Transcript Work Session #1 Presentation

Lane County, Oregon
Stormwater Utility
Feasibility Study
John Ghilarducci
Pam Bissonnette
February 1, 2012
FCS GROUP
4380 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 220, Portland, OR 97239  503-841-6543
Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Stormwater program background
SWOT analysis
Existing resource needs
Future resource needs
Financial status
Recommendations
FCS GROUP
Page 2
Background
The County
stormwater
program is
managed by
the Public
Works
Department
and financed
by the Road
Fund.
Stormwater Activities in FY 2010-11
Activity
Culvert Replace & Installation
Ditch Maintenance
Street Sweeping
Winter Sanding & Sweeping
Leaf Removal Programs
Environmental Review/Compliance
Culvert Cleaning
Catch Basin Cleaning
NPDES
Applications for Other Agency Permits
Dead Animal Removal
Other
Total program costs
Cost
$ 1,065,475
728,357
457,634
271,526
186,108
144,670
138,167
134,233
98,997
95,423
34,318
61,508
$ 3,416,416
Source: County staff
FCS GROUP
Page 3
SWOT Analysis: What is it?
Internal
Good
Bad
Strength
Weakness
External Opportunity
Threat
The SWOT analysis is an assessment of the stormwater
program based on the perceptions of County staff,
stakeholders / community groups, and the Commissioners
FCS GROUP
Page 4
SWOT Analysis Interviewees
 Individual Board of
Commissioners Members
 County Administrator
 Cities of Eugene &
Springfield
 Cities of Creswell and
Cottage Grove
 Junction City and River
Road Water Control District
Representatives
 DEQ Representatives
 County Staff
 River Road and Santa Clara
Community Organization
Representatives
 Clearwater Coalition
(McKenzie)
 Homebuilders Association
 Middle Fork, Long Tom, &
Siuslaw Watershed Council
Coordinators
 Sierra Club Many Rivers
 Oregon Clean Water
Action Project
FCS GROUP
Page 5
SWOT: Strengths
1. County staff in general
a.
b.
c.
d.
Resourceful
Knowledgeable
Committed
Dedicated
2. Intergovernmental partnerships
a. Eugene
b. Springfield
c. Watershed councils
FCS GROUP
Page 6
SWOT: Weaknesses
1. Limited resources
a. Funding
b. Staff
2. Matrix management style
3. Lack of strategic planning
4. Programmatic concerns
a.
b.
c.
d.
Habitat
Flooding
Riparian buffer zone
Others
FCS GROUP
Page 7
SWOT: Opportunities
1. Increased partnership and coordination
a.
b.
c.
d.
Cities
Watershed councils
Water control districts
Other stakeholders
2. Replacement of infrastructure with
natural and low-impact solutions
FCS GROUP
Page 8
SWOT: Threats
1.
2.
3.
4.
Economic climate
Replacement of aging infrastructure
Increased regulation
Developing program with good
policy/data/science
5. Road Fund use restrictions
6. Increased maintenance costs from
natural and low-impact solutions
FCS GROUP
Page 9
SWOT: Observation
In addition to the specific
perceptions that were
communicated, there is a
general satisfaction with status
quo -- unfortunately the status
quo is inadequate and
financially unsustainable.
FCS GROUP
Page 10
Resource Needs: Existing
Stormwater Activities in FY 2010-11
Activity
Culvert Replace & Installation
Ditch Maintenance
Street Sweeping
Winter Sanding & Sweeping
Leaf Removal Programs
Environmental Review/Compliance
Culvert Cleaning
Catch Basin Cleaning
NPDES
Applications for Other Agency Permits
Dead Animal Removal
Other
Total program costs
Cost
%
$ 1,065,475 31.19%
728,357 21.32%
457,634 13.40%
271,526
7.95%
186,108
5.45%
144,670
4.23%
138,167
4.04%
134,233
3.93%
98,997
2.90%
95,423
2.79%
34,318
1.00%
61,508
1.80%
$ 3,416,416 100.00%
Source: County staff
Costs shown are for the existing service level and do not
include any costs associated with additional needs like the
decommissioning of UICs
FCS GROUP
Page 11
Resource Needs: Future
1. Continuing existing services: $3.6 million
annually
2. Required UIC decommissioning: $10.5
million
3. Deferred flood control capital projects:
$31.4 million
FCS GROUP
Page 12
Road Fund
$60
$50
Millions
Financial Status
$40
$30
Total
Revenue
$20
Total
Expenditures
$10
$-
Fiscal Year
Source:
County staff
Annual expenses exceed annual revenue by $14 million
beginning in FY 2012-13.
FCS GROUP
Page 13
Goal
Address the need for new County funding
for stormwater management with a
solution that meets the following tests:





Legal defensibility
Fairness
Revenue sufficiency
Political palatability
Ease of administration
FCS GROUP
Page 14
Funding Options Facts
May Be Spent on
Funding Source
May Be Imposed by
County Requires
County
Service
Voter
Operations Capital Government District Approval
Road Fund (existing)



General Fund (existing)



Utility charges



Permanent rate property tax




Local option property tax





System development charges



Local improvement districts



Reimbursement districts



General obligation bonds



Revenue bonds



Grants and loans



FCS GROUP

Page 15
Funding Options Evaluation
Legal
Fair
Revenue
Sufficient
Politically
Palatable
Easy to
Administer
Road Fund (existing)





General Fund (existing)





Utility charges





Permanent rate property tax





Local option property tax





System development charges





Local improvement districts





Reimbursement districts





General obligation bonds





Revenue bonds





Grants and loans





 most  somewhat  least
FCS GROUP
Page 16
Funding Options Evaluation
Legal
Fair
Revenue
Sufficient
Politically
Palatable
Easy to
Administer
Road Fund (existing)





General Fund (existing)





Utility charges





Permanent rate property tax





Local option property tax





System development charges





Local improvement districts





Reimbursement districts





General obligation bonds





Revenue bonds





Grants and loans





 most  somewhat  least
FCS GROUP
Page 17
Funding Options Recommendation
We recommend that the County establish a
county service district (1) utilizing utility rates
as the backbone source of funding for the
program moving forward and (2) providing
for the use of an additional funding option as
needed to meet the County’s objectives.
FCS GROUP
Page 18
Key Policy Issues
1.
2.
3.
4.
Boundary options
Billing
Rate structures
Rate credits
FCS GROUP
Page 19
Boundary Options
 One county-wide district. Under this approach,
the boundaries of the district are drawn to match
the boundaries of the county.
 One district with a limited service area. If a
district’s services are needed only in one specific
area of the county, then the district’s boundaries
could be limited to that area.
 Multiple districts. The services of a district may be
needed in much or all of a county, but the cost of
providing those services may vary greatly in
different areas. Establishing multiple districts is one
way to ensure that each area bears its own cost.
Within a district, utility rates can vary, but a tax must be uniform.
FCS GROUP
Page 20
Boundary and Cities
1. District boundary need not include
cities.
2. A city must give consent (by resolution)
to be included in a district (ORS
198.720).
FCS GROUP
Page 21
Boundary Options Recommendation
We recommend that the County form a
single county service district and begin
funding the direct costs of unique services
with area-specific rates as warranted by
major differences in service level costs. We
further recommend that the County consider
recovering regional costs through a uniform
property tax.
FCS GROUP
Page 22
Billing Options
 If utility rates
 In-house billing
 Contracted billing services
 If property tax
 Lane County Assessment and Taxation
Department
FCS GROUP
Page 23
Billing Options Recommendation
To the extent that the proposed county
service district depends on monthly or
bimonthly utility charges, we recommend
that the County seek the partnership of a
third-party billing agent. Any property tax
revenue must be collected internally by the
Assessment and Taxation Department.
FCS GROUP
Page 24
Rate Structure Options
Rate Structure
Description
Impervious Surface
Area
Rate based on developed area.
Density of
Development
Developed area as % of total area.
Runoff Coefficients
Factors include soil type, slope.
Land Use
Assumed impacts by land use
type.
Trip Generation
Based on vehicle trips – pollutant
source.
Geographic Location
Rates vary by area depending on
needs.
Recommended

?
FCS GROUP
Page 25
Rate Credit Options
Rate Credit
Description
Recommended
Low Income / Seniors
Credit for age and / or income.
Publicly Owned
Property
Credit for County or public owned.
Publicly Owned
Streets
Credit or Exemption for County roads.
Tax-Exempt Property
Credit for Tax-Exempt property.
Undeveloped
Property
Credit or Exemption for undeveloped
property.

On-Site Mitigation
Credit for acceptable on-site facilities.


FCS GROUP
Page 26
Approach A
1. Establish County Service District
Countywide
2. Separate service costs between regional
and local
3. Recover regional costs in Countywide
voted property tax
4. Recover local costs in area-specific (Santa
Clara) additional utility rate (could be
voted or non-voted)
FCS GROUP
Page 27
Approach B
1. Establish County Service District around
area(s) with significant needs (e.g., Santa
Clara)
2. Recover specific costs in area-specific
utility rate (could be voted or non-voted)
FCS GROUP
Page 28
County Service District Formation
1. Governing statutes
a. ORS Chapter 198 (all special districts)
b. ORS Chapter 451 (county service districts)
2. Initiation
a. Petition of 15 percent of electors (ORS 198.800)
b. Petition of all landowners (ORS 198.830)
c. County board’s own motion (ORS 198.835)
3. Public hearings and action by County
4. Election if necessary
a. Sufficient written objections
b. Property tax
FCS GROUP
Page 29
Next Steps
1.
2.
3.
4.
Level of service financial impacts
Work session #2
Final report
Decision to proceed with phase 2 study
a. Boundary plan
b. Billing plan
c. Public relations plan
FCS GROUP
Page 30
Index of Backup Slides
River Road-Santa Clara
Map
Characteristics
Regulatory Requirements
Other
Cost Trends
Road Fund Revenue
Recommended Strategy
Capital Project Costs
FCS GROUP
Page 31
River Road-Santa Clara
Index
FCS GROUP
Page 32
River Road-Santa Clara
Characteristics of Basin
1. Discontinuous stormwater system
2. Historic use of drywells for managing
stormwater drainage
3. Flat topography
4. Shallow groundwater levels
5. Rapidly draining soil in some areas
6. Large residential lots and streets without
curbs
Index
FCS GROUP
Page 33
River Road-Santa Clara
Regulatory Requirements
1. Discharge to surface waters
a. Phase II MS4 permit (January, 2007) requires best
management practices for six minimum control
measures.
b. Total maximum daily loads
2. Discharge to subsurface with drywells
a. Originally regulated by Safe Drinking Water Act
b. Since 2001, also regulated by the State DEQ
c. Underground injection control permit required
Index
FCS GROUP
Page 34
River Road-Santa Clara
Recommended Strategy
1. Flood control capital projects
2. Replacement/retrofit of public drywells
3. City “green street” concepts
4. City’s on-site development standards
5. Low-impact development practices
6. Goal 5 protections
7. City’s “Stream Corridor Acquisition Plan”
8. Flood protection services
Index
FCS GROUP
Page 35
River Road-Santa Clara
Capital Project Costs
Subbasin
A-1 Channel
Flat Creek
Spring Creek
Willamette Overflow
Total
UIC
$ 11,931,700
2,148,000
2,594,300
3,791,900
$ 20,465,900
Non-UIC
$ 29,311,900
13,400
18,000
16,347,300
$ 45,690,600
Total
$ 41,243,600
2,161,400
2,612,300
20,139,200
$ 66,156,500
Source: Storm water Basin Master Plan
Index
FCS GROUP
Page 36
Financial Status: Costs
Stormwater Cost Trends
Actvity
Culvert Replace & Installation
Ditch Maintenance
Street Sweeping
Winter Sanding & Sweeping
Leaf Removal Programs
Environmental Review/Compliance
Culvert Cleaning
Catch Basin Cleaning
NPDES
Applications for Other Agency Permits
Dead Animal Removal
Other
Total program costs
2007-08
$ 1,363,388
693,263
567,011
236,635
95,454
44,673
101,262
64,346
31,057
49,453
32,432
75,668
$ 3,354,641
Cost by Fiscal Year
2008-09
2009-10
$ 1,672,058 $ 1,317,091
712,717
741,500
409,015
423,622
436,216
119,078
129,869
146,489
57,159
71,946
101,478
106,383
120,117
106,435
35,733
81,764
52,420
102,639
33,263
28,884
126,148
181,057
$ 3,886,194 $ 3,426,888
2010-11
$ 1,065,475
728,357
457,634
271,526
186,108
144,670
138,167
134,233
98,997
95,423
34,318
61,508
$ 3,416,416
CAGR
-7.89%
1.66%
-6.89%
4.69%
24.93%
47.95%
10.91%
27.78%
47.17%
24.50%
1.90%
-6.67%
0.61%
Source: County staff
Costs shown are for the existing service level and do not
include any costs associated with additional needs like the
decommissioning of UICs
Index
FCS GROUP
Page 37
Financial Status: Revenues
$60
Federal
Timber
Receipts
$50
$40
Other
Revenue
$30
State
Highway
Fund
$10
Millions
Road Fund Revenue Trend
$20
$-
Fiscal Year
Source:
County staff
Index
FCS GROUP
Page 38