• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
When Do Stormwater Ulitilities Make Sense?

When Do Stormwater Ulitilities Make Sense?






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 475

http://www.sneapa.org 475



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Shows the dense level of development in the central area of New London at this time. Further continued development with booms in the 1920’s and 50’s and 60’s The City is essentially built out now, of course. The provisions for stormwater drainage in the various areas of the City have not changed much from those put in at the time each area was finally developed.
  • About three years ago. Near discharge point of piped brook and auxiliary pumping station behind a hurricane barrier.
  • The numbers are old but I included this slide to give you an idea of what we went through and the order of magnitude of the improvements needed.
  • Won’t go into numbers in detail – since they are out of date anyway - but they do give, again, an order of magnitude. Salary and wages are from estimates of DPW, etc. person hours devoted to stormwater.
  • These are all true but the political reality is probably that idea would be DOA due to the added cost except . . . NEXT SLIDE
  • CAVEAT HERE - This does not account for reductions in fees to Non-residential and Tax-exempt properties due to their own stormwater management efforts and direct discharge into the Thames River. A balance will need to be struck between the above factors and the fact that the City maintains access through road connections to these riverfront institutions and provides the admin associated with permit compliance, etc.
  • The data that was gathered revealed the following: Almost 40% of the parcel area is tax-exempt and City owned property. 31% of the associated Impervious Area does not contribute to paying the costs of providing Stormwater Management Services.
  • Projected rates seem to be within the ballpark of costs being changed in other communities, although a bit on the high side. USEPA 2009 Ave single-family per property costs $(8.00- 160.00) – (Fuss and O’Neill)
  • The last column reflects the inclusion of the fees that would have been paid by City owned properties. Distributing these costs among all the users as part of the fee, rather than raising it through taxes, maximizes the cost shift to tax-exempt properties.
  • Another graphic demonstrates the impact on costs for current tax-paying properties of the creation of a Stormwater Utility.

When Do Stormwater Ulitilities Make Sense? When Do Stormwater Ulitilities Make Sense? Presentation Transcript

  • When do Stormwater Utility Districts Make Sense? Moderator—M. James Riordan, AICP, LEED AP Speaker—Christopher Stone, PE Speaker—Harry A. Smith, AICP Speaker—Maria Rose, CFM
  • Overview ofStormwater Utility Districts M. James Riordan, AICP, LEED AP Senior Project Manager
  • Background and Purpose• Stormwater Utilities: – Create a regular source of funding – Encourage regional (i.e., watershed-based) management• Potential Benefits and Concerns• Practicability of Stormwater Utilities
  • Background and Purpose• Stormwater Utilities: – Create a regular source of funding – Encourage regional (i.e., watershed-based) management• Potential Benefits and Concerns• Practicability of Stormwater Utilities
  • Overview of Presentation• Nature of Stormwater Utility Districts• When Should Stormwater Utility Districts be Considered?• What Authority Exists to Implement Utility Districts?
  • Nature of Stormwater Utilities• What is this “stormwater utility district”? – Dedicated revenue outside of general taxation. – User fee, not a tax. – Often regional in nature and may be watershed-based• Once funding becomes predictable, long-term planning can occur: – Capital improvements – Watershed management – Technical assistance and demonstrations – Flood control
  • Nature of Stormwater Utilities• Connecticut’s Status – OLR’s findings in 2004—No clear authority – PA 7-154—Pilot Program (New Haven, Norwalk, New London) – Interim Report—May be advantageous, but not authority to regionalize• Rhode Island’s Status – Chapter 45-61of the Rhode Island Stormwater Management and Utility District Act of 2002• Massachusetts’s Status – MGL Chapter 83, Section 1 was amended in 2006 to include the ability to establish stormwater utilities
  • Nature of Stormwater Utilities
  • Nature of Stormwater Utilities• Why Regionalize? – Economies of scale—Share programs, labor and equipment – Watershed as a unit of management
  • Nature of Stormwater Utilities• Commonly Cited Concerns – Bureaucracy – New fees look like taxes – Controversial basis for fees – Politically untenable – Public campaign may be needed for support
  • When Should Stormwater Utilities be Considered?
  • When Should Stormwater Utilities be Considered?
  • Connecticut Department of Connecticut Department of EnergyEnergy andEnvironmental Protection and Environmental Protection
  • September 21, 2012 Christopher Stone, P.E. DEEP Stormwater SectionConnecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
  • Recent Permitting Issues Registration review/approval Public availability & comment Impaired waters WQ Standards - Anti-degradation Low Impact Development (LID)Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
  • 2000 Census 130 Towns in UAs 113 Towns in permit 2010 Census 138 Towns in UAs ??? Towns in permitConnecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
  • Six Minimum Control Measures: Public education and outreach Public participation Illicit discharge detect/eliminate Construction site runoff control Post-construction SW mgmt Pollution prev./good hskeepingConnecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
  • MS4 Permit Updates/Changes Public participation - Public review comment - Increased public participation Illicit discharge detect/eliminate - Increased emphasis - In-depth methodology Post-construction SW mgmt - LID performance standardsConnecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
  • PA 07-154 Created Pilot Program 3 Towns Develop SW Utility Towns Develop Their Own Approach 2/09 Report to Legislature Waiting for Legislative ActionConnecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
  • Nisha Patel (860)424-3840 nisha.patel@ct.gov Chris Stone (860)424-3850 chris.stone@ct.gov Karen Allen (860)424-3842 karen.allen@ct.gov Donna Seresin (860)424-3267 donna.seresin@ct.gov Neal Williams (860)424-3356 neal.williams@ct.gov Karen Pohl (860)424-4038 karen.pohl@ct.govConnecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
  • City of New LondonStormwater Utility Consideration Harry A. Smith, AICP - City Planner SNEAPA – Hartford, CT September 2012
  • City of New London Connecticut• Founded in 1646• 2010 population 27,620 - first increase since 1960• Land Area 5.75 square miles - densely developed mature urban community• Home of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Connecticut College and Mitchell College• General Dynamics/Electric Boat – 3,300 person Engineering Group recently moved to City• Located on Thames River Estuary/Long Island Sound22 09/07/2012
  • New London Harbor 191123 09/07/2012
  • Pilot Program Summary  State Legislature Established Grant  Public Act 07-154  New London one of three CT cities to receive grant  New Haven  Norwalk  Complements Long Island Sound Resource & Water Quality Protection Programs  Report to the Legislature24 09/07/2012
  • Stormwater Management Drivers  Business Drivers  Comply with Federal & State regulatory requirements  MS4 permit (Phase II – expectation of new requirements)  Rehabilitate/replace stormwater system infrastructure  Stabilize resource, management, & financial capacity  Enhance equity of cost distribution  Environmental Drivers  Protect Water Quality by mitigating runoff/pollutant discharge  Mitigate beach erosion  Manage flooding25 09/07/2012
  • Stormwater Infrastructure Issues Flooding at Major Intersection26 09/07/2012
  • New London’s Program Needs  Comply with permit requirements (O&M Activities)  Develop illicit discharge and detection program  Document outfall and drainage system inspection program  Define construction and post-construction runoff control measures  Conduct construction / post-construction inspections  Establish stormwater system map  Clean catch basins once per year  Establish best practices (sweeping; drain marking; etc)  Implement stormwater training program for City employees  Submit annual reports  Improve system drainage infrastructure (Capital Program) Need $$$$$$$ 2727 09/07/2012
  • System Capital Improvements Capital Projects  A total of 25 problems areas identified  Cost estimates for 14 problem areas were developed  Estimated capital cost for the 14 problem areas: $6,500,000REVENUE REQUIREMENTS  Several projects are currently underway or have been completed 28 28 09/07/2012
  • System Capital Improvements Sample listing of some of the 14 Projects Problem Area Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Pequot Avenue Beach erosion due to undersized outfall. $200,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 Montauk Avenue @ Orchard St. Insufficient capacity and/or debris problems $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Broad Street (at Rite-Aid) Insufficient inlet capacity $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $160,000 Mill Street Stone culvert deteriorating & insufficient capacity $0 $0 $250,000 $300,000 $300,000REVENUE REQUIREMENTS Farmington Ave Roots entering failing pipe $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 Shaw Street @ Ann Street Excessive flow raises MH lid and floods street $0 $190,000 $100,000 $0 $0 Riverview Ave @ Crescent St Insufficient drainage structures causing flooding $0 $0 $470,000 $0 $0 Jefferson and Garfield Avenues Closed system not terminated appropriately $0 $0 $0 $220,000 $260,000 $280,000 $740,000 $820,000 $670,000 $720,000 29 29 09/07/2012
  • Service Level and Funding Options  Evaluated Three Option combinations  Option1: Current Level of Service  Service Level: Not in compliance  Funding Option: General Fund Taxes  Option2: Comply with Permit Requirements  Service Level: Achieve complianceREVENUE REQUIREMENTS  Funding Option: General Fund Taxes  Option3: Comply with Permit Requirements via Stormwater Utility  Service Level: Achieve compliance  Funding Option: Stormwater Utility Projection: FY 2010 – FY 2014 30 30 09/07/2012
  • Comparison of Funding Options  Cost difference between the Options  Each Option included Operations and Maintenance, Salary & Wages, Administration, and Debt Payments for capital expenses 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 (Option 1) Current Cost $506,935 $579,200 $658,246 $737,665 $809,442 (Option 2) Compliance Cost 909,197 878,033 965,124 1,052,816 1,133,101 (Option 3) Authority Cost 998,722 969,301 1,058,182 1,147,715 1,229,892 Cost Difference (Between Option 3 and Option 2) $89,525 $91,267 $93,058 $94,899 $96,79131 09/07/2012
  • Option 3: Stormwater Authority Benefits Facilitates sustainable stormwater management Full compliance with MS4 permit requirements Provides a new dedicated source of funding Creates a nexus between fees and cost of service Establishes a bondable revenue stream Enhances public awareness of the importance of stormwater management Encourages practices that control quantity and improves the quality of stormwater runoff Provides a more equitable basis for recovery of costs32 09/07/2012
  • Option 3: Stormwater Authority Cost Impact - Political Reality - Permit Compliance through Permit Compliance through Stormwater Authority Property Taxes ($13.33 million over 10 years) ($12.35 million over 10 years) Tax-Exempt $2.85 million Residential 21% $4.90 Non- Residential million Residential $6.05 37% $6.31 million million 49% Non- 51% Residential $5.57 million 42%33 09/07/2012
  • Stormwater User Fee Approach(UNIT COST OF SERVICE)  Based on Impervious Area of parcels – unit cost per square foot  Residential parcels  Actual impervious area calculated from Tax Assessor data – median value for a tier applied to all properties in the tier  Non-Residential parcels  Actual impervious area calculated from Tax Assessor data for buildings/outbuildings  In addition,10% of undeveloped lot size assessed as a minimum impervious area for each parcel34 09/07/2012
  • Property Characteristics Impervious Number of Percentage Parcel Area Tax Base Cover Parcels of Parcels Percentage Percentage Percentage Residential - Tier 1 1,047 15% 5% 8% 4% Residential - Tier 2 2,980 41% 18% 27% 18% Residential - Tier 3 878 12% 12% 14% 9% Non-residential Properties 1,938 27% 26% 51% 38%STORMWATER USER FEES Tax Exempt Properties 245 3% 27% 0% 21% City Properties 117 2% 12% 0% 10% 31% of Impervious Area contributes runoff but does not contribute to paying for stormwater management costs! 35 35 09/07/2012
  • Stormwater Rate Structure (ANNUAL CHARGE ESTIMATE)  Residential  Three tiered rates based on median Impervious Area of each tier Average Lot Size Average Impervious Area Annual Charge Tiers (square feet) (square feet) 6,050 950 $48.97STORMWATER USER FEES Tier 1 Tier 2 7,500 1,460 $75.02 Tier 3 16,500 2,370 $121.93  Non-residential  Individually calculated for each parcel based on estimated impervious area 36 36 09/07/2012
  • Stormwater Rate Comparison (ANNUAL CHARGE ESTIMATE) Comparison of Stormwater Charge Current Permit Permit Compliance through Spending Compliance Stormwater Utility (Option 1) (Option 2) (Option 3) Annual City Total Stormwater Stormwater Effective Taxes Taxes Charge Charge ChargeSTORMWATER USER FEES Residential Tier 1 (Avg. lot size 6,050 sq. ft.) $43.29 $77.64 $48.97 $5.10 $54.06 Tier 2 (Avg. lot size 7,500 sq. ft.) $54.59 $97.90 $75.02 $7.81 $82.83 Tier 3 (Avg. lot size 16,500 sq. ft.) $94.55 $169.58 $121.93 $12.69 $134.62 Non-residential Properties $156.79 $281.21 $232.99 $30.02 $257.25 Tax Exempt Properties - - $1,063.03 $110.68 $1,173.71 City Properties - - $973.36 - - (1) Contribution for City Properties, should City properties be exempted. 37 37 09/07/2012
  • 10-Year Comparison (REVENUES ESTIMATE)STORMWATER USER FEES 38 38 09/07/2012
  • Study Recommendations Consider Implementing a Stormwater UtilitySTORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM  Over$314,000/year possible in revenue from Tax Exempt Properties  Reasonable nexus between user fee and cost of service  Dedicated funds for current operations and future capital projects  Increased focus on Stormwater Management Activities  Positions the City for future regulatory changes and community needs 39 39 09/07/2012
  • Current Efforts Legislative Changes Sought – Cooperation with New Haven New Form of Government: Strong Mayor/City Council Political Agreement to pursue Stormwater Utility Formation of Stormwater Utility Task Force40 09/07/2012
  • Current efforts – Task Force Issues Task Force is reviewing include:  Retaining current stormwater O&M thru DPW or looking at alternatives  Billing mechanism  Appeals, waivers, & credits  Public public education & outreach for Stormwater Utility Implementation – How to get feedback - Citizens Advisory Committee?  Regionalization  Funding for implementation41 09/07/2012
  • Questions? Harry A. Smith, AICP City Planner New London CT Email: hsmith@ci.new-london.ct.us Web: www.ci.new-london.ct.us42 09/07/2012
  • Example Rate CalculationsProperty Class Proposed Fee Structure CalculationResidential Three Tiered Fees Tier I: 0 – 1100 ft2Tier 1 Tier II: 1100 - 2000 ft2Tier 2 Tier III: > 2000 ft2 Parcels classified into three tiers based on the actual impervious area, as calculatedTier 3 from City Assessor’s records of Building and Out Building Areas. The rate for each tier is based on the median impervious cover for that tier.Non-residential Impervious Cover Step 1: Determined Impervious Cover from City Assessor’s records of Building and OutGeneral Building Areas.Tax Exempt Step 2: Applied a 10% runoff coefficient to the undeveloped proportion of the parcel area.City Parcels Step 3: Added the results from Step 2 to the Impervious area calculated in Step 1 to derive the total impervious area.Other Runoff Coefficient Parcel area multiplied by runoff coefficient.Vacant Parcels Parcel area from Tax Assessor GIS for vacant parcels and Condominium mainsCondominiums respectively. Runoff Coefficient of 10 percent and 30 percent for vacant parcels and Condominium mains respectively..43 09/07/2012
  • Problem Area Bank Street Problem Description Flooding - Stormwater Pumps Estimate Repair Cost Complete Priority 1Areas Pequot Avenue Montauk Avenue @ Orchard St. Beach Erosion Flooding $350,000 $80,000 2 3 Broad Street (at Rite-Aid) Flooding $310,000 4 Dart Street Flooding Not yet estimated 5 Mill Street Infrastructure Issue $850,000 6 Farmington Ave Deteriorating Infrastructure $400,000 7 Shaw Street @ Ann Street Flooding $290,000 8 Riverview Ave @ Crescent St Flooding $470,000 9 Water Street Infrastructure Issue Unknown 10 Jefferson Avenue and Garfield Avenue Flooding $690,000 11 Pequot Avenue, Rockbourne Lane & Parkway Flooding $450,000 12 South Lower Boulevard Infrastructure Issue Not yet estimated 13 Oneco Avenue, Farnsworth St, & Deshon Flooding $880,000 14 Street Roosevelt Street Infrastructure Issue Not yet estimated 15 Fuller Street (Dead End portion) Flooding $120,000 16 Bayonet Street at Jennie Street Flooding $600,000 17 Caulkins Park Flooding Not yet estimated 18 Shermor Place to Henderson Rd. Flooding $230,000 19 Hempstead Court Flooding Not yet estimated 20 Manwaring St @ Hempstead St Infrastructure Issue Not yet estimated 21 Grove Street Infrastructure Issue $730,000 22 Hamilton Street @ Howard St Icing Not yet estimated 23 Federal Street Icing Not yet estimated 24 Hamilton Street Infrastructure Issue Completed 25 44 09/07/2012
  • City of NewtonStormwater Utility / Drain FeeMaria Rose, CFM, Environmental EngineerPublic Works Dept.
  • Newton, MA Population: 85,000  High and Medium Density Size: 18.1 sq miles Residential, Commercial & Industrial land uses 11.5 miles of riverfront  20% Open Space
  • Source: CRWA
  • Newton’s Drainage Infrastructure 12,750 catch basins 320 miles of drainage pipes 7 miles of streams 155 major outfalls / drainage channels Six (6) perennial streams and 16 intermittent streams (most in culverts)
  • Historical Perspective Significant development 1950 to 1970 Deferred maintenance NPDES Phase II in March 2003 Pressure from EPA to address water quality issues in Nov. 2004 Increased demand for larger homes and big box retail stores Additional impervious areas compound flooding issues
  • Drivers Aging infrastructure needs Stream channels and pond maintenance Flooding issues Water quality issues NPDES Permit
  • How can Newton pay for the mountingneeds in stormwater management andwater quality improvement? General Fund Assessments Establish a user-fee based Stormwater Utility
  • Neglected Leg of the Stool Stor m wat er Sew er Utilit y Wa ter Ut ty ili
  • Utility Concept Development Technical: develop the rate structure  Uniform fee versus Unit-based fee  MGL Ch 83 §16 Regulatory: ordinance Revenue Allocation Plan Administrative:  Implement transparent billing and credit procedures  Develop FAQs and Supplemental documents  Manage Program
  • Modest Start - Build Trust First Simplified Rate Structure and Billing Newton’s Initial Fee Structure based on “bare bones” program Residential accounts: 23,762 Commercial, Institutional & Industrial: 848
  • Stormwater Rate Structure Median Residential Lot Lot Size 10,062 Sq Ft Structures, 1,912, 19% Driveway, Open 1,207, 12% Space, 6,943, 69% Impervious Area = 3,119 SFBased upon a composite analysis of various sized residential lots from the 14 villages in Newton.
  • Current Stormwater Rate Structure Median Commercial Lot Lot Size 19,565 Sq Ft Open Space 5% Structures 36% Pavement 59% Impervious Area = 18,600 SFFor commercial properties analyzed: there was on average 6 times more impervious surfaces than residential. $700,000 =23,762(x) + 848(6x)“X” or the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) = $25 per yr
  • Resource Plan Stormwater Program Manager Dedicated DPW staff for maintenance, special projects and IDDE component of NPDES Cross-utilization of Public Works resources Generate revenue for capital improvements and infrastructure maintenance
  • Public Approval Process Presented concept to our Sewer / Stormwater Task Force Obtained letters of support Presentation to the Public Facilities Com. Action Alert Presentations made to the full Board of Alderman BOA approve ordinance on May 24, 2006
  • User Fee Implementation Drain fee included in Water / Sewer bills Revenue dedicated for stormwater management Elderly Discount Applies Credits given for owner maintained stormwater management / recharge systems
  • Public Education/ Program Roll-out News story on local cable TV Utility Bill Insert Newspaper Articles Stormwater Program FAQs Web site http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/stormwater/
  • Bioretention Areas – Filters Stormwater before entering Hammond Pond
  •  Pollutant Removal Efficiencies:  TSS (80 - 90%),  Phosphorus (10-90%),  Nitrogen (30 - 50%)  Metals: Copper, Lead, Zinc (40 to 90%)  Petroleum Hydro- carbons (40- 60%)  Bacteria / Pathogens – insufficient data
  • Sand Filters Pollutant Removal Efficiencies:  TSS (80%),  Phosphorus (10-50%),  Nitrogen (20 - 40%)  Metals: Copper, Lead, Zinc (50 to 90%)  Petroleum Hydrocarbons
  • Sand Filters in Use
  • Replace Drain Pipes & Increase Flood Capacity Ashmont Ave Drainage Project, 2009
  • Water quality sampling
  • Sediment SamplingPreparations for Pond Dredging Project
  • Cheesecake Brook
  • Public Education andInvolvement
  • Where do we stand now? Revenue generated is inadequate for our SWM needs. March 2010 floods strained all available resources and staff. Next generation of the NPDES MS4 Permit indicates additional revenue must be allocated for compliance. Need to correct inequities in fee structure. Consultant retained for rate study analysis and budget planning
  • Current System Impervious Area Revenues 15% 26%20% 65% 74% Res Commercial Tax Exempt Res Comm, Inst., Industry
  • Fee Calculation Mean Residential Impervious Area is 2300 sq ft. Equals 1.0 ERU
  • Fee Calculation Commercial Property = 1 ERU = 20 ERUs less credit1.1 ac Lot with 46,000 sq ft impervious
  • Distribution Under Revised Rate Structure Impervious Area Revenues 15% 15% 18%20% 65% 67% Res Commercial Tax Exempt Res Commercial Tax Exempt
  • Preliminary Proposed Rate Structure The average impervious area per unit redefined at 2,300 SF, this becomes the base unit.  Single-family: 1 ERU = $25.00  2-Family: 1.5 ERU = $37.50  3-Family and 4 or more unit apartments and condominiums: fee derived from impervious area  Commercial and Tax-Exempt Properties: fee derived from impervious area
  • New Rate Structure Increases our Stormwater Management revenues to 1.1 Million annually Eliminates a loop-hole and corrects minor issues in current rate structure Reinforces our SW Utility to be:  Stable  Adequate  Flexible  Equitable We have a planning level budget through 2017 that correlates to modest rate increases.
  • Lessons Learned Simplified initial approach worked for Newton; notwithstanding some challenges Have at least one showcase project Document gains made with the fund Be responsive to every billing inquiry, maintenance requests and flooding issues Build relationships with community & watershed groups Be consistent with credits given for stormwater recharge systems