HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/3/1987Wednesday, June 3, 1987
SPECIAL MEETING
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian Rivet County,
Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday,
June 3, 1987, at 10:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman;
Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C.iVheeler. Also
present were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioner ; and
Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and announced that
he would be leaving the meeting at 11:00 o'clock in order to
attend a meeting out of the county.
PRESENTATION ON STOP MJATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY - AN INNOVATIVE
FINANCING METHOD
The following presentation was made by Nilo Prie e,
consultant at Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.:
JUIN 2.1987 BOOK FKL� �
i
FF' -
JUN 3 1987
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
900h68
The Storm'water
Management Utility:
An Innovative
Financing Method
by Nilo I'nede
and
Marlene A. Hotel
- s �
6
The Stormwater
Management Utility:
An Innovative
Financing Alternative
In the past two decades, we have seen a
shift to financing water, wastewater and
refuse services through user fees. However,
stormwater management has, for the most
part, remained a local general fund program
with little or no outside assistance. This
too is changing. As land development and
urban redevelopment increase the need for
stormwater management, local governments
are forced to look for an adequate revenue
source to support stormwater management
facilities. The user fee system, which has
been successful for water and wastewater
facilities, offers a positive funding alternative
for stormwater management.
The Funding Dilemma
Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary of the
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, calls stormwater "the �0 '
major unaddressed environmental
problem in the state" Stormwater
runoff problems such as flooding,
soil erosion, sedimentation and
water pollution must be addressed:
to accommodate Florida's
Land development and
urban redevelopment i
usually increase stormwater
runoff by creating imper.
meable areas and changing
natural drainage ways. The
burden of managing this
increased runoff falls largely
on local governments,
which traditionally have
had to rely on property tax funds to con-
struct, operate and maintain stormwater
management facilities.
Financing public works improvements
from the property tax base, whether for
stormwater or other improvements, has
faced increased resistance in the last
decade. The public message echoed in
recent tax rebellions is clear—find
alternative means of funding public
improvements.
YEARS
General
Funds
00 Pg.
ments
An Innovative. Alternative
An effective alternative for stormwater
management financing is the creation of a
stormwater utility which relies on user fees
rather than tax revenues for funding. The
utility system is user oriented, with
costs allocated according to the
service received. Each parcel of land
within a local government's juris-
diction is assessed a charge based
on its runoff characteristics. Charges
are determined according to the
parcel's size and its percent of
impervious or paved area. Thus,
_ user charges are related to a
given parcel's stormwater
contribution in excess
of that contributed in its
natural state (Gallagher
and Laredo, 1983).
The stormwater utility
concept has been imple-
Ntlo Priede mented by several com-
munities in the western United States to
keep pace with rapid development. Since
1974, the City of Boulder, Colorado, has
financed its stormwater management pro-
gram through a stormwater utility. The
utility charges owners of all developed pro.
perty within the city a drainage and flood
control fee.
According to a recent synopsis of
Boulder's system, the stormwater fee is based
on each person's use of the city's storm
sewer facilities. Use is defined as the amount
of runoff from a land parcel in excess of
that which would have occurred had the
parcel been left undeveloped (Thompson,
1982). Stormwater user charge systems are
also in operation in Denver and Aurora,
Colorado; Tacoma, Bellevue, Vancouver
and Clark County, Washington; and
Portland and Corvallis, Oregon
(Poertner, 1981).
With the state growing at a rate of almost
1,000 new residents a day, Florida's com-
"Financingstormt ester
management according to use
instead of taxation creates fair
management and a welcome
source of revenue to a
community."
Reprinted with permission from
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL RECORD
U�ility
ntribution
munities are fapng the increased stormwater
managementeeds that accompany rapid
development. I governments will be
forced to look or an adequate revenue
source to support stormwater management
systems. The user fee concept, which has
.been successfu for water and wastewater
facilities, offers Florida: a: * itive funding
alternative for stormwater management.
Camp Dresser'& McKee Inc. (CDM) has
conducted studies for the'cities of Tampa
and Tallahassee that show the user fee
system to be fair and equitable.
Setting Up a Stormwater Utility
A successW financing program for each
community m ist be assessed on that
community's i idividual characteristics and
needs. However, high degrees of public
acceptance an i government confidence
have been den ionstrated for establishing a
stormwater u ' ity program which integrates
the following c omponents.
o Phase C lut General Fund Con-
tributions. This allows a gradual transition
to a full utility (enterprise fund), usually
over a five-year period.
• Adopt a Stotmwater Ordinance,
The ordinance identifies the duties of the
municipality, the users (property owners),
and developers, and sets forth the legal
framework for he utility's financing and
operation. An equitable system for com-
puting user f is developed, as well as a
mechanism for fixing developer
contributions.
• Prepare Stormwater Master Plan
Controls. A comprehensive stormwater
master plan is prepared to guide near -tern
and long-term stormwater management
system improvements. Such a plan is
necessary for estimating developer con.
tributions and determining additional
capacity needs in new offsite facilities.
This graph
dramatically
illustrates the
economic adtan.
tage ofstorm.
water utility
financing.
3
,JUN J 1 ,81 BOOK 168 FAGS 482
Fr -
JUN 31987
• Establish a User Fee System. User
charges are set at rates sufficient to cover
the utility's annual operation, maintenance
and debt service requirements.
• Establish a Developer Contribu-
tion System. Developer contributions
represent a major source of capital for
constructing new stormwater management
facilities. There are several methods of
developer contribution:
Subdivision dedications require a
developer to construct stormwater manage-
ment facilities and dedicate them to a
municipality upon completion of a
subdivision.
Fees -in -lieu -of require a developer to pay
an impact fee for the capital improvements
needed to service the development or pay a
portion of the cost of a larger project which
will assist the subdivision.
Availability charge recovers a debt service
charge on a previously constructed facility
which will serve that new development.
Developer incentives offer cost savings
to developers who use appropriate storm -
water management techniques in new
developments.
• Establish a Permit Fee System.
Revenue from a permit fee system for all
new construction is minimal. However, the
system establishes tight control of all storm -
water management projects proposed in
the community, facilitating compliance
with the master drainage plan.
The User Fee System:
A Case Example
Fundamental to any utility user charge
system is the test of equity and fairness.
The user charge system must accurately
represent each property owners runoff
contribution. The correlation between the
amount of a parcel's impervious area and
the amount of runoff attributable to the
parcel is the basis for determining the user
charge. Input factors can include total area,
percent imperviousness, slope, soils,
ground cover and retention/detention
potential. A logical balance must be drawn
between the number of variables in the
billing algorithm and the degree of difficulty
required to derive these inputs.
CDM's recent study for the City of
Tallahassee illustrates the development of a
user charge system. The city is currently
evaluating implementation of this financing
option for stormwater management.
The City of Tallahassee has 25,655
developed parcels of land, 21,278 of which
are single family units. The cost of deriving
detailed input information for each of these
parcels would be exorbitant. For Tallahassee,
single family units (SFU) represent §3 per-
cent of the total developed parcels, and as a
group they can be statistically addressed.
A sampling program was conducted using
the Leon County tax assessment records,
aerial photographs and boundary maps. It
was determined that a total of 170 SFU
parcels must be analyzed to achieve a
95 -percent confidence interval. Each of
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SINGLE FAMILY UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER
LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THE CITY OF TALLAHASSEE
Category Number of Parcels SFU Equivalent
Percent of
Total
Single Family 24278 21,278
18.1
Government 345 19,613
16.6
Multi -Family 2,001 26,488
22.5
Commercial 1,274 25,141
21.4
Institutional 342 17,100
14.5
Industrial 415 7,835
6.6
TOTAL 25,655 117,456
100.0
TABLE Z
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED ANNUAL REVENUES
FOR VARIOUS USER CHARGE RATES "
Monthly Rate Per Single Family Unit Equivalent
Fiscal Year $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50
$3.00
1985 $1,409,470 $2,114,210 $2,818,940 $3,523,680
1986 $1,438,820 $2,158,240 $2,877,650 $3,597,060
$4,228,410
$4.316,470
1987 $1,468,910 $2,203,370 $2,937,820 $3,612,280
1988 $1,499,750 $2,249,620 $2,999.500 $3,749.370
$4,406,730
$4,499,250
1989 $1,531,360. $2,297,400 $3,062.720 $3,828,400
1990 $1.563,760 $2,345,640 $3,127,520 $3,909,400
$4,594,080
$4,691,280
1991 $1,596,960 $2,395,460 $3,193,940 $3,992.430
$4,790.910
• An annual growth rate of 2S parent was applied to single family unit, multi -family.
commercial, institutional, and industrial parcels,
a
BOOK 68 ru 483
these 170 SFU parcels was evaluated using
a computer-aided digitizer to derive the
total area of each parcel and the amount of
impervious area (ire., house, garage, driveway,
patio, sidewalks) on each parcel.
A statistical analysis of the data shows
that there is a 95 -percent confidence that
the average of the total population of 21,278
SFU parcels is 2,659 square feet of imper-
vious area per SFU parcel. This figure was
established as the base equivalent for
estimating the runoff contribution of all
other land parcels. For example, the state
capitol occupies 11.3 acres and is, for all
practical purposes, 100 percent impervious.
This is equivalent to 185.7 SFU equivalents
(2,659 square feet/SFU equivalent). Table I
is a summary of SFU equivalents per land
use category in the City of Tallahassee.
The utility's revenue capabilities based
on this user fee system are quite impressive,
while not creating undue burden on any
land use category. The total developed area
in the city is approximately 958 million
square feet (21,990 acres), representing
117,456 SFU equivalents. Based on a
$1.00/month unit charge, a revenue of
approximately $1.4 million per year would
be generated. At a $3.00/month unit
charge, $4.2 million per year is estimated.
Table 2 illustrates the ranges of revenues
that can be generated in a city the size of
Tallahassee using this user charge system.
The Stormwater Utility -
A Clear Advantage
A primary advantage of the stormwater
utility financing system, compared to tradi-
tional tax -base methods of financing, is the
creation of a new revenue stream, a welcome
addition in times of tight municipal budgets.
This steady revenue source also ensures
that funds will be available to support
proper planning of stormwater controls,
allowing a rational approach to stormwater
management. Another advantage is the
equity of recovering the service costs from
those who use the facilities.
REFERENCES
Gallagher; P. and Laredo, D. 1983,
'Why Not Charge for Stone Dminagel'
American City and County, 98(5).45-46.
Paermer, Ha 1981, "&-ner Ways to Finance Storm -
water Management, Civil Engineering, 51(4)-67-69.
Thompson, S.A. 1982, "Reduction of
Urban Runoff Through Economic
Incentives," Waver Resources Bulletin,
18(1x125-127.
Nilo Pdcde is a corm9mrit at Camp Dresser &
McKee Ina, 1885 Corporate Square Blvd,
Jacksonville, FL 32216.
MadewA. Hobel is a senior technical writer at
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.,
555 WW -ley Place, Suite 200.
Maitland FL 32751.
Mr. Priede reviewed numerous slidefilm graphics giving a
more detailed explanation of the proposed financing me hod of _
funding a stormwater management utility, and asked if anyone had _
any questions.
Commissioner Bird felt this concept would be a reasonable
way to proceed if it is determined that this county has need of
it in the future. He did not know what our future neels would
be, but pointed out that we are fortunate that this co my has
fairly good drainage and percolation. We are also for unate that
our forefathers had the foresight to create the drainage
districts which have functioned well and been properly',managed
and maintained.
Chairman Scurlock recalled that the County paid dearly for
the Reynolds, Smith & Hills joint study on drainage, which showed
that the most significant things a county can do is have proper
maintenance and appropriate sizing of the structures.
Commissioner Bird admitted that he has never gone into any
indepth study of how the drainage system works in this county,
and was not sure where the five municipal jurisdictions stop and
start or what our problems are and what our needs are s we look
to continued growth in the future. He did not know wh t the
existing systems could handle; what provisions have been made for
expansion; or who has the right to tie into those systems and
discharge their water through what canals. He noted that John
Amos is in attendance this morning representing the Inflan River
Farms Drainage District, which initially was establish -3d
primarily to drain farm lands. Now those canals are p oviding
the major portion of the drainage for most of our residential
area and some commercial and industrial areas. He was not sure
what our relationship is with the Drainage District as, far as
where their responsibility starts and stops for sizing, these
canals to meet the growing urbanization in this area. 11
Mr. Priede advised that problem would be addressed through
the engineering of the county -wide project, since stormwater
5
'JUN 3 1987 Boos F 1 48
BOOK 68 PAGE 485
F"__
JUN197
basins do not follow jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, the
problem must be looked at on a hydrological basis.
Chairman Scurlock felt there are a couple of things that we
know for certain from both the state and federal levels:
1. No longer will stormwater runoff be allowed to go into
rivers and lakes.
2. Stormwater and wastewater are considered now as
resources.
Chairman Scurlock felt there is an need for all
jurisdictions to work together and come up with -an overall plan
and a new funding mechanism to meet the urbanization needs.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed that stormwater is a problem in
some areas, and stated he would be in favor of a more equitable
funding approach to enable us to make the necessary improvements
to handle future growth.
Commissioner Eggert asked if this financing method has been
used in areas other than utilities, such as emergency management
or law enforcement, and Mr. Priede stated he had not seen a user
fee system utilized for that type of public service. The user
fee system is traditionally used for roads, drainage, stormwater
management, solid waste, wastewater, etc.
Commissioner Bowman.asked if the proposed rate structure
would cover the engineering, and Mr. Priede confirmed that it
would. He explained that the rate structure looks at the entire
cost of operation, i.e., administration, staffing, additional
- equipment, supplies, etc.
Commissioner Wheeler announced that the Marine Advisory
Board is meeting with the Drainage District tomorrow morning at
9:00 o'clock to learn how the SR -60 drainage system works. He
-- invited anyone interested to attend this public meeting, which
has been advertised in the newspapers.
John Amos of the Indian River Farms Drainage District
advised that the District is just now finishing the drainage
study, which covers the entire District's plan for reclamation.
Basically, the District's boundaries take in a quarter mile north
6
I
and a quarter mile south of the Main Canal which empties into the
Indian River by the Barber Bridge. From there it runs north to _
the West Wabasso Road; then west to Rangeline Road; and then runs
south all the way back because the Sebastian District is beyond
Rangeline. The District takes in 48,000 acres, which is
two-thirds of the City of Vero Beach, and maintains 300 miles of
ditches and canals. He pointed out that before the district was
established back in 1912, a major portion of all this land was at
least one foot under water and it was drained for the purpose of
both agricultural and residential use.
John Little, City Manager of the City of Vero Beach,
believed that the only benefit the City derived from the $200,000
joint study by Reynolds, Smith S Hills is how to size culverts
appropriately. He recalled that the projected cost for that
proposed county -wide project was so tremendous that it did not
get off the ground. Mr. Little felt that if we are really going
to get serious about having a stormwater utility, the Drainage
District just might have to come into the modern age and become a
utility instead of a drainage district.
Mr. Little believed it would be very difficult toyestablish
an equitable user fee system when certain areas in thelcounty
drain better than others, such as the barrier island. He asked
if the same rate would be charged county -wide even though one
basin may cost a significant amount more than another.
Mr. Priede felt that would be a local policy decision.
Mr. Little asked what would be the point in doing this type
of financing now other than relieving the ad valorem rote, and
Chairman Scurlock felt that it would separate the charges and
would be another step to keep in line with the county's trend to
go to user fees.
Mr. Little agreed with that because he shared Commissioner
Scurlock's view of future needs.
7
JUN 3 198 BOOK 68
r
J UN 3 1987
BOOK 68 PA.GL-487
Chairman Scurlock left the meeting at 11:12 o'clock A.M. to
attend another meeting out of state.
Vice Chairman Bowman asked if there were any further
questions, and there being none, declared the meeting adjourned
at 11:15 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
8
Chairman