Stormwater Utility Study

Transcription

1 Stormwater Utility Study City of Hays, Kansas City Commission - Work Session January 21, 2010

2 Tonight s s Briefing Study Update Data collection Stormwater program review & evaluation Present a few city statistics Other Kansas Communities Flat fees Stormwater utilities Legal Issues What s s Next?

3 Overall Approach Extension of City staff Build on existing studies & information Educate, Equip,, and provide the right solutions so you can Enact Communicate Meet NPDES Phase II Regulations Provide defendable long term funding source

4 Study Update Team Meetings and Communication Kickoff meeting on December 21st Eroom for data sharing Stormwater Program Assessment Meeting on January 21 st Weekly Communication with Project Team Data Collection Received all available data and information on the current stormwater program

5 Study Update (cont.) Review & Evaluation Completed initial review Anticipate completing evaluation by February 5 th Key to understand current activities Completed some initial statistics Parcels Stormwater system

6 Parcel Statistics Total Area = 5,250 ac. Number of Parcels = 7,650 Of these: 4% - City Owned Property 5% - School District 5% - University 1% - Religious Institutions

7 Stormwater Statistics and Land Use Gallons of Stormwater Runoff for a 0.5-inch Rainfall Event Runoff (gallons) 180, , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, Size of Parcel (acres) Residential Commercial Industrial

8 Stormwater Statistics and Land Use Gallons of Stormwater Runoff for a 0.5-inch Rainfall Event

9 Stakeholders: Single Family Residential Large = 1.29 acres Medium = 0.38 acres Small = 0.15 acres

10 Stakeholders: Multi-Family Residential Large = 1.15 acres Small = 0.29 acres

11 Stakeholders: Commercial Big Box > 15 acre lot Small = 0.5 acres

12 Stakeholders: Auto Dealerships 3.5 acres

13 Stakeholders: Churches / Religious Institutions 1 acre

14 Stakeholders: Schools Large = University Small = Elementary School

15 Other Kansas Communities In Kansas there are: 3 NPDES Phase I Communities 52 NPDES Phase II Communities 13 participating in the Stormwater Consortium Stormwater funding source (those reviewed) 4 cities with a Flat Fee 7 cities with a Stormwater Utility

16 Kansas Towns with a Flat Fee Town Population Fee Details Revenue (est.) Arkansas City 11,420 $3.00/mo SF Res. $192,000 Bonner Springs 6,770 $6.00/mo MF, $2.50/mo NonRes Res. $90,000 Coffeyville 10,390 $5.00/mo Nres. $160,000 Kansas City 142,500 $2.00/mo

17 Kansas Towns with a Stormwater Utility Town Population Fee Details Revenue (est.) Lawrence 90,520 $4.00/ERU/mo $2.9 Million Pittsburg 19,650 $3.36/ERU/mo +1 Mil $0.75 Million Overland Park 160,000 $2.00/ERU/mo + 1 Mill $4.8 Million Shawnee 60,950 $3.00/ERU/mo $1.6 Million Topeka 123,450 Olathe 114,600 $5.00/ERU/mo $3.03 Million Lenexa 46,820 $6.00/ERU/mo

18 Kansas Communities

19 3-pronged test for determining whether fees are reasonable service charges or taxes Is fee or service charge non- discriminatory? Is it fair approximation of cost of benefit received? Is it structured to produce revenues that will not exceed regular s s total cost of providing benefits?

20 Legal Issues (cont.) Equitable relationship between the amount of stormwater generated by a given property to the benefit received by the rate-payer Case law strongly suggests that a rate will be deemed valid where Revenue generated benefits the payers primarily even if not exclusively Revenue is only used for the projects for which it was generated Revenue generated does not exceed the costs of the projects Rate is uniformly applied among similarly situated

21 Legal Challenges Voluntary or paid by choice Fee amount compared to cost of program Tax vs. Fee Most commonly litigated issue Tax exempt organizations Is the fee reasonable and directly related to the cost of providing the service Are those burdened by the fee receiving proportionate benefit CWA contains an express waiver of sovereign immunity for certain pollution control related service charges (e.g. NPDES) Dept. of Transportation

22 Legal and Implementation Consideration Flat Fee Documentation of program cost that set fee Has been successful challenged by residence who argued that commercial properties should pay more (City of Longview, FL) Not proportional to contribution to stormwater runoff volume and loading. 0.5 inch runoff example Use Arkansas City, KS Flat Fee Rates

23 Flat Fee Example (1/2 inch rain) Big Big Box = 15 ac site, 12 ac impervious area (80%) Runoff = 162,920 gallons Revenue = $6.00/month Cost/gallon = < cents SF Residential = 0.3 ac parcel 3,100 sq ft impervious area (24%) Results Runoff = 980 gallons Revenue = $3.00/month Cost/gallon = 0.3 cents Big Box generates 161,940 gallons more runoff but pays only $36 more Total Annual Revenue = $108

24 Flat Fee Range of Total Annual Revenue Number of Parcels = 7,560 Residential = 35% = 2,650 parcels Other = 65% = 4,910 parcels Family Restaurant Big Box Residential: $63,600 to $95,400 Other: $117,840 to $353,520 Industrial Church School Total Annual Revenue: $181,440 to $448,920

25 Legal and Implementation Considerations of Flat Fee Is the flat fee charge non-discriminatory? Yes, if it is opposed to all parcels, even unimproved parcels (vacant lots or parking lots) Is it fair approximation of cost of benefit received? No. Larger impervious area generate several orders of magnitude more runoff & pollutants No. Residential parcels pay more per gallon Is fee structured to produce revenues that will not exceed regular s s total cost of providing benefits? Not sure. Need documentation of program cost that set fee

26 Stormwater Utility Example ($3/ERU) Big Box = 15 ac site, 12 ac impervious area (80%) Runoff = 162,920 gallons Revenue = 169 $507/mo Cost/gallon = 3.7 cents/gal SF Residential = 0.3 ac parcel 3,100 sq ft impervious area (24%) Results Runoff = 980 gallons Revenue = 1 Cost/gallon = 3.7 cents/gal Big Box pays the same per gallon as the $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 Single Family Residential "Big Box" Commercial SF Residential Total Annual Revenue = $6,120 $0 Total Annual Revenue Stormwater Utility

27 Stormwater Utility Range of Total Annual Revenue ERU estimate based on Pittsburg, KS = 18,650 MF Res Family Restaurant Big Box ERU Rate based on Impervious Area Industrial SF Res Church School Total Annual $2 - $4/ERU $447,600 to $895,200

28 Legal and Implementation Considerations of SWU Is the utility fee charge non-discriminatory? Yes, if it is opposed to all parcels, even unimproved parcels (vacant lots or parking lots) Is it fair approximation of cost of benefit received? Yes. Fee is based on impervious area which is directly related to the volume and pollutant load from the parcel Yes. Cost per gallon of runoff is the uniform Is fee structured to produce revenues that will not exceed regular s s total cost of providing benefits? Not sure. Need documentation of program cost that set ERU rate

29 Runoff Volume & Load = 1,000 gal X = 0.82 lbs 980 gallons Single Family Residential X = 136 lbs 162,920 gallons Big Box

30 Stormwater Program Revenue Needs Capital Improvement Projects Mitigate flooding Improve water quality Operation & Maintenance Emergency maintenance Programmed maintenance Administration Management Implementation Regulatory

31 What s s next? Complete Stormwater Program Assessment Prepare for Workshop #1 Present Assessment Results at Workshop #1