|
Fr -
<br />JUN 31987
<br />• Establish a User Fee System. User
<br />charges are set at rates sufficient to cover
<br />the utility's annual operation, maintenance
<br />and debt service requirements.
<br />• Establish a Developer Contribu-
<br />tion System. Developer contributions
<br />represent a major source of capital for
<br />constructing new stormwater management
<br />facilities. There are several methods of
<br />developer contribution:
<br />Subdivision dedications require a
<br />developer to construct stormwater manage-
<br />ment facilities and dedicate them to a
<br />municipality upon completion of a
<br />subdivision.
<br />Fees -in -lieu -of require a developer to pay
<br />an impact fee for the capital improvements
<br />needed to service the development or pay a
<br />portion of the cost of a larger project which
<br />will assist the subdivision.
<br />Availability charge recovers a debt service
<br />charge on a previously constructed facility
<br />which will serve that new development.
<br />Developer incentives offer cost savings
<br />to developers who use appropriate storm -
<br />water management techniques in new
<br />developments.
<br />• Establish a Permit Fee System.
<br />Revenue from a permit fee system for all
<br />new construction is minimal. However, the
<br />system establishes tight control of all storm -
<br />water management projects proposed in
<br />the community, facilitating compliance
<br />with the master drainage plan.
<br />The User Fee System:
<br />A Case Example
<br />Fundamental to any utility user charge
<br />system is the test of equity and fairness.
<br />The user charge system must accurately
<br />represent each property owners runoff
<br />contribution. The correlation between the
<br />amount of a parcel's impervious area and
<br />the amount of runoff attributable to the
<br />parcel is the basis for determining the user
<br />charge. Input factors can include total area,
<br />percent imperviousness, slope, soils,
<br />ground cover and retention/detention
<br />potential. A logical balance must be drawn
<br />between the number of variables in the
<br />billing algorithm and the degree of difficulty
<br />required to derive these inputs.
<br />CDM's recent study for the City of
<br />Tallahassee illustrates the development of a
<br />user charge system. The city is currently
<br />evaluating implementation of this financing
<br />option for stormwater management.
<br />The City of Tallahassee has 25,655
<br />developed parcels of land, 21,278 of which
<br />are single family units. The cost of deriving
<br />detailed input information for each of these
<br />parcels would be exorbitant. For Tallahassee,
<br />single family units (SFU) represent §3 per-
<br />cent of the total developed parcels, and as a
<br />group they can be statistically addressed.
<br />A sampling program was conducted using
<br />the Leon County tax assessment records,
<br />aerial photographs and boundary maps. It
<br />was determined that a total of 170 SFU
<br />parcels must be analyzed to achieve a
<br />95 -percent confidence interval. Each of
<br />TABLE 1
<br />SUMMARY OF SINGLE FAMILY UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER
<br />LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THE CITY OF TALLAHASSEE
<br />Category Number of Parcels SFU Equivalent
<br />Percent of
<br />Total
<br />Single Family 24278 21,278
<br />18.1
<br />Government 345 19,613
<br />16.6
<br />Multi -Family 2,001 26,488
<br />22.5
<br />Commercial 1,274 25,141
<br />21.4
<br />Institutional 342 17,100
<br />14.5
<br />Industrial 415 7,835
<br />6.6
<br />TOTAL 25,655 117,456
<br />100.0
<br />TABLE Z
<br />SUMMARY OF PROJECTED ANNUAL REVENUES
<br />FOR VARIOUS USER CHARGE RATES "
<br />Monthly Rate Per Single Family Unit Equivalent
<br />Fiscal Year $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50
<br />$3.00
<br />1985 $1,409,470 $2,114,210 $2,818,940 $3,523,680
<br />1986 $1,438,820 $2,158,240 $2,877,650 $3,597,060
<br />$4,228,410
<br />$4.316,470
<br />1987 $1,468,910 $2,203,370 $2,937,820 $3,612,280
<br />1988 $1,499,750 $2,249,620 $2,999.500 $3,749.370
<br />$4,406,730
<br />$4,499,250
<br />1989 $1,531,360. $2,297,400 $3,062.720 $3,828,400
<br />1990 $1.563,760 $2,345,640 $3,127,520 $3,909,400
<br />$4,594,080
<br />$4,691,280
<br />1991 $1,596,960 $2,395,460 $3,193,940 $3,992.430
<br />$4,790.910
<br />• An annual growth rate of 2S parent was applied to single family unit, multi -family.
<br />commercial, institutional, and industrial parcels,
<br />a
<br />BOOK 68 ru 483
<br />these 170 SFU parcels was evaluated using
<br />a computer-aided digitizer to derive the
<br />total area of each parcel and the amount of
<br />impervious area (ire., house, garage, driveway,
<br />patio, sidewalks) on each parcel.
<br />A statistical analysis of the data shows
<br />that there is a 95 -percent confidence that
<br />the average of the total population of 21,278
<br />SFU parcels is 2,659 square feet of imper-
<br />vious area per SFU parcel. This figure was
<br />established as the base equivalent for
<br />estimating the runoff contribution of all
<br />other land parcels. For example, the state
<br />capitol occupies 11.3 acres and is, for all
<br />practical purposes, 100 percent impervious.
<br />This is equivalent to 185.7 SFU equivalents
<br />(2,659 square feet/SFU equivalent). Table I
<br />is a summary of SFU equivalents per land
<br />use category in the City of Tallahassee.
<br />The utility's revenue capabilities based
<br />on this user fee system are quite impressive,
<br />while not creating undue burden on any
<br />land use category. The total developed area
<br />in the city is approximately 958 million
<br />square feet (21,990 acres), representing
<br />117,456 SFU equivalents. Based on a
<br />$1.00/month unit charge, a revenue of
<br />approximately $1.4 million per year would
<br />be generated. At a $3.00/month unit
<br />charge, $4.2 million per year is estimated.
<br />Table 2 illustrates the ranges of revenues
<br />that can be generated in a city the size of
<br />Tallahassee using this user charge system.
<br />The Stormwater Utility -
<br />A Clear Advantage
<br />A primary advantage of the stormwater
<br />utility financing system, compared to tradi-
<br />tional tax -base methods of financing, is the
<br />creation of a new revenue stream, a welcome
<br />addition in times of tight municipal budgets.
<br />This steady revenue source also ensures
<br />that funds will be available to support
<br />proper planning of stormwater controls,
<br />allowing a rational approach to stormwater
<br />management. Another advantage is the
<br />equity of recovering the service costs from
<br />those who use the facilities.
<br />REFERENCES
<br />Gallagher; P. and Laredo, D. 1983,
<br />'Why Not Charge for Stone Dminagel'
<br />American City and County, 98(5).45-46.
<br />Paermer, Ha 1981, "&-ner Ways to Finance Storm -
<br />water Management, Civil Engineering, 51(4)-67-69.
<br />Thompson, S.A. 1982, "Reduction of
<br />Urban Runoff Through Economic
<br />Incentives," Waver Resources Bulletin,
<br />18(1x125-127.
<br />Nilo Pdcde is a corm9mrit at Camp Dresser &
<br />McKee Ina, 1885 Corporate Square Blvd,
<br />Jacksonville, FL 32216.
<br />MadewA. Hobel is a senior technical writer at
<br />Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.,
<br />555 WW -ley Place, Suite 200.
<br />Maitland FL 32751.
<br />
|