Manual on Accommodating Utilities in Pierce County Rights-of-Way Jerry P. Bryant, P.E., Field Engineering Manager Pierce County Public Works Office of the County Engineer   February 23, 2016

Development of the Manual Cooperative effort led by County Engineer, beginning in 1995 jointly with all franchised utilities. Development started to promote cooperation between County and utilities. Intent is for utilities to “self-inspect” and be rewarded for doing so. The “stick” was replaced with the “carrot”. The carrot/reward is “Utility in Good Standing”. First printed in January 1997; 2nd Edition in December 1997; 3rd Edition in May 2001 and the 4th Edition was printed in November 2004. The emphasis is on Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation for mutual benefit.

June 2007 — APWA Accreditation Received recognition for seven “model practices”, one of which is the department’s Manual on Accommodating Utilities in Pierce County Rights of Way.

What’s in the Manual? Policy and General Provisions Installation Planning--County and Utility Installation Standards and Guidelines Permits--Class A, B, and C New Permit Class D (proposed) Utility in Good Standing

Utility in Good Standing Intent is to provide a streamlined permit process to Utility-initiated projects. The Utility will inspect their own Class B Work. Utility will certify that work is provided in accordance with the Manual. There is a financial benefit to being a Utility in Good Standing. Mutual benefit to the County and to the Utility Company.

Revisions to the Manual Pierce County Code 12.32 for “Right-of-Way Franchises for Public and Private Utilities. Pierce County Code 12.32 for Telecommunications Users of Pierce County Rights of Way Manual on Accommodating Utilities in Pierce County Right-of-Way 5th Edition

Summary of the Proposed Amendments to County Code sections 12 Summary of the Proposed Amendments to County Code sections 12.32 and 12.34   Administrative correction - the “Manual on Accommodating Utilities in Pierce County Rights-of-Way” (Manual) was last revised in 2004. It is being revised and updated to reflect current regulations and practices. Recommended language corrects code cross references, typographical and grammatical errors. There is no cost impact associated with these recommendations. Makes Manual main point of reference - Establishes the Manual as the main point of reference for requirements of Utilities within Pierce County Rights-of-Way so that the code doesn’t have to be revised each time the manual is revised. There is no cost impact associated with these recommendations.

Summary of the Proposed Amendments to County Code sections 12 Summary of the Proposed Amendments to County Code sections 12.32 and 12.34   Making language consistent between PCC 12.32 and PCC 12.34, and the Manual - A number of topics are covered in both chapters of the code. Proposed revisions address some of the inconsistencies between the chapters. There is no cost impact associated with these recommendations. Increase of Utility Franchise Application fees - The latest evaluation of the County’s Franchise Application processing costs indicates that the fee does not currently recover the County’s expenses. The recommended increase should cover the processing costs. The cost impact of these recommendations will increase revenues by $500 per application, thereby reducing or eliminating loss of money to the County.

Summary of the Proposed Amendments to County Code sections 12 Summary of the Proposed Amendments to County Code sections 12.32 and 12.34   Clarification of terms - added a definition section to PCC 12.32 to clarify the terms used throughout the code. There is no cost impact associated with these recommendations. Clarification of requirements - Added several new sections to clarify the difference between emergency and non-emergency work and when notices of work are required. Added two new sections to clarify the requirements of a Utility in Good Standing and provides reasons for revocation of a utility’s franchise. There is no cost impact associated with these recommendations.

Summary of Proposed Revisions to Manual on Accommodating Utilities in Pierce County Rights-of-Way (Manual)   Schedule A - Revised Permit fees and criteria for each class of permit. Added a new permit class “D” to address removal, replacement, or relocation of utility poles. Chapter 1 - Revised language to update the purpose of the Manual; clarify the Definitions; added the Manual on Design Guidelines and Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction in Pierce County and Pierce County Standard Drawings as additional references for utilities; and added PCC 17A.10.070 (Site Development Plans) and Buy America provisions to the Governmental Code References (Table 1) table.

Summary of Proposed Revisions to Manual on Accommodating Utilities in Pierce County Rights-of-Way (Manual)   Chapter 2 - Added language to address responsibilities of each party during the relocation of a utility’s facilities; requirements for pavement cutting; permit requirements and fees; added description of a new permit class “D”; added language to clarify stormwater requirements, and added pedestrian traffic to the traffic control section to comply with ADA guidelines. Chapter 3 - Grammatical revisions for clarification purposes; added class D permit to language; added email to the ways permits are to be submitted and activated; and added language to clarify permit procedures for emergency work.

Summary of Proposed Revisions to Manual on Accommodating Utilities in Pierce County Rights-of-Way (Manual)   Chapter 4 - Grammatical revisions for clarification purposes; added new sections for Project Status Reports, replaced Project Scoping, Project Development and Final Design with Preliminary Engineering and Final Engineering; added a section to address responsibilities for survey control during County projects; and added a section requiring utilities to notify property owners adjacent to utility work in the right of way of the impending work. Chapter 5 - Added language to address abandoned utilities in the right of way; requirements of installation of underground utilities; trenching; and pavement restoration; and added the requirement that utilities must comply with Pierce County Standard Drawings. Chapter 6 - Added language to clarify governing rules and regulations.

Anticipated Questions Why was the Franchise Revocation Language inserted into PCC 12.32? Is it true that pavement cutting is prohibited? Is it true that all abandoned Utilities must be removed from the R/W? How do you justify increasing the permit fee by 50%? What is the logic behind taking some of the previous work included in a Class B Permit and adding a new Class D Permit?

PCC 12.34 includes the following

Is it true that pavement cutting is prohibited? All new pavement types and surfacing treatments shall not be cut unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer. New pavement types are typically pavements that have been placed within 5 years, but in some instances may include pavement types that have been placed beyond a period of 5 years. For a County road project, the time period will begin on the date the project is considered to be substantially complete. Information on which roads have been recently constructed or resurfaced may be obtained from the Public GIS on the Pierce County website or from the Engineer upon request. Un-trenched construction techniques such as pushing, jacking, or boring shall be explored on all new or existing pavement road crossings. Except for work performed under emergency conditions, or as a result of a County construction or maintenance project, an additional permit fee may be charged for pavement cutting during the 5-year period. Pavement cutting wastes must not be discharged into the municipal storm drainage system pursuant to PCC 11.05.

5-1.6 Abandoned Utility Unless otherwise approved by the Engineer, an existing underground utility or associated appurtenances no longer being used to provide service shall be removed from the right‑of‑way. If a replaced or abandoned utility or appurtenances are being requested to remain in place in the existing right-of-way, discussions will be held with the Engineer as to how to preserve the right‑of‑way for future use. If abandoned utilities are allowed to remain in the right-of-way, an executed agreement between the Utility and the County will be developed based upon the discussions. The agreement shall include, but will not necessarily be limited to, the following: The Utility Company shall remain the owner of the abandoned utility and appurtenances. The Utility Company shall be required to retain the responsibility for the removal, any mitigation as a result of the removal, and ultimate disposal of the abandoned utility facilities and appurtenances should they be in conflict with future construction activities within the County right-of-way. The Utility Company shall provide an “As-Built” survey of the abandoned utility and appurtenances within 90 days of the date of the work completion.

Permit Fee Discussion

Revenue and Expenses Revenue: 2013 through 2015 Average $50,400 NOTE: The resources include 4.5 employee and 2 vehicles driven an average of 16,000 miles a year each.

No Fee Increase since 2001. Cumulative rate of inflation since 2001 is 34%. The equivalent expense of one of the employees (including vehicles) for this program is approximately $91,000. A 50% revenue increase, based upon the average revenue from 2013 through 2015 of $50,400, is estimated to be $76,600. A review of permit history indicates that approximately 20% of the permits that were issued were for “pole” related issues.

Permit Fees The equivalent expense of one of the employees (including vehicles) for this program is approximately $91,000. A 50% revenue increase, based upon the average revenue from 2013 through 2015 of $50,400, is estimated to be $76,600. Adding a Class D permit for poles is anticipated to increase revenue to a total that will cover the expense of one of the employees. A logical question may be: “Why are we only recovering approximately 25% of expenses and not increasing permit rates to a higher level?

Permit Fees in Other Counties King County $200 plus $149/hour of inspection. Spokane County $125 to $200 plus $55/hour of inspection Kitsap County $230 plus $65/hour of inspection Pierce County – No fee for inspection for a UGS (as the focus is that the Utility Companies will Self-Inspect)

Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation This program was developed in cooperation with the franchised Utility companies beginning in 1997. The “Self Inspection” duties, provided by those companies who are designated as a “Utility in Good Standing”, result in a mutual benefit for the Utility Company and for Pierce County. For the Utility Companies less fees and expedited permitting. For the County, less inspection responsibilities and full cooperation during construction and maintenance projects.

Questions - Discussion