SESWA_2007SurveyCover7-07:SESWA_2007SurveyCover Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey

Transcription

1 SESWA_27SurveyCover7-7:SESWA_27SurveyCover7-7 7/12/7 9:39 AM Page 1 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey

2 This publication was produced by the Southeast Stormwater Association and funded by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Please call the SESWA office at (85) if you would like to order a copy of this publication.

3 The Southeast Stormwater Association The Southeast Stormwater Association (SESWA) was formed in late 24 to assist professionals in the public and private sectors as they seek to address problems associated with surface water quality and quantity in EPA, Region 4. SESWA s boundaries are co-terminus with those of EPA, Region 4 and include the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. SESWA s purpose is: To conduct training and educational programs such as workshops, seminars and conferences for professional staff and elected officials. To research, compile and distribute information about stormwater management, flooding, best management practices and policies, water quality, and the creation/operation of stormwater utilities and other financing mechanisms. To monitor the decision-making processes of regulatory agencies in the region as they relate to the interests of stormwater managers. To promote and enhance the effective management and operation of stormwater management systems. Please contact us if you have any question concerning SESWA. Southeast Stormwater Association, Inc. 719 East Park Avenue (3231) PO Box 153 Tallahassee, FL Phone: (85) FAX: (85) Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey

4 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Utility Characteristics 3 Utility Fees and Rates 8 Stormwater Program 21 Public Information Effort 31 Stormwater Utility Case Studies 33 Appendix Survey Respondents (sorted by state and by city) Counties and Cities Included in the Survey Identified Stormwater Utilities in U.S. EPA, Region Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey

5 Introduction This document presents the results of a survey of stormwater utilities in the southeastern United States (excluding those in the State of Florida) conducted by the Southeast Stormwater Association and funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Its purpose is to provide useful information to managers and policy-makers in state and local governments in the southeast. Beginning in 29, SESWA will conduct the Survey every two years, enabling trends in the characteristics of stormwater programs, utility rates and other practices to be observed. Respondents Almost 6 survey instruments were distributed to jurisdictions identified as being required to obtain the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits within EPA, Region 4 outside of Florida. Within those 6 MS4 jurisdictions, 85 were identified as having an established stormwater utility ( SWU ). 141 cities, counties or other authorities or districts responded to the survey, generating the following results: SWU established 47 (45 completed the survey) SWU not currently planned 53 SWU under consideration or in process 34 City/County is part of larger Authority or District 7 providing stormwater services via a SWU Florida was not included in this survey because the Florida Stormwater Association has completed a very similar statewide survey every two years since Since the survey instruments are nearly identical, the information obtained from the Florida survey can be easily compared with that from the SESWA effort. There are approximately 47 city and county governments in Florida. Over 14 have established stormwater utilities and many others are currently considering the establishment of such financing mechanisms. The relatively high number of stormwater utilities in Florida can be attributed to two factors: The 1968 revisions to the Florida Constitution granted broad powers of local self-government or Home Rule to all cities and counties. Thus, absent specific measures prohibiting the establishment of fees for stormwater services, a city or county is presumed to be empowered to enact reasonable charges for such services. 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 1

6 The Florida Statutes were amended in 1989 to specifically authorize cities and counties to establish stormwater utilities and establish fees for stormwater management services. Absent the granting of Home Rule powers to city or county governments, specific statutory authorization for the establishment of mechanisms to fund stormwater services to either cities or counties in general, or to a specific jurisdiction, is necessary before local councils or commissions can take action within their community. In those states where authority does exist for local governments to enact such financing mechanisms to fund stormwater management services, measures such as training, education and the sharing of information on successful procedures and practices used by cities and counties that have established stormwater utilities is of great importance to other jurisdictions. 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 2

7 Utility Characteristics 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 3

8 1-1. How is your utility organized? Stormwater Utility A. Separate Department of Local Government (N = 1) B. Combined with Department of Public Works (N = 21) C. Combined with Wastewater Utility (N = 4) D. Combined with other department (N = 7) C. 9% D. 16% E. 7% B. 46% A. 22% E. Authority or district separate from local government (N = 3) 1-2. What year was your stormwater utility established? What jurisdiction does your utility serve? B. 13% A. City only (N = 29) A. 65% B. City and unincorporated county (N = 6) C. Unincorporated county only (N = 6) D. Other (watershed, other defined area) (N = 4) D. 9% C. 13% 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 4

9 1-4. What is the physical area served by your utility? Average area is 119,746 acres. 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Respondents Respondents Jurisdiction Acres Jurisdiction Acres Aiken County/ City of Aiken 1,24 City of Greenville 22,17 Beaufort County 467,878 City of Griffin 9,558 Charleston County 24, City of North Augusta NR City of Athens/Clarke County 77,44 City of North Myrtle Beach 8,65 City of Bessemer City 2,717 City of Oxford unknown City of Burlington 16, City of Radcliff 7,39 City of Charleston 8, City of Raleigh 85,344 City of Charlotte 179, City of Valdosta NR City of Chattanooga 86,528 City of Wilmington 33,28 City of Columbia 84,641 Columbia County NR City of Conway 13,797 DeKalb County 171,52 City of Conyers 7,6 Cumberland County/Fayetteville 322,56 City of Covington 9,811 Dorchester County 368, City of Doraville 2,34 Georgetown County 52,96 City of Douglasville/Douglas County 127,36 Gwinnett County 279,4 City of Easley NR Henry County NR City of Fairburn 1,8 Mecklenburg County 61,44 City of Fayetteville 6, Rockdale County 85, City of Florence 12,675 Sanitation District #1 147,2 City of Franklin NR Spartanburg County City of Gastonia 32, Storm Water Management Authority 768, City of Greensboro 73,6 Town of Matthews NR Town of Wrightsville Beach 433 Note: Please refer to the Appendix for detailed Jurisdiction information sorted by city/county & state. 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 5

10 1-5. What is the population served by your utility? Average population is 135,392. 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Respondents Jurisdiction Population Jurisdiction Population Aiken County/ City of Aiken 28, City of Greenville 69, Beaufort County 12,937 City of Griffin 23,5 Charleston County 65, City of North Augusta 18,6 City of Athens/Clarke County 11, City of North Myrtle Beach 13,5 City of Bessemer City 5,398 City of Oxford 1, City of Burlington 47, City of Radcliff 21,961 City of Charleston 115, City of Raleigh 353,64 City of Charlotte 65, City of Valdosta 49, City of Chattanooga 155,555 City of Wilmington 94, City of Columbia 117,58 Columbia County 6, City of Conway 14, DeKalb County 7, City of Conyers 11, Cumberland County/Fayetteville 25,976 City of Covington NR Dorchester County 1, City of Doraville 1,474 Georgetown County 55,797 City of Douglasville/Douglas County 12, Gwinnett County 6, City of Easley 17, Henry County NR City of Fairburn 12, Mecklenburg County 15, City of Fayetteville 15, Rockdale County 75, City of Florence 3,248 Sanitation District #1 34, City of Franklin 49, Spartanburg County 2, City of Gastonia 7, Storm Water Management Authority 65, City of Greensboro 24, Town of Matthews 26, Town of Wrightsville Beach 2,8 Note: Please refer to the Appendix for detailed Jurisdiction information sorted by city/county & state. 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 6

11 1-6. How many accounts does the utility serve? Residential Average is 35,232 accounts: Residential 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Nonresidential Average is 5,312 accounts: Non Residential 5, 45, 4, 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 7

12 Utility Fees and Rates 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 8

13 2-1. What is the basic methodology used for your revenue generation? A. User Fee (N = 41) B. Non-ad valorem or special assessment (N = 1) A. 93% C. Ad valorem tax (N = ) D. Sales Tax (N = ) E. Other (N = 2) 2-2. What is the general basis for your fee? E. 5% C. % D. % B. 2% A. Impervious area (N = 32) B. Both gross area and impervious area (N = 4) A. 71% C. Gross area with intensity of development factor (N = 2) D. Other (N = 7) D. 16% B. C. 9% 4% 2-3. If impervious area is the fee basis, what is the square footage of your average billing unit (ERU or similar designation)? Average is 3,253 square feet. 16, 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Respondents 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 9

14 2-4. Is the average billing unit based upon single-family units only or on all residential types (e.g. single and multi-family, condominiums, mobile homes, etc.)? A. Single-family (N = 29) B. All residential types (N = 8) A 69% C. Other (N = 5) C 12% B 19% 2-5. What is your current stormwater utility rate per month? Average rate is $3.18. $7. $6. $5. $4. $3. $2. $1. $. Respondents 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 1

15 Current Stormwater Utility Rates per Month Billing Unit Billing Unit Jurisdiction Rate Size Jurisdiction Rate Size Aiken County/ City of Aiken $ City of Griffin $ Beaufort County $ City of North Augusta $4. N/A Charleston County Public Works $3. TBD City of North Myrtle Beach $6. 35 City of Athens/Clarke County $ City of Oxford $2. 23 City of Bessemer City $2.7 N/A City of Radcliff $4. 28 City of Burlington $2. N/A City of Raleigh $ City of Charleston $6. 22 City of Valdosta $ City of Charlotte $ City of Wilmington $5. 25 City of Chattanooga $2.5 1 Columbia County NR 1 City of Columbia $ DeKalb County $4. 3 City of Conway $ Cumberland County/Fayetteville $ City of Conyers $3.33 N/A Dorchester County $ City of Covington $ Georgetown County NR 3 City of Doraville $4. 3 Gwinnett County $.6 1 City of Douglasville/Douglas County $ Henry County $ City of Easley $2. 5 Mecklenburg County $ City of Fairburn $4. 33 Rockdale County $ City of Fayetteville $ Sanitation District #1 $ City of Florence $ Spartanburg County $4. N/A City of Franklin $ Storm Water Management Authority $.42 parcel City of Gastonia $ Town of Matthews $ City of Greensboro $ Town of Wrightsville Beach $. N/A City of Greenville $ Note: Please refer to the Appendix for detailed Jurisdiction information sorted by city/county & state. Comparative Monthly Stormwater Rates Based on Standardized Billing Area Standardizing the billing area to 1, square feet gives the average for 27 to be $1.2. $3. Monthly Charge Per 1, Square Feet $2.5 $2. $1.5 $1. $.5 $. Respondents 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 11

16 Average Monthly Utility Rate Comparison by State $4.5 $4. $3.5 $3. $2.5 $2. $1.5 $1. $.5 $. AL GA KY NC SC TN State *AL GA KY NC SC TN Average Rate.42 $3.18 $4.1 $2.62 $3.91 $3.8 Average ERU Size Parcel *One respondent from Alabama (Storm Water Management Authority) provides service to 23 cities. Their rate is $5. per year per parcel How are the majority of your stormwater charges invoiced? A. Combined on monthly bill for other utility services (N = 24) B. Separate Mailing (N = 2) A 54% B 4% C. Placed on annual property tax bill (N = 13) C 29% D. Other (including combinations of the above) (N = 6) D 13% 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 12

17 2-7. What is the total annual revenue generated by the utility fee? Average revenue generated is $3,586,837. $35,, $3,, $25,, $2,, $15,, $1,, $5,, $ Total Annual Revenue generated by utility fee (sorted by jurisdiction) Jurisdiction 27 Revenue Jurisdiction 27 Revenue Aiken County/ City of Aiken 655, City of Griffin 1,7, Beaufort County 4,7, City of North Augusta 511,5 Charleston County Public Works NR City of North Myrtle Beach 1,4, City of Athens/Clarke County 3,4, City of Oxford 135, City of Bessemer City 6, City of Radcliff 677, City of Burlington 42, City of Raleigh 12,169,757 City of Charleston 6,336, City of Valdosta 1,2, City of Charlotte 32,5, City of Wilmington 6,2, City of Chattanooga 5,, Columbia County 1,3, City of Columbia 3,5, DeKalb County 17,5, City of Conway 888, Cumberland County/Fayetteville 2,1, City of Conyers 413, Dorchester County 1,6, City of Covington 9, Georgetown County unknown City of Doraville 495,442 Gwinnett County 8,3, City of Douglasville/Douglas County 4,, Henry County 2,, City of Easley 3, Mecklenburg County 3,5, City of Fairburn 45, Rockdale County 2,, City of Fayetteville 5, Sanitation District #1 8,, City of Florence 1,1,79 Spartanburg County 65, City of Franklin 1,4, Storm Water Management Authority 2,4, City of Gastonia 2,, Town of Matthews 52, City of Greensboro 8,5, Town of Wrightsville Beach 137, City of Greenville 2,86,221 Note: Please refer to the Appendix for detailed Jurisdiction information sorted by city/county & state. 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 13

18 2-8. Who is responsible for paying your utility fee? A. Property owner (N =32 ) B. Occupant (N = 6) C. Other (N = 7) A 71% C 16% B 13% 2-9. For properties that are charged a fee based on actual, on-site impervious area (i.e. not a customer class average) please estimate how a majority of this information was initially collected and how it is maintained for your billing database? Initially Collected Maintained Percent of Parcel Data Acquired from Property Appraiser s Records Percent of Parcel Data Acquired from Physical On- Site Measurement Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 14

19 Initially Collected Maintained Percent of Parcel Data Acquired from Permit Records Percent of Parcel Data Acquired from Air Photos Percent of Parcel Data Acquired from Other Sources Other Methods Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 15

20 2-1. What properties are exempt from your user fees? Other 1 None 4 Airport runways and taxiways 4 Properties that do not discharge runoff to system 5 Waterfront 2 Government 5 Public Parks 9 Railroad rights-of-way 3 Undeveloped land (agricultural) 28 Undeveloped land (non-agricultural) 32 Streets/highways Please indicate your billing practices with regard to the following governmentally owned properties: Exempt Bill and collect Bill but don't collect Not billed Federal State County City School District 3 37 Special District Of those accounts that receive credits, what is the average percent reduction in the utility fee? Average reduction = 27.8% Of the total number of stormwater utility accounts, how many receive credits? Reported number of accounts that receive credits = 12 Average number of accounts that receive credits = 5 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 16

21 2-14. Of those accounts that receive credits, what is the range in possible percent reductions in stormwater utility fees? Reported range of possible reductions is % to 1% Are credits provided for private detention/retention facilities? 5 A. Yes = 29 (69%) B. No = 13 (31%) YES NO Are user fees for single-family detached dwellings the same as for individual units in multi-family (e.g. apartments, condominiums)? A. Yes = 14 (33%) B. No = 29 (67%) YES NO Do user fees vary by watershed? A. Yes = 1 (2%) B. No = 44 (98%) YES NO 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 17

22 2-18. Are different fees charged within the zone-of-benefit of specific capital projects to account for differences in capital costs? A. Yes = (%) B. No = 44 (1%) YES 44 NO Does your local code require private detention/retention facilities? A. Yes = 4 (91%) B. No = 4 (9%) YES 4 NO 2-2. How is payment of the utility charge enforced? A. Shut off other utility service (N = 22) B. Place Lien on Property (N = 13) C. Tax Certificate (Auction) Process (N = 2) D. Refer to collection agency (N = 8) E. Other (N = 6) A 43% B 25% E 12% C 4% D 16% 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 18

23 2-21. Were interim rates established during the formation of the utility prior to adoption of a permanent rate format? A. Yes = 12 (27%) B. No = 33 (73%) YES NO Have your stormwater fees or assessments faced a legal challenge in court? A. Yes = 8 (18%) B. No = 37 (82%) YES NO If your charges have been challenged in court, what was the outcome? A. Fee Sustained (N = 5) B. Settlement Reached (N = 1) C. Pending (N = 1) D. Fees Not Sustained (N = ) E. Other (N = ) A 72% E % B 14% D % C 14% 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 19

24 2-24. Has your jurisdiction modified your Stormwater utility rate structure to take into account new water quality requirements and corresponding costs as a result of the TMDL program? A. Yes = 3 (7%) B. No = 41 (93%) YES NO If not, are you actively considering such modifications? 25 A. Yes = 8 (31%) B. No = 18 (69%) YES NO 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 2

25 Stormwater Program 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 21

26 Stormwater Program 3-1. Does your utility use operation and maintenance permits (or other enforcement methods) to require private owners to maintain their on-site stormwater facilities? A. Yes = 28 (64%) B. No = 16 (36%) YES NO 3-2. Does your jurisdiction charge a fee for: A. Stormwater management permits (N = 16) B. Stormwater management site plan review (N = 21) B 44% C. Stormwater inspection during construction (N = 9) D. Stormwater inspection after construction (O&M) (N = 2) A 33% D 4% C 19% 3-3. If your jurisdiction does charge fees for any of the services in question 3-2, does your stormwater utility receive some or all of these revenues? A. Yes = 13 (5%) B. No = 13 (5%) YES NO 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 22

27 3-4. Is your stormwater capital construction program funded only from stormwater fee revenue, or are non-fee funds utilized? A. Stormwater fees only (N = 21 or 49%) B. Stormwater fees and non-fee funds (N = 22 or 51%) Fees Only Fees and Non-Fees 3-5. If non-fee funds are used for capital construction, what is the source of the revenue? A. Ad Valorem (N = 5) F 25% A 16% B. Sales Tax (N = 8) C. Gas Tax (N = 1) D. Grants (N = 7) E. Loans (N= 3) F. Other (N = 8) E 9% D 22% C 3% B 25% 3-6. Please estimate your jurisdiction s capital improvement needs for stormwater management over the following periods of time. Period of Time Estimated Need Average Need # Respondents Next 5 Years $473,52, $14,797,5 32 Next 1 Years $ 495,765, $ 23,67, Next 2 Years $74,, $ 44,, Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 23

28 3-7. Does your jurisdiction have an adopted stormwater master plan? 3 26 A. Yes = 19 (42%) B. No = 26 (58%) YES NO 3-8. If your jurisdiction does not have an adopted stormwater master plan (i.e. you answered No to question 3-7) is the establishment of such a plan under active consideration? 2 17 A. Yes = 17 (65%) B. No = 9 (35%) YES NO 3-9. If your jurisdiction does have an adopted stormwater master plan (i.e. you answered Yes to question 3-7), does your jurisdiction make an effort to coordinate your Local Government Comprehensive Plan with your stormwater Master Plan and NPDES Program concepts? 15 A. Strong Effort (N = 11 or 48%) B. Moderate Effort (N = 8 or 35%) C. No Effort (N = 4 or 17%) Strong Moderate None 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 24

29 3-1. Is your stormwater operating budget funded only from stormwater fee revenue, or are other non-fee funds utilized? A. Stormwater fees only (N = 31or 7%) B. Stormwater fees and other non-fee funds (N = 13 or 3%) Fees Only Fees and Non-Fees If non-fee funds are used for operations, what is the source of the revenue? A. Ad Valorem (N = 1) B. Sales Tax (N = 2) E 22% A 6% C. Gas Tax (N = 1) D. General Fund (N = 1) E. Other (N = 4) D 55% C 6% B 11% What is the current number of full-time equivalent employees funded with stormwater fee revenue? Average reported 22 FTE s Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 25

30 3-13. Does your jurisdiction monitor improvements in water quality? A. Yes = 31 (69%) B. No = 14 (31%) YES NO Does your jurisdiction monitor improvements in flood protection? A. Yes = 28 (62%) 3 28 B. No = 17 (38%) YES NO What percentage of your jurisdiction s stormwater facilities are mapped and inventoried? A. % = 1 B. 25% = 14 C. 5% = 8 D. 75% = 14 D 3% E 2% A 2% B 31% E. 1% = 9 C 17% 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 26

31 3-16. Estimate the number of employees (FTE s) and the percentage of your total stormwater program s annual budget allocated to the following program categories: Administration (Management, Billing, Records, Etc.) Number of Employees Percentage of Budget 1 or more Employees 8-9 Employees 1 81% - 1% 6-7 Employees 1 61% - 8% 4-5 Employees 6 41% - 6% 2-3 Employees 12 21% - 4% 4-1 Employees 16 % - 2% Overhead Charges (Indirect Cost Allocation) Paid to Parent Governmental Jurisdiction Number of Employees Percentage of Budget 1 or more Employees 81% - 1% 8-9 Employees 6-7 Employees 4-5 Employees 2-3 Employees 1 61% - 8% 41% - 6% 21% - 4% - 1 Employees 32 % - 2% O.& M. (Field Activities) Number of Employees 1 or more Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees 2-1 Employees Percentage of Budget 81% - 1% 61% - 8% 4 41% - 6% 6 21% - 4% 6 % - 2% Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 27

32 Technical (Planning Engineering) Number of Employees Percentage of Budget 1 or more Employees 8-9 Employees 6-7 Employees % - 1% 61% - 8% 41% - 6% Employees 21% - 4% Employees 8-1 Employees % - 2% C.I.P Number of Employees Percentage of Budget 1 or more Employees 8-9 Employees 6-7 Employees 4-5 Employees % - 1% 61% - 8% 41% - 6% Employees 4 21% - 4% 11-1 Employees 27 % - 2% NPDES MS4 Permit Compliance Number of Employees Percentage of Budget 1 or more Employees 3 81% - 1% Employees 6-7 Employees 4-5 Employees 2-3 Employees % - 8% 41% - 6% 21% - 4% Employees 24 % - 2% Public Education and Information Number of Employees Percentage of Budget 1 or more Employees 81% - 1% 8-9 Employees 6-7 Employees 4-5 Employees 2-3 Employees % - 8% 41% - 6% 21% - 4% 1-1 Employees 31 % - 2% Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 28

33 3-17. For Operations and Maintenance (field) personnel, how many have received formal training or certification? Average Number: 8.57 Average Percentage: 51% Respondents Is the stormwater fee revenue sufficient to address the following program areas? Administration A. Adequate to meet all needs (N = 22) B. Adequate to meet most needs (N = 16) C 9% D 2% C. Adequate to meet most urgent needs (N = 4) D. Not adequate to meet urgent needs (N = 1) B 37% A 52% 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 29

34 O. & M. A. Adequate to meet all needs (N = 9) B. Adequate to meet most needs (N = 16) C. Adequate to meet most urgent needs (N = 14) C 33% D 7% A 21% D. Not adequate to meet urgent needs (N = 3) B 39% C.I.P A. Adequate to meet all needs (N = 4) B. Adequate to meet most needs (N = 6) D 24% A 1% B 15% C. Adequate to meet most urgent needs (N = 21) D. Not adequate to meet urgent needs (N = 1) C 51% Does your utility manage the FEMA community rating system flood management program for your jurisdiction? A. Yes = 14 (31%) B. No = 31 (69%) YES NO 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 3

35 Public Information Effort 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 31

36 Public Information Effort 4-1. How important is an organized public information/education effort to the continuing success of a user fee funded stormwater utility? A. Essential (N = 24) B. Helpful (N = 16) C. Not necessary (N = 1) A 59% C 2% B 39% 4-2. What means have you found to be most effective in educating the public about utility services, program needs and financing, and citizen responsibilities? Other 29 Internet 23 Telephone Hotline 6 Speakers 12 Public Service Annoncements 19 Advisory Groups 22 Public Schools 19 Neighborhood Meetings 23 Public Hearings 9 Brochures 25 Press Releases 19 Bill Inserts Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 32

37 Stormwater Utility Case Studies 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 33

38 City of Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Background The importance of managing stormwater runoff has long been recognized in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. In 1911, legislation was enacted to create the Mecklenburg County Drainage Commission. For 8 years, storm drainage infrastructure costs were included in the general budget and funded by ad valorem property taxes. Large projects were funded by voter-approved municipal bonds. Emergency repairs to the public drainage system came from the City's or County's general fund. The stormwater utility was created to develop a comprehensive approach to managing increasing stormwater drainage and water quality problems caused by rapid urban and suburban growth. It provides a dedicated revenue source to address pollution, erosion and flooding caused by stormwater runoff, and establishes a user fee that bills customers based on the runoff they produce. It helps to meet the requirements of NPDES permits. Laying the Groundwork A consultant was retained to examine the effectiveness of the City of Charlotte's drainage programs in 1985, beginning a seven-year process of studies, task forces and public meetings that resulted in the creation of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services program. In the late 198's, staff and study groups analyzed the need for a local stormwater utility. Early discussions centered on flooding and drainage but later evolved to also include surface water quality. In 1989, elected officials from the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County jointly approved the concept of creating a stormwater utility. The initiative to establish a stormwater utility gained momentum with two significant policy changes: Federal EPA/NPDES Phase I stormwater regulations that took effect in 199 and action by the North Carolina Legislature in 1991 giving municipalities the authority to create stormwater utilities funded by user fees. Once the foundation was in place to create a stormwater utility, the focus shifted to fee structure, organizational structure and gaining public support. Developing an Action Plan A 1991 telephone survey of Charlotte residents found that 96% said they believed protecting water quality should be a high priority. Nearly 8% agreed that drainage problems result in hazardous driving conditions during heavy rain. Another 18% said they had drainage problems on their own property. Half of those questioned said they would be willing to pay $3. per month to address stormwater issues. 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 34

39 In 1991, the Charlotte City Council and the Mecklenburg County Board of County Commissioners created a citizen's Task Force to develop a comprehensive stormwater management program. Private engineering firms were retained to determine the extent of existing drainage problems, develop a stormwater master plan, conduct drainage system inventories, conduct a very detailed cost of service and program planning studies, and design a public information plan. Initial planning also included reports on database and billing system development, fee schedule studies and technical reviews. Before the 1992 City Council vote creating the stormwater utility, City and County staff activated a multi-faceted public awareness campaign. This involved a speakers' bureau, workshops for the public and news media, brochures, fliers, and monthly newsletters. The goal was to explain the need for the utility, create awareness of stormwater problems, describe solutions to those problems and educate people about the stormwater fee. When the City Council held an official public hearing in May 1992 on the stormwater fees, only ten people spoke. Likewise, only a handful of citizens raised questions or concerns when the Mecklenburg County Commission held a public hearing in 1993 before it approved stormwater fees. One Utility or Two? The City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County provide a fully coordinated stormwater management program. Interlocal Agreements outline distinct roles and responsibilities of the County, the City and the six Towns in the area. The County is responsible for the Major System (streams having a watershed greater than one square mile.) The City of Charlotte and six surrounding towns are responsible for the Minor Systems (streams and drainage systems with a watershed of less than one square mile) within each jurisdiction. The Board of County Commissioners must approve any fee increases to fund a municipality's Minor System. The utility has a joint name: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services. There is a single billing system, one logo and a unified public education effort. Differing local ordinances were revised to be more consistent with one another. One countywide citizens' advisory panel was created to guide public policy on stormwater issues in various jurisdictions within Mecklenburg County. By coordinating efforts, the utility seeks to reduce duplication of services and provide seamless customer service. This arrangement complies with state law requiring the "operations of a single stormwater system in Mecklenburg County." The single utility is operated by two separate agencies with separate budgets, functions and management. Capital improvement costs are higher inside the Charlotte City limits, so the City's stormwater fees are higher. 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 35

40 Funding Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services is funded through user charges based on impervious surface. Commercial fees are calculated using "Equivalent Residential Units" or ERUs. The ERU is calculated at 2,613 square feet. The Major System fee provides funds to maintain and improve named creeks and the regulated floodplain throughout the entire County. Major systems are defined as streams that drain more than one square mile of land. The Major System fee also pays for water quality monitoring in lakes and named creeks, and some projects to improve water quality in named creeks and watersheds. Mecklenburg County administers Major System programs, even inside incorporated municipalities. The Minor System fee provides funds for the City of Charlotte, unincorporated Mecklenburg County and six Towns to address drainage improvement and water quality needs. All stormwater customer accounts are assessed a fixed charge to cover administrative and billing expenses. The Town of Davidson has one tier of residential stormwater fees. All other jurisdictions have two tiers of residential fees based on total amount of impervious area. Major System and Minor System fees are based on annual capital budget needs and long-term stormwater plans including meeting federal and state water quality requirements and completing backlogged citizen requests for service. Stormwater fees are collected through the same process and mechanism as the water and sewer bill. Payments are applied to the stormwater fee first and the water bill last to discourage not paying the stormwater portion of the bill. The stormwater fee was established in FY4 at $2.12 (per month) for single family residential greater than 2, square feet. The fee was not increased for the first three years. After that, increases have varied each year from 7.% to 1.%. Currently the combined Major/Minor system stormwater fee for single family residential greater than 2, square feet is $7.63. Stormwater Utility Contact Daryl Hammock Water Quality Manager City of Charlotte 6 East 4 th Street Charlotte, NC 2822 Phone: (74) dhammock@ci.charlotte.nc.us Website: 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 36

41 Charleston County, South Carolina Background Charleston County is located along the southeastern coast of South Carolina. It encompasses approximately 919 square miles of land, marshes, rivers and wetlands with a coastline that stretches nearly 1 miles along the Atlantic Ocean. The area has experienced a population growth of 6.6% since 2 to an estimated 25 population of 33,. Charleston County includes 16 municipal governments. Three of these are among the five largest municipalities in the state (the cities of Charleston and North Charleston, and the Town of Mt. Pleasant.) In 1999, as the federal government expanded the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater quality program to include Phase II communities, Charleston County was one of the communities required to obtain these new permits in South Carolina. At this time, Charleston County began evaluating its operations for compliance with the new regulatory requirements. Charleston County s Public Works Department oversees the operations and maintenance of the county s storm drainage systems, and began compliance assessment with an audit of the County s operations in this program area. The audit identified deficiencies and established cost estimates (staffing and resources) for the corrections of the identified deficiencies. The cost estimates were established having the majority of the work being preformed by county staff. These deficiencies in staffing and funding were significant. Program Evaluation The identification of a funding source became quite apparent as strategies for program implementation were formulated. The apparent funding options identified were: 1) the general budget, 2) fees collected for permits and 3) stormwater utility fees. The investigation into the creation of a utility was of primary interest. Stormwater utility fees were currently being levied in several of the municipalities and one of the adjacent counties. A preliminary study and evaluation of the potential revenues was conducted by staff and a second study by the County s consulting firm, Woolpert. As a result of these preliminary studies, it was decided to target an annual fee of $36 per equivalent residential unit (ERU). This would establish a dedicated funding source for the implementation of the NPDES-compliant program and provide some drainage project capital improvement funding. 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 37

42 Creation of a Utility In March of 26 County Council was presented with and approved a proposal for the creation of a stormwater utility as a funding source for program implementation. This proposal authorized initial staffing for the program development, the development of a utility ordinance and the $36 annual fee structure for the ordinance. In September 26, Charleston County Council adopted the ordinances establishing the County s stormwater utility. The revenues are transferred to an enterprise fund and are to be utilized by the stormwater program. The ordinances established the authority to enact a utility and an interim fee structure utilizing land use coefficient. The interim fee structure was to facilitate initial bills and funding for the detailed development of the billing and overall program development. The initial rate was $36 annually per ERU. A rate study including parcel specific calculations for the non-residential parcels is underway. In November 26, the first bills for the County s stormwater utility were issued. The bills were sent out in the form of individual bills. The County did not have a single utility mechanism that could be utilized for its billing. The County s annual tax bill has been considered as a potential billing mechanism. However, due to timing consideration during the first year, this was not an option. The billing mechanism is being reviewed and modifications may be forthcoming. The County initially billed approximately 39, properties for a total billing of $1.5 million in fees. Single family residential properties made up the majority of the properties (29, out of 39, properties) that were billed. Public Outreach The initial bills created a considerable amount of public outcry. The County initiated a number of informational outreach activities including: Press releases Stormwater hotline A comprehensive website, including access and an appeal process Informational flyers sent with utility bills Encouraging the use of the appeal process News interviews Public meeting presentations upon request 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 38

43 The Public Works Department processed all inquires, and received and responded to over 3, telephone and enquiries within the first 6 days. Appeal Process The appeal process was identified in the ordinance and established timeframes for both receipt and processing of the appeals. Over 4,8 appeals were received and processed. The majority were processed by February 27. Approximately 33% of the appeals resulted in modifications to the bills (3% reduction). The majority were corrections to the database utilized for the initial billing. The response to inquires and the processing of the appeals require a major commitment of staff and resources. Additional staffing was required to accomplish this task. The documentation and the computerization of this process were essential. Stormwater Utility Contact Charles C. Jarman, Jr., PE Charleston County Public Works Department Stormwater Utility Manager 445 Bridge View Drive North Charleston, South Carolina 2945 Phone: (843) cjarman@charlestoncounty.org Website: 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 39

44 City of Griffin, Georgia Background In July 1998, the City of Griffin became the first municipality in Georgia to establish a stormwater utility. The City is located approximately 45 minutes south of Atlanta, Georgia in Spalding County and has a population of 24,. The stormwater utility addresses stormwater quality and quantity problems, and generates funding to implement comprehensive watershed management programs. Like many areas in Georgia, stormwater management was a growing concern for the City due to: a deteriorating drainage system growing neighborhood flooding areas with no drainage unplanned channels created by street runoff limited funding to address these issues In addition, Griffin was facing water quality problems and upcoming regulatory requirements. The City had found that its water quality issues were complicated by critical remedial maintenance and capital construction needs. It also needed to begin the process of planning and situating itself to be ready for the anticipated federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater quality regulations. Like many communities, Griffin wrestled with the challenge of funding programs to resolve these problems without adversely impacting other municipal services. The City decided to establish a stormwater utility with an associated department that consolidates responsibilities, generates funding, and manages a comprehensive, consistent program. Managerial Considerations In creating the stormwater utility, Griffin initiated a research and development process to determine the administrative structure, activities and funding methods that best fit the needs of the city and the desires of the stakeholders. The Director of Public Works, along with the Griffin City Commission and Mayor, took the lead in exploring administrative arrangements that could resolve the city s stormwater management concerns. The City Attorney and City Manager played a considerable role in shaping the institutional structure, which required the city to pass two ordinances, one to establish the utility and the other to establish the rate structure. Members of this municipal team visited stormwater utilities in North Carolina, Florida 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 4

45 and South Carolina, and attended conferences in the process of researching and organizing the utility. In addition, the City of Griffin hired a consulting firm that provided a planning process to determine the city s stormwater program needs and general program direction. This process also provided a way to solicit political and public support prior to full program commitment. Political and citizen stakeholders were involved through meetings at civic clubs, professional organizations and in the school system as well as through public hearings, while educational information was released via the newspapers, radio and television shows. Information systems and personnel were added to support the development and function of the stormwater utility. A geographic information system (GIS) and global positioning system (GPS) were included in the new information systems purchased. Clerical help was added along with two environmental technicians and two five-man crews for operations and maintenance of the stormwater system. The environmental technicians are trained in soil erosion and sedimentation and water quality testing. The Director of Public Works remains responsible for the overall operation and success of Griffin s stormwater utility. As part of the program, a memorandum of agreement was established with Spalding County, whereby drainage problems common to both jurisdictions are jointly resolved and financed. The two communities are currently addressing a stormwater volume problem due to impervious surfaces in the city that are causing downstream erosion in the county. Technical Considerations The Florida Association of Stormwater Utilities (now the Florida Stormwater Association) and the National Association of Floodplain Stormwater Management Agencies were used as sources of information and data in planning the utility. Technical assistance was received from two consulting firms: Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. provided planning and data modeling assistance and supplied GIS, aerial photography, and other data modeling tools; Water Resources Associates, Inc. helped create the utility and the utility rate ordinance. The Ogden team took the city through a two-step action plan process to determine program needs first and then program direction. This process included: defining the existing stormwater program components (staffing, financial resources and sources, activities, and controls and systems) assessing the existing and anticipated problems, needs and issues facing the city determining stormwater program priorities in each of the key program areas 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 41

46 estimating resources and costs for a three- to five-year stormwater program with less detailed ten-year estimates and determining funding feasibility for a suite of potential funding methods, policies and sources planning for public information and education determining how to develop the billing database The final development of the stormwater utility was implemented through four parallel, interconnected components: program, finance, billing and public education. The establishment of Griffin s stormwater utility also prompted the development of a comprehensive water management strategy that uses a holistic approach to watershed management. The effort integrates land use, water resource and floodplain management plans through hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, watershed assessments, master planning of capital improvements, and stormwater management activities such as: the jet-vac cleaning of stormwater system lines, replacing and installing lines, inspection of culverts, removal of debris, etc. Financial Considerations The cost of service analysis undertaken as part of the planning process was used in designing the rate structure, which is adequate to support the utility s annual operations budget of $1.2 million. The rates are equitably assessed based on the demand a user places on the drainage system. The national average monthly stormwater utility charge is just under $3. per household. Griffin charges $2.95 per month per residence or per every 2,2 square feet of impervious area on nonresidential properties. The utility s construction and infrastructure replacement and improvements strategies are tied to the city s capital improvement budget and financed by revenues, loans, grants and - in the near future - revenue bonds. $1 million in Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) funds helped establish Griffin s stormwater utility by paying for capital construction of stormwater projects. Initiating the utility opened the door for other sources of funding based on the ability to match funds and on the community s reputation for commitment to stormwater management. Public works, therefore, has secured significant grants and loans to accomplish critical projects including: $725, Georgia Emergency Management Agency hazardous mitigation grant to remediate severe flooding problems Up to $158, in Georgia Environmental Protection Division Section 319 Non-point Source Management grants to install a bio-retention pond to improve water quality 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 42

47 $2.6 million in State Revolving Fund loans at 3.75 percent interest with 2 percent closing costs for five stormwater projects and one piece of equipment, the jet-vac truck A planned stormwater utility-backed revenue bond in 21 An application for a $1.1 million TEA-21 (Transportation Efficiency Act) grant for retrofitting highway structures contributing to stormwater runoff of pollutants Outcomes Several actions were critical to the successful development of Griffin s stormwater utility. The political backing of key elected officials was solicited early-on in the process. Their support was based on a comfort level with the utility s focus on flooding problems, the planning and education approach, and the expected benefits to the community. A consultant with a proven track record in a wide variety of settings with similar projects was retained. The consultant brought a strong technical and public relations approach that incorporated science and the community. A truthful and direct approach with the general public and key stakeholders was also important. A clear message was crafted which focused on results, not fees. However, expectations were controlled by stressing the utility was a key step (but only one step) toward solutions. A sound stormwater program and public relation strategy were developed and followed, through rough and smooth times. One local staff person was in charge of all aspects of the planning and implementation. This person (the superintendent of public works) acted as the effort s focal point and champion investing the time and effort needed to ensure the utility s successful development. The superintendent now manages both the public works and the stormwater utility. The City of Griffin advises communities interested in establishing a stormwater utility to spend a little money up-front to conduct an economic analysis. The creation of a utility is a challenge and not necessarily a popular political decision. Furthermore, a stormwater utility may not fit every community because each municipal service center has its own character and needs. An economic analysis will allow the community to determine the cost-benefit ratio of a stormwater utility and to get a feel for the level of support that exists among elected and appointed officials. For the City of Griffin, informing and educating the public and elected officials on the costs and benefits of the program was the key for achieving a unified stormwater management utility that addressed both water quality and quantity issues. 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 43

48 Stormwater Utility Contact Brant Keller Director of Public Works & Utilities City of Griffin PO Box T Griffin, GA 3224 Phone: (77) bkeller@cityofgriffin.com Website: 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 44

49 Sanitation District No. 1, Northern Kentucky Regional Stormwater Management Program Background In Northern Kentucky, thirty-six communities, including Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties, have been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as having to comply with Phase 2 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Regulations. These communities are the owners and operators of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4s). In an effort to develop a cost effective and efficient program that complies with these federal regulations and begins to address the problems associated with the storm sewer infrastructure, local leaders requested that Sanitation District No. 1 (District) develop and implement a regional stormwater management program. The District was originally established in 1946 as a regional entity to consolidate and coordinate the provision of sewer services in the area. The discussion concerning the addition of stormwater services to the duties of the District began in Developing and implementing a regional stormwater management program for the three- county area was a very complex process involving the linking of multiple project components into a single, seamless program. Key issues which the District had to address in this process included: 1. State permit compliance 2. System maintenance and capital improvement program 3. Stormwater rules and regulations 4. Billing system design and implementation 5. Public education and involvement Although the permit application to the Kentucky Division of Water was not expected to be submitted until March of 23, there was a tremendous amount of work that needed to be done in preparation for the District s new role. A description of some of the more important tasks follows below. Updated Mapping for the Three-County area Detailed and current mapping is an important component of the District s stormwater management program. The mapping provides information on the location of such things as roads, buildings, streams, parking lots, drainage structures and ponds, as well as very detailed topographic information. In 1999, the District partnered with a number of local agencies including the Boone County Planning Commission and the Northern Kentucky Water District to update 27 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey 44