Successful Stormwater Utility Programs

Transcription

1 Successful Stormwater Utility Programs Roadmap, Lessons Learned and Case Studies David Mason (CDM Smith) Steve Leo (Gwinnett County) SESWA Southeast Regional Stormwater Seminar April 9, 2014

2 Presentation Agenda Roadmap for Successful Stormwater Utility Development Establishing the Need for Funding Developing a Financing Plan that Meets Your Community s Needs Building Public Consensus for the Program Critical Success Factors Gwinnett County Case Study History & Basic Structure What worked? What Didn t? Building the Program Questions

3 Is A Stormwater Utility Right for You? Over 1,300 documented stormwater utilities nationally (39 states and the District of Columbia) Large range in size Smallest: Indian Creek Village, Florida (pop: 33) Largest: Los Angeles, California (pop: over 3 million) Average Population: 72,800 Median Population: 18,700 Data Source: Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2013

4 What is the First Step in the Process? Identify the Drivers for the Program Regulatory programs (i.e. unfunded mandates ) Backlog of capital improvement projects (CIP) Aging infrastructure Public demand for service

5 What Are You Currently Doing to Address These Challenges? Identify all stormwater-related services performed by your program Estimate costs to provide these services Identify the benefits gained by the community as a result of these services

6 How Do We Quantify These Services & Costs? Interview staff in all departments What stormwater services are provided What staff/equipment is utilized to perform the services How effective are the services Review annual budgets and reports Identify appropriate budget line items Apply information learned from interviews

7 Summarize the Cost of Service By the Four Functional Areas

8 What Does This Cost of Service Provide for Your Community? LOS Erosion Water Quality Flood protection Safety Customer Expectations Aesthetics Important Questions Regarding Stormwater Level of Service 1. Citizens choice, but how much $$? 2. Regulations define the minimum, but should we do more? Regulatory Requirements NPDES 303d List TMDLs FEMA Floodplain

9 What Does This Cost of Service Provide for Your Community? A or 5 B or 4 C or 3 D or 2 F or 1

10 The Bar Has Been Set Where Do We Go From Here? A or 5 B or 4 C or 3

11 If Improved Services Are Desired, What Can We Do to Close the Funding Gap? Primary Funding 1. Fund with General Fund dollars. 2. Make the program user funded. Secondary Funding 1. Use Grants and Loans. 2. Issue Bonds. 3. Levy Special Assessments. 4. Assess Development/ Impact Fees. 5. Others.

12 Vet All Options On The Table Tax-Based Systems #1 Status Quo (i.e. reallocation of existing revenue) #2 Increase Tax Rate Dedicated Stormwater User Fee #3 Equivalent Residential Unit Basis [ERU] #4 Single Family Unit Basis [Tiered Residential - SFU] #5 Equivalent Hydraulic Area Basis [EHA] Combinations #6 Property Tax + General Budget #7 User Fee + General Budget

13 Comparison: Tax Based vs User Fee Funding Advantages and Disadvantages Tax Based Systems Advantages Billing System Already In Place Easier to Collect and Administer (Tax Collector) Can Be Sufficient for All Services Disadvantages Not Equitable Typically Not Dedicated Requires Increase in Real Property Tax User Fee Based Systems Advantages Equitable (i.e., Fee Related to Service Provided) Stable & Dedicated Funding for All Program Services Incentivizes Good Practices On- Site Disadvantages Potential Startup Costs New Funding Mechanism and Associated Fee

14 Stormwater Utility 101 What is It? How Does It Work? Enterprise Fund Similar to Water, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Dedicated Funding through User Fee Fee Related to Needs or Services Provided If it walks like a duck

15 Service Need = Charge Management of Runoff Serves Owners and Tenants Service Related to Property s Contribution to the Problem (Runoff Burden) Fee Relates to Runoff Common Proxy for Runoff is Impervious Area Customer receives services from the utility in direct measure to the runoff burden

16 Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) Basis is the Simplest Methodology Single-Family Multi-Family Condominiums Mobile Homes = Flat Fee for Each Dwelling Unit 1 ERU Governmental Commercial Institutional Industrial Parcel Impervious Area = Units ERU (2,043 Sq. Ft.)* * Based on Statistical Sampling of Local Community

17 The ERU Becomes the Base Unit By Which All Other Properties are Compared Building ERU Parking ERU ERU Commercial Impervious Area Residential Average Impervious Area In this example, the commercial customer pays three times the amount as the residential customer.

18 An Alternative to the Standard ERU Method

19 This Analysis Leads to a Tiered Approach to Residential Customer Billing (SFU Method) Small Single-Family Average Single-Family < 1,293 Sq. Ft. = 0.48 SFU Large Single-Family 1,294 to 4,256 Sq. Ft. = 1.0 SFU > 4,257 Sq. Ft. = 1.59 SFU

20 Fee Credits Should Be Offered to Customers that Reduce Their Burden on the System Typically offered to those customers that construct and maintain stormwater control/treatment device that meets or exceeds the local government s current standards Stormwater Runoff Rapid conveyance of more pollutants Greater & earlier peak discharge Without Controls With Controls Greater runoff volume Smaller & less rapid peak Time

21 The Public must want the stormwater service provided by the new revenues before they will agree to pay for them.

22 Each Community is Unique Wealthy versus Poor Proactive versus Reactionary Urban versus Rural Commercial-Industrial versus Bedroom Flooding versus Water Quality Do Your Homework!

23 Define the public involvement team Assess Community Needs Define Targets and Focus Groups Stormwater Funding Advisory Committee Find a Champion Prepare for a Two-Way Dialogue Public Awareness Plan The First Step in Acceptance

24 Assessing Community Stormwater Needs Surviving Public Meetings Show the measle board and let the public add dots Provide a facilitator (not municipal staff) Let the public help identify and prioritize goals and objectives of program (must start early) Open a dialogue but only answer questions for which you have real answers Focus meetings to specific audiences Report back to them Feed them

25 Advisory Committee/Stakeholder Process Advantages Message tested in small group before distribution at large Feed-back is immediate Once consensus reached, stakeholder committee members become advocates/champions Disadvantages It takes time to do correctly Each stakeholder must agree with the process and have sufficient responsibility The facilitator is the key to success

26 Other Public Information Tools Individual Meetings with Elected Officials No surprises from either side in a public forum Educational opportunity Feed-back from public is filtered through official Individual Meetings with Large Fee Payers Opportunity for further education and understanding of fee Two-way dialogue on potential credit opportunities Broad Outreach to the General Public Mailings/Brochures Social Media

27 Post Implementation Information Public information should continue after implementation of the fee or assessment Document successes in Annual Report Show uses of new revenues Signage for Stormwater Activities

28 Critical Success Factors Do your homework and know your community well before you start You must sell the service before selling the fee Equity is key the benefits must equal the charge A stakeholder process can be the difference between success and failure of your efforts Begin coordination on billing early in the process Establish a common message across all project partners

29 Implementing a Stormwater Utility: Would you do it again? Steve Leo Director, Stormwater Management Division

30 Outline Brief History of SW Management in Gwinnett Basic Utility Structure and Core Services Stormwater Utility Implementation What worked? Stormwater Utility Implementation What didn t? Building the Program Questions 30

31 A Very Brief History of Stormwater Management in Gwinnett Small Roads and Drainage Section in DOT MS4 NPDES permit was issued 1994 Clean Water Act Moved to Dept. Water Resources late 90s Increased costs of operating system caused review of funding Adopted Stormwater Utility in 2005 First billing 2006 now in 9th year 31

32 Funding Alternatives Property Taxes Not proportional to impervious surface impacts Results in higher bills to homes and businesses Revenue not dedicated to enterprise Sales Tax Inappropriate for long-term infrastructure maintenance Water or Sewer Rates Not related to impervious surface impacts Bond covenant constraints Stormwater Utility Fee Related to impervious area impacts Fair and proportional Dedicated funding source 32

33 Gwinnett s Stormwater Utility Adopted November 2005 Commenced January 2006 Billing basis Impervious area measured annually All land uses billed the same Billed in 100 sq ft units - $2.46 per unit Average Residential bill = $86 per year User Pays Approach No exemptions Billed as fee on Property Tax bill 33

34 Gwinnett s Stormwater Utility Major initial goals were: Reduce the backlog Better understand Asset needs Work towards proactive management Strategic Asset Management Planning Manage Stormwater BMPs Create Stormwater Authority 7 members Bonding 34

35 Core Services and Structure Manage Assets Storm Sewer Pipes Category I Dams Watershed Improvement Workgroups Investigations Drainage reactive/proactive Water quality and BMPs Engineering and Construction Billing and Customer Service External Support Land Acquisition/Law/Finance 35

36 Implementation What Worked? Billing on Property Tax Bill 99.5% Collections No exemptions secured funding source Note: everyone will ask! Credits Program helped sell the Utility Customer service / advocacy attitude Annual aerial photography defensible billing Stormwater Authority ongoing oversight/outreach Staggered rate increases allowed time to build utility 36

37 Implementation What Didn t Work? BMP Facility Acceptance Cost prohibitive Too much with other existing infrastructure needs Poorly communicated Level of Service Policy the utility will fix that and that and that Didn t address public private. public issue Rate Increases SWU fees are reluctantly accepted Billing Federal Facilities 37

38 Building the Program Funding = Opportunity Achievements: Fully functioning GIS and inventory Category I Dams in compliance 80% of Backlog now Proactively Identified Implemented Asset Centric CMMS database Powerful asset intelligence and decision making capability Data harvesting and integration - SAMP Replacement Planning Model GIS CMMS System Capacity Analysis 38

39 So Would we do it again? 39

40 Questions Steve Leo Director, Stormwater Management Division