View
216
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Consensus-Building and Its Consensus-Building and Its Role in Successful Stormwater Role in Successful Stormwater Utility ImplementationUtility Implementation
Danny Bowden, City of RaleighDanny Bowden, City of RaleighScott McClelland, CDMScott McClelland, CDM
Presented at:Presented at:NC APWA Innovations in Water NC APWA Innovations in Water Resources & Stormwater ManagementResources & Stormwater Management
September 27, 2004September 27, 2004
Presentation AgendaPresentation Agenda
Drivers for the stormwater funding study Role of the stakeholder group Establishment of a utility for the City of
Raleigh Lessons learned and ongoing efforts
What Drove the Need to Perform a Stormwater
Management Funding Study?
Consequences of Increased Consequences of Increased Uncontrolled UrbanizationUncontrolled Urbanization
TimeTime
Str
eam
Flo
w R
ate
Str
eam
Flo
w R
ate
With UrbanizationWith UrbanizationWithout UrbanizationWithout Urbanization
Greater & earlierGreater & earlierpeak dischargepeak discharge
Greater runoff volumeGreater runoff volume
Smaller & less rapid peakSmaller & less rapid peak
Reduced baseflow Reduced baseflow
Rapid conveyanceRapid conveyanceof more pollutantsof more pollutants
Impacts of Increased RunoffImpacts of Increased Runoff
Creates downstream flooding problems
Accelerates erosion and degradation of our streams
Carries pollutants into streams and rivers, impacting water quality
Did the City’s Stormwater Program Have Adequate Resources?
Previous Stormwater Management Previous Stormwater Management Program Budget and Staffing LevelsProgram Budget and Staffing Levels
The City’s Existing Level of ServiceThe City’s Existing Level of Service
Operation & Maintenance – 5 staff members provided all maintenance for City’s stormwater program (making maintenance solely reactive)
Operation & Maintenance – 5 staff members provided all maintenance for City’s stormwater program (making maintenance solely reactive)
Capital Improvements – CIP was funded by a mix of City funds and grants. Program needs were prioritized to try and address the most critical needs
Capital Improvements – CIP was funded by a mix of City funds and grants. Program needs were prioritized to try and address the most critical needs
Program Administration – City did a good job of planning, but lacked resources to update models for new conditions and to manage new CIP projects
Program Administration – City did a good job of planning, but lacked resources to update models for new conditions and to manage new CIP projects
Over 3,000 Stormwater Complaints Were Made By City Residents Since 1986Over 3,000 Stormwater Complaints Were Made By City Residents Since 1986
Less than 15% of those complaints had
been addressed
Less than 15% of those complaints had
been addressed
City Drainage Basin Studies Had Identified Nearly $100 Million of CIP Needs
Federal and State Water Quality Federal and State Water Quality RegulationsRegulations
NPDES Phase I & II Regulations EPA/State 303(d) List Nutrient sensitive waters (i.e. Neuse Rules) Wetlands/401 Regulations Federal Clean Water Act - TMDLs
What Questions Does This Raise???What Questions Does This Raise???
Are the City’s programs effective in achieving its goals?
Does the City have adequate staff to support its programs?
What role does the current funding play in making these goals more difficult to achieve?
Are the citizens satisfied with the City’s current level of service?
What Role Does a Stakeholders Group Play in the Process?
Financial, Technical, and Stakeholder Financial, Technical, and Stakeholder Input Is Used to Develop Input Is Used to Develop RecommendationsRecommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
Collect and Evaluate Data
Define BillingMethodology
DetermineBilling Units
EstablishAdministrative
Procedures
F I N A N C I A L
IdentifyStormwater
Needs
SelectFundingMethods
Develop 5-yrFinancial Plan
Set User Fee
T E C H N I C A L
AppointCitizen
Committee
CommitteeReviews Needs
CommitteeReviews FundingMethods
CommitteeReviewsUser Fee
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Project Approach Gave Every Member Project Approach Gave Every Member of the Process An Equal Voteof the Process An Equal Vote
Stakeholders
Consensus-Based
Results
Old ApproachOld Approach Our ApproachOur Approach
StakeholdersProject Sponsor
Stakeholder Group Workshop ProcessStakeholder Group Workshop Process
Invite representatives with diverse opinions Facilitate meetings to emphasize “fairness
and equity” Discuss program levels of service Group/consultant
presents results to Council
Invite a Diverse Group to Represent Invite a Diverse Group to Represent the Customers At-Largethe Customers At-Large
StakeholdersGroup
StakeholdersGroup
State and Local Government
State and Local Government
Citizen Action Groups
Citizen Action Groups
HomeownersAssociationsHomeownersAssociations Environmental
InterestsEnvironmental
Interests
Commercial Business Interests
Commercial Business Interests
Homebuilders Association
Homebuilders Association
Non-Profit Groups
Non-Profit Groups
Schools and UniversitiesSchools and Universities
Case Study: City of RaleighCase Study: City of Raleigh
Stakeholders Group Consisted of 25 MembersStakeholders Group Consisted of 25 Members
Office of State Construction
Wake Co. Environmental Services
North Carolina State University
Meredith College
Wake County School System
Local High Schools (2)
Crabtree Valley Mall
Practicing Engineer
Chamber of Commerce
Office of State Construction
Wake Co. Environmental Services
North Carolina State University
Meredith College
Wake County School System
Local High Schools (2)
Crabtree Valley Mall
Practicing Engineer
Chamber of Commerce
Homebuilders Associations
Association of Realtors
Environmental Group (3)
Homeowners Association (2)
Citizen Action Groups (2)
Church Representative
Apartment Management (2)
Local Non-Profit Groups (2)
Progress Energy
Homebuilders Associations
Association of Realtors
Environmental Group (3)
Homeowners Association (2)
Citizen Action Groups (2)
Church Representative
Apartment Management (2)
Local Non-Profit Groups (2)
Progress Energy
Stakeholder Meeting TopicsStakeholder Meeting Topics
Meeting #1 – Introduction, Expectations, & Schedule
Meeting #2 – Stormwater 101 & Program Level of Service
Meeting #3 – Existing Program Level of Service & Cost
Meeting #4 – Stakeholder Field Trip Meeting #5 – Level of Service Improvements
and Cost
Stakeholder Meeting Topics (con’t)Stakeholder Meeting Topics (con’t)
Meeting #6 – Future Level of Service Selection Meeting #7 – Existing Funding Sources &
Options Meeting #8 – Program Rate Structures Meeting #9 – Fee Adjustments & Credits Meeting #10 – Stakeholder Recommendations
Stormwater Management Functional Stormwater Management Functional AreasAreas
Stormwater Program Management The planning and management of assets
associated with stormwater Operations and Maintenance
The management of stormwater assets to assure that the assets continue to operate at peak efficiency
Capital Improvements Project (CIP) The construction of new assets that upgrade
older portions of the stormwater system and that handle growth within the system
Stormwater Management GoalsStormwater Management Goals
Flood control
Water quality protection
Operation and maintenance
Regulatory compliance
Environmental protection
Long-term financing
Community acceptance
Levelsof
Service
Developing a Level of ServiceDeveloping a Level of Service
Level of Service Maintenance
Management, Compliance and Implementation
Capital Improvement
Projects
AFully Preventative/ 100%
Routine
Comprehensive Planning + Regulatory Compliance + Full
Implementation5- to 7-year plan
BMixture of Routine and
Inspection Based
Pro-Active Planning + Regulatory Compliance + Systematic
Implementation10- to 15-year plan
C Inspection Based OnlyPriority Planning + Regulatory
Compliance + Partial Implementation
20- to 25-year plan
DResponsive Only
(Complaint-based)
Reactionary Planning + Partial Compliance + Minimal
Implementation40- to 50-year plan
FLess than full response
to all complaintsNo Planning +
Non-Compliance75- to 100-year plan
Stakeholder Group Field TripStakeholder Group Field Trip
15 stakeholders and 2 city council members visited 9 stormwater project sites
Sites were chosen to show examples of “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of stormwater management
City of Raleigh Stormwater Program City of Raleigh Stormwater Program Level of Service Matrix Level of Service Matrix
Level of Service
Program Management and Compliance
Capital Improvement
Projects
Annual Program
Cost
Level of Service, Existing Stormwater Program, 2002.
C
$17 million
Responsive Only
Comprehensive Planning, NPDES Compliance, Full Implementation
Pro-Active Planning, NPDES Compliance,
Systematic Implementation
Priority Planning, NPDES Compliance,
Partial Implementation
Fully Preventative/ 100% Routine
Mixture of Routine and Inspection Based
Inspection Based Only
$11.8 million
$6 million/year (16- year program)
$4 million/year (25- year program)
$3 million/year (33- year program)
Operation and Maintenance
B
A
D $6.5 millionn/a$2 million/year
(50- year program)
$8.5 million
Stormwater Utility Stakeholder Level of Stormwater Utility Stakeholder Level of Service Voting Results Service Voting Results
Stakeholder Voting Tally
Program Components
Stakeholder Voting Tally
Program Components
Stakeholder Voting Tally
Level of Current Stormwater Program, 2002.
00
7
9
6
7
9
6
9
7
6
0
$6 million/year (16-year program)
$4 million/year (25-year program)
$3 million/year (33-year program)
C
Program Components
B
A
D n/a$2 million/year
(50-year program)
Fully Preventative/ 100% Routine
Operation and MaintenanceProgram Management and
ComplianceLevel of Service
Mixture of Routine and Inspection Based
Inspection Based Only
Responsive Only
Comprehensive Planning, NPDES Compliance, Full Implementation
Pro-Active Planning, NPDES Compliance,
Systematic Implementation
Priority Planning, NPDES Compliance,
Partial Implementation
Capital Improvement Projects
How Should We Pay For Our Stormwater Management Program?
Residential Property Tax29%
Commercial Property Tax15%
Sales Tax17%
Fund Balance7%
Transfers7%
Intergovernmental9%
Fees & Misc.5%
Inspection Fees3%
Convention Center3% Interest
1%Licenses4%
Components of General Fund:Components of General Fund:
Traditional Funding Has No Traditional Funding Has No Relationship to Stormwater ServiceRelationship to Stormwater Service
Funding Options for Stormwater Funding Options for Stormwater ManagementManagement
Taxes Ad Valorem Municipal Service Districts Special Assessments Sales Taxes (Local Government Sales & Use Taxes)
Utility or Public Service Enterprise Fees (User Fees)
Other Funding Impact Fees Grants Loans/Bonds
Funding Capability of Each Funding Funding Capability of Each Funding OptionOption
Funding OptionProgram
ManagementOperation & Maintenance
Capital Improvements Growth
Ad Valorem Municipal Service Districts Special Assessments Local Government Sales Tax Enterprise (User) Fees Licenses/Permits Penalties/Fines Grants Bonds
How Do They Compare in Some Key How Do They Compare in Some Key Areas?Areas?
Funding Option Authority EquityRevenue Capacity
Ease of Implementation Initial Costs System Costs
Ad Valorem Tax Yes Low Sufficient? Easy Low LowMuncipal Service Districts Tax Vote Low Sufficient Difficult Moderate ModerateSpecial Assessments Ordinance High Sufficient Difficult High ModerateLocal Government Sales Tax Vote Low Insufficient Difficult Low LowEnterprise Fees Ordinance High Sufficient Moderate Moderate ModerateLicenses/Permits Yes High Insufficient Moderate Low ModeratePenalties/Fines Yes Moderate Insufficient Moderate Low ModerateGrants Yes Low Insufficient Moderate Low LowBonds Yes n/a Insufficient Moderate Low Moderate
A Stormwater Utility Charges a User Fee A Stormwater Utility Charges a User Fee Based on Impacts to the Stormwater Based on Impacts to the Stormwater SystemSystem
Pollutants Pollutants Pollutants Pollutants
Water RunoffWater Runoff Water RunoffWater Runoff
Stormwater Utilities: New Concept?Stormwater Utilities: New Concept?
First utility established in 1976 (Bellevue, WA) Trend continued in the late 80’s/early 90’s in
response to NPDES Phase I Approximately 400 utilities exist today Most larger communities in North Carolina are
now funded by a stormwater utility
RaleighCharlotte
GreensboroWinston-Salem
DurhamFayettevilleWilmingtonGreenvilleChapel Hill
WashingtonWilson
High PointRocky Mount
Benefits = ChargeBenefits = Charge
Management of runoff benefits owners and tenants
Benefit relates to property’s contribution to the problem (runoff burden)
Fee relates to runoff Common proxy for runoff is impervious area
Customer receives services from the utility in direct
measure to the runoff burden
Customer receives services from the utility in direct
measure to the runoff burden
Utility Fees Should Be Fair and Utility Fees Should Be Fair and Equitable Based on Service NeededEquitable Based on Service Needed
Water utility – volume used Wastewater utility – volume generated Solid waste program – volume/weight Stormwater utility– runoff contribution
A Stormwater User Charge Is Typically A Stormwater User Charge Is Typically Based on Impervious SurfaceBased on Impervious Surface
2400 sq ft
1600 sq ft
1030 sq ft
880 sq ft
65 sq ft
87 sq ft
Comparison Between Ad Valorem and Comparison Between Ad Valorem and a Stormwater User Feea Stormwater User Fee
Advantages In place already Easy to collect and
administer (tax collector)
Can be sufficient for all services
Disadvantages Not dedicated Competition Not equitable
Advantages
Equitable (i.e., fee related to service provided)
Stable & dedicated funding
Encourages good behavior
Sufficient for all services
Disadvantages
Startup costs
Administrative costs
Ad ValoremAd Valorem Stormwater User FeeStormwater User Fee
City of Raleigh Stormwater Program City of Raleigh Stormwater Program Levels of Service & Annual CostsLevels of Service & Annual Costs
Level of Service
Program Management
and Compliance
Capital Improvement
Projects
Annual Program
Cost
Estimated User Fee
($/SFU/month)
Equivalent Tax Rate ($/$100)
NOTES:1) = CDM estimate of Current City of Raleigh Program
$2.88 $0.033C
$17 million $5.76 $0.067
$11.8 million $4.00 $0.046B
$2.20 $0.026
Operation and Maintenance
A
D $6.5 millionn/a$2 million/year
(50-year program)
$8.5 million
$6 million$6 million/year
(16-year program)
$4 million/year (25-year program)
$3 million/year (33-year program)
$2 million
$5 million
$3 million
$2.5 million
$4.8 million
$3 million
Cost Comparison for the Typical Cost Comparison for the Typical Residential Home OwnerResidential Home Owner
Tax rate needed for LOS B = $0.046 per $100 assessed value
For median home:
User rate needed for LOS B = $4.00 per month per SFU
For median home:
$156,000/$100 x 0.046 = $71.76/yr
$4.00 x 12 = $48.00/yr
Ad ValoremAd Valorem Stormwater User FeeStormwater User Fee
Outcome of City of Raleigh Stormwater Outcome of City of Raleigh Stormwater Funding StudyFunding Study
Stakeholders broadly supported an increase in the City’s level of service
The group voted almost unanimously to fund the program with a utility
Stakeholders participated in the presentation to Council
Council approved the implementation of the utility in May 2003
Continuing Efforts and Lessons Learned
Keys To Establishing A Successful Keys To Establishing A Successful Stormwater Utility ProgramStormwater Utility Program
Review and establish the current level of service of the program
Involve a stakeholders group to determine the desired level of service of the public at-large
Allow the stakeholders to choose the desired funding option
Utilize the stakeholder process to gain the support of the citizens and local government officials
Ongoing Efforts….Ongoing Efforts….
Per the stakeholders’ recommendations, the City Council has also approved the following: Stormwater Utility Fee Credit Manual Approval of 10 additional stormwater staff Establishment of a permanent, 10-member
Stormwater Management Advisory Commission
Role of the Stormwater Management Role of the Stormwater Management Advisory CommissionAdvisory Commission
Recommends policy changes to council Reviews and comments to council on the
annual capital improvement program Responds to council and staff for advice on
stormwater utility matters Presents council with an annual report of key
actions and issues
Lessons LearnedLessons Learned
Program and utility recommendations came from the stakeholder group and not city staff or council led to community support
Facilitation by consultant kept the stakeholders on task
Public education is a continual process and you can never do too much public education when implementing a stormwater utility
Coordination between key city departments is crucial to implementation – stormwater services/ billing/ GIS/ budget office
Lessons LearnedLessons Learned
Look for the unknowns in billing systems and with the impervious data Address Conflicts in Databases Homeowners Associations/ Common Open
Space Areas Billing of HOA’s versus Individual Unit Owners Billing of Tenants versus Owners Semi-Impervious Surfaces
Lessons LearnedLessons Learned
Customer Service Provide it Efficiently and Promptly Clearly Define Roles of Different Departments Count on a Ten Fold Increase in Calls During
the First Six Months of the Utility and Staff Accordingly
Err on the Side of the Customer - Quote from Scott McClelland, CDMScott McClelland, CDM
Thank You For Your Time!
Any Questions??
Recommended