HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/14/2008 - STORMWATER PROGRAM REVIEW DATE: October 14, 2008
STAFF: Jim Hibbard WORK SESSION ITEM
Barbara Cole, Community FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Matters, Inc.
Neil Grigg, Colorado State
University
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Stormwater Program Review.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council has requested a review of the policies and practices guiding the current stormwater program.
Initial feedback from Council has been obtained through one-on-one interviews with
Councilmembers. The findings of these interviews and information requested during the interview
are presented. Staff is seeking additional feedback from Council as a basis for preparing specific
options regarding changes to the stormwater program for Council to consider.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Do the three big picture policy questions identified in the Findings Report reflect the issues
and opportunities that Council wishes to examine?
2. Are there additional issues or opportunities that should be evaluated?
3. What information or analysis will help Councilmembers conduct a thorough evaluation of
the Stormwater Program to ensure that the City is engaged in the appropriate level of
stormwater management?
BACKGROUND
During discussions on recent actions concerning the Stormwater Program, Council expressed a
desire to review the policies and practices guiding the current Program. Staff hired Barbara Cole
of Community Matters,Inc.and Dr.Neil Grigg of Colorado State University to conduct one-on-one
interviews with Councilmembers. Attachment 1 is their Report of Findings.
After receiving direction from Council at this work session, staff will prepare specific options
regarding changes to the Stormwater Program for Council to consider at a future meeting.
During the interviews,Councilmembers also made requests for information. A brief synopsis of the
requested information is provided.
—r
October 14, 2008 Page 2
1. What capital projects have been completed?
A map of the current Stormwater Master Plan is attached. The north half of the City is
Attachment 2;the south half of the City is Attachment 3. These maps show which projects
are completed or are under construction.
2. How do our rates compare with other communities?
How do other municipalities structure the financing of stormwater projects?
Need an analysis of how funds are raised—how do similar municipalities do this?
A nationwide stormwater utility survey was performed by Black & Veatch consulting
engineers(Attachment 4.) A rate comparison is shown on pages 6 and 7. In addition,there
are numerous other survey questions relating to how other utilities finance stormwater
programs. Also, utility staff has surveyed other Front Range communities regarding their
rates and plant investment fees(Attachment 5.) Please note that,at this time,only rates and
plant investment fees have been surveyed. Staff will attempt to gather other details about
these communities stormwater programs for comparison and to put the rates in context.
3. How much undeveloped land has been removed from the floodplain?
How many acres have benefltted?
How much developed land has been removed from the floodplain?
The following table shows how much property has been removed from the floodplain by
capital projects.
Property Type Acres Removed
From Floodplain
Developed Property 1,297
Undeveloped Property 505
Total 1,802
Of the 505 acres of undeveloped property removed from the floodplain, 481 acres were
from the Dry Creek Flood Control Project.
A map showing the location and type of property removed from floodplains by capital
projects is Attachment 6.
4. What is the philosophy of Stormwater? What are the policies in one or two pages?
A summary of the major Stormwater policies is Attachment 7.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Report of Findings from Council Interviews.
2. Stormwater Master Plan Projects Completed: North.
3. Stormwater Master Plan Projects Completed: South.
4. Nationwide Stormwater Utility Survey.
October 14, 2008 Page 3
5. Local Stormwater Utility Rates and Plant Investment Fees.
6. Property removed from the Floodplain.
7. Stormwater Policies.
A
ATTACHMENT
Page 1 of 9
. ATTACHMENT 1
OCTOBER 14TH CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION ON
THE STORMWATER UTILITY
Purpose of the Worksession:
1) To review findings from individual council interviews;
2) To reach concurrence on the three big questions. Do these
accurately reflect Council what the Council wishes to evaluate with
respect to the Stormwater Utility program?
3) To determine from Council what they need to know to make informed
decisions regarding the Stormwater program.
Agenda:
Item # 1 : Introductions and Review of Findings
■ Impetus and Purpose of the Worksession- Darin Atteberry and Jim
Hibbard
■ Overview of Interview Results- Barb Cole, CMI
• ■ Perceptions and Context- Neil Grigg, P.E. CSU
Item # 2: Review and Concurrence on the 3 big questions
■ Do these 3 questions reflect the issues and opportunities that
Council wishes to examine?
■ Are there additional issues or opportunities that should be
evaluated or perhaps are a subset of these 3 questions?
Item # 3: What does Council `Need to Know' to make informed
decisions about the Stormwater Utility?
■ Council members all acknowledged that the Stormwater program
is complex and based on a set of established values. A number of
the Council members stated that the cost and benefit of capital
projects were often fuzzy.
• What information or analysis will help Council members conduct a
thorough evaluation of the Stormwater program to ensure that the
City is engaged in the appropriate level of stormwater
management?
We suggest spending the first 1/2 hour of the worksession on items 1 and 2,
• and use the remainder of the time focusing on item # 3.
Community Matters, Inc/ Neil Grigg, P.E.
Page 2 of 9
FINDINGS FROM COUNCIL INTERVIEWS ON FORT
COLLINS STORMWATER UTILITY
Summary of Issues:
Council generally agrees that the Stormwater program is a necessary City function, and
that it is a City function that does not receive a lot of attention from City residents.
Council members acknowledge that they are blessed with a competent staff that is
following established policy. They also are fully cognizant that it is difficult to fully
assess the costs and benefits of the program, and believe that the program that is now
in place was in part, a response to the flooding that occurred in 1997. While Council is
unanimously in favor of flood plain management, most agree that it is time for a re-
evaluation of the program. Council members were generally comfortable with the
general approach of stormwater management by defined basin, appreciated that the
finance plan was a pay-as-you go plan, and agreed that planning for the 100 year flood
with the adopted 100 year rainfall curves was reasonable. An analysis of Council
comments indicates that the following 'big picture' policy areas should be examined and
evaluated:
1 . Are the levels of improvement and risk avoidance the City
has committed to appropriate?
■ Are we spending an appropriate amount of money to provide a safe City?
■ Is the City doing more than it needs to do?
■ Can the capital expense be justified by cost/benefit studies that also address
community values such as convenience, environmental amenities and
aesthetics? Are there other non-monetary community values that should be
considered?
2. Is the pay-as-you-go system of impact fees and the rate
structure fair? Is it equitable?
■ Do monthly fees equate with benefit received?
■ Are the impact fees fair? For example, new development creates less run-off
than before development and also pays an impact fee; is this a double
charge?
■ Vacant land pays nothing until it develops, yet if the City takes vacant land out
of the flood plain, there is a benefit to the land owner; does the financing plan
account for this benefit? If land is taken out of the flood plain, flood insurance
is no longer necessary; does the financing plan recognize this benefit?
Community Matters, Inc/ Neil Grigg, P.E.
Page 3 of 9
. Fees are equal across the City. Should they be different, given that risk is not
uniform across the City?
3. Can stormwater management advance the city's
environmental ethic and the principles and policies found in
the City Plan?
■ Should flood plain management along the Poudre River result in more
developable land or should it create more open space? What is council's
vision of the Poudre River throughout the City?
■ What land should be removed from the flood plain? [ Option discussed by
individual Council members include: Remove, relocate or keep in natural
state]
■ Low-impact development and best management practices can always be
improved; of what consequence is this to the overall stormwater program?
Will it result in less costly project or negate the need for some capital
projects? Are we doing enough in this area?
■ Can additional measures or a different approach result in a more ecological
approach to flood plain management?
RESULTS FROM THE SEVEN [7] COUNCIL
INTERVIEWS
General:
■ Many complements to a hard working staff
■ Most agreed that staff was diligent in trying to carry out adopted policies and
that staff was knowledgeable. "We have an exceptional staff...
knowledgeable and they have the ability to be innovative" ...."Jim's done a
great job."
■ All Council people noted that Stormwater was not a program that received a
lot of attention from constituents. "Stormwater is not on anyone's radar
screen."... "its behind the wall plug.......Most people are blissfully
unaware"..."I'm never asked about stormwater."
Benefits of the Stormwater Utility Program
■ "This is a basic [City] service."
■ "Preclude damage to property..."
• ■ "I don't want people to die."
■ "Protection of property and life"
Community Matters, Inc/ Neil Grigg, P.E.
Page 4 of 9
■ "This is a municipal utility that serves the entire City across the board."
■ "This is a community responsibility—remove people from harm, save lives,
environment and property."
■ "[Staff] needs to do a better job explaining benefit, costs are better explained."
Accomplishments
■ "It's a great program and touted as one of the best in the country in terms of
emergency preparedness..."
■ "We've been named a model city [by FEMA]."
■ "One of the best things we've done was to get the flood plain regulations in
line with those of [Larimer] County"
■ "Box Elder represents a lot of hard work.... it's a regional approach, but I'm
not sure Fort Collins was the biggest beneficiary..."
■ "I'm not sure we recognize or appreciate what is in place."
■ "Good staff, good projects and good plan, $5 million a year may not be
enough"
■ "[Stormwater Utility] staff are following what's been laid out."
■ "Very pleased with Dry Creek, it's very impressive."
Biggest Concerns with the Stormwater Utility Program
■ "Are we committing overkill? Did we over react to the Spring Creek Flood?"
■ "Is the stormwater utility 'over-engineered'?"
■ "In certain instances, like Red Fox Meadows, it seems like we are taking
extraordinary measures, is it worth the impact?
■ "The expense- are we spending the right amount?"
■ "Fairness and benefits"
■ Is it too expensive for the magnitude of the problem? What can citizens live
with....is a few inches of water in a basement okay?
■ "I think the City is obsessed with wet basements. Maybe more time should be
[devoted to] relocation. We're spending way too much money."
■ "Are we managing it [the Stormwater Utility] properly? The concept is that
everyone pays if you impact the system and everyone benefits...its healthy to
take a hard look at the entire program... it's good to do and needs to be
done."
■ "We need a comprehensive review... and we need to keep Council from
micro-managing"
Community Matters, Inc/ Neil Grigg, P.E.
Page 5 of 9
■ "Environmental impacts- is the amount of mitigation enough or too much?...
their primary business is to control stormwater."
■ "Largess of the stormwater department....are these or are they not Cadillac
projects, its hard to tell if we are wasting money... need to pencil it out."
■ "I'm uneasy with the cost, we have a world class program and one we can be
proud of but we are not on the edge of disaster.."
■ "Stormwater has a huge budget, it feels like we need projects to spend money
on... how vulnerable are we; did we overreact?
■ "Did we over-correct or over shoot? In my opinion, we overcorrected;
perhaps there is a more reasonable approach to keeping citizens safe and
preventing property damage."
■ "Program was an over-reaction to the flood."
■ "We have existing policies- did we get it right or wrong; we should concentrate
on what policies need to change."
■ "I think the concern that others have is too much money in support of the
private sector and not enough attention to the environment...I think some
want a more natural approach."
Fundamental Assumptions
■ "In 2005, there was a revision to policy...we decided not to increase fees."
■ "...need to look at the concept of equal treatment, equal benefit...some
people benefit more than others."
■ 'The fundamental assumptions are okay, we just need more advanced
thinking... revisit the program to upgrade ...look to innovative technologies."
■ 'To what degree do we need to address the problem?—are we designing a
system to prevent a damp rug or are we engineering a system to avoid truly
damaging events?
■ "Do we need a relaxation of standards?"
■ "The Master Plan is a good foundation, I'm okay with the basin approach."
■ "I think we need to build on what is in place."
■ "[Fundamental assumptions] are sufficient — it's about life and property... I
think we are on the leading edge."
■ "The uniform fee is not right- we need to reexamine it, I'm concerned about
fairness."
• ■ 'We approved $20 million in improvements for Box Elder Creek, the reason
given was —'it would save lives'...so one woman drove into flooded waters a
Community Matters, Inc/ Neil Grigg, P.E.
Page 6 of 9
long time ago, and she and her kids lost their lives, but are we making these
improvements to prevent stupidity?
■ "I don't think the program treats all property equitably. Do we recoup the
benefit a vacant land owner receives when land is taken out of the floodplain?
Should I pay the same rate for the [Stormwater] system if my property is not
subject to flooding versus those that are located in [flood prone] areas? North
vs. South Fort Collins? Older areas versus new areas? Downtown versus
outlying areas?"
■ "We need to reduce the utility bill or at lest keep the overall utility bill constant.
The rate is too high."
■ "Why are we taking vacant land out of the flood plain?" [Paraphrased from a
number of Council comments.]
■ "Is a big budget driving big improvements? Is the need driven by the
financing?"
■ "Rates have gone up and that's enough of a rate increase, though I have
never heard that the utility rates are too high, it's a non-issue."
■ "How much protection does the Poudre deserve?"
■ "If we look to regional solutions, who will be the beneficiaries?"
Financing Plan
■ "How do we compare to other municipalities [with respect to rates]"?
■ "Most of the dissatisfaction stems from the expense...maybe it's more than
we need..."
■ "The cost/benefit is unclear... it's often confusing to understand."
■ "Who is being subsidized- staff/council should discuss."
■ "Our fees are, or were [among] the highest in the nation."
■ "Citizens are paying for a great level of service, is the City providing a greater
level of service than is necessary? Was this an overreaction to what
happened in 1997?"
■ "How much convenience do you get for what you pay?"
■ Does the policy we have in place result in a double charge- impact fee plus
rate assessment?
■ "Seems like there is a general benefit versus a direct benefit and this is
unequal....individual properties benefit, do we recover that benefit? Is there
an income transfer.. need to examine the equity of the system."
■ Need to examine "equity issues- who benefits?"
■ "[Adopted policies] are reasonable on all points."
Community Matters, Inc/ Neil Grigg, P.E.
Page 7 of 9
■ "Not sure I understand the role of vacant land, they create runoff now but if
they develop the run-off is less."
■ "We are probably going to need to increase electrical rates; it would be nice if
we could keep the overall utility costs about the same as they are now...if we
could lower the stormwater rates, this might make the increase in electric
more palatable...it would be great if we can promise no increase in utility
fees...residents would keep the bottom line at the same level—people don't
look at what they pay for stormwater- they look at the entire bill at the end of
the month"
■ "We may be looking at increasing sales tax and raising utility rates- we have
to figure out the tolerance level of our residents..."
Environmental Ethos
■ "It's often unclear how the environment was enhanced; what about the loss of
the riparian habitat?"
■ "Red Fox Meadows was perhaps too draconian"
■ "Environmental concerns have resulted in certain items being pulled off of the
Consent Agenda...has to do with building in the floodplain."
• ■ "Are we as environmentally sensitive as we could be?"
■ "Are we utilizing all of the innovations that are coming on line?"
■ "I think we can do better in the environmental area."
■ "Are we making better what nature created?" "Why not just leave it in its
natural state?"
■ "Are they [Stormwater Utility] making the environment the best it can be?"
■ "Is the City really employing the best management practices?...we need to
prove it more.."
■ "Not so many pipes, lets get back to nature."
■ TEMA has strict regulations...are we over reacting to [potential] property
damage...are the rules too strict?
• "We need a holistic view of the eco-system."
■ 'What does improvement to the flood plain mean-how does it impact riparian
areas? It seems big with lots of money devoted to improving the floodplain."
■ "How can the stormwater utility further the environmental ethos of the City?
■ "What types of programmatic changes can be instituted by the Stormwater
• Utility to foster and perhaps reward innovative solutions?"
■ "Looking for a more ecological approach."
Community Matters, Inc/ Neil Grigg, P.E.
Page 8 of 9
Role of the Flood Plain in City Form
■ "Should we continue to take vacant land out of the flood plain?"
■ "What is the floodplain's role in the City's vision?"
■ "Houses are raised up in new areas, new construction is according to the City
Plan, I love the City Plan- approach is at a reasonable level."
■ "Do we want urban encroachment or the natural environment, particularly
along the Poudre? Maybe we take a softer approach along the river, not
Estes Park or Boulder.
Desired Outcome of the October 14th7 2008 Worksession
■ "Pose questions that need to be addressed..."
■ "We need a better clarification of values. This is a value-driven program.
Why are we doing this?"
■ Provide an overview of the program in a handout....layout the program."
■ Need a concise summary of current policies...maybe a 30 minute PowerPoint
—this is where we stand, what are the issues...set the stage-what do we really
need to redo or re-look at?
■ "What are the 'themes' that emerged from the interviews?"
■ "Layout/agree on what we will examine.., agree on a schedule, costs and a
course of action... I think there will be adjustments or tweaks in all areas, but
you need to tell us if we need more."
■ "Clearly identify the issues- and we want the outside eyes and the right
people to look at these."
• "We need to clarify the overall goals [of this program]".
■ "We need a framework to think about and approach stormwater policy."
■ "It would be good if Council came away with 5-6 things to think about."
■ "Take a good look at the level of the program----are we over medicating"
■ "Examination of our practices vs. other people's [municipal] practices."
■ "Do we really want to revisit each stormwater project? Why? You have a
master plan." Clarify what Council wants to see when it comes to stormwater
projects.
Community Matters, Inc/ Neil Grigg, P.E.
Page 9 of 9
•
"Need to know" Information
Note: Staff can address some of these items prior to the worksession, some
items will require further work.
■ "What has been done?" — map showing capital projects completed to date
■ "How do our rates compare with other municipalities?"
■ "Since the adoption of the 2004 Stormwater Master Plan, how much
undeveloped land has been removed from the flood plain? How many acres
have benefited? How much developed land has been removed- homes and
commercial land?"
■ "How do other municipalities structure the financing of stormwater
improvements?"
■ "What is the philosophy of stormwater? What are the policies in one or two
pages?"
■ "Need an analysis of how funds are raised- how do similar municipalities like
Boulder and Pueblo do this."
•
•
Community Matters, Inc/ Neil Grigg, P.E.
Fort of CITY OF FORT COLLINS ( NORTH )
COMPLETED STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
W DOUGIIES RD E DOUGLAS RD E COUNTY ROAD 540QED ^
NpS il OR 54 culvert upgrade r l
F H DrY Creek Fleotl f P m p m Farrl
CH Control Put A 5
SSG m FI
N od oho Le Pool Ditch
an
p O Z O Z
W G
S Ulverslbn at Sod Farm ruq Rod Farm Pond`, z
c°UMY��ggryryD 54G ` Da` °C Cggc /I RICHARDS LAKE RD
MIIes ne`aAgb �f °qyq° Orchards Lake ON culvert uPgO o
1 2 allcache cordial Carle Pond m
eaRonare R,Ga �� if
as, rc
EEEE
i
COUNTRY ctue RD o z-
0
o u
Pheasant Ridge North Pbnd Mtn Vista Diversion E
y,^a a se[a
a^^Weld Canal E W LL!
W WILLOx LN O w
N Co lle ndC , ad m MOUNTAIN VISTA DR ECOUNTYROAD50
2 c mt vis
m(a spot atN
vergreen West PoM add orifice 0
R`Vov n O AB Pond
so
mis
Rvrgv p rL Dry Creek Flood
iF✓1 —y/�
< regrade`Reawmd Pond 5 ceno-el Project j Il
Pressures ly Macro, Ad OT� n SI! rest �CmmbPon va
r JAA e
1 aoAs a ege®ondE ° �a o wlLa rc
t
em mi 't V a^a/
o } z
OVIne/Lancer Culvert m EVINE DR m O
N College prft pry Creek Flood i
o WVINE DR —.'� � � Control Pmjed 0II II ECOUNTY ROAD CB
z as
Face yP7 _ Andersonvllle Channel z
tr Howes
° o w� J
'Ter Cca
LAPORTE AVE 5a �" r^ Oxbow Levee 0� -HEcrker Pbnal y
CSUCR'46LTbnd C n 3 VFW
OHenVbrl Pond 303 el Az m m� Dry Creek MILE Pond Ulversan ^ II _ ➢ F'
m E LINCOLNAVE %n
O F o WMOUNTAIN AVE EMOUNTAIN AVE Oa _
�sA m°
m� Oak S4eer NaI Extension Q °m
x P
eo ao o, Man Oak Street Outlall A" Raise Lemay yC e^^ Yoe
areal OU II Avenue C'
G
CST Fish Research Station Pond WMULBERRY ST re 9` Radial somebody Pond Bo CUNens NMSH 14
° E MULBERRY ST
City Park LakeO y. .u' T14g
Improvements m� m Cache La
_ GlenmmrPontl WLAUREL ST
m
West OrIX11�FI�:tp 's in
O
m ZQD Locust Street outfau agko ¢
or r Cache La Poutlre Rpre0Ip1 Of
a E
W ELIZABETH ST w rcEml nLabeml R✓``Rs S i
g Q lOFgp rL�athdo
Mlcrertal clearNejPond
meyO Pltkln Lateral so
RNerskle PAgn OUVaIFAG
Taff Hill at Clean'leOrchard CIPO �hesk Prospect Road °q
t 9 WPROSPECTRD CussingLegend
EPROBPECTRO OSRR Pondprcepecb yt Pmeldef Crce40 �V Proposetl Embankments, Levees, or Road Raking
aFoxpr Gt pose provemeneetlows5 In9 s Pbo tl C01ved lm bs
FalNrmkeOntl m On Proposed Storm Sewers
p W /l PVL FalNrbcke Channel ONtall tl Laie m La 80 Proposed Open Channels
j Sherwao 2l
° Brown Fa -kT Pond �„ea Proposed Detention Ponds
w e a
w r g ® completed Improvements
Rol Pmi PCM m
0
Fort of CITY OF FORT COLLINS ( SOUTH )
COMPLETED STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
/1 PVL Falmrooke ChannelOul(an BM1erveli Lam/ hiiii , - -
ofBrow`nl T n Famm Pona as -
al
v — z
0 _ Rouand rote Pura w °�
m 3 an m s W
Ai
Dixon Creek Poil� o0� so PaMwm] E�yPOM Enlargement
ad
m
Bpnng Lrea wDRAKE RD '° �° EDRAKE RD
mx�m $ ' No
> U
ill N SouNwest M H e�
Park Pond La ai
W E O p 6 u.
Pond re;
RassMmugn Channel Consent
t as B
_ Nelson Fa
B 0Ross[nrougM1 Channel CUNerts m �il SONM1nrollag�Pond ADD
oe e�
m Genii Channel ai
Warren Fa{npond ryi
Miles O ¢
RossUmugh Channel CuKrert
0.5 � 2 WHORSETOOTH RD I EHORBETOOTH RD ((��
Fox Me2Qjhs PmtLJ
English Ranch Ponds 283 CUNert
an
Fowll Creek
`re"Ec Reservoir
1 SPon9C' F 8 Inlet OticM1 < N
Imcerlal Channel m 09 . y _ m Q
W COUNTY RDA038EA-c ZO 7¶ pO9 ZEgIe�Pond m e�4iy
e�•a6 N m FOR no
no 2 m
Z
mOa
t�
< EHARMONY RD ` Raise Harmony Road
< W HARMONY RD Dixon Canyon Lateral EGOU NTY ROAD38
sa
O As
Bums Taft Crossing
6
b
MCClellarl sC�a9e/
OFossil Ridge Crossing
0 5
Poss[Greek Bums Hllidale Crossing
E COUNTY ROAD 36 KECHTER RD
Fossil CreekkCCrossirg#t REORDER RD E COUNTV ROAp 3
F E
oak/O
Fossil Crack Crossing 1F2 aef
Met' Creek Den `
as "a
at
Stone Creek an
H
Culvert Crossing _
O '
F Il Creek Crossing#3a O ETRILBY RD 0
wrnaer RD Tnloy crassn
South TnU Inquiry Crossingre
#t �FassilCek Cmssng no UPRR Crossing are
o �SoNM1 Bank Trio Glossingso
i!
o _ sin s[ren Bnogec Legend
S11 0 Siree n Timberline
z Culved Proposed Embankmerks, Levees, or Road Raising
O `-..� N ®Grassing
• Proposed CUlveM1lmprovemetM1s
Lang Gulch Crossing Proposed Sharon Sewers
CARPENTER RD ^ ECOUNTYROAD32 Proposed Open Channels
O`JStarlton Creek CR32 Crossing � Proposed Bedroll Ponds
Stanton Creek Lemay Crassing
Camplehetl Improvements
Attachment 4
BUILDING 1 ' 1 OF DIFFERENCE »,
vJIN. ILL
c• z .010P -
LdL
IZ ormd
n.;
ELL `
I
t It
It. e..C=s>� _ --.— Dye ,r , y j. 1? i f •S. i
LEE Lt.
to
IN
fr f
I�: ti w
- rf / ! ' v / - 1 . i _ err !• •q r i , !(
�� I/O �. ! r > •J xl /t s / :-
.�3� ` %%`l�Ml f/ '�/ l ��•' JSr -ir . � r '�� r � J: ryy� 1t L
LEI I
It It y r�� / r 6' T IlL ! 1 , . _
LEI
;yV/ , # i , / _ � � . .y . �. / r_1, y r r, / y •t (, •'/J �1d / \�r, ! 11�
Z0 "'may � '/ �•i/ e�:,t/ l !� � • ' • �5Z` Or�w� A :Y I�^j +. y J' �IFN � r r- rMV
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Sponsored and administered by Enterprise Management Solutions,
the management consulting division of Black & Veatch
ffjBLACK & VEATCH
Building a world of difference:
BUILDING ► WORLD OF DIFFERENCEO
To help those involved with stormwater utilities stay well - informed regarding how others in their industry are
addressing important issues, Black & Veatch has conducted its seventh national Stormwater Utility Survey . The survey
results provide insight into the following topics :
► Organization/Administration ► Quality Issues — Best Management Practices
► Planning ► Public Information/Education
► Operations ► Major Challenges Recently Faced
► Finance/Accounting ► Significant Events Affecting Utilities
► Stormwater User Fees and Billing
► Responses were received from 71 utilities in 22 states. ► For those utilities that base charges on gross property
All of these utilities are funded in whole or in part area, equivalent residential units ranged from 1 ,225
through user fees. square feet total area to 20,000 square feet, with a mean
► Approximately 82 percent of the respondents serve a of 6,254 square feet. For those utilities that base charges
city, rather than a county or region. on impervious area, impervious areas per equivalent
► The population served by the respondents ranges from residential unit ranged from 40 square feet to 4,000
12,000 (Auburndale, FL) to 3 .9 million people (Los square feet, with a mean of 2,477 square feet.
Angeles, CA) and the area served varies from 2 to 3 ,675
square miles.
Our previous question regarding quality based user fee 61 percent of the credits are both quality and quantity
credits was expanded to include quantity based user fee based. Of the 11 percent of respondents that provide
credits and incentives other than user fee credits . Of the incentives other than user fee credits, 22 percent of the
39 percent of respondents that provide user fee credits, incentives are both quality and quantity based.
Black & Veatch conducted similar stormwater utility trends, because the respondents may be different.
surveys in 1991 -92, 1993-94, 1995-96, 2001 -02, and It is our hope that the information provided in this
2004-2005 . Comparisons of current and prior survey report will be a valuable resource to those involved
results provide an insight into possible industry changes. in the stormwater industry. To learn more about
Look for comparisons of responses to selected questions Black & Veatch services, please refer to the back
in the following survey results . Please note, however, cover for contact information.
that these comparisons are not necessarily indicative of
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions 1
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
OrganizationlAdministration
atie Q.S1 aye
SeQat 0�0 �ti<�
How is your operation organized ? o�re�
200 '
49% Separate utility Survey
37% Combined with Department of Public Works
8% Combined with wastewater utility 2005
6% Other Survey
What area does your utility serve ? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Region
82% Within city limits County
17% County
1 % Region
Does your state have specific statutes that govern the
formation of stormwater utility and user fee financing ?
61 % Yes
39% No
off by 1"11
What is the status of your NPDES permit ?
Phase 1 Phase 2
> 100,000 Population < 100,000 Population
82% . . . . . . . . . .Application submitted and approved . . . . . . . . .46% - -
12% . . . . . . . . . .Application submitted and pending . . . . . . . . . .46%
6% . . . . . . . . . .Application has not been submitted . . . . . . . . . . 8%
When was your most recent stormwater plan or stormwater facilities plan ?
25% 2007 Prior to 1997
21 % 2005-2006 2007
17% 2003-2004 1997-2000
11 % 2001-2002
11 % 1997-2000 2001 -2002 2005-2006
15% Prior to 1997 2003-2004
What stormwater computer models do you use for planning studies ?
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
4 do F
32% HEC-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32% XP-SWMM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents
were given the
30% EPA SWMM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . opportunity to
28% HEC- 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . select more than
24% TR-55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . one response, so
o the percentage
17 /o HEC-RAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . total is greater
11 % HEC-HMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . than 100 percent.
11 % Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2 BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Planning (continued)
What return periods do you use to design your major stormwater structures ?
Residential Commercial Major Streets
2-year 13% 10% 7% 2.Yea< sat 0 Yaa 15'Ya 5 Vea Y t <
5-year 13% 8% 7% y.Y t a? 5o a1ooyaa
10-year 34% 38% 31 % Residential
15-year 2% 2% 2%
Commercial
25-year 20% 23% 17% .
50-year 2% 2% 5% Major Streets
100-year 16% 17% 31 %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Several respondents provided a range of return periods.
The percentages above represent the smallest return period provided.
Which performance indicators do you consider most important in measuring improvement in
stormwater management success ? PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
42% Flood control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Res ondents were
35% Monitoring pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . given the
18% Customer complaints/satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . op rtun 'ty to
11 % Maintenance one onse, so
see ct m than
10% Erosion control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . theperc tage
8% Cost-control measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . toBarer
° tha percent.
1 /o Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Operations
What is your utility responsible for ?
Both Other
80% Stormwater facilities only Combined sewer 1
facilities
2% Combined sewer (sanitary/stormwater) facilities
11 % Both
7% Other Stormwater only
Who provides the majority of your 0 &M services ? Private
91 % Own Staff Other contractors/agencies
governmental staff`
6% Other Governmental Staff
3% Private contractors/agencies
Own staff
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions 3
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
What are your major ( at least 90 percent of total income)
revenue sources ? Multiple revenue
sources
(Excludes 3 utilities that reported no single major source) Stormwater
80% Stormwater user fee other user fee
19% Multiple revenue sources
1 % Other
eti eti et
a�eto �e a�eto �e a�eto��eds eQ�a heeds
How adequate is available funding ? Pdeo,eeds Pdeo seeds PdeO Japer �otiadut0en
8% Adequate to meet all needs a\v ° fps cps wee
2005 = 13 % • 2002 = 8% 1999 = 16% 2007
39% Adequate to meet most needs
2005 = 32% 9 2002 = 53 % 1999 = 44% 2005
40% Adequate to meet most urgent needs
2005 = 43 % 9 2002 = 30% • 1999 = 34% 2002
13 % Not adequate to meet urgent needs
2005 = 12% • 2002 = 9% 1999 = 6% 1999
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
How is the majority of capital improvement needs financed ?
76% Cash financed
64% From user fees
2% From ad valorem taxes
10% Other GO bonds Other
Stormwater revenue bonds 1
24% Debt financed
Combined bonds
10% Stormwater revenue bonds
8% General Obligation (GO) bonds Ad valorem taxes
User fees
Other
4% Combined bonds
2% Other
Does your accounting system permit cost tracking by operating activity
( e . g . , inlet cleaning ) ?
57% Yes
43 % No
Does your accounting system identify user-fee revenues by customer class
( e . g . , residential ) ?
79% Yes
21 % No
4 BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Stormwater User Fees and Billing
Other
How are your user fees billed ? With tax bills-
77% With water or other utility bills
16% With tax bills With water/utility bills
7% Other
What types of properties are exempt from user fees ?
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
61 % Streets/highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52% Undeveloped land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41 % Rail rights-of-way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23% Public parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19% Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M Respondents were given
13% School districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E the opp rtunity to elect
7% Colleges/universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more than one res Ponse,
° Water front . . . . . . . . . so the ercentage otal is
7 /o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ater than 100 p rcent.
3% Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
gre3% Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19% None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
What customer classifications are recognized in your
stormwater fee structure ?
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
89% Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57% Commercial R spon ents were ben
° . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . th opp rtun �tyto elect
27 /o Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26% Combined commercial/industrial In re th n o e response,
" " ' so the perce tage total is
23% Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . greater than 100percent.
10% No designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Are rates the same for all service areas or watersheds ?
96% Yes
4% No
Are your user- fees for single family dwellings the same as for individual multiple
residential units , such as apartments and condominiums ?
60% No
40% Yes
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions 5
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Stormwater User Fees and Billing (continued)
Were your rates revised in the last 12 months ?
54% Yes Increases ranged from
46% No I percent minimum to
300 percent maximum
What are your user fees designed to pay for? Other O&M only
ft
7% Operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses only Capital improvements only
3% Capital improvements only Both
87% Both O&M expenses and capital improvements
3% Other
What is the basis for your user fees ?
Gross area - intensity
65% Impervious area Both
6% Gross area with intensity of development factor
9% Both impervious and gross areas Other Impervious area
14% Other (e.g., number of rooms, water use, flat fee)
6% Gross area with runoff factor Gross area runoff
If user fees are area based , what principal resources were employed to create and maintain
the customer database used to compute charges ?
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
46% Property tax assessor records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 p4 wen of
52% Aerial ortho photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . respi ondin. 7 utili ftees
42% On-site property measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . utiU2 e tw or m gre of
55% Geographic Information System (GIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . thest reso wrces to
25% Planimetric map take-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . creaj a ant mai twin
16% Other (e.g. , buildingpermits site lans thet bilk g dat base
5F
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2007 AVERAGE MONTHLY
N c0 c0 O M ,n O N M O ,n ,n ,n O ,n M M M W ,fl N ,n O O O W c N O O N O M O
00 10 N 10 M 10 l0 (O M co CO l0 N O) O) (O � � N O O O 00 00 10 O O O co
(O (O V O O O) OD OD I �: n n n n n W O W O O O W O W ,n In ,n 6 ,n 6 V V V V
J LL
Q LL N JT
a C c 3 a.rn. LL : C
o a 0OJ
� ZQO Q Q NC
O
> C Y Z0
O n
N O C .y N 0
O O a
O O O
C x °o
UZE
E m E
o o
M ma
LL W ii Q U) LL W a- U) J Z (D U) ILQ J 0 F a: U) 0 Q 0 0 W U) 0 U J O J U H W 0
O O N M � O O O N M V l0
N M LL� CO n W O) . N . N . N . N . N M M M M M M
6 BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Are your stormwater charges based on individual or class average characteristics?
Residential Non-Residential
39% Individual parcel 89% Individual parcel
61 % Class average as: 4-tier 5-t,ier6-tier 11 % Class average
45% Single tier 3 tie= Individual , - - Class
4% 2-tier rate 2-tier
6% 3 -tier rate1W 1 Individual
2% 4-tier rate Single
2% 5-tier rate
3 percent of respondents who answered class average
2% 6-tier rate did not provide the number of rate tiers.
Who is responsible for the payment of user fees ? Other
67% Property owner 041
20% Resident Resident
13% Other (e.g. , water or other utility bill recipient) Property owner
How frequently do you bill ?
62 % Monthly PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 % Annually . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 % Bimonthly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 % Quarterly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 % Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
What system do you use to maintain and process customer parcel information ?
33% Stormwater utility billing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
28% Water or wastewater utility billing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16% Geographic Information System (GIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13% Property tax assessment system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9% Stand-alone stormwater database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 % Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RESIDENTIAL CHARGE
I I I t I I I �
O O_ O O O O M M O O O O O M O O M O _O O O O W O O O O �n
� O O O O D) n l0 N N O O O 1� n n c0 � O O O 01 D7 M n n In M N O 1�
.4 V .4 .4 V V M M M 0i M M M M M N N N N N N N N N O
J
LL
LL C LL ¢ N
vai U YY C ¢ ¢
Z2 O ZUm
�
O Z U
O U O M O F .dU F-
ti>
CL
O V pCZL fn mO U C v1 Y O Uc C U >Cc 0 Y i
ti m 3 .� j '� aci a -moo E E E d ¢ �° Y c rn >' E
O O >- N N C _ m O >
LL ¢ J ¢ (n C7 ¢ 0 U LL N O U 0 U in (.7 (n O (o U) ¢ F U ii ¢
tD 1� M M O N M V l0 (U n O M O N M V W O O N M V M W n M O O
M M M M V V V V V V V V V V M M M M lf) M M M M to co to to co to to co to to 1�
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions 7
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Are credits provided for private PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
detentionlretention facilities ? 2007mmom
46% Yes 2005 mom:
2005 — 46% • 2002 — 53 % 1999 — 50%
54% No 2002
1999 9FM=
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Have your user fees faced a legal challenge ? Settlement reached, Challenge sustained
76% No Fees sustained-,--
24% Yes Outcome Pending ---- �
I S% Fees sustained
7% Outcome pending
1 % Settlement reached
1 % Challenge sustained
On what basis is payment of your user fees enforced ? Other
47% Shut off water Shut off water
33 % Lien
20% Other Property lien
Is a significant share of your utility costs attributable to stormwater run off from
outside your service area ?
97% No
3 % Yes
ManagementQuality Issues — Best
Which programs and practices are being used to protect
or improve water quality ? PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
97% Public education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91 % Erosion/sediment controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91 % Street sweeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91 % Detention/retention basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87% Illegal discharge detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86% Inlet stenciling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78% Stormwater quality monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67% Residential toxins collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64% Commercial/industrial regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents were given
o the opportunity to select
61 /o Constructed wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
more than one response,
32% Lawn herbicide/pesticide control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so the percentage total is
30% Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . greater than 100 percent.
9% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a 7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8 BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
ManagementQuality Issues Best
Have you installed any stormwater treatment systems
in your stormwater conveyance system ?
58% Yes
42% No 404D
Devices installed : PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
56% Stormceptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33% CDS Separator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21 % Storm Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13% Downstream Defend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R spon ents were given
10% Vortechnics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . th opp rtnn 'ty to Yelect
5 o m re than o e res once,
/o Bay Saver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5% Crystal Stream s the perce tage otal is
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aterthan 00rcent.
3% Abtech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Have these devices met your expectations ?
Yes
31 % Yes 4W41
18% NO Undecided
51 % Undecided
No
What contaminants are your greatest concern ? PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
81 % Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72% Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o 7thopportun
ents were given
53 /o Oil and grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �ry ro elect
46% Heavy metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n one res onse,
37% Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ercentage otalis
22% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . than 100 percent.
0 10 20 JO 40 50 6b 10 80 90 100
Is your utility providing end - of- pipe treatment at outfalls into waters of the states or U . S . ?
30% Yes
70% No104�WA
Are quality - based user - fee credits , or other incentives, provided to encourage customers to
control or reduce stormwater pollution ?
22% Yes IN
78% No
Are user - fee credits provided to encourage customers to control or reduce stormwater
pollution ?
quantity
68% No quality both
32% Yes
i % Quality only
11 % Quantity only
20% Both quality and quantity
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions 9
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
Are incentives other than user- fee credits provided to customers to control or
reduce stormwater pollution ?
89% No
11 % Yes quality
4% Quality only 480
0% Quantity only
7% Both Quality and quantity
Public ormationlEducation
How important is an organized public informationleducation effort to the continuing
success of a user- fee funded stormwater utility ?
Helpful
74% Essential
26% Helpful
0% Not necessary Essential
What means have you found to be the most effective in educating the public about
utility services, program needs and financing , and citizen responsibilities ?
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
46% Bill inserts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28% Speakers bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27% Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23% Public schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20% Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20% Open houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents were given
15% Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the opportunity to velect
13% Public hearings/presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more th n one res onse,
°
11 /o Brochures/flyers/newsletters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so the percentage otal is
8% Direct mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . greater than 100rcent.
8% Neighborhood associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7% Newsletters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4% Storm drain markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10 BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey
ChallengesMajor Recently
Financial, rate and billing related issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 utilities
(e.g., financing growth, capital replacements, NPDES and other environmental mandates;
rate increases, rate equitability, rate challenges; and billing database updating or
conversion to GIS)
Regulatory and quality control compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 utilities
(e.g., illicit discharges, quality monitoring and difficulties of complying with more
stringent state and federal quality mandates related to Endangered Species Act,
TMDLs, et al.)
Weather and flooding issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 utilities
(e.g., high amounts of rainfall, standing water, West Nile concerns and localized flooding)
Infrastructure planning issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 utilities
(e.g., need for integrated flood, quality and environmental planning; remedy of specific
infiltration/inflow or local flooding problems; and system-wide flood control master planning)
Jurisdictional issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 utilities
(e.g., incorporation of added cities into service area and co-permittee coordination)
Public education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 utilities
(e.g., need for increased education regarding new programs or rate increases)
Erosioncontrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I utility
(e.g., run-off and erosion problems)
SignificantAffecting Utilities in Past Two Years
NPDES compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 utilities
CIP related (funding, projects started/completed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 utilities
User fee related (increases, lack of increases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 utilities Some respondents
listed the same events
Weather related (heavy rains storms drought) 6 utilities as positive, negative or
both (e.g., heavy rains
Urban growth/decline in service area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 utilities or flooding brought
both damage and
Public education/awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 utilities increased public
awareness of needs).
Organization/administration/staffing changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 utilities
Legal challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 utilities
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions 11
Notes/Observations
BUILDING 1 ' 1 OF DIFFERENCEO
About Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch is a leading global engineering, consulting Black & Veatch's Water Division focuses on the best and
and construction company specializing in infrastructure most advanced ways to clean, move, control and conserve
development in energy, water, telecommunications, water. B&V Water finds innovative solutions to protect
management consulting, federal and environmental markets. water at its source, treat it to the highest standards, deliver it
Founded in 1915, Black & Veatch develops tailored to homes and businesses, then collect and treat wastewater
infrastructure solutions that meet clients' needs and provide before reintroducing it safely back into the environment.
sustainable benefits. Solutions are provided from the broad Additional information on Black & Veatch and Black &
line of service expertise available within Black & Veatch, Veatch Water can be found at the company's web site
including conceptual and preliminary engineering services,
www.bv.com.
engineering design, procurement, construction, financial
management, asset management, program management, Enterprise Management Solutions (EMS) is the management
construction management, environmental, security design consulting division of Black & Veatch. Focused exclusively
and consulting, management consulting and infrastructure on the Water and Energy markets, EMS provides tailored
planning. strategic, process and technology solutions to deliver
improved operations, cost savings, new revenue streams and
With more than $2 billion in revenue, the employee-owned greater customer loyalty. More information on EMS is
company has more than 100 offices worldwide and has available at www.bv.com/consult, by emailing
completed projects in more than 100 countries on six stormwater@bv.com, or by calling (913) 458-3440.
continents.
LEGAL NOTICE: Please be advised, this Survey was complied DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR
primarily based on information B&V received from third-parties CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR
and B&V was not requested to independently verify any of this RELATING TO THIS REPORT OR RESULTING FROM THE
information. Thus, B&V's reports ' accuracy solely depends upon USE OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
the accuracy of the information provided to us and is subject to DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, USE, DATA OR OTHER
change at any time. As such, it is merely provided as an additional INTANGIBLE DAMAGES, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN
reference tool, in combination with other due diligence inquiries ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
and resources of user. B&V assumes no legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any In addition, user should place no reliance on the summaries
information, or process disclosed, nor does B&V represent that its contained in the Surveys, which are not intended to be exhaustive
use would not infringe on any privately owned rights. This Survey of the material provisions of any document or circumstances. If any
may include facts, views, opinions and recommendations of point is of particular significance, reference should be made to the
individuals and organizations deemed of interest and assumes the underlying documentation and not to this Survey.
reader is sophisticated in this industry. User waives any rights it This Survey (and the content and information included therein) is
might have in respect of this Survey under any doctrine of third- copyrighted and is owned or licensed by B&V. B&V may restrict
party beneficiary, including the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) your access to this Survey, or any portion thereof, at any time without
Act 1999. Use of this Survey is at users sole risk and no reliance cause. User shall abide by all copyright notices, information, or
should be placed upon any other oral or written agreement, restrictions contained in any content or information accessed through
representation or warranty relating to the information herein. this Survey. User shall not reproduce, retransmit, disseminate, sell,
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. B&V distribute, perform, display, publish, broadcast, circulate, create new
DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS works from, or commercially exploit this Survey (including the
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY content and information made available through this Survey), in
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A whole or in part, in any manner, without the written consent of B&V,
PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. B&V, nor use the content or information made available through this
NOR ITS PARENT COMPANY, MEMBERS, SUBSIDIARIES, Survey for any unlawful or unintended purpose.
AFFILIATES, SERVICE PROVIDERS, LICENSORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS OR EMPLOYEES SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY
BUILDING 1 ' I OF DIFFERENCE@
For custom strategies, proven processes
and high-value results, contact:
Anna White
Black & Veatch
11401 Lamar Avenue
Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
Tel: 785- 749-2550
Stormwater@bv. com
"'Black & Veatch Holding Company 2007. All Rights Reserved. The Black & Veatch R
name and logo are registered trademarks of Black ei Veatch Holding Company. V LACK & V E ATC H
Other services marks and trademarks included herein are the trademarks or
registered trademarks of their respective companies. 10-07 ZI
Building a World of difference:
Attachment 5
Local Stormwater Rates and Plant Investment Fee Comparison
Stormwater Rate Comparison
8600 Sq Ft, Light Run Off or 40% Impervious 14 . 26 14. 26
$ 14 September 4, 2008 Data
R
$ 12 10 . 39
a $ 10
'Ui v
c $g 6 . 95 7 . 13 7 . 40
`o a 6 . 00
s U $6 4 . 09 4 . 30
_ $4
0
$2
60
Windsor Greeley Co.Sprs Boulder Longmont Denver Loveland Ft. Collins Ft Collins
2008 2009
Stormwater Plant Investment Fees
September 2007 Data
$2,500
$2,000
$ 1 ,500
$ 1 ,000
$500
Ft Collins Ft Collins Boulder Greeley Longmont Loveland Windsor
2007 2008
❑ Storm Drainage PIF
Area Removed From Floodplain by Capital Projects Attachment6
G
m
o m
Wp z
m m rz
o m r F
� G Y w ll
CO RG, . s �FG o ¢ RI P
S °qY w o (Z
i
tt
y y� z 0 00
qL NTRV CLUB RD
h/44S
/0 �
SPAULDINGLN FOR w I
1 J
\ 9\ 5
ro
wIL � qa 5Pei DR 050
o a \
-)GDWATER DR ...Y FOk a LLi °
WAKONDADR i ' Tq IL ST Z
HICYIt
` Sp I O
ir
r > O
U + ELM ST
m m O Z m m p W BUCKINGHAM ST m f
tt MAPLE STLt5 0 URICH DR
zT LAPS ¢ > N 5 as O r G
> 1
rc z � z m
' w IVE LL IN KSTN - EOAK
EOLIVE T
L
WM I- N SC RINGER DR
G
a W z O K iR RENTON DR
rc m a ¢ m i N w s
Y w po > m WLAUREL ST it- >
ELOCUST' p TT yy PL NORTH DR E 'L/gNM/ Op UEST DR
W ELIZABETH ST ¢ (( /�
o ag EELIZABETH ST r- 0
BIANCO DR
I'j
ED WARDS ST GARFIELD ST 2 70 BO%ELDER R KITCHELL WAV
w YO
Sal IN ST EPITKINST > m
UCKE T g
W LA ST O W LAKE ST E LAKE ST R p 2
n
u W PR E�; - R T `Iy � EPR052ECT RD
CEDAR OD D — ��, BAY MRKERStI U m DPOINTOR O z
ST J n o
I W STOART �.J i o
0 D ST
a F
NEILD L off ' V�� UKE DNRT FOUTH TRL KIRK WOOD DR
R { r z
tir mp�
J.. a < z o
w lD lD a o a m z
o a > ° 5 °
-1 N� HULL ST y ¢ m ¢ p :,. F` P
o o r o i H y OXFORD LN Y O m
WSWALLOW RD O C ESWALLOW RD Ivy ST y z f _ � a
w sloux BLVD ° w w o , , - 3r _ � i sTAeLE LN
fK
w �y �PiI —1s F
DR 0
TI • SON ST 11I \ . - m `.I
IGHURCHILL�I I m o p T
, y z ¢ T z w WHORSETOOTH RD �ETOOT � ANTELOPE ECOUNFROAD40
o f m m F IV o f PLTLRE ,
a m z A F m x w WP I
O
o a U U Z WABASH ST I- Z
> m , ¢
00 ZUttK v m z LOWEST .K H
W COUNTY ROAD 38E �J CARIBOU DR a
BUTTE PASS DR O N -f 13
�I lI AS '}ICH
I
I o e
A RULE DR
j o 0 7
_ SAGE CREEK RD ECLIPSE LN Y
COUNTY ROAD 36KEGHTER RD RE ' ER RD i
ROAD 36
0
1 m wOR I a
W
ML
R ZEPHYR RD IS O
2
ROOKERY RD �J
0 o
> i w
H w
n FDA w
1
8� TRILBY RD
R �S
TRUXUN DR
F
O
Q a,
w
O �
G LV'
HF� { A
ND DR �69UNTY R91�D32- Oz v
9
�P
pt o
TURMAND ( � Nu
t • : -�� WE
Legend { i -T; w
M Dry Creek Buildable Land I' 4J,
Remaining Buildable Land OUNTY ROAD 36
M Post-Project Floodplains (including floodways and moderate risk)
M Area Removed From Floodplain 0 tm , o <mo eM a ole� Fo `
m ns
i
Attachment 7
iStormwater Program
Policies, Philosophies, and Practices
OVERALL PURPOSE:
1. The purposes of the Stormwater Utility are to drain and control flood water,
reduce pollution, enhance the environment, and protect the health, safety, property
and welfare of the City.
FINANCIAL POLICIES
2. Everyone benefits from a sound city-wide stormwater program, and therefore any
owner of developed land shall pay its pro-rata share to operate, maintain, and
improve the overall stormwater system.
3. The monthly fee is based on impact. The more you impact the overall system, the
more you pay. The monthly fee for a particular parcel is based on the area of the
parcel and the impervious surface areas [such as pavement and structures].
4. Vacant land pays nothing unless it develops and begins to impact the system.
5. The rate used to calculate monthly fees is applied uniformly across the City.
6. The rate used to calculate monthly fees is the same inside and outside of
floodplains because parcels on high ground contribute to flooding problems in
low lying areas.
7. When a vacant property develops, it benefits from the cumulative investment the
rate payers have made in the stormwater system. The value of that benefit is
captured via an impact fee and returned to the rate payers.
8. The impact fee is based on the replacement value of the existing stormwater
system at the time of development and will substantially increase over time as the
overall value of the stormwater system increases due to annual capital projects.
9. The original financing plan approved in 2001 was designed to build $120 million
in capital projects on a pay-as-you-go basis by 2030, after which fees would be
reduced to maintenance levels.
10. The revised 2005 financing plan froze monthly fees at 2004 levels, eliminating
the last four years of rate increases in the original financing plan and extended the
build out period to about 2040, after which monthly fees would return to
maintenance levels.
11. The revised and currently adopted financing plan will support spending about $5
• million per year on capital projects.
1
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
12. All new development is required to reduce the after development runoff rate to
substantially less than the historic undeveloped rate.
13. All new development must provide on-site water quality treatment.
14. Developers must design and build the stormwater system in new developments to
convey runoff safely from a 100-year storm.
HYDROLOGIC STANDARDS
15. The current 100-year design storm was adopted in 1999 and is 3.67 inches of
rainfall in two hours.
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
16. All floodplains and floodplain regulations in the City are based on the 100-year
design storm. with the exception of the Poudre River, for which FEMA has also
mapped a 500-year floodplain.
17. Floodplain regulations are based on FEMA, National Flood Insurance Program,
and local requirements. They are the same for all floodplains in the city except
the Poudre River, which has a separate set of more restrictive regulations.
18. Development within the floodplain is allowed subject to regulations contained in
Chapter 10 of City Code. These regulations exceed FEMA minimums. The City
attempts to balance risk with regulation, i.e., the higher the risk, the higher the
regulation.
19. The effectiveness of the city's floodplain program is measured in part by the
Federal Community Rating System. The city's high rating results in flood
insurance premium discounts for City residents.
20. Property in the Poudre River floodplain is acquired using a "willing seller/willing
buyer" approach.
STORMWATER MASTER PLANS
21. Each basin master plan is prepared, viewed, and administered as a system where
all projects, development requirements, and environmental enhancements work
together to achieve city goals. The systems approach avoids a collection of stand
alone projects and requirements.
22. The current city-wide master plan was prepared over a four year period, including
one year of public outreach, and was adopted in 2004. Revisions were adopted in
2008 for the Upper Cooper Slough and Boxelder Basins.
23. The master plan is based on the 100-year design storm.
24. The master plan recommends retrofit stormwater projects in previously developed
areas to protect existing structures from the 100-year storm when the benefits of
the projects outweigh the cost.
2
1 _
. 25. The benefit of a stormwater retrofit project is measured by damage avoided to
existing homes and businesses, constructed infrastructure repair [utility and road
crossings], clean up and emergency response costs.
26. The master plan provides technical details so that stormwater projects built by
new development will work in conjunction with other parts of the system.
27. The master plan recommend enhancements to riparian habitat along stream
corridors to improve water quality and stability in conjunction with habitat
mapping efforts.
28. Stormwater projects are prioritized based on benefit to cost ratio, structures
removed from the floodplain, road overtopping eliminated, and other parameters
such as habitat enhancement, opportunities for collaboration with other public or
private projects, and contractual obligations.
29. Lands for storm drainage purposes, water quality, natural areas and open space,
and parks are acquired jointly when possible.
30. Capital projects of significant size or controversy are presented to City Council
for review.
• PUBLIC OUTREACH
31. The stormwater program includes educational programs and demonstration
projects to promote flood awareness and enhance public understanding of
pollution prevention efforts.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
32. The stormwater program complies with the Federal Water Quality Act and all
other Federal, State, and Local laws as well as applicable case law.
33. The stormwater program complies with all requirements of the City's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase II Water Quality Discharge
Permit.
34. The stormwater program includes ongoing inspections of public and private best
management practices to ensure compliance with the City's Water Quality
Discharge Permit.
35. The stormwater program has an ongoing program to monitor stream water quality
for long term trends.
36. The stormwater program supports and implements best management practices to
promote the environmental Principle and Policies of the City Plan.
i37. The stormwater program operates a real time flood warning system providing
information to emergency responders.
3