HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-143 - King County Water District #125 & Valley View Sewer District - Settlement AgreementSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 125,
VALLEY VIEW SEWER DISTRICT
AND CITY OF TUKWILA
RECITALS
09-143
Council Approval 8/17/09
This Settlement Agreement "Agreement is entered into by and between King County
Water District No. 125, a municipal corporation, Valley View Sewer District, a municipal
corporation (individually a "District" and collectively "the Districts and the City of Tukwila, a
municipal corporation "City (individually a "Party" and collectively the "Parties
A. The Parties acknowledge that they are engaged in litigation in the matter of King
County Water District No. 125, et al., v. City of Tukwila, King County Superior Cause No. 07-2
22797-1KNT "Litigation The Districts filed their lawsuit against the City alleging certain
legal issues relating to the City's right -of -way permit fees.
B. The Districts challenged the City's imposition of certain right -of -way permit
fees, to wit, 1) plan review, 2) inspection, and 3) pavement mitigation fees (collectively "the
Fees pursuant to Section 11.08.060 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). The Districts'
primary concern in filing the Litigation was the City's application of the Pavement Mitigation
Fee "PMF to Type C right -of -way permits, when the City also required extended guarantee
periods for District work in the right -of -way, and overlay of the right -of -way for certain District
projects.
C. After the Litigation was initiated, the Parties met on several occasions to discuss
the legal issues raised. In response to the Districts' concerns, the City issued two "Informational
Memorandum dated July 8, 2008 and August 12, 2008. The July 8, 2008 Informational
Memorandum "Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein, identifies several factual
scenarios when a PMF would not be required, such as when an "applicant overlays a segment of
the roadway The Parties acknowledge that TMC 11.08.060.DA could be interpreted to require
the payment of a PMF regardless of whether the City also requires overlay of the right -of -way as
part of Type C permit approval, or whether an applicant chooses to provide such overlay. The
Parties seek to clarify the application of the PMF when the Districts overlay city right -of -way.
D. The August 12, 2008 Informational Memorandum "Exhibit 2 attached hereto
and incorporated herein, clarifies certain issues relating to guarantees for right -of -way
construction, repair and maintenance and the application of PMF to certain District work in the
right -of -way for City initiated road projects.
E. The City's issuance of Exhibits 1 and 2 have afforded the Parties with a basis to
resolve their dispute and address future application of the PMF. The Parties desire to clarify
certain issues regarding the fees in the manner set forth in this Agreement. The Parties also
391463 0113588291005918 #1z01!.DOC 1
OR s nn_
desire to dismiss the Litigation and all related claims and disputes by entering into this
Agreement.
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms and conditions contained herein,
the Parties agree as follows:
1. Mutual Releases.
2. Dismissal of Litigation.
AGREEMENT
Except with respect to the undertakings set forth in this Agreement, each of the Parties
hereby fully, finally, irrevocably and unconditionally releases and forever discharges the others,
and their successors and assigns, from any and all claims, demands or causes of action, or
liabilities of any nature whatsoever, known or unknown, existing as of the date of this
Agreement, arising out of or related to the claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the
Litigation under King County Superior Court Cause No. 07 -2- 22797 -1KNT, and all claims for
costs and attorneys' fees.
The Parties shall dismiss the Litigation (King County Superior Court Cause No. 07 -2-
22797 -IKNT) with prejudice and without an assessment of fees or costs to any Party within 45
days of mutual execution of this Agreement.
3. The PMF Does Not Annlv When Overlay is Provided.
3.1 Code revision. The Parties acknowledge that TMC 11.08.060 could be
interpreted to require the payment of a PMF regardless of whether the City also requires the
Districts to overlay the right -of -way as part of Type C permit approval, or whether an applicant
chooses to provide such overlay. For purposes of clarification, the City agrees to amend TMC
11.08.060.D.4 in the following manner:
391463.0113588291005918# 1 z01 !.DOC
TMC 11.08.060 Permit Fees and Charges
-2-
D. Type C total permit fees shall consist of the following parts.
1. An Application Base Fee which is associated with
establishing the necessary files; and
2. A fee associated with the plan review and approval of
the construction plans fee amount determined from the value of
the construction within the right- of -wav: and
3. A fee associated with the issuance of the permit and the
reauix cIi 1 Jl the construction fee amount to be
determined from the value of the construction within the right -of-
way.; and
4. A pavement mitigation fee associated with the loss of
pavement life from the proposed excavation in the public right -of-
way fee amount determined from the square footage of
excavation being performed and the age of the pavement; and if
applicable
5. A Grading Plan Review. For Type C permits, the
developer shall submit separate cost estimates for each item of
improvement. The Department will check the accuracy of these
estimates. Monies derived from the above charges shall be
deposited to the General Fund of the City.
The City agrees to adopt the code revisions provided above, pursuant to the appropriate
ordinance, within 30 days of mutual execution of this Agreement.
3.2 Overlay precludes application of PMF. The City agrees that if the Districts apply
for a right -of -way permit, and the Districts overlay the right -of -way in the manner set forth in
Development Bulletin A6 Pavement Restoration (which is attached to Exhibit 1) or as such
Bulletin may hereafter be modified and amended, then the PMF shall not apply and the Districts
shall not be required to pay the PMF. The Public Works Director shall formally amend and
adopt Development Bulletin A6 Pavement Restoration, which is attached to Exhibit 1 hereto, in
a manner consistent with this Agreement within 30 days of mutual execution of this Agreement.
3.3 City initiated road improvement oroiect. If the City initiates a road improvement
project pursuant to its Transportation Improvement Plan, and relocation of a District's utility
facilities located within right -of -way are required as part of the improvement project, then that
District shall not be subject to, nor obligated to pay a PMF if the utility facilities are relocated
entirely within the City's road improvement project. If a District's utility facilities are relocated
to right -of -way in an area outside of the City's road improvement project, then that District shall
only be obligated to pay a PMF for the portion of the utility facilities that are relocated outside
the City's road improvement project; provided, however, a District shall not be obligated to pay a
PMF for relocation outside a City initiated project if the City determines to waive said fee.
3.4 Measurement of width for PMF calculation. The Parties acknowledge that
Development Bulletin A6 Pavement Restoration, attached to Exhibit 1, sets forth "Examples
1,4, 5, and 7 which identify scenarios of when a PMF would be applicable and how it would be
calculated. The Parties agree that the language found in those examples, "Add 2' to length and
width in order to calculate the area" means that the PMF for right -of -way patches will be
measured from the asphalt restoration cut line. For example, the Parties acknowledge that the
asphalt restoration cut line is typically one (1) foot beyond the trench excavation. A 2x2 trench
excavation would result in a 4x4 patch, or sixteen (16) square feet which would be the square
footage for PMF calculation. The City agrees to amend its Development Bulletin A6 to clarify
this language throughout the document in a manner consistent with this Agreement.
391463 0113588291005918 #1z01!.DOC
-3-
4. Fee Calculation.
4.1 Plan review and inspection fees. The City acknowledges that TMC
11.08.060.D.2 -.3 requires plan review and inspection fees that are determined by the value of the
construction. The City agrees that the plan review and inspection fees required by TMC
11.0S.060.D.1 -.2 shall be limited to the Districts' construction costs relating to excavation,
backfill and pavement restoration of the trench constructed by a District in the right -of -way. The
City agrees that the fee determination for plan review and inspection fees shall not include the
value of construction related to a District's system improvement project that does not directly
relate to the disturbance and restoration of the right -of -way, but relates to the cost of a District's
infrastructure improvement. Examples include, but are not limited to, the value associated with
the construction and /or installation of a system improvement such as a lift station, pump station,
PRV, pipeline, side sewers, trenchless pipe installation and rehabilitation, etc.
4.2 Re- evaluate outstanding fees. The City agrees to re- evaluate and re- calculate any
outstanding or pending fees allegedly owed by the Districts to the City (plan review, inspection
and PMF), or any such fees paid under protest, in conformance with the conditions of this
Agreement. If the City's recalculation of fees paid under protest demonstrates that a District is
entitled to a refund, the Parties agree that the refund amount shall be off set by any fees owed by
the District and /or credited against any future Fees that might be imposed by the City for a
District's right -of -way permit.
4.3 Re- evaluate review inspection fees for Type C Permit No. PW 06 -006. The
City agrees to re- evaluate and re- calculate the review and inspection fees paid by King County
Water No. 125 "Water District in the amount of $30,123.00 for the Project associated with
Type C Permit No. PW 06 -006, in light of and in conformance with Subsection 4.1 of this
Agreement. If the City's recalculation of said fees pursuant to Section 4.1 demonstrates that the
Water District is entitled to a refund, the Parties agree that the refund amount shall be offset by
any fees owed by the Water District and/or credited against any future Fees that might be
imposed by the City for a Water District right -of -way permit.
5. Guarantee of workmanshin.
The City agrees that it will not require the Districts to guarantee, repair and/or maintain
the Districts' restoration of the right -of -way associated with the Districts' right -of -way permit
beyond a two year period. If within the two year period defects in a District's restoration of the
right -of -way are identified, the responsible District shall repair the right -of -way work in the
manner prescribed by the orders, regulations and Public Works standards (TMC 11.08.230). If
no defects in the right -of -way restoration are determined by the expiration of the two year period,
then the Districts shall have no ongoing obligation to guarantee, repair or maintain the
restoration work in the affected right -of -way.
6. Annlicable Law/Venue/ Attorneys' Fees.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other proceeding is instituted to
391463 01I358829I005918 #1z01!.DOC
-4-
enforce any term of this Agreement, the Parties specifically understand and agree that venue
shall be properly laid in King County Superior Court, Washington. The prevailing Party in any
such action shall be entitled to its attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, expenses and costs of suit.
7. Scone of Agreement.
The terms and conditions of this Agreement supersede the terms and conditions of any
existing or prior agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement.
This Agreement, which includes the attached Exhibits 1 and 2, contains all of the covenants,
promises, agreements, and conditions, either oral or written, between the Parties.
8. Cautions. Headines. Titles.
All captions, headings or titles in the paragraphs or sections of this Agreement are
inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement or act
as a limitation of the scope of the particular paragraph or sections to which they apply. As used
herein, where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, and masculine,
feminine and neuter expressions shall be interchangeable. Interpretation or construction of this
Agreement shall not be affected by any determination as to who is the drafter of this Agreement,
this Agreement having been drafted by mutual agreement of the Parties.
9. Further Acts.
The Parties shall promptly sign any other documents, furnish any other documents or
information, and /or perform any other acts that are necessary, required or appropriate to
effectuate the purposes of this Agreement.
10. Construction of Agreement.
This Agreement has been jointly drafted by the Parties following negotiations between
them. It shall be construed according to the fair intent of the language as a whole, and not for or
against either Party.
11. Severability.
Should any provision of this Agreement be deemed invalid or unenforceable pursuant to
a final determination of any arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction, or as a result of future
legislative action, the Parties agree that the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.
12. Counterparts.
The Parties may sign counterparts of this Agreement so that each of the Parties has a fully
signed document. To expedite execution of this Agreement, the counterparts may be signed and
transmitted via facsimile. Each such counterpart shall constitute the original Agreement.
391463.01 13588291005918# 1 z01 !.DOC -5-
13. Parties Bound.
This Agreement shall be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the Parties.
14. Authority.
The Districts and the City each represent and warrant that they, and the individuals
signing this Agreement, have the respective power and authority, and are duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform the obligations under this Agreement.
15. No Third Party Beneficiary.
This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the
Parties, their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon
any provision of this Agreement.
16. Effective Date.
This Agreement shall be effective upon the last date signed by all of the Parties.
391463 0113588291005918 #1z01!.DOC
-6-
CITY OF TUKWIL
It Is: t `l"'d eSLC
Dated: O9 /a
7
By:
Its:
Date/ /O
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Shelley Kerslake ity AttErney
KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 125
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Its: CA-IA- i2M e4�J
Dated: q/ 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
391463.01 X3588291005918# lzOI l.DOC
C
John W. hi l.ne; tieneral Counsel
VALLEY VIEW SEWER DISTRICT
Rs P. Kaseguma, General Counsel
a .-thl
-7-
EXHI 1
Background
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Haggerton
From: Public Works Director
Date: July 8, 2008
Subject: Water District 125's Talking Points about Tukwila's Right -of -Way
Fees Response to
The following responses are provided to Water District 125 and Valley View Sewer
District's May 2008 Talking Points about Tukwila's Right -of -Way Fees. The responses
follow the same outline as presented in the May 2008 paper.
District Statement "the City requires the districts to pay four different fees as follows:"
1) An application base fee of $250
2) A plan review fee based on the value of the proposed construction
3) An inspection fee based on the value of the proposed construction
4) A pavement mitigation fee (PMF) based on the total square feet of the impacted
pavement and on the existing pavement condition. TMC 11.08.060
Resnonse: This statement is misleading. Although these are the four fees that could
be charged, all four are not necessarily applicable in every situation. As an example, if
the permit applicant decides to not go through with the proposed work, then only the
Base Fee and the Plan Review Fee are charged. A pavement mitigation fee is not always
charged. The location in the right -of -way of the proposed work and if the applicant
overlays a segment of the roadway determines if the pavement mitigation fee is
applicable.
Problem
District Statbment "The fees charged by the City to the districts for work in ROW bear
no relationship to the costs actually incurred by the City to issue the permits."
Response: This statement is inaccurate. The City has established a process for the
issuance of permits in response to applicants' requests for service. This process may
involve:
H :\Response to WD 125 Talking Points.doc 1
Pre application Meeting (Applicant's option) Representatives from Building
Dept; Planning; Public Works; Fire; Permit Center attend.
Public Works Plan Review Meeting (Mandatory action) Development
Engineers; Inspector; PW Ops and Maintenance Manager; City Engineer;
Maintenance Superintendents (Streets, Water, Sewer /Surface Water); Senior
Engineer (Water /Sewer, Surface Water)
Lead Development Engineer provides a detailed review of the plans and
coordinates review comments from PW Divisions. Comments sent to Permit
Center. (Mandatory action)
Applicant reviews comments, makes necessary corrections, and resubmits plans.
(Mandatory action)
Plan review for a second time depending upon the complexity of the project,
there could be numerous re- submittals. (Mandatory action)
Note: There are numerous telephone calls between Public Works, the applicant, and
the applicant's consultant engineers in an attempt to provide a set of plans that meet
the City's codes, regulations, and adopted engineering standards.
Public Works authorizes the Permit Center to issue the permit. (Mandatory action)
*T1evelopt.r proceeds with the construction PW Project Inspector is required to
make numerous inspections to ensure the work is being constructed in accordance
with the approved plans. (Mandatory action)
For large construction projects, PW staff will attend the pre construction meeting
to discuss procedures for erosion control, traffic control plans, schedules for
performing inspections, safety, geotechnical issues, etc. (Optional)
PW Inspector performs final inspection of infrastructure. (Mandatory action)
Performance bond release Involves PW Inspector, Admin Support Tech, PW
Director. (Mandatory action)
Turnover of Public Infrastructure (Development specific) Involves City Council
Two -year Maintenance Bond goes into effect Involves periodic inspections
(Mandatory action)
As can be seen, given the amount of time involved in processing permits of this nature,
the City's fee does not even begin to cover its costs.
District Statement "Regarding the pavement mitigation fee (PMF), the City requires the
districts to:"
1) Patch any excavation in ROW;
2) Overlay the entire impacted street to City standards; and
3) Guarantee the patch and overlay for the useful life of the ROW.
Resnonse: This statement is misleading and incorrect. Depending upon where the
work is being performed (See Exhibit A), the Districts are required to:
1) Patch the excavation area and pay the mitigation; OR
H:\Response to WD 125 Talking Points.doc 2
2) Overlay a segment of the right -of -way (no mitigation fee is charged).
Note: In both instances, the applicant is required to guarantee their work for a period
of two years in accordance with TMC 11.08.110C.
District Concerns about the City's ROW fees
District Statement 1. It doesn't make sense that the Districts must (a) patch the ROW,
(b) often -times overlay the entire street, (c) guarantee the overlay, and (d) pay the
mitigation fee.
Response: This statement is misleading and incorrect. Depending upon the location
of the work within the right -of -way (See Exhibit A), the Districts either patch the
excavation area and pay the mitigation fee or overlay a segment of the right -of -way (no
mitigation fee is charged). In both instances, the guarantee period is for two years.
District Statement 2. The City's fee are not tied to specific impacts to the ROW, and
instead appear to be used as a source of generating general revenue for the City.
Response: It is well documented that cutting into the pavement reduces the lifespan of
the existing.asphalt. This degradation, caused by the direct actions of the applicant,
results fi -sigpi fiant expenditures by,. the City to repair and repave the street surface.
District Statement 3. The City's fees are not reasonable, nor supported by studies or
analysis which would justify them.
Response: The City Council has established a permit fee policy that sets the fees at a
level below the actual costs of providing the services. Public Works has extensive
engineering studies that show a significant decrease in the useful life of the roadway
when the Utility Districts cut into the pavement. The pavement mitigation fee charged is
in direct proportion to the negative impact created fee is based upon the area of the
excavation and the age of the pavement The older the pavement (less useful life
remaining) the lower the fee; The smaller the excavation area, the lower the fee.
District Statement 4. The fees unduly burden utility customers and City residents.
Response: The Districts are treated the same as any other permit applicant that disturbs
and damages the City's public right -of -way.
District Statement 5. The City has required the relocation of certain water facilities to
facilitate a City road project.
Response: Relocating District's facilities that interfere with a City road improvement
project are a requirement of all entities that occupy the right -of -way free of charge. This
statement has nothing to do with the City charging a pavement mitigation fee.
H:\Response to WD 125 Talking Points.doc 3
Potential Solution
District Statement. A potential solution would be to revise the applicable code section
(TMC 11.08.060) to exempt public entities, such as the Districts from the pavement
mitigation fee.
Response: There may be legal implications regarding exemptions that should be
explored with the City Attorney.
District Statement. Exempting the Districts from the pavement mitigation fee would
provide a public benefit by eliminating the burden it puts on utility customers, which
include a substantial number of City residents, to pay the costs of the fees.
Response: The utility districts cause the damage to the public right -of -way when they
excavate. Transferring the costs of these damages to someone else is not considered a
public benefit. The City has established a fair and proportionate methodology for
assessing the mitigation fees. The pavement mitigation fees are charged to the entity that
caused the damage.
District Statement. The City's plan review and inspection fees should be revised so that
the City recovers its actual fees and costs incurred to issue the permits and to inspect the
work.
Response: This is a policy decision. The City Council has purposely established a fee
structure that does not provide for the reimbursement of total costs. If the Districts'
suggestion were to be implemented, their costs for permits would certainly rise.
General Comments
District Statement. The Valley View Sewer District general manager was recently
advised by a City inspector in a telephone conversation that the City may have revised its
policy regarding the application of the pavement mitigation fee policy to the effect that, if
a full -width street overlay is performed, no pavement mitigation fee will be assessed; and
that the new policy may soon be set forth in a bulletin from the City to that effect.
Response: The Public Works Department is preparing a new bulletin, Exhibit A.
However, this bulletin does not put forth a new policy or methodology for determining
the amount of the pavement mitigation fee. Since the passage of the Right -of -Way Use
Ordinance in 2002, the permit fees have not changed, nor has the methodology for
determining those fees. In 2006, Public Works documented specific examples that reflect
different work locations within the public right-of-way and the relation of these locations
to the implementation of the pavement mitigation fee. These examples provide the
permit applicants with a consistent and fair methodology to estimate their permit fees.
H:\Response to WD 125 Talking Points.doc 4
The new bulletin is an effort to officially document this long- standing methodology and
to consolidate into a single bulletin all aspects of pavement restoration.
Exhibits:
A. Development Bulletin A6, Pavement Restoration
H:\Response to WD 125 Talking Points.doc 5
DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN A6
PAVEMENT RESTORATION
CITY OF TUKWILA
Public Works Department
206 433 -0179
The City requires restoration of any disturbed public street or right -of -way. An overlay of
the pavement, a patch, or a rehabilitation of the area depending upon each individual
situation can meet the restoration requirements. All restoration shall meet the City's
standards and Chapter 11 of the City Municipal Code.
DEFINITIONS
Overlay A layer of paving material applied over the original road surface.
Patch An area of pavement that has been replaced with new material.
Rehabilitation Restoration of serviceability to extend the service life of a street.
Rehabilitation may include recycling of existing pavement, placing additional
surface materials or performing other work to return an existing pavement to
adequate structural or functional condition.
Transverse Cut Cut in pavement with the longest edge perpendicular to the travel
lane.
Lonaitudinal cut Cut in pavement having the longest edge parallel to the travel
lane.
RESTORATION GUIDELINES
Overlay
1. Overlay and Grinding Limits:
a. Pavement length full length of the cuts plus two (2) feet on each
end.
b. Pavement width full width of the cuts plus two (2) on each side.
c. For bore pits larger than 8 -feet by 10 -feet and/or spaced 50 -feet or
less apart, then the entire work area must be overlaid. Work area shall
be calculated as the width (plus 2 -feet on each side) times the length
where length is the distance from the first to the last bore pit plus 2-
feet added to each end. See Example 8.
Note: Existing pavement must be ground at least 2 inches deep.
2. Pave one lane if the cut limits, are less than 2 -feet from the next travel lane or
centerline of roadway. See Example 2.
3. Pave two lanes if the cut limits straddle the centerline of the roadway or
travel lanes. See Example 3.
4. Pave the shoulder when the cut limits are less than 2 -feet from the edge of the
shoulder or straddles the travel lane/shoulder line. See Example 6.
5. Pave the adjacent travel lane when a cut is in the shoulder and less than 2 -feet
from the edge of the travel lane. See Example 7.
PAPW Development Engiheering\PW Auiletins\ O6 Pavement Restoration 7.11.0 8.doe
PAVEMENT MITIGATION FEE
DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN A6
PAVEMENT RESTORATION
Pavement Patch
1. The City allows pavement patching for bore pits that are smaller than 8' X
10' or which are spaced greater than 50' apart.
2. Transverse cuts: See Examples 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
Whenever the public street or right -of -way is disturbed, there is an associated loss of
pavement life and a pavement mitigation fee will be charged. The fee amount will be
determined from the square footage of excavation being performed and the age and
condition of the pavement. See attached examples 1, 4, 5, and 7 as to when the mitigation
fee is applicable.
This Bulletin should not be used as a substitute for codes and regulations. Your project will be reviewed for specific
compliance to codes and regulations.
P: \PW Development Engineering \PW .Bulletins \A06 Puvernent Restorntion 7.11.08.doe
Example 1
Pavement cut area
Restoration (patch)
Mitigation fee required
Add 2' to length and width
In order to calculate the area
Example 2
Gravel Shoulder
Pavement cut within
2' of roadway centerline or
centerline of the travel lanes
Overlay of the entire lane
width (2' beyond length)
No mlttgatlon fee
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
206 433 -0179
Pavement Mitigation Fee
Implementation Examples
Pavement
Pavement
Gra-el Shoulder
4
i
4'7A
r
4 74
2
Gravel Shoulder
Example 3
Pavement cut area
straddles centerline of
roadway or travel lanes.
Overlay of the entire roadway width
(2 beyond length)
No mitigation fee
Example 4
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
206-433 -0179
Pavement Mitigation Fee
Implementation Examples
^avement
ravement
Narrow portion of pavement
cut area spans roadway
Restoration (patch)
Mitigation fee required
Add 2 to length and
width in order to
calculate the area
Grvel Shoulder
Graue1 Shoulder
Example 5
Example 6
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
206- 433 -0179
Implementation Examples
Pavement
Asphalt pedlblke
path
Pavement
N ravement cut area
within pedibike path
Restoration (patch)
Mitigation fee required
-Add 2' to length and width
In order to calculate the area
Paved
Shoulder
s's --Fag Une
Pavement cut area 2'
Is less than 2' from fog
line or straddles lane /paved
shoulder
Overlay of the cut area and shoulder
No mitigation fee
Example 7
Example 8
5 1
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
206 -433 -0179
Pavement Mitigation Fee
Implementation Examples
"'avemeni
ravement
Gravel Shoulder
Open trench cut Is within
2' of pavement area
Restoration of gravel shoulder
Pavement mitigation fee required
-Add 2' to length and width
In order to calculate the area
Multiple "bore holes /pile"
that are less than 50' apart
Overlay of the entire lane width
(2' beyond length)
No mltlgatton fee
EXHIBIT 2
To:
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
Council Member Griffin
District Commissioner Thornton
District Commissioner West
From: Public Works Director
Date: August 12, 2008 U
Subject: Water District 125's and Valley View Sewer District's Talking Points
about Tukwila's Right-of-Way Fees
As a follow -up to the August 7, 2008 meeting between the City and representatives from
Water District 125 and Valley View Sewer District, Staff was asked to look into several
questions that were raised during the discussion. The following information is provided
in response.
Ouestion: Has the City required Permit Applicants to repair failing patched areas
within the right -of -way after the two -year maintenance warranty period
has elapsed?
Response: Yes. There have been a few instances where the permit applicant has
come back (beyond the two -year warranty period) and repaired work
previously done within the right -of -way. The Permit Applicant is'
requested to return only when it has been determined that the original
work was defective. Examples:
PSE and Qwest have been brought back several times to make
repairs around raised manholes.
Even though the original work was accomplished long before the
Right -of -Way Use Ordnance was passed by the City Council, over
the last five years Public Works has called Valley View Sewer
District two or three times about the sewer line in the vicinity of St.
Thomas' Church because the area continues to slump. Sudden
slumping of the pavement sometimes is an indication of a failed
pipe. Valley View District's opinion of the cause for the slumping
problem is that the original contractor used sub standard backfill
material when installing the pipe.
Ouestion: Has the City charged the Districts a pavement mitigation fee for work
within the right -of -way and then upon completion of the Districts' work
overlayed the same area using a City contractor?
1
Resnonse: No. The City goes to great lengths to notify all utility districts of the
streets planned for overlays. This notification is provided such that the
utility districts can plan their work and will not be affected when the City
imposes a three -year moratorium (pavement cannot be disturbed, except
for emergency repairs, for three years following the overlay work).
Further, the City goes to great lengths to include the utility districts when a
City- sponsored street improvement project is being planned. Examples:
Attachments:
1. Rate Comparison Chart.
Cascade View Neighborhood Improvement Project. This was a
City- sponsored project to improve the surface water drainage and
to provide curb gutters, sidewalks. Because of the extensive
amount of work being done within the rights -of -way, certain
streets received a full -width pavement. Water District 125
decided to make extensive waterline upgrades at the same time
the City's work was planned. Based upon Water District's
original scope of work, Staff estimated the pavement mitigation
fee would be $133,235. Water District 125 decided to reduce the
scope of their work and the pavement mitigation fee was reduced
to $30,123. Upon completion of the City's contract work, Water
District 125 pavement mitigation fee was further reduced to a
total of $19,698. This fee has not been paid pending resolution
of the dispute.
Phase II and III of Tukwila International Blvd. There has been
extensive coordination efforts between the City and the Districts
which lead to the Coordination Agreements being passed by the
City Council at August 4, 2008 City Council Meeting. The
upgrades planned by both Valley View Sewer District and Water
District 125 was incorporated into the City's design/contract.
The Districts will reimburse the City for this work, including
Construction Management costs. No permit fees have been
assessed to the Districts because their planned work will fall
within the City's permit application. However, at the same time,
Water District 125 has planned some upgrades that fall outside
the City's project boundaries. For this work, Water District has
been informed that they must apply for all of the appropriate
permits and the associated fees will be applied.
Ouestlon: The Districts asked for a copy of the City's Fee Comparison Chart made
when the City Council considered revising permit fees.
Resnouse: Attached is a copy of the July 18, 2002 Memorandum, including the
comparison of permit fees charged by different jurisdictions.
2
City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Public Works James E Morrow, P.E., Director
MEIVORA.NDUM
TO: Mayor Mullet
Utility Committee
Transportation Committee
Finance and Safety Committee
FROM: Jim Morrow, Public Works Director\
RE: Proposed Public Works Permit Fee Changes
DATE: July 18, 2002
Background
At the request of Council, Public Works has analyzed and researched all of the permit
fees charged by Public Works. As part of the analysis, the permit fees charged by
neighboring jurisdictions (Des Moines, SeaTac, Kent, Federal Way, Burien, and Renton)
have been identified and compared to Tukwila's current fees. Based upon this analysis,
Public Works is recommending increases to Tukwila's fees and proposing a new
methodology for calculating the fees that will streamline the process.
Findings
The analysis has shown that each jurisdiction has a different methodology for calculating
permit fees. Some determine the fee from the value of the work being performed. Others
use an hourly rate times the number of hours needed to perform the application review or
inspection, etc. Because of these differences, comparisons have been difficult. See
attachments 1, 2, and 3.
However, there is no doubt that the fees charged by Tukwila are extremely low and do
not come close to reimbursing the City for the effort involved. Fees have not been
changed since 1969. As an example, the permit fee associated with processing the
paperwork, reviewing the plans, issuing the permit, and inspecting the construction work
was calculated for a $250,000 project being performed in the public right -of -way. A
comparison was made between Des Moines, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila because each
uses the same methodology for calculating the fee comparing "apples to apples The
result is:
Jurisdiction Permit Fee
Des Moines 7,600
Renton 10,500
Kent 15,050
Tukwila 25
Several jurisdictions also charge impact fees or supplemental fees that are in addition to
the permit fees.
Proposed Chances
Potential Revenue Impact
Reauested Action
$250,000 construction project
Renton imposes a storm water special development charge of $525 per
home
Redmond imposes a surcharge of $304 for storm water impacts.
Staff is recommending that Tukwila's Public Works permit fees be increased to the
"medium" of the fees charged by neighboring jurisdictions. These increases are shown
on Attachments 1, 2, and 3. Even though the increases are substantial in comparison to
what Tukwila currently charges, the proposed fee increases are well within the range
charged by our neighboring jurisdictions.
We are also recommending a new methodology for calculating the permit fee associated
with work within the right -of -way and the work associated with new developments and
subdivisions See Attachment 4. This new proposed methodology will streamline the
Public Works permit process by eliminating individual permits and create a more fair,
consistent, and applicant- friendly procedure.
If these proposed changes are implemented, it is estimated that between $50,000 and
$100,000 of additional revenues per year could be generated.
Review the proposed fee and methodology changes; provide Staff with policy direction
about the proposed changes, and forward the proposal to the COW for review.
RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT
TABLE
PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS
TABLE
PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS
TABLE