City Council Committee Meeting

Transcription

1 Study for Flood Management and Water Quality Funding City Council Committee Meeting January 8,

2 Council Committee Meeting 1. Welcome and Study Update 2. Review Final Extent and Level of Service Options and Corresponding Future Program Costs 3. Review of National and Regional Average Stormwater Fees 4. Next Steps 2

3 Study Update Recent Activities Project Website, Survey #1 and Factsheet are live. Initial Public Stakeholder Meeting held September 20th Presented Study as part of BWD Speaker Series on November 29 th Held Staff Technical Advisory Meeting on Current and Future Program Costs on December 10th Presented Study as part of AWWWEA NW District meeting on December 12 th 3

4 Study Update Overall Status 4

5 Speakup Fayetteville Survey #1 Results Total of 57 responses were logged as of 1/7/2019 Of these, 53 were from survey takers that live in the City. Forty two (79%) own their residence and 11 (21%) rent. 3/4 think drainage issues are either a major or minor problem in their area. These drainage issues are typically: Public Drainage Easement on Property? How serious are the drainage issues in your area of Fayetteville? 5

6 Speakup Fayetteville Survey #1 Results Twenty Two of the responses were affected by the April 2017 storm of which 5 logged a service request. Affected by the April 2017 storm? Thirty nine percent were willing to pay a flood management and water quality monthly fee based on the amount of impervious surface on their property, 23 percent may be willing to pay one and 39 percent were not. If so, was a service request made? Willing to pay fee for additional service 6

7 Speakup Fayetteville Survey #1 Results Two comments encouraging credits for low impact / green infrastructure measures, such as preservation of drainage on site through bioswales, rain gardens, or rainwater collection for metered irrigation. One comment regarding affordability and equity from a low income survey taker. One comment suggesting a regional stormwater utility for northwest Arkansas. Willingness to pay for long term, forward thinking, sustainable solutions, not more ditches/culverts/ higher curbs, etc... Instead, solutions such as more permeable surfaces, more native vegetation and education. One comment demonstrated the need for additional education related to existing fees collected by the City for dedicated detention zones, minimum tree canopy cover, and mitigation wetlands. 7

8 Stormwater Fee for Service Refresher Fees must be directly related to the services provided, Polluter pays principle, the amount of a fee is based on the burden a property places on stormwater system, typically measured by impervious surface by parcel. All properties pay, no exemptions only credits for reducing a property s burden on the stormwater system. Fees collected must be accounted for separately via an enterprise fund. Extent of service (EOS) relates to where the City will work Level of service (LOS) defines what stormwater services the City would provide and at what frequency. 8

9 Overview of Final EOS / LOS Options Option + Time Frame* Frequency Area of Service Current Reactive To characterize existing conditions Option A 20 years Routine Making the City s current drainage services more equitable to all Option B 10 years Proactive Option C 5 years Enhanced Additional public responsibility of private infrastructure (residential detention ponds and private infrastructure connected to Public ROW) and of additional unfunded regulatory compliance Additional public responsibility of private infrastructure (commercial detention ponds and City Streamside Corridor). Estimate the cost of additional unfunded regulatory compliance. + Cumulative, each option builds on the extent and level of services provided in the previous option. For example, Option B includes the EOS/LOS addressed in Option A plus additional drainage services. * Time Frame to address backlog of drainage projects and meet Flood Management and Water Quality Goals. 9

10 Final Extent of Service (EOS) Options Service Area Current Option A Option B Option C Public Roads and ROW X X X X Private infrastructure connected to Public ROW a. X X Drainage Easements Existing X X X X Assume Easements Equitably (City-wide) X X X Public X X X X Residential X X Non-Residential X City Streamside Corridor c. X a. Public maintenance would extend to the downstream end of the first private infrastructure connected to the ROW. b. Donated easement and an inspection by City staff or an AR-licensed PE would be needed to ensure all private drainage features are functioning per the specifications of the City s drainage criteria manual. c. A corridor representing a 10-foot buffer from the top of each waterway s banks downstream of the City s 100-acre headwater for streamside protection areas. 10

11 Current Extent of Service Fayetteville currently provides stormwater services within: 1. Public roads and rights of way, and 2. Drainage features (excluding private detention ponds) within dedicated public easements. 3. Currently public easements are required when greater than 4 private lots, approximately an acre, of a subdivision drain to a single point. Older developments may not have required easements. These dedicated public easements are generally found in the more recently developed areas of the City. 11

12 Current Extent of Service Example Summit Place: New versus old Summit Place sits behind older commercial development and contains drainage easements for most of its facilities. These private older developments do not have corresponding easements so there is no access for public services until it briefly reenters the ROW at College. 12

13 Current Program Costs Regulatory Compliance 13% Stormwater CIP Components 14% Current Operation and Maintenance $ 998,441 Engineering and Planning $ 67,000 Regulatory Compliance $ 193,000 Stormwater CIP Components $ 200,000 Total $ 1,458,441 * Annual Programmatic costs Engineering and Planning 5% Operation and Maintenance 68% 13

14 Future Program Cost Methodology Annual Programmatic Costs for the City s primary four program elements were developed: From the bottom up for each option, Option A example at right. Based on the actual quantity of public and private stormwater assets and proposed frequency of an activity. Integrating additional equipment among the City s existing organizational structure. 14

15 *Future Stormwater CIP Program Costs *Excludes $15 million of early action plan CIP projects potentially funded by 2019 bond program 15

16 Future EOS: Option A Prior to City accepting responsibility, the private property owner must: Donate a drainage easement to the City as needed, Have the property inspected by City staff or an AR-licensed PE to ensure all private drainage features are functioning per the specifications of the City s drainage criteria manual. 1. Public roads, public detention ponds and rights of way, and 2. Drainage features (excluding private detention ponds) within dedicated public easements. 3. City would assume public maintenance of those private drainage features found within what would now be designated a public drainage easement but not for the age of the development. 16

17 Future EOS: Option A Objective: To make the City s current drainage services more equitable to all customers West Maple Street Example: Stormwater leaves the public ROW along West Maple Street and enters private property [without drainage easements] and then returns to the public ROW along West Ila St to again be the City s responsibility. 17

18 Future Option A Program Costs Option A Operation and Maintenance $1,850,000 Engineering and Planning $ 178,000 Regulatory Compliance $311,000 Stormwater CIP Components $1,004,000 Administrative $253,162 Total $ 3,596,162 Administrative 7% * Annual Programmatic costs Stormwater CIP Components 28% Operation and Maintenance 51% Regulatory Compliance 9% Engineering and Planning 5% 18

19 Future Extent of Service: Option B Prior to City accepting responsibility, the private property owner must: Donate a drainage easement to the City, as needed, (Residential) Have the property inspected by City staff or an ARlicensed PE to ensure all private drainage features are functioning per the specifications of the City s drainage criteria manual. 1. Future EOS Option A, additionally public maintenance would extend to the downstream end of the first private infrastructure connected to the public system. 2. Drainage features (excluding private commercial detention ponds) within dedicated public easements. 3. City would establish a process for accepting public maintenance responsibilities of private residential detention ponds. 19

20 Future Option B Program Costs Option B Operation and Maintenance $ 2,260,000 Engineering and Planning $ 566,000 Regulatory Compliance $ 566,000 Stormwater CIP Components $ 4,455,000 Administrative $278,479 Total $8,125,479 * Annual Programmatic costs Administrative 3% Operation and Maintenance 28% Stormwater CIP Components 55% Engineering and Planning 7% Regulatory Compliance 7% 20

21 Future Extent of Service: Option C Prior to City accepting responsibility, the private property owner must: Donate a drainage easement to the City, as needed, Have the property inspected by City staff or an ARlicensed PE to ensure all private drainage features are functioning per the specifications of the City s drainage criteria manual. 1. Future EOS Option B, and 2. City would establish a process for accepting public maintenance responsibilities of private residential and commercial detention ponds, and 3. Public maintenance of the approximately 100 miles of waterways downstream of the City s 100-acre headwater for streamside protection areas; public responsibility would extend out approximately 10 feet from the top of the waterway s banks. 21

22 Future Option C Program Costs Option C Operation and Maintenance $4,090,000 Engineering and Planning $1,999,000 Regulatory Compliance $658,000 Stormwater CIP Components $ 9,544,000 Administrative $306,326 Total $16,597,326 * Annual Programmatic costs Administrative 2% Operation and Maintenance 25% Stormwater CIP Components 57% Engineering and Planning 12% Regulatory Compliance 4% 22

23 Review of Future Program Costs $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 Option A Option B Option C $0 Current Year * Annual Programmatic costs 24

24 Review of National Stormwater Fees SW Utilities in 2016 > 1,500 Median Population = 19k Average Population = 74k (<100 to > 3 million) * Source: Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey,

25 Monthly Residential Stormwater Fees Texas, Missouri, Tennessee and Oklahoma (2016) Highest Fee (N Richmond Hills, TX) $15.41 Lowest Fee (St Louis, MO) $0.24 Average (119 Communities) $3.83 Average (14 Communities of k population) $3.34 Source: Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey Where Type = ERU. Since ERU values are variable, converted fee to $/1,000 sq. ft. 26

26 Monthly Residential Stormwater Fees Source: 2016 Stormwater Utility Survey, Black & Veatch Management Consulting, LLC. CITY/COUNTY STATE 2016 AVERAGE Lubbock TX $16.23 Tulsa OK $ 6.45 Killeen TX $ 6.00 Fort Worth TX $ 5.40 Mesquite TX $ 4.50 Irving TX $ 4.00 Wichita Falls TX $ 3.55 Frisco TX $ 3.45 Murfreesboro TN $ 3.25 Kansas City MO $ 3.00 McKinney TX $ 3.00 Shelby County TN $ 1.50 Columbia MO $ 1.44 Average $4.75 Average without Min / Max $

27 Stormwater Fees in Arkansas Currently two communities with stormwater fees: 1. Hot Springs, AR: Flat rate for residential and tiered rate for nonresidential based on the square footage of impervious surface: (Ord. No. 6153, '1, ) 2. Bryant, AR: Monthly flat fee of $3 for residential utility account holders and $6 for commercial and industrial accounts. (Ord. No , 1, ) 28

28 Next Steps 1. Complete Financial Planning and Rate Analysis when preliminary stormwater billing database is ready. 2. Review Rate Analysis Results: February or March Hold additional Stakeholder Meetings and administer Survey #2 4. Prepare Draft Feasibility Study and Ordinance, if warranted, 2 nd Quarter

29 Next Steps 35