Surface Water Utility Implementation. What We Did, How We Did it, and Lessons Learned

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Surface Water Utility Implementation. What We Did, How We Did it, and Lessons Learned"

Transcription

1 Surface Water Utility Implementation What We Did, How We Did it, and Lessons Learned

2 Pinellas County Surface Water Utility 2 Background Comprehensive Surface Water Management Initiative Program Development: Pre-Assessment Level of Service Analysis and Costs Rate Structure Analysis Adopted Level of Service and Costs Lessons Learned Program Implementation: Impervious Data Collection Adjustment and Credit Policy Outreach and Interactions with the Public Lessons Learned

3 Background Comprehensive Surface Water Management Initiative

4 Background 4 May 2011 Commission Work Session on Stormwater Issues November 2011 Commission Field Trip December 2011 presentation to Commission on Comprehensive Surface Water Strategic Initiative Request for concurrence 2012 Interim Actions Ensuring permit compliance Asset inventory Discussions with municipal partners

5 Surface Water Management Challenges 5 Development History Poor Water Quality Fewer Resources Flooding and Erosion

6 Surface Water Management Our History 6 Master Drainage Plans Storm Drainage Studies Comp Plan Update TMDL Wilson Grizzle FL Stormwater Rule Pinellas Comp Plan Watershed Restoration Act Fertilizer Ordinance Water Pollution Control Act Clean Water Act 81% Build out Grizzle Figg FL Water Policy Rule NPDES Pinellas LDR Updates Pinellas Stormwater Ordinance 96% Build out LDR and Comp Plan Updates

7 Connecting the Dots: Comprehensive Plan 7 Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan The Surface Water Management element requires Flood protection Preservation and enhancement of water quality Natural resources protection and enhanced ecological diversity Objectives and policies within the Surface Water element Comprehensive and integrated approach Good inventories and analysis Show measurable improvements in the quality of county waters Watershed planning as foundation for a comprehensive program Such plans shall address water quality, stormwater management, habitat requirements, and biological targets, as well as recommended funding sources

8 Surface Water Management Initiative 8 Community Engagement Development and Source Control Policies Increased Inspections, Maintenance and Monitoring Watershed Planning

9 Surface Water Management Initiative 9 Prevention versus Cure

10 Surface Water Management Initiative 10 Prevention versus Cure

11 Surface Water Management Initiative 11 Prevention versus Cure

12 Surface Water Management Program Pre-Assessment Program, Costs, and LOS

13 Pre-Assessment Program Activities 13 Program for unincorporated area Program Management Watershed Planning Floodplain Management O&M programming Non O&M NPDES Compliance Asset inventory data collection and management Inspections Education and training TMDL implementation Water quality monitoring

14 Pre-Assessment Program Activities 14 Operation and Maintenance NPDES Compliance Within the Unincorporated Service Area: >323 miles of ditches >390 miles of pipe ~35,000 structures (to date) ~200 ponds ~344 acres of mitigation 4870 miles of street sweeping/year 5 alum systems

15 Pre-Assessment Funding Levels 15 Annual Program Costs $11.8 M Program management $1.2 M NPDES operations and maintenance $9.0 M NPDES permit compliance $1.6 M Funding sources General fund revenue Gas Tax Capital Improvements: Penny for Pinellas Infrastructure Tax (~8.7M/yr) Program Management NPDES O&M NPDES Compliance

16 Pre-Assessment Level of Service 16 Figure 3-1 Stormwater Governance Study: Stormwater Program Level of Service Matrix Level of Service A B C D F Program Management Activities Comprehensive Planning + Full Implementation Capabilities Pro-Active Planning + Systematic CIP Implementation Capabilities Priority Planning + Partial CIP Implementation Capabilities Reactionary Planning + Minimal CIP Implementation Capabilities No Planning + No CIP Implementation Capabilities Non-O&M Related Compliance Activities Exemplary Permit Compliance Pro-Active Permit Compliance Operation and Maintenance Program Activities Fully Preventative/ 100% Routine Mixture of Routine and Inspection Based 10-year Plan 20-year Plan Minimal Permit Compliance Inspection Based 40-year Plan Below Minimum Permit Compliance Non-Compliance NPDES Compliance Activities Responsive Only (Complaint-based) Less than full response to all complaints Capital Improvement Projects 50-year Plan 75-year or More Plan

17 Pre-Assessment Level of Service 17 Program Management LOS C NPDES Permit Compliance LOS C to C+ NPDES O&M LOS C- (declining) Capital Improvement Program LOS C+ to B- (declining) Overall LOS C

18 Rate Structure Analysis Equivalent Units Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) Median or Average impervious area for all residential unit types Average: 2,329 sq ft Median: 2,339 sq ft Options Uniform 70% of Counties use 58% of SWU in Florida Tiered

19 Rate Structure Analysis Option Total ERU % Change in Rate from Base Base Rate Structure 164,425 ERU Based Fee 164, % Tiered Single Family 172, % Tiered Single Family w/large SF Extra 173, % Variable Non-Single Family Residential 139, % Credit for Pond at 80% 157, %

20 Rate Structure Analysis 20 Residential Tier ERU= 2,339 sq ft Small 200-1,575 sq ft Medium 1,576 4,367 sq ft Large 4,368 10,000 sq ft Very Large > 10,000 sq ft Treated like nonresidential

21 Rate Structure Analysis Non-Residential Rates Actual impervious area 83% of SWU in Florida

22 Surface Water Management Program Adopted Level of Service and Costs

23 Adopted Level of Service 23 Prior Program + Increased LOS Open conveyances Closed conveyances Street sweeping Site plan/floodplain management program Public education

24 Adopted Level of Service 24 Proposed Strategy (continued) Biological monitoring Watershed planning Adopt-A-Pond Very good basic public program

25 Adopted Level of Service 25 Open Conveyances Ditches Channels Swales Current Annual Plan: 89,119 LF Estimated Inventory: 1.6M LF Maintenance cycle: 18 years Proposed Annual Plan: 161,000 LF Maintenance cycle: ~10 years Cyclic program Asset management process

26 Adopted Level of Service 26 Closed Conveyance Deficient Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Current Annual Plan: <1 mile Estimated Inventory: 24 miles Years to complete: 24 Proposed Annual Plan: 2.4 miles Years to complete: 10 Asset management process

27 Adopted Level of Service 27 Street Sweeping Per unit cost one of the most cost effective water quality improvement programs Since 2008; 69% reduction in nitrogen removal due to program cuts Increase cycles and add priority sweeping areas (seasonal and TMDL) $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 Cost Per Pound Nitrogen Removed $3,500 $179 $245 $45 $16

28 Adopted Level of Service 28 Floodplain Management and Site Plan Compliance Develop and implement comprehensive floodplain management program Inspection/certification of private facilities to ensure stormwater management facilities are functioning per approved designs. NEW CRS went from class 7 to class 5! Engagement and Education Digital and print media PSAs, videos, competitions Goal to increase awareness that results in positive behavior change Surveys to assess changes in awareness

29 Adopted Level of Service 29 Biological Monitoring Program New water quality standards require biological confirmation Cost shared with cities and the Florida Department of Transportation 45% County/55% Partners Watershed Plan Development Priority watersheds Costs shared with cities Funding and technical support from SWFWMD

30 Adopted Level of Service 30 Adopt-A-Pond Private community ponds Community engagement Pond improvements Constraints demonstrate significance to water quality or community drainage issues Benefits Increased awareness Functional systems reduce discharges and improve water quality

31 Adopted Level of Service 31 Summary Program Management LOS C+ NPDES Permit Compliance LOS C+ to B- NPDES O&M LOS C+ Benefit to CRS Overall LOS C+ to B- Non-Compliance Compliance Beyond Compliance Reactive Integrated Strategy Proactive Purpose/Mission

32 Funding Analysis Example Rates 32 Pinellas County Stormwater Governance Study Example Stormwater Utility Rates (Excludes CIP Funded by Penny for Pinellas) Example Program Program Funding Need Cost per ERU per Year 1 Cost per ERU per Month 2 Proposed Surface Water Management Program + LOS B $19,040,534 $ $10.30 Proposed Surface Water Management Program LOS C+/B- $17,885,623 $ $9.70 Proposed Program - pipe repair (PR)* and mowing* LOS C $16,744,755 $ $9.10 Proposed program - PR*, mowing*, and vegetation management (VM)** $14,995,228 $97.20 $8.10 Proposed program - PR*, mowing*, VM,** and Adopt-A-Pond $14,526,335 $94.20 $7.90 Existing Surface Water Management Program $11,793,546 $76.50 $6.40 Total Estimated ERUs 169,500 Notes: 1. Calculated FY 13 Funding Need divided by Total ERUs and 91% (assumes 5% loss and 4% for PAO and Tax Collector). Rounded to nearest $ Calculated as the Annual Cost divided by 12. Rounded to the Nearest $0.10. * Service costs shift back to Transportation Trust ** Service costs shift back to Transportation Trust and General Fund

33 Funding Analysis Recommended Rate 33 Rate to support proposed program $116/ERU/year Estimated program revenue $17.9M/year Option to index to CPI Rate structure applies to all properties within the unincorporated area Fee Breakdown Program Management $2.25M NPDES Compliance $2.25M NPDES O&M $13.4M

34 Local Fees Jurisdiction Monthly Rate Redington Shores $1.50 Hillsborough County $2.50 Gulfport $3.60 Pinellas Park $4.00 Pasco County $4.75 Oldsmar $5.00 Tarpon Springs $6.15 Largo $6.65 Tampa $6.83 St. Petersburg $6.84 St. Pete Beach $7.00 Safety Harbor $7.25 Redington Beach $7.50 Treasure Island $8.96 Pinellas County $9.81 Madeira Beach $10.00 Dunedin $10.16 Belleair $11.92 Clearwater $14.51 Note: These are FY16 Rates 34

35 LOS Overview 35 Very good basic program Progressive program Data driven Adaptive Focuses on critical needs first Ensures permit requirements are met Aligned with comprehensive plan Encourages maintenance of private systems and designs that reduce runoff Rate structure promotes equity and is based on a sound foundation Improved Water Quality Reduced Community Flooding Reduced Infrastructure Failures

36 Lessons Learned 36 Good data is critical Activity costs Gap analysis Tell them, tell them again, and then one more time Don t assume people will remember Tell a story, connect, make it personal Ask decision makers for concurrence along the way Talk with other local governments Get the word out (print, TV, web, social media)

37 Surface Water Management Program Program Implementation

38 Utility Implementation 38 Once rate was set up, very little time for impervious data analysis before Utility was implemented. Impervious data collection Credit and Adjustment Policy Development 2 nd year: Continued data collection Public Outreach Customer Service and Transparency.

39 Impervious Data Collection Process 39 2 sources for impervious data: Property appraiser data for all Single Family (Tier system) True impervious for all others (only mhps and condos in yr 1)

40 Impervious Data Collection Process 40 Data issues the first year Single Family data PAO data intricacies: Pool cages measured in volume not in footprint No available data for driveways or pools Commercial, Condos, etc No true impervious available PAO data did not measure parking areas (drives and open asphalt space not included) so impervious was underestimated Staff and consultants digitized a majority of condos and mobile home parks

41 Impervious Data Collection Process 41 2 nd year, secured contract with outside consultant to digitize all non single family residential properties ~5,500 commercial properties 300 condo groups and 125 mobile home parks QC d Almost all commercial properties saw their impervious increase significantly. Some went up %. Counsel recommended against phasing. Huge backlash at Public Hearing, resulting in immediate removal of private roads from impervious - ~2.5M$ loss

42 Impervious Data Collection Process 42 3 rd year refining Obtained site plans to digitize any additional impervious Additional QC in condos and mobile home parks Began looking at condo phasing and Planned Unit Developments

43 Impervious Data Collection Process 43 4 th year completing the dataset Will continue site plan digitizing yearly Will be removing phasing from all condo groups for equity and simplicity Will be digitizing all Planned Unit Development Single Family Residences Currently 127k accounts 167k ERU at 2,339 sq ft ~18M$ Revenue Will be affected by annexations and mitigation credits

44 Mitigation Credit Policy Objectives 44 To provide a policy for impervious adjustments and credits Some developed properties subject to the Surface Water Assessment currently operate and maintain onsite stormwater management systems that reduce stormwater runoff impacts from the property to the County system. These facilities lessen the burden on the County to manage, maintain and operate the stormwater system. The Mitigation Credits Policy is designed to achieve the following key objectives: Provide financial incentives to property owners to implement and maintain functional onsite stormwater management systems by reducing their surface water assessment; and Promote parcel-level best management practices that reduce stormwater runoff.

45 Adjustments 45 Request to review impervious area calculation Written determination provided by County Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of receipt of written determination

46 2015 Mitigation Credit Policy Overview 46 Maximum credit 75% maximum credit based on the surface water program allocations. Properties with functional stormwater management systems provide a relief to the County s maintenance efforts. Basis for credit 100-yr /24-hr criteria State recognized criteria for zero discharge Mitigation credit = 75% for zero discharge Sliding scale for meeting smaller storm event criteria Tidal criteria Must achieve Outstanding Florida Water Standards Unique features Stilt homes, pervious pavement

47 Example Mitigation Credit 47 Single family homes HOA built in the 90 s. Ponds designed to the meet the pre/post criteria for the 25 year storm. 150 homes in Large Tier FY16 Assessment: $270.80/home *150 = $40,620 total

48 Mitigation Credit Calculator - Example 48 Area (sq ft) Runoff Coefficients (c) * Total site Area 2,000,000 Impervious Area 660, Pervious Area 1,000, Basin Area 340, Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.68 Formulas = ( (imp area*c) + (perv*c) + (basin*c) ) / total site sq ft Volume between NWL or pond bottom and final point of discharge Runoff from 100-yr storm event (12") 1,025,250 1,367,000 = total site area*weighted c Mitigation Credit based on 75% Maximum 56% = % volume retained*max credit of 75%

49 Example Mitigation Credit 49 56% credit = $ reduction per home per year Each homeowner pays $ instead of $ Total reduction: $22,747.50/yr Renewal every two years submit SWFWMD certification or equivalent. No additional engineering submittal.

50 Tampa Bay Area Credit Policies 50 Jurisdiction Policy Design Storm and % Credit 10yr-24hr 25yr-24hr 50yr-24hr 100yr-24hr Pinellas County Yes 47% 56% 63% 75% Hillsborough County No 0% 0% 0% 0% Gulfport No 0% 0% 0% 0% Pinellas Park No 0% 0% 0% 0% Pasco County Yes 0% 0% See notes See notes Oldsmar No 0% 0% 0% 0% Tarpon Springs No 0% 0% 0% 0% Largo Yes 0% 25% 25% 25% Tampa Yes 10% 10% 10% 100% St. Petersburg No 0% 0% 0% 37% See notes St. Pete Beach Yes 20% 20% 20% 20% Safety Harbor No 0% 0% 0% 0% Redington Beach No 0% 0% 0% 0% Treasure Island No 0% 0% 0% 0% Madeira Beach No 0% 0% 0% 0% Dunedin Yes 0% 25% 50% 100% Belleair No 0% 0% 0% 0% Clearwater No 0% 0% 0% 0% Pasco offers credits for facilities that exceed the 25yr design criteria. St. Petersburg does not offer credits, but does offer a different rate for sites that meet the 100yr design criteria as well as local regulations. All local governments with credit policies require engineering analysis and certification.

51 Outreach 51 Board of County Commissioners presentations since 2011 TV Segments E Town Hall Meeting 11/28/12 Watersheds: Where we Live Work Play Website

52 Outreach 52 Mass media coverage for over 7 months prior to public hearing Tampa Bay Newspapers, June 22 - County moves ahead with surface water fee St. Petersburg Tribune (shared on Save the Bay website), June 19 - Pinellas increasing storm-water tax Tampa Bay Newspapers, May 6 - Surface water overloads county budget Pinellas County - Tampa Bay... Tampa Bay Newspapers, May 13 - Surface water utility tax on June 18 agenda St. Petersburg Tribune, April 30 - Pinellas likely to adopt new storm-water fee Breaking Tampa Bay... Tampa Bay times, April 30 - Pinellas Commission agrees on stormwater fee, but not the number... Tampa Bay Times, March 23 - Fee to protect water in county plans Tampa Bay Times Tampa Bay Newspapers, March 17 - Stormwater woes trickling downstream Tampa Bay Newspapers, March 1 - County considers stormwater utility feepinellas County - Tampa Bay... St. Petersburg Tribune, Feb Pinellas considering storm water fee Breaking Pinellas and Pasco... Tampa Bay Newspapers, Feb Commission paves way for stormwater tax -

53 Outreach 53 Transparency Public access to our records on website through Quicksearch Customers can view impervious square footage, ERU calculation, and digitized area

54 Outreach 54 Visibility Signs for Surface Water Utility Funded Projects to increase public awareness Continued web and digital media presence on watershed topics

55 Customer Service 55 Most call volume at TRIM Notice time and some at Tax Bill time First yr: >5,000 calls in one week 2 nd yr: >500 calls total 3 rd yr: ~400 calls total Numerous letters and s

56 Lessons Learned 56 Recommend small steps Phase-in impervious and communicate it Skip the credit policy until the program matures Meet with your PAO well in advance Data DOR codes Customer service boot camp Assigned staff Technical knowledge Spine of steel it gets ugly Quick Search tool and other web-based support tools were well received. Develop a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and update it along the way and post it to the web. You will not make everyone happy.

57 Looking to the Future 57 Looking forward to some consistency, but still: Discussion on Tier Structure 3 vs 5 tiers Refine impervious data with new site plans Streamline public hearing process and requirements Promote Credit Policy Meet new LOS More public outreach and exposure Including program reporting

58 Questions 58 Kelli Hammer Levy, Melanie Weed,