The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDocumentation_Workshop_Tab 03_09/22/1988': . • VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Teyuesta Drive Teyuesta. Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 746-7457 MEMORANDUM: T0: Village Council FROM: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager ~ - SUBJECT: Stormwater Utility Concept DATE: September 16, 1988 Attached hereto, please find a memorandum from Wendy K. Harrison regarding the above referenced for your further consideration in this matter. Also, please find attached a Public Works article on the topic. A workshop meeting of the Village Council is scheduled to enable Gee & Jenson to make a presentation regarding this utility concept. An outline of the presentation is attached. The workshop meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 22, 1988 at 9:00 A.M. TGB/mk Attachments (3) cc: Wendy K. Harrison, Administrative Asst. to the Village Manager • C~ VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 746-7457 MEMORANDUM: TO: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager FROM: Wendy K. Harrison dministrative Assistant to the Village Manager SUBJECT: Meeting with Gee & Jenson Personnel on stormwater Utility Concept DATE: July 18, 1988 This is to report to you on a meeting Z had this morning with Ji-ang Song, John McKune and Mike Rocca regarding the concept of a stormwater utility for the Village of Tequesta. I explained the primary impetus of our inquiry into the subject, namely the upcoming expense of the Cypress Drive Drainage Project, and made them aware of our concerns regarding the equity and acceptability of such a utility to Village residents and businesses. As they explained it, a stormwater utility would be established according to a stormwater Master Plan by the Village Council, who would also serve as the utility's governing board. The Master Plan would define about 4-6 drainage basins in the area to be covered by the utility. The plan would determine coefficients to measure the relative uses of the stormwater system. An example of a coeffecient would be the impervious vs. pervious area for types of properties; e.g. average $ impervious for residential, $ for retail, etc. The existing stormwater plan (last updated around 1984) would serve as the base for the new, more detailed plan. • The utility would bill property owners for their fair share of drainage system operation and maintenance costs as determined by the study. Capital improvement costs and/or any debt service would also be billed, again on a fair share basis. The basins would be defined so that property owners would share in the expense only Por items directly benefiting their property. The benefits to the Village potentially realized from a stormwater utility could include the following: o Equity to the customers because general ad valorem taxes would not pay for specific improvements, e.g. Country Club residents would not pay for any Beach Road drainage improvements and vice- versa. MEMORANDUM: Thomas G. Bradford July 18, 1988 Page 2- ------------------- o Increase the public's understanding of charges for government services, in that drainage service would be a discrete cost separate from ad valorem taxes. (NOTE: To arrive at rough estimate of the annual charge to a Village homeowner, we divided the approximately 550,000 proposed to be spent on drainage operation and maintenance in FY 89 by 2500 properties, which gave a 520.00 annual charge.) o Provide long-term, reliable financing for stormwater drainage, which will undoubtedly continue to be critical to the Village. o Provide relief to ad valorem taxes, especially considering that government and other property owners not subject to taxes would be reasonably charged for storn-water services. o Both the Stormwater Master Plan and the establishment of the Utility itself would aid in the preparation of the drainage element of the Village's Comprehensive Plan. Some conceptual costs of a utility are: o Initial cost of professional services to design the Stormwater Master Plan and ongoing costs for any revisions necessary. o Administrative time, materials required including direction in development of the Master Plan and ongoing financial services. (The utility would be an additional enterprise fund, requiring the associated attention of the Finance Department, the Auditors, etc.) o The billing could either be handled through the water billing process or it could be an annual charge reflected on the tax bill. Whichever billing vehicle is chosen, once the system was established, the operating time would be minimal. No additional personnel should be necessary. o Legal costs in establishing the utility, which could be affected by the relative "newness" of the stormwater utility concept. i MEMORANDUM: Thomas G. Bradford July 18, 1988 Page 3- ------------------ o Political disadvantages. Presumably, the business community would be resistant to any type of cost allocation for drainage, since commercial property is typically responsible for more runoff per land area than residential property. A counter argument would be that equity concerns support property owners paying for costs associated with and benefits provided to their property. If we are interested step might be to schedule personnel would present Counci 1. WI~i/krb in pursuing the utility concept, the next a Council Workshop meeting. Gee & Jenson and explain the concept to the Village cc: Ji-ang Song, Gee ~ Jenson • • • A Utility Approach To Comprehensive Stormwater Managemen MARC ENGEMOEN, P.E. chip Engineer IM, and ROGER E KREMPEI, P.E. Natural Raaouroa Wna6ar, Fort Coplna, Colorado PLANNING storm drainage im- provements using abasin-wide approach and con:iderarig the total drainage basin system beyond indi- vidual subdivisions requires a basin-wdde financing tnetliod as well. Individual neighborhoods sad sub, division developments can no kxiger be expected to be respotnstbk for the costs of improvements that benefit other properties. ' The City has the power b raise trr~iey in ways flat cannot be used by private organimtior>s ar individuals. which offer greater }kxtbdity in pro- viding ,effective stormwater ssanage. went. Tn 1980. as part of its budget process, Fon Collins established a stormwater utility by bringing drain. ate activities together in atingle pro. gram. These activities include routine operations, maintenance and ad- ministration of the txutirig drainage system, and the engineering and de- vebpment of a cornprthcnsive capi~ :rrsprovements program. To fund operatioru, mainteriarice. and administration, the City began charging property owners a monthly utilities fee in January 1961, Thu fee, based on a Properly': uca and land use characteristics, is approximately :l per month for single-family resi- dences. Tn December 1961, the City Council approved charging additional fret for storm drainage capital improvements in three of nine drainage basins. all in the southern part of the city. Resi- denu began paying the new fee, which averages about Zl per house. hold per month, on January 1, 1962, New homes pay an additional one- time tee of =ZtKI to =3W, depending on thr nreds of thr uca and sue of tit. Thex Errs pruvidr an economical, safe. and effective storm drainage system fur Fun Collins, and tmancr that syslrm in the mna;t ryuitabir and drpK•ndabir manner. Capital im- 6N provement fees in the six remainin basins became effective January 1 1983. Urban Stormwater Manaptmtnt The basic philosophy of stormwaea management within urban areas has, over the past several decades, changed dramatically. Nationwide experience with the eRtc~s of in- adequatepast practices indicates that stormwater has not always been well managed, and has often been taiu- managed. This experience has led to a major redirection in the ,a„y ~ni- munities perceive urban drainage and attempt to deal with it effectively. Stormr--ater is a difncuh rrsouvre to manage Primarily because drainage systems are constantly in a state of flux. Even a natural drainage system in its undeveloped condition isnot sta- tic: streams meander. banks erode, Wces ue filled b3 sediment. Urbana. sation compounds this problem. Urban devebpment requires an al. together new drainage system to achieve two basic goals: I) conveni• ence, and 2) safety. However. local governments have begun b realise these two goals are not mutually achievable without excessively high costs. Effective stormwater manage- ment must strike a balance between the elirniriation of inconvenience as- sociated with stormwater ruxioff and the protection of life and property against food hasard. Success in stormwater manage. meat has been elusive. Public works strategies tried and pro~•en in dealing with other municipal problems have not alv-•ays adapted well to drainage applications. Local governments have had to develop creative new al. ternatives for meeting the storniv-•ater challenge. The process of developing these a6 ternatives has been slow for several reasons. First of all, the importance of storm drainagr u usually apparent only during floods. Thr public. through itc elected officials, seldom placrs storm drainr+Rr high on thr last of pra-ritirs during annual budget Proce•~st s. Particularly in thr aril wrut, th~• thundarstut-att. of spring arr all bw forgotten during ehe auttunn scramble !or funds, Second, ~ con- cept d acomprehensive stormwater utility with permanent, continuous financing has only recent)y gained recognition as an egta;table and de- pendable approach to stormwater management. Third, technical ad- ~~ vances in data collection and handling to facilitate large scale drainage plan- ning have been avaaiable for little more than a decade. And finally the continuing evolution of drainage Lw, design practices, and environmental g considerations has forced tics! go~- ernnients and drainage engineers to constantly re-evaluate and redirect their stormwater management policies. ~ ~ Past it was a generally ac- ceptable drainage practice to providr !or the removal of storm ~~ from a properly a: quickly and econon»cally as possible. Devebpment of the entire reach of nattira) drainageways has made it clear that such a policy can have disastrous effects on down- stream properties. To mitigate these effec4, detention tstylities were re- quired within new developments to reduce the rate of runoff into tsatural ten»~~Sene~ yl benefia'a1, cx- peraence has shown that the positive effects of such detention can be maxinsatted only when devebped in coNunetion with basin-wade drainage Planning. It was clew that the ap- pr+oaeh to storm drainage in the future ~-ould Gave to be aimed at sound overall management rather than hasty disposal. Numerous elements must be con- sidered in an effective stormwater management effort, including basin master planning, fbodp4an adrriinut• ration, capital improvements pro- graatiniang, financing, maintenance, and public relations. To integrate these auo a successful stormwater program represents an unprece- dented challenge for many local gov- ernments. Fora Collins u not unique in its at• tempt to understand storm drainage and develop a comprehensive strategy to manage it effectively. Fort Collins' approach is a synthesis of concepts and ideas drawn from many di!'ferent sources. Although informs, lion above various aspects of urban storm drainage in other areas u avail- able, them arr few descriptions of complete, in-place stormwater man-` agement systems. The purpose of this article is to provide such a descrip- tion. Esbbprsy f~ a frtmtwtyrk Thr framework of Fort Collins' sturmwatrr manaRi•mrnt program t'U$!-1C WORKS,fi,~ April, 19M5 lts ~ _- ~J • • was estabiWsed b the Mors rage ordinatsce d 1tiM. Ls tide a+dwnce the City t.ount9 aifirnsed twe im- portant drainage principles: frst, that all real property wit}dn a aFsiaage basin will be benefited br ihrtnstalla- tion of an adequate Mass drsbage gstem; and second, that dsr Beet d installitsg an adegwte drieage sys- tem should therefore 6e sasested against the real property b a basin. These principles were not ~! for property owners to imderttaad at first glance, but they are the keya r the entire ttorttsrrater manageniae con. cept. It is difTicuh for s properly ow•rser who lives an a bid to usder• stand how the casstrtictias ds storm drain in a bw-lying area is a betsdst b him. But !!oleo drainage ieeksdes much more !hats jua Good eoatrol. Keeping street: open b emer~gpscy vehicle traQit, tnaintaitimgpoadsand open chantsc>s so they do not lsessoe heahh and :safety ba:asdr, ssd pe+o- moting the use d dranagc t*ei0es !or recreatiaoal prupaes si ssalWb ate to enhanebg and isairaiaiog dsc quality d life for an etsdr+e coss^iaigr. It is oho impostsd btaeapiettiat development eompo~ds adMing drainage psnbkmt. Zke petptrty owner on the hi9 has, by the natural grotasdcoeer k streets, concrete, and roaAop„ ian+eased the aormwater nmoff and ceeias'bstad b the drainage pr+obktwdldslw.lliog neighbors. To some e:twt is4 be should cosstsi'bute b the oast d aos- rrcting that problem. These are eampiictted isaa sod the CityCotsrsa7realaedtlistdeeabp ing a oomprehetssive drsiaage gro gram would t~equire eaisidersiie d- fort. The R'16 a~iaaee ettassi a Storm Drabagc Board ossapriad d seven appointed members b dirccl this effort. The Board r'epreetnV local engineering. irrigation. and de- velopment interests. and includes members a::ociated wills Lrimer County and Cobrado State UNvcr- dty. It meets monthly b review the progress of various drainage pro- grams, advise the City Cound7 on drainage matters, and accept public comments on storm drainage con- cerns. The Board is also responsible !or dividing the city into separate drainage basins. developing basin mattter plans recommending the necessary improvements for each ba• sin. and proposing a method of firsarsa ing these improvements. terse of the lust tasks confronting the new Storm Drainage Board in 1976 wan the development of storm design criteria. These criteria Mould establish basic drainage policies pro- vide design aandards for drainage improvements, and determine starsdards !or the development of basin master plans. Using the Dearer Regional Councs7 of C,overnments' Urban Starts: Droinape Clriterb a/a+i- tial as a guideline. Use city staff drafted abbreviated design aitaria !or Fort Collins, Because oI itt isa- portance inthe overall drainage pro- gram. these design criteria received thorough and detailed review by tlse Storm Drainage Board sand repeeaen- Ltives o~ heal cansuhiag before being torw ended to the City Council for adoption. OwMtap/n~ M~stsir oatt/n Pfi~a The storm drainage oedinassoe d 1976 had emphasized Ilse iraportarsce of individual drainage basins. The Drainage Board divided the dh iota nine ms~or baths smd, over a three Yen period, dewbped storm drain age :Waster plant for esseh bass. TM individual basin master plena wer• prepared by consulting engineer working closely with city stall. irrig, lion and development intert•Ms, an. the Storm Drainage )Board, pn te• eral studies, the Cobrado Water Car. servation Board and Larinser Count provided technical and financial outs lance. Each master plan evaluated the basin hydrobgy under existing pond, lions to identify existing dr•ainagf problems. The basin hydrology wi then analyzed assuming full de vebpment of the basin area to identif improvements necessary b serve luture development. Costlbenef, analyses Mere performed where im provements were being eonsiderec and flood damages Could be Wen- tifsed. Where improvements toeces- sarY to Prohde a continuous system wen proposed in presently unde- vebped areas, Rood dato3ages !or costlbene8t erulyses could toot be de- termined. In these eases, improve. snents were designed b coaspfy wit?, which~~~dbiithed t?se~1 ~~e~r,i as the nyjor design sitorm. Ls essence, each basil: maasx pLn ideWtifies the sysReas of improvements n~arY to providt safe assd affec• ~~ ~derairsage within the basin. ttyttem is considered as a wlwk, the eAectiveneas d individual i»>pro+-emersts !s maximized ?hor- ough PLnning ahead of derelopasenc means the moo eeonomieal set of improvemtnts can be provided. Less expensive chanrsels designed for the luture ears eliminate the need !or more costly dorm sewers to solve problems at a later date, The city's nine basin maser plans identify over:40 minion in capkat im- provements necessary to provide ef- fective stormwa4r marsagets•seest. In addition to these capital coat, thtre arc substantial annual torts as- sotaated with the adnsirsistratian, op• oration, and maintenance of the drainage system. Anticipating this level of investment, a key element in the development of a cornprehensi.•e storm drainage program would have b be Ilse establishment of a wand method of tusancing drainage activi• ties. K'hile the basin matter plans were being completed. the city began to Mork on a t~nancing plan. • G~It/I10 thtt StOITW~tK duty Prior b 1976. drainage improve. meats in Fort Collins were c~rs- eructed either by devebpets or by the city through storm sewer lsrs• ^ DEVELt7/rEtl! si stlse~sa, fss>talds atnn dralnpa ayttarna aMus at •sa /rw vantiori sl tons!! r tlth FiA irtr aeoaAanoad aarae+a floods M .Ain: /M!. : •~ r-...~ :;. _. •:: ...All ~~i~ ilia! •w~(}~ l~latn ~~• ~ ^s~, lj ~ r~ ~ . ~ ~~1-~4-~•i . co~no+n ~ _ .. - - ~ ttaas~ «r~d, ~fratt; d,= ,, ~ AA ~ a~ ~ . ~ got uwat BwMIOM, . ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ . Aw,~ C1o+ttktsnt , tz.~re apuart feet _ phone, electricity, or trash , ' RaN Faaar' O pS and finance their operations blr rte. • Operstlons and Makttsnanoa B A . ~Y ~11ing their cwtomers. The Fort Copi S ast ata ~-~0.1.'l6lfN~montt ns tormwater UWity b a spedal testy OlM Fae + - 2z.ne (o.osi tto.ooo~a Purpose organisation within the city governraerit gave„ ~ - ~: i7.tt21month FoottlNs respatsa bilit to provide for public nt~s in the area FootttMs CapRsl bps,«n~ of storrrnawater management. 1n the Base Axle i~«+~y GOiW F« ~.~ same way the city's water, sewer and ~~ t are aeU-supporiin = ~~ (~~) so.otw~ s. ~ titQkj- charges fees for TaW Otalnapt (JlltA' Ftaa it1 /2hn ~ °Peratiai and maintenance of the . ortdt •A rats facts k an ~ ooetktanl of nx+oA for facditiea in its sysdetn acid for the con- a partitti,ta, gtapory d dtyttop. ntant Fa t:ample, r ~ struction of capita) im provtrnents. and O.SO,i is ptaoad !n 1M'IptM^ qty ~ batwaan 0~ gt. or r oao fished ~~ ~p why ~ ~ i p p . drainage-related activities w ~+b tltlUy Fees for a Aasidaitlld t at: ent eort- solidated into a tiirigle Program. A llddrsaK . mO~' u~Y tee became elfeQiv .. •; ~ ~ OOtWaba/A Odra ~ feet e ~aneary ]. 19dp~~1ri~ fA ~ by all ~ftsta Faotsr l ~ a•IS O.IS canoes the operatlgis maw milfiftTatiOA i Opera110its t rld 1t kManrtoa Baas Asls ;. _ . ~ port on ~ the dr>~ge Ps'ogram. Aanua! t„b„r~, Oiti~ Faa saoooaetsnrnnontr, • 7,0lt Ia1):O,pp~ revenues from chest tees Loured it91i,000 b 1f8l: . ' . 8aak~:: • it.0ya~ The Odi>Y tee far each partiQilar .~ Glatt Capitst Medsthnda-Irtat~ G~ N~ rtY k based oa tMro !actors sm r ~ ~ +b Bas Asts ~ Mot+~tAy CaPioM Fee • ti0.00tOtgRtsntpr~ • 7,Odt (O.Ig f0.0010t~ art of stormtva ter ruru img These factors art the tour ar+ed the Tots Orairispa {g^ryl Fes i2.~7hriortlh P'roPerLY and the land use eharso • • ts.latlrriortn teristics of the property such as ,.•. ~ tlatri fas (Mont tnrasbaas~t }~ ~ a eras: ~ IY residential. multi. fancy canoi W Cxoss Ana: g7s0 4Aaspt StreM sa,rt feet . erc . anLpied b one of >lvve «tegaries of de`-elopment based on their particu .. ~ Das~+: ~ • 3~2ts a . 4r runoff eoeNicient. These cate- .. YcCMWtty.t~1 G~asL~ Osstn _ a+ds-AAat1 Gatk gorias have rate !actors which repro- sent avers ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'`:. • Rxiolt tosL~oisrM ~ ' ~' ~ ', OM Mb p B?.tt7~han O.S2 ~ts. The monthly utilit jr fit y prvduci of the Piy the m'ta. the rate factor _ « n adtadpt F~,• . ~" Fsa . O.t<S . and the base me for the fee. which ~ based on the r j t d ' '~ • is.OYlf.Ot~~ 0.~ (~ p g et ,a 1985. the fee for the avtra~,~ ObtaN+sdtram Fl~ua t• ~ ." fam0y residence is:0.88 per month . The Oec)f1 tees .have been irn- Plemented with ronsid - erabk success. This success maybe due in part to the pro`•ement districts of the captal irn- pro •ements program supported ~ tune, increasing demands for sales tax revenu SLormwater Utility's strong coinmia men! to developing and maintaining a Saks tax revenues. B I87i6 aq Y ~~ . methods were be • b es and skyrocketing costs of drainage improvements made it ap• very accurate data base. M adrninis. trative appeak process ha b . once diRicultirs• ~ than the rod of oQ.sitt im De>s found, P-oveaAertts - p+,twrit that a comprehensive drain- -. ago ProKram could not rely on sake t s een used extensively b discover and correct' errors in property areas and fT , rrquired b provide workabk'drafi~.,° , age systems ld ~b ax alone, The deveb mere of a r P i l nmo roeRicienls. The tee ordinance also rovid f cou e exceplve. and . eventual reimbursement !or such 1 ~ eg ona • prt,ach ~' storm drainage bnprove• es a ormal variance rocedure for r P operty owners wh a ni... Pes,vNments .was uncerWn, On the . ~ ~y R sidr. while early storm s iotiil drain gr ay temerbae~yond the o nnot be PrUocess. ~ the administrative appeals tover irtagrruvement dwrkt: were sucCem, fut~ li~tir district: mei increasin o boundaries otindividual subdivisions, requires a regional approach to fi Ott ~~~! lmiPra'M1Mtt g P• pasiliun from pr,,,perty owner. AM•r~ - • l !` - nanrinR as will. Individual de- vriupms•nts can l flILO/K//p Pbn aa vt ra .iuni•ureessful ahem ta:, P4 .,; ~ eft-s.tr.a Rptvhal!dWrki !n ~ ~ - no onger be ex. perti•d to !re solely r'esparisibk for the M f t' m,t~ basin master plans Identify o a ~~, ~ esa~i•~~i( imPr++vemtnts which btnefN tiviiK' . ~ . •~-'~'~1 ~ ~' ~ ~etq><•rtis~ dIK•r tht~n tht•Ir ~ wlsk ~ ~prw-e- ~~ are heeded b provide, , ,r ~.': •: ;. •~.: ective taormwateF••inanageatent ~ _ . • t • - - . PUBLIC 1iVDR KR ~.: A,..~t ttwt `~'",~~ "~~~ ~ ~ ~~ir~d+aa~llwndtt~eti~~dr,~„~;,-~,"ihould ,.,~t,~~.~-~,y=, ~~ `-:•~ ,~'.., y.,~.,; ... - ,_, a • Z ;- -s-~~'}~ ~~~ ~ -~wa'•-~COI~ti~~~'-~V1t ~Oe D<l O0p~1~ ~ ~~~ ..y~,_ ~ry ~~'s ~~'~ i~t bl ` a ~ : i ` '~ .. ~ ._-~;, . - ~'-=.~ esa ettin y ~ - {fro 2 ariodtiss- aad ~~'+~ ~ capita ite• apital lenProvament: eo the aamr a:- tent that they ooetribute b th t W _ t a> .. ~:••wbathrr_ ohs devsksped ar * .~ n provements over the acxt'0 years, dividing the respondb8ity /or con. e o Lidi~~dr~a`e basin h w 1ops b ~~ ~ ~ ~t"~'~~the ~~ these ~ ~K s are t e buildins blocks o! the capital fm- 'd area tottaula; . lhs different parties who receive the benefits. and derek-pir~ Bound and isrov-sments firiandns plan. The eapi- W bnlxovsnisnts costs Wsntified in "Fee" eA(Bh the constrain methods within posed on public the individual basin master plans can be divided into two basic catesories: _ a-hers c ~ rand! eoeificient ~- ~ ar ~~ pr'oQ~ ~ ~ s1aR and the Storm Draina~c Board bury for improvements reQuired b correct existing Problem:; and im rov t ea B ~ badn fee base rate R d several yeah. This intensive effort wastime weD itpent, bo+aever, tot the p emen s tMgyired in cordunction with oontinu- ink development Th etention redut:tion The runoff codfi i t c result was as eQectire aP~ ~- . e cost of the loaner h asswned to be the respoeui. c en . . is a mea- sure of the surface resistance b flow p~ smea~ts proQam which ie both fi and aQoedabk b the citisens d billy of the badn•atlarSe, or current . ~ ~~ A, b the Q~ws area. The Fort Collins property owners. The cost of the tat- basin !es base rats. B. ie a unit cost for . Lke the fl6cii fee, the capita im• ter is assumed b be the joint respon. sibility of curnnt and future de• drainage ~l~smerits based on the ~~ cad ~b++p'm-smerits in the provemer-t biancin~ plan rats on a dmpk ptiaciple: b the same sprit vebpment, with the szact appor• tiaoenent of cost based art the reLtive basin muter phis .and the total """~~" area o! the a ba. flat a property contributes to the storm ~e problem, M ~ should oontributioti of the two types d de- vsloprasnt b the total tiny- ~'- The detention trod ~ ~~ ~ amo~ait of the drain. ~~~~,• a~..c'~::~` contribute b the cost d the adution. : -=M tom-words, $e ,plri ~ developed stormwat:r rtaiofr. TheapPtopria4>iriandal ~ ~ ~ wliidi an•ake detsnHon.~nd d~•~ -~s:, ~ . proposes that aD properlia writltio a - ~ lion to these oantiaviaS devdopmsM stoestwater etaolt rt ~ .ay - ~ ~~ 1'he ... • :: ;::• . . ± • ~:_ , ,~~: ~? ~~^> , 1 .,+~~;~ ' -T J ''' :. ..~ `. . .,~... ^' ~ i• _ 'r-: . •.... ~': i~l~ PUBLIC WORKS Atfit,=>yldS • *IOtN1E 1. •Or-~Ite delerMton aduolbn tMaPR ~. ;. 'S .~ I ~y ~ -~ ~ ~ • .~ k tl~.~:.:•~ .!' .:a .. J .ti .~ .1 ~ R~M!!tM feClM pks+optiats detsyitlop radticlion factor ~~iiotward- i was~a~~fortliit pvtpost. ZLe R~ on lottiition and en- jtidpnant tltar, oo practical data. Stich O'aP~ ~- from one area a tit,- to another based or past detsn- d~ton are forth. ~~ ~ d lion factors: totem ~x reduo- example, delsaeion of tlis l0f}jwr dtt"sioped ttbe:D with a lwoy~ear Historic rdeaas~rsts was as- dpied • reduction factor d 0.25 (wbids reduced the its tee by 7S percent); detaniors d the lOQysar developed storm with a lOQyev his- •btk r+dease rate was even a reduo- tion facbr of O.b (r+educint the lees h7' ~ P~r'cent)• These t+sdut:tioo lac. tots are intended b r~otidily ~,~;_ gate the basin-wide "benefits" of a d b a ~~~,p•~j~ t lion, site charscteristia. and other factors. Using this weidstsd approach. the total basia•at•larte (current home- owner) and new development (fu- ture homeowner) capital improve- ment costs were calculated for each drainase basin. Then, as a part of the S-Year Capi41 Improvement Budget procea, intprovsments ~ry b corned existiri~ prob- knu and serve the new areas ex- pected b be devebped over the nett five years were prosrammed. The kvebz d funding identified were used b determine the appropriate capital briprovement teas. Two key ektnerita already b placr were used tp develop a.~tnediod of (Coiitiiitutd ~ peoe fit! 71 .. •• ••••••" ••~•~•• ..rnwarrr a'taust .• die g odd .;~,?~~ : ~far- adid *rasteproctaaing • meth : =ymoe~e dYfcuh. Once tAt ;;. - -,•> :~" . atudr~ -Prd ~iswr Lotter tivMer an ~ ant shar+t des , ~ aaioes~ . Y• inrprs~ements -was another mattar ea~plW ~+provetssarrtaltad • In Janwq we asked whether ForttAt rtadtnwould like to see a new solid waste association organised b impro~ a the laoage d the prdession. A number ofyou replied that you are in favor of the idea but not enough b stsrt things iobsg• If you think this is an idea ripe far action, let me know of Yow intetwst Send Y~ d~oteghts on tLia and other solid waste subjects b soe tafo Ptmuc Waass or b Abraham Irticbaeb, P.E.. f Q~7 Road, Oster- vs7le;.gLA~6S6..: -. Ikbt finaacing could not bt used, ao a pad-aa-you-jo •pproaeh was rt- quired. Plant investment fees art used by other city programs and utilities in- cluding water, sanitary newer, and parks and recreation. To establish these fees, the cost of the facilities SOlid Waste Aasodation necessa'y '~ the future is estimated and this cost is divided among the sere wkh queetione about the report b eoataet h[m N the College of En- gintytlreg, the University d Texas at Austin. Departaknt dCivil Engineer. tng, Austin, Te:u 78712-1076. We would flies b receive copies d any correspondence you may have with Professor Lotbr. ..• :y •~a • iCoattaaai flaw Pa9t 7~~ The Rrst dement was the ats-'s abitigr: to deb4 pipits) impr+ovame:ata. 1Le ~ecosd element and bming~eyetem~ ~ tvuld be utad b matt tmaU pay_ snents over a k+ng period at time, the sb~erce drawt+ua aodd be a monthly trtibty fee for eapihl improaeasertts in pt a~doos and maint~ Both fees art based en the area and Lrd use eharacteriatics dea~h individual Pr'oPtryr.`8seattet tbt Reed !or new facilities is diQsrert from doe drain- age basin banother, tbemonthly aP bateau fen racy !rani basin New capita improfemsnt fees went inb effect an January I, 1982. Within various beams. die fee for the average single-family residence ranges from 50.90 b 5~.1o per month. The need for additional aptal im- provtments is evalwted annually u part tithe iLYear Gpitd Budget 1~ etas. and additional bonds may be b- sued. In five years. the capital fee for the average tdngle.family residence will range from SO.so b 51.00 per month. GreWl p>anrdng and phasing d capital improvements wy albw the tens b remain M naspsaWt levels. Then at some time, perhaps ~ b SS years in the future. the badn wlq be tugy devdoprd, du necessary capital improvenntnts veil leave. been sy,n- atrvcted, the debt +~. anti ~ fags tall na k+rWer be seeeasary, ~ _~_'.L ..~ _ number of proptrtie: b be developed in the future. In the case of storm drainage, these plant investment fees are called ''basin fees." The fees art based on the weighted area corscept developed earlier, so that the fee !or a Particular structure depends on the lot area, the land use, the on-site de- tention provided, and the basin is whicb the structure is located. Basin fees became tffeetive in Fort Collins in January 1982. The base rate for the tees, which do not reflect the weighting facbrs for runoR coeffr cients and detention, range from 52,900 b =1,700 per acre. Taking the w faCbrZ; irlt0 aCt:OUnt, tih! average bean fits rang! from 51,00 b 52,000 per acre. This means the new homeowner can expect to PAY from 5200 b =500 for maijor storm drainage facilities in the cost d his house. These basin fees will be re- viewed and adjusted Periodically b account tor" changes in construction costs and the effects of inflation. Siaoe the basin fees have been io effect. there have been no major problems with implementation. The city stag .vorked closely with local representatives d the homebuilding industry while the fees were being siderabi~t initial ~~ ~ro was ooo. resistance b a never plant investment lee, h appears that .b ~ ~~~~'~ng P~ is petreived economical in the long non. with enough flexibility b address the horr-ebuilders' earlier concerns. Enoour~plnp Comrnun/y Support The final, and perhaps most crucial phase in creating an effective stormwater management program wu a concerted tRort b increase public awareness of storm drainage Issues. Articles in the city newsletter mailed with utility bilk attempted b keep the public informed of new de- velopments in the program, .changes to fees, area oPPortunities b make use of the administrative appeal and vari- ance process. Brochures explaining the stormwater utility concept were distrtbuted and a muhi-projector slide prestntalion was developed, improvem nt finarnci~ ~ capita! g plan was a program dd that ~u~ b grow. The queriion rained most oRen by the public and elected olTi- cia4 concerned the use d the l0Q Year storm as the mq}or de:igrt sbrm. ~~Y ProPle questioned the need to invest ao much money b provide pro. tection from an event that might never occur in their lifetime:. This esperlence causes one to wonder how many proposed qo~ hav~lailed~be a~h a p~jivy through their elected officials, do not find the 100-year flood an acceptable criterion !or the design of major drainage improveanents. Sonic com- munities may find the adoption of a less strict design criterion, based Perhaps on else SO-year storat, wdl re- d~ resistance b the im- ees. Such a eh ~ ~Provement wdl ~~ the diRerenot betwKn ~ iorPkaaessting a storan X11 reduction inin the del d pro<~ec- tlOft provided, ~ • • • 81ott>pkal Air Putfficatltm fCoatitauud fro+a Pope 79) Tier, rtstaltireg in s hydrogen sulbde concentration ds ppm near the leaks. T~ ~Y bas arrived at a simp4 and inertpensive solution, to stop the 4ak- age. EdrA b presently designing a aee- in the Nip n ~ purifintion systta~ gland area. The firm is ako exploring the potential applica- lion of bdopcai systems for liquid wastewater. !~ RNK~ 1. Porseroy, >R., "Biolopcd Trsatrnent of 11182. ~ ~J. Ate' Vd. SI, Na I2. 2. Carlson. D. and C. Leiser. "Sol! Beds for the Control of Sewage Odors."J. WPC!. Vd. >Itl, No. fZl, 1966. 1. SmNh, K., "SorpVon ~ Gaseous Atinos- pheric Pollutants by Soils." Soil Sci., Vd. li, Alo. ~I~, l9TS. t. Rands, 1/., D. Cooper. C. Woo. G. F7eteher, and K. Rolfe. "Canpop FiMe- for HrS Removal from Anaerobic Dies. lion and Rendering Exhausts,'' ,!. WPCF, Vd. fit. No. t, 7981. i. Bohm, H., "Soil and Compost Fibers of INalodorant Gases ~ J. Atr Poll. t.owrrot Asia., Vd. !S, No. 9s.1, I97S. ~. Buhrn, H., ''Compost Scrubbers of I6akidorous Air Straa+ns," Co+Rpat Sei. , Vd. l7, No. i, l9M • Rdfe, K., "Odor Control at Animal Ren• . EI~A ~ ~viroesnwM'j • K.Z.1.t., tt#00. lnterrsal >1lensoranda.~~~ tae., PVBIJC WORKS for April, 19t1S GEE d~ JENSON Engineers-Architects- Poanners, Inc. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR STORMWATER UTILITY PRESENTATION August 15, 1988 I. Introduction II. Stormwater Utiiity Concept III. Reasons for Implementing a Stormwater Utility IV. Discussion on Legal Authority and Issues V. Implementation A. Approaches Available B. Plan Development • 1. Stormwater System Improvement, Operation, and Maintenance Cost Estimates a) Existing Projects and 0&M Cost b) Future Project Needs and ObM Cost c) Administration Cost 2. Establish a Preliminary Budget 3• Develop Preliminary Rate Structure aj Single Family b) Multi-Family c) Commercial d) Industrial e) Public land (Federal, State, County, and Municipalities) f) Institutional g) Vacant Land (Undeveloped Land, Agricultural Use, Etc.) One Harvard Circle P. 0. Box 24600 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4600 305/683-3301 Telex 513472 G8J WPB 4. Develop Implementation Schedule 5. Review of Organizational Personnel Structures 6. Review of Billing System 7. Public Workshops - Public Awareness 8. Program Implementation (2nd Phase) a) Develop Stormwater Utility Ordinance b) Cost Estimates JAS/lgm 99101 ~_J ~J GEE & JENSON . _, .: _ .-.,,c,_;5-p;~,,,,P, :;.~ r a GEE 3 JENSON Engneers-Archdects- Pd~'e-s. Inc. Ms. Wendy Harrison Village of Tequesta P.O. Box 3414 Tequesta, FL 33469-0273 August 16, 1988 Re: Village of Tequesta Stormwater Utilities Presentation Dear Wendy: This letter is to confirm the rescheduling of Gee & Jepson's Stormwater Utilities presentation to the Tequesta Village Council to September 22, 1988, at 9:00 a.m. As you requested, I have enclosed a copy of the program outline for the presentation. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If there is anything else you need, please do not hesistate to call. JAS/igm 99101 enc Very truly yours, GEE ~ JENSON Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc. /' ,1-~-~. Ji-Ang Song, P.E. One Harvard Circle P. 0. Box 24600 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4600 305/683-3301 Telex 513472 G&J WPB