The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20090706 - VIII-A-1MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Nick Egger -City Engineer Date: July 1, 2009 Re: Accept Proposal for Stormwater Utility Study Per Council direction earlier this year, City staff solicited proposals from three consulting firms to assist the City in the study and development of a Stormwater Utility. Proposals were provided by Barr Engineering, Bolton &Menk, and WSB & Associates. The budget for the study is $50,000, and the schedule set such that the study would be completed by early November, with the implementation of a Stormwater Utility up for Council consideration inmid-November. If Council ultimately adopts the recommendations of the study, the Stormwater Utility could become effective on January 1, 2010. I have also attached the council memo from Public Works Director Tom Montgomery (dated 5/23/2008) that contains further information about a Stormwater Utility. Staff has reviewed the proposals and concluded that three firms understood and addressed the City's request very well. The proposal amount summary is below: Firm Proposal Amount Barr Engineering $45,000 Bolton &Menk $35,900 WSB & Associates $34,200 COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends the acceptance of the attached proposal from WSB & Associates in the amount of $34,200. /~~^M1 ' y .Mr- ~ _u~w-r ~~...~ max. .,,~ ~~._ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,,. ,~~ ` ~ ~~ s ,r ~' ~~`~ o~ ~~~~~~ MEMO To: Finance Committee From : Tom Montgomery Date: May 23, 2008 Re: Storm Water Utility Proposal As part of the 2009 Public Works Budget request, I have included a request for $50,000 to hire a consulting firm to prepare a Storm Water Utility for the City. The funding is proposed to come from the Water Fund, to be repaid once a Storm Water Utility is established. What is a Storm Water Utility? A Storm Water Utility would consist of a fee charged to every property owner to cover the expense of managing storm water runoff from their property. The fee would be included on a property's utility bill; listed as the storm water utility charge. The Storm Water Utility fee would be based on the amount of the property's impervious surfaces - roofs, driveways, sidewalks, and parking areas. Impervious surfaces generally direct all of the rainfall and snowmelt runoff into the City's storm sewer system. A single family residential property is typically defined as 1 unit. Commercial, Industrial and Institutional properties are larger in size and have much more impervious surface than a single family property and would be charged several units, calculated individually per property based on the amount of impervious surface, similar to the WAC and SAC charge determination for water and wastewater usage. Why implement a Storm Water Utility? The costs for maintaining and managing the City's storm water system are rising dramatically. Both the new NPDES storm water permit system and the Vermillion River Watershed new rules and regulations have resulted in a substantial increase in the City's storm water administration costs for monitoring, permitting and preparing annual reports on the City's storm water activities. Within the past ten years, the City has adopted a number of storm water initiatives such as storm water treatment ponds for new developments, and erosion control requirements for new construction, including active City inspection of grading and erosion control enforcement measures. In the near future, the City will be required to adopt standards for storm water discharge to meet TMDL (total maximum daily load) standards for specific pollutants and non-degradation requirements; rolling back the volume of water discharged to the Mississippi and Vermillion Rivers to 1988 levels. Presently, funding for storm water permit activities comes primarily from the General Fund. A Storm Water Utility offers an alternate funding source that charges fees for storm water management tied directly to the level of storm water runoff generated by each property. How many communities have established a Storm Water Utility? Enclosed is a recent survey completed by the Metropolitan Council. In the metro area, 83 communities have created a Storm Water Utility. Only about a dozen cities > 10,000 in population do not have a Storm Water Utility. In Dakota County, Hastings and Inver Grove Heights are the two communities that have not instituted a Storm Water Utility. Inver Grove Heights had completed their Storm Water Utility study but put off implementation until they address the infiltration standards that were being proposed for their large NW Quadrant development area. What would a typical Storm Water Utility fee be? From the enclosed Metropolitan Council survey, the mean annual utility fee is $41, or a little more than $10 per quarterly utility billing. A Storm Water Utility study would address the storm water management funding needs and include a recommended fee structure. The City has about 7300 utility accounts. Conservatively assuming these are all single family accounts and using the mean metro Storm Water Utility annual fee of $41, a Storm Water Utility would generate almost $300,000 annually. What wo uld a Storm Water Utility f un d ? A Storm Water Utility study would identify ongoing annual costs and capital improvement proj ects that could be funded by a Storm Water Utility. Below are some examples of existing ongoing annual costs that are currently funded by the General Fund that could be funded by a Storm Water Utility: Annual Storm Water M~mt Expense Cost Assistant Engineer - 50% of time spent on $50,000 storm water management Erosion Control Inspector - 25% of $18,000 Engineering Technician's time Public Works Operator - 20% time spent $13,000 on outfall inspection and repair Street Sweeping Labor Costs $54,000 Storm Water Permit Tracking Software and $1,700 Hosting Fees Existing Annual Expenses X136,700.00 Additional major future storm water capital costs include replacing a street sweeper (2011- $150,000) and Industrial Park ravine storm water improvements and erosion repair (2009 - $900,000). A share of other future equipment purchases could also be funded from the Storm Water Utility such as a flusher truck, a dump truck, a Vactor truck, amini-excavator and a pickup truck -all equipment used to maintain the storm sewer system. Unknown future capital and maintenance expenses include modifications to storm sewer system to meet 1988 volume standards and dredging and other pond maintenance needed to maintain water quality treatment standards. WSB ~~ ,, ,;, ,~o.,,r ,, ;,,~ ~~ I fr struct re ^ i eeri ^ la i ^ Co str ctio June 29, 2009 Nick Egger City Engineer City of Hastings, MN 1225 Progress Drive Hastings, MN 55033 Re: Proposal to Develop a Storm Water Utility for the City of Hastings Revised -June 29, 2009 Dear Mr. Egger: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 76341-1700 As requested, we have revised. our original scope of services submitted. June 1 1, 2009 to develop a Storm Water Utility for the City of Hastings. The attached proposal has been updated in response to your comments received. on June 24, 2009. We have made an effort to address each item you. have requested.. Thank you for the opportunity to further clarify our approach to this project. If you have any questions regarding our proposal, please call me at 763-287-7182. Sincerely, WSB ~ Associates, Inc. - ~~ ~~ ~~~ Todd. Hubmer, PE Principal Attachments Minneapolis ^ St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer W:1HastingslCoverLetterRev062909.doc 1; ~ ~ ~, ' ` ~' ~I~ ~'il~til~til~til~tildh.pi Ilq,~l a The City of Hastings desires to develop a storm water utility in order to generate revenue to fund. storm water related. projects and. activities throughout the City. Based on information provided by City staff, the WSB team has the following understanding of the City's needs: ~ A Storm Water Utility Report must be developed. to justify the fee structure and. to identify reoccurring maintenance, replacement, educational, and administrative tasks and respective costs associated with managing the City's storm water utility system. • The storm water utility will anticipate the costs incurred by the new NPDES Phase II storm water program and the anticipated needs for future storm water related. studies within the City. • The report will establish a utility fee that can be charged to parcels within the City of Hastings. This fee may vary by land use, impervious surface coverage or location within the City. • The report will consider how properties that currently do not receive utility bills will be incorporated into the program. • Assistance will be provided. to develop a fee database that can be incorporated into the City's current utility billing system. • A storm water utility ordinance will be drafted. and reviewed. with the City. • A public education program will be developed. to assist the City with communicating the new Utility to the public. • Meetings will be held with City Staff on a regular basis in an effort to maintain an open line of communication and. incorporate feedback into the project deliverables. We believe that frequent face to face discussions related. to individual components of the storm water utility are essential to the process of developing a new City fee structure. The number of meetings anticipated DET ED W for each task has been indicated for your convenience. PLAN F( STORM WATER ~T ITY To complete the Storm Water Utility Report, WSB proposes to complete REPORT the following tasks: Meetings: l ~ WSB Attendees: Todd, Justin • Length: l hour 1; ~ ~ ~, ' ` ~' ~I~ ~'il~til~til~til~tildh.pi Ilq,~l a With the assistance of the Utility Committee, a draft rate structure will be developed. Consideration will be given to rate structures utilized. by other communities having characteristics similar to that of Hastings. Specifically, the relative contribution of single family, multi family, commercial/industrial, undeveloped and. institutional land uses will be determined. Based. on the rate structure, the typical fees and. revenues generated. for various parcels of land. based. on their acreage, land. use, and other considerations will be defined. A "test of reasonableness" will be provided. for the proposed fee structure which will include a survey of utility rates of southeast area Metro communities. Typically, storm water utility rates are developed using one or a combination of three approaches of considering impervious coverage to calculate residential equivalency factors (REFS) and individual fees for billing: 1.) Average impervious per land use category based on a representative sampling of each category 2.) Allowable impervious per zoning definition in the City code 3.) Actual measured impervious per each parcel Approaches # 1 and #2 are recommended to be utilized. for implementing this rate structure in order to provide simplicity in implementation and administration. The cost associated with this task has been estimated. based on these two approaches. If the City chooses to utilize approach #3, additional fees will be billed. on an hourly basis. Meetings: l •WSB Attendees: Todd, Rich • Length: l hour Task 5 m F~n~lize F'ee Based. on information collected as part of previous tasks, the utility fee structure and St~uctu~°e%P~°oposed R~tes~ estimated rates based on amount of revenues that must be generated to meet the ($2, 700) assigned. responsibility of the utility will be finalized.. Task 6 ®Develop ~~ An ordinance will be developed to implement the storm water utility. A draft of this O~re~~n~nce ~~ Ae~~ t~o~ ordinance will be reviewed. with the Utility Committee for conformance with parameters .~ p . and. rate structures developed. in the previous activities. WSB will provide a draft of the ordinance to the City attorney for comments. WSB will attend. one City Council meeting ' to resent the ordinance for ado tion if desired. p p Meetings: 2 •WSB Attendees: Todd • Length: l hour 1; ~ ~ ~, ' ` ~' ~I~ ~'il~til~til~til~tildh.pi Ilq,~l a ~ Identifying an appeal process if the administrator is unable to resolve conflicts. ~ Develop a billing procedure and establishing the necessary accounting systems and accounts. ~ Define administrative processes regarding other actions such as penalties for late payment, exemptions, and. the frequency and/or policy regarding how the utility fee will be reviewed. and continued. and/or changed.. Meetings: l •WSB Attendees: Todd, Justin ~ Length: 1 hour Meetings: 3 •WSB Attendees: Todd ~ Length:l.5 hours each PROJECT The following provides an estimated schedule for completion of the tasks listed above: TIMELINE City Council Awards Project ....................................................Jul. 6, 2009 Kick Off Meeting with Utility Committee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Ju1.13, 2009 Draft Storm Water Budget Needs ............................................. Aug. 24, 2009 1; ~ ~ ~, ~' ~I~ ~'~I~til~til~til~tildh.p~ ~iP^i a Preliminary Utility Rates ............................................... ...........Sept. 14, 2009 Draft Storm Water Utility Justification Report ............... ........... Sept. 28, 2009 Draft Storm Water Utility Ordinance, ............................ ........... Sept. 28, 2009 Implement Educational Plan, ......................................... ........... Sept. -Oct. 2009 Finalize Report and Ordinance ...................................... ........... Nov. 2, 2009 City Council to Adopt Utility and Ordinance,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,Nov. 16, 2009 Develop Billing Database ............................................... ........... Nov. thru Dec. 2009 Implement Storm Water Utility,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, Jan.1, 2010 Members of the project team as listed below will work with the City to develop the storm water utility by completing the tasks listed. in this work plan. The project team will be in contact with members of the Utility Committee on a regular basis to ensure that the schedule and. budget are being met. Todd Hubmer, PE (Principal, Project Manager) Todd. has more than 15 years of experience in the field. of water resources engineering. Todd. has completed Storm Water Utilities for the City's of Rosemount, Shakopee, Hanover, Princeton, Champlin, and. others. As Project Manager, Todd is responsible for completing hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for drainage systems in a wide variety of water resource management, transportation, environmental and municipal projects. He has been responsible for the development of comprehensive water resource management plans, numerous feasibility studies and the preparations of plans and specifications and construction management. He is also an expert in utilizing numerous water quality and quantity models used in hydrologiclhydraulic analysis. Justin Messner, PE (Project Engineer) Justin is a project engineer in WSB's Municipal Group. Justin currently serves as the Assistant City Engineer for the City of St. Anthony and is involved in managing the various reconstruction and. improvement projects within the City. Justin has been in the Civil Engineering field for over nine years. During this time he has gained experience working with staff from various municipalities to prepare capital improvement plans and feasibility reports for City projects. Justin also has experience conducting construction inspection and project management services for numerous City improvement projects. Rich Hibbard, EIT (Project Technician) Rich Hibbard. is a graduate engineer in WSB's Water Resources Group. Rich has been a part of the WSB team for three years during which time he has developed. a variety of skills related to hydrologic and. hydraulic analysis. These include utilizing GIS applications as well as HydroCAD and. XPSWMM storm water modeling software. Rich has utilized. these skills to play a key role in preparing storm water utility justification reports for the City's of Inver Grove Heights, Northfield., Hanover, Princeton, and Champlin. PROJECT COST The estimated. cost to provide the services outlined under tasks 1-9 is $34,200. If the City chooses to present and administer the public educational material developed as part of task 8, a deduction of $1,800 will be made to the cost associated with this task. The potential for modifying the scoped outlined for tasks 4 and. 9 is anticipated and. will be discussed. with City staff if needed.. Fee reductions will be made to these tasks as appropriate. ~ Metro olitan Council p ro ~ _>. . v.. _® 6 ® ~ ® ~ ® a. d Financing Water Quality Management & Stormwater Utilities Financing Stormwater facilities became a little easier and. a great deal more predictable in 1983 when the Minnesota Legislature authorized local governments to create "Stormwater utilities" (Minnesota Statutes section 444.075). This legislation authorizes communities and. counties to levy user charges for the use and. the availability of Stormwater facilities and. for connections to them. One metropolitan area watershed district also has used this provision of the law to create a Stormwater utility. Funds obtained. through a Stormwater utility fee must be dedicated. to the purpose for which they were obtained. This allows a community to look ahead several years, plan for facilities and. programs necessary to meet local needs and. federal and. state requirements for Stormwater management, and. build a fund with the fees that will allow it to meet the needs in an orderly fashion. As requirements for Stormwater management have grown over the last 20 years, so has the number of communities that have created a Stormwater utility. A 2007 survey by the Metropolitan Council shows that 83 communities now have a utility (see Map 1). This is a significant increase since the 1997 survey that reported 45 utilities. Map 1. 2007 Stormwater Utility Fees (in dollars) r-, ~ i Note: the Stormwater utilities for Blaine and St. Paul Park, while shown on this map, will not be in effect until Jan. 1, 2008. r Figure 1, which depicts the formation of utilities since 1983, shows two periods with a large increase in the formation of Stormwater utilities. The first increase, in 1990 to 1994, is related. to the Minnesota Board. of water and Soil Resources' adoption of rules for watershed. plans and local Stormwater management plans. For the first time the preparation of local Stormwater management plans was mandated by statutes and state rules; communities reacted. by creating a dedicated source of revenue that would allow them to meet the mandate. Fig. 1. Formation of Stormwater Utilities 35 30 25 ~, v .~ zo .~ .~ 15 0 a~ ~ 10 z 5 0 30 ~~ _~ 1? 9 ~ 1 a o 0 o 0 Periods The second sharp increase in utilities came during the 2000-2004 period. This period saw the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency impose new rules for municipal Stormwater management for every urban area with 10,000 or more inhabitants or a population density of 1,000 or more persons per square mile. These new rules implemented. best management practices, monitored runoff discharges and met various other requirements spelled out in a permit issued to a community under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. In the metropolitan area,120 out of 185 communities must have an NPDES permit for Stormwater management (see Table 1). Figure 2 depicts the range inutility fees for 2007. The mean annual fee charged. by communities is nearly $41 with a low of $8 and. a high of about $117. Fig. 2. Distribution of Stormwater Uti I ity Fees 26 25 - 20 17 ~ 15 a~ ~ 11 w 10 5 ~ o~~~ N ~ ~+ N 12 9 2 1 1 oa o 00 o N ~ ~ o0 0 Fees (in dollars) c+~ l~s reported by 78 utilities, in 2006, this fee-based revenue ranged from $30 million in Minneapolis to $8,000 in Watertown (Table 1 and. Map 2). Total revenues for 2006 reported. by these 78 utilities exceeded. $81 million, while expenses for Stormwater were $79 million. Some communities had a surplus, which they banked. for the future when more expensive projects may be implemented. This practice allows communities to steadily maintain the utility charge. The Stormwater utility charge is generally used. for operation and maintenance of Stormwater facilities, construction and improvements, as well as costs associated. with activities required of communities under the federal NPDES permit process. Seventy- twopercent ofthe communities use the fees for permit activities or water quality management. Eighty-nine percent of them provide exemptions from the fee for such land. use as public streets and highways, public parks and. undeveloped. land.. Fifty percent of the communities with a Stormwater utility provided. credits for Stormwater facilities constructed and. maintained. by property owners. The 1983 law that enables communities to create Stormwater utilities is an invaluable tool for meeting increasing Stormwater management requirements. The required. dedication of the revenues provides transparency in the fmances of the Stormwater utility-a plus with local residents. For more information about the Metropolitan Council's Stormwater Utility Survey, please contact: Marcel Jouseau, 651-602-1145; marcel.jouseau@metc.state.mn.us. ~ Metro olitan Council p r r r , ~ o ,~ ~ ~, ~ ~ .~ Map 2. 2006 Stormwater Utility Revenues (in dollars) Table 1. Twin Cities Metropolitan Area - Stormwater Utility Fees Communities beginning A-R (continued on back) Andover Yes 2003 24.76 Yes Yes Jackson Twp. No Yes Anoka Yes 2003 21.12 Yes Jordan Yes 1995 37.08 Apple Valley Yes 1988 47,76 Yes Yes Lake Elmo Yes 2003 30.00 Yes Arden Hills Yes 1993 34.60 Yes Laketown Twp. No Yes Belle Plaine Yes 1999 33.00 Lakeville Yes 1994 63.00 Yes Yes Birchwood Village No Yes Landfall No Yes Blaine Yes 2007 21.00 Yes Yes Lauderdale Yes 1994 30.00 Yes Bloomington Yes 1988 54.36 Yes Yes Lexington No Yes Brooklyn Center Yes 1991 51.44 Yes Lilydale No Yes Brookl n Park Yes 2002 96,00 Yes Yes Lino Lakes No Yes Burns Twp. No Yes Little Canada No Yes Burnsville Yes 1992 70,80 Yes Yes Long Lake Yes 1999 43.20 Yes Carver Yes 2004 39.96 Yes Loretto Yes 2003 66.00 Yes Centerville Yes 1997 20.00 Yes Louisville Twp, No Yes Champlin No Yes Mahtomedi Yes 2001 42.08 Yes Chanhassen Yes 1994 31.20 Yes Yes Maple Grove No Yes Yes Chaska No Yes Yes Maple Plain Yes 2005 35.64 Yes Circle Pines Yes 2005 36,00 Yes Maplewood Yes 2003 49.44 Yes Yes Columbia Heights Yes 1999 29.52 Yes Mayer Yes 2005 8.00 Coon Rapids Yes 2002 34.20 Yes Yes Medicine Lake No Yes Corcoran No Yes Medina No Yes Cotta e Grove Yes 2001 42.00 Yes Yes Mendota No Yes Credit River Twp. No Yes Mendota Heights Yes 1993 20.00 Yes Crystal Yes 1991 37.20 Yes Minneapolis Yes 2005 117.24 Yes Dayton No Yes Minnetonka Yes 2003 48.60 Yes Yes Deephaven Yes 1994 60.00 Yes Minnetonka Beach No Yes Dellwood No Yes Minnetrista Yes 1992 36.00 Yes Eagan Yes 1990 30.56 Yes Yes Mound Yes 2001 25.92 Yes East Bethel No Yes Mounds View Yes 1993 30.00 Yes Eden Prairie Yes 1994 12,00 Yes Yes New Brighton Yes 1994 58.60 Yes Edina Yes 1985 57.56 Yes Yes New Hope Yes 1991 73.32 Yes Elko New Market Yes 2000 54.00 New Prague Yes 1992 31.68 Empire Twp. No Yes Newport No Yes Excelsior Yes 1999 31.92 Yes North Oaks No Yes Falcon Heights Yes 1986 39.00 Yes North St. Paul Yes 1990 64.20 Yes Farmington Yes 1989 34.00 Yes Yes Northfield Yes 1986 25.27 Yes Forest Lake No Yes NonNOOd Young America Yes 2003 12.00 Fridley Yes 1985 13.20 Yes Oak Grove No Yes Gem Lake No Yes Oak Park Heights Yes 1999 12.00 Golden Valley Yes 1992 88,00 Yes Oakdale Yes 2002 20.00 Yes Grant No Yes Orono Yes 2001 39.16 Yes Greenwood No Yes Osseo Yes 2007 36.00 Yes Ham Lake No Yes Pine Springs No Yes Hastings No Yes Plymouth Yes 2001 51.96 Yes Yes Hilltop No Yes Prior Lake Yes 1993 36.00 Yes Yes Hopkins Yes 1989 54.00 Yes Ramse Yes 2000 31.16 Yes Hugo No Yes Richfield Yes 1985 39.60 Yes Independence No Yes Robbinsdale Yes 1985 47.40 Yes Inver Grove Heights No Yes Yes Rogers Yes 2002 36.00 Table 1. Twin Cities Metropolitan Area - Stormwater Utility Fees Communities beginning R-Z (continued) Rosemount Yes 1992 42.88 Yes Yes Stillwater Yes 1996 18,00 Yes Roseville Yes 1984 60.60 Yes Sunfish Lake No Yes Savage Yes 1994 70.56 Yes Yes Tonka Bay Yes 1993 13,60 Yes Shakopee Yes 1985 33,73 Yes Yes Vadnais Heights Yes 1992 36,00 Yes Shoreview Yes 1991 43.60 Yes Victoria Yes 1997 40,00 Yes Shorewood Yes 1993 60.48 Yes Waconia Yes 1992 60,24 Yes South St, Paul Yes 2003 30.00 Yes Watertown Yes 2003 18,00 Spring Lake Park No Yes Wayzata Yes 1991 39,96 Yes Spring Lake Twp. No Yes West Lakeland Twp. No Yes Spring Park No Yes West St, Paul Yes 2006 37,00 Yes St. Anthony Yes 1992 52,00 Yes White Bear Lake No Yes St. Bonifacius Yes 2004 20.00 Yes White Bear Twp. Yes 1992 24,00 Yes St. Louis Park Yes 2000 46.00 Yes Yes Willernie No Yes St. Paul Yes 1986 57.80 Yes Woodbury Yes 1992 66,00 Yes Yes St. Paul Park Yes 2007 32.00 Yes Woodland No Yes '~ Utility An ordinance that authorizes the community to charge a fee on each property for stormwater management. 2007 Fee The yearly dollar amount charged an average residential property for stormwater management, MS4 A community with a separate storm sewer system which is required to meet federal requirements for stormwater management. NONDEG A community that is not allowed to increase its stormwater pollutant loads to streams or lakes above that of year 1988 level, M_ etropolitan Council d > e > d s ~1 I ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 390 Robert St. North St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 TO: