PPA Case #1Water CaptureCity of MilwaukeeSteve BaisdenLaura CathermanJohn GardnerHeather GoetschOctober 24, 2011
October 24, 2011Matt HowardCity of MilwaukeeOffice of Environmental Sustainability809 N. BroadwayMilwaukee, WI 53202Dear M...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYStormwater management has become increasingly challenging, especially in today’s tougheconomic climate. T...
PROBLEM SUMMARYAs Milwaukee urbanized and the surface became more impervious, stormwater managementbecame increasingly cha...
main message the task force conveyed is that no single action can correct the stormwaterflooding issue.Considering the sew...
planned budget, the alternative must have outside funding or generate enough revenue to coverthe cost of the alternative.R...
Access into residential properties is not necessary to complete the disconnection. If residents donot choose to allow the ...
notified by mail two weeks prior to the evaluation and any possible work being done on theirproperty. MCSC members will be...
Several combinations of downspout disconnections and water saving measures exist that will     achieve a minimum volume re...
equivalent to the reduction of 780,000 gallons per 1” rain event.17 If Milwaukee sees an     average of 34 inches of rain ...
private property owners at an 80/20 split on repairs up to $7,500 (the city pays $6,000) whichwill cover cost for foundati...
Appendix AFigure A-1: Data for City of Milwaukee Roofs and Downspouts     Figure A-2: Downspout Disconnection Costs. Cost ...
Figure A-3: Volume Reduction Chart for Downspout Disconnections in CSS Area. Gallons of watercollected from a roof during ...
Appendix BFigure B-1: Data for CSS Area Roofs and Downspouts   Figure B-2: Downspout Disconnection Costs. Cost for materia...
Figure B-3: Volume Reduction Chart for Downspout Disconnections in CSS Area. Gallons of watercollected from a roof during ...
Figure B-5: Water Saving Measures and Potential Volume Reductions                                                         ...
Appendix C                Scenario for 15% Volume Reduction for Alternative D        Stormwater Feature             Est. G...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Water Overflow Solutions for the City of Milwaukee

333 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
333
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Water Overflow Solutions for the City of Milwaukee

  1. 1. PPA Case #1Water CaptureCity of MilwaukeeSteve BaisdenLaura CathermanJohn GardnerHeather GoetschOctober 24, 2011
  2. 2. October 24, 2011Matt HowardCity of MilwaukeeOffice of Environmental Sustainability809 N. BroadwayMilwaukee, WI 53202Dear Mr. Howard:Thank you for giving us the opportunity to examine the problems facing Milwaukee’s seweragesystem and to provide the city with our recommendation. Enclosed is a report that defines theproblems facing the city and focuses on low- and no-cost options that reduce the volume of waterentering the sewerage system. Based on our evaluation, we have recommended Alternative E, acombination of city-wide downspout disconnections and sewer lateral and foundation drainrepairs. Questions that are likely to be asked by residents and city officials include:  Which properties will get their downspouts disconnected first?  What problems might the solution create?  How much will this cost?  Why do some property owners get to participate while others do not?Downspout disconnections will take place city-wide for eligible properties and sewer lateral andfoundation drain repair and replacement will take place in targeted areas. The city cannot fundimprovements of all homes across the city due to budget constraints. The public purpose of theproposal is to reduce basement backups, minimize necessary costs, and improve the health andsafety for all residents. Fewer basement backups will cost the city, and therefore its residents,less money. In addition, the proposal will likely provide other public benefits such as anincreased value of housing stock for property owners.Some residents may ask why everyone must pay for repairs when only some residents willbenefit. This may be a sore subject for residents who could have taken advantage of pilotprograms at no cost and who now have to pay for these repairs. Residents need to understand thatthis program will aide in preventing future basement back-ups, lateral ruptures, and sewerageoverflows which would be much more costly than participation in this preventative program.Sincerely,Steve BaisdenLaura CathermanJohn GardnerHeather Goetsch 1
  3. 3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYStormwater management has become increasingly challenging, especially in today’s tougheconomic climate. The aging sewer system is expensive to replace and cannot be infinitelyexpanded to capture the large volumes of precipitation caused by the changing climate. The Cityof Milwaukee is considering inexpensive and creative ways to reduce the total volume enteringthe stormwater system. After careful examination of five alternatives, the most effective andefficient solution for the city is to mandate the disconnection of downspouts through cityordinance and facilitate inspections and repairs of foundation drains and laterals for all propertieswithin the city limits. This solution meets and in some cases exceeds the cost and volumecriteria defined in this report.Property owners will pay no cost for downspout disconnection if their annual household incomeis at or below the Federal Poverty Level. However, those who have an annual household incomeover the Federal Poverty Level will be responsible for disconnection at their own expense(estimated at $10 per downspout). Property owners could also pay up to $1,500 for overall repaircosts either upfront or over 20 years ($75 per year) for lateral and foundation drain repairs. Thelateral replacement and foundation drain disconnection costs will be covered under the city’s2012 planned budget and the downspout disconnection costs will be supported by an annualstormwater management fee. Stormwater fees range from $1.50 to $6 per year. Therefore, bothinitiatives can be carried out under the planned budget. A 15.1% volume reduction will bereached if 35% of properties in the city disconnect their downspouts and 1,300 residences repairtheir laterals in the non-compliant metershed.Not only does this solution address issues of social equity through income based fees and freedisconnections for households at or below the Federal Poverty Level, but it will help save costsfor property owners and the city by reducing the rate of basement back-ups. Allowing propertyowners to pay for these costs in small amounts over a 20 year period will ease the burden forhouseholds in today’s tough economic times. Furthermore, it is flexible for the city. Forexample, a modest increase in income based fees will allow more than 35% of downspouts to bedisconnected which will increase the reduction of stormwater runoff. Additionally, a modestincrease in fees could also be used to help cover any additional costs from lateral and foundationdrain repairs or sewer infrastructure. 2
  4. 4. PROBLEM SUMMARYAs Milwaukee urbanized and the surface became more impervious, stormwater managementbecame increasingly challenging. Milwaukee began to address these issues in 1925 with theopening of the Jones Island sewerage plant and followed later by the South Shore treatmentplant. The city was further able to collect and transport stormwater as well as sewage byconstructing a combined sewer system that captures both stormwater and sewage, which istreated before returning to Lake Michigan. Today, many areas have separated sewer systems(separate pipes for stormwater and sewage), yet 25% of the city’s 2,450 miles of sewers remaincombined.More than half of the sewers are more than 50 years old, not including laterals on privateproperty. The combined system is centrally located in the city and is below some of the poorestneighborhoods. Over time, pipes can crack, bend, and tree roots can grow through them causingissues that contribute to increased inflow and infiltration. The city has a maintenance plan toreplace or line damaged sewer pipes, but the plan does not include pipes on private property.Milwaukee’s housing stock was constructed largely before 1955. These homes have foundationdrains and downspouts directly connected to the sewer system. Along with leaky lateral pipes,these features are contributing factors to the 60% infiltration rate into the stormwater system.The cost for a homeowner to have his/her lateral inspected and replaced can range from $2,500to $7,000. The cost of disconnecting one downspout can be as minimal as $15.00, and installinga sump pump in place of the foundation drain can cost anywhere from $500 to $5,000.The existing sewer system is a fixed system and was built to handle precipitation patterns thatexisted 50 years ago. Major rain events have resulted in considerable flooding in the city as wellas sewerage backups in residents’ basements. Due to flooding damage from a large storm in2008, many homes were beyond repair and 20 homes were demolished. In June 2009, the cityreceived 763 calls from residents whose basements were flooded, 400 calls on July 15, 2010, andnearly 11,000 calls on July 22, 2010. As the trend of increased precipitation persists, Milwaukeewill need to adapt to handle the increased volumes.As climate changes, Wisconsin’s weather is becoming wetter and warmer. Precipitation hasincreased by 15% and annual precipitation is greater than 17 inches. Additionally, major stormevents have increased in both spring and fall. In fact, four of the top five river crests for theKinnickinnic River over the past 35 years occurred within the past three years.Another outcome of the increased precipitation has been sewerage overflows into LakeMichigan. In the 1980s, the state of Illinois took Milwaukee to court charging the city withpolluting Lake Michigan. Milwaukee was found guilty. At that time the city was dumping rawsewage into the lake 50 to 60 times per year. As a result, the Milwaukee Metropolitan SewerageDistrict (MMSD) created an Overflow Reduction Plan consisting of reclamation facilityupgrades, deep tunnels, and sewer rehabilitation. The plan reduced the overflows to 2 to 3 timesper year. While MMSD maintains their system, the city has to maintain its own sewers. This yearthe city will spend around $38 million on sewer repairs and replacements.In 2005, Mayor Barrett commissioned a Green Team to compose a sustainability report for thecity including nine recommendations for stormwater management. In response to the increasednumber of flooding events since 2008, the Mayor created a Flooding Study Task Force. The 3
  5. 5. main message the task force conveyed is that no single action can correct the stormwaterflooding issue.Considering the sewer system is fixed and expensive to repair or replace, the city and MMSDhave concluded that stormwater management needs to occur more comprehensively aboveground. In 2001, 2002, and 2006, the city and MMSD partnered to facilitate voluntarydownspout disconnections on private property. The city has additionally dedicated $10 millionto conducting pilot studies for stormwater mitigation, including bioswales in street medians,pervious pavement in alleys, green roofs on municipal buildings, detention ponds in parks, and amassive targeted sewer and lateral maintenance program. As recently as July 2011, the city’sCommon Council approved the National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program inorder to give private residents a more affordable lateral replacement option.PROBLEM STATEMENTMilwaukee’s tight budget and overall bad economy are impeding the city’s ability to handleincreasing volumes and costly combined sewer overflows and basement backups caused by thecity’s impervious urban environment, aging sewer infrastructure, and changing climate.CRITERIACost to Property OwnersThe preferred alternative must not require residential and non-residential property owners to paymore than an additional $100 and $1,000 respectively per property per year for the duration ofthe program and/or project.Rationale: Milwaukee’s residential and commercial property owners are negatively affected bythe bad economy. Median income for city households has decreased by 22% since 2000. 1However, the city is also negatively affected by the bad economy, aging infrastructure andhousing stock, and large rain events. The preferred alternative must address the city’s issueswhile keeping costs for property owners within reasonable limits. Examining fees for existingprograms in Milwaukee (i.e. Me2 2) and existing stormwater programs in other cities (i.e.Portland’s Clean River Rewards 3), residential property owners should not be expected to paymore than $100 annually and commercial property owners should not be expected to pay morethan $1,000 annually.Cost to the CityThe preferred alternative must not exceed the city’s planned fiscal year budget of $8 million.Rationale: Due to tough economic conditions and the city’s tight fiscal budget, the total cost ofpreferred alternative must fit within the city’s planned fiscal year budget. The city has budgeted$38 million for sewer costs. City officials expect to spend $30 million on upcomingmaintenance and repairs to infrastructure which leaves $8 million remaining for the fiscal year.The city cannot afford to allocate more money to the Sewer Maintenance Fund. Additionally,raising taxes to cover the cost of stormwater management would be politically unfeasibly giventhe current economic climate. However, if the estimated costs of an alternative exceed the city’s1 Journal Sentinel. http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/130325653.html2 Me2. http://www.smartenergypays.com3 City of Portland Clean River Rewards. http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=41976 4
  6. 6. planned budget, the alternative must have outside funding or generate enough revenue to coverthe cost of the alternative.Reduction in Stormwater VolumeThe preferred alternative must reduce the total volume of stormwater runoff and/or volume ofwater entering the sewerage system by 15% during a 1” rain event within 5 years afterimplementation.Rationale: Modeled after Mayor Barrett’s directive for city departments to reduce stormwaterrunoff by 15% on city owned properties4, the preferred alternative must reduce the volume ofstormwater runoff or water entering the sewerage system by 15% for residential and non-residential properties in Milwaukee. The 5 year planning horizon provides sufficient time forfunding to be secured and revenue to be generated, if needed. Additionally, a 5 yearimplementation period will allow for the alternative to be implemented at all residential and non-residential properties in Milwaukee. For example, if the preferred alternative includes plantmaterial, a 5 year planning horizon will allow plants to mature before measuring the alternative’seffectiveness.ALTERNATIVESAlternative A: Downspout disconnection within city limits and stormwater management incomebased feesAlternative A mandates by ordinance the disconnection of all downspouts within city limits.This includes the disconnection of all eligible properties in the 27 square mile combined stormand sanitary sewer system (CSS), in addition to all properties outside the CSS area but stillwithin city limits. The disconnection must be completed within four years of enactment of theordinance. Property owners may be eligible to complete the disconnection for free if they meetthe criteria set forth in Chapter 225, Section 4.2 in the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances (MCO)5and their annual household income is at or below the Federal Poverty Level. 6 This free servicewill be performed by the Milwaukee Community Service Corps (MCSC).7 MCSC will helpdetermine the number of downspouts that can be disconnected and the best method fordisconnection in each case. Supplies needed for disconnection work (i.e. hack saws, rubber caps,downspout elbows), instructions, and any necessary technical assistance will be supplied to theMCSC by the city. After the disconnection is complete, a follow-up inspection by the City ofMilwaukee Department of Public Works (DPW) will ensure that the system works properly.Property owners will be notified by mail two weeks prior to the evaluation of any possible workbeing done on their property. MCSC members will be required to keep extensive notes on eachproperty for use in the city’s property database. In addition to the mandated disconnection, theordinance will prohibit any future development or redevelopment in the city limits fromconnecting downspouts. In cases where it may not be technically feasible to disconnect thedownspout or where disconnection would create a hazardous condition, exceptions to thisregulation will be granted for properties unable to meet the city’s criteria set forth in the MCO.4 City of Milwaukee Office of Environmental Sustainability. http://city.milwaukee.gov/ManagingYourStormwater5 Milwaukee Code of Ordinances. Chapter 225, Section 4. http://cctv25.milwaukee.gov/netit-code81/volume2_/ch225/CH225.pdf6 2011 Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml (e.g. Annualincome for a family of four would be less than or equal to $22,350).7 Milwaukee Community Service Corps. http://www.milwaukeecommunityservicecorps.org/home.htm 5
  7. 7. Access into residential properties is not necessary to complete the disconnection. If residents donot choose to allow the MCSC to perform the work, the owners must disconnect the downspoutthemselves or hire a licensed plumber to disconnect the downspout at the owners expense.Those property owners who have an annual household income over the Federal Poverty Level donot qualify for the free downspout disconnection. These property owners are required to performand pay for their own downspout disconnection. In addition to downspout disconnections, allproperties in the city limits will be assigned an annual stormwater management fee. This fee willdepend on the cost to maintain the downspout disconnection program over the four year timeallotment and will be predicated on income (Figure A-4). For example, to help offset themonetary burden placed on the city to implement the downspout disconnection initiative, allproperty owners in the city would pay a monthly fee at a variable rate based on householdincome.Evaluation of Alternative A: (See figures in Appendix A for tables and calculations) Cost to Property Owners: Regarding downspout disconnection, property owners will pay no cost if their annual household income is at or below the Federal Poverty Level (i.e., $22,350 for a family of four). MCSC will perform the disconnection work with materials supplied from the city. Property owners who have an annual household income over the Federal Poverty Level will be responsible for the disconnection of the downspouts at their own expense, which may range from $10 to $80 over a four year period. In addition, property owners would pay between $1.50 and $6 annually to help implement Alternative A (Figure A-4). This increasing step fee is variable depending on household income. This fee will help offset the cost of stormwater management programs/projects undertaken by the city. Cost to the City: The city will be required to pay up to $2,766,974 for supplies and MCSC fees over the four year implementation period to achieve a 15% in volume reduction ($691,743 per year) (Figure A-2). Downspout supply fees were calculated at a rate of $10 each. MCSC fees were calculated using Wisconsins minimum wage rate of $7.25 8 and assuming an average disconnection time of 20 minutes per downspout. The annual cost to perform downspout disconnection will be supported by the annual stormwater management fee. Reduction in Stormwater Volume: A 15% in volume reduction will be reached if 35% of property owners within the city disconnect their downspouts (Figure A-3).Alternative B: Downspout disconnections in the CSS area and water allotment surcharge feeAlternative B requires by ordinance that all eligible properties in the CSS sewerage systemdisconnect downspouts. The timeline for completing disconnections is two years from theenactment of the city’s ordinance. To assist property owners in the CSS area, propertyevaluations and disconnection work will be performed by the MCSC under direction from theDPW. MCSC members will evaluate each home in the CSS area to determine eligibility.Properties eligible for disconnection must meet the criteria set forth in Chapter 225, Section 4.2in the MCO.9 Supplies and instructions needed for disconnection work (i.e. hack saws, rubbercaps, downspout elbows) will be supplied to the MCSC by the city. Property owners will be8 Wisconsin Minimum Wage. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm#Wisconsin9 Milwaukee Code of Ordinances. http://cctv25.milwaukee.gov/netit-code81/volume2_/ch225/CH225.pdf 6
  8. 8. notified by mail two weeks prior to the evaluation and any possible work being done on theirproperty. MCSC members will be required to keep extensive notes on each property for use inthe city’s property database. After the disconnection is complete, a follow-up inspection by theDPW will ensure that the system works properly. In addition to the mandated disconnection, theordinance will prohibit any future development or redevelopment in the CSS area fromconnecting downspouts. Exceptions to this regulation will be granted for properties unable tomeet the city’s criteria set forth in the MCO.In addition to downspout disconnections, residential properties in the CSS area will be assigned awater usage allotment. Determining allotments for non-residential properties would be difficultdue to the varying nature of business activities and non-residential properties in the CSS area.Every non-residential property would need to be examined on a case-by-case basis which wouldbe time consuming and costly for the city. The allotment for residential properties, 70 gallonsper person per day10, will be based on the number of persons living in each household. Eachgallon used in excess of the allotted amount will receive a surcharge fee added to the existing pergallon rate. Households consuming less than the allotted amount will receive credits for eachgallon not used in a given month. Credits can be used to cover or offset future surcharge feeswhen applicable. Unused credits will expire one year from the date earned. Credits for eachhousehold will appear on the monthly water utility bill. Collected surcharge fees can be used todefray costs for implementing the downspout disconnection mandate and aid in reducing thevolume of water entering the CSS sewerage system. Surcharge fee rates will be evaluatedannually and based on the city’s CSS sewerage system needs (i.e. infrastructure upgrades).Evaluation of Alternative B: (See figures in Appendix B for tables and calculations) Cost to Property Owners: Property owners could pay as little as $0 to implement Alternative B. Since MCSC will be performing disconnection work and the city will be supplying the materials, downspout disconnections will have no direct out-of-pocket costs for property owners. However, depending on each individual property owner’s water usage, surcharges may be accrued for excessive water use. Cost to the City: Depending on the number of properties eligible for downspout disconnection, the city may be required to pay up to $3,153,495.89 for supplies ($10 per downspout) and MCSC fees over the two year implementation period (Figure B-2). MCSC fees were calculated using Wisconsin’s minimum wage rate of $7.25 11 and assuming an average disconnection time of 20 minutes per downspout. Implementation of the water usage surcharge fee will require minimal additional staff time and should cost less than $100,000 per year to administer. The water usage surcharge fees will likely generate revenue for the city from excessive water users, especially in summer months. Reduction in Stormwater Volume: A 15% reduction in volume can be achieved through a combination of downspout disconnections and water saving measures 12. For example, if 30% of all property owners disconnect downspouts and 10% of all property owners pursue water saving measures (i.e. low-flow shower heads), a 15.1% reduction in volume will occur.10 Water Usage. http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/08/25/just-how-much-rainwater-can-you-collect-off-your-roof/11 Wisconsin Minimum Wage. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm#Wisconsin12 Water Saving Measures. http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/conservation/thepowerof10/ 7
  9. 9. Several combinations of downspout disconnections and water saving measures exist that will achieve a minimum volume reduction of 15% (Figures A-3, A-4, and A-5).Alternative C: Lateral repairsAlternative C requires the City of Milwaukee to work with private property owners to replacesewer laterals in targeted poorly performing sewer-shed areas as denoted by MMSD’s non-compliant metershed reports. In July 2011, the city agreed to partner with the National League ofCities Sewer Line Warranty Program to provide lateral insurance in case of rupture. However,less than 0.1% of the city’s laterals break each year13. The city must provide a policy to quickenthe pace of lateral repair in the city’s neediest areas. The city’s 2012 planned budget includes agoal of repairing laterals in roughly 350 homes. MMSD granted $2.64 million to the city in 2012for private property I/I work14 and the city has set aside money within the Sewer MaintenanceFund, so funding for the program should not be an issue.15The city will conduct sewer lateral repairs and foundation drain disconnections to homes withinthe MMSD non-compliant metersheds (containing a rough average of 400 homes each). The costof both sewer lateral repair and foundation drain disconnection is roughly $7,500 per property.This alternative will follow the city’s 2011 Pilot Program model16, but will include a modifiedpayment structure in which the city will reimburse private property owners at an 80/20 split oncosts up to $7,500 (the city’s share will be a maximum of $6,000). The city will reimburse theprivate property owner for the full cost of foundation drain repairs (usually $2000) and an 80/20split on costs for lateral replacement or repair (including new lining). Property owners have theoption to pay upfront or through a 15-year payment plan (approximately $100 a year). Inaddition, residents may choose what items to repair. The city will use contractors to perform thework. The city will conduct lateral inspections first and notices will be sent to property ownerswith a list of identified problems and cost estimates. Given such a cost/share model, with an $8million budget the city could serve approximately 1,300 homes (or treat over 3 non-compliantmetersheds out of 15) in one year.Evaluation of Alternative C: Cost to Property Owners: Property owners could pay up to $1500 for repairs, which could be paid upfront or over the course of 15 years ($100 per year). Cost to the City: This alternative is within the city’s current budget proposal for 2012 and requires no additional funding sources due to the limited nature of the proposal. Reduction in Stormwater Volume: Alternative C reduces flow by 42,000 gallons per minute (GPM) for 1300 homes. If we assume 75% of the homes in a non-compliant metershed (300 homes) have leaky laterals that contribute 50 GPM during a rain event, we end up with a flow rate of 15,000 GPM for each non-compliant metershed. If laterals are repaired and only leak 10 GPM, we have a combined flow rate of 3,000 GPM. If applied to 1,300 homes, this results in a reduction in flow of 52,000 GPM. A 40% reduction in I/I for 1,300 homes is13 Mayor’s Veto. http://milwaukee.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=824556&GUID=1640B292-F671-4457-9282-56F25591830E&Options=ID%7cText%7c&Search=national+league14 MMSD Budget. http://v3.mmsd.com/AssetsClient/Documents/Budgets/2012%20Proposed%20Budget.pdf15 City Budget. http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/crystali/2012budget/2012proposedbook.pdf16 Pilot Program. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/114022314.html 8
  10. 10. equivalent to the reduction of 780,000 gallons per 1” rain event.17 If Milwaukee sees an average of 34 inches of rain per year, Alternative C would reduce I/I in the city by 26,520,000 gallons a year. The city will need 9 similar projects to achieve the goal of reducing volume by 243 million gallons a year (15%).Alternative D: Stormwater management through zoningAlternative D requires by zoning regulation that all development or redevelopment proposalssubmitted to the Department of City Development must include: (1) a stormwater managementplan regardless of acreage of land disruption, (2) all parking lots must contain at least onestormwater mitigation feature, and (3) all street repairs must include bioswales and/or raingardens in the median or grassway between the curb and sidewalk. All regulations are to takeinto effect no later than January 1, 2012. To cover any additional costs, the city will dedicate atleast $5 million from its annual sewer repair budget. Additionally, property owners willsupplement the bioswales and/or rain gardens in grassways by increasing their stormwatermanagement charge by $10 per year for five years, not to exceed $1000.00 per year forcommercial properties.Evaluation of Alternative D: (See figure in Appendix C for table and calculations) Cost to Property Owners: The added stormwater management charge will total $76.88 for residential buildings and will not exceed $150.00 for commercial properties regardless of the average impervious surface area of 1,610 square feet, or Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs). This alternative is within the parameters of the cost criteria for property owners. Cost to the City: The cost to the city is below its fiscal budget for 2012 and does not require an increase in taxes to residents. This alternative is within parameters of the cost to the city criteria. Reduction in Stormwater Volume: In order to meet the 15% volume reduction around 243,127,526 gallons would need to be reduced at the end of five years for a 1” rain event. Figure C-1 in appendix C shows one of many ways this criterion can be met.Alternative E: Downspout disconnection ordinance within City limits and sewerlateral/foundation drain disconnectionAlternative E is a combination of Alternative A and Alternative C. Alternative E mandates byordinance the disconnection of all downspouts within city limits and replacement of sewerlaterals/drain disconnections within selected areas. Furthermore, the City will replace sewerlaterals and perform foundation drain disconnections within poorly performing sewer-shed areas,as designated by MMSD. Evaluations and lateral inspections will be conducted by licensedcontractors issued by the City. The property owners eligible for downspout disconnection andthose properties selected for lateral replacement will be notified by mail two weeks prior to theirevaluation. These notices will detail possible work that may be done on the property (includingrepairs) and potential costs. Alternative E includes a lateral fee and an annual stormwatermanagement fee. The lateral fee covers the cost of both sewer lateral repair and foundation draindisconnection is roughly $7,500 per property. A modified payment structure will reimburse17 Calculation: 1300 homes put 1.3 million gallons into the system in a 1" storm, they would instead put in 520,000gallons. (saving 780,000 gallons per storm). 9
  11. 11. private property owners at an 80/20 split on repairs up to $7,500 (the city pays $6,000) whichwill cover cost for foundation drain repairs and lateral replacement (including new lining).Residents may pay either upfront or by means of a payment plan over 20 years. The stormwatermanagement fee applies to all properties within city limits to support the downspoutdisconnection program. This fee is based on the cost to maintain the downspout disconnectionprogram over the four year time allotment and will be predicated on income.Evaluation of Alternative E: Cost to Property Owners: Property owners will pay no cost for downspout disconnection if their annual household income is at or below the Federal Poverty Level. However, those who have an annual household income over the Federal Poverty Level will be responsible for disconnection as their own expense ($10 per downspout). Property owners could pay up to $1,500 for overall repair costs either upfront or over 20 years ($75 per year). Stormwater fees range from $1.50 to $6 per year. Cost to the City: The lateral replacement/foundation drain disconnection costs will be covered under the city’s 2012 planned budget and the downspout disconnection costs will be supported by the annual stormwater management fee; therefore, both initiatives can be carried out under the planned budget. Reduction in Stormwater Volume: A 15.1% in volume reduction will be reached if 35% of properties within the city disconnect their downspouts and 1,300 residences repair their laterals in the non-compliant metershed.RECOMMENDATIONUpon evaluation of all five alternatives, Alternative E is the recommended solution. AlternativeE successfully meets, and in some cases exceeds, the cost and volume criteria. As noted by theFlooding Study Task Force, no single solution will fix the problem. Therefore, downspoutdisconnections, lateral inspections and repairs, and income-based fees are more effective whenimplemented in conjunction with each other than independently.Alternative E addresses issues of social equity through income based fees and freedisconnections for households at or below the Federal Poverty Level. Additionally, although thelateral repairs alone will not result in substantial volume reductions, this proactive solution willhelp save costs for property owners and the city by reducing the rate of basement back-ups.Allowing property owners to pay for these costs in small amounts over a 20 year period will easethe burden for households in today’s tough economic times. Furthermore, Alternative E is aflexible solution for the city. For example, a modest increase in income based fees will allowmore than 35% of downspouts to be disconnected which will increase the reduction ofstormwater runoff. Additionally, a modest increase in fees could also be used to help cover anyadditional costs from lateral inspections, maintenance, and repairs. 10
  12. 12. Appendix AFigure A-1: Data for City of Milwaukee Roofs and Downspouts Figure A-2: Downspout Disconnection Costs. Cost for materials is based on $10 per downspout and cost for MCSC fees is based on 20 minutes per downspout and the Wisconsin minimum wage rate of $7.25. 11
  13. 13. Figure A-3: Volume Reduction Chart for Downspout Disconnections in CSS Area. Gallons of watercollected from a roof during a 1” rain event was calculated by multiplying the total square feet of roofarea x 1” of rain x 0.6 (gallons collected per square foot per inch of rain). Figure A-4: Income Based Fee 12
  14. 14. Appendix BFigure B-1: Data for CSS Area Roofs and Downspouts Figure B-2: Downspout Disconnection Costs. Cost for materials is based on $10 per downspout and cost for MCSC fees is based on 20 minutes per downspout and the Wisconsin minimum wage rate of $7.25. 13
  15. 15. Figure B-3: Volume Reduction Chart for Downspout Disconnections in CSS Area. Gallons of watercollected from a roof during a 1” rain event was calculated by multiplying the total square feet of roofarea x 1” of rain x 0.6 (gallons collected per square foot per inch of rain). Figure B-4: Volume Reduction Chart for Water Saving Measures in CSS Area 14
  16. 16. Figure B-5: Water Saving Measures and Potential Volume Reductions 15
  17. 17. Appendix C Scenario for 15% Volume Reduction for Alternative D Stormwater Feature Est. Gallons Reduced Total Square FeetBioswales 2,500,000 500,000Porous pavement 10,000,000 1,000,000Stormwater trees 10,000 1,000Native landscaping 1,050,000 700,000Rain garden 1,000,000 500,000Green roof 15,000,000 5,000,000Green alleys, streets, and parking 20,000,000 2,000,000lotsTotal 49,560,000 9,701,000Total after 5 years 247,800,000 48,505,000Source: http://www.h2ocapture.com/Calculate.aspxFigure C-1: Scenario for 15% Volume Reduction for Alternative D 16

×