STORMWATER RATE STUDY BRIEFING
{/vV (
/ ()!;r /0 I
New FY '02
Total $6.1M
Grant $3.4M
New FY '02
Total $0.2M.
I New FY '02
Total $1.0M
o
c
JLp.
PWI
CITY COMMISSION REVIEW
STORMW ATER UTILITY PROGRAM RATE STUDY
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
October 3, 2001
1. What is the difference between the Sanitary Sewer System and the Stormwater System,
otherwise also known as the Storm Sewer System? I have always thought them to be
the same.
Storm water, as defined in state law is the flow of water which results from, and which occurs
immediately following, a rainfall event (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-25). The
term, Storm sewer is defined in the City Code of Ordinances (Section 32.002) as "...a sewer,
which carries stormwater and surface water and drainage but excludes wastewater and
industrial wastes". In some cities throughout the Country, the sanitary sewer and the storm
sewer systems are combined. New York City is an example. In Florida however, the systems
are completely separate. The reason for having a separate sewer system is both economic
and practical.
For example, the City of New York has a combined system that collects both
sanitary/industrial sewage ("dry-weather") flows and stormwater in one system. During wet
weather, the rainfall in New York is an amount 10 to 50 times greater than the dry-weather
flows and exceeds the capacity of the 14-wastewater treatment plants to handle the volume.
The plants are only designed to handle 2 times the dry-weather flows. During the wet-
weather periods, when rainfall exceeds the wastewater treatment plant capacity, the excess
water is redirected to "regulators" or discharged untreated into natural water bodies like the
Hudson River. As you can see, to handle the greater quantity rainfall in Florida, when
compared to New York City, Clearwater would need more wastewater processing plants and
if operating permits could even be obtained, would at times be forced to discharge untreated
sewage into Clearwater Harbor or Tampa Bay, causing these significant natural and
economic resources to be adversely impacted.
2. What projects were removed from the Penny-For-Pinellas lists (original and Penny's 2)
that were originally dedicated as stormwater projects and what was the cost estimate
for those projects? Were those projects ever implemented and if so, at what cost to the
stormwater utility? What was the date and why were those projects removed from the
Penny's list?
The original Penny For Pinellas Project List (As of 1/31,1996) requested funding for 3
stormwater projects: (1) Stevenson Creek ($4. OM); (2) Allen's Creek ($0.5M); and (3) City-
Wide, Stormwater/Water Quality Improvement Projects ($1.0M). Ultimately, only Stevenson
Creek and Allen's Creek were funded, totaling $5.2M The Citywide stormwater/water
quality improvement projects were not funded by the first Penny's net proceeds. The Penny's
2 list specifically identified three (3) storm water projects: (1) Kapok Recreation and
Stormwater Retention Area ($11.0M); (2) Stream Channel Protection, Various Locations
($4.0M); and (3) New Downtown Storm Outfall Pipe ($1.5M). Also listed but without a
defined cost included the Downtown Lake. Subsequent list revisions culminated in May 1998
with a list of Commission approved projects and recommended funding from all sources,
including only the Downtown Storm Outfall Pipe, later to become partial funding for the
,
Town Pond project. Falling below the line of funding availability was Kapok Recreation &
Storm water Retention Project ($13M) and Stream Channel Protection ($4M). The Town
Pond project was not specifically identified on the Penny's Two List of Projects.
Town Pond project is in development and required substantial additional funding that has
been obtained through a Federal HUD Grant, through SWFWMD Cooperative Funding, and
through a state Water Resources Grant, totaling $4.8 Million in secured funding. Additional
funding through land sale and retention district "Buy-In" is anticipated to further reduce
Town Pond Project costs. The Kapok Project was recommended in the 1998 rate study, but
City Commission deferred approval until the project was more fully developed in scope and
concept design. Stream Channel Protection was dropped for lack of funding and is now
considered a project component, included in all drainage projects as an itemized cost for
implementation.
3. Does the City consider lost revenues as a cost factor when acquiring property?
No, the City does not typically account for lost ad valorem tax revenue when acquiring
property. Based on experience, tax revenue is usually minimal when compared to the
increased value of the property upon resale or when compared with the economic benefits
intended by the acquisition of the property to the Community.
4. Will the Morningside-Meadows project also address drainage problems on Stuart and
Harn ?
Yes. Stuart and Harn drainage issues will be addressed by this project.
5. Where is Saturn and Sherwood located?
Saturn and Sherwood is located in the Stevenson Creek Drainage Basin, west of Keene Road
and north of Palmetto Street.
6. What is City Staff definition of flood control Level of Service (LOS)?
The City Comprehensive Plan defines LOS standards for storm water management facilities
(Policy 16.1.1). The Plan requires the use of the 10 Year storm frequency for new street
development, 25 Year storm frequency for major storm systems with positive outfall, 50 Year
storm frequency for major storms with no outfall and street discharge, and 100 Year storm
frequency across private property. Given the intended project design created by developers
and reviewed by City staff, these LOS guidelines serve as the basis to ensure that runoff from
new development complies with state law and City Code of Ordinances, and ensures that
runoff generated after project construction will not exceed pre-construction levels.
Essentially, the goal becomes keeping new streets dry during a 10 Year frequency storm event
and out of homes in the 100 Year frequency storm events. As the City redevelops, both for
private and public projects, the design attempts to achieve this goal. Additionally, for public
projects, the cost-benefits in achieving that goal is also considered.
7. How much money is annually transferred from the stormwater enterprise fund to the
general fund to support administrative and service charges and why?
In FY 2002, Storm water Utility will pay to the General Fund approximately $947,000. Of
which, $518,000 is for engineering services, $136,000 is for public works complex
administration, $36,000 isfor maintenance services provided by Parks & Recreation, and the
balance of $257,000 is for administrative services (e.g. Finance, Budget, City Hall, Human
Resources, etc.). The Stormwater Utility is an enterprise fund and as such is responsible for
paying its own way, as would a privately run business.
8. Please provide an update on the North Beach Drainage Project.
This project is currently in design and is anticipated for construction by early February. The
project anticipates the addition of new inlets on Bay Esplanade, replacement of storm pipe
runs and modification of street end outfalls at Carlouel Drive, Verbena Street and Iris Street.
9. Total Miles of Ditches?
The total miles of ditches maintained by the City Public Service Department is approximately
16.4 miles. This figure does not include the total miles of ditches, only that total maintained
by the City. The total miles of ditches in the City of Clearwater have not been calculated.
10. List of Ponds?
The list of ponds is attached.
11. What is difference between secured and unsecured funds?
Secured funding represents that the City Commission has approved project funding or has
received a signed, interagency local agreement for funding cooperation, whether or not
that approved agreement has been approved by the City Commission. Unsecured funding
reflects an expectation that while not specifically approved by the City Commission or by
interlocal agreement, specific project funding has been identified in an agency budget or
long range-planning document and there is a reasonable expectation of funding for the
project.
12. Please provide a copy from the original stormwater utility documenting the revenue
source expectation from Penny for Pinellas funding.
Documentation is attached.
Name
Lake Hobart
14 Lake Bellevue
15 Lake Tan erine
16 Frank Tack Park
17 Cress Bend Pond
18 Kenilwick Pond
19 B ram Ditch
21 D.D.Davis Park
23 Linn Lake
24 Florida Power ROW
25 Rice Lake
26 Allen's Creek
27 Lake Julia
28 Florida Power ROW
29 Coo er's Ba ou Park
Location
Ie Street & Baker Avenue
Greenwood Avenue & Lakeview Avenue
Lake Avenue & Lakeview Avenue
Sunset Point Road & Hercules Avenue
Cress Bend Drive
Kenilwick Drive South
B ram Drive & Kin s Hi hwa
Landmark Drive & Marlo Blvd.
Druid Road & Bett Lane
Driftwood Avenue
Bellair Road & Ever reen Street
Nurser Road & Embass Drive
Druid Road & Brookside Drive
Northside Drive & Mulberr Drive
Ba shore Blvd. & San Bernadino Street
4.00
0.62
1.05
2.14
1.37
0.75
0.50
1.43
1.43
1.28
0.68
1.07
0.73
1.88
Arcturas Avenue Pond Arcturas Avenue north of Rainbow Avenue
ESTABLISHMENT OF
STORMWATER UTILITY PROGRAM
FOR THE
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PHASE I, TECHNICAL REPORT
MAY 1990
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
environmental engineers, sc. ientists'CD M
planners & management consultants
CLWST.l/10
4.0 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER UTILITY RATE STUDY
4.1 SCOPE OF RATE STUDY
Based upon the results of Sections 2.0 and 3.0, a preliminary rate study
was completed to consider the potential storrnwater utility fees.
The rate structure is to be based upon policy as well as storrnwater
management funding needs. Since an estimate of the needs was provided in
Section 2.0 but the policies (i.e., approval of a stormwater utility
ordinance) has yet to be finalized, a rate scenario is presented below to
illustrate the rates depending on policy decisions.
4.2 SUMMARY OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NEEDS
From Section 2.4, the currently projected annual storrnwater management
funding requirement for FY90-91 is approximately $4.3 million. This value
includes existing and expanded engineering, O&M and capital improvement
programs. In order to consider the portion of this value that could be
generated by the stormwater utility, other sources of income must be
factored into the equation. In particular, pinellas County recently voted
to allow the county to collect an additional 1 cent sales tax for the
purpose of paying for capital improvements. Each city will receive a fair
share of such revenues, so that the CIP program for the City could, at
least in part, be paid for by 1 cent sales tax revenue. It should be
emphasized, however, that this source of CIP funds will be available for
only 10 years.
with this in mind, the revenue scenario discussed below provides a level of
funding for the eIP program beyond the capability of the sales tax. It has
been assumed that the one cent sales tax will fund the existing identified
eIP program. The scenario will specify the engineering, O&M, Master Plan,
and additional eIP funding needs, each of which is expected to be paid by
the stormwater utility.
(
4-1
~~~OL.~/~U
For comparison purposes, Table 3-6 in the previous section lists the rates
adopted or contemplated by other cities and counties in Florida. The rates
range from $1.00/mojERU for Daytona Beach to $4.50/mojERU for St.
Petersburg. The average rate for the stormwater utilities listed is
$2. 55/mo/ERU. Table 3-6 also shows that the majority of the communities
listed subsidize the utility with ad valorem revenue; that is, the rate
listed does not represent the total stormwater management financial need
for the community.
4.3 EXPANDED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The scenario analyzed considers the enhanced level of service needed by the
storrnwater management program for the City. As noted above, the expanded
level of service includes the enhancement of the Environmental Section,
additional Infrastructure Group personnel and equipment for improved
cleaning and maintenance of stormwater facilities, as well as enhanced
street sweeping capabilities. The total capital improvement program
includes those projects which will be funded by the one cent sales tax as
well as about $400,000 to $600,000 per year after FY91-92 for additional
improvements to be defined in the Master Plan.
Table 4-1 shows the results for the expanded level of service. The rate
required to meet the expenses would be $3.00/mo/ERU for the next 5-year
program. It should be noted that for the first year, the stormwater
utility will generate funds for only 9-months of the fiscal year (January
to October, 1991). The General Fund would be used to fund activities
during these 3 months (approximately $1.07 million). However, based upon a
$3.00/mojERU rate, all but $20,000 of the General Fund revenue could be
paid back.
4-2
Table 4-1
City of Clearwater Stormwater utility
Preliminary Rate Study - Expanded Level of Se~vice
($1,000)
Item
89-90
90-91
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94-95
Expenses (1)
City Engineering Group
Existing O&M
Env. Section Enhancements
Expanded O&M (3)
Master Planning (2)
Capital Improvements (4)
$510
$771
$535
$810
$219
$564
$250
$1,885
$500
$1,440
Fiscal Year
91-92 92-93
$562
$850
$230
$891
$0
$3,839
$590
$893
$241
$923
$0
$1,918
93-94
$620
$937
$254
$958
$0
$1 ,242
$651
$984
$266
$994
$0
$1,161
Total
$3,221
$4,263
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
$4,056
Revenues (5)
General Fund
Stormwater utility (6)
1 cent sales tax
$3,221
$0
$0
$20
$2,358
$1,885
$6,372
$4,566
$ 4,011
$0
$3,276
$735
$0
$3,321
$735
Total
$3,221
$4,263
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
$4,056
Rate ($/mo/ERU)
ERU's
$3.00
89, 110
$0
$3,187
$3,185
$0
$3,231
$1,335
$4,011
$3.00
92,850
Notes: (1) The expenses increase by 5% per year.
(2) The current budget calls for $500,000 during FY 89-90
and $250,000 for FY 90-91 for master planning.
(3) The expanded O&M includes labor costs (which are increased by
5% per year) and capital costs.
(4) The Capital Improvement Expenses include the CIP projects
to be paid by the one-cent sales tax and additional projects
available by the utility.
(5) The revenue assumes the utility will begin January 1, 1991, so
that only 9 months of revenue is collected for FY 90-91. The
General Fund can be used to fund the program from October to
December (about $1,066,000). All but $20,000 can be paid back
from stormwater utility revenues collected during FY 90-91.
(6) The utility income is the rate times the ERU's times 12
times 0.98, the last factor representing billing recovery.
4-3
$6,372
$4,566
$3.00
90,330
$3.00
91,580
$3.00
94,142