Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.c. Storm Water UtilityCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 7, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Storm Water Utility AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Director of Ron Wasmund Public Works/Building official AGENDIM ,6C ATTACHMENTS: Memo, Income/Expense Analysis AP BY: Attached is a memo responding to specific questions that have been received in written form and at the public meeting in July. There are also background memos from previous council meetings. The analysis of income sources (fees vs. connection charges) and expenses (service vs. construction) shows the ratios of fees and expenses At the meeting I will have additional information regarding run off rates and ratio of runoff to service to use as overheads for discussion. I will provide copies of all overheads to you so you may follow along during discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Support previous action to hold Public Hearing on January 21, 1992 for public input. COUNCIL ACTION: PROPOSED STORMWATER UTILITY Questions raised by residents at Public Meeting and by Council Members 1. The user fee is just a tax Let's call it a tax and not hide behind a "user fee". A: If everything government does for people is considered a tax then the user fee for stormwater would be a tax. But, there are many instances where government is the one providing a service which is necessary and the person receiving the benefit has to pay for that service. Assessments, license fees, building permit fees and park and recreation fees are examples of cases where the "user" pays. The concept behind the Stormwater Utility is to connect the "user" with the "fee". By developing a user fee which is based on stormwater runoff volumes and rates, the costs of managing that stormwater is more equitable than just placing these costs on the property tax roll. The property tax system in Minnesota is based on property value. Stormwater management is based on the quantity of water which needs to be managed and the system needed to manage it with no direct relationship to property value. 2. I already paid a storm sewer assessment for the storm sewer in front of my house, why should I have to pay again? A: The City has the responsibility to develop an overall Stormwater Management Program for the City which includesconstructionof ponds and piping initially and replacement of those systems as they age and deteriorate. It also includes the maintenance of storm sewers, streets, curb and gutter, ponds, ditches and easements which are all part of the stormwater management system. Funding for the total operating program of the utilities include user fees and connection charges which are collected at the time homes factories, stores, churches and schools are constructed. New developments also provide a source of revenue by providing some easements and ponding acreage so the utility doesn't have to provide them. New developments as well as existing developments must all pay for a portion of the system. 3. Cost is too high. I'm a farmer in eastern Rosemount and don't see any advantage to me for this proposed system A: No one likes to pay any more for taxes or other services provided yet we all continue to demand those services. The proposed charge to agricultural land is 10 cents per acre per quarter. For a 400 acre Stormwater Utility Page 2 farm this would amount to $160 pet year. That is a lot of money when margins are slim now for profit. But if we compare the operating cost of the utility and spread that out in the tax rolls many property owners would pay more than by using the user fee because the tax would be based on property value. There are many tasks such as street sweeping, road grading, ditch cleaning that are in reality part of maintaining a stormwater management program that most of us don't realize have such a connection. Responsibility for that lies with the City and thus you as a taxpayer and property owner. 4. The City is proposing a specific utility user rate now, how long before it will increase? A: The proposed utility and associated fees are based upon city staff and consultants best effort in developing a stormwater utility for the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of an overall Stormwater Management System. This proposed utility is based on what we know about stormwater management today, what the necessary construction and reconstruction projects are and what it will take to maintain that system. We are not proposing a "phasing in" concept where we would start out with an artificially low rate now just to get a system up and running and raise the rates quickly. If requirements for stormwater system permitting water quality management and system replacement costs increase or cause the utility to take on an added burden obviously rates will need to be adjusted. 5. Certain properties such as golf courses, cemeteries and undeveloped properties should not be charged a user fee since the stormwater does not leave the property. A: Based on engineering studies even properties which are totally undeveloped and have a soil makeup of sand will provide runoff to ditches, streets and ponds. Engineering studies have proven this with as high as a 55% runoff even on properties we may think would simply absorb all water falling on it. This water then must be managed to control erosion, property damage and surface water quality. The property requires this service and should provide an equitable payment to provide that service. Stormwater Utility Page 3 6. A major storm sewer/pond project was completed in recent years that being Hawkins Pond. A portion of the cost of that project was not assessed and now the project has a deficit balance in it. the Stormwater Utility is proposed to fund this deficit in an amount of approximately $300,000. Shouldn't the City's General Fund pay for this deficit? A: The City Council has several options open to it in recouping these costs. some of those options are: a. Set an assessment hearing and assess an additional amount against the benefitting property owners b. Pay the deficit out of the General Fund. C. Transfer some money from another fund such as the Bonds PaidUp Account d. Utilize the Stormwater Utility to pay this deficit off. Staff and consultants have suggested that the most equitable and most defensible way to pay this cost is to utilize the Utility revenue since the project was clearly a part of the Stormwater Management System and the purpose of the Utility is to pay these kinds of costs. Utilizing the General Fund and general taxes for this purpose would be utilizing the tax system based on value not user need. 7. The proposed Utility would be a "Enterprise Fund". Who would have authority over it? A: Like other utilities that the City owns, being the Sewer and Water Utilities, the existing Utilities Commission would have administrative authority over the system with all financing, rate setting and project approval authority lying with the City Council. The Stormwater utility would be managed and operated by City staff as it does with the Water and Sewer System. 8. The Stormwater Utility should not be a panacea for all our problems. Let's use a blend of user fees and taxes. A: The proposed operating budget and Capital Improvements Budget for the Utility utilizes two sources of funds; user fees and connection charges. since the development and maintenance of the system is based on existing and continued development this is appropriate. If the City did not have levy limits which restrict the amount of taxes we can collect and if the City Council desired to do so these costs could all be passed on through general taxes. This is not feasible at this time. It would also be inequitable since it would be based on value not service received. Stormwater Utility Page 4 In fact, a portion of the total costs to be incurred for stormwater management related activities will be continued to be paid out of the General Operating Budget as proposed. 9. Let's charge for actual services rendered to specific areas. A: In an attempt to set up a fee structure that relates service directly to fees based on runoff coefficients and property use we feel that we have come as close as we can while still providing a efficient billing method. Calculating actual runoff for each property and determining exactly what service is provided for each property may be the absolute most equitable way of charging but it would be extremely costly and time consuming and I would expect most would suggest a waste of money. STORMWATER UTILITY (PROPOSED) COMPARATIVE DATA 1-2-92 All numbers 1st year of operation Total Revenue Projected: $ 445,480 Connection Charge Revenue: $ 196,000 User Fee Revenue: $ 249,480 Total Expenditures Projected: $ 297,465 Total Operating Expense: $ 158,200 Total Debt Service: $ 139,265 (Construction Expense) Net Income/(Loss) Projected $ 148,015 Income/Expenses: 1.49:1 100% 44% 56% 100% 53% 47% Connection Charge to Debt Service: 196,000 Income 139,265 Outlay 56,735 Diff. — Excess Revenue User Fee to Operating: 249,480 Income 158.200 Outlay 91,280 Diff. - Excess Revenue Notes: 1. Assumed rate of 200 new SF resident or equivalent built each year. 2. Assumed borrowing rate of 7% for 12 year amortization. 3. Assumed 5% rate of interest on investment of reserves. 4. Connection charge income is not sufficient every year, projected over a 10 -year period to cover expected debt service. Combining with some user fees is necessary in years 6 - 10 to cover debt service. jr It I MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR NAPPER COUNCILMEMBERS: KLASSEN O%BOROUGH WILLCOX WIPPERMANN CITY ADMINISTRATOR JILK FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/BUILDING OFFICIAL WASMUND DATE: JULY 12, 1991 RE: STORM WATER UTILITY Although the idea and implementation is new to us, the concept of a Storm Water Utility is not new. Some of the first cities in Minnesota adopted this approach more than 10 years ago. The neighboring communities of Apple Valley and Eagan adopted their Storm Water Utilities in 1987 and 1988 respectively. The need for this approach in nearby communities was identified after the 100 year storm of 1987. A Storm Water Utility provides a method to finance necessary improvements and maintenance operations that typically take a backseat to other budget consideration. Environmental concerns relating to surface water runoff, conveyance systems and holding ponds are becoming increasingly difficult to address because of their costs. New rules and regulations are being adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers addressing wetland preservation, wetland replacement and water quality of ponds, lakes, streams and rivers. Storm water projects must now have approval and permit from the DNR. In order to get these permits the local entity must have a Storm Water Management Plan adopted and in effect. The City of Rosemount has started that process. We have a comprehensive plan for the western 1/3 of the City inplace known as the Master Storm - Water Plan. All of the improvement projects that are identified in the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) within the Storm Water Utility have been taken from a prioritized list in the Master Storm Water Plan. In addition to regulations which will affect us as administrators of general tax dollars, we are constantly faced with the probability of natural occurrences. I made earlier reference to the 100 year storm of July, 1987. The City of Rosemount was relatively lucky in that storm because of proportionately low MEMO -STORM WATER UTILITY PAGE 2 private property damage. Most of the cost incurred for that storm resulted from pumping ponds and clean up from eroded slopes into streets and storm sewer components. There was one extremely flooded home owned and occupied by the Tracy Kubista family. Water overflowing from a land locked basin, known to us as Samples Pond, east of Diamond Path and north of Connemara flowed across the road and along a natural depression and through their house, literally! At the time of my investigation the day after the storm, there was 4 1/2 feet of water in the garden level of their home. The Kubista's filed a lawsuit naming the City as a responsible party. Our insurance company has intervened and so far has handled the legal costs. To my knowledge this case has not been settled yet. This is a prime example of how a Utility could be effective. The necessary reconstruction, which has not been done yet, could be funded as well as any legal or settlement fees that may be incurred. If we are lucky our insurance will be adequate for this one claim. One of the questions we must ask ourselves and the public is how much risk of flooding is acceptable. There is no meandering stream in town as there is in Farmington for instance. The threat of a stream overflowing its banks is non- existent. But we do have ponds both natural and man-made that swell and flood in wet years. Valley Oak Pond is a good example of a man-made pond flooding homes. In the spring of 1990 heavy rains coupled with rapid snow melt flooded two homes. If those homeowners were asked how much risk they wanted to take their reply would most likely be "none". Part of the circumstances leading up to the flooding in this example is that the City did not have a pump of sufficient capacity to control the pond's level. As the situation turned into an emergency condition one of the fire trucks was commandeered to action. The pond was able to be drawn down but not until the homes were flooded. In addition, soil and sand particles suspended in the flood water wore on the pump of the fire truck causing a $1,000.00 bill for repair of the pump and seals. Labor costs to have workers on the site 24 hours a day for two days was not even calculated into the costs. The soil in Rosemount for a majority of the area is light and well drained. The classification is sand and gravel. Because of the MEMO -STORM WATER UTILITY PAGE 3 porosity of this type of soil during normal weather conditions water does soak into the ground rapidly. But where does the water go once its out of sight? Depending on location a portion of it flows underground to the Vermillion River to the south. Another portion flows underground and contributes to the ground water elevations in perched ponds and lakes in the area north of a line approximately equal to 135th Street. This area is predominately made up of Rural Residents and Agricultural land. Still another area of town flows underground to the Mississippi River. This area flowing underground to the river is primarily industrial and undeveloped land with Ag land intermittently mixed in. As part of the overall drainage picture, Rosemount has regulations placed on us with a review procedure necessary by the Vermillion Watershed Management Organization. As a watershed management organization the VWMO has costs it incurs. These costs are passed along, divided among the entities which contribute to the watershed district. Rosemount makes an annual contribution of $6,000.00, which.comes out of general tax revenues. Whether we look at a portion of the City where the development is rapidly occurring or fringe areas where development is occurring at a slower rate on larger lots, there are proportionate costs. Where rapid development is occurring we have storm sewer systems to design and install. We also have old poorly designed and outgrown systems to replace. These improvement projects comprise the single largest part of the Storm Water Utility budget. These costs total $1,704,300. However, it should be kept in mind that all portions of this budget that are required because of development will be paid for from connection charge fees at the rate of $980.00 per single family lot. Any oversizing of pipes or ponds to provide future needs for undeveloped properties known as "core" costs must be paid for from non -connection charge funds from the Utility. Similarly all costs to replace older systems -must come from non -connection charge funds. Most of the information I have provided to you to this point is not new to you. You have read some of the same information in other documents. It has been offered as background and review. From my discussions with each of you, I perceive two questions that need clarification. The first question as I see it pertains to the - Operation and Maintenance Budget. Related ° to that question is MEMO -STORM WATER UTILITY PAGE 4 whether the amount of service or maintenance in Rural Residential, Ag and undeveloped areas equals the quarterly fee being proposed. To try to answer these questions I am providing a breakdown of activities between Operations and Maintenance. To illustrate direct benefit to each property is just as difficult as proving benefit for an assessment. That is the underlying reason for looking at a Utility in the first place. Projects such as Hawkins Pond emphasize this difficulty. The operations portion of the Operations and Maintenance budget is intended to include: 1. Monitoring and inspection of the conveyance system and drainage controls on private property. 2. Monitoring of system flow and water quality. 3. Master Plan Updating 4. Regulation enforcement on private land 5. Financial planning 6. Continued public outreach 7. Engineering analysis of system components The maintenance portion of the Operations and Maintenance budget is intended to include: 1. Maintenance of catch basins, manholes and piping - routine and remedial 2. Runoff contaminate control including street and surface sweeping, solid and hazardous waste containment and disposal. 3. Pumping of Ponds - 19 landlock basins are identified in the Master Plan. 4. Dredging of Ponds - future needs 5. Mowing of Ponds and easement areas 6. Culvert maintenance and replacement - Staff estimates 850 culverts in rural areas. 7. Dredging and restoration of road ditches - sedimentation removal and erosion repair By establishing a budget to cover the Operations and Maintenance items we can plan for those activities. We will be able to establish a preventative maintenance schedule. If we can identify and correct items before they become problems the costs can be significantly lower. MEMO -STORM WATER UTILITY PAGE 5 The maintenance items we have performed to date have been reactive. The current operating budget has no specific items broken out such as street sweeping, pond pumping or ditch dredging. When we have a problem called to our attention, we respond, make the necessary corrections and then deliberate as to where to charge the item to. In order to charge back the costs of correction to the property owner, we need to go through the assessment process each time. That approach is very impractical due to time and expenses involved. Operational costs, as identified above, are _costs that will be incurred City wide. It seems appropriate to me to spread that cost to all properties in the City at a lower rate as a Storm Water Utility than as a general tax levy. Part of the problem encountered in the development of our Storm Water Utility has been convincing you the Council and the plablic that the Utility approach is cheaper than tax levy. This has always been assumed true because of property values. As property values increase the proportionate share of taxes also increase. In fact, what we may find is that the Utility fee is cheaper for higher valued property but higher for lower valued homes. To verify these assumptions, we have asked Ron Langness of our Financial Consulting Firm, Springsted, Inc., to run calculations of taxes for various valued properties. On Friday, July 12, we selected specific properties in each billing category based on their estimated market values on file with Dakota County. These were provided to Mr. Langness. I do not expect the results back in time for Tuesday nights meeting, but I will provide them to you prior to setting a public hearing date. I have attempted to answer the questions I know exist. I truly do believe that the concept of a Storm Water Utility is the way to go. I see a need in the community to perform maintenance and improvement projects. With State Legislation controlling levy limits, to reduce local spending, this approach seems a fair and equitable method to achieve the improvements needed. I will have additional overhead material at the meeting. If you have specific questions ahead of that meeting let me know and I MEMO-STORM WATER UTILITY PAGE 6 will provide supportive documentation where available. cc: Utilities Commission TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MAYOR NAPPER COUNCIL MEMBERS: MEMO KLASSEN OXBOROUGH WILLCOX WIPPERMANN RON WASMUND, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/BUILDING OFFICIAL NOVEMBER 26, 1991 STORM WATER UTILITY In this report I will attempt to explain the process, exercises and changes we have gone through with the Storm Water Utility since the last time it was brought before you. The first thing we did was to develop a project list of typical services that are provided as storm sewer maintenance. From that list of projects we developed project cost sheets. Each service was analyzed for costs, including labor, equipment costs, and materials. Labor totals were derived using the 1991 salary rates for each maintenance level position associated with the task and necessary equipment to perform the task. Equipment costs were calculated using the standard hourly rental rate which we have on record for each piece of City owned equipment. Material costs were figured using 1991 purchase prices and quantities of each material needed.. The only exception was the water used for jetting. It was assumed for the present time that water would not be charged for. As policies are examined and modified water may need to be paid for in the future. I have provided copies of the project cost analysis sheets for your reference. Once these costs were derived I then compiled an Operations and Maintenance Budget assigning other operational costs as they could be conservatively anticipated. Those cost included such items as equipment repair, fuel, office supplies, small. tools, refuse disposal, informational brochures, engineering and legal fees. The next step was to determine rates for the utility which were consistent with neighboring communities yet reflected the amounts which seemed to be acceptable to the residents of Rosemount. Using information obtained in discussion with you and what I felt the audience of the informational meeting in July were saying were acceptable, I adjusted the rates. The areas which seemed to generate the most discussion were Rural Residential, Agricultural and Undeveloped lands. The previous rates were $2.43/acre for rural residential and $.50/acre for agricultural and undeveloped land. There seemed to be a general consensus that the fees were considerably higher than the level of service provided. Using the project list as a rationale the rates were adjusted to $.10/acre for agricultural and undeveloped land. Storm Water Utility Memo Page 2 Rural Residential has been treated similar to the R-1 districts by assigning the R-1 rate of $4.88 to the first acre including house and out buildings. The balance of the rural residential parcel will be charged at the same rate as undeveloped land or $.10/acre. Under the new rate structure, no deferments or credits will be considered or granted for conservancy programs in Agricultural, Undeveloped or Rural Residential. Using the new rate schedule and the first draft of the O & M Budget, there was a gross shortage of fees to support costs of operation and construction projects not funded with connection charges. As a result of the disparity between income and expenses we went back and prioritized the project list. Any that duplicated operations that I currently budget for under general operations were eliminated from the utility. Others were cut back in scope reducing the amount of service provided each year for the initial years. In addition to that all equipment costs were eliminated from the calculation of the project. I have provided to you a copy of the priority list and an itemization of which ones were eliminated completely and which ones were cut back in scope. With the adjustment made in maintenance projects and elimination of equipment charges the O & M Budget was reduced from $218,470 to $96,360. The final step we have made in the process was to examine the costs of bonded indebtedness. In the original document the bond payments were calculated assuming a 10% rate on all bonds issued for 10 years. By examining the City's bonding history and good bond rating it was determined that we have never paid more than 7.5% interest on bond sales. Using that history and the fact that our recent bond sales were issued for less than 5% spreadsheets were run. Different examples were run using 6, 7 and 8 percent for both 10 and 12 year terms of debt issue. I have provided copies of those spreadsheets for your examination. The examples all show project costs, equipment costs, operation and maintenance costs and connection charge funded projects. These costs are all totaled for each year to obtain the respective years "Total Capital Financing Needs It is then planned that each years capital needs will be bonded for. The amount of repayment is then shown under "Debt Service Payments" for each respective year with a total shown at the bottom of each years column. The second page of the examples show the total "Income" from service fees and connection charges. It also shows total "Operating Expenses" including operation and maintenance costs, guide plan updates and system replacement costs. Using the total income annually and subtracting operating and maintenance costs and debt service costs we derive the total income or loss for each year. storm Water utility Memo Page 3 The balance line shows the cumulative total for each of the 10 years including interest earned on the previous years balance. Using the costs in the 2nd draft of the O & M Budget, the improvement projects which have always been referred to in the document, and $35,000 every five years for updating the Storm Sewer Guide Plan as expenses, then calculating income based upon the fee table changes as I've earlier explained for income, I'm pleased that we can generate a positive cash flow every year. Please examine the information provided to see if you agree with the approach and rates as explained. I would enjoy discussing any questions you have with you either , prior to or at the meeting. ZS 0// '0 el)'�l - /'%) Co v.vZe, ^� 401 - DATE: JANUARY 30, 1991 ® ✓ / SUBJECT: STORM SEWER UTILITY RATES The possibility of funding the annual street overlay program through a street maintenance. utility or an expanded storm sewer utility was discussed at the 1991 goal setting session. Legal considerations indicate that increasing the existing storm sewer utility charge would be the appropriate mechanism. Currently the storm sewer utility charge is $1.75 per month per residential equivalent, which generates approximately $259,000.00 annually. This amount is supplemented by the general fund at $140,400.00 for a total amount of $399,400.00, which does not meet current expenses.. The following costs are directly or indirectly incurred in operating and maintaining the storm sewer system: 1. Street Sweeping A. Spring clean-up 3 sweepers x 20 days x 12 hours — 720 hours 720 hours x $55.00/hour — $ 39,600 3 trucks x 20 days x 12 hours — 720 hours 720 hours x $50.00/hour — 36,000 B. Summer and fall sweeping 1 sweeper x 24 weeks x 40 hours - 960 hours 960 hours x $55.00/hour — 52,800 i truck x 24 weeks x 40 hours Q 960 hours 960 hours x $35.00/hour 33,600 PART 1 TOTAL $162,000 2. Storm Sewer Lift Stations A. Pumping costs (11 stations) $ 23,000 B. Lift station repairs 10,000 C. Check lift stations (truck & 2 workers) 20 days x 8 hours x $50.00/hour e 8,000 PART 2 TOTAL $ 41,000 Council Memo Storm Sewer Utility Rates Page 2 January 30, 1991 3. Storm Sewer_ Maintenance and Repairs` A. Clean sump catch basins (Vactor & 2 workers) 2 weeks x 40 hours x $145.00/hour - $ 11,600 B. Storm sewer line cleaning 5 days x 8 hours x $145.00/hour - 5,800 C. Repair storm sewer lines Contracting 12,000 Catch basin retrofit (contractual) 24,000 Miscellaneous repairs (City crews & equip.) 4 repairs/year x $2,000.00/repair — 8,000 D. Ponding easements/rental costs 34,000 E. Pond dredging 11,000 TOTAL PART 3 $106,400 4. Miscellaneous Costs - Indirect A. Sweeper brooms $ 10,000 B. Landfill dumping fees 2,000 C. Curb, gutter and sidewalk repair 20,000 D. Parts for lift stations 2,000 TOTAL PART 4 $ 34,000 5. Debt Service for Storm Sewer Projects Assume 20 year recovery $100,000 TOTAL PART 5 $100,000 6. Overlay Proiect_Costs A. Curb replacement $ 81,470 B. Milling overlay 33,270 C. Lift station replacement 20,150 TOTAL PART 6 $134,890 OVERALL TOTAL $578,290 Council Memo Storm Sewer Utility Rates Page 3 January 30, 1991 As can be seen, with total revenue from the storm sewer utility at $259,000 per year and total expenditures at $578,290 per year there remains a $319,290 deficit. It is proposed that the storm sewer utility charges be increased from $1.75 per residential unit per month to $2.75 per month, which would generate $407,000 annually. This would still leave a $171,290 deficit, which could be taken from .the general fund. The impact of this increase on commercial properties is indicated on the attachment to this memo. Please contact me at your convenience if you have further questions relative to this matter. utility provides creative surface water financing Paying for storm wat (d er ramage) projects has become more complex with increasing demands on city general funds and court challenges to special assessments. While traditional funding sources are becoming less viable, the costs related to water quality management and wetland protection continue to rise. With increasing frequency, municipalities are turning to a utility or user charge to finance water management projects. The utility approach is gaining recognition as the most equitable way to finance surface water projects. What is a utility? A utility is a service charge based on a property's contribution of water to the drainage system. A surface water management utility is a method of financing water quantity and quality projects. The utility is based on the premise "users pay." A quarterly fee is typically charged against all developed parcels within a city. The pie charts The fee is based on how much rain runs off demonstrate the into streets, ditches, ponds and lakes rather difference a utility can than soaking into the ground. make in generating This consistent and dependable revenue revenue. source provides the means to manage surface water drainage and water quality without increasing property taxes or using controversial assessments. The utility charge is not associated with property value or property taxes. All properties can be subject to the utility charge, including tax-exempt parcels and "city -owned" lands. What are the benefits? The utility benefits the community by providing a dedicated fund for surface water management activities, including planning and inventories, capital expenditures, personnel and equipment, and administration of the utility. The utility provides a continuous source of revenue for surface water management without competing witlt the general fund. The benefits associated with surface water management include the following: • Flood control • Improved lake eater quality • Wetland protection • Erosion and sediment control • Enhanced recreational opportunities • Drainage system maintenance • Community education Administration of the utility involves developing quarterly rates based on funding needs; determining the means of billing and collections, including software and Residential Apartments Vacant Industrial Ag Comm. General Taxes Parks, Cemeteries and Golf Courses Residential tAPartments Industrial nt g Churches Schools Commercial Gov. Bldg. Utility Funding - equipment needs; determining responsible parties to monitor program implementation; and soliciting comments from legal and financial advisers. How is a utility established? The legal basis for the utility should be an ordinance. The ordinance establishes the utility and outlines calculation of storm drainage fees; credit system and appeals; exemptions; fee payment, city policy; and supporting computations. The utility concept will succeed if it has public understanding and support. It is important to recognize that development adds to existing drainage problems. The property owner on a hill has, by converting natural ground cover into streets, concrete and rooftops, increased storm water runoff. This increase contributes to the drainage problem of neighbors in low-lying areas. Because the property owner on the hill has contributed to the drainage problem, he or she should also contribute to the cost of correcting the problem. s Bus shelters simplify Rochester commute As part of an extensive redevelopment project in downtown Rochester, the Architecture and Transportation Departments joined forces to design an on - street bus transfer station for the Rochester Transportation Department. Seven shelters were designed for the station located on 2nd Street Southwest between 1st and 2nd Avenues. The City utilizes a "coordinated transfer system" where the buses converge at the station every one-half hour during peak hours and every hour during off-peak periods. Riders disembark or begin their journeys at the transfer station. The station is linked to the downtown skyway and to the elaborate Mayo Clinic pedestrian subway system. The sidewalk area adjacent to the transfer station is in a heavily traveled area near the Mayo Clinic. Special attention was given to pedestrian circulation requirements of this area. Architects recommended the use of different paving materials, effectively dividing the sidewalk into two functions — walking and waiting. The use of different paving materials also provides an aesthetic transition between the Mayo Clinic's exposed aggregate and the City's paving pattern used for downtown redevelopment efforts. The station is designed to blend with the Bus transfer stations City's skyway system. The shelters are are linked to the skyway enclosed by glass and a standing seam metal and pedestrian subway. roof. Landscaping elements and pedestrian The Market Survey will provide an accurate look at airport demand in the Brainerd area. street lights are a continuation of the downtown redevelopment theme. In addition to aesthetics, other important elements included: • A comprehensive study of transfer patterns between routes to place the most often used buses together to minimize "jay walking." • Analysis of the impact of diesel fuel odors on air quality. The close proximity of the Mayo Clinic necessitated mitigation of diesel vapors in the area. • A study incorporating computerized and graphical bus schedule information to determine the best system of relaying that information to the public. . Survey measures demand for airport services The Brainerd - Crow Wing County Airport Commission is asking airport users and local businesses to tell them if their air transportation needs are being met. As part of a routine update of the Airport Master Plan, SEH is surveying the local area to ascertain if there is a market for aviation or airport services other than those currently being provided. Tom Foster, Airports Department Manager, says the conventional way to forecast aviation usage is to look at the amount of current traffic and FAA regional projections and formulate forecasts from that information. The Commission wants to make sure the airport facility meets all the needs of users and potential users. For instance, the survey may reveal that there is a need for air freight service and that service is not currently available. The Commission can use that information to generate a more accurate aviation forecast and as a tool for developing the airport. By surveying airport users and potential users, the Commission will develop a better understanding of the local demand. The survey will also reveal what type and the amount of traffic the airport would have if, the local demand was being met. that met the standards of the environ- mentally stringent section could receive a modified National Pollution Dis- charge Elimination System permit to waive the secondary treatment require- ments. Since then, many large cities, such as Boston, have not had their 301(h) waiv- ers renewed, or they have opted to build secondary treatment facilities. But a smattering of communities has Contin- ued to avoid the high cost of installing a secondary treatment plant. In 1987, Congress added require- ments that POTWs applying for 301(h) waivers achieve certain standards in pri- mary treatment. One of these standards is the 30 -percent BOD removal. The primary treatment plant must demon- strate that it can remove 30 percent of the organic matter by the time the ef- fluent leaves the plant. The 301(h) permits may be renewed every five years, but EPA keeps track of the permit holders on a monthly basis. When Anchorage applied for a renewal of its 301(h) waiver recently, it was no- tified by EPA that the permit was in danger of cancellation because the plant was not meeting the BOD regulation, a requirement that came as a surprise to the city. Misinterpretation According to Crewdson, part of the problem lies in EPA's interpretation of the law. Congress said the primary treatment process must meet the 30 -per- cent rule, but the law does not specify if the standard is a monthly,bi-monthly, bi-annual or annual average. We may meet the 30 -percent BOD on an annual average, but during spring melt our sys- tem is swamped with fresh water, and. then there is no way we can meet it. After months of failing to meet the monthly standard, Anchorage experi- mented with a creative way to comply I Th6lime Right Fer $tormwater Utllities2 Municipalities with pop- niflcant; and could escalate dude the installation of re and its suburbs;=Whether ulations of more thanrapidly if -testing for paratnxentaonponds, atoiage tun °�suchan approach is feasible ; -.25Q,000 must begin submit .a eters,suchas priority pollut. neisand swirl coneentrators : ;. depends on state and. =local r"; tingstormwater discharge -`ants, is made part of the per=;" 'The .technology:seiected' � laws. -Any entity seeking to' permit applications by Nov nits : ,would depend not %only on ° establish a stormwater utility,, -_, 1991 to the federal gov ,. Corrective measures would which pollutants- must be -re- : should have the programs M. ernment. Those With popula-' be -indicated if the sampling =�°moved;, but also 'on local viewed by legal counsel. tions between"100,000;and,, and testing programa~show- .conditions. In heavily.popu „.�:":Selling the Concept of ax", 25U,000 mustsubmit by�May,f; that stormwater adversely_-;dated:areas, it maynot be ��dstormwater-utility,willbe`' 1&`1992. ' �. affects the receiviing`�stream �feastbie to build retention �_difficult-in some places The a`. ,', The final rule establishing > water, quality: The'.cost ofd ponds.because of. space,liuu ,s:, utility is, `after all, .another permit application require- implementing corrective . tations.In some cases, build -11-r . form of taxation, and new ments for stormwater dis .: measures,1, ay compare, to Ming storager tunnels and then - taxes are not met with glee_t-_ charges,,published lastyear," the-cost'•of combined sewer 'discharging the��water.wto � Establishing the utility does not specify the type of >ov eriiow'CSO) abatement, treatment plants may be pre ;may take several yearsof controls to be included in the ''since many of the same tech ferred._ planning: The income gener= permits. Those controls will .: nologies are applicable. The ' -The potential need to treat ated during the first few be set by the state permitting timing and scope of .correc- -stormwater affects other ar- .;;years .most likely will be,, agencies or the U.S.-Envi- tive measures cannot be pro- eas of water pollution con- small, so planning and sell- ` ronmental Protection ejected now. ,..: trol. Many older_citiesnow __. _ ing,the stormwater utility Agency.The approach to pollution " are implementing CSO concept needs to begin soon While the cost of applying 'abatement from stormwater abatement programs, and if a viable program is to be: may not be great, subsequent will vary locally. Two of the some municipalities are con- created in five years. Smaller costs derived from additional " applicable technologies are sidering sewer separation communities, while not sampling or implementation -waste minimization, includ- programs as part ,of their needing to file permits at this of abatement measures may ing improved street cleaning, strategies. But if stormwater' time, may want to begin have a substantial impact on ` catchbasin cleaning and lit- treatment becomes neces- considering the utility con - community finances. ter -control ordinances, and sary, separation may not cept now. The fact that there are storage and treatment of the provide pollution control at Once the utility is estab- pollutants in urban runoff stormwaters. the lowest cost. lished, rates can be adjusted has been accepted for a long The waste minimization Filing permit applications according to needs. Typi- time. One must believe that approaches would result in for stormwater discharges Cally, rates are low at incep- the primary reasons for the low capital expenditures but will result in additional costs tion to facilitate adoption of permitting systems are to al- may increase operational to local governments. The this concept. low EPA to develop infor- costs. Also of significance ultimate implementation There are no fixed formu- mation on pollution resulting are the institutional prob- costs could range from mod- las to aid communities in es - from stormwater discharges, lems created by the program. erate to very high, depending tablishing a stormwater util- as well as to develop a Most collection and treat- on the effect of the waters on ity, but the planning process _framework to abate that pol- ment/storage methods would the receiving streams. EPA must incorporate several lution. So it follows that likely be geared to capturing estimates the cost of filing stages. The extent of the EPA will require permit the first flush after a storm,_ for large- to medium-sized program is dictated by local holders to undertake a pro- since those waters would municipalities will range needs. ❑ gram to sample and test contain the highest concen- from $50,000 to $75,000. stormwater discharges. The trations of pollutants. This The logical vehicle for results of this program would approach to controlling pol- raising the necessary funds be used by EPA to determine lution from stormwaters may be a stormwater man - the need for corrective meas- would be similar to that used agement utility. Drainage This article was written by ures. in abating the effects of patterns do not recognize Felix Sampayo, senior vice The cost of a sampling and CSOs. political subdivisions, so a president of Jones & Henry testing program could be sig- This approach could in- utility could encompass a city Engineers, Toledo, Ohio. 84 American City & County/August 1991 It's the ideal companion to our TR FLEX® pipe and fittings, U.S. Pipe's boldess joint restraint system. Say hello to the Think As The 1 Of P TR FLEX GRIPPERe Ring And unleash all the and bite you need to restrain field -cut joints, without all the welding and retainer gland bolts. Powe:+ul, definitely. Tenacious, absolutely. It's designed to grab hold with a ductile iron grip that'll never let go. At pressures well above its rated 350 psi you'll not only admire its strength, but its speed. just insert a TYTON® gasket in the bell socket, then the TR FLEX GRIPPER Ring. Now insert the field -cut spigot end, down two to four bolts (instead of up to 24), and that puppy's not going anywhere. While still giving you the flex of TR FLEX pipe. The 4"-36" TR FLEX GRIPPER Ring, from U.S. Pipe. Proving its power in more than 200,000 installations. And proving again what our new ideas can (250 psi for 30" and 36"). And do, once they really take hold. 9 U.S. Pipe & Foundry Company P.O. Box 10406, Birmingham, AL 35202 Member: Ductile Iron Pipe Research Assn., AWWA, WPCF and VMA NEW • IDEAS. ARE • FLOWING. AT- U.S. PIPE Circle No. 54 On Reader Service Card American Clty & County/August 1991 _VWastewater w_systerns Stormwater Management Through User Fees hrough the 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments, municipalities with populations of 100,000 or more are required to obtain National Pollut- ant Discharge Elimination System .(NPDES) permits for their_ storm sewer systems while still managing stormwater runoff to control water quality impacts to receiving water bodies. The final rule is expected by the end of this month, with permit submission deadlines as early as two years from now. By Nilo Priede During the 1990s, municipalities of all sizes will be developing and implement- ing stormwater management programs to control urban runoff and its effect on water quality. Historically, stormwater management has been limited to_ plan- _ _ ning, designing and implementing storm drainage improvements. Water quality controls were not required. The new comprehensive stormwater management approach, however, seeks to control both the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff by protecting the total stream system from flooding and water quality degradation. Generating sufficient financial re- sources to cope with water quality is- sues and drainage infrastructure needs is _ critical in a stormwater management program. Funding to meet the typical backlog of drainage corrections ar'J the new water quality considerations can be substantial. Although the State Revolv- ing Fund Loan Program makes loans CIPEN CHANNEL Flumes/Weirs /Compound Measurement . Series 2000 Ultrasonic Level Measurement \ Preprogrammed I for all weirs and flumes. Series 5000 [ Compound Er Measurement System a Designed to operate in open channel non fullll pipe.. adger Meter is dedicated to the develop- ment and manufacture of quality instrumentation for water and wastewater flows. Badger has the expertise and knowledge to insure success in pressure pipe, open channel. non -full pipe, retrofit or new applications. Talk to the Flowmeter People. Talk to Ba4rer. =a ' BadgerMeter,inc. P.O. Box 581390 Tulsa. OK 74158-1390 (918) 836-8411 FAX: (918) 832-9962 • CLOSED PIPE Ultrasonic Transit-Time/Flow Tubes/Venturis/Turbines FLOW Spool piece or Series 4000 Strap -on sensor Transit-Tim, 3- unrasonie through120 erne size. FLOW Venturi Insert full -hanged cast iron or faormate" Ceston 3" "'ough 120" fine size. available below market rate and extends eligibility to nonpoint source control projects, local governments still must bear full financial responsibility for on- going stormwater programs. One financing option is the stormwa- ter utility, which relies on user fees rather than traditional tax revenues to fund stormwater management. A stormwater utility is user -oriented, with costs allocated according to the services received. Charges are related to a given land parcel's stormwater run- off. Therefore, each parcel of land within a local government's jurisdiction is assessed a fee based on its runoff characteristics. The user fee system must be tailored to local goals and conditions such as soil types, depth to groundwa- ter, Iand use and financial needs. Fairness and equity for all ratepayers must be the primary focus for establish- ing the rate base. To achieve this objec- tive, each element of the rate structure must be carefully determined. The typi- cal stormwater utility rate structure is based on the total impervious area (roof area, patios, driveways, etc.) of each land parcel. The fee structure is based on the average impervious area of a typical residential unit. Two options exist for determining the impervious area of the rate structure. In New Measuring Technology Helps Operations Local officials used to ap- proach their work with the confidence that the best they could do with the resources avail- able was all that could be ex- pected. But times have changed, and often standards are set by people outside the local system. The U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency imposes substan- tial fines on localities that do not follow its mandates.–Between 1985 and 1989, 412 convictions for non-compliance with federal regulations are on record for pri- vate organizations and individu- als as well as local governments, resulting in $1.3 billion in fines and 1,254 years of jail time. Last year, San Antonio, Texas, was fined more than $200,000 for failing to regulate the toxicity of the industries that feed into the city's publicly owned treat- ment works (POTWs). The issue of toxicity has become a major source of worry. A material is considered toxic if it causes harm to living or- ganisms. Toxicity is not a property like mass, elasticity or color that can be measured against an objective standard. The only way to determine toxicity is to observe the effect of the material on live specimens of some kind. The key issue when dealing with toxicity is how much is acceptable under prevailing conditions. Even when the complete chemical count of a test sample is known, its tox- icity cannot be predicted reliably. Different chemicals work synergistically or antagonistically to increase or decrease toxic effects. To get a comprehensive measure of the situa- tion, two tests are necessary — biological tests for toxicity levels and specific tests to indicate what chemicals are pres- ent in toxic samples. Toxicity bioassays, which expose specimens to test sam- ples and then test for negative effects, are used for screen- ing. They determine whether the sample is so toxic that fur- ther action is needed. They also are used as monitors to de- tect significant changes from normal toxicity levels, signaling potential problems. Organisms have long served as sensors of unseen hazards. Theoretically, any organism may be used for testing. In practice, only a handful of tests are used widely, not be- cause of their simplicity or superior results, but because the results are related easily to an already well-documented body of knowledge. In environmental testing, fish, water fleas, algae and bac- teria are used commonly. While the basic idea of bioassay is simple, the performance of the tests usually is time-consum- Using a new method, a full bioassay can be accomplished at the lab in half an hour. ing and complicated. As a result, faster and easier testing methods have been sought for use along- side the old standbys. Responsi- ble officials want testing systems that pinpoint toxicity sources rapidly so they can control those sources before problems become crises. Certain microorganisms put as much as 15 percent of their total - energy into producing light. In- tensive study of these organisms beginning in the 1930s showed that toxicity causes a reduction in light output. In the late 1960s, this knowl- edge was applied to detecting air- borne toxicity. Air samples were drawn into a chamber with a col- ony of glowing bacteria selected for specific high sensitivity to or- ganophosphates, widely used in pesticides. A sharp drop in light output indicated the presence of these chemicals. Members of that same technical team used the method in the mid-1970s with water-based samples and an organism selected for its response to a broad range of toxics in a sys- tem called Microtox. The project was surprisingly complex. No one previously had developed all that was required for production and ef- fective integration of living organisms, mechanical systems, electronics and computer logic. A key development was a special process of freeze-drying the organisms at exactly the right point in their life cycle so they could be stored un- changed for at least a year. When water is added to the sample, the cells become a suspension of living organisms once again, ready for imme- diate use. A full bioassay, testing several dilutions of a sam- ple, can be completed in about half an hour. Traditional environmental testing looks only at the end product of waste management processes, such as the final outfall from a wastewater treatment plant. A fast biosensor allows a different approach. The effectiveness of internal processes can be monitored, allowing for individual adjust- ments. Trucked -in toxic septage can be screened to protect the living biomass of the POTW. If local government is to maintain control of its affairs, local authorities must have practical methods for judging their situations. New measuring technology can provide much of the information needed for control of operations impacting the environment. 13 This article was written by Nelson tVinkless, director of communications for Akrobics Corp., Albuquerque, N.hf. the first, all detached single family dwellings are charged a flat rate of one single family unit (SFU), while other parcels are charged on the basis of the total impervious area on the individual parcel divided by the single family unit square footage. The other option bases the fee on an equivalent residential unit (ERU), which is derived by totalling the impervious area of all dwelling types and dividing by the number of dwelling units. Four factors supporting the fairness of an ERU-based fee structure are di- rectly connected impervious area for each land use, increased revenue, con- struction cost vs. density of develop- ment and billing system savings. The best estimate of a parcel's runoff contribution is the directly connected impervious area (DCIA) on the parcel. DCIA is the impervious area that drains directly to a gutter or drainage channel. Driveways, for example, generally are included in DCIA because they drain directly to the street via the gutter. Rooftops and patios are not included because they drain to a surface (the lawn) where the runoff has an opportu- _nity to filter.. into _the .ground before reaching the drainage channel. Using an ERU-based structure usu- ally results in a significant increase in the revenue generated by the stormwa- ter utility. Increases from an ERU base rather than an SFU base generally range from 25 to 35 percent. However, in communities with large numbers of multifamily units, increases can range from 60 to 100 percent. The higher the development density, the greater the ERU total. Some communities have incorporated user fees for platted -vacant land in their stormwater utilities. Computing an eq- uitable fee for this category involves considering soil characteristics, depth to groundwater and the design storms se- lected by the community to provide Hot Mix Asphalt Industry Examined The National Asphalt Pavement Association has published a report discussing the safety hazards of test- ing for the asphalt cement content of hot mix asphalt. Current Industry Practices and Procedures for Determining Asphalt Cement Content In Hot Mix Asphalt examines current procedures for as- phalt -content testing, the problems involved and suggestions for more environmentally safe practices. For more information, contact the NAPA, 6811 Kenilworth Ave., Riv- erdale, Md. 20737-1333, (301)779 4880. American City & County/O. Lobo, 1990 Circle NO. 25 tn-. P. Prior Rnrviro (`aril 11 Duckweed Gaining Acceptance As Treatment ore American cities and coun- ties are designing natural was- tewater treatment lagoons using duckweed to eliminate impurities and protect the environment from un- healthy discharge. But managing a plant is not always the easiest thing to do. However, a process for man- aging natural duckweed systems to treat wastewater effluent has been developed by a Minnesota-based company. "It's Mother Nature's way of cleaning water," says Reid Erickson, a representative of the Lemna Corp. The free-floating plant grows on the surface of water bodies, drifting and shifting positions according to wind and wave activity. But the plant's constant movement made removal of nutrients from the water virtually impossible. That is until Viet Ngo, a civil en- gineer and consultant, devised a sys- tem -of floating barriers to eliminate the wind and wave activity, which created a stable environment for the plant to grow. The system now has been designated "Innovative/Alter- native" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, placing it high in priority for grant funding. Several communities already are experimenting with the process. "We were told an upgrade and expansion of our system would cost about $1 million," says Richard Rowe, city manager of Ellaville, Ga. "The Lemna retrofit cost $260,000 and enabled us to increase our lagoon capacity from 160,000 gallons to 200,000 gallons daily." The Ellaville retrofit cost . $260,000. MUD CAT DREDGES . a N Proven Performance in Municipalities Municipalities large and small find the patented MUD CAT AUGER DREDGES ideal for WASTEWATER TREATMENT, PONDS, LAKES, CANALS, MARINAS & MORE ... • One truck transportable with easy set up. • Operates in less than two feet of water and cuts a swath up to nine feet wide and twenty feet deep with minimum turbidity. • Diesel or electric powered with pump discharge diameters of 6" to 10". • Pond liners can be protected with optional auger wheels and cage. • Buy or lease—dredge, pipeline, boosters, production meters and accessories. • Cutterhead and Bucketwheel designs also available. MUD CAT. 1600 Bush St. Baltimore, MD 21230 U.SA. Phone: (301) 837-7900 FAX: (301)752-3294 TELEX: 87621 ELLICOTT MACHINE CORP. drainage and water quality protection. Including the platted -vacant parcel in the customer base is common in com- munities with limited large tracts of un- developed property and numbers of platted -vacant parcels. Implementing the NPDES permit program for storm sewer systems costs an average of $500,000 for communities of 250,000 or more. The cost of these site-specific investi- gations should be borne by the contrib- uting commercial/industrial entities. Using permit fees to recover the cost of establishing and maintaining the NPDES permit process also is essential. In communities with significa:�t growth, the long -terra success of a stormwater management program de- pends on the requirements for new de- velopments. A stormwater management ordinance that sets levels of service for flood protection and water quality goals should be established to guide storm - water master planning and ensure that new development meets stormwater management requirements. Developers can be required, to con-_ struct stormwater management facilities that meet runoff quality and quantity control requirements or pay an up -front fee to participate in regional or basin - wide stormwater facilities. This "front- end" capital contribution can be nego- tiated based on the services rendered. Significant capital is required to re- trofit existing facilities to meet water quality requirements. Two options for this cost recovery process are including an annual capital improvement pro- gram in the rate base and levying a spe- cial assessment. Using the first •-ition, costs for im- proving the sys :m are recovered through the user rate base with all users paying equally. This places the respon- sibility of bringing the existing system up to an acceptable standard on all of the utility's customers. The second option for recovering capital costs is based on contributing areas. For example, if a customer's property represents 10 percent of the service area, he would pay 10 percent of the project's capital cost. The stormwater management utility is a user fee system that integrates all user classes into a fair and equitable rate structure. As such, it can generate on- going revenue from monthly user fees and permit fees to cover planning, de- sign and construction of facility im- provements; operation and mainte- nance; and the organizational and ad- ministrative requirements of a comprehensive stormwater management program. ED Mlo Priede is a senior technic consultant for Camp Dre.;::•°r & n;,Wee, Jacksonville, Fla.