to meets the needs of full build-out of the development. Emergency power
is provided by a portable generator. Telemetry is provided to monitor eight functions. Station
wet well design provides about two hours of emergency storage volume. The station location is
shown in Figure 3-1 and illustrated in Figure 3-2.




July 2007                                                                                   19
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN




                           Figure 3-2 – English Hill Pump Station
                                       NE 124th Street

Sunrise Lift Station The Sunrise Lift Station is located at NE 128th Street east of 172nd Avenue
NE. This lift station was sized to serve part of the English Hills development that is inside the
District and within the UGA boundary. The lift station has two submersible pumps, Cornell
Model 4NNT-SUB 15-4 L000KF with 15 horsepower motors. The pumps alternate in the ‘lead’
and ‘lag’ roles. Drawn down tests were conducted on 15 July 2004 and found the following
capacities:

        Pump No. 1    263 GPM
        Pump No. 2    274 GPM

Telemetry is provided for eight alarm conditions. Emergency power is provided by a portable
generator. Station design provides about two hours of emergency storage volume. The station
location is shown in Figure 3-1 and illustrated in Figure 3-3.




July 2007                                                                                     20
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN




                               Figure 3-3 – Sunrise Lift Station
                                        NE 128th Street

3.3     SIPHON SYSTEMS

Three inverted siphon systems transport sewage from the western portion of the District across
the Sammamish River and tie into King County’s Sammamish Valley Interceptor. These
facilities are shown on Figure 3-1 as described below:

        Siphon No. 1: The northernmost siphon consists of two barrels; one is a 6-inch barrel
        and the second barrel is an 8-inch pipe encased in a 12-inch pipe. The northern siphon
        crosses the Sammamish River east of NE 175th Street. The facility also includes two
        submersible pumps with an electrical control system to accommodate the possibility that
        flow in the Metro Trunk can be routed either north or south. Refurbished in 2001, a better
        control system, such as an RTU, would be useful to accommodate these changes in flow
        conditions.
        Siphon No. 2: This flushing siphon was built in June 1978 with two barrels, one 6-inch
        and one 10-inch, with a rock catcher and crosses the Sammamish River on the west of
        Gold Creek Park.
        Siphon No. 3: The southern siphon was built in September 1984 with two barrels with a
        rock catcher; one is a combination of 6 and 8-inch diameter pipe and the second barrel is
        an 8-inch pipe with weir control. The southern siphon crosses the Sammamish River at
        NE 145th Street.

Siphon operation requires more maintenance attention than gravity sewers because under ‘no
flow’ conditions solids will settle at the bottom of the siphon and may pug the pipe. Hence the
Ecology ‘Design Criteria’ require siphons have two pipe barrels in case a stoppages occurs.




July 2007                                                                                      21
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN

3.4     KING COUNTY TRANSMISSION FACILITIES

The King County Wastewater Treatment Division is responsible for interception, treatment, and
disposal of all wastewater collected within their defined service area. The County faces some
challenges with maintaining adequate capacity in their facilities due to the continued growth
within the metropolitan area. King County has instituted several programs to control infiltration
and inflow, and to add capacity for treatment and disposal. Evaluation of the adequacy of these
efforts is beyond the scope of this plan.

County facilities within the District vicinity are shown on Figure 3-4. The County operates and
maintains two interceptors within the District’s service area, as well as the Woodinville Pump
Station, shown in Figure 3-5. Two additional pump stations are outside of the UGA and outside
the District sewer service area, but receive flows from within the service area.

The 42-inch diameter Sammamish Valley Interceptor conveys sewerage north from NE 124th
Street along the Sammamish River. Sewage is transported through the Sammamish Valley
Interceptor by the York Pump Station, shown in Figure 3-6, and supplemented by the Hollywood
Pump Station, shown in Figure 3-7. Depending on flow conditions as determined by King
County, this interceptor can flow north to the Westpoint Treatment Plant or south to the Renton
Treatment Plant.

The Little Bear Creek Trunk is a 30-inch diameter line which conveys sewage from south of the
King-Snohomish county line and transports the sewage south along Bear Creek. The 30-inch
trunk flows into the Sammamish Valley Interceptor.

Most flow from the Woodinville Pump Station is pumped through a series of King County
interceptors and pump stations around Lake Washington to the north and west into the King
County West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant in Seattle. Conveyance of sewage from
Woodinville’s English Hill area is directed south to the King County Renton Wastewater
Treatment Plant.




                           Figure 3-5 – Woodinville Pump Station
                             NE 175th Street and 130th Avenue NE




July 2007                                                                                     22
                                                                     SEWER GENERAL PLAN




                             Figure 3-6 – York Pump Station
                            NE 124th Street and 141st Avenue NE




                          Figure 3-7 – Hollywood Pump Station
                                      NE 124th Street

The King County Woodinville Pump Station is located within the City of Woodinville, near the
intersection of NE 175th Street and NE Woodinville Drive. The pump station currently lifts
wastewater from the Sammamish Valley Interceptor to the Bothell-Woodinville Interceptor. The
Woodinville Pump Station has a pumping capacity of 17.6 MGD.

Flow to the Woodinville Pump Station varies seasonally, with summer flows significantly
greater than winter flows. Typically, summertime flows generated upstream of the Hollywood
Pump Station are conveyed in the Sammamish Valley Interceptor to the Woodinville Pump
Station.




July 2007                                                                                23
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN

However, large rainstorms activate the York Pump Station (upstream from the Woodinville
Pump Station) and divert flows that would normally be conveyed to the Woodinville Pump
Station into the Eastside Interceptor. As a result, the Woodinville Pump Station would pump
substantially less flows during these large storms than it normally does.

The York Pump Station, which is outside the District’s sewer service area, discharges to the
Eastside Interceptor and the South Treatment Plant. During the winter, the Woodinville Pump
Station only receives wastewater from the City of Woodinville and a limited number of
residences that discharge into the Sammamish Valley Interceptor downstream of the Hollywood
Pump Station.

During the winter, the Hollywood Pump Station is typically off line, and wastewater from the
Hollywood Pump Station service area flows to the York Pump Station.

Current King County planning involves diversion of the District’s sewage to the new King
County Brightwater Wastewater Treatment Plant when that facility becomes operational.

3.5     PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES LOCATIONS

3.5.1   District Water Facilities

The Woodinville Water District covers about 18,660 acres and serves about 13,000 connections.
It is supplied by the City of Seattle Public Utilities through the Tolt Pipeline and the Tolt
Eastside Supply Line, which run through the District service area. The District has eight
connections to the Tolt Pipeline and one to the Tolt Eastside Supply Pipeline. Each connection is
separately metered. The principal facilities are shown in Figure 3-8.

The District owns and maintains one well near the District office as an emergency standby water
source. Specific information is provided in the Water System Plan. The District has seven
emergency interties. The District does not have formal intertie agreements with any adjacent
water purveyors, though emergency connections exist with the City of Bothell, the Northshore
Utility District, and the City of Redmond.

The District water pipe system totals about 1,400,000 feet, or 260 miles, of 4-inch through 18-
inch water mains in 24 service or pressure zones regulated through 45 pressure reducing valves.
The District owns and operates six water pumping stations as summarized in Table 3-2.

                                         Table 3-2
                             District Water Pumping Stations
       Station                Function           Pumps    Flow (GPM)            Horsepower
  Hollywood              To Zone 7 (650 feet)    1 jockey     400                   15
                                                     2        800                   50
                                                     3        800                   50
  Ringhill               To Zone 15 (670 feet)       1        695                   40
                                                     2        695                   40




July 2007                                                                                     24
                                                                             SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                                         3            695              40
  Reintree                       Inactive            1 jockey         240              20
                                                         2            500              40
                                                         3            500              40
  Cottage Lake                  Inactive                 1            500              25
  Lake of the Woods      Zone 15 to 20 (770 feet)        1             53               5
                                                         2             53               5
                                                       3 fire        1,000             20
  South Hollywood          Zone 9 N (570 feet)       1 jockey         300              7.5
                                                         2           1,250             20
                                                         3           1,250             20
                                                         4           1,250             20

The District operates eight water storage reservoirs with a total capacity of 14,900,000 gallons as
summarized in Table 3-3.

                                          Table 3-3
                               District Water Storage Facilities
         Location            Year Built      Gallons      Depth (feet)         Diameter (feet)
    Aspenwood                  1998         1,100,000          116                  40
    Brookside                  1981         2,500,000           18                 154
    Hollywood                  1978         2,500,000           27                 125
    Kingsgate                  1972         1,100,000          100                  56
    Ringhill/Saybrook          1996         1,800,000           20                 125
    Sammamish                  1992         2,800,000           36                 115
    South Hollywood            1986         1,700,000           88                  58
    Wellington                 1979         1,400,000           78                  56

Average Day Demand in 2004 was about 5 million gallons per day. Demand in recent years has
averaged between 86 and 96 gallons per capita per day on an annual basis. Historically, about 73
percent of water demand has been from single family residences, with multi-family customers
taking another 10 percent. Commercial customers take another 10 percent and industrial demand
is about 3 percent with the remainder going to municipal and irrigation uses.

The District operates an aggressive conservation program. The ratio of Maximum Day Demand
to Average Day Demand within the District has been about 3.0, while about 2.1 is the average
for the Seattle system as a whole. The higher District value reflects the large lot sizes and
significant irrigation use.

3.5.2   Wells

There are a number of wells that are on record with the Washington State Department of Ecology
within the District boundary, as seen on Figure 3-9. Wells within the service area serve
individual water supply, are resource protection wells, or have been decommissioned. These




July 2007                                                                                        25
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

wells are typically privately owned, shallow (less than 100 feet deep) wells, with low capacities
of 20 gpm or less.

There are 224 wells located within the District boundary. Of these 224 wells, one is classified as
a Group A well (wells with 15 or more connections as recorded by the Washington State
Department of Health), 49 are classified as Group B wells (wells with 2 to 14 connections, as
recorded by the Washington State Department of Health), and 174 are classified as King County
wells (most of which are private wells of individual home owners).

It is assumed that these 224 wells serve about 300 homes, which therefore are not water
customers of the District.

3.6     ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL OUTSIDE UGA

3.6.1   Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems

There are many privately owned and operated onsite sewage disposal systems within the District
sewer service area. The District is not involved with the operation and maintenance of these
systems. Failure of onsite sewage facilities within the UGA, or development of the properties,
may necessitate the need for an extension of sewerage facilities to be constructed by the affected
property owners.

It is estimated that approximately 80 percent of the District’s residential water customers use
onsite sewage disposal systems, most of these customers being outside the UGA. Approximately
25 percent of these customers are inside the UGA. Onsite sewage disposal system depicts a
facility located typically on a single lot or tax parcel which incorporates a septic tank discharging
to a drainfield. Operated properly, onsite sewage disposal systems are an acceptable means of
treating and disposing of sewage on a small scale at low development densities.

However, if onsite sewage disposal systems are improperly maintained, or are constructed in
soils with poor percolation rates, or the lots are too small, operating problems may develop.
Repair scenarios in accordance with WAC 246-272-16501 then may be required by Seattle-King
County Public Health authorities to resolve the problem. These repairs may include the addition
of treatment devices like a sand filter, a different disposal technique like a mound, or
disinfection, or an alternate technology like a membrane bioreactor (MBR). In severe cases,
individual properties may be required to use holding tanks and haul sewage to an approved
receptacle.

3.6.2   Schools

There are seven schools within the District service area that lie outside of the Woodinville UGA
as shown on Figure 3-10. Six of these schools are not served by sewers due to their locations
outside of the UGA boundary and are listed below:

        Bear Creek Elementary         –       Northshore School District
        Cottage Lake Elementary       –       Northshore School District



July 2007                                                                                         26
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN

        East Ridge Elementary      –        Northshore School District
        Timbercrest Junior High    –        Northshore School District
        Wilder Elementary          –        Lake Washington School District
        Woodinville Montessori School

The Hollywood Hill Elementary School of the Northshore School District is outside of the urban
growth area but is connected to the Woodinville Water District sewer system through a private
sewer siphon.

Two Northshore School District schools located within the UGA, but currently not served by
sewers are:

        Wellington Elementary       –       Northshore School District
        Leota Junior High           –       Northshore School District

The Northshore School District currently trucks sewage from their six public schools listed
above that are not presently served by sewers. The sewage is hauled to the Woodinville Senior
High School site, which is served by Woodinville Water District sewers, and discharged into a
sewer manhole at that location.

The Lake Washington School District hauls the sewage from Wilder Elementary at a cost of
approximately $90,000 per year. The School District is considering a satellite sewage system for
the treatment of sewage at Wilder Elementary.

Woodinville Montessori School has an onsite septic system to dispose of their sewage.

Eight schools are located within the District service area and within the UGA that are served by
sewers as follows:

        Woodinville Senior High     –       Northshore School District
        Kamiakin Junior High        –       Lake Washington School District
        Northshore Junior High      –       Northshore School District
        John Muir Elementary        –       Lake Washington School District
        Sunrise Elementary          –       Northshore School District
        Woodmoor Elementary         –       Northshore School District
        Mack Elementary             –       Bellevue Christian
        Chrysalis School

Woodinville Senior High, Bellevue Christian – Mack Elementary, and the Chrysalis School are
located within the City of Woodinville.

Enrollment forecasting is regularly updated for all of the public schools. Table 3-4 highlights
current and future enrollment numbers.




July 2007                                                                                    27
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN


                                        Table 3-4
                            School Enrollment within WWD
            School                   2003         Faculty 2009 Enrollment       %
                                 Enrollment                  Projection     Change
Schools outside UGA and not served by sewers
Timbercrest Junior High               709           64          633           -12%
Bear Creek Elementary                 380           42          291           -31%
Cottage Lake Elementary               378           30          295           -28%
East Ridge Elementary                 500           32          359           -39%
Wilder Elementary                     501           42          651            23%
Woodinville Montessori School          94           20           94            0%
                                                           Average % Change: -12%
Schools outside the UGA and served by sewers
Hollywood Hill Elementary             359           36          367             3%

Schools within UGA but not served by sewers
Leota Junior High                     650               58             599              -9%
Wellington Elementary                 545               31             504              -8%
Schools within UGA and served by sewers
Woodinville Senior High              1,411             140            1,296              -9%
Kamiakin Junior High                  704              58              659               -7%
Northshore Junior High                923               65             847               -9%
John Muir Elementary                  466              55              386              -21%
Sunrise Elementary                    384              47              304              -26%
Woodmoor Elementary                   796              151             729               -9%
Mack Elementary                       197              30              202                2%
Chrysalis School                      250              39
                                                                 Average % Change: -11%

There is a distinct declining trend in enrollment in the forecasts shown in Table 3-4. This is in
part due to the UGA effectively working in the slowing down of population growth outside of
the UGA. Additionally, there is a “net-out” migration occurring which is due to families leaving
and not being replaced by new families with children, and to declining family size. Also, the
community is maturing and once children leave the home, the parents continue to stay, thus not
providing any new population to the schools.

The decline in student enrollment population is apparently not due to private schools or to home
schooling. Private school enrollment has been stable for the past few years and although home
school enrollment population has increased in the past few years, it is not a significant enough
growth to affect the public school forecasts.




July 2007                                                                                      28
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

3.6.3   Shopping Center

The Casetta Lago Shopping Center is located at 19150 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road in
Woodinville. Shopping center sewage is currently trucked from the site as site constraints do not
allow for adequate onsite sewage facilities for all wastewater generated by the various
businesses. Toilet waste and similar sewage from the shopping center is collected into a holding
tank and truck into the City of Woodinville. Grey water from other wastewater sources is treated
and discharged to a drainfield immediately north of the shopping center.

3.6.4   Woodinville Water District Campus

The administrative offices and maintenance facilities for the District are also located outside the
UGA and are served by onsite sewage facilities. The facilities had consisted of septic tanks
discharging to two mound disposal systems. In August 2003, the older mound temporarily failed
and was repaired.

The District upgraded their onsite treatment process in 2004 by installation of a flat-plate
membrane bioreactor (MBR) manufactured by Kubota under a pilot program with Seattle-King
County Public Health. This system is illustrated in Figure 3-11. Effluent from the MBR is
discharged without disinfection to the mound disposal system. The MBR has a rated capacity of
3,000 GPD, though the actual wastewater generated within the District Campus is only about
1/10 of the rated capacity.




                        Figure 3-11 Membrane Bioreactor Installation




July 2007                                                                                       29
                                                                              SEWER GENERAL PLAN




                                      Figure 3-12
                        Membrane Bioreactor Unit before Installation

As the MBR operation proceeds and the achieved effluent quality is reliably established, other
disposal options may be considered. Potential uses are to store treated effluent for use in the drip
irrigation system serving the campus landscaping and to offset water used to jet the sewer
system. The results of the pilot testing are summarized in Table 3-5.

                                       Table 3-5
                         Summary of MBR Pilot Testing August 2005

         Parameter                     Average       Maximum       Minimum           Median
BOD in mg/L
                          Influent       212.1        1,499.0         30.0            180.0
                          Effluent        3.5           23.4           0.1             2.4
TSS in mg/L
                       Influent          383.3        4,600.0         20.0            120.0
                       Effluent           1.8           20.0           0.0             0.1
  Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids          9,174        17,000          1,700           8,700
pH
                       Influent           7.4            8.4           6.7             7.3
                       Effluent           6.5            8.0           4.6             6.9




July 2007                                                                                        30
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

There may be a time in the future when the technology may be a viable and suitable alternative
to some onsite sewer concerns within other areas of the District. The District will continue its
efforts to be a leader in this technology to provide direction and possibly technical assistance in
the future.




July 2007                                                                                       31
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

CHAPTER 4 – WASTEWATER FLOWS AND DESIGN CRITERIA
4.1     KING COUNTY I/I PROGRAM

4.1.1   Program Overview

Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) is stormwater and/or groundwater that enter the sewer system. Infiltration
enters the pipes system through cracks in pipes and manholes. Inflow enters through improperly
connected storm drains, down spouts, and sump pumps. Most inflow comes from stormwater
and most infiltration comes from groundwater. I/I affects the size of conveyance and treatment
facilities and, ultimately, the rate the customer pays to operate and maintain them.

King County Wastewater Division is responsible for transporting and treating wastewater
collected by 32 agencies in the Seattle metropolitan area. These agencies are working together to
define ways to remove I/I from the wastewater system by forming the King County Regional
Infiltration Inflow Control Program.

Basin analyses across the King County Wastewater Service Area to understand the I/I situation
defined about 150 flow monitoring basins averaging around 1,000 acres. To provide a detailed
look at specific I/I conditions within these basins, about 600 smaller mini-basins were defined
within the study area. The main model basins within the District sewer service area are shown in
Figure 4-1, which were the basis for the King County flow monitoring program.

Flow monitoring was conducted during the wet season of the years 2000 to 2001 and 2001 to
2002 in each of these mini-basins. Precipitation data was collected in real time during the same
periods through a series of recording gauges, and correlated through a computer program so
adjusted precipitation can be correlated to any specific mini-basin. Recorded flow data and
precipitation data for these basins was calibrated with a hydrologic computer model, which can
be programmed to predict future flows within the County interceptor and pumping facilities
under a variety of conditions.

4.1.2   CALAMAR System for Rainfall Data

The King County Regional Infiltration/Inflow Control Program uses the CALAMAR System to
define rainfall throughout their 1100 square mile sewer service area. The French technology uses
radar images from the National Weather Service NEXRAD radar together with the 72 rain
gauges in the County for calibration.

Interestingly, King County received an above average rainfall amount during the 76-day flow
monitoring period from 1 November 2001 through 15 January 2002. At SeaTac, for example,
21.3 inches was recorded in comparison with 16.8 inches for the same period in the preceding
year. The Seattle Times reported that new records were set on 16 November 2001 at both SeaTac
and at Sand Point.




July 2007                                                                                        32
                                                                                SEWER GENERAL PLAN

Ten of the eighteen rain events that occurred during the flow monitoring period met the County
criteria of causing a measurable, system-wide infiltration/inflow response in the sewer system.
The 13 November 2001 event exceeded a 100-year storm in some areas. The storm of most
interest to Woodinville began on December 15th and was less than a one-year event for the
County as a whole; however, more total rain-induced flow was recorded in the Woodinville
sewer system from this event than any other.

Rainfall magnitude is usually described in terms of Intensity Duration Frequency. This term
includes not just the measured quantity of rain measured; but also the time period during which
the rain occurred, and then provides a comparative relationship to other storms. An example
might be a 5-year, 24-hour storm, which, despite the nomenclature, is not the worst storm to be
expected to occur in five years.

The terminology actually refers to the probability a storm of that magnitude will be equaled or
exceeded in any given year. So a 5-year event has an annual probability of being equaled or
exceeded of 20 percent in any given year (5-year being a 1/5 chance). By comparison, a 1-year
event has a 100 percent chance of occurring in any year, and a 100-year event has only a 1
percent chance.

The CALAMAR system has two important features for the County I/I Program:

        It provides a measurement of rainfall in spots between rain gauges
        It identifies rain gauges that are inaccurate or providing false data

The National Weather Service’s NEXRAD weather radar is able to accurately locate and track
rainfall. What it can not do with precision is measure intensity. However, with CALAMAR it is
possible to have both accurate location and precise intensity by organizing data into pixels of 1
square kilometer. The 72 rain gauges in the County sewer service area were grouped into eight
calibration zones. Scatter plots of rain gauge versus radar rainfall accumulation allow intensity of
each storm to be calibrated.

A rainfall data file was then created for each of the ten significant storms to be analyzed for I/I
effects, and broken out by mini-basin. In the end, the I/I Program calculated the
infiltration/inflow in 30-minute intervals and identified the peak 30-minute period for each 72-
hour storm event. The actual events were then routed through the County interceptor system to
validate the modeling approach. Design for future County improvements will be based on
modeling of the 20-year peak event.

4.2     DESCRIPTION OF MINI-BASINS

4.2.1   Overview

Eleven mini-basins were defined by the King County Regional Infiltration Inflow Control
Program within the Woodinville Water District sewer service area. The larger King County flow
monitoring basins that include them are shown on Figure 4-1. The eleven mini-basins are shown
on Figure 4-2 and are described below:



July 2007                                                                                        33
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

WDN 001 comprises about 201 acres in the English Hills area within the City of Redmond urban
growth area. It is essentially fully developed except for a few parcels. It is all single family with
one elementary school. The mini-basin discharges into WND 002 on 172nd Avenue NE.

WDN 002 has about 93 acres developed as single family on either side of NE 124th Way and is
within the City of Redmond urban growth area. The two existing lift stations operated by the
District are located within this mini-basin and WND 001 is tributary to it from the north. WND
002 discharges along NE 124th Street into the Metro Trunk.

WDN 003 presently has only about 12 developed acres. Most is single family residential up-
slope of the railroad along NE 135th and 136th Streets, though 3 acres on the valley floor are
commercial. Discharge is directly into the Metro-York Pump Station.

WDN 004 includes about 53 acres west and up hill from the Chateau St. Michelle Winery on NE
145th Street within the City of Woodinville. About 28 acres are developed industrially, 5 acres
are commercial, and the remainder is single family. WND 004 discharges directly into the Metro
Trunk at NE 145th Street.

WDN 005 serves about 177 acres west of the Sammamish River and the Woodinville-Redmond
Road within the City of Woodinville. About 62 acres are multifamily development, 20 are single
family, 7 are commercial, and the rest are industrial. Discharge is directly into the Metro Trunk
at about NE 159th Street extended.

WDN 006 includes about 106 acres along the western boundary of the City of Woodinville east
of 124th Avenue NE and north of NE 160th Street. About 17 acres are multi-family or mixed use,
6 acres are commercial or religious, 21 are industrial, and the remainder is single family. The
mini-basin discharges into the Metro system near the Metro Pump Station at the bridge on NE
175th Street over the Sammamish River.

WDN 007 serves about 52 aces east of the Sammamish River along NE 171st Street in downtown
Woodinville. About 19 acres are single family, 20 acres are a mobile home park, and the
remainder is commercial. The mini-basin discharges into the Metro Trunk at about 134th Avenue
NE extended.

WDN 008 includes about 109 acres along NE 175th Street in downtown Woodinville. Except for
about 7 acres of multi-family, the rest of the mini-basin is commercial. Discharge is into the
Metro Trunk at 131st Avenue NE.

WDN 009 has about 42 acres east and uphill from WND 008 along NE 175 Street. Except for a
13 acre school site, it is all single family residential. The discharge into WND 008 occurs at
about where 143rd Avenue NE would intersect with NE 175th Street.

WDN 010 encompasses about 148 acres in the City of Woodinville east of Woodinville-
Snohomish Road and up the Woodinville-Duvall Road. About 15 acres are multi-family, about 9
are commercial, and the rest are industrial. Discharge is into the Metro Trunk at about NE 181
Street.



July 2007                                                                                         34
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

LBEARA 03 includes approximately 300 acres in the City of Woodinville, paralleling
Washington SR 522, and extending west and east into the residential portions of the City.
Within the mini-basin, there are about 118 acres of single-family residential, 23 acres of multi-
family, 70 acres of commercial and 89 acres of industrial. Discharge is into the Metro Trunk at
SR 522 as well as at NE 177th Place.

4.2.2   Supplemental Discussion

As shown on the map of District sewer facilities and King County mini-basins, the 11 mini-
basins do not include all District facilities or customers. A significant portion of the City of
Woodinville is within the mini-basin designated LBEAR A03, and the entire Cross Valley sewer
system is tributary to LBEAR A03.

Some District customers are served through and included within the City of Bothell mini-basin
BOTHW 087. Others are served by the Northshore Utility District through mini-basins NUD 003
and 005.

Several mini-basins are tributary to other mini-basins, meaning flows recorded by King County
for the upstream basins must be subtracted from the downstream basins. These specific basins
are described below:

        WDN 001 is tributary to WDN 002
        WDN 009 is tributary to WDN 008
        WDN 008 (and also WDN 009) is tributary to LBEAR A03 (as is Cross Valley)

There are also several small District sewer service areas that discharge directly into the Metro
Trunk that are not included in any mini-basin. No flow monitoring was done for these facilities.
All serve relatively tiny service areas as summarized below:

        Manhole 668 into the Sammamish Trunk at 132nd Avenue extended south
        Manhole 662 into the Sammamish Trunk near where NE 170th Street and 131st Avenue
        NE would intersect
        Manhole WW 11 A8 from the north at 130th Avenue NE into the Little Bear Trunk
        Manhole 15 west in NE 175th Street into the Little Bear Trunk
        Manhole 1 west in NE 178th Street into the Metro Trunk
        Manhole 305 LB3 south in 134th Avenue NE into the Little Bear Trunk

Two significant parts of the District system discharge directly into the Little Bear Trunk and
their flow are included in the monitoring thereof:
         Manhole 6A at NE 203rd Street extended discharges into the northern extremity of the
         Little Bear Trunk and receives flow from a significant service area in the northern part of
         the City of Woodinville
         Manhole 976 discharges at NE 178th Street west into the Little Bear Trunk serving much
         of the Woodinville Town Center neighborhood.




July 2007                                                                                        35
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

4.2.3   Future Sewer Extensions

Some service area expansion can be anticipated in all District mini-basins; however the major
sewer developments are expected to be in the eastern part of the City of Woodinville and
tributary to mini-basins WND 010 and LBEAR A03.

4.3     EXISTING WASTEWATER FLOW CALCULATIONS

4.3.1   Comparison of Diurnal Variations

Calculations of existing wastewater flows are based on the flow monitoring data provided by the
King County Regional Infiltration/Inflow Control Program. This data was not collected
specifically for sewer planning purposes within the District, and consequently some anomalies
become apparent when the data is evaluated in detail for application to discrete land parcels.
Never-the-less, this data set is the basis King County is using for the development of their I/I
Control Program, and the management of their interceptors, pump stations, and treatment
facilities. Accordingly, the same data is used herein so the total existing flows from each District
mini-basin closely matches the monitored flows recorded by King County, and the existing unit
flow parameters have been adjusted as necessary to achieve that match.

Hydraulic modeling of wastewater flows is dependent on the input of a diurnal curve. This curve
represents the flow pattern during the day to be modeled, usually a day selected as representing
the maximum wastewater flow conditions anticipated to pass through the pipe system. The peak
diurnal point then becomes the peak flow period in the sewer and this indicates how much
capacity is used as well as the potential for surcharge within the pipe.

Average diurnal flow for a series of typical period without recorded precipitation is shown
graphically in Figure 4-3 for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays for Mini-basins WDN 001.




July 2007                                                                                        36
                                                                                                 SEWER GENERAL PLAN


                                                      W DN001
                                      Representative Dry Year Dry Period Flows
                                                 11/5/00 - 11/11/00
                                                Sunday        Saturday         Weekday
                    0.25


                       0.2
      Flow, MGD




                    0.15


                       0.1


                    0.05


                          0
                       AM




                                                                    PM




                                                                                                                 AM
                                 AM




                                          AM




                                                         AM




                                                                                PM




                                                                                            PM




                                                                                                     PM
                      0




                                                                   0




                                                                                                                0
                                00




                                         00




                                                     00




                                                                            00




                                                                                           00




                                                                                                    00
                   :0




                                                                :0




                                                                                                             :0
                              3:




                                       6:




                                                   9:




                                                                          3:




                                                                                         6:




                                                                                                  9:
                  12




                                                               12




                                                                                                            12
                                                                 Time of Day

                                                       Figure 4-3
                                              Average Flow Monitoring Data

The three graphs in Figure 4-3 show distinct differences in the diurnal pattern for Saturdays,
Sundays, and weekdays. These patterns are typical of most weeks during which flow was
recorded for most mini-basins, particularly those that are predominately residential. In each case,
wastewater flow is at essentially the same minimum flow rate during the 3 to 4 AM period, and
reaches peak flow rates at various times of the day according to the specific day of the week
being monitored.

Actual average day flows for these typical days are summarized in Table 4-1.

                                                   Table 4-1
                                           Average Daily Flow in MGD
     Weather Year                         Weekdays              Saturdays                                Sundays
  2000 to 2001                             0.0921                0.0998                                   0.1128
  2001 to 2002                             0.1060                0.1392                                   0.1572

Figure 4-3 and Table 4-1 show the maximum daily flows are typically recorded on Sundays.
Therefore, a Sunday diurnal pattern based on the 2001 to 2002 flow monitoring period will be
used for modeling wastewater flows within the pipe system.




July 2007                                                                                                             37
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

4.3.2   Infiltration

As noted, Figure 4-3 shows that wastewater flows typically reach a minimum value in the early
morning hours of between 3 and 4 AM. This is understandable as most people are asleep and
there is little sewage generated. Most of the wastewater measured by the flow monitors during
dry weather over this time period is assumed to be infiltration, which is defined as groundwater
that enters the sewer mains, the lateral side sewers, and the manholes through faulty joints,
breaks, or cracks.

Most of the difference in flows monitored between 2000/01 and 2001/02 is assumed to be the
result of higher groundwater due to more saturated ground conditions from the increased
precipitation. The 2001/02 flow monitoring period is assumed to represent typical conditions in
the District sewer service area. Accordingly these wastewater flows formed the basis for
hydraulic modeling to define capacities within the existing pipe system. Table 4-2 summarizes
the average of the minimum flow rate recorded on several Sundays without rain during 2001,
usually between the hours of 2 to 4 AM.

                                       Table 4-2
                         Minimum Flow during 2001 and Infiltration
        Mini-Basin         Minimum GPD           Acreage       Infiltration GPD /Acre
         WDN 001               60,000              201                    298
         WDN 002               25,000              109                    230
         WDN 003               4,000               38                     105
         WDN 004               50,000               45                   1,105
         WDN 005               33,000              112                    295
         WDN 006               20,000              121                    166
         WDN 007               15,000               63                    239
         WDN 008               49,000              102                    480
         WDN 009               11,000               44                    252
         WDN 010               50,000              126                    396
        LBEARA 03             300,000              300                   1,000

Except for Mini-Basins WDN 004 and LBEARA 03, all mini-basins show infiltration rates in the
range of 105 to 480 gallons per day per acre. This is an acceptable and expected range for
modern sewer construction maintained in good condition.

About half of the WDN 004 mini-basin area is single family residential development on the
slopes west of the Sammamish River, while the remainder is a mix of commercial and industrial
development in the river valley. It is possible that the acreage assigned under-represents the area
actually served; however, it is more likely that the some of the side sewers and laterals were
poorly constructed, and allow sizeable volumes of extraneous water to leak into the sewers as
infiltration.




July 2007                                                                                       38
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

4.3.3   Sanitary Sewage

The difference between total wastewater flow monitored on a given day without recorded
precipitation and the minimum flow recorded, or infiltration, is assumed to be the sewage
component. Table 4-3 summarizes this derivation for an average Sunday in the ten mini-basins.

                                         Table 4-3
                             Derivation of Sewage Flow in GPD
    Mimi-Basin      Monitored Flow Minimum Flow           Sewage Flow            GPD /Acre
     WDN 001           157,000               60,000          97,000                 483
     WDN 002            46,500               25,000          21,500                 197
     WDN 003             5,800                4,000           1,800                  47
     WDN 004           134,800               50,000          84,800                1,884
     WDN 005            66,800               33,000          33,800                 302
     WDN 006            77,300               20,000          57,300                 474
     WDN 007            53,400               15,000          38,400                 610
     WDN 008           116,300               49,000          67,300                 660
     WDN 009            38,400               11,000          27,400                 623
     WDN 010            73,300               50,000          23,300                 185
    LBEARA 03          635,000              300,000         335,000                1,117

Sewage flow shown in Table 4-3 includes residential, commercial, and industrial contributions.
Most mini-basins include a mix of these land uses. Typical residential sewage generation can be
calculated from the flow data developed by the King County I/I Program and checked against the
water consumption actually billed to selected neighborhoods. No flow monitoring data is
available to quantify sewage generated by other land uses, which is likely highly variable
according to the specific activity of each individual parcel.

Accordingly, for calibration of the hydraulic flow model, a specific number will be developed for
each mini-basin defining infiltration, rain-induced inflow, and single family residential sewage.
Other unit flow rates from land uses will then be adjusted to balance the actual flows recorded on
selected dates by the King County I/I Program.

4.3.4   Residential Sewage

Residential land uses occupy most of the land area within the District sewer service area. The
average quantity of sewage generated by residences within the District can be computed from the
flows monitored in Mini-basin WDN 001 because it is entirely residential except for the
elementary school.

Winter water consumption data was provided by the Woodinville Water District for 445
customer accounts in the English Hill area, identified as Mini-basins WDN001 and 002. These
two mini-basins had an average water use of 98,915 gallons per day. The average water use per
customer water was 222 GPD, which is lower than the District-wide average of 265 GPD.
However, most District water customers have on-site sewage systems and irrigate large lots.




July 2007                                                                                      39
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN


Sewage flow for Mini-Basin WDN 001 derives from 502 parcels, and averaged 97,000 GPD
according to Table 4-3. This is an average of 194 GPD per parcel, and at 2.6 persons per
household is equivalent to 75 GPD per capita. Dividing the sewage flow per parcel by the winter
water usage per parcel indicates that on average about 87 percent of the total winter water billed
per customer becomes sewage, which is approximately the ratio observed in most residential
communities and indicates the value is realistic of actual conditions.

Homes in English Hills may not be typical in all respects for all homes receiving sewer service
from the District. More water may be used for summer landscape irrigation, for example.
However, household size is believed typical, and water appliances that generate sewage are
believed typical. Therefore, existing residential sewage flow for the entire Woodinville Water
District is assumed to average 194 GPD per parcel.

4.3.5   Rain Induced Inflow

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been involved through the US EPA SSO
Federal Advisory Committee Meeting for several years in efforts to develop a uniform and
effective method for managing sanitary sewer overflows. This effort continues to be on-going
and has not yet achieved a uniform stand defining when a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) is an
acceptable event. However, the monitoring proposed for utilities to self-audit and report SSO
events requires records to be maintained for a five year period. This time frame implies that a
sanitary sewer system that limits overflow events to once during a 5-year period is acceptable
containment of the wastewater. To provide a prudent analysis The Woodinville system was
modeled to for a 10-year overflow event. The 10-year, 24-hour storm isohedryl for Western
King County in the Woodinville vicinity is estimated to be 2.65 inches. By comparison, a 2-year
storm event is about 1.80 inches of rain in 24-hours.

Major rain events recorded during the wet season of 2001-2002 within the District sewer service
area are compared in Table 4-4.

                                        Table 4-4
                 Major Rain Events in 2001-2002 for Mini-Basin WDN 001
       Day        Day of Week       Daily Flow Average, MGD       Rainfall, inches
    14 Nov 01      Wednesday                  0.142                    2.07
    22 Nov 01      Thursday                   0.176                    1.90
    28 Nov 01       Tuesday                   0.130                    1.22
    16 Dec 01       Sunday                    0.232                    1.16

Table 4-4 showed that the largest rain events do not necessarily produce the largest wastewater
flow. The 14 November storm was the largest recorded during the monitoring period, but the
largest wastewater flow was recorded during the 16 December storm. It appears that the initial
storms were needed to saturate the ground and raise the water table before peak flows would
occur in the sewer piping system when rain then induced flows into the sewers. However,
rainfall events include many variables. It is possible that the time-of-day when the storm peaked,




July 2007                                                                                      40
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN

the peak intensity, and even the direction the storm traveled, could have affected the magnitude
of peak flow recorded in the sewer. Still, the total volume and duration while extraneous
wastewater was recorded indicates that seasonal saturation of the ground was a major factor in
determining the higher total flow.

The total wastewater flow for the days shown in Table 4-4 during rain events can be compared to
the average flow on similar days (either weekdays or Sundays) to determine approximately how
much rain induced flow was attributed to the storm event. These values are summarized in Table
4-5 for mini-basin WDN 001, which has a served area of about 201 acres.

                                         Table 4-5
                        Rain Induced Inflow to Mini-Basin WDN 001
  Storm Date           Rain (in) Total GPD Dry Day Average Inflow GPD                 GPD/Acre
Wednesday 14 Nov         2.07     142,000          106,000        36,000                179
Thursday 22 Nov          1.90     176,000          106,000        70,000                348
 Tuesday 28 Nov          1.22     130,000          106,000        24,000                119
 Sunday 16 Dec           1.16     232,000          157,000        75,000                373

The 22 November 2001 event was a bit larger than a 2-year storm, and the 14 November event
approximated a 4-year storm. None of the storms recorded by the King County I/I Program
within the Woodinville sewer service area approached a 10-year event, so there is no direct data
indicating how much rainfall from such an event would actually enter the sewer system.

As a basis of comparison, the 14 November storm of 2.07 inches deposited about 56,200 gallons
of rainwater on an acre of land within Mini-basin WDN 001, and only 179 gallons reached the
sewer, or about 0.3 percent. However, the December 16th storm deposited about 31,500 gallons
on one acre, and 373 gallons reached the sewer, or about 1.2 percent of the total precipitation.

The pattern shown in Table 4-5 indicates that storm magnitudes decreased as the season
progressed, and generally the portion of rainfall reaching the sewer increased. This appears to
result from the progression of rainstorms increasingly saturating the ground and causing more
rain-induced inflow to enter the sewer. This trend has an upper limit, of course. Once the ground
is saturated to the ground surface, rain-induced inflow to the sewer reaches a maximum and any
more rain is simply surface runoff to the drainage system.

Designing the sewer system to accommodate a 10-year, 24 hour event indicates that the rain-
induction inflow component of flow will be larger than any of the values shown in Table 4-5.
Introspection of these values and the mechanics of how rainfall reaches the sewer indicate that
increase in rain-induced flow reaching the sewer will not be a straight-line equation, but will
depend on several factors. Each mini-basin has different flow characteristics, of course. The
basin flows from Table 4-3, rounded to the nearest 1,000 GPD, are summarized for evaluation in
Table 4-6 to define the inflow rate per acre.




July 2007                                                                                     41
                                                                                    SEWER GENERAL PLAN


                                            Table 4-6
                            Rain Induced Inflow to the Mini-Basins
                                for Sunday 16 December 2001
    Mini-Basin      Exist Acres Total GPD          Dry Avg.      Inflow                       Inflow
                                                     GPD          GPD                       GPD / Acre
     WDN 001            201         232,000        157,000       75,000                         373
     WDN 002            109          69,000         47,000       23,000                         208
     WDN 003             38           7,000          6,000        1,000                          24
     WDN 004             45         264,000        135,000      130,000                        2,865
     WDN 005            112         161,000         67,000       94,000                         844
     WDN 006            121         100,000         77,000       23,000                         189
     WDN 007             63          84,000         53,000       31,000                         495
     WDN 008            102         133,000        116,000       16,000                         159
     WDN 009             44       38,000 (1)      37,000 (1)      1,000                         28
     WDN 010            126         116,000         73,000       43,000                         338
    LBEARA 03           300         781,000        635,000      146,000                         487
        (1)    Data from the King County I/I Program are believed to have reversed these two values, which are
               entered as +28 GPD per acre for input to the hydraulic model.

From Table 4-6 it can be seen that most mini-basins have similar rain-induced inflow
characteristics as WDN 001, with three exceptions:

        WDN 004 – This basin also had a high infiltration rate as shown in Table 4-5, so it is not
        surprising that the apparent poorly constructed side sewers also contribute significant
        rain-induced infiltration.
        WDN 003 & 009 – These min-basins are of relatively recent construction and have very
        low rates of rain-induced flows reaching the sewers. This condition may or may not
        continue as the pipe system ages.

WDN 004 is the one mini-basin within the District that flow monitoring indicated should be
studied in greater detail. It has an infiltration rate exceeding 1,000 GPD per acre, a rain-induced
inflow rate that exceeds 2,800 GPD per acre, and the sewage generated within these 45 acres
exceeded 1,800 GPD per acre. These unit flow rates are not alarmingly high in comparison with
some rates found in other agencies, but they are high in relation to other mini-basins within this
District. The data may be incorrect, or there may be some problems within the mini-basin.

4.3.6   Nonresidential Sanitary Sewage

Wastewater generated by commercial businesses, industry, medical facilities and public
buildings is referred to as nonresidential sanitary sewage. This component of wastewater is
typically calculated on a gallon-per-acre-per-day (GPAPD) basis. Winter water consumption can
be used in determining nonresidential sanitary sewage. However, as was noted in Section 4.3.3,
no data is readily available for most parcels and for the various mini-basins so the more ready-
determinable flow components have been computed above (single family residential, infiltration,




July 2007                                                                                                   42
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

and rain-induced inflow), and values for the commercial, industrial, and institutional components
have been assumed to balance the total wastewater flows measured through the King County I/I
Program

4.3.7   Little Bear Trunk

A major portion of the District sewer system is included within the LBEAR A03 mini-basin. The
Cross Valley and WDN 008 mini-basins are tributary to it. Cross Valley sewers serve mostly
industrial parcels and the resulting flow patterns are highly variable, meaning little activity
occurs on Sundays. Yet the Cross Valley flow contribution needs to be subtracted from LBEAR
so the wastewater originating from the 300 acres within Woodinville Water District can be
evaluated.

After review of the data available from the King County I/I Program, the following flow
parameters were selected as appropriate for evaluating conditions on Sunday 16 December 2001,
which is when peak flow within the Woodinville system occurred:

                                         Table 4-7
                            Mini-Basin LBEAR A03 Flows in MGD
        Parameters            Monitored    Monitored      Actual              LBEAR A 003
                             LBEAR A03      CRV 003     LBEAR A03             GPD per Acre
   Average Dry Sunday           0.635         0.034        0.601                 2003
   Minimum Flow                 0.300         0.020        0.280                  933
   Sewage                       0.335         0.014        0.321                 1070
   16 Dec 2001                  0.781         0.067        0.714                 2380
   Rain-Induced                 0.146         0.033        0.113                  377

The difference between flow recorded in LBEAR A03 on Sunday 16 December 2001 when a
rainstorm was recorded, and the average of the dry Sunday recorded flows allows computation of
the rain-induced component.

The gallons per day per acre derived for the three basic flow components in LBEAR A03 allows
some generalized comparisons to be made with the other ten mini-basins comprising the District
sewer system for existing and future conditions.

4.4     FUTURE WASTEWATER FLOWS

4.4.1   Future Service Area Conditions

It is assumed for capacity planning purposes that the entire City of Woodinville will be served by
sewers in the future, including the eastern portion of the City which is currently unserved. The
entire City of Woodinville lies within the King County UGA, therefore sewer service is allowed
throughout the City Limits. These sewers are expected to be built by developers and/or those
wishing for service in their area, not by the District.




July 2007                                                                                      43
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

Due to the topography of the eastern portion of the City of Woodinville, lift stations will be
needed to convey the sewage generated in that area to existing District and King County pipes
for treatment. Approximately four lift stations will be required in the eastern portion of the City.
The Lake Leota area of the City will require special consideration to define how sewers will
serve the surrounding homes due to the lake topography. Potential service could be viable
through grinder pumps or a vacuum sewer system. The decision on what type of service will be
used needs to be made by the District prior to starting sewers in that area.

It is important to note that the piping and pump stations are approximations of what is necessary
to serve the currently unserved areas of the City. The elevations and design have been derived
from existing topographic maps. What is eventually developed may differ from what is shown in
this Plan and will depend on plans prepared by the developers.


4.4.2   Future Unit Wastewater Flows

To determine existing unit flow rates, flow meter records were compared to existing customers
and land use data. Based on this raw data, existing unit flow rates were established. Those
existing unit rates were sometimes higher, or sometimes lower, than what would typically be
expected for similar land uses. However, the rates are what the available data show to actually
exist at the time the data was collected.

Estimation of future flows allowed for use of more common flow values. Unlike the existing
flow rates, future flow rates were based upon typical and accepted values for King County.
Acreage was determined for the land uses within the specific mini-basin, and unit flows were
assigned to each land use on a GPD/acre basis. Total sewage flow was then determined by
multiplying the acreage by the associated unit flow. This same procedure was done to determine
both infiltration and inflow values.

Areas that are currently vacant were estimated with future flows depending on the zoning. These
unit rates generally correlated with the future flow rates for parcels with existing occupants.

Both commercial and industrial flow values were based on the City of Woodinville’s Federal
Accounting Regulation (FAR) number. The City of Woodinville’s Comprehensive Plan
(December 2002) Appendix 3 states, “Woodinville achieved an average floor area ration (FAR)
of approximately 0.14 over all its commercial zones and a FAR of 0.41 over all its industrial
zones.” These were used as FAR values for Industrial and Commercial areas, except for the
winery/brewery area of the Tourist District. In this case, a FAR of 0.30 has been assumed as a
realistic average.

Table 4-8 presents a sampling of values used in modeling the future unit flows for various mini-
basins.




July 2007                                                                                        44
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                         Table 4-8
                                  Future Unit Flow Rates
                      Sewage flow             Infiltration                 Inflow
   Residential        200 GPD/DU              300-1,200 GPD/acre           200-700 GPD/acre
   Commercial         1,200-2,000 GPD/acre    300-1,000 GPD/acre           100-800 GPD/acre
   Industrial         300-500 GPD/acre        300-900 GPD/acre             200-800 GPD/acre

In some cases, to remain consistent with the existing monitored flow scenarios, future unit flow
rates were adjusted from the above rates.

4.4.3   Build-Out Conditions

As stated above, the entire City of Woodinville is assumed to be served by sewers in the future.
This is defined as the “build-out condition.” These “build-out conditions” are assumed to occur
by the year 2025. Included in the sewer service area is the eastern portion of the City not
currently served. This area will need about two new mini-basins, along with several lift stations.
Assuming this build-out condition, a new flow rate is generated into the model and into the
existing pipe system. Model output is discussed in Chapter 5.

4.4.4   Intermediate Flow Conditions for 2012

The City of Woodinville estimates the 2012 population will be 12,647 persons, per the 2002 City
Comprehensive Plan. The estimated 2004 population was 9,915 persons. The difference
between 2004 and 2012 population estimates is 2,732 people, or 1,047 households (which
assumes an average household size of 2.61 persons).

These 1,047 households were divided between existing and future mini-basins. The distribution
of additional households per mini-basin is as shown in Table 4-9:

                                     Table 4-9
                      Additional Household Distribution in 2012
    Mini-basin                             Households
    WDN004                                 100
    WDN005                                 50
    WDN006                                 50
    WDN007                                 100
    WDN008                                 100
    WDN009                                 150
    WDN010                                 200
    LBEARA03                               200
    WDN011 (proposed new mini-basin)       100
    TOTAL                                  1,050

WDN001, WDN002, and WDN003 were not included in Table 4-9 because these mini-basins
are outside of the City of Woodinville city limits.



July 2007                                                                                      45
                                                                        SEWER GENERAL PLAN


For modeling purposes, 3 DU/Acre was used. The City has suggested that build-out densities in
residential areas will be 6 DU/Acre; however, since it is not known where development will
occur, it is prudent to only consider 3 DU/Acre as a modeled 2012 density. It is possible that
sewer lines will bypass vacant lots to serve a new 6 DU/Acre development; therefore, the actual
density might average 3 DU/Acre. The following unit flows were used for the interim 2012
flows:

              Sewage:               1,200 GPD/acre
              Infiltration:           300 GPD/acre
              Inflow:                 200 GPD/acre
                       TOTAL:       1,700 GPD/acre

Following are the additional flows per mini-basin generated in addition to the existing flows
during a design storm for year 2012.

                                      Table 4-10
                  2012 Estimated Additional Flow per Mini-basin
    Mini-basin      Additional households Additional acreage           2012 additional
                    by 2012                   served by 2012           flow, GPD
    WDN004                    100                        33                  56,100
    WDN005                     50                        17                  28,900
    WDN006                     50                        17                  28,300
    WDN007                    100                        33                  56,100
    WDN008                    100                        33                  56,700
    WDN009                    150                        50                  85,000
    WDN010                    200                        67                 113,300
    LBEARA03                  200                        67                 113,900
    WDN011                    100                        33                  56,700
                                    TOTAL               350                 595,000
       Note: WDN011 is a proposed future mini-basin that would be tributary to WND010

Interim flows were modeled only where surcharging occurred in both the existing and build-out
scenarios of the model. Otherwise the pipe capacities and sizes identified for the build-out
conditions are clearly adequate for the 2012 condition.




July 2007                                                                                   46
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

CHAPTER 5 – COLLECTION SYSTEM EVALUATION
5.1      IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES

5.1.1    Maintenance Concerns Identified by Staff

Several concerns have been identified by staff members as important operating and maintenance
issues that need to be addressed:

      1) Project #8, Basin #8, From 1993 Sewer Comp Plan
         This project has been revised from what was recommended in the 1993 Sewer Comp Plan
         due to the revision of flows when the Woodinville Town Center was constructed. It
         would now include re-lining approximately 3,709 lineal feet of 15-inch gravity sewer
         from MH 18 to MH 29. The 8-inch section of pipe that was recommended in 1993 for
         replacement has now been determined not to need relining or replacement.

      2) Woodinville-Snohomish Road Sewer Pipe Bursting
         This project would increase the capacity of the existing 15-inch line from MH 926 to MH
         33 by bursting with 18-inch pipe (approximately 2,546 lineal feet), and the existing 8-
         inch pipe line from MH 33 to MH 34A by bursting with 10-inch pipe (approximately 294
         linear feet).

      3) English Hills Lift Station Rehabilitation
         This project would replace the existing underground electrical control panels at the lift
         station with above ground electrical control panels similar to the installation at the
         Sunrise Lift Station.

      4) Siphon 1 Rehabilitation
         This project would replace the PLC type control panel at the Siphon 1 site with the RTU
         system that is presently installed at the Sunrise Lift Station. The existing PLC at the
         siphon is complicated to operate and different than crew is accustomed to using. The
         other portion of this project would demolish the bench at the bottom of the new pump
         chamber and re-pour the bench. The existing bench is too small and solids tend to build
         up, which prevents the pump from operating when it is needed. There is also an
         infiltration problem at the bench that should be eliminated.

      5) Replace Pipe Run MH 110 through MH 116
         The existing 8-inch concrete pipe from MH 110 through MH 116 needs to be replaced
         due to multiple bellies throughout the pipe run.

      6) Repair Manhole Benches in 144th Avenue NE
         When the sewer along 144th Avenue NE was replaced by pipe bursting, the benches that
         were reconstructed in the manholes were of inferior material. The concrete benches have
         broken apart and have caused wastewater back-ups in the system. Ten benches need to




Ju1y 2007                                                                                      47
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

         be replaced; MH 998, MH 42, MH 41, MH 176, MH 40, MH 228, MH 229, MH 262,
         MH 263, MH 263-1.

      7) Locate and Raise Manhole 6C
         When the vertical alignment of Woodinville-Snohomish Road at the intersection of NE
         195th Street was reconstructed, manhole number MH 6C was not brought to street grade
         as part of the construction. This project would locate and raise MH 6C.

      8) Manhole 935
         An infiltration/inflow problem exists at MH 935 that needs to be repaired.

      9) Acquire and Develop a Sewer Decant/Dump Site
         The District currently does not have an “official” site where contractors or the District
         can efficiently and safely dump sewage into the Metro sewer system. This project would
         look at available properties, determine the feasibility of purchasing the property, and
         develop the necessary infrastructure improvements.

      10) Enclose and Heat One Bay of Building “E”
         The existing shop bays in Building “C” and Building “D” are too small to accommodate
         the new vactor truck. This project would provide heated indoor storage for the vactor
         truck during winter months. One bay in Building “E” would be enclosed and used for
         this purpose.

5.1.2    Infiltration/Inflow Considerations

The King County Regional Infiltration/Inflow Control Program has not identified any of the
mini-basins within the District as exhibiting sufficient extraneous flow characteristics to warrant
evaluation through a pilot rehabilitation program.

Review of Tables 4-2 and 4-6 indicates that significantly higher infiltration and rain-induced
inflow was recorded in Mini-basin WDN 004 than in any of the other mini-basins within the
District. The rates recorded are not so excessive as to warrant implementation of an immediate
rehabilitation program. The flow monitoring program included a very limited monitoring period,
and it is possible that the data for this particular mini-basin may not be completely accurate.
However, the results do indicate that of all areas within the existing District sewer system, WDN
004 is the place that warrants further analysis. This should include flow monitoring, television
inspection, and smoke testing. Evaluation of those results will then indicate whether
rehabilitation is economically justified.

5.2      ALTERNATIVES FOR AREAS SERVED BY OTHER AGENCIES

Approximately 43 percent of the population within the District boundary that is served by
sewers, is served by either the Northshore Utility District (NUD) or by the City of Bothell.
These areas were evaluated separately to determine if the District could provide more cost-
effective sewer service to these customers.




Ju1y 2007                                                                                       48
                                                                             SEWER GENERAL PLAN

The following distinct “areas” were identified within the areas served by others, based on
whether the parcels currently served by others realistically could be served by the District
through extension of gravity sewers, or by force mains with a local pump station, or by some
combination. These “areas” are shown in aggregate in Figure 5-1.

5.2.1   Areas Served by Northshore Utility District

Any discussion of transferring customers and infrastructure from one utility to another
necessarily introduces various financial and legal ramifications that require resolution. Some
examples are outlined below:

        Value of the existing infrastructure being transferred
        Responsibility for outstanding debt to Northshore Utility District
        Benefit to the rate paying customers being transferred
        Cost of the additional facilities and how costs are recovered

These issues can not be resolved within a General Sewer Plan; however, the Plan can identify
which service areas may be appropriate for a more complete evaluation and negotiation.

Area 1, as seen in Figure 5-2, lies within the District boundary and is between 132nd Ave NE and
136th Ave NE on the east and west, respectively, and NE 129th St. on the south and NE 133rd St.
to the north. Topography of this Area constrains the sewer lines to be served by NUD. A lift
station could be placed in the southwest corner of the Area to pump back into the WWD service
area along NE 128th Street with approximately 2,700 lf of force main. A lift station is not needed
for NUD to serve this area; currently, NUD serves this area by means of gravity sewer.

There are currently an approximate 347 parcels served by NUD sewer lines. This equates to an
approximate population of 906 people. Within this Area, there are about 7 acres of land that are
currently not served. Assuming a zoning of R-4, 28 new homes could potentially be served
within the Area, or about 73 additional people.

This estimated population of about 979 people may generate about 100,000 GPD. However,
since most of the facilities already exist for gravity flow into Northshore, it is unlikely to be
economical for the District to reclaim these customers.

Area 2, as seen in Figure 5-3, lies within the District boundary between 129th Pl. NE and 136th
Pl. NE to the east and west, respectively, and NE 133rd St. to the south and NE 140th to the north.
There are currently an approximate 365 parcels served by NUD sewer lines, one of which is a
school. This equates to an approximate population of 953 people, not including the student
population. Within this Area, there are parcels not served; however, King County Parcel Data
does not describe the acreage involved. Total flow is estimated to average about 120,000 GPD.

The eastern half of Area 2 could potentially be served by the WWD sewer system with
approximately 250 lf of gravity pipe on the eastern side of the Area, on NE 136th Place,
approximately 200 lf of gravity pipe on NE 135th Place, or approximately 800 lf along 136th Ave.




Ju1y 2007                                                                                       49
                                                                              SEWER GENERAL PLAN

NE intersecting parcel lines just south of NE 135th Place. The latter option would serve 2/3 of
this Area. These options should be considered for implementation as outlined below:

       2a – NE 136th Street with 250 feet of 8-inch sewer              estimated $ 30,000
       2b – NE 135th Street with 200 feet of 8-inch sewer              estimated $ 20,000
       2c – South of NE 135th with 800 feet of 8-inch sewer            estimated $ 100,000

A lift station located on NE 136th Place would be necessary to serve the remaining parcels on the
extreme western edge of this Area through approximately 1,100 feet of force main, which would
tie into the sewer lines currently served by the NUD, and not directly into the Woodinville Water
District sewer system. This option is not believed to be economically viable to the District or the
customers.

Area 3, as seen in Figure 5-4, lies within the District boundary between 128th Ave. NE to the
west, 130th Ave NE to the east, NE 145th Pl to the south, and NE 150th St. to the north. Flow
from these parcels could be sent to the District through sewer lines currently served by NUD at
NE 145th Place and extending a new sewer north along parcel lines into District piping at 128th
Place NE. Approximately 1,700 feet of new gravity sewer pipe would be required. It does not
appear that a lift station would be required to redirect the flow to the District piping, as it appears
that topography will allow gravity flow.

There are currently approximate 73 parcels now served by NUD sewer lines, which is an
approximate population of 191 people. About two acres are not currently served. Assuming a
zoning of R-4, 8 new homes could potentially be served within the Area, or 21 additional people.
The estimated total population of 212 people may generate and average wastewater flow of about
21,000 GPD. However the cost of 1,700 feet of new sewer constructed in easements is estimated
to be in the range of $200,000 and is not likely to be economical for the District to reclaim the
customers.

Area 4, as seen in Figure 5-5, lies within the District boundary between 124th Ave. NE to the
east, the WWD boundary to the west (north of 120th Pl. NE), NE 150th Ct. to the north, and NE
145th St. to the south. There are currently an approximately 156 parcels served by NUD sewer,
which equates to an approximately 407 people. Some parcels are not served; however, King
County Parcel Data does not define the acreage. The estimated average daily flow is about
50,000 GPD

The topography of Area 4 does not allow for sewage to flow into the District sewer system by
gravity. A lift station would be needed, possibly at the intersection of 148th Street with the
western District boundary. Approximately 2,600 feet of force main would need to be extended
to near NE 150th Street and NE 150th Court. As mentioned in the following Area 5 discussion,
flows from both Areas 4 and 5 could be pumped from this point into the District system.

However, a lift station is not needed for NUD to serve this area; currently, NUD serves this area
by means of gravity sewer. Therefore, it is unlikely that it is economically beneficial for the
District to reclaim these customers.




Ju1y 2007                                                                                           50
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

Area 5, as seen in Figure 5-6, lies within the District boundary and is bounded to the south by
NE 150th Ct., to the north by about 158th Ave. NE extended, to the east by 127th Pl. NE, and to
the west by 124th Ave. NE. There are approximately 143 parcels served by NUD sewer lines,
plus a school and a nursery. This is an approximate population of 373 people, not including the
school. Within this Area, there are about 2.5 acres of land that are not currently served.
Assuming R-4 zoning, 10 new homes could potentially be served, or 26 additional people. The
estimated population of about 400 people plus the school and nursery are estimated to generate
an average daily wastewater flow of about 50,000 GPD.

The topography of Area 5 does not allow for sewage to flow into the District’s sewer system by
gravity. A lift station would be needed to direct flow into the District’s sewer system. This new
lift station would be located near NE 150th Street and NE 150th Ct. to transmit flow into the
District system through approximately 1,500 lf of force main and 700 lf of gravity pipe.

NUD currently serves the area, so it is unlikely that there is economic benefit to reclaim these
customers for the District.

Area 6, as seen in Figure 5-7, lies within the District boundary and is bounded to the north by
NE 164th St., to the south by NE 160th St., to the west by the WWD boundary, and to the east by
124th Ave NE. About 84 parcels with about 218 people are currently served by NUD sewers.
Assuming a zoning of R-4, about 28 additional homes could potentially be served with about 72
additional people. Total estimated population of about 290 people is projected to generate an
average day wastewater flow of about 30,000 GPD.


The topography of Area 6 does not allow for sewage to flow into the District’s sewer system by
gravity. A lift station could be located on the District boundary near NE 160th Street and
approximately 1,600 lf of force main could convey the sewage into the District system at NE
160th Street and 124th Ave. NE. About 500 feet of gravity sewer pipe would be needed to convey
flow into the lift station.

The Northshore Utility District does not need a lift station, as topography is favorable to gravity
sewer lines. Therefore, it is unlikely to be of economic benefit to the District or to the rate
payers, for the District to reclaim these customers.

5.2.2   Areas Served by City of Bothell

Area 7, as seen in Figure 5-8, lies within the District water service area between the District
boundary and 123rd Pl NE on the west and east, respectively, and NE 164th St. on the south and
Riverside Drive to the north. The area is unincorporated King County lying between the city
limits of Bothell and Woodinville. There are currently approximately 147 parcels in this Area
served by Bothell with an approximate population of 384 people. About 14 parcels are currently
not served, which may eventually be developed to add about 37 additional people. Wastewater
from this estimate of 421 people would be an average day rate of about 50,000 GPD.




Ju1y 2007                                                                                       51
                                                                             SEWER GENERAL PLAN

Additional City of Bothell sewer lines feed to the King County sewer system within the District
boundary; however, these manholes and lines are assumed to be used for conveying flows only,
and not collecting flows within the north portion of this Area, which is along Riverside Drive.

Topography of this Area constrains the gravity sewer lines to be served by the City of Bothell. A
lift station could be placed near the intersection of Woodcrest Drive NE and Brickyard Road NE
to direct flow into the District’s system through approximately 2,000 feet of force main. A lift
station is not needed for the City of Bothell to serve this Area. Therefore, it is unlikely that there
is economic benefit to the District or the rate payers for the District to reclaim these customers.

Area 8, as seen in Figure 5-9, parallels the northwestern District boundary. Some District
customers are served by the City of Bothell in this area. The District pays a wheeling charge to
the City of Bothell for conveyance of the sewage collected in a portion of Area 8.

A gravity sewer line could intercept a portion of the District sewage flows, which would tie into
an existing District gravity line and convey the sewage to King County facilities. This is a
possibility for the District to regain customers that are currently being served by the City of
Bothell as well as end the wheeling charges currently paid to the City of Bothell.

5.2.3   WWD Served by the City of Redmond

The City of Redmond has sewer lines which parallel District lines on the southern District
boundary. These lines are not serving District customers, nor would they in the future.

Figure 5-10 shows this area of interest. However, it is unlikely that the Redmond manhole
actually overlaps the District as shown on the map. The data supporting the maps was received
from King County and does have some inaccuracies.

5.2.4   Build-Out Conditions

Potential acreage served by sewers can only occur within the UGA. The increase in acres served
by sewers will correspond to population growth to some degree. However, the area served by
sewers will increase faster than population within the UGA as service is extended to the large
portion of the City Limits of Woodinville population not currently served, which is a necessary
by-product of extending service to new developments.

Build-out conditions are defined as the time when every parcel within the UGA is served by
sewers. Areas which are currently not served were analyzed for topographic factors, physical
acreages were determined, and future zoning was assumed based on guidance provided by the
City of Woodinville to lead to future connection and population estimates. Two new mini-basins
were developed in this planning exercise, both within the City of Woodinville Leota
neighborhood. In the case of unserved areas near to existing mini basins, topography determined
which current mini basin each unserved area would be an addition to.




Ju1y 2007                                                                                          52
                                                                                      SEWER GENERAL PLAN

Future zoning was based off of the City of Woodinville current zoning. The City of Woodinville
has indicated that zoning up to R-4 will not allow for a change to its Comprehensive Plan; thus,
R-4 has been assumed for all areas not served at build-out conditions.

Table 5-1 presents the build-out conditions for areas not served within the District. Figure 5-10
shows a map of these areas.

                                               Table 5-1
                                    Mini-Basin Build-Out Conditions
   Mini Basin         Served        Added Potential     Total Potential             Zoning       Potential
                      Acres1         Served Acres 2
                                                         Served Acres                           Population
   WDN001               201                                          201
   WDN002               109                140.62                    249            R4-R12          3,907
   WDN003                38                                           38
   WDN004                45                228.33                    274               R4           2,856
   WDN005               112                83.95                     196               R4           3,068
   WDN006               121                                          121
   WDN007                63                                           63
   WDN008               102                91.14                     102               R4           2,111
   WDN009                44                95.23                     135               R4           3,467
   WDN010               126                                          221
   WDN011                                  259.49                    259               R4           4,064
   WDN012                                  595.68                    596               R4           9,328
  LBEARA03              3763               186.43                    563               R6           8,810
        1
            King County areas
        2
            Not including Right-Of-Way
        3
            No King County area found; area determined by taking the gross area of the mini basin and subtracting
            the King County Right-Of-Way

5.3 TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES

5.3.1   Water Conservation

The District has been a regional leader in the establishment of water conservation measures.
Together with King County and the Department of Health, the District promotes water
conservation and works with Seattle Public Utilities to help develop the Regional Conservation
Program.

Average water consumption has been reduced through the District’s water conservation program.
The decline in water consumption should be reflected in reduced wastewater pumping costs.
Sizing of wastewater facilities will, however, not be significantly affected by water conservation
because wastewater facilities are sized based on peak wastewater flow rates (including
infiltration and inflow) that occur in the winter, whereas reductions in water use as a result of
conservation are most significant in the summer when highest water demands occur due to
irrigation. Specific programs are identified in the District’s Water System Plan.




Ju1y 2007                                                                                                     53
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

5.3.2   Wastewater Reuse

Wastewater recycling and reuse is an alternative for reducing water demands, particularly
irrigation demands. It is possible to remove wastewater from portions of the existing or future
sewer system and treat it to reduce the organic pollutants and pathogens and reuse the reclaimed
wastewater for non-potable uses such as landscape irrigation and industrial process water. This
alternative might be appealing to planned developments with large landscape irrigation demands.

King County is a proponent for wastewater reclamation and reuse. The Regional Wastewater
Services Plan encourages the safe and environmentally responsible use of reclaimed water. King
County Department of Natural Resources transmitted a five-year Water Reuse Work Plan to the
King County Council in December 2000 and two primary implementation efforts were identified
at the time and were determined based on this Plan:

        The Technology Demonstration Project and
        The Sammamish Valley Reclaimed Water Production Facility.

Actual implementation of these efforts will depend upon if and when the King County
Brightwater Wastewater Treatment facility is built.

The District could benefit from the implementation of water reuse projects. Irrigation with reuse
water could potentially decrease the peak water demand and meet part of the future demands
without increasing the District’s water allotment from the District’s water source, Seattle Public
Utilities. Further, a reduction in the amount of wastewater discharged to the King County
system could decrease the District’s wastewater disposal costs. These quantities may be small;
however, until specific proposals are made by King County with real costs and delivery points,
further evaluation will have to wait.

Pilot testing was undertaken by King County of a Kubota MBR, specifically the Enviroquip Flat
Plat Membrane Bioreactor, for use at the proposed Brightwater wastewater treatment plant. The
following objectives were met during the nine month testing program:

        Demonstrated reliable Class A reclaimed water production.
        Demonstrated the ability of the system to operate for long periods without requiring
        chemical cleaning.
        Determined overall removal performance for key wastewater constituents:
           o Average total suspended solids (TSS) = 1.2 mg/l
           o Average biological oxygen demand (BOD) = <2 mg/l
           o Average chemical oxygen demand (COD) = 18.2 mg/L
           o Average effluent turbidity was 0.10 with 95th percentile of 0.18 NTU.
           o Total coliform was undetected in 48 of 51 samples.
        Determined the ability of the equipment to run reliably with minimal intervention.
        Determined the ability of the pilot plant to accommodate a simulated 72-hour storm
        event.
        Determined the ability of the pilot plant to accommodate twice its rated normal flow (2Q
        peak flow) for 24 hours.



Ju1y 2007                                                                                      54
                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

The Class A reclaimed wastewater produced was deemed suitable for irrigation purposes as well
as industrial uses. Depending on the extent of the proposed reuse projects, the effect of reuse on
wastewater flow rates could be significant, especially for irrigation.

5.3.3   Alternative Collection Systems

The District currently has a conventional gravity sewer collection system to serve the entire
service area supplemented by two District owned and operated lift stations. Gravity sewer
collection systems typically require the lowest level of operation and maintenance when installed
correctly. However, in some applications, alternative sewage collection technologies may be
more cost-effective to install, to operate and maintain, or on a life cycle basis. These
technologies include grinder pump systems, STEP systems, and vacuum sewers, as defined
below. However, use of an alternative collection system would require Board approval for a
specific service area or development.

The role of the District is to collect sewage within the service area and convey it to King County
for treatment and disposal. An alternative sewage collection system may be considered should a
development be proposed within the District’s sewer service area where capital costs and/or
operations and maintenance costs associated with a gravity sewer system are unusually high.

There are several alternative collection systems that have been successfully used in the Puget
Sound area and can be evaluated for use within the District when conditions warrant. These
alternative collection systems were developed to solve site-specific physical constraints and
therefore, may be cost effective for areas of the District where similar circumstances exist.
These circumstances might include rock excavation, topographic constraints, extremely high
groundwater, or service to a small number of isolated locations. Following are descriptions of
some of the alternative collection systems.

Grinder Pump Systems An individual grinder pump station could be provided for each home,
with electric power provided by the house electric panel. The pump would discharge through a 1-
1/2 inch lateral into a common District force main or gravity system in the public right-of-way
that would be about 3-inch diameter. Grinder pumps typically experience rapid wear and often
have a useful life of only about 7 years before the mechanical components must be replaced.
The advantages of a grinder pump system include:

        The ability to get sewer service to isolated locations
        Smaller collection system piping has lower capital costs
        Shallow trenches have minimal impacts to pavement during construction
        All solids are ground up to minimize obstructions in downstream pipes
        Can be used with conventional gravity sewers
        Can accommodate large elevation differences and long distances

Disadvantages of a grinder pump system include:

        Some system costs (pump chamber, pump, and controls) are borne by the property owner
        Sizeable structure remains on the property



Ju1y 2007                                                                                      55
                                                                              SEWER GENERAL PLAN

       All homes must pump into the system
       Extended power outages can cause plumbing backups

The District would consider individual grinder pumps to serve specific lots to low in elevation
for a gravity sewer if the pump discharges into a manhole on the private property that then flows
by gravity into the District sewer main. A grinder pump system to serve a series of lots would
require specific approval by the Board.

Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System Wastewater from each service is discharged into a
conventional-type septic tank, where the solids settle out and are retained in the tank. A screened
effluent pump mounted in the septic tank discharges through a small diameter lateral to the sewer
force main in the street. Electric power for the pump is provided by the residential service panel
with the costs borne by the property owner. The sewer main in the street is typically 3 to 4
inches in diameter. All piping is installed with the minimum cover needed for adequate
protection. The advantages of a STEP system include the following:

       Smaller sewage collection piping has lower capital costs
       Shallow trenches have minimal impacts to pavement during construction
       Solids removal occurs in the septic tank
       Can be used with conventional gravity sewers
       Can accommodate large elevation differences and long distances

Disadvantages of a STEP system include:

       Some system costs (septic tank, pump, and controls) are borne by the property owner
       Sizeable structure remains on the property
       All homes must pump into the system
       Extended power outages can cause plumbing backups
       Removal of solids from the septic tanks must occur periodically

Vacuum Sewers Vacuum sewers rely on a central vacuum pump station to constantly maintain
below atmospheric pressure in small diameter manifold piping. Atmospheric pressure is
separated from the vacuum in the manifold by a vacuum interface valve. The gravity vacuum
valve is typically in a sump serving about two homes. When the sump fills with sewage,
hydrostatic pressure trips the interface valve open, and air pressure forces the sewage into the
manifold and down the pipe to a central collection tank. The valve closes after a preset duration
of time.

Sewage is propelled into the main at a high velocity due to the differential pressure of vacuum in
the main and the higher atmospheric pressure behind the slug. Friction will eventually slow the
sewage down and the sewage will flow to the lowest local elevation by gravity. The identical
action will occur the next time the valve opens; the air rushing across the initial slug will lift that
slug and force it further down the system. The initial slug will arrive at the central vacuum
source after a number of valve openings. A transfer pump will deliver the accumulated storage
to the treatment location once a sufficient volume accumulates in the collection tank at the
central vacuum source. The advantages of a vacuum system include:



Ju1y 2007                                                                                           56
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN


        Smaller sewage collection piping has lower capital costs
        Shallow trenches have minimal impacts to pavement during construction
        Some elevation differences can be overcome
        System is reliable during power outages because central station has a generator

Disadvantages of a vacuum system include:

        Central vacuum station is a significant capital cost for modest systems
        All homes must connect into the system
        Ability to accommodate elevation differences is limited
        All services must be reasonably close to the central vacuum station

5.3.4   Alternative Treatment Systems

Reclaimed water focuses on the following processes for treatment:

        Oxidation for biological oxygen demand (BOD) removal
        Filtration for turbidity removal
        Disinfection for total coliform removal.

These processes are typically performed in successive steps, each focusing on one aspect of
treatment. To remove BOD, an oxidation ditch is combined with a clarifier or a sequence batch
reactor (SBR) for small size conventional treatment. The oxidation process is followed by sand
or cloth filtration, which polishes the effluent. Disinfection of the tertiary effluent is completed
through the use of chlorination or ultraviolet (UV) light, which provides the high quality water
for reuse.

Oxidation, removal of nutrients, filtration, and partial disinfection have been combined into one
unit process as seen in recent developments. Traditional activated sludge tanks combined with
submerged membranes, which separate the activated sludge from the treated wastewater, have
carried out the one unit process along with membrane bioreactors (MBR). The high quality
effluent produced requires a lower disinfection dose than effluent produced in traditional
reclamation plants. Additionally, due to all of the processes coupled into a single step, the
footprint of the facility is significantly reduced. Chlorine or UV can provide the disinfection.

5.4     HYDRAULIC MODEL

5.4.1   Model Description

A hydraulic computer model was used to conduct the hydraulic analysis and develop a capital
improvement plan required to convey future peak flows for WWD’s sewer collection system. A
hydraulic model is capable of simulating flow conditions under both open channel and
surcharged conditions for varying time periods. Additionally, hydraulic models allow simulation
of both looped and dendritic networks, backwater curves, flow reversals, pumps, weirs, siphons,




Ju1y 2007                                                                                        57
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

gates, orifices, parallel pipes, and other diversion structures necessary to simulate a large and
complex collection system.

The hydraulic model development consisted of collection of all required hydraulic and flow data
to construct the model, followed by model calibration to depict existing conditions. The
calibrated model was then used to predict future peak flows to help determine appropriate CIP
projects required to convey those flows.
The InfoSewer model, developed by MWH Soft, was selected to be used in this analysis. A
hydraulic model is a mathematical representation of the sewer system depicted by a series of
nodes and links. In a hydraulic model, nodes represent manholes, storage basins, pumping
station wetwells, manhole junction boxes, and outfalls while links represent any hydraulic
structure connecting two nodes. Pipes, pumping stations, weirs, and gates are all represented by
links in the model.

InfoSewer computes head or wastewater levels at nodes and flows in links. These hydraulic
calculations enable the user to query hydraulic grades at nodes and velocities/flows in links to
evaluate the hydraulic capacity of a sewer system under various hydraulic and hydrologic
scenarios. Hydraulic scenarios may include flow diversions, parallel pipes, such as relief sewers,
larger diameter replacement pipes, in-line or off-line storage and equalization basins, and various
other collection system improvements or operational changes. Hydrologic scenarios include
different design storm conditions and/or rainfall distribution types depicting varying intensity,
duration, or frequency rainfall.

InfoSewer is an Arc GIS-based hydraulic model used for planning of Woodinville Water
District’s sanitary sewer collection systems. The program can be used to model both dry-weather
and wet-weather flows in determining the capacity needs of the sewer collection system. Dry-
weather flows can be dynamically generated by supplying, as inputs, average wastewater
production estimates at any number of manholes and land use based flow patterns. Wet-weather
flows can be generated using the basin acreage, infiltration/inflow coefficients, and rainfall
hyetographs. The flows are routed through the system hydraulics including pipes, manholes,
pumps, etc. The InfoSewer model uses the modified Muskingum-Cunge flow routing method
and the Tri-Triangle infiltration/inflow hydrograph generation method.

5.4.2   Tri-Triangle Method

Tri-triangle is a technique used by InfoSewer for synthesizing a hydrograph. A number of
approaches are available for synthesizing unit hydrographs. The triangular unit hydrograph
technique developed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (now known as Natural Resources
Conservation Service NRCS) is one of the commonly used methods. NRCS’s triangular
synthetic unit method uses a single triangle to represent a unit hydrograph.

However, shape of unit hydrograph is too complex to be well captured by a single triangle. As
the name implies, InfoSewer applies up to three triangular synthetic hydrographs to simulate an
appropriate hydrograph.




Ju1y 2007                                                                                       58
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN

The total synthetic hydrograph is the result of aggregating corresponding ordinates of the three
triangular hydrographs. Each of these three triangular hydrographs has its own characteristic
parameters, namely time to peak, recession constant, and the fraction of an effective rainfall
volume allocated to the triangle.

The technique is graphically illustrated in Figure 5-11.




Ju1y 2007                                                                                    59
                                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN


                                                  Figure 5-11
                                            The Tri-Triangle Method
             tr minutes




                P                       P is rainfall intensity over a duration of tr

                                        Total Rainfall Volume          = P x Drainage Area x tr



                                                      tr - minute Synthetic Hydrograph


                                                            Triangular Synthetic Hydrograph 1
                         R = R1 + R2 + R3
                                                                    Triangular Synthetic Hydrograph 2

                                                                         Triangular Synthetic Hydrograph 3

Runoff


                          R1
                                            R2


                                                                                  R3


                    T1           T1K1                       T2 K2
                               T2
                                                 T3                                        T3K3


                                                          Time

 R1, R2, and R3 are fractions of excess rainfall volume, R, allocated to triangular synthetic
 hydrographs 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Ti and Ki are time to peak and recession constants of the
 triangles, respectively. The three triangular synthetic hydrographs are conceptual representations
 of different components of direct runoff or rainfall-dependent infiltration/inflow. The first
 triangle represents rapidly responding (fast) components, such as contributions from pavements
 and rooftops, or direct inflow or rapid infiltration into separate sewer systems. The second
 triangle represents runoff or infiltration with a medium time response. The third triangle
 represents slow runoff components such as ground water contributions or slow infiltration into
 separate sewers.




 Ju1y 2007                                                                                                   60
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

Time to peak value of the first triangle typically varies between 1 and 2 hours, depending on the
size of the tributary area in question. The second triangle takes T values ranging from 4 to 8
hours. The third triangle parameter varies greatly depending on the infiltration characteristics of
the system being modeled, and has a T value generally between 10 and 24 hours. The default
values used for T1, T2, and T3 are 1, 4, and 12 hours respectively. Value of K for the first triangle
typically ranges between 2 and 3. The second and the third triangles take K values from 2 to 4.
The default values of K are 2, 3, and 3 for the first, the second, and the third triangles,
respectively. The default values provide a reasonable starting point for infiltration/inflow
calibration, but the user will likely need to adjust these values during the calibration process.
InfoSewer provides several options for calibration of the synthetic hydrograph parameters. The
calibration module is described below in a separate section.

5.4 3   Calibration

Wastewater flow data recorded by the King County Infiltration/Inflow Control Program for each
mini-basin was simulated through an InfoSewer model of the basin that simulated the recorded
flow data with a simulation of existing conditions as outlined in previous sections.

Figure 5-12 contains an example of the calibration results for the Sunday 16 December 2001
storm event in Mini-basin WDN 001 that brings together the various elements of the InfoSewer
modeling approach:

        The tabulation at the top of the figure displays the data used for the Tri-Triangle Method
        to define the rain induced effect on the WDN 001 sewer system.
        Rainfall as defined through the CALAMAR system is shown graphically across the top
        of the figure in comparison to the scale at the right.
        Observed wastewater flow as recorded by the County flow meter is displayed as a series
        of small circles because the data was recorded at discrete time interval.
        The simulated Dry Weather Flow is based on the average of several Sundays that did not
        include significant precipitation, but does include the base infiltration.
        The heavy black line then shows the Simulated Storm and comparison with the trace of
        the Observed data indicates the degree of calibration.




Ju1y 2007                                                                                         61
                                                                                              SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                                            Figure 5-12
                                               Calibration of Simulated Storm Flow
                                               to Observed Flow Data in WDN 001
  12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration
  Parameters
                                                                 R = Percent runoff contributing to
                             R%       T (hr)            K        sewers
          1                  10       0.25              1        T = Time of peak
                                                                 K = Recession constant as a function of
          2                  40         1               2        T
          3                  50         4               3        1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
  Total R      2.20
      Initial Abstraction or Infiltration (in/hr):                   0.02



                  Observed            Simulated Storm           Simulated DWF         Rain

                0.6000                                                                                     0

                                                                                                           0.01
                0.5000
                                                                                                           0.02




                                                                                                                   Rain, inch
                                                                                                           0.03
                0.4000
                                                                                                           0.04
    Flow, mgd




                0.3000                                                                                     0.05

                                                                                                           0.06
                0.2000
                                                                                                           0.07

                                                                                                           0.08
                0.1000
                                                                                                           0.09

                0.0000                                                                                     0.1
                         0        4               8             12          16          20            24
                                                            Time, hour




5.4.4           Input Parameters

Several mini-basins have upstream mini-basins tributary to them. These upstream flow
components were subtracted during computations for Section 4.2 to evaluate the unit flows
appropriate to each mini-basin. However, it is necessary that the monitored flows at the
downstream mini-basins include these upstream flow components in the hydraulic model input
parameters so the pipe capacities can be accurately evaluated.

Mini-Basin WDN 002 not only includes WDN 001 as tributary; it also includes within WDN 002
the two District lift stations: Sunrise and English Hill. Operation of pumps often confuses the
flow monitoring hydrograph and may distort the data, particularly in defining minimum flow




Ju1y 2007                                                                                                                       62
                                                                                                       SEWER GENERAL PLAN

conditions necessary to determine infiltration, and in defining the peak flow condition. These
complications have been recognized to the extent practical in constructing the hydraulic model.
Calibration results are shown in Figure 5-13 for mini-basin WDN 002.

                                                           Figure 5-13
                                              Calibration of Simulated Storm Flow
                                              to Observed Flow Data in WDN 002
    12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration
    Parameters
                                      R%          T (hr)       K         R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                      1               10          0.25         1         T = Time of peak
                      2               40            1          2         K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                                                         1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response
                      3               50            4       3            triangles
                                               WDN002 basin
         Total R                     0.35      only
    IA = 0.02 in/hr

                               Observed           Simulated Storm                 Simulated DWF              Rain
                  0.7000                                                                                            0

                                                                                                                    0.01
                  0.6000
                                                                                                                    0.02

                  0.5000                                                                                            0.03

                                                                                                                    0.04
                  0.4000
      Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                           Rain, inch
                                                                                                                    0.05
                  0.3000
                                                                                                                    0.06

                  0.2000                                                                                            0.07

                                                                                                                    0.08
                  0.1000
                                                                                                                    0.09

                  0.0000                                                                                            0.1
                           0              4        8                12             16             20           24
                                                              Tim e , hour




In comparison to the calibration for WDN 001, above, the diurnal curve is more irregular due to
the pumps seen within this mini-basin. Although the curve is more irregular than the WDN 001
diurnal curve due to the pumps, the WDN 002 curve still has a discernable minimum flow, peak
flow, and average flow.




Ju1y 2007                                                                                                                               63
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

  5.4.5   Model Results

  The modeling effort computed existing and required pipe capacities for the existing sewer
  system, an interim year condition in 2012, and the build-out condition in about 2025. Overflows
  at manholes were not seen until the build-out condition was modeled.

  Some surcharging was noted in a few pipes. These were all located in flat terrain, where the
  existing homes, if any, would most likely not include a below-ground basement. In most cases,
  the surcharge was nominal, only a foot or so above the top of the pipe. A surcharging pipe under
  peak hour conditions during a design storm is not necessarily a problem for residences or
  buildings without basements. Therefore, the criteria used as a threshold value for the pipes
  which may require upgrading was set at 5-feet or less of freeboard in the manholes associated
  with the surcharging pipe. If a manhole had 5-feet or less of freeboard, it should be considered
  as a CIP item at some date.

  5.4.5.1 Existing Condition Model Results

  Table 5-2 presents pipes which experience surcharging in the existing condition, design storm
  model. None of the surcharging resulted in overflow at any manholes associated with the pipes,
  and the manholes that experienced surcharging all had greater than 4-feet of remaining
  freeboard. The District maintenance crews agree that there are surcharging problems in the
  WDN005 mini-basin area. Surcharging pipes associated with the design storm model of the
  existing system are shown on Figure 5-14.

                                          Table 5-2
                      Existing Condition Design Storm Surcharge Report
  Street Name          Pipe        Upstream        Freeboard    Downstream            Freeboard
                     Diameter,         MH         Remaining,       MH                 Remaining,
                      inches                          feet                               feet
WDN004
NE 145th Street           12            1051             8.27             569           Does not
                                                                                        surcharge
WDN005
Woodinville-              8              168             4.07             167             4.90
Redmond Road
Woodinville-              8              169             9.35             168             4.07
Redmond Road
Woodinville-              8              167             4.90             159             9.82
Redmond Road
Woodinville-              8              234             6.68             233             6.86
Redmond Road
Woodinville-              8              233             6.86             232             8.59
Redmond Road
Woodinville-              10             159             9.82             158          King County
Redmond Road                                                                              outlet




  Ju1y 2007                                                                                      64
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                          Table 5-2
                  Existing Condition Design Storm Surcharge Report (cont.)
  Street Name          Pipe        Upstream       Freeboard    Downstream            Freeboard
                   Diameter,          MH          Remaining,       MH                Remaining,
                      inches                         feet                               feet
LBEARA03
151st Ave. NE            8              432            11.23             431           Does not
                                                                                       surcharge

  5.4.5.2 Interim Condition Model Results

  Table 5-3 presents pipes which experience surcharging in the interim condition, year 2012,
  design storm model. While the model simulation results show that there is less freeboard
  remaining in the surcharging manholes, only four manholes have five feet of freeboard or less.
  None of the surcharging resulted in an overflow at any manhole associated with the pipes.

                                         Table 5-3
                      Interim Condition (Year 2012) Surcharge Report
  Street Name         Pipe        Upstream       Freeboard     Downstream            Freeboard
                    Diameter,        MH          Remaining,       MH                 Remaining,
                     inches                          feet                               feet
WDN004
NE 145th Street         10             570             5.61             1051            7.94
NE 145th Street         10             571             8.07             570             5.61
NE 145th Street         10             572             12.05             571            8.07
NE 145th Street         10             573             13.53             572            12.05
NE 145th Street         12             1051             8.27             569           Does not
                                                                                       surcharge
WDN005
Woodinville-             8              168             2.30             167             3.89
Redmond Road
Woodinville-             8              169             6.84             168             2.30
Redmond Road
Woodinville-             8              167             3.89             159             9.59
Redmond Road
Woodinville-             8              234             2.50             233             3.23
Redmond Road
Woodinville-             8              233             3.23             232             5.73
Redmond Road
Woodinville-            10              159             9.59             158         King County
Redmond Road                                                                            outlet
Woodinville-             8              936             9.24             935           Does not
Redmond Road                                                                           surcharge




  Ju1y 2007                                                                                     65
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                          Table 5-3
                    Interim Condition (Year 2012) Surcharge Report (cont.)
  Street Name           Pipe        Upstream       Freeboard    Downstream           Freeboard
                     Diameter,         MH         Remaining,         MH              Remaining,
                       inches                         feet                              feet
LBEARA03
151st Ave. NE            8              432            11.23             431           Does not
                                                                                       surcharge

  5.4.5.3 Build-out Condition Model Results

  Table 5-4 presents the surcharging manholes under build-out conditions. Overflow was seen in
  some of the manholes under these conditions. The manholes that experience overflow are
  candidates for the CIP at some date. However, these conditions are years into the future. As
  build-out approaches, the model should be updated and these results verified with future data.
  Surcharging pipes associated with the design storm model of the build-out system are shown on
  Figure 5-15.

                                        Table 5-4
                           Build-Out Condition Surcharge Report
   Street Name         Pipe       Upstream       Freeboard    Downstream             Freeboard
                     Diameter,       MH         Remaining,       MH                  Remaining,
                      inches                        feet                                feet
WDN004
NE 145th Street          10            571               0              570               0
NE 145th Street          10            572               0              571               0
NE 145th Street          10            573               0              572               0
NE 145th Street          10            574               0              573               0
NE 145th Street          10            570               0              1051              0
Stimson Lane              8             6                0                7               0
Stimson Lane             12            1051              0               569              2
NE 145th Street          12            569               2               568         King County
                                                                                        outlet
Stimson Lane              8              7                0               8              4.22
Stimson Lane              8              5              4.52              6                0
NE 145th Street          8              109             4.22             108              2.1
NE 145th Street          8              108              2.1             107             5.44
NE 145th Street          8               8              4.23             109             4.22
NE 145th Street          8              107             5.44             106             9.23
NE 145th Street          10             579              6.4             578             7.94
NE 145th Street          10             578             7.94             576           Does not
                                                                                       surcharge




  Ju1y 2007                                                                                     66
                                                               SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                      Table 5-4
                     Build-Out Condition Surcharge Report (cont.)
   Street Name      Pipe        Upstream      Freeboard     Downstream   Freeboard
                  Diameter,       MH          Remaining,         MH      Remaining,
                   inches                        feet                       feet
WDN005
NE 145th Street      10           575            0            574            0

Woodinville-         8            168            0            167            0
Redmond Road
Woodinville-         8            233            0            232            0
Redmond Road
Woodinville-         8            234            0            233            0
Redmond Road
Woodinville-         8            232            0            169           1.03
Redmond Road
Woodinville-         8            169           1.03          168            0
Redmond Road
Woodinville-         10           159           8.35          158        King County
Redmond Road                                                                outlet
Woodinville-         8            167            0            159           8.35
Redmond Road
Woodinville-         8            936           6.73          935           5.12
Redmond Road
WDN010
NE North             8            756            0            463            0
Woodinville Way
NE North             8           463A            0            782           0.03
Woodinville Way
NE North             8            463            0            175           1.92
Woodinville Way
NE North             8            757            0            1080          3.07
Woodinville Way
NE 190th Street      8            175           1.92          174           5.94

NE 190th Street      8            34A           4.39           34           4.67

NE North             8            835           1.61          1051        Does not
Woodinville Way                                                           surcharge
NE North             8           1050           4.2           1049        Does not
Woodinville Way                                                           surcharge
NE 190th Street      8            34            4.67           33         Does not
                                                                          surcharge




  Ju1y 2007                                                                        67
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                          Table 5-4
                         Build-Out Condition Surcharge Report (cont.)
   Street Name          Pipe        Upstream      Freeboard     Downstream            Freeboard
                      Diameter,       MH          Remaining,         MH               Remaining,
                       inches                        feet                                feet
NE 145th Street           8           174            5.94             173               Does not
                                                                                        surcharge

LBEARA03
Woodinville-              8               9              4.59              8              9.88
Snohomish Road
Woodinville-              10              7              8.28             6C              12.84
Snohomish Road
Woodinville-              10             6C             12.84             6B              12.50
Snohomish Road
151st Ave. NE             8              432            11.23             431           Does not
                                                                                        surcharge
Woodinville-              10             6B             13.57             6A            Does not
Snohomish Road                                                                          surcharge


  Sewer service will need to be extended to reach proposed mini-basins WDN011 and WDN012.
  A special evaluation of the area surrounding Lake Leota should be conducted when sewer
  service for that community is considered. A special system will be necessary to serve these
  parcels, as they are lower in elevation than the adjacent streets. Options for service include a
  grinder pump system or a vacuum pump system. Both systems require special services to install
  the systems. A grinder pump system can be installed generally in existing rights-of-way, while
  easements would be necessary for a vacuum system.




  Ju1y 2007                                                                                       68
                                                                                                                       SEWER GENERAL PLAN

CHAPTER 6 – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
6.1         DISTRICT MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL

The District is composed of approximately thirty-three full time positions, which are organized
into distinct departments including customer service/administration, operations and maintenance,
engineering, and finance. The supervisors in each division report to the General Manager who is
responsible for the overall management of the utility. The General Manager reports directly to
the Board of Commissioners. The staffing requirements in the District changes as the number of
customers increases.

6.1.1       Organization

Figure 6-1 outlines the District staff and organization.

                                                   Figure 6-1
                                   Woodinville Water District Organization Chart
                                                                   Board Of
                                                                 Commissioners


                                 Attorney of Record              General Manager

                                                Public Information                 Information Systems
                                                  Coordinator                           Technician



       Administration Services      Engineering Services                           Operations and Maintenance                     Accounting
            Supervisor                   Supervisor                                         Manager                               Supervisor

                                                                     Utility Supervisor              Utility Supervisor
              Safety Officer               Engineering                      Water                           Sewer               Senior Accountant
                                           Technician

              Administrative               Construction                    Utility Systems                 Utility Worker II   Accounting Assistant
                Assistant                   Inspector                       Technician

              Administrative                                           Water QualityCross                UtilityWorker I (2)   Accounting Clerk II (2)
                Clerk (3)                                             Connection Technician

                                                                         Utility Worker II (3)                                  Accounting Clerk I


                                                                         UtilityWorker I (4)




The customer service department is responsible for public education programs and response to
customer complaints. Both the water and sewer systems are served by the customer service
department.

The operations and maintenance department is primarily responsible for operation and
maintenance of the lift stations and forcemains, including the gravity sewers and manholes.

The engineering department is lead by the engineering services supervisor. This division is
responsible for the design, design review and inspection of new utility infrastructure. The




July                                                                                                                                                 69
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

engineering staff splits their time between the water and sewer systems. The rate of growth
affects engineering staff requirements, as growth typically translates to the installation of new
projects requiring engineering review and construction inspection.

The finance department is responsible for billing, accounts payable, and budget formulation.

6.1.2 Certification and Training

The District encourages its employees to obtain certification and training for skills relevant to
operating and maintaining the sewer system. All staff must, at minimum, have the following:

       a high school diploma or GED,
       a valid drivers license
       and field staff must be certified for confined space entry (CSE).

The only certification required by the District for wastewater maintenance is State of
Washington Wastewater Collection System Operator (WWCS) 1 license as a minimum
requirement.

In addition, the District provides employees with opportunities for training and certification
relative to their position function. Each staff member annually receives approximately 24 hours
training. Depending on the employee’s function, training may include safety, confined space
entry, record keeping, pump station electrical and instrumentation, pump station operation,
public relations, vactor truck operations and routine line maintenance, traffic control and sanitary
sewer overflow (SSO)/emergency response. Training is provided in varying mixes of the
following categories:

       Manufacturer training by various equipment suppliers and representatives
       On-the-job training in the field, the shop, or in the office
       In-house class room training
       Industry-wide training at conferences and seminars away form the District

To promote the improvement of its employees, the District pays for annual certification fees, for
employee time and tuition during certification training courses and certification testing. The
District also provides staff opportunities to continue their education necessary to maintain
certification. Professional growth requirements for certification are met through continuing
education units (CEU) that are recorded and maintained by the District. Time sheets are also
coded to identify and track employee training hours. Water certified District personnel are
required to obtain a minimum of three CEUs in each three year renewal cycle.

6.2    CMOM PROGRAM

The EPA has proposed regulations implementing the Capacity, Management, Operations, and
Maintenance (CMOM) program. CMOM requires the development of facility maintenance plans,
tracking of asset condition, establishing LOS’s and performance goals. Key requirements are
outlined below:



July                                                                                             70
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN


       1. Capacity Assurance Plan
          · evaluate existing system capacity;
          · identify capacity deficiencies;
          · establish short and long-term remedies to capacity deficiencies.
       2. Management Program
          · specify program goals;
          · establish organizational structure
          · legal authority (e.g. service agreements) to manage flow;
          · establish program measures and ranking of O&M activities based on current
             capacity and structural deficiencies.
          · audit documentation of changes in system condition and performance
          · establish standards and requirements for new construction as well as rehabilitation
             and repair.
       3. Overflow Response Plan (ORP)
          · steps to identify classes of overflows, to identify causes of overflows, to respond to
             SSO’s and to implement response plan
       4. Audit Operations and Maintenance performance
          · initial assessment of O&M activities;
          · establish performance goals, measures, and priorities
          · perform periodic audits to identify progress and required revisions to program.


6.2.1    Program Goals

The mission of the Operations and Maintenance Department for the sewer system is to guard the
health, safety and welfare of the public by operating and maintaining the system in accordance
with applicable codes, policies, and laws established by the County, State and Federal
governments.

Nine service standards have been established by the District to direct and measure the fulfillment
of this mission, with the following affecting sewer operations:

         Flush and clean commercial and downtown sewer system piping twice every year
         Flush and clean the remainder of the sewer system piping on a three year cycle
         Perform locates within 48 hours of notification request
         Inspect sewer lift stations three times each week
         Perform annual inspections of all sewer easements to insure access for maintenance
         crews

6.2.2    Administrative and Maintenance Functions

Administration         The District has laid the foundation for a computerized maintenance
management system (CMMS) with its files of Work Order Forms. All work order tasks and
timesheet tasks are coded with Project Codes that relate specific categories of expenditure to line
items in the District budget. Field crews manually record the work completed on the various



July                                                                                            71
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

tasks in hardcopy work logs. The office staff then enters data from these logs into the database.

Efficient system maintenance provides for quick response to service needs, as well as the ability
to follow up on the response and to document what was done with the cost to complete it. Each
service request is linked to a particular piece of equipment or facility (e.g. a manhole or pipe
run). This information is stored and evaluated to identify trends in repair or service needs. These
maintenance histories are applied annually to scheduling and budgeting of preventative actions
for the future.


Customer Service       Customer Service requests are currently received through telephone calls
to the Receptionist and referred to the Operations Supervisor. Typically less than ten emergency
calls are received each year, usually during the rainy winter months. In addition, the District
receives a variable number of requests and non-emergency calls on a daily basis. The calls are
logged on carbon, duplicate telephone message pads called Service Orders.

The Supervisor then determines the type of service being requested, fills out a paper Work Order
Form, and the data is entered into the work order database for tracking and storage. Likewise,
equipment and system maintenance needs identified by field crews are reported to the Supervisor
for initiation of a work order. Following is a summary of key information collected on the Work
Order Form:

        Customer identity—name, address and telephone number
        Date of request
        Job number
        Description of work needed
        Itemized list of equipment, tools, materials, and labor used on the repair
        Date of Completion and means by which the customer was notified of the action.

6.2.3   Legal Authorities

The District operates under the legal authority of Chapter 173-240. All formal policies and
business is conducted through the adoption of resolutions in accordance with the procedure
proscribed by law.

6.2.4   Activities to Meet Standards

Sewer system operations and maintenance (O&M) tasks are outlined in the Weekly Workload
Schedule provided to the field crews each week by the Supervisor. In addition to routine
monthly tasks, the weekly workload schedule includes specific tasks that have been identified
through customer service requests, field inspections, equipment testing, or carried over from
previous weeks. Routine duties include cleaning and inspection of sewer mains, manhole
inspections, clearing easements, rat control, inspecting and testing lift stations and backup
generators. A summary of key O&M activities with service standard goals as presented in Table
6-1.




July                                                                                            72
                                                                       SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                          Table 6-1
                             Routine Operation & Maintenance
             Activity                             Service Standard
             Mainline Cleaning                    Variable
             Mainline Television Inspection       Up to 40,000 feet per year
             Mainline Repairs                     Within 30 days
             Manhole Inspections                  Variable
             Manhole Adjustment & Repairs         As Needed
             Easement Inspection & Clearing       Annually
             Installed Cleanouts                  As Needed
             Customer Service Emergencies         Within 4 hrs.
             Customer Service Problem Call        Within 48 hours
             Lift Station Emergency Response      Within 2 hours
             Lift Station Routine Inspect         3 times per week

6.2.5   Design and Performance Provisions

The District’s sewer system is designed to operate automatically with little day-to-day
supervision. Routing operating, monitoring, record-keeping and maintenance procedures have
been established by the District to ensure safe, efficient, continuous operation of the sewer
system. Provisions to design and measure performance towards achieving the goals identified
above are outlined in Table 6-2

                                        Table 6-2
                                 Performance Audit Outline
       Operations and Maintenance                           Administration
  Maintenance Scheduling                     Financial
  Sewer Cleaning                                    User Rates & User Charges
                                                    Public Education & Outreach
  Pump Stations                              Personnel
         Operation                                  Organization
         Emergency Response Plan                    Job Descriptions
         Alarms & Monitoring                        Operator Safety
         Inspection                          Equipment and Tools
         Preventive & Routine Maintenance Legal – Sewer Use Resolution
         Force Mains                         Engineering
  Sewer System Evaluation                           System Mapping
         Flow Monitoring                            Design Standards
         Manhole Inspection                         Construction Inspection
         Sewer Cleaning                             Sewer Evaluation & Rehabilitation
         Internal Television Inspection             Water Quality Monitoring
         Dye Testing                         Management Information Systems
  Rehabilitation                             Complaints
         Mainline Repairs                    Public Relations




July                                                                                      73
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

          Manhole Repairs                         Emergency Maintenance & Contingency Plan
          Service Laterals                        Spare Parts Inventory Management

6.2.6   Monitoring Program

Water Quality – The District is obligated by agreement with King County to have pretreatment
requirements. Permits for specific industrial customers are issued by King County and
administered by the County. The District does not conduct routine water quality monitoring of its
wastewater. Aside from a few significant industrial users and some restaurants; the wastewater is
essentially domestic in character.

Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO – A key component of the proposed CMOM regulations is the
management of combined sewer overflows (CSO) and SSO’s. The District operates a separated
sewer system and has no CSO’s. An SSO occurs only rarely and usually due to a blockage in the
pipe system. When discovered, these are managed as an emergency event and reported as
required by regulations.

Flow Monitoring – The King County Regional Infiltration/Inflow Control Program conducted
flow monitoring seasonally during 2000 through 2002 at selected locations. Those results have
been incorporated into the preparation of this Plan as noted elsewhere.

6.3     STAFFING PROJECTIONS

The District employed 33 persons in 2006. The existing District campus on the Woodinville-
Duvall Road is limited by traffic constraints to 35 employees. This employment level is
anticipated to be reached not later than the year 2010. However customer growth will continue
after that date; and additional employees will be required.

Future staffing needs for the sewer utility will be driven largely by the development of new
facilities requiring operator and maintenance attention, such as lift stations or new regulations.
Development is dependent on market conditions, of course.

6.4     EMERGENCY RESPONSE – Refer to the latest version of the Woodinville Water
        District Emergency Response Program.

6.5     SAFETY PROCEDURES – Refer to the Woodinville Water District Safety Program
        Manual.

6.6     ASSET MANAGEMENT

6.6.1   Overview of Requirements

The largest and most valuable asset of the District is the utility infrastructure. The value of these
assets may figure significantly in determining the rating of bonds for which the District qualifies.
Prolonging the value of these assets by cost-effective annual maintenance, and thereby extending




July                                                                                              74
                                                                             SEWER GENERAL PLAN

their service life, is one of the primary objectives of maintenance programs.

For a wastewater system assets include pipes, manholes, lift stations and stationary equipment.
An asset management program seeks to maximize the cost-effective utilization of these assets
over their lifetime. Important parameters to an asset management plan are the Levels Of Service
(LOS) and performance goals achieved over an extended period of time. Target levels of service
are established relative to maintenance and operations and compared with actual levels of service
to measure performance and adjust operating or maintenance activities.            The five key
components of an asset management plan include:
        A facilities inventory
        Condition assessment
        Asset valuation
        Operations, maintenance, repair and replacement management
        Analysis and evaluation

The District has prepared an Information Technology Master Plan that outlines a strategy for
implementating the development and funding of a formal asset management program. The
program would primarily function to minimize operations and maintenance costs while
extending the life of its infrastructure. The current effort to prepare a facilities inventory through
development of a geospatial information system (GIS) database of its utilities, in addition to the
coding and tracking of work orders and operations expenditures in a database, are critical steps in
developing an asset management program.

6.6.2 Implementation of an Asset Management Plan
Asset management is typically implemented with the following six questions that, once
answered, can become the framework of a useable asset management plan:

       What does the District own?
       What is it worth?
       What is the deferred maintenance?
       What is its condition?
       What is its remaining service life
       What should be fixed first

Theses six questions actually form an iterative process that is illustrated in Figure 6-2.




July                                                                                               75
                                                                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                                      Figure 6-2
                                          Asset Reinvestment Decision Process

                                           1. WHAT DO YOU OWN?
                                           - Pipes           -GIS
                                           - Manholes        -CAD
                                           - Pump stations   -CMMS
                                                                                                2. WHAT IS IT WORTH?
                                           - Other Assets    -As-builts, maps                       - Replacement value
                                                             -Field inspections                     - Depreciated value
                                                             -Personal knowledge                    -GASB 34 approach




                     6. WHAT TO FIX FIRST?
                     -Risk Assessment
                     - Decision tools
                     -Asset Reinvestment Analysis
                                                                  THE ASSET
                                                                REINVESTMENT               3. WHAT IS THE DEFERRED
                                                                                                MAINTENANCE?
                                                                  DECISION                      -Correction of asset deficiencies
                                                                                                -Asset Condition Index




                     5. WHAT IS THE REMAINING
                           SERVICE LIFE?
                              -Sample useful life data
                                                                                   4. WHAT IS ITS CONDITION?
                              -Mathematical modelling                              -OFWAT Serviceability Index
                                                                                   -U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Condition Index
                                                                                   - WRc Conventions




The process of answering these questions then unfolds in approximately the following sequence:

       1. What do you own? An asset inventory in a user-friendly format via the GIS database can
          be developed that is easily accessed and manipulated. The asset inventory should include
          valuable information such as age of pipes, pipe material, length and location. This
          provides a good foundation for further asset management work, especially when trying to
          establish which asset to replace or fix first.

       2. What is it worth? There are many accounting practices that can be used to estimate the
          value of the infrastructure. The infrastructure could be valued on “actual” costs (if all
          this infrastructure had to be built from scratch today, what would it cost?). However,
          other accounting approaches are possible. Historical cost are one alternative, which could
          include capitalized interest and ancillary charges (e.g. professional fees) necessary to
          place the infrastructure asset in its intended location and condition for use.

       3. What is the deferred maintenance? Deferred maintenance is the cost of the maintenance
          required to bring an asset back to its original potential. This includes calculating the
          amount of preventative maintenance that should have been completed in a given year but
          instead was delayed until next year. An example of deferred maintenance is not changing
          the oil in your car when the maintenance schedule requires and delaying the oil change
          till next month or worst next year. If you did this you car would deteriorate rapidly and




July                                                                                                                                       76
                                                                             SEWER GENERAL PLAN

          there would be a much higher risk of you being stranded on the highway. It is important
          as the District develops an asset management plan that the amount of deferred
          maintenance is quantified. The amount of deferred maintenance will greatly affect the
          condition of the infrastructure and its annual operations and maintenance cost.

       4. What is the condition? The District performs television inspections on a six year cycle
          and will assign some condition grades (good, fair, poor) to the pipe system. One standard
          might be that an assessment of the condition of the entire sewer network be completed
          every five years. To fully assess the condition of the sewer infrastructure according to
          this schedule, one fifth of the entire sewer system would need to be inspected annually by
          television and a more detailed, objective rating system implemented.

       5. What is the remaining service life? This is the lifespan of the asset. Some pipe
          components are now over 30 years old. However, if development has not increased the
          need for more capacity in these lines, their remaining structural life may be extended if
          regular preventative maintenance and inspections are completed. However, the
          remaining service life of the infrastructure must be estimated and recorded intelligent
          decisions to be made on what parts of the infrastructure need replacement. The majority
          of the sewer pipe is probably in good condition and may not need to be replaced in the
          near future, other than to relieve capacity constraints. Therefore, the asset management
          plan should focus on building a reserve fund for future reinvestment.

       6. What to fix first? Assembling this information into a database, preferably a computerized
          system, which will allow for easier data manipulation and calculations is the final step.
          Having, at your fingertips, the sewer materials, age, condition and the associated service
          life will facilitate the decision making process on what aspects of the sewer to fix first.
          Further hydraulic modeling of the system to highlight areas of restrictions would also aid
          in the decision making process of what to fix first.

As shown in the graph below, Figure 6-3, it is better to establish a reserve fund than to vary the
user fees or development cost charges as need for the replacement of infrastructure. Variable fee
rates are not advantageous for the future growth of the area and will impact the user.




July                                                                                              77
                                                                                                             SEWER GENERAL PLAN

                                                 Asset Management - Contribution to Reserves

                                                                                                                         -


                                                                       Reactive non-sustainable
                                     Using funds from                     asset managment
                                         reserves                        (highly variable rate)

                                   Putting funds into                                                Proactive sustainable
                                        reserves                                                       asset managment
                                                                                                   (desirable consistant rate)
       Annual Renewal Costs




                              Year 0 (Present)                                                Year 20 (Future)

                                           Figure 6-3 – Asset Management – Contribution to Reserves




July                                                                                                                             78
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN

CHAPTER 7 – DISTRICT STANDARDS
7.1     PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN CRITERIA

Sewer System Design Criteria and standards have been developed to maintain a consistent
minimum level of service throughout the District. These criteria and standards facilitate
planning, design and construction of sewer system projects to achieve a predictable level of
quality. This allows the District to charge a uniform rate to all customers.

The following is a partial list of criteria which affect sizing and siting of facilities. A detailed
listing of design requirements for sewer systems is available in the “Criteria for Sewage Works
Design,” prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology, as revised December 1998.
Additional information has been adopted by the District on specific design criteria, which is
available as the “Standard Specifications of the Woodinville Water District for Developer
Extensions” as approved on July 21, 1992.

7.1.1   Gravity Sewers

The following are specifics developed for existing pipe design based on the “Criteria for Sewage
Works Design” and the ‘Standard Sewer Specifications of the Woodinville Water District for
Developer Extensions’, whichever are more stringent. Future pipe capacities are developed from
flows generated by flow simulation by the model, and future pipes are sized according to this
flow simulation.
       Sewer mains shall be designed to accept the maximum hourly wet weather flow;
       minimum peak design flow is 400 percent of the average annual flow for laterals and 250
       percent of the average annual flow for interceptors/trunks.
       Minimum sewer main diameter shall be 8 inches.
       Slopes shall maintain a mean minimum velocity of 2.0 ft/sec when flowing full.
       Minimum slopes are shown in Table 7-1, although greater slopes are desirable.

                                            Table 7-1
                          Minimum Pipe Slope Criteria for Sewer Mains
                        Sewer Size (inches)        Minimum Slope (feet/100 feet)
                                 8                            0.40
                                10                            0.28
                                12                            0.22
                                14                            0.17
                                15                            0.15
                                16                            0.14
                                18                            0.12
                                21                            0.10
                                24                            0.08
                                27                            0.07
                                30                            0.06
                                36                            0.05



Ju;y 2007                                                                                        79
                                                                           SEWER GENERAL PLAN


        Polyvinyl chloride sewer pipe meeting the requirements of ASTM D3034 for SDR-35
        wall thickness may be used in sizes up to 12 inches. Class 52 minimum ductile iron pipe
        shall be used in locations where depth of cover exceeds 15 feet, for all installations of
        pipe 14 inches or greater in diameter, and for force mains.
        A minimum horizontal separation of 10 feet shall be maintained between sewers and
        existing potable water lines, wherever possible. Smaller separations may be allowed per
        Section C1-9 of the “Criteria for Sewage Works.”
        Sewer mains shall have a depth of 8 feet when located in the right-of-way.

7.1.2   Laterals and Side Sewers

        Lateral sewers from the sewer main to the property line shall be 6-inch minimum
        diameter, and shall be connected to the sewer main with a formed tee or saddle. The
        minimum depth at the property line is five (5) feet below the floor to be served or six (6)
        feet below the street, whichever is greater.
        A cleanout or inspection tee for each sewer lateral shall be provided at the property line
        to facilitate testing and maintenance.
        Side sewers from the right-of-way or easement property line to the building plumbing
        shall be a minimum of 4-inches in diameter, with cleanouts provided at every change in
        direction, and every 100 feet.
        Minimum side sewer depth of cover is 3 feet. The sewer shall be sufficiently deep to
        prevent freezing and physical damage and to allow the sewer to receive sewage from
        adjacent service connections by gravity.
        Maximum length of side sewers will not exceed 150 feet.

7.1.3   Manholes

        Manholes are required at the end of each sewer main to facilitate maintenance and future
        extensions.
        Manholes are required at every change in grade, pipe size, or alignment; at all sewer main
        intersections; and at a maximum spacing of 400 feet.
        Minimum manhole diameter is 48 inches, and manholes shall be at least 6 feet deep to the
        pipe invert with 0.1 of gradient fall through the manhole channel.
        Watertight manhole covers will be used, and not more than three adjustment rings shall
        be used to bring the manhole rim to street grade. Jointed manholes (bricks or cement
        blocks) will not be allowed. Pipe connections to manholes shall use flexible joints to
        help maintain water tightness upon settlement.
        Drop manholes shall only use external drops in manholes of 48-inch diameter, unless
        internal drops are approved by the District Engineer.

7.1.4   Lift Stations

        Lift station siting should consider the impacts of noise, odor, vehicle access, and
        aesthetics, wherever possible. Sites should be selected to allow for future expansion as
        necessary. Flood protection shall be provided.



Ju;y 2007                                                                                       80
                                                                        SEWER GENERAL PLAN

        Lift stations shall contain a minimum of two pumps, each capable of handling the
        expected maximum flow (minimum required is 250 percent of the average annual design
        flow). Where three or more pumps are used, the station must be able to pump the
        maximum flow with any one pump out of service.
        Variable speed pumps will be used where appropriate, to reduce the pump starts and
        stops, thus producing smoother flow patterns and minimizing the stagnant time delays
        that may produce septic conditions in the wet well.
        Pump suction and discharge openings shall be at least 4 inches in diameter.
        A sewage flowmeter (a minimum of a totalizer) shall be provided on all new pumping
        facilities.
        Emergency power shall be provided that, alone or combined with storage, will prevent
        overflows from occurring during any outage, equal to the longest power outage
        experienced in the local vicinity over the previous 10 years.
        An alarm and telemetry system shall be provided for all sewage lift stations.

7.1.5   Force Mains

        Minimum force main diameter is 4 inches for solids handling pumps. Smaller diameters
        are acceptable for grinder pumps or Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) systems.
        At pumping capacity, velocities between 2 ft/sec and 8 ft/sec shall be maintained.
        Pipe material shall be ductile iron.

7.1.6 Inverted Siphons

        Inverted siphons shall not have less than two barrels with a minimum diameter of 6
        inches.
        Appurtenances necessary for convenient flushing and maintenance shall be provided.
        Average flow velocities of at least 3.0 ft/sec shall be provided.
        A rock catcher and coarse screen shall be provided to prevent plugging.
        Facilities shall be provided to allow normal flow to be diverted from either barrel for
        cleaning or maintenance.

7.1.7   Easements

        Minimum width of sewer easements is 20 feet, but shall never be less than twice the
        depth of the sewer main.
        Joint utility easements (water and sewer) shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Larger
        easements shall be required if the depth of the sewer main exceeds 10 feet.

7.2     POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPERS

The District has developed a set of policies that provide a common basis for administering the
sewer system. These guidelines have progressed in response to the increased need for sewer
service in response to developments and population growth and the continual updates to the land
use regulations set forth by King County for the service area.




Ju;y 2007                                                                                   81
                                                                         SEWER GENERAL PLAN

They include Standard Specifications for Developer Extensions, which includes performance and
design criteria, policies and requirements for developers, and construction materials and
methods.

A description of the district standards is presented below.

7.2.1   Standard Specifications for Developer Extensions

The District has developed Standard Specifications for Developer Extensions that define the
requirements for the physical layout and construction materials and methods for all new sewer
facilities. These requirements are specified in order to provide a sewer system which can be
efficiently operated and maintained and is unobtrusive as possible to the customer. Furthermore,
these requirements aid in the District’s planning and design of future sewers and sewer
connections. Included with the Standard Specifications are Standard Details specific to sewer
work.

7.3     CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS

Please refer to the Standard Sewer Specifications of the Woodinville Water District for
Developer Extensions.

7.4     CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROCEDURES

Please refer to the Standard Sewer Specifications of the Woodinville Water District for
Developer Extensions.




Ju;y 2007                                                                                    82
                                                                              GENERAL SEWER PLAN


CHAPTER 8 -- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM

8.1        IDENTIFIED IMPROVEMENTS

Projects identified through analysis conducted in developing this plan were organized into
several classes for inclusion into the Capital Improvement Program. No overflows are projected
anywhere in the sewer system even under 2012 conditions. Accordingly, all projects identified
through the Sewer Plan process are listed as a single series of improvements as shown on Figure
8-1 and described below:

      1.     Update and Upgrade Existing Sewer System

                a.      Update Sewer Comp Plan: This project completes the preparation of the
                        Sewer Plan begun in 2004.

                b.      Woodinville Redmond Road and 160th Street: This project in Mini-basin
                        WDN 005 includes two segments of pipe in the Woodinville Redmond
                        Road, four segments flowing east to the Sammamish River, and one
                        flowing north along the River before connecting into the King County
                        Trunk. The last segment is 10-inch and all others are 8-inch for a total
                        length of about 2,010 feet. These system elements were identified through
                        modeling under design storm conditions as surcharging to within 5 feet of
                        the ground surface under existing conditions, or the year 2012 conditions.
                        Most of this upgrade can be accomplished through pipe bursting to 12-
                        inch diameter; however about 370 feet will require reconstruction, 15
                        manholes will be replaced, and a new crossing will be needed under the
                        railroad.

      2.     Reline Sewer – Woodinville Snohomish Road from NE 175th Street to NE 185th
             Street. This project comprises about 3,709 feet of 15-inch pipe that has deteriorated.

      3.     Reline Sewer – Woodinville Snohomish Road from NE 185th Street to NE 195th
             Street. Approximately 2,546 feet of 15-inch pipe was identified in the previous Sewer
             Plan to be up-sized to 18-inch; however, flow simulation of design storm under build-
             out conditions indicate the existing pipe size is adequate. District television inspection
             has found the existing pipe is deteriorated though, so relining is appropriate.

      4.     Sewer Replacement – Existing 8-inch sewer along the west bank of the Sammamish
             River from Manhole 116 flowing north to 110 and Siphon No. 1. These six pipe
             segments have severe sags ranging from half to full pipe depressions. These defects
             are too severe to be repaired by lining or bursting the pipe. The sewer will have to be
             dug up and reconstructed.




July 2007                                                                                           83
                                                                             GENERAL SEWER PLAN

    5.        Manhole Repairs – 144th Avenue NE ten sewer manholes from about NE 193rd Place
              north to about 199th Street extended. The concrete benches were reconstructed after
              pipe bursting, except the bench material was unsuitable and has broken up to
              occasionally plug the sewer causing flow backups. These benches need to be removed
              and reconstructed.

    6.        Infiltration Rehabilitation – Wet Well No. 2 at Siphon No. 1 has significant
              infiltration between the base and wall section at the bench. The bench is too small,
              causing solids build-up, and preventing reliable operation of the pump. The lower
              portion of the wet well interior needs to be removed and reconstructed. The wet well
              wall needs to be core drilled in several places and grout injected to reduce the
              infiltration. It may be cost-effective to combine this work with two similar or related
              improvements:

                     Existing Siphon No. 1 controls for pump operation use a PLC. Pumps are only
                     needed when King County uses the sewer trunk for seasonal peak storage. A
                     control system is needed to sense when pumping is required, and to alternate
                     between the two pumps, wet wells, and siphon barrels. District staff would be
                     more comfortable with a RTU control similar to the existing system at the
                     Sunrise Lift Station.
                     Manhole 935 on Woodinville Redmond Road at about 154th Street extended
                     has infiltration that can be addressed by core drilling the manhole wall in
                     several places and injecting grout.

         7.      Northshore Utility District – Several sewer extension options were explored for
                 Area 2 in Section 5.2.1, which contains Woodinville Water District customers
                 with sewer service provided by Northshore Utility District. The analysis
                 conducted in Chapter 5 indicated that an easement plus a power line crossing are
                 required.
                 A.     Reconstruction of about 150 feet of sewer to flow north in 136 Avenue NE
                        instead of south, plus about 900 feet of gravity sewer flowing east along
                        the south edge of the lots fronting NE 135th Place and about 150 feet north
                        to connect into the existing Woodinville sewer flowing east in NE 135th
                        Place extended. This action would transfer about 230 customers to the
                        District sewer system.
                 B.     Construction of a new manhole on the existing sewer in 132nd Avenue at
                        NE 136th Place to divert flow east through about 250 feet of new sewer
                        into the properties served as described in 7.A would add about 20
                        additional customer equivalents

         8.      City of Bothell – The existing District sewer just north of the west-bound exit
                 ramp from SR 522 discharges into the City of Bothell sewer, causing the District
                 to pay a wheeling charge to the City. Construction of about 710 feet of 8-inch




July 2007                                                                                         84
                                                                          GENERAL SEWER PLAN

              gravity sewer under SR 522 in a casing would eliminate the charge paid to
              Bothell. The work requires State DOT approval and an easement.

        9.    English Hills Lift Station Rehabilitation – This project would replace the existing
              underground electrical control panels with above ground panels similar to the
              present electrical installation at the Sunrise Lift Station.

        10.   Research a Sewage Decant/Dump Site – This project would provide the District
              with a facility to cleanly decant wastewater collected from various operations by
              the District vactor truck. It would also provide the District with a properly built
              facility to receive septage from the School District or other properties that do not
              have access to a sewer pipe.

                 The preferred site should be in an industrial area accessible to an adequate
                 District sewer and space for a truck turn-around.
                 An underground settling tank may be needed for the decanted wastewater.
                 Metering facilities may be desired to appropriately charge other users.
                 Since the existing District campus is restricted to 35 employees by traffic
                 management limitations, an auxiliary building at the site may be desirable too.

              The best site appears to be Parcel # 092605 9104, which is adjacent to Siphon No.
              1 at NE 175th Street and NE Woodinville Drive. The property is posted as “For
              Sale” with an asking price of $500,000. Several easements and setback
              requirements encumber the 1.14 acre property, though a builder is supposedly
              planning a building with two 10,000 square foot floors over ground level parking.

        11.   Enclose & Heat North Bay of Building “E” – This project would provide heated
              indoor storage for the District vactor truck so any water onboard would not freeze
              during the winter.

                 Ostensibly this bay could be enclosed by constructing an interior floor-to-
                 ceiling wall with an interior door; except all of Building E is vented through
                 the north wall so a new ceiling at about roof overhang height is desirable.
                 However, the bay access doors in the east and west walls roll up along the
                 interior roof slope, so the new ceiling needs a flexible sealing flap at each
                 door.
                 Storage could be provided in the loft above the ceiling, if a structural floor is
                 provided to support the dead weight.

              Electrical modifications will be needed to provide the required heating plus
              lighting and ventilation.




July 2007                                                                                      85
                                                                            GENERAL SEWER PLAN

        12.    Locate & Raise Manhole 6C – This manhole location and access was lost when
               the Woodinville Snohomish Road at NE 195th Street was reconstructed, and the
               manhole lid was not raised to street grade. It now must be located and raised.

The build-out plan for the District sewer system indicates the general alignment of a number of
gravity sewer mains and several pump stations that are expected to be built by developers.

The hydraulic model simulation of a design storm on the peak day at build-out densities shows
several additional existing pipes will surcharge and a few will over flow. These facilities are not
included in the improvement program for this Plan since these events are years into the future. It
is possible that actual development plans will route wastewater flows differently than shown in
this Plan, and it is possible that the City of Woodinville will change the densities allowed. Hence
it is premature to develop plans to replace existing pipes until an actual need is identified through
future flow monitoring.


8.2     BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES

A list of principal construction items was prepared for each of the Identified Improvements listed
above. Quantities were estimated for each item and unit prices estimated from recent bid results
and Means “Estimating Guide”. An estimated construction cost was developed for each project
including contingencies and sales tax. Total project costs were then estimated for each
improvement. These estimates are included in the Appendix for each of the twelve projects
identified in Section 8.1.

A summary of estimated construction, project, and total costs is provided in Table 8-1 for the
twelve identified improvements.

                                               Table 8-1
                                WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                           Summary Estimate of Capital Improvement Costs
 Improvement                                                          Estimated Costs
   Number             Description of Sewerage Improvements    Construction Project    Total
        1a         Update Sewer Comp Plan                                          -0- $86,000           $86,000
        1b         Upgrade Sewer @ Wood-Redmond & NE 160th                   $721,000 $54,000           $775,000
         2         Reline Sewer @ Wood-Snohomish 175 to 185                        -0- $45,000           $45,000
         3         Reline Sewer @ Wood-Snohomish 185 to 195                  $680,000 $56,000           $736,000
         4         Sewer Replacement Manholes 116 to 110                           -0- $37,000           $37,000
         5         Manhole Repairs in 144th Avenue NE                             $37    $7,000          $44,000
         6         Infiltration Rehabilitation @ Siphon No. 1                $130,000 $11,000           $141,000
         7         Intercept Northshore Customers into WWD                   $264,000 $23,000           $287,000
         8         Intercept WWD Customers Discharging to Bothell            $339,000 $31,000           $370,000
         9         English Hills Lift Station Rehabilitation                  $46,000 $13,000            $59,000
        10         Research Sewage Decant/Dump Site                                --- $104,000         $104,000




July 2007                                                                                         86
                                                                          GENERAL SEWER PLAN

        11         Enclose & Heat North Bay of Building “E”                $156,000 $18,000    $176,000
        12         Locate & Raise Manhole 6C                                 $3,000   $4,600     $7,600
      Subtotal                                                           $2,530,000 $659,000 $2,867,600
                    Miscellaneous Improvements
         13        SR 202/127th Pl NE Improvements (COW)                                              $19,000
         14        MBR Treatment System (Sewer Share)                                                 $12,000
         15        SR 202/127th Pl NE Improvements (COW)                                              $13,737
         16        Miscellaneous King County/City of Woodinville                                      $70,000
      Subtotal                                                                                       $114,737
      Future Automation Upgrades & Replacement (Sewer Share)
         17        Customer Billing System                                                         $78,500
         18        Integrated Financial System                                                     $69,500
         19        GIS Mapping System                                                              $76,075
         20        SCADA                                                                           $27,000
         21        Maintenance Management System                                                   $21,000
         22        Project Tracking                                                                 $1,000
         23        Electronic Document Management                                                   $6,500
      Subtotal                                                                                   $279,575
                  Total Capital Improvement Costs                                               $3,655,825


8.3      CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Formulation of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) requires organizing the identified
improvement projects into annual budgets. Such organization is highly dependant upon the funds
available, which is not simply a matter of raising rates to generate whatever funding is needed to
build any projects that may be desired. A CIP is usually created through an iterative process of
reviewing the funds available during each of several future budget yearly cycles for capital
projects, identifying which projects can be funded during which years based on the perceived
importance or priority, and defining such additional funding as may be needed to meet the agreed
objectives.

In addition to the capital improvements identified through evaluation of the utility system, a
number of additional items are normally identified by the District Staff and the Board of
Commissioners for inclusion in the capital budget.

Accordingly, the actually CIP is normally developed as an integral part of the utility financial
plan for the next six or more years. Funding priorities are first devoted to meeting on-going
operations and maintenance requirements with anticipated increases, then to meeting existing
debt obligations with proper coverage and reserves, and finally the remaining funds are available
for capital improvements. This derivation is summarized in Chapter 9.




July 2007                                                                                      87
                                                                                             SEWER GENERAL PLAN

     CHAPTER 9 -- FINANCING
     9.1     CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE

     A 5-year rate strategy/scenario was approved by the Board for the General Sewer Plan during
     their review of Sewer Rate Study Revenue Requirements for 2006 through 2010. The forecasted
     monthly sewer charges are shown in Table 9-1, with the local program costs for the District
     identified separately from the anticipated Metro charges to be paid to the King County
     Wastewater Division.

                                                    Table 9-1
                                               Sewer Rate Structure

       Budget Year           Local Program Costs            Metro Charges          Total Monthly Sewer Charge
     2005 Budget                    $ 17.45                    $ 25.60                       $ 43.05
     2006 Budget                    $ 18.85                    $ 25.60                       $ 44.45
     2007 Forecast                  $ 20.36                    $ 26.92                       $ 47.28
     2008 Forecast                  $ 21.99                    $ 31.04                       $ 53.03
     2009 Forecast                  $ 23.75                    $ 34.39                       $ 58.14
     2010 Forecast                  $ 25.65                    $ 37.34                       $ 62.99
     2011 Forecast                  $ 28.22                    $ 39.21                       $ 67.43

     Table 9.1 shows that King County cost will continue to comprise the largest component of the
     District rate structure, as has been true in years past.

     9.2     OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

     Projected operating and maintenance expenses for the six year planning period have been
     developed, and were used to forecast the sewer rate needed in future years. Table 9-2 shows the
     resulting balances in the Sewer Maintenance Fund.

                                                     Table 9-2
                                              Sewer Maintenance Fund

        Sewer                    2005           2006           2007          2008          2009          2010          2011
   Maintenance Fund             Adopted
                                Budget         Budget       Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
    Actual/Forecasted
   Sewer Rate Increase            3.90%         5.00%          8.40%         10.2%         9.50%         7.40%         9.5%
Revenues:
Sewer Service Revenues
(Including Rate Increases)      $ 2,963,144   $ 3,101,292    $ 3,386,175   $ 3,744,199   $ 4,084,308   $ 4,395,036   $ 4,738,864
Interest Earnings                    9,700        15,600         11,300        13,500        14,600        14,200        11,700
Other Revenues                       3,100         9,150          9,242         9,334         9,427         9,522           9,617




     July 2007                                                                                                         88
                                                                                                  SEWER GENERAL PLAN

             Total Revenues        2,975,944     3,126,042      3,406,717     3,767,033      4,108,335      4,418,758     4,760,181


Expenditures:
    Metro Wholesale Costs          1,885,865     1,976,322      2,107,201     2,420,210      2,687,595      2,933,992     3,110,882
               Utility Tax             38,224         40,000         43,700        48,300         52,700         56,700        61,100
         Sewer Operations             413,941        484,575        514,473       548,268        560,298        595,280       613,939
 Indirect Overhead Charges/
          Capitalized Salary          465,054        518,107        542,419       562,804        586,499        609,892       634,868
   PWTF Loan Debt Service              29,712         29,448         29,184        28,919         28,655         28,391        28,126
 Trsf to Equip Replace Resv            87,169         65,431         68,828        70,925         72,087         74,375        74,374
Transfer for Capital Projects                -              -             -        22,545        107,250        172,255       237,260
        Total Expenditures         2,919,965     3,113,883      3,305,805     3,701,970      4,095,084      4,470,884     4,760,549


  Net Surplus/(Deficit)
Revenue over Expenditure          $    55,979    $    12,159    $ 100,912     $    65,063    $    13,252    $ (52,126)    $        (368)


   Funds Deducted From/
    (Added to) Operating
         Reserve                      (55,979)       (12,159)    (100,912)        (65,063)       (13,252)        52,126            368
  Net Ending Cash Flow
    Surplus/(Deficit)             $          -   $          -   $         -   $          -   $          -   $         -   $            -

Projections based on the Woodinville Water District Sewer Rate Model prepared by HDR, Inc.; the 2006 Budget Financial
Policies adopted by the District Commissioners on October 18, 2005.


     Note: As shown in Table 9-2 Sewer Rates, the net difference between annual sewer revenue and
     forecasted expenditures for the year will be added to or deducted from the sewer operating
     reserve so the ending cash flow balance will always be zero.

     9.3     CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

     The development of the Capital Improvement Program was described in Chapter 8 and shown on
     Figure 8-1. The resulting Capital Improvements were summarized in Table 8-1.

     None of the listed improvements have been identified as posing a significant or immediate risk to
     public health or the environment. Accordingly, these improvements were prioritized on the basis
     of growth, regulatory requirements, component reliability, and system development for
     implementation on the following basis:

             1.       Fiscal constraints imposed by the funds available for capital improvements
                      generated through the adopted rate structure and other funding sources.
             2.       The desirability of avoiding major financial impacts to any one fiscal year.
             3.       The schedule of road improvements by King County and the City of Woodinville.
             4.       Preferences of the field crews to best manage their work load and schedules.



     July 2007                                                                                                                89
                                                                        SEWER GENERAL PLAN


The resulting improvements have been included with other capital projects and costs planned by
the District to create the Sewer Capital Improvement Program shown in Table 9-3.




July 2007                                                                                    90
                                                                                                                      SEWER GENERAL PLAN


                                                                      Table 9-3
                                                      Sewer Capital Improvement Program
                                                    Cost in Dollars Including 4% Annual Inflation

                                                                                     Estimated Total Project Costs Expended Annually
 Project               Improvement Description                    2005      2006       2007     2008      2009      2010    2011     Total
    1a      Update Sewer Comp Plan                               86,000                                                               86,000
    1b      Upgrade Sewer @ Wood Red & NE 160                                         54,000 721,000                                 775,000
    2       Reline Sewer @ Wood Snohom 175-185                                                                             45,000     45,000
    3       Reline Sewer @ Wood Snohom 185-195                                                  56,000 680,000                       736,000
    4       Sewer Replacement MH 116 to 110                                                                                37,000     37,000
    5       Manhole Repairs in 144th Avenue NE                                                                    44,000              44,000
    6       Infiltration Rehabilitation @ Siphon No. 1                                          11,000 130,000                       141,000
    7       Intercept NUD Customers into WWD                                                             23,000 264,000              287,000
    8       Intercept WWD Customers from Bothell                            31,000 339,000                                           370,000
    9       English Hills Lift Station Rehabilitation                       59,000                                                    59,000
    10      Research Sewer Decant/Dump Site                                104,000                                                   104,000
    11      Enclose & Heat North Bay of Building "E"                        18,000 158,000                                           176,000
    12      Locate & Raise Manhole 6C                                                                                       7,600      7,600
 Subtotal                                                        86,000 212,000 551,000 788,000 833,000 308,000            89,600 2,867,600
 Miscellaneous Improvements
    13      SR 202/127th Pl NE Improvements (COW)                19,000                                                               19,000
    14      MBR Treatment System (Sewer share)                   12,000                                                               12,000
    15      SR 202/145th Ave NE Intersection (COW)                 2,000    11,737                                                    13,737
    16      Misc. King County/City of Woodinville                10,000     10,000    10,000    10,000   10,000   10,000   10,000     70,000
 Subtotal                                                        43,000     21,737    10,000    10,000   10,000   10,000   10,000    114,737
            Total Capital Projects                              129,000 233,737 561,000 798,000 843,000 318,000 99,600              2,982,337



July 2007                                                                                                                                91
                                                                                                                 SEWER GENERAL PLAN

            Capital Equipment                             30,263    34,075    10,000    10,000    10,000    10,000    10,000    114,338
 Future Automation Upgrades/replacements (Sewer share )
    17      Customer Billing System                         6,000    49,000    23,500                                             78,500
    18      Integrated Financial System                     6,000     4,500    39,100    19,900                                   69,500
    19      GIS Mapping System                              6,875     7,000     8,000    11,000    14,400   14,400    14,400      76,075
    20      SCADA                                          27,000                                                                 27,000
    21      Maintenance Management System                                                 9,500     6,500    5,000                21,000
    22      Project Tracking                                                    1,000                                              1,000
    23      Electronic Document Management                            1,500                                   1,000     4,000      6,500
 Subtotal                                                  45,875    62,000    71,600    40,400    20,900    20,400    18,400    279,575
            Equipment Replacement from Reserves                                   33,780 66,520           340,823 441,123
             Total Capital Improvement Costs              205,138 329,812 642,600 882,180 940,420 348,400 468,823 3,817,373




July 2007                                                                                                                            92
                                                                                          SEWER GENERAL PLAN

9.4      FUTURE CAPITAL NEEDS

The Capital Improvement Program shown in Table 9-3 has been integrated with the management
of the revenue generated through the Sewer Maintenance Fund shown in Table 9-2 to produce
Table 9-4, which shows the management of the Sewer Capital Fund.

                                                    Table 9-4
                                                Sewer Capital Fund

                                    2005          2006         2007         2008         2009        2010        2011
           Sewer                   Adopted
        Capital Fund               Budget        Budget      Forecast     Forecast     Forecast     Forecast Forecast
 Beginning Reserve Balance
 Capital Fund Reserve              $2,629,373   $2,129,995   $2,038,064   $1,638,267   $1,094,412   $ 545,604   $ 215,844
 Equipment Replacement
 Reserve                              95,894       248,494      317,322      354,467      360,034     434,409     436,134
 Total Reserves                                 $2,636,702   $2,515,436   $2,346,242   $1,803,952   $ 753,535   $ 651,978

 Revenues:
                                     110,000       77,000       77,000       77,000       77,000       77,000     77,000
 Interest Earnings                    77,700       62,303       69,163       72,360       59,496       17,234     10,174
 Capital Transfers from Rates              -            -        8,815      103,630      167,945      232,259    321,574
 Bond Sales                                -            -            -            -            -            -          -
 Transfer to Equip Replace Resrv      87,189       65,431       68,828       71,500       72,662       74,950     74,949
 Total Revenues                      274,889      204,734      223,806      324,490      377,103      401,443    483,697

 Expenditures:
       Capital Project Expenses      463,266      194,000      393,000      833,000     1,361,000     503,000    379,600
             Capital Equipment       122,883      132,000
   Equipment Replace Purchases             -            -            -       33,780        66,520           -    340,823
           Total Expenditures        586,149      326,000      393,000      866,780     1,427,520     503,000    720,423

       Ending Reserve Balance
          Capital Fund Reserve      2,230,924    2,266,942    2,028,920    1,448,910     392,351      215,844    244,992
        Equipment Replacement
                       Reserve       183,083      248,494      317,322      355,042      361,184      436,134    170,260
                 Total Reserves    $2,414,007   $2,515,436   $2,346,242   $1,803,952   $ 753,535    $ 651,978   $ 415,252

 Projections in this forecast are based on the Woodinville Water District Sewer Rate Model prepared by HDR, Inc., the
 Sewer Revenue Requirements & Financial Policies 2006 budget adopted by the District Commissioners on October 18,
 2005.

The balance shown as Total Reserves in Table 9-4 is forecast to gradually decline through the
years until 2011 by about $2,000,000.

9.5      SEWER RESERVE FUNDS

The Sewer Operating Reserve and the Catastrophe Reserve Funds are summarized in Table 9-5




July 2007                                                                                                         93
                                                                                               SEWER GENERAL PLAN


                                                        Table 9-5
                                                   Sewer Reserve Funds

           Operating                2005               2006         2007         2008         2009         2010         2011
            Reserve                Adopted
                                   Budget           Budget        Forecast     Forecast     Forecast     Forecast     Forecast
Beginning Reserve Balance             $ 514,298    $ 394,206      $ 377,917     $ 450,381   $ 486,996    $ 471,800    $ 391,225

Added or (Deducted) to
Operating Reserve                       55,979           12,159     100,912        65,063      13,252      (52,126)      (368)
Transfer to Catastrophe
Reserve                                                (28,448)     (28,448)     (28,448)     (28,448)     (28,448)    (28,448)
Ending Reserve Balance                $ 570,277    $ 377,917      $ 450,381     $ 486,996   $ 471,800    $ 391,226    $ 362,410



        Catastrophe                    2005            2006         2007          2008        2009         2010         2011
         Reserve                   Adopted         Proposed
                                      Budget        Budget        Forecast      Forecast    Forecast     Forecast     Forecast
Beginning Reserve
Balance                            $           -   $          -   $ 29,010     $ 58,755     $ 89,392     $ 120,949    $ 153,452


Added (Deducted) to
Operating Reserve                              -   28,448         28,448       28,448       28,448       28,448       28,448
Interest Earnings                                  562            1,297        2,189        3,109        4,055        5,030
Ending Reserve Balance            $           -    $ 29,010       $ 58,755     $ 89,392     $ 120,949    $ 153,452    $ 186,930
Projections in this forecast are based on the Woodinville Water District Sewer Rate Model prepared by HDR, Inc. & adopted by
the District Commissioners on October 18, 2005.

     The Sewer Operating Reserve shows a forecasted balance of at least $350,000 in every year. The
     Sewer Catastrophe Reserve begins with a zero balance and steadily increases to nearly $200,000.

     9.6      CAPITAL FUND OPTIONS

     Several funding options have been considered as viable revenue sources to fund the Capital
     Improvements as detailed in Chapter 8. They are summarized as follows:

     Cash on Hand – At the start of each year, the available cash in the Sewer Construction Fund is
     considered as Cash on Hand. The difference, if any, between total expenses and total revenue at
     the end of each fiscal year is carried over into the next fiscal year.

     Developer Participation –The District requires developers to finance the sewer system
     improvements and additions within new plats or commercial and industrial improvements.




     July 2007                                                                                                         94
                                                                            SEWER GENERAL PLAN


Additional facilities may be required of the developer beyond the facilities needed for the actual
development. This is to ensure adequate sewer capacity and to avoid adverse impacts to existing
facilities. Additional facilities may include extensions beyond the plat and/or the provision of
additional capacity within the development. The developer may be reimbursed by the District
for the additional cost of the facilities, including reimbursement for the increased sizing of
system components to account for additional capacity within the development. Reimbursement
may be through direct outlay, latecomer charges or reimbursement agreements.

When a sewer main larger than 8 inches in diameter is constructed in order to comply with future
capacity needs as identified in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan, compensation for over sizing is
usually considered. A line is considered oversized when it is constructed in a commercial or
industrial area larger than what is required to serve the development; compensation is possible
for this as well. Up to 15 years of reimbursement is provided to developers through latecomer
agreements from connections made to the developer-financed improvements.

Many of the identified improvements within this Plan are required to accommodate future
anticipated flows resulting from growth or new development within the current District’s
unsewered area.

State and Federal Grants and Loans – The District should consider a number of State and
Federal funding programs in support of eligible system improvements. Following are four
programs which may be applied to future District sewer projects:

        Washington State Public Works Trust Fund. The PWTF provides low-interest loans to
        local governments including special purpose Districts, to finance public works projects.
        The PWTF is managed by the Department of Community Development. Projects which
        are necessary to correct deficiencies in the present sewer system are eligible for PWTF
        funding.
        Federal Water and Waste Development Program. This program provides loans and
        grants for sewer facilities in rural areas and towns up to 10,000 people. The program is
        managed by the Farmers Home Administration, and grants for up to 75 percent of the
        project costs are available. Small, low-income communities with identified sanitary
        problems are given funding priority.
        Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The CDBG program
        provides grants, loans and technical assistance to public facilities resolving problems that
        are an immediate threat to public health and safety. The CDBG program is administered
        by the State Department of Community Development.
        Centennial Clean Water Fund Program. This program provides 50 percent grants and
        loans for water pollution control facilities to meet state or federal requirements and
        protect water quality. This program is administered by the Washington State Department
        of Ecology. If there is a public health hazard, funding for collector sewers is available.

Revenue Bonds – To finance a portion of the Capital Improvement Fund, the District may
choose to issue Sewer Revenue Bonds. Revenue Bonds are in addition to the Federal and State




July 2007                                                                                        95
                                                                             SEWER GENERAL PLAN

programs available. Revenue Bonds should be pursued only after aggressive pursuit of grants
and public trust fund loans.

Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) – In areas where extensions of the sewer system
benefit specific future District customers, ULIDs can be formed. Formation of ULIDs are
usually initiated by property owner petition in areas where sewer extensions are desired.

System Development Charge – An upfront capital contribution, commonly known as a
connection charge or System Development Charge (SDC) is required as a condition of extending
sewer service. Revenue and equity are the two reasons the District uses SDCs. Revenue is
produced due to the connection charges from new customers which provide a source of capital
that can be used to support improvements and expansion. Connection charges also provide a
mechanism for balancing capital costs between existing and new customers, thus producing
equity for the District.

Sewer Rate Increases – The last comprehensive sewer rate study was performed in 2005. This
study provided a forecast of anticipated sewer rate increases for the five-year period ending in
2010. In the future, sewer revenue requirements will be analyzed each year during annual
budget preparation, and rate increases outlined in the rate study will be implemented as required
to ensure that the utility is able to meet necessary financial obligations, and achieve target capital
funding levels and reserve balances. The next formal sewer rate study is scheduled in 2008.

Under direction given by the Board during their review of 2005 sewer rate study
recommendations, the future target level for annual capital funding to be provided from sewer
rates should equal annual depreciation for sewer capital infrastructure. However, due to
substantial increases in District sewer rates that would be needed to generate the target funding
amount, the Board decided to phase-in the necessary funding over the upcoming ten-year period.
On the basis, annual transfers to the capital fund from sewer rates will begin in 2008, and the full
target annual funding level will be achieved in 2015.




July 2007                                                                                          96
  APPENDIX A

Model Calibration
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN001 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                             12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                             R%           T (hr)            K           R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                   1         10            0.25             1           T = Time of peak
                                   2         40              1              2           K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                   3         50              4              3           1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                Total R      2.20       WDN001 basin only
                             IA = 0.02 in/hr


                             Observed                 Simulated Storm                     Simulated DWF                  Rain
               0.6000                                                                                                                    0

                                                                                                                                         0.01
               0.5000
                                                                                                                                         0.02

                                                                                                                                         0.03
               0.4000
                                                                                                                                         0.04
   Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                Rain, inch
               0.3000                                                                                                                    0.05

                                                                                                                                         0.06
               0.2000
                                                                                                                                         0.07

                                                                                                                                         0.08
               0.1000
                                                                                                                                         0.09

               0.0000                                                                                                                    0.1
                        0     4                   8                   12                    16                 20                   24
                                                                   Time, hour




Calibration Summary                                     Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                      163.53               Avg. DWF                0.163
Volume - Observed (gal)           233,729               Qpeak obs               0.498
Volume - Simulated (gal)          236,954               Qpeak sim               0.394
Error (%)                            1.4%               Ratio obs               3.048
Peak RDII (mgd)                    0.1183               Ratio sim               2.413
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)               723
Average RDII (mgd)                 0.0467
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)            286




8/17/2007                                                              1
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN001-002 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                               12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                                R%            T (hr)            K           R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                       1        10             0.25             1           T = Time of peak
                                       2        40               1              2           K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                       3        50               4              3           1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                  Total R      0.35         WDN002 basin only
                               IA = 0.02 in/hr


                            Observed                     Simulated Storm                       Simulated DWF                     Rain
               0.7000                                                                                                                        0

                                                                                                                                             0.01
               0.6000
                                                                                                                                             0.02
               0.5000                                                                                                                        0.03

                                                                                                                                             0.04
               0.4000
   Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                    Rain, inch
                                                                                                                                             0.05
               0.3000
                                                                                                                                             0.06

               0.2000                                                                                                                        0.07

                                                                                                                                             0.08
               0.1000
                                                                                                                                             0.09

               0.0000                                                                                                                        0.1
                        0        4                   8                    12                    16                 20                   24
                                                                       Time, hour




Calibration Summary                                         Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                         256.18 w/WDN001       Avg. DWF                0.233
Volume - Observed (gal)              303,604                Qpeak obs               0.520
Volume - Simulated (gal)             314,852                Qpeak sim               0.593
Error (%)                               3.7%                Ratio obs               2.229
Peak RDII (mgd)                       0.2249                Ratio sim               2.543
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                  878
Average RDII (mgd)                    0.0530
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)               207




8/17/2007                                                                  2
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN003 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                               12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                               R%            T (hr)           K           R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                      1        10             0.25            2           T = Time of peak
                                      2        40               1             3           K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                      3        50               4             3           1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                  Total R      0.50
                               IA = 0.02 in/hr


                           Observed                     Simulated (mgd)                        DWF (mgd)                     Rain
              0.0300                                                                                                                       0

                                                                                                                                           0.01
              0.0250
                                                                                                                                           0.02

                                                                                                                                           0.03
              0.0200
                                                                                                                                           0.04
  Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                  Rain, inch
              0.0150                                                                                                                       0.05

                                                                                                                                           0.06
              0.0100
                                                                                                                                           0.07

                                                                                                                                           0.08
              0.0050
                                                                                                                                           0.09

              0.0000                                                                                                                       0.1
                       0        4                   8                   12                     16                20                   24
                                                                     Time, hour



Calibration Summary                                        Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                          11.76               Avg. DWF               0.006
Volume - Observed (gal)                6,750               Qpeak obs              0.028
Volume - Simulated (gal)               6,956               Qpeak sim              0.013
Error (%)                               3.1%               Ratio obs              4.910
Peak RDII (mgd)                       0.0019               Ratio sim              2.267
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                  165
Average RDII (mgd)                    0.0008
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                66




8/17/2007                                                                 3
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN004 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                                12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                                R%          T (hr)          K            R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                       1        40           0.25           2            T = Time of peak
                                       2        10             1            3            K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                       3        50             4            3            1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                   Total R      6.25
                                IA = 0.01 in/hr


                           Observed                  Simulated Storm                       Simulated DWF                    Rain
              0.6000                                                                                                                      0

                                                                                                                                          0.01
              0.5000
                                                                                                                                          0.02

                                                                                                                                          0.03
              0.4000
                                                                                                                                          0.04
  Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                 Rain, inch
              0.3000                                                                                                                      0.05

                                                                                                                                          0.06
              0.2000
                                                                                                                                          0.07

                                                                                                                                          0.08
              0.1000
                                                                                                                                          0.09

              0.0000                                                                                                                      0.1
                       0         4                   8                 12                     16                20                   24
                                                                    Time, hour



Calibration Summary                                       Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                           84.92             Avg. DWF               0.133
Volume - Observed (gal)               267,125             Qpeak obs              0.484
Volume - Simulated (gal)              267,185             Qpeak sim              0.361
Error (%)                                0.0%             Ratio obs              3.629
Peak RDII (mgd)                        0.2165             Ratio sim              2.704
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                 2,550
Average RDII (mgd)                     0.0905
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)              1,065




8/17/2007                                                               4
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN005 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                                12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                                R%           T (hr)           K           R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                       1        50            0.25            1           T = Time of peak
                                       2        40              1             2           K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                       3        10              2             3           1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                   Total R      2.15
                                IA = 0.01 in/hr


                            Observed                   Simulated Storm                       Simulated DWF                    Rain
               0.4000                                                                                                                      0

                                                                                                                                           0.01
               0.3500
                                                                                                                                           0.02
               0.3000
                                                                                                                                           0.03
               0.2500
                                                                                                                                           0.04
   Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                  Rain, inch
               0.2000                                                                                                                      0.05

                                                                                                                                           0.06
               0.1500
                                                                                                                                           0.07
               0.1000
                                                                                                                                           0.08
               0.0500
                                                                                                                                           0.09

               0.0000                                                                                                                      0.1
                        0         4                  8                   12                   16                 20                   24
                                                                     Time, hour



Calibration Summary                                        Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                          177.31              Avg. DWF               0.066
Volume - Observed (gal)               162,969              Qpeak obs              0.358
Volume - Simulated (gal)              168,801              Qpeak sim              0.277
Error (%)                                3.6%              Ratio obs              5.424
Peak RDII (mgd)                        0.2029              Ratio sim              4.201
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                 1,145
Average RDII (mgd)                     0.0713
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                402




8/17/2007                                                                5
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN006 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                                12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                                R%           T (hr)           K           R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                       1        10            0.25            2           T = Time of peak
                                       2        40              1             3           K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                       3        50              4             3           1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                   Total R      1.00
                                IA = 0.01 in/hr


                            Observed                   Simulated Storm                       Simulated DWF                    Rain
               0.2500                                                                                                                      0

                                                                                                                                           0.01

               0.2000                                                                                                                      0.02

                                                                                                                                           0.03

               0.1500                                                                                                                      0.04
   Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                  Rain, inch
                                                                                                                                           0.05

               0.1000                                                                                                                      0.06

                                                                                                                                           0.07

               0.0500                                                                                                                      0.08

                                                                                                                                           0.09

               0.0000                                                                                                                      0.1
                        0         4                  8                   12                   16                 20                   24
                                                                     Time, hour



Calibration Summary                                        Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                          105.71              Avg. DWF               0.077
Volume - Observed (gal)               101,156              Qpeak obs              0.207
Volume - Simulated (gal)              109,604              Qpeak sim              0.204
Error (%)                                8.4%              Ratio obs              2.694
Peak RDII (mgd)                        0.0517              Ratio sim              2.658
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                   489
Average RDII (mgd)                     0.0213
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                201




8/17/2007                                                                6
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN007 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                                12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                                R%           T (hr)           K           R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                       1        20            0.25            1           T = Time of peak
                                       2        40              2             2           K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                       3        40              8             2           1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                   Total R      3.50
                                IA = 0.01 in/hr


                            Observed                   Simulated Storm                       Simulated DWF                    Rain
               0.1800                                                                                                                      0

               0.1600                                                                                                                      0.01

                                                                                                                                           0.02
               0.1400
                                                                                                                                           0.03
               0.1200
                                                                                                                                           0.04
   Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                  Rain, inch
               0.1000
                                                                                                                                           0.05
               0.0800
                                                                          s                                                                0.06
               0.0600
                                                                                                                                           0.07
               0.0400
                                                                                                                                           0.08

               0.0200                                                                                                                      0.09

               0.0000                                                                                                                      0.1
                        0        4                   8                   12                   16                 20                   24
                                                                     Time, hour



Calibration Summary                                        Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                            51.8              Avg. DWF               0.047
Volume - Observed (gal)                85,333              Qpeak obs              0.162
Volume - Simulated (gal)               87,034              Qpeak sim              0.136
Error (%)                                2.0%              Ratio obs              3.421
Peak RDII (mgd)                        0.0608              Ratio sim              2.879
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                 1,173
Average RDII (mgd)                     0.0262
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                506




8/17/2007                                                                7
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN008-009LBEAR03 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                                12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                                R%          T (hr)          K            R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                       1        50           0.25           1            T = Time of peak
                                       2        20             1            2            K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                       3        30             4            2            1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                   Total R      0.80
                                IA = 0.02 in/hr


                           Observed                  Simulated Storm                       Simulated DWF                    Rain
              0.4000                                                                                                                      0

                                                                                                                                          0.01
              0.3500
                                                                                                                                          0.02
              0.3000
                                                                                                                                          0.03
              0.2500
                                                                                                                                          0.04
  Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                 Rain, inch
              0.2000                                                                                                                      0.05

                                                                                                                                          0.06
              0.1500
                                                                                                                                          0.07
              0.1000
                                                                                                                                          0.08
              0.0500
                                                                                                                                          0.09

              0.0000                                                                                                                      0.1
                       0         4                   8                 12                    16                 20                   24
                                                                    Time, hour



Calibration Summary                                       Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                          151.94             Avg. DWF               0.158
Volume - Observed (gal)               171,521             Qpeak obs              0.371
Volume - Simulated (gal)              185,660             Qpeak sim              0.288
Error (%)                                8.2%             Ratio obs              2.346
Peak RDII (mgd)                        0.0511             Ratio sim              1.823
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                   336
Average RDII (mgd)                     0.0171
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                113




8/17/2007                                                               8
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN008-009LBEAR03 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                                12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                                 R%           T (hr)           K           R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                      1           10           0.25            2           T = Time of peak
                                      2           40             2             3           K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                      3           50             8             3           1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                   Total R      0.25
                                IA = 0.02 in/hr
                                Note: Data not reliable for calibration

                           Observed                    Simulater Storm                      Simulated DWF                     Rain
              0.0900                                                                                                                        0

              0.0800                                                                                                                        0.01

                                                                                                                                            0.02
              0.0700
                                                                                                                                            0.03
              0.0600
                                                                                                                                            0.04
  Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                   Rain, inch
              0.0500
                                                                                                                                            0.05
              0.0400
                                                                                                                                            0.06
              0.0300
                                                                                                                                            0.07
              0.0200
                                                                                                                                            0.08

              0.0100                                                                                                                        0.09

              0.0000                                                                                                                        0.1
                       0         4                     8                  12                   16                 20                   24
                                                                      Time, hour



Calibration Summary                                         Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                          42.12                Avg. DWF               0.041
Volume - Observed (gal)               36,924                Qpeak obs              0.075
Volume - Simulated (gal)              44,377                Qpeak sim              0.079
Error (%)                              20.2%                Ratio obs              1.820
Peak RDII (mgd)                       0.0052                Ratio sim              1.913
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                  123
Average RDII (mgd)                    0.0019
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                44




8/17/2007                                                                 9
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN008-009LBEAR03 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                                12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                                R%          T (hr)           K           R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                       1        20           0.25            2           T = Time of peak
                                       2        40             2             3           K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                       3        40             6             3           1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                   Total R      1.70
                                IA = 0.02 in/hr


                           Observed                  Simulated Storm                       Simulated DWF                    Rain
              1.4000                                                                                                                      0

                                                                                                                                          0.01
              1.2000
                                                                                                                                          0.02

              1.0000                                                                                                                      0.03

                                                                                                                                          0.04
  Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                 Rain, inch
              0.8000
                                                                                                                                          0.05
              0.6000
                                                                                                                                          0.06

              0.4000                                                                                                                      0.07

                                                                                                                                          0.08
              0.2000
                                                                                                                                          0.09

              0.0000                                                                                                                      0.1
                       0         4                   8                 12                    16                 20                   24
                                                                    Time, hour



Calibration Summary                                       Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                          458.92             Avg. DWF               0.614
Volume - Observed (gal)               789,500             Qpeak obs              1.135
Volume - Simulated (gal)              803,258             Qpeak sim              1.132
Error (%)                                1.7%             Ratio obs              1.849
Peak RDII (mgd)                        0.2941             Ratio sim              1.843
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                   641
Average RDII (mgd)                     0.1176
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                256




8/17/2007                                                               10
WWD Sewer Comprehensive Plan
WDN010 Model
OBSERVED STORM FLOW CALIBRATION


                                12/16/2001 Storm R/T/K Calibration Parameters
                                                R%          T (hr)           K           R = Percent runoff contributing to sewers
                                       1        50           0.25            1           T = Time of peak
                                       2        20             1             2           K = Recession constant as a function of T
                                       3        30             3             2           1, 2, 3 = Fast, medium, slow response triangles
                                   Total R      1.30
                                IA = 0.02 in/hr


                           Observed                  Simulated Storm                       Simulated DWF                    Rain
              0.2500                                                                                                                      0

                                                                                                                                          0.01

              0.2000                                                                                                                      0.02

                                                                                                                                          0.03

              0.1500                                                                                                                      0.04
  Flow, mgd




                                                                                                                                                 Rain, inch
                                                                                                                                          0.05

              0.1000                                                                                                                      0.06

                                                                                                                                          0.07

              0.0500                                                                                                                      0.08

                                                                                                                                          0.09

              0.0000                                                                                                                      0.1
                       0         4                   8                 12                    16                 20                   24
                                                                    Time, hour



Calibration Summary                                       Avg/Peak Ratio
Sewered Acres                           147.6             Avg. DWF               0.073
Volume - Observed (gal)               117,146             Qpeak obs              0.205
Volume - Simulated (gal)              126,145             Qpeak sim              0.187
Error (%)                                7.7%             Ratio obs              2.804
Peak RDII (mgd)                        0.1079             Ratio sim              2.564
Peak RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                   731
Average RDII (mgd)                     0.0346
Average RDII Rate (gpd/Ac)                234




8/17/2007                                                               11
       APPENDIX B

Plan Review Correspondence
                     APPENDIX C

Public Involvement & Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)




                                                         1
                          Preparation of General Sewer Plan

                         Formation of Citizens Advisory Committee

The Woodinville Water District is now embarking on the preparation of a new General Sewer
Plan for the District. A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is being formed to assist with this
effort. The District is inviting interested persons to form and participate in the CAC.

The CAC will meet three times during the remainder of 2004 for the following purposes:
   1)    Learn about the approach being used to prepare the General Sewer Plan and to assist
         with identifying sewerage issues facing the Woodinville Water District.
   2)    Discuss the alternatives developed to address the identified issues.
   3)    Develop conclusions for the draft General Sewer Plan based on the evaluation of the
         alternatives.

Two public Open Houses will be held for the community. Participation by members of the CAC
will be encouraged:
           The first will follow the second CAC meeting to review the issues identified and the
           alternatives developed.
           The second will follow the third CAC meeting to present the draft General Sewer
           Plan to the community for their comments.

The Woodinville Water District serves about 7,500 water customers, and 1,500 sewer customers.
All sewer customers receive water from the District, though some water customers with sewer
service send their sewage to adjacent agencies like Northshore Utility District.

Persons interested in participating in the CAC and helping with the preparation of the General
Sewer Plan should send the following information to the District, attention Ken McDowell,
Engineering Services Supervisor:
       Name:           ____________________________________________
       Address:        ____________________________________________
                       ____________________________________________
       Day phone:              __________________________
       Evening phone:          __________________________
       Are you presently a water customer of Woodinville Water District?           ________
       Are you presently a sewer customer of Woodinville Water District?           ________
       Are you presently a sewer customer of another agency?                       ________
       Do you operate a business within the Woodinville Water District?            ________
       What particular interest do you have in provision of sewer services?        ________
       ____________________________________________________________________

CAC members do not need to be presently served by sewers. The public process will be best
served by a CAC reflecting the diverse nature of residents and property owners throughout the
District. Anyone interested in participating in the CAC needs to respond to Ken McDowell (425-
487-4140) not later than Friday, 25 June 2004.




                                                                                                  2
Woodinville Water District

CAC Member Addresses
  1. George Harris, Sr., 19537 158th Pl. NE**, Woodinville

  2. Jeff Rickard, 18727 160th Ave. NE, Woodinville

  3. Glen Murask – NO ADDRESS FOUND

  4. Leonard A. Mastrovito, 14954 NE 147th Court, Woodinville

  5. Nicholas Carlson/Steve Carlson, 16122 122nd Pl. NE, Bothell

  6. George M. Snyder, 15808 Saybrook Dr. NE, Woodinville

  7. Mark Mattis, 17517 184th Ave. NE, Woodinville

  8. Erik Hanson, 20435 NE 162nd St., Woodinville

  9. Pamela Maloney, 13322 187th Ct. NE, Woodinville

  10. Edie Ochandarena, 15435 NE 164th St., Woodinville

  11. J. Palmer Smith, 14909 127th Ave. NE, Woodinville

  12. Daniela Ionesi, 17106 NE 172nd Pl., Woodinville

  13. Don Oates, 21405 NE 184th Pl., Woodinville

  14. Patricia Baird, 15638 NE 202nd St., Woodinville

  15. Gareth Grube, 15802 NE 203rd Pl., Woodinville

  16. Glenn Maresca, 19415 170th Ave. NE., Woodinville – is this the same person as #3?

  17. Ronald Braun, 18137 197th Pl. NE, Woodinville

  18. Randy Koetje, 15910 NE 203rd Pl., Woodinville

  19. Dave Henry/Nancy Montgomery, 15091 NE 201st, Woodinville



  ** Assumed address from phone book listing




                                                                                          3
                              Woodinville Water District

                      Preparation of General Sewer Plan
                        Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
The Woodinville Water District is preparing a new General Sewer Plan for the District. A
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) has been formed to assist with this effort.

The first CAC meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 23, 2004, at 7:30pm at the Woodinville
Water District Board Room (17238 NE Woodinville-Duvall Rd., Woodinville). All interested
community members are invited to attend, whether served by sewers or not. This initial meeting
will focus on identifying sewerage issues of concern to the CAC and to the community at large
so that these concerns can be addressed as the new Plan is developed. The meeting should last
approximately one hour. Anyone interested in more information should contact Ken McDowell
(425-487-4104).




                                                                                            4
                                 AGENDA
        CITIZEN’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)

                              MEETING NO. 1

                                AUGUST 23, 2004
                                   7:30pm

•   Introductions
        o Woodinville Water District (WWD)
        o Berryman & Henigar (B&H)
        o Individuals
•   Intent of this group
        o Requirement under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for Plan.
        o Our approach to the General Sewer Plan
        o Schedule of how we are going to proceed
•   Background
        o Existing sewer system layout
        o Urban Growth Area (UGA) – sewer service limited to parcels inside UGA
        o King County Comprehensive Plan exception to sewer service outside UGA
        o Land Use
        o Onsite sewage disposal
                    Schools
                    Shopping centers
•   Topics of Discussion
        o Future sewer service – what we are and aren’t developing
        o Future land use
        o UGA boundary adjustments
        o Reuse of reclaimed wastewater
        o Other sewerage issues as customers of the District (both sewered and non-
            sewered)
•   Topic and date for next meeting
        o Discuss Alternatives
                    Transfer of sewage responsibility from other agencies to WWD
                    Sewer extensions
                    Management of sewage outside of UGA
                    Opportunities for reuse of reclaimed wastewater
        o Date of second meeting: October 2004
        o Third meeting




                                                                                      5
                               Woodinville Water District
                              Citizen’s Advisory Committee

                                      Meeting No. 1
                                  August 23, 2004, 7:30pm

                                       Meeting Notes

Recorded by: Erika Schuyler

Attendees: Glenn Maresca, Gareth Grube, Ronald Braun, Leonard Mastrovito, Nicholas
Carlson, Steve Carlson, George M. Snyder, Randy Koetje and guest, Dave Henry, Nancy
Montgomery, Ken McDowell (WWD), Debbie Rannfeldt (WWD), John Wilson (B&H), Erika
Schuyler (B&H)


John began the meeting with a discussion of what a General Sewer Plan is and what the WAC
requires in regards to the General Sewer Plan. John also emphasized that we want the
community’s input as how they want to see sewage handled.

The five maps (base map, existing land use, King County land use, zoning and existing sewer
system) that were brought to the meeting were mentioned, highlighting points of each map in
relation to the Plan.

It was mentioned during the introduction to the base map that the schools outside of the UGA
truck their sewage as the sites are not suitable for onsite disposal.

In the Plan we will:
    • Not doing anything that would change the land use, rather, we will work with the land
        use as it is currently laid out.
    • Discuss the continuation or transfer sewage responsibility with those portions of the
        District which are currently served by other agencies.
    • Look at reclaimed wastewater options (sod farms, golf courses)
    • Look at the METRO interlink, including Brightwater treatment.

The meeting was turned over to the CAC members for their questions.

Q: Would the City of Woodinville (COW) insist on a General Sewer Plan if not for the 3 large
developments in the City?

A: We (B&H) are not retained by the COW. COW does not provide water/sewer service.

Q: Why is the Plan needed?




                                                                                          6
A: It’s been a while since the last Plan. Sewer plans do not need to be updated every 6 years, as
water plans do, but needed improvements must be shown in the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) of a Sewer Plan to be funded. Periodically, it is good to update a “business Plan”.

Q: Is there any interest from the schools to change their way of disposing their sewage? Sewer
lines out to some of the schools will cost a lot of money.

A: Some schools are not far from existing sewer lines. We will talk with the schools and
determine their interest sewers and relay that information onto WWD for coordination. The
District is not interested in promotion of sewers unless there is interest.

Q: Does bringing a sewer line to a particular area change the zoning?

A: No.

Q: If the area is currently zoned R-1 would a sewer addition change it to R-4?

A: The sewer itself will not change the zoning. If the party installing the sewer is interested in
development, they will likely ask the City/County for a land use change, but installing sewers
does not change zoning.

Q: Who pays for the sewer?

A: Whoever benefits from it; the property owner, developer, sub-division, etc. If the sewer is
extended and passes several parcels that are not connected to the sewer, the Developer might try
to negotiate hook-ups with those along the route.

Q: Do tightlines have the capacity to be expanded?

A: No. They are there to serve a particular parcel or school. However, if the tightline is
pumped, it is possible to carry more than just what they were originally designed to serve. If the
line is gravity, it cannot contain more than it was intended to carry. The District has no intent to
extend sewers outside of the UGA, but would consider it if there is a school or a health risk.

Q: If sewers are put in proposed developments which are surrounded by non-sewered areas and
a septic tank fails, is the failed septic tank owner required to tie into the sewer?

A: The septic system owner would not be required to tie into the sewer line until the septic tank
failed, at which point there might be compelling reasons to tie into the line. A condition of sale
of the property might cause the septic owner to tie in – often times a purchaser or a lending
company will ask for this condition to be met before the sale of a house/land goes through.

Q: If a septic tank fails, it won’t get repermitted?

A: There are many components to a septic system, including the tank and the disposal system
(drainfield). Usually the drainfield fails. Replacement of the field might include another field on



                                                                                                  7
the same parcel, a mound system, or advanced treatment. Just because the system “fails” does
not mean it is entirely out of commission.

Q: Is there a benefit of joining/extending sewer service to all WWD boundaries?

A: That is a good question, and one we will discuss in the Plan.

Q: Will property taxes increase if the sewer goes through? Will surcharges get passed onto the
user by the builder?

A: Typically, sewers are seen as a benefit, therefore taxes may increase. Regarding surcharges,
nothing says that the property owner has to connect to the developer’s sewer immediately.
Should a property owner join afterwards, he might be subject to a Latecomer fee imposed by the
District for the developer.

Q: Say a new sewer comes down a street. Is a lateral required at all existing parcels whether or
not the homeowner connects at that time?

A: Stubs for future connections would normally be done at all existing properties.

Q: What about treatment and handling of the sewage once it gets into a sewer line? Will raw
sewage be discharged into the Sound like what happens at Bremerton/Pt. Orchard?

A: WWD is currently undergoing a pilot program of a membrane bioreactor advanced treatment
unit (MBR). Non-potable water can be “made” out of sewage for purposes such as irrigation,
and industrial uses.

Q: Is the sewage treated in the District?

A: Not in the District. Wastewater is conveyed to METRO treatment facilities (currently West
Point and Renton). In the future, when the capacities at West Point and Renton are reached, flow
will be directed to Brightwater.

Q: When does the COW reach its capacity for this District? When does the District stop adding
new customers?

A: WWD can not change the land use plan. The District can only provide service for the land
use out there. METRO is not likely to stop providing capacity to accommodate more growth.

Q: Does King County determine the UGA and is there a defined density?

A: No defined density.        It is assumed that all land within the UGA will eventually be
incorporated into cities.

Q: Is it up to the Cities to define densities?




                                                                                              8
A: The State OFM forecasts population then distributes this population among the Counties.
The Counties then distribute growth mostly to the cities, and most growth goes to the areas
included in the UGA. The cities plan for this growth number.

Q: Does the State track the population growth and can it insist upon growth?

A: Yes. The State may cut funding if growth is not provided for by counties or cities.

Q: Are there current health concerns within the District? Does the Plan address potential
concerns?

A: Not that we are aware of that would require action to be taken. The plan does not have to
address possible concerns, only current problems.

Q: Is there a drainfield plan/study involved with this Plan?

A: Discussions with WWD determined this was not a problem we want to address if we don’t
have to. If a certain development feels like they have a concern, they should discuss that with
the Board.

Q: Is WWD leaning towards septic inspections?

A: Not to our knowledge. It does not appear that King County DOH has any indication to do so
either, based on discussions with employees there.

Q: The King County Comprehensive Plan differs from the COW Comprehensive Plan
(specifically R-4 vs. R-1 zoning). Is there pressure on WWD to get more customers due to
Brightwater?

A: No. Brightwater is supported by all of King County sewer customers – not just the
Brightwater customer base.

Q: How far along is the District in terms of its capacity?

A: We haven’t run the model yet. King County I/I has flow monitoring data within the District.
We are looking at sewage generation and seeing how that relates to the current capacity.

Q: Is WWD going to be proactive to run a sewer main to places which are not sewered?

A: The Board says that WWD will wait for a Developer’s request or until a property owner
wants to be served.

Q: WWD should know of road improvement plans to coordinate with sewer installation in
respect to overlays, etc.




                                                                                             9
A: COW is not always able to coordinate due to funding or permit constraints. COW current
standards call for only ½ street overlay. WWD is working with COW on an agreement to
provide full overlays for some projects.

Q: When the Plan is put together, how is it brought to WWD customers? Is there promotion
involved?

A: We are trying to develop the Plan now, in its preparation stages, with this group, which is the
interested customer base. The completed Plan will be available at WWD and COW for any
interested parties, and is available for sale if desired. The Plan is there for guidance. There is no
“selling” of the plan.




                                                                                                  10
                                   AGENDA
           CITIZEN’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)

                                 MEETING NO 2

                                  17 November 2004
                                       6:30pm



   •   Introductions
           o Woodinville Water District (WWD)
           o Berryman & Henigar (B&H)
           o Individuals

   •   Intent of this Meeting – discuss sewage collection alternatives
           o Requirement under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for Plan.
           o Our approach to the General Sewer Plan

   •   Background
          o Existing sewer system layout
          o WWD areas provided sewer service by other agencies
          o Urban Growth Area (UGA) – sewer service limited to parcels inside UGA
          o King County Comprehensive Plan exceptions for sewer service outside UGA

   •   Alternatives for Sewer Service Extensions
          o City of Woodinville
          o City of Bothell
          o City of Redmond
          o Northshore Utility District
          o Membrane treatment facility at Water District Campus
          o Northshore School District campuses not presently served
          o Other concerns outside the Urban Growth Area

   •   Topic and date for next meeting
          o Discuss Recommendations
          o Date of third meeting: January 2005

***Couple of large maps

***


                                                                                      11
                               Woodinville Water District
                           Citizen’s Advisory Committee
                                      Meeting No. 2
                                 November 17, 2004, 6:30pm

                                        Meeting Notes
Recorded by: Erika Schuyler

Attendees: Jeff Rickard, Gareth Grube, Edie Ochandarena, Leonard Mastrovito, Nicholas
Carlson, Pam Maloney, Ken McDowell (WWD), Debbie Rannfeldt (WWD), John Wilson
(B&H), Erika Schuyler (B&H)


John began the meeting with a discussion of what a General Sewer Plan is and what the WAC
requires in regards to the General Sewer Plan. A District map showing the sewered areas and
the non-sewered areas was presented.

Sewers will only be considered inside the UGA. Schools outside the UGA have the ability, by
law, to request sewer service, known as “tightlines”. Currently, most schools outside of the
UGA truck their sewage as the sites are not suitable for onsite disposal.

John mentioned that the last CAC meeting drew a good representation of customers from all
areas of the District.

The purpose of CAC Meeting No. 2 was to discuss sewage collection alternatives, specifically
concerning areas within the District that are served by other agencies for sewage collection
(Northshore Utility District and the City of Bothell) plus other alternatives.

Areas Currently Served by Others

These areas are served by NUD and Bothell for sewage collection but are District water
customers. There are eight diverse areas that have been analyzed thus far for possibly returning
the sewer customers that are served by NUD and Bothell but are within the District boundary
back to the District. Maps of these areas were displayed and are attached to these meeting
minutes.

   •   Area 1: Currently served by NUD. There is a boundary discrepancy between what the
       District shows and what NUD has on record. To capture the flows in this area, a pump
       station and approximately 2,700 lf of forcemain would be needed to tie into the WWD
       system. This option is not cost effective and would most likely not happen.

   •   Area 2: Currently served by NUD. A pump station would be necessary to serve the
       western portion of this area. The majority of the area could be directed into a short run of


                                                                                                12
       gravity sewer and would tie into the WWD system in the western portion of the Area.
       This is a feasible option as the District could pick up some of the customers currently
       served by NUD.

Q: Why should this happen?

A: There would then be one billing agency for both water and sewer instead of one for water
and one for sewer. WWD would benefit from additional customers, as would the rest of the
WWD customer base, as there is an economy of scale involved with the addition of more sewer
customers. Also, METRO might appreciate the flow entering into their system from the
Woodinville area.

   •   Area 3: Currently served by NUD. There is no real advantage to this option.
       Approximately 1,700 lf of gravity sewer would have to be placed to pick up the
       customers in this Area.

   •   Area 4: Currently served by NUD. A pump station would be needed to serve this area,
       along with a lengthy stretch of force main, which makes this option unlikely. There is no
       economic reason to go forth with this option due to the existing topography.

   •   Area 5: Currently served by NUD. A pump station, approximately 1,500 lf of force
       main and approximately 700 lf of gravity sewer pipe would be needed to tie into the
       WWD system. This option would be expensive to construct. There is a NUD line shown
       in this Area vicinity that appears to be going nowhere. At this time, this is the best
       information we have available, although obviously either this line has been abandoned or
       our record drawings have not been updated recently.

   •   Area 6: Currently served by NUD and routed to the City of Bothell’s system. To
       intercept the flows served by NUD, a pump station and approximately 910 lf of force
       main would be necessary. This option is possible, as the length of pipe involved is less
       than what is seen above.

   •   Area 7: Currently served by the City of Bothell. A pump station and approximately
       2,000 lf of force main would be necessary to intercept these flows. It is one thing to deal
       with NUD in the transfer of service, and another thing entirely to deal with a City. Cities
       are superior to special service districts and therefore, the transfer of service would be
       more difficult in this instance.

   •   Area 8: This Area has District owned and operated pipes, but the flows from these pipes
       flow into the City of Bothell’s system. WWD pays a wheeling charge to Bothell to
       handle these sewer customers. There would be a definite cost savings in transferring the
       discharge point to the WWD system, and also because future sewer service north of this
       area will naturally flow into these lines based on topography. To connect the WWD
       pipes to the WWD system, a gravity sewer of approximately 700 feet would be
       necessary. The only drawback to this option is that this gravity pipe would be directly
       under SR522, making this construction a bit difficult.


                                                                                               13
Future Piping

A District map showing the existing sewer pipes as well as future piping within the unserved
portions of the UGA was presented. The future pipes are determined based on elevations from a
topographic map; survey data is not known at this time. Sewers were laid into the unserved areas
with the hope of having as much gravity flow as possible.

Two pump stations appear to be necessary to serve the eastern portion of the District not
currently served within the UGA. Other areas of interest include the southern area of the District
(English Hill) where extensions would occur. The English Hill area is within the City of
Redmond’s annexation area. It is possible that Redmond would annex this area in the future.
However, for this Sewer General Plan, we not consider that possibility.

Reuse

Ken McDowell gave a MBR Plant update. The Kubota unit that is installed on the WWD
campus has been in the works for more than a year. A MBR is basically a filter that biologically
treats wastewater. The filter has holes the size of 1 micron; fecal coliform is 7 microns large, so
the fecal coliform is caught at the filter.

The District’s MBR is a 3,000 gpd size unit, and is all under ground. There are two existing
mound-type septic systems on the campus. In August 2003, the older mound failed. Ken was
approached by the distributor of the Kubota MBR unit at that point and was asked to place a pilot
system at the District office. The District expressed interest and began the process of obtaining a
unit.

The unit was installed four months ago. The District had to obtain permits from King County,
DOH, and DOE. King County Health issued the District a six-month pilot permit.

The District wants to make sure that the unit could handle the approximate 300 gpd that the
campus produces. The manufacturer said that this would work. Once the District is satisfied
with the operation of the unit, they will extend and invitation to the Northshore School District to
have them truck sewage (approximately 2,300 gpd) to the unit for treatment. Treated effluent
would be stored in a tank, and could then be used in the campus’ drip irrigation system.

Should the District disinfect the effluent, the disinfected effluent could be used in street
sweeping, above ground irrigation, or groundwater injection. It is possible that the wineries and
sod farms within the District boundary could use some of the reclaimed water for irrigation.
Rainy/winter weather poses a problem for reuse effluent; irrigation is not a viable option when
the ground is saturated. It is possible that the reuse could be used in a separate fire suppression
system and/or toilet system, but that would call for an additional water system which would cost
the District money.




                                                                                                 14
Since this is a pilot program, it is possible this will be potentially applied at the schools outside
of the UGA that are not sewered. The question arises: who would potentially operate the school
MBRs? Would the District or the school district?

Reuse is a necessary component is the Sewer General Plan.

King County treats all of the sewage. The District is not responsible for that. The District will
look at a complementary approach concerning water reuse in its Water Comprehensive Plan.


The meeting was then opened up for questions from the citizens.

Q: Why would the District care to consider adding the customers that are currently served by
NUD or Bothell but lie inside the WWD boundary?

A: This is just a method to see how potential issues could be solved. Costs will be presented to
the feasible alternatives in the third CAC meeting. In the case of Bothell, there might be a cost
savings to them because they would not be servicing the flows of the District customers.
However, Bothell may not even consider returning these customers to the District, nor do they
have to entertain the idea since they are a more dominant agency.

Q: What about the surcharge cost on top of the Bothell rates? Isn’t Bothell making money off of
these customers?

A: Bothell has different rates than WWD. The surcharge to Bothell would exist forever; if the
District were to put the pipe in and operate/maintain it, the surcharge would not exist.

Q: Is the cost the customer pays based on water usage?

A: Yes, customers pay on a quantity basis. Bothell receives water meter readings from the
District for the WWD customers they serve to determine sewer rates for these customers outside
of the Bothell service area. The cost is higher than what the District would charge. Obtaining
the “served by others” areas would bring existing and future service areas together.

Q: Area 8 seems like the most logical of the alternatives presented.

A: Yes, as is Area 2, which would just necessitate a short run of gravity pipe. The question is,
“is it worth it economically?” That question will be answered during the next meeting.

Q: Who will pay for capital costs? The customers, future customers, or the District?

A: Sewer improvement charges are generated by existing customers for future improvements.
There are also developer extension charges that may be considered, as well as potential rate
increases.

Q: Is this in coordination with Brightwater?



                                                                                                  15
A: No. This is a WWD problem, not a King County issue. King County treats the wastewater,
as well as decides where it flows. This is based on an agreement between King County and
WWD.

Q: Would King County put in lines to serve these areas?

A: No, WWD would do that. King County serves the District for conveyance purposes only.

Q: Why have the schools not asked to be sewered?

A: A tightline could serve the schools outside of the UGA. However, these lines would be
extremely long, and there is no provision in the law for any entity to pay except for the school
itself. It may be cheaper to the school to haul the sewage, even if it costs $100,000 per year to do
so. A Kubota MBR unit would cost the school approximately $50,000-60,000 for a 3,000 gpd
unit, but then the question arises as to where the effluent goes. A school could install a treatment
unit to treat the blackwater, separate out the solids from the water and send the water through a
smaller diameter pipe. This would be a less expensive method of conveyance to the District’s
sewer line.

Q: If WWD begins to manage small satellite treatment systems, is the District headed towards a
community drain field program? Does the District have a mission statement stating water quality
parameters?

A: The WWD Board is against the idea of a Community Drain Field Program. The rough policy
is “WWD doesn’t currently have a Community Drain Field Program, nor has it ever, nor will it
ever.”

Q: Who will manage the drain fields if King County doesn’t?

A: Currently, there is one King County Department of Health inspector.

Q: Is the District considering treatment options?

A: The Kubota unit is a treatment measure. Metro will not allow for treatment of anything
based on the contract established with WWD. WWD only conveys to Metro. Metro is probably
not too thrilled with the Kubota unit.

In the instance of a failing septic system surrounded by sewered areas, an MBR might be a good
fit.

It is not up to the District to build a sewer to serve unserved areas. The people wanting service
must ask (ULID, developer extension, etc.). The District could front the money if it was
available. There should be a policy to sewer failing areas within the UGA.




                                                                                                 16
Q: Does the District have an idea of how many failed septic systems there are within the
District?

A: No, nor does King County DOH. In years past, there have been sanitary surveys done in
areas of concern, but these cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. If the survey does not
show over 50 percent of the septic systems failing, then nothing is done.

Q: Are new connections treated differently?

A: Only if there is a benefit to the customer. There are only a few instances of this possibly
happening.

Q: Are there any requests for customers to be transferred from either NUD or Bothell to WWD?

A: None are known; some are not feasible.

Q: Is it cost effective for Redmond to take the English Hill area?

A: The developers paid for the lines to be installed and WWD administers. The English Hill
area is home to the District’s two pump stations, so that is a bit more effort and cost for the
District, as well as the location of this area (a bit further from other sewered areas within the
District).

Redmond put a parallel pipe to the District’s line on 124th after the District had already done so.
Redmond feels they have capacity in this parallel line to carry the flow from the English Hill
area. It is possible that Redmond might annex the English Hill area in the future, since it is
within the City of Redmond’s GMA area.

Q: Can the lines be used as joint use lines?

A: Ken has yet to see this happen. Although it is possible with an interlocal agreement.

Q: Is Metro considering a line to serve Avondale?

A: There is a sewer out to serve Redmond Ridge. Metro “tightlined” this area, since it is outside
of the UGA, and therefore, only the Redmond Ridge area can be served by the tightline.

Q: Is it possible to see a UGA extension?

A: By law, the UGA is reviewed every 12 years. King County will only change the UGA if
there is a compelling reason to do so. Other counties do it differently. Within the WWD: not
for a long time.

Q: Who pays for a tightline?

A: The school would.



                                                                                                17
Q: Does Metro have plans to build a sewer in the District area?

A: No.

Q: Does the Plan include District Policies?

A: There are policy statements included within the document. Certain policies are required by
the State.

Q: Will the report mention the CAC?

A: There will be an element included in the Plan addressing the CAC meetings and summarizing
citizen concerns.

The meeting was then concluded.

The next meeting is scheduled for January at which point recommendations will be given.




                                                                                          18
                               AGENDA
        CITIZEN’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)

                              MEETING NO 3

                                   6 July 2005
                                     7:30pm



•   Introductions
        o Woodinville Water District (WWD)
        o Berryman & Henigar (B&H)
        o Individuals

•   Intent of this Meeting – review Plan results
        o Requirement under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for Plan.
        o Our approach to the General Sewer Plan

•   Modeling Results
      o Existing System
      o System at Build-out

•   Capital Improvement Program
       o List of Desired Capital Improvements
       o Estimated Project Costs
       o Prioritized Listing

•   Completion of General Sewer Plan
      o Financial Program
      o Review by District and Adjacent Agencies
      o Adoption and Approval




                                                                             19
          APPENDIX D

SEPA Checklist and Determination
                               WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist.
                                ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

                             WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                                GENERAL SEWER PLAN

Purpose of Checklist:
        The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental
agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the
quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the
agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be
done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
         This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal
are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise
information known, or give the best description you can.
         You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most
cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the
need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal,
write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary
delays later.
         Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can
assist you.
         The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period
of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your
proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain
your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant
adverse impact.
Use of Checklist for Non-project Proposals:

          Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not
apply."
          IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).

        For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and
"property or site"
        should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.


A.   BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:

          Woodinville Water District 2005 General Sewer Plan

                                                                                                             1
2. Name of applicant:

        Woodinville Water District

3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:

        17238 NE Woodinville-Duval Road
        PO Box 1390
        Woodinville, WA 98072-1390
        Attn: Ken McDowell, Engineering Supervisor
               425-487-4104

4. Date checklist prepared:

        3 October 2005

5. Agency requesting checklist:

        Woodinville Water District

6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):

        Capital Improvement Program is described in four Priorities with a total of twelve defined projects
        to be implemented during the next six years, though specific implementation dates are not assigned
        to any individual project.

7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this
proposal? If yes, explain.

        Maps are included show conceptually how sewers will be extended throughout the Urban Growth
        Area where right-of-ways exist. Some larger parcels will eventually be subdivided in ways that can
        not be foreseen and will require additional sewer extensions. Topography generally indicates the
        direction sewer service will take for these parcels; however, these routes and alignments for these
        extensions have not been provided and will await specific plans from the property developers.

8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly
related to this proposal.

        None known at this time.

9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly
affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.

        None known


                                                                                                             2
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.

        King County
        City of Woodinville
        City of Bothell
        City of Redmond
        Northshore Utility District

11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the
project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of
your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form
to include additional specific information on project description.)

        The General Sewer Plan provides a description of the existing Woodinville Water District sewer
        system serving about 2,500 customers within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) contained inside the
        water service area for the District. The system includes about 42 miles of sewer mains ranging from
        8 to 18-inches in diameter. There are two existing sewage lift stations owned and operated by the
        District and three siphons. Three of the existing manholes include bypasses that allow high
        wastewater flows to be diverted into other sewer trunks if conditions warrant. No overflows are
        known to have occurred in recent years excepted on rare occasions when a sewer became plugged
        by roots, grease, or debris. All wastewater collected within the Urban Growth Area is delivered
        through 13 connections to the King County Wastewater Division sewer interception system for
        treatment and disposal.

        The majority of the District area is outside the Urban Growth Area and not served by sewers. The
        District operates a small membrane bioreactor wastewater treatment facility for the Water District
        campus. Eight schools and a shopping mall outside the UGA presently have holding tanks and haul
        sewage into the sewered area for discharge into the District system and treatment by King County.

        The General Sewer Plan identifies needed improvements to the sewer system as twelve projects to
        be implemented during the next six years. Mapping is provided to conceptually indicate how sewers
        will be extended in existing right-of-ways to eventually serve all parcels within the UGA. These
        sewer extensions will occur and be built by the developers as their needs and interests materialize.

12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of
your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a
proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit
any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with
any permit applications related to this checklist.

        The Woodinville Water District is located in northern King County, generally from about NE 124th
        Street north to the County boundary, and from about 120th Avenue NE east to about 240th Avenue
        NE. However, the Urban Growth Area where sewer service is allowed is limited to the western part
        of this District, and only part of this area is currently served.


                                                                                                               3
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT                                                                            EVALUATION FOR
                                                                                                       AGENCY USE ONLY
B.   ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS

1. Earth

a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
    other . . . . . .
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?                 About 50 %

c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
   muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime
   farmland.

        The Alderwood Association
        The Everett Association
        The Puget-Earlmount-Snohomish Association

d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
   describe.

        Some slides are known to have occurred in past years.

e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
   Indicate source of fill.

        Proposed improvements will occur within existing sewer alignments, generally by pipe lining, pipe
        bursting, or horizontal directional drilling without significant excavation.

f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.

        Construction site will be managed in accordance with King County and the City of Woodinville
        requirements. No significant erosion is anticipated.

g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
   construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?

        Project does not envision any significant increase in impervious surfaces except possibly for the
        proposed Decant/Dump site. This facility may be sited in an area that is already paved, but if it is not
        then the additional paved area is not expected to exceed 20,000 square feet.

h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:

        Best Management Practices (BMP) as defined by King County and the City of Woodinville will be
        required by construction documents and enforced by District inspection.


                                                                                                              4
2. Air

a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile,
   odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If
   any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.

         Some dust and engine exhausts will occur during construction. These emissions will be small
         because the projects are not large. No additional emissions will result from the completed projects.
         In fact some odor reduction may be experienced once the Decant/Dump Facility is constructed.

b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
   generally describe.

         No

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:

         Dust control and exhaust emissions will be in accordance with the Puget Sound Air
         Pollution Control Agency regulations.

3. Water

a. Surface:

    1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
       year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
       type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.

         The dominant stream is the Sammamish River. It has two principal tributaries within the District:
         Little Bear Creek and Woodinville Creek. There are three notable lakes within the District but
         outside the Urban Growth Area: Cottage Lake, Paradise Lake and Welcome Lake. Lake Leota is
         within the UGA, though the Lake vicinity is not presently served with sewers.

    2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
       waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.

         Some work for certain projects will occur within 200 feet of the streams.

    3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
       from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
       Indicate the source of fill material.

         None

    4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
       description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.

         No
                                                                                                           5
    5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.

        Some parts of the sewer service area are within the 100-year flood plain for the Sammamish River,
        and several of the proposed improvements involve these elements of the sewer system.

    6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
       describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.

        No

b. Ground:
    1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
       general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.

        Some proposed projects will involve dewatering of the construction site. No construction plans have
        been prepared so no quantities are yet known.

    2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
       other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
       following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
       number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number
       of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.

        None

c. Water Runoff (including stormwater):

    1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
       and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
       Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.

        The only proposed project that may general additional stormwater runoff would be the
        Decant/Dump Facility. Such runoff will be managed in accordance with the King County
        “Stormawater Management Manual”.

    2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.

        No

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:

        Surface water impacts will be managed in accordance with the King County “Stormwater
        Management Manual”.

4. Plants

                                                                                                         6
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
         deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
         evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
         shrubs
         grass
         pasture
         crop or grain
         wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
         water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
         other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?

        None

c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.

        None

d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
   vegetation on the site, if any:

        None

5. Animals

a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on
        or near the site:
                   birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
                   mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
                   fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:

b.      List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.

        Bald eagles

c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.

        Pacific Flyway

d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:

        None

6. Energy and Natural Resources



                                                                                                     7
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet
   the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
   manufacturing, etc.

        No additional energy needs are known

b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
   If so, generally describe.

        No

c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?
   List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:

        Water conservation and reuse is encouraged by the District to reduce energy and other demands on
        natural resources.

7. Environmental Health

a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk
   of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?
   If so, describe.

        Sewerage system does involve potential exposure to sewage, though no specific health hazards are
        created by the proposed projects for the public or the workers involved.

   1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.

        Rescue from a confine space like a manhole or a trench could be required.

   2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:

        Standard confined space safety equipment is available and used by District personnel.

b. Noise
    1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
       traffic, equipment, operation, other)?

        None

    2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
       short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
       Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.

        Some noise will be generated during construction. None by the completed projects.


                                                                                                      8
    3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:

         Noise levels and work hours will be regulated by King County and the City of Woodinville.



8. Land and Shoreline Use

a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?

  District sewer service area and the UGA have a variety of land uses as shown in the General
Sewer Plan.

b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.

   In years past, some parcels within the UGA were used for agriculture.

c. Describe any structures on the site.

   Not applicable

d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?

   N/A

e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?

   Zoning within the UGA is mixed as shown on the zoning maps included within the General Sewer Plan.

f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?

   The Urban Growth Area is designated by King County.

g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?

         N/A

h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?
        If so, specify.

         Areas along the streams and lakes are so designated, particularly regarding habitat areas. The steeper
         slopes are also listed for potential slides.

i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?




                                                                                                             9
         The District currently serves about 2,500 sewer customers, or about 7,000 people. At build-out of
         the existing UGA the City of Woodinville projects a population in 2025 of about 12,700 people, and
         the total populations served by the District sewer system is projected to be about 18,000 people.

j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?

         None

k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
       N/A

l.   Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
     uses and plans, if any:

         General Sewer Plan has been prepared with cooperation from the City of Woodinville planning staff
         and has been circulated to affected agencies for their comments.

9. Housing

a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
   middle, or low-income housing.

         N/A

b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
   middle, or low-income housing.

         N/A

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:

         N/A

10. Aesthetics

a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is
   the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?

         N/A

b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?

         N/A

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:


                                                                                                        10
        N/A

11. Light and Glare

a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
   occur?

        N/A

b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?

        N/A

c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?

        N/A

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:

        N/A

12. Recreation

a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?

        City of Woodinville has several parks within the UGA, and King County has parks within the
        District though outside the UGA.

b.      Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.

        No

c.      Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
        opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:

        Not applicable

13. Historic and Cultural Preservation

a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
   preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.

        N/A

b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
   cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.


                                                                                                     11
        N/A

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:

        N/A

14. Transportation

a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
   existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.

        Streets are shown in the figures included in the General Sewer Plan.

b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
   nearest transit stop?

        King County Metro and Sound Transit operate a number of bus routes with various stops throughout
        the Plan area.

c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
   project eliminate?

        No parking will be created or required, except possibly at the Decant/Dump Facility; and the
        number of spaces there will be determined during final design. No spaces are proposed for
        elimination.

d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
   streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
   private).

        N/A

e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
   transportation? If so, generally describe.

        Several proposed projects will occur in existing street right-of-ways, and a few will be near a
        railroad alignment.

f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?
   If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.

        N/A

g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:

        N/A

                                                                                                          12
15. Public Services

a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
   protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.

            Proposed projects will not generate any additional need for public services, though these projects
            will facilitate developments allowed by adopted land use plans that will need additional services.

b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.

            Not applicable

16. Utilities

a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water,
   refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.

b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
   and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might
   be needed.

            Project involves improvements to sewer service within the area designated to receive such service.

C.    SIGNATURE

The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.

Signature:


Date Submitted: ....................................................................................................................................................




                                                                                                                                                                 13
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT                                                                              EVALUATION FOR
                                                                                                         AGENCY USE ONLY

D.      SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS

                                   (do not use this sheet for project actions)

        Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
        with the list of the elements of the environment.

        When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
        activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or
        at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general
         terms.

1.      How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
        production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?

        The General Sewer Plan in and of itself does not result in any increases. It does provide for some
        additional capacity in the District sewer system that will facilitate development of parcels within the
        Urban Growth Area in accordance with the relevant approved land use plans

Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:

        Not applicable

2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?

        The General Sewer Plan has no direct or indirect affect on such life forms.

Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:

        Not applicable

3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?

        The General Sewer Plan is not likely to deplete any natural resources.

Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:

        Several of the projects included in the Capital Improvement Program are intended to improve
        operating efficiencies of the sewer system; and therefore conserve natural resources. The Plan also
        promotes conservation of potable water and the reuse of wastewater.

4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
   areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks,
   wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
   cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?

                                                                                                             14
        The General Sewer Plan will not affect or use such areas.

Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:

        Not applicable

5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
   would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?

        The General Sewer Plan facilitates land and shoreline uses in accordance with adopted land
        use plans. It is not incompatible with any of these plans.

Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:

        Not applicable

6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
   services and utilities?

        Not applicable

Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:

        Not applicable

7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
   requirements for the protection of the environment.

        No such conflicts have been identified.




                                                                                                     15
             APPENDIX E

Estimates of Capital Improvement Costs
                                                 WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                            Improvement 1: Upgrade Sewer at Woodinville Redmond Road & NE 160th Street
                                                                                                                     Project Number: 40278.01
                                                                                                                                 4/19/05 - DN
Item No.                              Item Description                                  Unit       Quantity      Unit Price      Amount
    1      Mobilization                                                                  LS                  1        $25,000         $25,000
    2      Traffic Control Labor & Equip                                                 LS                  1           7,500          7,500
    3      Dewatering                                                                    LS                  1         60,000          60,000
    4      Sheeting, Shoring & Bracing                                                   LS                  1         10,000          10,000
    5      Sawcutting Pavement                                                           LF                150               4            600
    6      Pavement Removal                                                             SY                  70              20          1,400
    7      Remove Manhole                                                               EA                   7             500          3,500
    8      Temporary Sewer Bypass                                                        LS                  1         10,000          10,000
    9      Pipe Bursting, Ex 8" to 12" Dia.                                              LF              1640               80        131,200
   10      8-Inch Sanitary Sewer, PVC                                                    LF                 40              60          2,400
   11      10-Inch Sanitary Sewer, PVC                                                   LF                140              70          9,800
   12      12-Inch Sanitary Sewer, PVC                                                   LF                190              80         15,200
   13      48-Inch Dia. Manhole, 0' - 8' Depth                                          EA                   7           4,000         28,000
   14      48-Inch Dia. Manhole, Extra Depth                                            VF                   8             250          2,000
   15      R.R. Crossing, Jacked or Bored, 18-inch Casing, 0.312 W.T.                    LS                  1         28,000          28,000
   16      Side Sewer Connections, 6" PVC                                               EA                   7           1,500         10,500
   17      Remove & Replace Unsuitable Material                                         TN                 200              45          9,000
   18      Gravel Borrow for Trench Backfill                                            TN                 300              30          9,000
   19      Crushed Surfacing, Base Course                                               TN                  18              25            450
   20      Crushed Surfacing, Top Course                                                TN                  35              25            875
   21      HMA for Trench Patch, CL 1/2, PG 58-22                                       TN                  22             150          3,300
   22      Sodding                                                                      SY                 500              10          5,000
   23      Seed, Fertilize & Mulch                                                      SY                 400               1            400
   24      Cleanup & Restoration                                                         LS                  1           5,000          5,000
                                                                                                                     Subtotal        $378,125
                                                                                                            40% Contingencies        $151,250
                                                                                                                      Subtotal       $529,375
                                                                                                         8.8% State Sales Tax         $46,585
                                                                                            Estimated Total Construction Cost        $575,960
           Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                             $5,000
           Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical & Permits                                                                         $60,000
           Construction Inspection                                                                                                    $40,000
           Project Administration                                                                                                     $10,000
                                                                                                       Estimated Project Costs       $115,000
                                               Estimated Total Project Costs                                                         $690,960

 S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                   WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                          Improvement 2: Reline Sewer in Woodinville Snohomish Rd from NE 175th to NE 185th

                                                                                                                                       40278.01.012
                                                                                                                                        4/25/05 - DN
   Item No.                             Item Description                                 Unit          Quantity    Unit Price            Amount
       1        Mobilization                                                             LS               1            $20,000              $20,000
       2        Temporary Erosion Control                                                LS               1              7,500                 7,500
       3        Traffic Control                                                          HR              528                 40               21,120
       4        Trench Safety System                                                     LS               1             10,000                10,000
       5        Dewatering                                                               LS               1             13,000                13,000
       6        Clean & Reline 15" Ø Pipe                                                 LF            3709                 50             185,450
       7        Side Sewer Connection                                                    EA              20                 500               10,000
       8        Gravel Borrow, Including Haul                                            TN              320                 26                8,320
       9        Crushed Surfacing, Base Course                                           TN              38                  24                  912
      10        Crushed Surfacing, Top Course                                            TN              19                  24                  456
      11        HMA, CL ½, PG 58-22                                                      TN              20                 100                2,000
      12        Cleanup & Restoration                                                    LS               1              5,000                 5,000
                                                                                                                    Sub-Total              $283,758
                                                                                                             30% Contingencies                85,127
                                                                                                                     Sub-Total              368,885
                                                                                                                8.8% Sales Tax                32,462
                                                                                             Estimated Total Construction Cost             $401,347
                Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                               $5,000
                Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                                $40,000
                Construction Inspection                                                                                                     $30,000
                Project Administration                                                                                                      $10,000
                                                                                                          Estimated Project Costs           $85,000
                                                 Estimated Total Project Costs                                                             $486,347




S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                   WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                            Improvement 3: Reline Sewer in Woodinville Snohomish Rd from NE 185th to 195th

                                                                                                                                       40278.01.012
                                                                                                                                        4/25/05 - DN
   Item No.                             Item Description                                 Unit          Quantity    Unit Price            Amount
       1        Mobilization                                                             LS               1            $25,000              $25,000
       2        Temporary Erosion Control                                                LS               1              5,000                $5,000
       3        Traffic Control                                                          HR              160                 40               $6,400
       4        Trench Safety System                                                      LF             600                  2               $1,200
       5        Sewage Bypass Pumping                                                    HR              80                 100               $8,000
       6        Dewatering                                                               LS               1              9,750                $9,750
       7        Pipe Bursting, 8" to 10" Pipe                                             LF             294                 80             $23,520
       8        Pipe Bursting, 15" to 18" Pipe                                            LF            2546                100            $254,600
       9        Side Sewer Connection                                                    EA              15                 500               $7,500
      10        Rechannel manholes                                                       EA              14                 400               $5,600
      11        Gravel Borrow, Including Haul                                            TN              588                 26             $15,288
      12        Crushed Surfacing, Base Course                                           TN              57                  24               $1,368
      13        Crushed Surfacing, Top Course                                            TN              29                  24                $696
      14        HMA, CL ½, PG 58-22                                                      TN              31                 100               $3,100
      15        Cleanup & Restoration                                                    LS               1              5,000                $5,000
                                                                                                                    Sub-Total              $372,022
                                                                                                             30% Contingencies              111,607
                                                                                                                     Sub-Total              483,629
                                                                                                                8.8% Sales Tax                42,559
                                                                                             Estimated Total Construction Cost             $526,188
                Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                               $5,000
                Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                                $50,000
                Construction Inspection                                                                                                     $40,000
                Project Administration                                                                                                      $10,000
                                                                                                          Estimated Project Costs          $105,000
                                                 Estimated Total Project Costs                                                             $631,188




S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                    WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                                          Improvement 4: Sewer Replacement Manholes 116 to 110

                                                                                                                                       40278.01.012
                                                                                                                                        4/25/05 - DN
   Item No.                             Item Description                                 Unit          Quantity    Unit Price            Amount
       1        Mobilization                                                             LS               1            $15,000              $15,000
       2        Temporary Erosion Control                                                LS               1              7,500                $7,500
       3        Traffic Control                                                          HR              80                  40               $3,200
       4        Trench Safety System                                                      LF            1550                  2               $3,100
       5        Sewage Bypass Pumping                                                    HR              64                 100               $6,400
       6        Dewatering                                                               LS               1             10,000              $10,000
       7        Replace 8" San. Sewer Pipe                                                LF            1550                 50             $77,500
       8        Side Sewer Connection                                                    EA               5                 500               $2,500
       9        Rechannel Manholes                                                       EA               7                 400               $2,800
      10        Gravel Borrow, Including Haul                                            TN             1200                 26             $31,200
      11        Crushed Surfacing, Base Course                                           TN              60                  24               $1,440
      12        Crushed Surfacing, Top Course                                            TN              30                  24                $720
      13        HMA, CL ½, PG 58-22                                                      TN              31                 100               $3,100
      14        Sodding                                                                  SY             2750                  7             $19,250
      15        Cleanup & Restoration                                                    LS               1             10,000              $10,000
                                                                                                                    Sub-Total              $193,710
                                                                                                             30% Contingencies                58,113
                                                                                                                     Sub-Total              251,823
                                                                                                                8.8% Sales Tax                22,160
                                                                                             Estimated Total Construction Cost             $273,983
                Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                               $4,000
                Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                                $30,000
                Construction Inspection                                                                                                     $20,000
                Project Administration                                                                                                        $8,000
                                                                                                          Estimated Project Costs           $62,000
                                                 Estimated Total Project Costs                                                             $335,983




S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                    WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                                            Improvement 5: Manhole Repairs in 144th Avenue NE

                                                                                                                                       40278.01.012
                                                                                                                                        4/25/05 - DN
   Item No.                             Item Description                                 Unit          Quantity    Unit Price            Amount
       1        Mobilization                                                             LS               1             $2,000                $2,000
       2        Traffic Control                                                          HR              80                  40               $3,200
       3        Sewage Bypass Pumping                                                    HR              40                 100               $4,000
       4        Rechannel Manholes                                                       EA              10                 700               $7,000
       5        Cleanup & Restoration                                                    LS               1              2,500                $2,500
                                                                                                                    Sub-Total               $18,700
                                                                                                             20% Contingencies                $3,740
                                                                                                                     Sub-Total              $22,440
                                                                                                                8.8% Sales Tax                $1,975
                                                                                             Estimated Total Construction Cost              $24,415
                Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                               $2,000
                Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                                  $5,000
                Construction Inspection                                                                                                       $3,000
                Project Administration                                                                                                        $2,000
                                                                                                          Estimated Project Costs           $12,000
                                                 Estimated Total Project Costs                                                              $36,415




S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                  WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                                         Improvement 6: Infiltration Rehabilitation at Siphon No 1

                                                                                                                                40278.01.012
                                                                                                                                 4/25/05 - DN
Item No.                     Item Description                          Unit           Quantity      Unit Price                Amount
    1      Mobilization                                                LS                1               $10,000                     $10,000
    2      Sewage Bypass Pumping                                       HR               120                  100                     $12,000
    3      Remove Wet Well No 2 Interior Concrete                      LS                1                 1,500                       $1,500
    4      Core Drill Wet Well Wall & Inject Grout                     EA               10                 1,000                     $10,000
    5      Reconstruct Wet Well No 2 Interior                          LS                1                   700                        $700
    6      Remove PLC & Install RTU for Siphons 1 & 2                  LS                1                15,000                     $15,000
    7      Core Drill Manhole 935 & Inject Grout                       EA                6                 1,000                       $6,000
    8      Cleanup & Restoration                                       LS                1                 2,500                       $2,500
                                                                                                      Sub-Total                      $57,700
                                                                                              50% Contingencies                        28,850
                                                                                                      Sub-Total                        86,550
                                                                                                 8.8% Sales Tax                         7,616
                                                                              Estimated Total Construction Cost                      $94,166
           Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                             $4,000
           Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                              $10,000
           Construction Inspection                                                                                                     $8,000
           Project Administration                                                                                                      $5,000
                                                                                            Estimated Project Cost                   $27,000
                                          Estimated Total Project Cost                                                              $121,166




S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                         WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                                                 Improvement 7: Intercept NUD Customers into WWD

                                                                                                                          Project Number: 40278.01.012
                                                                                                                                           4/22/05 - DN
   Item No.                                Item Description                                      Unit        Quantity       Unit Price      Amount
       1        Mobilization                                                                     LS              1                $5,000         $5,000
       2        Temporary Erosion Control                                                        LS              1                 2,000         $2,000
       3        Traffic Control                                                                  HR              40                   40         $1,600
       4        Clearing & Grubbing                                                              LS              1                 1,000         $1,000
       5        Trench Safety System                                                              LF           1500                    2         $3,000
       6        Sawcut Existing Pavement                                                          LF            500                    2         $1,000
       7        Dewatering                                                                       LS              1                12,000       $12,000
       8        Gravel Borrow Including Haul                                                     TN             800                   26       $20,800
       9        Crushed Surfacing, Top Course                                                    TN              30                   24           $720
      10        Crushed Surfacing, Base Course                                                   TN              50                   24         $1,200
      11        HMA, CL1/2, PG 58-22                                                             TN              30                  100         $3,000
      12        Cement Concrete Curb & Gutter                                                     LF             20                   40           $800
      13        Cement Concrete Sidewalk                                                         SY              3                    40           $120
      13        8" Gravity Sewer, PVC, SDR 35                                                     LF            250                   30         $7,500
      14        10" Gravity, Sewer, PVC, SDR 35                                                   LF           1200                   35       $42,000
      15        Connect to Exisitng                                                              EA              2                 2,500         $5,000
      16        48" Manhole, 8 to 12 feet Depth                                                  EA              3                 2,000         $6,000
      17        48" Manhole, 15 feet Depth                                                       EA              1                 5,000         $5,000
      18        48" Manhole Built over Existing Sewer                                            EA              1                 4,000         $4,000
      19        Sodding                                                                          SY              10                   20           $200
      20        Cleanup & Restoration                                                            LS              1                 5,000          5,000
                                                                                                                               Sub-Total      $126,940
                                                                                                                     40% Contingencies           50,776
                                                                                                                               Sub-Total      $177,716
                                                                                                                         8.8% Sales Tax          15,639
                                                                                                     Estimated Total Construction Cost        $193,355
                Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                                  $3,000
                Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                                   $20,000
                Construction Inspection                                                                                                        $16,000
                Project Administration                                                                                                           $5,000
                                                                                                                 Estimated Project Costs       $44,000
                                                     Estimated Total Project Costs                                                            $237,355


S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                       WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                                 Improvement 8: Intercept WWD Customers Discharging to Bothell Sewer System

                                                                                                                          Project Number: 40278.01.012
                                                                                                                                           4/22/05 - DN
   Item No.                               Item Description                                       Unit        Quantity       Unit Price      Amount
       1        Mobilization                                                                     LS              1               $15,000       $15,000
       2        Temporary Erosion Control                                                        LS              1                 1,000          1,000
       3        Traffic Control                                                                  HR              80                   40          3,200
       4        Clearing & Grubbing                                                              LS              1                 1,000          1,000
       5        Trench Safety System                                                              LF            460                    2            920
       6        Sawcut Existing Pavement                                                          LF            920                    2          1,840
       7        Dewatering                                                                       LS              1                20,000         20,000
       8        Gravel Borrow Including Haul                                                     TN             240                   26          6,240
       9        Crushed Surfacing Top Course                                                     TN             15                    24            360
      10        Crushed Surfacing Base Course                                                    TN             30                    24            720
      11        HMA, CL1/2, PG 58-22                                                             TN              16                  100          1,600
      12        Cement Concrete Curb & Gutter                                                     LF             20                   40            800
      13        Cement Concrete Sidewalk                                                         SY              6                    40            240
      14        8" Gravity, Sewer, PVC, SDR 35                                                    LF            460                   32         14,720
      15        SR522 Jacked Crossing, 18" Ø Casing, Including 8" Carrier Pipe                    LS             1                87,500         87,500
      16        48" Ø Manhole, 15' ± Depth                                                       EA               3                4,000         12,000
      17        Connect to Exisitng                                                              EA              2                 2,500          5,000
      18        Sodding                                                                          SY              6                    20            120
      19        Seed, Fertilize & Mulch                                                          SY             350                   10          3,500
      20        Cleanup & Restoration                                                            LS              1                 7,500          7,500
                                                                                                                              Sub-Total       $183,260
                                                                                                                      40% Contingencies        $73,304
                                                                                                                               Sub-Total      $256,564
                                                                                                                         8.8% Sales Tax        $22,578
                                                                                                     Estimated Total Construction Cost        $279,142
                Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                                  $4,000
                Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                                   $30,000
                Construction Inspection                                                                                                        $25,000
                Project Administration                                                                                                           $5,000
                                                                                                                 Estimated Project Costs       $64,000
                                                     Estimated Total Project Costs                                                            $343,142



S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                    WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                                           Improvement 9: English Hills Lift Station Rehabilitation

                                                                                                                                  40278.01.012
                                                                                                                                   4/25/05 - DN
 Item No.                     Item Description                         Unit        Quantity      Unit Price                     Amount
     1      Mobilization                                               LS             1                   $5,000                         $5,000
     2      Furnish & Install RTU & Electrical Panels                  LS             1                   20,000                       $20,000
     3      Switch Over Lift Station Operation                         LS             1                    1,500                         $1,500
     4      Remove Old Electric Panels                                 LS             1                    2,500                         $2,500
     5      Cleanup & Restoration                                      LS             1                    2,000                         $2,000
                                                                                                      Sub-Total                        $31,000
                                                                                               30% Contingencies                         $9,300
                                                                                                       Sub-Total                       $40,300
                                                                                                  8.8% Sales Tax                         $3,546
                                                                               Estimated Total Construction Cost                       $43,846
            Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                              $3,000
            Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                                 $5,000
            Construction Inspection                                                                                                      $3,000
            Project Administration                                                                                                       $2,000
                                                                                              Estimated Project Cost                   $13,000
                                           Estimated Total Project Cost                                                                $56,846




S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                 WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                                    Improvement 10: Acquire & Develop Sewage Decant/Dump Site

                                                                                                                              40278.01.012
                                                                                                                               4/25/05 - DN
Item No.                      Item Description                            Unit         Quantity     Unit Price               Amount
    1      Mobilization                                                    LS             1             $10,000                    $10,000
    2      Clearing & Grading                                              LS             1              $3,000                      $3,000
    3      Dewatering                                                      LS             1              $8,000                      $8,000
    4      Underground Sedimentation Tank                                 CF             700                $30                    $21,000
    5      Decant Pad and Piping                                           LS             1               5,000                      $5,000
    6      Access Road and Turn-Around                                    SF            3000                   2                     $6,000
    7      Metering Facility                                               LS             1               6,000                      $6,000
    8      Fencing & Site Improvements                                     LS            40                 100                      $4,000
    9      Auxilary Office Building                                       SF             500                 60                    $30,000
   10      Electrical Service Modifications                                LS             1               2,000                      $2,000
   11      Erosion Control & Surface Water Management                      LS             1               3,000                      $3,000
   12      Cleanup & Restoration                                           LS             1               2,500                      $2,500
                                                                                                      Sub-Total                   $100,500
                                                                                              40% Contingencies                    $40,200
                                                                                                      Sub-Total                   $140,700
                                                                                                 8.8% Sales Tax                    $12,382
                                                                              Estimated Total Construction Cost                   $153,082
           Site Acquisition                                                                                                       $600,000
           Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                           $5,000
           Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                            $20,000
           Construction Inspection                                                                                                 $15,000
           Project Administration                                                                                                    $5,000
                                                                                            Estimated Project Cost                $645,000
                                          Estimated Total Project Cost                                                            $798,082




S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                                      Improvement 11: Enclose & Heat North Bay of Building "E"

                                                                                                                             40278.01.012
                                                                                                                              4/25/05 - DN
Item No.                      Item Description                         Unit        Quantity     Unit Price                 Amount
    1      Mobilization                                                LS             1               $3,000                        $3,000
    2      Structural Ceiling & Storage Area                           SF            800                   60                     $48,000
    3      Interior Wall & Insullation                                 SF            500                   20                     $10,000
    4      Heating & Ventilation                                       LS             1                 4,000                       $4,000
    5      Lighting & Electrical Modifications                         LS             1                 7,000                       $7,000
    6      Interior Finish & Hardware                                  LS             1                 2,000                       $2,000
    7      Cleanup & Restoration                                       LS             1                 2,000                       $2,000
                                                                                                   Sub-Total                      $76,000
                                                                                           40% Contingencies                        30,400
                                                                                                   Sub-Total                      106,400
                                                                                              8.8% Sales Tax                         9,363
                                                                           Estimated Total Construction Cost                     $115,763
           Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                          $3,000
           Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                           $15,000
           Construction Inspection                                                                                                  $8,000
           Project Administration                                                                                                   $3,000
                                                                                          Estimated Project Cost                  $29,000
                                         Estimated Total Project Cost                                                            $144,763




S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
                                                      WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT
                                                 Improvement 12: Locate & Raise Manhole 6C

                                                                                                                                       40278.01.012
                                                                                                                                        4/25/05 - DN
   Item No.                             Item Description                                 Unit          Quantity    Unit Price            Amount
       1        Mobilization                                                             LS               1               $500                 $500
       2        Traffic Control                                                          HR              16                  40                $640
       3        Find & Adjust Manhole                                                    EA               1              1,000                $1,000
       4        Crushed Surfacing, Top Course                                            TN               1                  24                  $24
       5        MHA, CL½, PG 58-22                                                       TN               1                 100                $100
       6        Cleanup & Restoration                                                    LS               1                 100                $100
                                                                                                                    Sub-Total                 $2,364
                                                                                                             30% Contingencies                   709
                                                                                                                     Sub-Total                 3,073
                                                                                                                8.8% Sales Tax                   270
                                                                                             Estimated Total Construction Cost                $3,344
                Bid Advertisement & Construction Contract Award                                                                               $1,000
                Engineering Design & Permits                                                                                                  $1,000
                Construction Inspection                                                                                                        $500
                Project Administration                                                                                                         $500
                                                                                                          Estimated Project Costs             $3,000
                                                 Estimated Total Project Costs                                                                $6,344




S:\Projects\Woodinville Water District\Comprehensive Sewer Plan\Comprehensive Plan Document\Apr 07 Plan\16-Appendix E Cost Estimates
       APPENDIX F

Sewer Service Agreements


  Woodinville Water District

    General Sewer Plan
          July 2007
WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT                                                                                                           40278.02
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS INVENTORY                                                                                                       6/1/2006

                             ON                                                            ADDITIONAL
   AGENCY         DOCUMENT              DATE                 DESCRIPTION                 INFO REQUIRED
                                                                                                                     COMMENTS
                             MAP
City of Bothell     B-1       X    Dec. 28, 1993   Interlocal Agreement for WWD to                       Exhibit A - No legal description,
                                                   provide sewer service to a portion                    map is included
                                                   of Bothell

                    B-2       X    Sep. 9, 1997    Interlocal Agreement for WWD to                       Exhibit A - No legal description,
                                                   provide service to an area by                         map is included
                                                   connecting to Bothell Sewer Line


                    B-3       X    Oct. 5, 1998    Interlocal Agreement for Bothell to                   Exhibit A - No legal description,
                                                   provide service for property within                   map is included
                                                   WWD boundary

                    B-4       X    Sep. 10, 2001   Agreement for Interim Sewer                X          Exhibit A is legal description (with
                                                   Service for WWD to provide sewer                      error) see K.C. Rec#9302231292,
                                                   service to Ozegovic Short Plat                        no map

                    B-5            Oct. 15, 2001   Agreement for Interim Sewer                X          Wolfe Ridge Short Plat Agreement
                                                   Service for WWD to provide sewer                      not signed
                                                   service to Wolfe Ridge Short Plat
WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT                                                                                                   40278.02
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS INVENTORY

                                                                                      ADDITIONAL
  AGENCY      DOCUMENT ON MAP       DATE                 DESCRIPTION                INFO REQUIRED
                                                                                                               COMMENTS
City of         I-1      X      Apr. 26, 1994   Agreement between WWD and                X          Exhibit A - Legal is Tax Lot
Woodinville                                     McAuliffes for side sewer service                   Number and not adequate to
                                                                                                    locate property, map is included
WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT                                                                                         40278.02
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS INVENTORY

                                                                              ADDITIONAL
  AGENCY   DOCUMENT ON MAP      DATE              DESCRIPTION               INFO REQUIRED
                                                                                                      COMMENTS
Metro        M-1             21-May-90   Resolution No. 2744 amending the                   Exhibit A - Amendment to
                                         Agreement for Sewer Disposal                       Agreement for Sewage Disposal,
                                         dated May 17, 1973                                 no area described
WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT                                                                                                 40278.02
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS INVENTORY

                                                                                   ADDITIONAL
 AGENCY   DOCUMENT ON MAP       DATE                 DESCRIPTION                 INFO REQUIRED
                                                                                                            COMMENTS
NUD         N-1      X      Nov. 20, 1969 Interim Sewer Service Agreement                        Exhibit A - Legal description
                                          between KCWD 104, NE Lk. Wash                          attached, no map
                                          Sewer District and AERO Kirkland
                                          Associates

            N-2             Feb. 19, 1970 Interim Sewer Service Agreement
                                          between KCWD 104 and NE Lk.
                                          Wash Sewer District



            N-3      X      June 16, 1971 Interim Sewer Service Agreement                        Exhibit A - Legal description, no
                                          between KCWD 104, NE Lk. Wash                          map
                                          Sewer District and the Boeing
                                          Company

            N-4             Apr. 4, 1977   Interim Sewer Service Agreement            X          Exhibit A - Totem Estates, K.C. file
                                           between KCWD 104 and NE Lk.                           No. 7612070638, pg. 41 & 42,
                                           Wash. Sewer District                                  need map or metes and bounds
                                                                                                 legal description

            N-5             Dec. 2, 1977   Authorization from KCWD 104                X          Tx Lot 18, SW 1/4, 22-26-5, not an
                                           giving the right to NE Lk. Wash.                      adequate legal to define location,
                                           Sewer District to serve parcel                        no map

            N-6             Dec. 15, 1978 Letter from WWD to NE Lk. Wash              X          Kingsgate Vista & Kingsmoor -
                                          Sewer District releasing an area for                   Legals not attached, no map
                                          sewer service
WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT                                                                                                  40278.02
(Continued)                                                                                                                1/25/2006

                                                                                    ADDITIONAL
  AGENCY      DOCUMENT ON MAP       DATE                DESCRIPTION               INFO REQUIRED
                                                                                                             COMMENTS
NUD             N-7             Dec. 12, 1979 Letter from WWD 104 permitting           X          Hans VonDerHotten Short Plat -
                                              NE Lk. Wash. Sewer District to                      Dec. 11, 1979 legal questionable,
                                              serve Hans VanDerHotten                             no map
                                              preliminary


                N-8      X      Sep. 22, 1980 Resolution No. 1980-9-17,                           Exhibit A - Legal description same
                                              authorizing Interim Sewer Service                   as N-9, no map, WD Res. 1082.
                                              Agreement permitting NE Lk.                         Resolution was not clear
                                              Wash. Sewer District to serve
                                              property in WWD 104 area

                N-9      X      Dec. 15, 1980 Resolution No. 1132, authorizing                    Exhibit A - Legal description same
                                              Interim Sewer Service Agreement                     as N-8, no map, SD Res. 1132.
                                              permitting NE Lk. Wash. Sewer                       Resolution was not clear
                                              District to serve property in WWD


                N - 10   X      Mar. 4, 1987    Sewer Service Agreement                           Exhibit A - Legal description
                                                between NE Lk. Wash Sewer and                     attached, no map
                                                Water District, WWD and DSHS


                N - 11   X      July 10, 1995   Interim Sewer Service Agreement        X          Exhibit A - Legal description
                                                between WWD and NUD for sewer                     attached, no map "Allison Estates"
                                                service to Allison Estates

                N - 12   X      Oct. 3, 1997    Interim Sewer Service Agreement                   Exhibit A - Legal description
                                                between WWD and NUD for sewer                     attached, map is included but not
                                                service to Cambridge Heights                      clear
WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT                                                                                                    40278.02
(Continued)                                                                                                                   1/25/2006

                                                                                      ADDITIONAL
  AGENCY      DOCUMENT ON MAP       DATE                DESCRIPTION                 INFO REQUIRED
                                                                                                               COMMENTS
NUD             N - 13          Jan. 4, 1999   Interim Sewer Service Agreement           X          Exhibit A - Legal description
                                               between WWD and NUD for sewer                        attached, need copy of plat of
                                               service to McKinley Short Plat                       Winchestor Hills, Div. 2, Vol. 151,
                                                                                                    Pg. 44-51 to locate parcel.
                                                                                                    "McKinley Short Plat"

                N - 14   X      Mar. 9, 2000   Interim Sewer Service Agreement                      Exhibit A - Legal description
                                               between WWD and NUD for sewer                        attached, map is included
                                               service to 13025 NE 144th Pl,
                                               Kirkland, WA

                N - 15   X      Dec. 6, 2000   Interim Sewer Service Agreement                      Exhibit A - Legal description
                                               between WWD and NUD for sewer                        attached, map is included (not
                                               service to NE 140th St./132nd Ave.                   clear)
                                               NE, Kirkland, WA

                N - 16   X      Sep. 13, 2004 Interim Sewer Service Agreement                       Exhibit A - Legal description
                                              between WWD and NUD for sewer                         attached, map is included
                                              service to Perkins Lane

                N - 17                         Interim Sewer Service Agreement
                                               between WWD and NUD for sewer
                                               service to Crescent Court


                N - 18                         Interim Sewer Service Agreement
                                               between WWD and NUD for sewer
                                               service to Norman Court
WOODINVILLE WATER DISTRICT                                                                                               40278.02
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS INVENTORY

                                                                                 ADDITIONAL
  AGENCY   DOCUMENT ON MAP       DATE                 DESCRIPTION              INFO REQUIRED
                                                                                                          COMMENTS
City of      R-1              Jul. 13, 1988 Interlocal Agreement for Service                   Interlocal Agreement between City
Redmond                                     Area Boundary                                      of Redmond and Woodinville
                                                                                               Water District for utility service
                                                                                               boundary described as NE 124th
                                                                                               Street. Dated July 13, 1988

             R-2             Jan. 22, 1990 Addendum to July 13, 1988,                          Addendum to July 13, 1988,
                                           Interlocal Agreement for water                      Interlocal Agreement for water
                                           service to Shadowbrook, Phase II                    service to Shadowbrook, Phase II.
                                                                                               Several Exhibits - Legal description
                                                                                               attached, map is included (not
                                                                                               clear)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:28
posted:11/19/2011
language:English
pages:197