Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStorm Water Utility Policy Action Commission Memo Final FinalCommission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Debbie Arkell, Public Services Director Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Storm Water Utility Policy Discussion MEETING DATE: April 9, 2012 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Consider information presented and provide staff with direction to: • Proceed with the creation of a storm water utility, including which method(s) of assessment to further investigate if direction is given to proceed with the creation of a storm water utility. OR • Not proceed with the creation of a storm water utility. BACKGROUND: During past goal setting sessions the City Commission discussed the possibility of creating a storm water utility to more effectively treat and manage Bozeman's storm water runoff and subsequent discharge to local streams and rivers. The City contracted with HDR Engineering to conduct a study of the City's storm water system condition and treatment efforts and provide recommendations to improve the quality of runoff than enters area tributaries, primarily Bozeman Creek. In May 2008, the City received the results of that study which included a system inventory and analysis, policy evaluation, permit compliance and recommendations. Since that time the City has worked to implement the recommendations as resources were made available. One of the recommendations is that the city creates a storm water utility to fund the required terms and conditions of the state-issued discharge permit. The City's current efforts include its street sweeping and leaf pickup programs, clearing and cleaning storm drain inlets, and the requirement for private treatment of storm water runoff through on-site retention/detention facilities that collect and passively treat storm water. Presently, city crews do not proactively assess (TV) storm water pipes, but make repairs when problems arise. DEQ Discharge Permit. In 2002, the DEQ served notice that Bozeman must apply for and be issued a Montana Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). Our first permit application was submitted, as required, in March 2003, and in July 2006 DEQ issued our first permit, which expired December 31, 2009. The permit was renewed in January 2010 and must again be renewed in January 2015. We are the lead permittee in a co-permit issued to the City of Bozeman, Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), and Montana State University (MSU). The MS4 permit specifically authorizes the co-permittees to discharge storm water from the City's, MSU's, and MDT's municipal separate storm sewers to the sections of various streams including Spring Creek, Bozeman Creek, Bridger Creek, and the East Gallatin River that are within Bozeman city limits. The permit specifically outlines terms and conditions which must be met each year of the permit. An annual report detailing how the terms and conditions of the permit were met must be submitted to DEQ each year. The city staff engineer in charge of storm water, currently Dustin Johnson, P.E., gathers the required information from the co-permittees and submits the required annual report to DEQ. Our MS4 Permit also requires that we monitor the effects of storm water that enters Bozeman Creek by sampling the water during two significant rain events twice each year; once in the period between January and June, and once between July and December. Three samples are taken from the two DEQ-approved sample sites, with a sample taken upstream of the discharge, a sample taken at the point of discharge, and a sample taken downstream of the discharge. The two sample locations are on Tamarack Street by the City Shops Complex (industrial site) and on Langohr Avenue near Kagy Boulevard (residential site). Audit of MS4 Permit and Permit Violation. In August 2011, DEQ audited our MS4 permit. The audit resulted in one Permit Violation, 16 Program Deficiencies, 23 Recommendations for Improvement, and eight Commendable Elements. A summary of the audit results is attached. The permit violation identified in the audit was in the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination permit component. While we have various information and maps regarding our storm water systems, we do not have one map that contains all of our storm water information. We are required to compile this information into one comprehensive map of the storm water system and receiving waters, and the map must be reproducible and readily available for use by the public, city departments, and MS4 stakeholders. Our response to DEQ regarding the violation is that staff is developing a work plan to address the deficiencies in the city's existing storm water mapping system. We intend to utilize the City's GIS mapping system to accurately gather all the existing record drawings, quarter section maps, and incorporate field collected data points to create a central storm water map for the city. In addition to the violation, the deficiencies require better record keeping, regular storm water inspections, inventories of industrial and heavy commercial facilities, education, and planned maintenance of the system. The TMDL Process: Currently the DEQ is developing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of nutrients that can be discharged into the East Gallatin River. Once the TMDL is set, those limits will eventually be included into our MS4 discharge permit (as well as our Water Reclamation Facility discharge permit) as storm water can contain a high level of nitrogen from landscape fertilizers. Until the TMDL is established, we will not know what the impact it will have on our MS4 permit, if any. Moving forward. The first step in developing a more comprehensive and progressive storm water treatment program is to complete the required comprehensive map and conduct a facility condition assessment. This includes GIS mapping all existing storm water collection, treatment and discharge assets and assessing their condition. Some of this work has been completed through previous efforts, but more comprehensive information for the entire system needs to be collected and managed through the City's GIS and Cityworks asset management systems. This information will form the basis for a comprehensive work plan to address collection, treatment, discharge and deferred maintenance issues. The majority of the mapping work is proposed to be completed by a new GIS Technician who will work under the GIS Manager, but will be substantially funded by the proposed storm water utility. The current GIS Specialist and GIS Manager will also assist in the work. The full comprehensive mapping work will take several years to complete, but we believe we can develop a map to minimally address the violation within the next 12-months. The City's water and wastewater operations division will undertake the TV inspection, maintenance and repair of underground storm water facilities. The City's streets division will continue to sweep streets, collect leaves, and maintain the above-ground facilities. The majority of this maintenance program is proposed to operate during the summer and fall months with the assistance of seasonal laborers. Funding Methodologies. As mentioned earlier, the City's Storm Water Facilities Plan recommends the creation of a storm water utility to more fully fund and manage the City's storm water program. Several Montana cities have created storm water utilities or assessments to fund and manage their storm water programs. These include Great Falls, Helena, Kalispell, and Billings. There are a number of assessment/charge methodologies to fund a new storm water utility. Below are what we believe to be the most likely methods to consider should the Commission desire to create a utility. • Per Meter/Per Month (referred to as Method A) This simple method divides the amount of funding needed annually to operate the storm water program by the number of water meters in the city. Each meter is then charged an equal monthly fee, or the fees can be weighted among the various billing categories such as residential, multi-family, industrial, government and commercial. This methodology, while simple to assess and calculate, has its limitations as all properties are charged the same. In the case of MSU, the campus is served by several meter pits and storm water utility charges based off of those meter pits may not adequately account for the storm water impacts created by the university. • Per Meter Size/Per Month (referred to as Method B) This method is also fairly simple. A formula is created to assess a percentage of the funding needed annually to operate the storm water program by the size of the water meter serving every structure. Each meter is then charged a monthly fee based on the size of the water meter. This methodology has similar limitations to Method A above. 3. Zoning + Lot Square Footage (referred to as Method C) Fees are based on the zoning of the property and the square footage of the lot, applying a weighting factor to different zones. In this method, a rate is assigned to each zoning district in the city and each property owner is charged accordingly based on the size of the specifically zoned lot. The cities of Great Falls, Kalispell, and Billings use this method. 4. Impervious Surface (not calculated) The Impervious Surface Area Method is based on the square footage of impervious area (i.e. building, concrete, asphalt) on each assessed lot. The City of Helena uses this method. This would require a considerable amount of hours of support from the GIS department to determine roughly how much impervious area is contained on each lot in the City. This would be accomplished using GIS aerial mapping, development plans, building permits and on-site visits. This method requires a great deal of coordination up front but would be easier to maintain once established. If this method is proposed, consideration should be given whether properties that have a private storm water detention/retention/treatment facility (such as the Gallatin Valley Mall) should receive some type of credit for those facilities. 5. Drainage Districts (not calculated) When the creation of a storm water utility was discussed with the Commission in 2009, two Commissioners expressed concern that the newer parts of town that have modern (surface) storm water infrastructure would be subsidizing the older parts of town if the assessment was not properly assigned. Separate storm water drainage districts could be determined - once the comprehensive map is completed - that identify areas of the city that drain into the underground storm water piping system. An extensive survey/analysis would be necessary to provide adequate precision for variations in topography. In this scenario, each district would be evaluated by its ability to treat storm water within its boundary so that areas located in the older parts of town, which may have deteriorated storm water infrastructure, would pay higher rates than other areas of town that have modern infrastructure that treats runoff. Annual Budget: The methodology chosen will be used to charge City residents for the costs of our Storm Water Utility. We have had numerous meetings among staff members to compile a proposed FY13 Budget, a 5-Year Budget & Rate Estimate, and a 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. We anticipate creating this utility in a start-up phase that will likely span about 3 years before we have a solid understanding of what the future ongoing costs for administration, repair and maintenance are likely to be. During this time, we'll be relying on existing Public Works staff to manage and coordinate the program work, and sharing equipment among departments in order to accomplish important tasks. FY13 Budget: Our DRAFT Recommended Budget for the first year of operations is described in Exhibit E. Many of the items are transfers of costs from our existing Street Maintenance District budget (noted as moved "From (Fund) 111".) The items labeled "NEW" and highlighted in blue total $240,290; they represent operating and capital costs that we currently DO NOT have. These are the items that will allow us to expand our efforts to meeting permit requirements in the future. The budget totals $394,000. Of the total budget, we'll be transferring $153,000 in costs from our existing Street Maintenance District for Sweeper and Leaf Clean up related costs. This represents approximately 7% of our total existing Street Maintenance District assessments in FY12. We would decrease the FY13 Street Maintenance District Budget by these amounts. The proposed operating plan for FY13 includes: • Hiring a new GIS Technician and two summer interns for mapping our storm water system • Allocating 60% of the costs of Street Sweeping program (Labor, Maintenance, and Lease Payments) to the Utility. • Retrofit of an existing back-up TV Van for use in Year 2 of the Utility. Anticipated for Year 2: (see Exhibit F) • Continuation of mapping and sweeping efforts. • Addition of a summer crew of a Foreman and Seasonal to operate the TV Van and assess the condition of underground pipes and detention ponds/inlets. • Addition of an Environment Coordinator position (shared with Water & Sewer Utilities) that would be responsible for construction site inspections, public outreach & education, and our permit requirements. Capital Improvements Plan (Exhibit G): We have developed a draft Capital Improvements Plan for the Storm Water Utility, transferring 60% of the costs of Street Sweeping capital and adding projects recommended by the Facility Plan, known projects related to the MDOT Rouse Avenue re-construction, and necessary equipment. In Year 3, you'll see that we begin funding "STRM04 General Treatment Systems, Rehabilitation, and Replacement." In years where specific projects are not identified, we have left a general placeholder so that $200,000 is allocated annually to treatment and repair projects. This is the bulk of the infrastructure work that will be completed by the utility. We are strong advocates of making treatment systems a priority, as they have the biggest impact on the water quality of surrounding streams and creeks. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As with most policy discussions, there are numerous unresolved issues. We would like to highlight the fact that our estimates of monthly charges to residents are merely a starting point for our discussions. There are MANY factors that could be introduced that would materially change the amounts, such as: caps on total monthly charges per customer, caps on monthly square footage charged, changes in weighting factors amount different customer classes, meter sizes, or zoning designations. FISCAL EFFECTS: The financial effects of creating a Storm Water Utility are: 1. Transfer of some of the existing costs for Street Sweeping, Leaf Clean Up, and Permit Compliance (totaling $153,000) from our existing Street Maintenance District to the Storm Water Utility fund. 2. Addition of $240,500 in operating and capital costs to begin the work of the Storm Water Utility. • Hiring a GIS Technician and GIS Interns to map our Storm Water system 3. Monthly charges to City Residents in the form of a Storm Water Utility fee, totaling $475,000 in the first year. (Estimated in Exhibit H.) These charges could be based on a number of different methodologies and factors. The Commission would need to establish any necessary weighting factors and address issues related to caps and/or vacant land. i. Method A: Per Meter Per Month. Estimated at $3.74/month. ii. Method B: Per Meter Size Per Month. Estimated at $3.52/month for a 5/8" (residential sized) meter. iii. Method C: Zoning + Lot Sq Ft Per Month. Estimated at $0.51/month for a 7,500 sq ft lot in R-1 Zone. iv. Method D: Impervious Service. Not yet calculated v. Method E: Drainage Districts. Not yet calculated. ALTERNATIVES: • Continue to rely on the City's current efforts and funding sources to address storm water. • Other suggestions as recommended by the Commission. Attachments: Exhibit A: SWFP Executive Summary Exhibit B: SWFP Recommendations Exhibit C: SWFP Financial Methodologies Exhibit D: DEQ Report Exhibit E: FY13 Budget Miscellaneous Details Report Exhibit F: 5 Year Budget & Rate Projections Exhibit G: 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan Exhibit H: Estimated Utility Charges by Methodology Report compiled on: March 30, 2012 Executive Summary Executive Summary Bozeman has been expedencing mpid gowth and development and is faced with a new federal storm water permit requirement (the Phase 2 rule). In response to these issues, the City ptepared this Storm Water Facilities Plan. The most significant recommendations coming out of this plan ate: o ]tloving forward with establishing a funding source for storm water o Guidance for development of a uniform approach to development submittals o Continuing to rely upon development-based storm watet management until the Phase 2 program and creation of a utility are more advanced The goals of this plan, along rvith work completed, are summaized below. Goal 1 - Inventory the Existing System An inventory of the existing storm water system was completed by compiling storm w-ater information from grid maps, plat maps, subdirision drarvings, and field work. This inventory was conyerted to the City's GIS system. This system inventory is discussed in Chapter 1 (Existing System Inventory) and Appendlx A @'xisting Syst€m Inventory Data). Goal 2 - Plan for Future Growth Growth trends and projected future land use were evaluated to determine potential future storm water impacts. In addition, a review of Ciq'poliq'was conducted to allow the City to handle that growth most effectively. This evaluation is presented in Chaptet 3 @olicy Evaluation). In addition, ten best management Pmctices are presented in Appendlr D-2. Goal 3 - Evaluate Existing Problem Ateas Ptoblem ateas, deficiencies, and areas of known flooding within the existing stotm water system were identified and evaluated. Several storm water Proiects are tecommended to address these deficiencies. The deFrciencies are discussed in Chapter 2 (System Analysis), and recommendations are ptovided in Chaptet 6 S.ecommended Plan). Goal 4 - Storm Watet System Analysis A model was completed for the pte-developed, existing, and future 2020 conditions scenarios for tle entire Ciq'. A small portion of the overall model was designated as the pilot basin and studied in greater detail In this area, detailed storm water inftastructure data was gatheted by GPS and used in the model. The pupose of this pilot basin model was to ptoride the City with a model to build on. IModeling information is presented in Chaptet 2 (System Analysis). Goal 5 - NPDES Permit Application and Implementation The City of Bozeman was required in 2003 to apply for a permit (ftom Montana Depattment of EnvLonmental Quality) to discharge storm water into surface watet Exhibit A Eozeman Storm Water Facilities Plan atound the City. The permit application requires the City to implement a Storm Water Management Program, including six minimum control measures that ate descdbed in Chaptet 4 (National Pollutaflt Discharge Elirnination System Phase 2 Petmit Compliance). The cunent estimated cost of the program is about 9100,000 per year, however, the program is in its infancy and its likely more significant opentional and capital cost will come as the progmm matu.res. Goal 6 - Financial Plan A finqnsizl plet *.s completed for the City's storm watet systetn. The City does not currently have a dedicated source of revenue to fund storm water related wotk. Chaptet 5 (Financi.l Management Evaluation) provides an overview of various funding altematives and tecommends the City form a utility. Chapter 5 also discusses the Govemment Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements, current storm v/atet expenditues, and potenri.l futute needs. Goal 7 - Recommended Pl,an Recommended changes to curent City of Bozeman design studies and development ptactices are presented in Chapter 6 $.ecommended Plan), along with a proposed storm water design review fofln (see Appendix G), checklisg and revised submittal procedures. Exhibit A Executive Summarv The near term infrastructure and policy tecommendations presented in Chaptet 6 are summarized in Table 1. Project Benefit Additional Information Cost Policy Recommendations Cteate a Storm Water Funding Mechanism Identi$' a funding mechanism for exemptions, fee basis, database needs, and organization Page 6-1 $60,000 Phase 2 Implementation Permit Actir-ities Permit compliance Page {13 to {49 Current - $100,000 Futute - $200,000- $400,000 Inft astructure Recommendations Farmer's Canal Imorovements at Famer's Canal will reduce floodrng along Farmer's Canal, 20s Avenue, and Wagon \X/heel Ditch Pages 6-4 and 6-5 $50,000 to $100,000 Valley Unit ParkImprovements to the detention pond oudet .'vill reduce flooding along Measher Avenue and Durston Road Page 6-5 $50,000 to $80,000 Resort Drive Re!'iew storm water plan and perform a site visit Page 6-5 $1,000 to $5,000 General Rehabilitation and Replacement Required fot safe and effective management of existing storm watet in frastructure Page 6-7 $200,000/year Rocky Creek Inctease and restore native vegetahon cover and diversiry, thereby reducing sedimentation and improving vater qualiq' Pzge 6-7 $10,000 - $20,000 Bozeman Cteek Freezing Reduce flooding, improved staff safety Pages 6-7 and 6-8 $50,000 Bozeman Creek Water Qu"Iity Effectively prepare for funre development, improve water quality and inctease fish passage Page 6-8 and 6-9 $50,000 (for initial study') Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B Exhibit B ^ Bozeman Storm Water Facilities Plan Appendix H: Financial Methodologies ^ Exhibit C Appendix H: Financial Methodologies This appendix provides additional information in regards to the pros and cons of the various financing methodologies available to municipalities. H.l Legal Considerations The Cig'of Bozeman operates financially within the legislation set forth by the goveming legal institutions. In ordet to evaluate potential funding options, the following information is ororided. H.l.t lmpact Fee Senate Bill No. 185 (SB 185) Senate Bill No. 185 (SB 185) became effective on April 19,2005. SB 185 authorizes counties, cities, towns, and consolidated local govemments to impose impact fees upon new development to fund all ot a portion of the public facility capital irnprovements affected by the new development; providing definitions; providing a method fot calculating, imposing, and collecting impact fees; and providing an immediate effective date and an appLicabiliq. date. Section 5 of SB 185 specifi.es that a local govemment that is imposing impact fees on ot befote the effective date of this act shall bring those fees into compliance with this act by October 1,2006. This bill is an important piece of legislation supponing the City of Bozeman in collecting impact fees for capital improvements. H.I.2 Montana Code Annotated (MCA) The Nlontana Code Annotated is normally published each odd numbered year incorporating changes made by the Legislative Session of that year to the lMontana Code. The following secdons *'ere taken from the N{CA 2005, and provide the legislative background for storm water-related activities. 7-13-101, Authorization to cteate mefopolitan sanitary and/ot storm sewer districts. Whenever the public convenience and necessity may require, in order to construct sanitary and/ot storm sewer systems within any county, which sanitary and/ot storm sewer systems would serve the inhabitants ofany county as well as the inhabitants ofany city or town vithin said count)', the boatd of counq commissioners, with the apptoval of the city or tou'n council, may crcate mctropolian sanitary and/or storm sewer districts. 7-13-f,22. Status of federal property within metropolitan sanitary and/or stom sevr'er district. Whenever any lot, piece, or parcel ofland belonging to the United States or mandatory of the govemment shall front upon the proposed wotk or improvement ot is to be included within the distnct declared by the board of county commissioners in its resolutj.on of intention to be a district to be assessed to pay the cost and expenses thereof, the board shall in the resolution of intention declate that the said lots, pieces, or parcels of land shall be omitted from the assessment to be made thereto to cover the cost and expenses of said work or improvement, and the cost of said work or improvement in front of said lots, pieces, or patcels of land shall be paid by the countl from its general fund. 7 -13-4304. Authority to chatge fot services. The goveming body of a municipality opetating a municipal watet or seurer s)'stem shall fix and establish, by ordinance or resolution, and collect tates, tentals, and charges for the senices, facilities, and benefits direcdy or indirecdy afforded by the system, taking into account services provided and benefits received H-1 Exhibit C Bozeman Storm Water Facilities Plan 76-3-510. Payment for extension of capital facilities. A local govemment may require a subdivider to pay or guanntee payment for part or all of the costs of extending capital facilities related to public health and safeg, including but not limited to public roads, sever lines, water supply lines, and storm drains to a subdivision. The costs must reasonably teflect the expected impacts direcdy attributable to the subdil-ision. A local govemment may not require a subdivider to pay or guarantee payment for part or all of the costs of constructing or extending capital facilities related to education. H.t.3 Self Governing Powers The City of Bozeman is a local government with self-goveming powers. In an opinion rendered in 2004, the City of Bozeman attorney stated "A local govemment with self- goverffnent powers may set rates for watef and sewer sefl ice'ffithout fegard to the requitements of Nlontana Code Annotated 7 -13-4304." H.2 Funding Options There are a number of funding options discussed in the body of the report. This section of the appendix provides additional detail on some of those funding options. Enterprise Funds - Utility Funds The rnost cor non funding system found in local govemments after the genetal fund is the entetprise fund. Enterprise funds ate usually designated for a speciFrc set ofsen'ices that are provided. Typical examples are those that fund municipal refuse collection s)'stems, water sen-ice, servet maintenance, or any other designated service. The expenses for this qpe of fund are dedicated to providing a sen'ice to the municipalig, and tevenues that fund that sen-ice are derived from fees that are charged to the users. IUost enterpfise funds consist of expenses for providing the serrice and also include direct expenses such as salaries, benefits, materials and supply, and capital ouday. The City of Bozeman uses proprietary funds such as the enterprise fund to account fot the financing, acquisition, opetation and maintenance of vatet, sewet, and solid waste facilities, which are supported by uset chatges. During fiscal year 2005, the City of Bozeman general funds constituted 24o/o of the annual appropriations.r Because enterprise funds are suppoted b1' various othet dir-isions within a municipal govemment structure, vadous indirect expenses are usually intemally allocated to the enterptise funds and qpically include costs associated with or-erhead and administtation, such as human resources, financial, and legal services, as well as fleet maintenance, facilities, and other costs. These indirect expenses are allocated to the enterpdse fund on a cost- allocation basis, usually through a comprehensive study that detemines the "fa} share" of these overhead costs to the enterprise fund. Revenues are derived from fees that are established by the city commission. These fees ate based on the delivery of a measurable sen'ice unit, rvhethet it's the cost of picking up the trash at the location or the cost of processing the quantity of seu'age ot storm vater estimated to be generated by the location. Although in some cases the fees are a mandatory charge resulting from health and safety needs-fot example, rveekly tefuse collection----other portions of the fee may be based on the desired services that the location voluntarily elects ' City ofBozeman, Financial Summaries, Fiscal Year 2005-2006. IJ' Exhibit C Appendix H: Financial Methodologies to receive. Even in cases where charges are mandatory a flexible level of sen'ice can be pror-ided at various funding ler-els, the City's curent solid waste fee is an example of a level of service charge. rWater znd wastewater seryices ate well suited for entemdse funds because there is a unit of measurable service resulting from the sen ice usage by the property owner. Storm water sen'ices are increasingly being considered for enterprise funds as well, but because the sen'ices are not always as appatent to fesidents and businesses, establishing a stom water enterprise fund or utility is often contoversial. Ongoing sewices such as street sweeping and intake cleaning might be good candidates for inclusion in an enterprise approach. Water serr.ice fees usually include 6,xed capital costs, also known as standby costs, in their tates. In other words, there is a cost of having the inftastructure system available and standing by, just in case you would like to use it. Storm water ptograms can use similat approaches based on the needed infrastructure. However, the challenge facing the storm water manager in establishing the fixed system cost is in establishing an allocadon approach that would be equitable for all users. Various strategies may be used such as using impermeable surface area as a factor for calculating potential runoffs are good, but actual use of the system depends on the actual quantity of runoff. Detailed engineering and feasibilitl' studies would need to be undertaken in order to develop appropriate-and, more importandy, legally defensible-fee strucnues under an enterprise fund approach. Because the cost of petforming such studies for every parcel of land is ptohibitive, some programs choose to charge a flat rate fot properties with similat land uses, ot to chatge a flat rate for residential parcels and perhaps calculate the tate separately for commercial and industrial parcels. Special Districts Special districts or assessment districts are anothef t'?e of funding structure that may be useful in ptoviding funding for ptogtams within a specific geographical atea. These districts ate usually rvell-defined and based on legally described physical boundaries. All propetty within a special district is assessed a fee for the senices delivered and the cost of those sen'ices. Typically, there are two categodes of special districts. Capital imptovements for infrastructure proiects are one qpe of special district projects, examples in the Cig. of Bozeman include the Babcock Steet SID and the Northwest WaterLine SID that have funded specific ptoiects for specific areas of the community. The second type of special drri.t ...i1i..6 ;r Bozeman is the Street and Tree Maintenance districts that provide funding fot overall maintenance of sffeets and trees for the entire city. It should be noted that the state law language allowing fot the creation of sffeet maintenance districts is a limiting factor in what storm water telated sen'ices could be included as pat of the street maintenance assessments. Such efforts as annual inlet cleaning, opetation and maintenance of oil and grease interceptors, maintenance of rash racks in storm channels, and other annual costs could be included in the service package for the special distfict. As with enterprise fees, the challenge is the allocation ofcost back to the ptoperty owner and the nexus between the service deliveted and the cost paid. However, unlike enterprise funds, the cost of the sen'ice in a special district is based on property owne$hip in the district, not the actual use of a sen'ice. A vacant piece ofproperty rnight be assessed the same unit cost as an adjacent house; this might taise equity issues that should be considered and addressed during the formation of the assessment district. H-3 Exhibit C Bozeman Storm Water Facilities Plan In many cases, special districts are formed at t}le time large parcels are subdivided and developed. In order to form a special district to proride maintenance, all the ptoperty ownets in the proposed district have a right to protest the creation of such a district. Obviously, ifa single owner conrols the entire parcel; such a protest ptolision would be relatively straightforward. But in tJre event that a district is ptoposed for an existing tract of developed property, a m^jority of property owners hust vote positively for the assessment district, with various limitations Politically, the challenge in establishing a special district is that the elected official is asking each properq' owner to pay t fee fot a sen'ice that direcdy benefits the affected ptoperty orvners. Such fees are usually included on the tax bill as a separate assessment, and there is no abiJiti'for the property owner to opt out of the district once it is established. lmpact Fees Unlike enterptise funds in which the uset of the system pays on a repeating basis fot the use ofan ongoing sen'ice, impact fees are one-dme charges, usually the result of some acdon on the part of a propert)'owner as it relates to use of the propeny*. For example, if someone owns a vacant lot and decides to erect a building, he might have to pay a building permit fee, a school disttict assessment fee, and any number of other fees to the local iurisdiction to cover the jurisdiction's costs of inspection of the construction, or to offset the impact that this change of use has on vadous public systems. Many judsdictions have adopted fees that deal with the cost of designing, implementing, operating, and inspecting onsite stom water runoff ptevention progtams. But such fees can also be used for funding inftastructure improvements or operation of storm rvater management Progfams. The limitation on the use of development fees is that they represent a one-time payment and therefore cannot be used for ongoing system maintenance and expansion of the various programs and projects to meet increasingly stringent regulatory mandates. In addition, the fee chatged must be reasonable for a given use of the funds. If the City ofBozeman chooses to use development fees as a method for funding the stom \rater infrastmcture improvements, they should develop and adopt a comprehensive plan that establishes the basis fot the fee. Other Programs With tight budgets, a variety of cteative funding approaches that combine various strategies described above into a new hybrid can provide funding for storm water programs from a new source. For example, a motor vehicle license fee was established in San lt{ateo County, CA, to fund both stom water pollution and traffic mitigation. "rWe looked at a program to actually fund nvo things," states fuchard Napiet, execudve director of the City/Counq' Association of Govemments of San Nfateo County. "It was to fund [traffic] congestion relief and stofm water programs as they relate to the automobile. To a large extent, the automobile does not teally pay its way relative to the impact that it has. In our stofm v/ater program, a gteat deal of time is spent on source control, street sweeping, and keeping things from running into the [San Francisco] bay. A large portion of t]rat are tites when they weat, brake pads, oil, gasoline, anti-freeze, all sorts of things; when it tains it just washes dght into the bay. There really is an extremely stroflg nexus to the automobile." H-4 Exhibit C Appendix H: Financial Methodologies While having to get the state legislatue to adopt a local funding mechanism for storm water may seem exfteme, picking elements from the various funding tools and combining them into structures that can obtain btoad, cross-secdonal support will be key to meeting the demands for more storm water-quality programs. H.3 Structuring a Storm Water Utility Utility functions are usually funded wholly or primarily through service or user "fees" or "charges" that are related to the cost of providing the services and facilities. A service fee is imposed on persons or properties for the purpose of recovedng the cost of service. This requires that a cost of service study aod rate analysis be performed to propetly allocate and tecover the cost of setvice. The genetal standard applied to utility seflrice fees is that the mte methodology must be fair and reasonable, and the resultant charges must bear a substantial telationship to the cost of providing the services and facilities. However, locally elected officials have a great deal of latitude in attaining these obiectives in the context of local cucrunstances as they see them. \?hen municipal utiJity tates have been subjected to legal challenges, the courts have tended to apply "judicial deference" to the decisions of locally elected officials. Judicial deference holds that, unless a plaintiff can demonsrate that the decision was arrived at arbitradly and capriciously or the result of the decision is illegally discrirninatory, rate decisions of local legislative authodties aie not to be over-ruled by a court's judgment. The apparent confusion between the terminology "service chatge" and ,,assessment', in this case may be increasingly important in the next few years- The essential characteristic ofa "special assessment" is that it must confet some direct and special benefit to &e property being assessed. A special assessment is based on the prernise that the property being assessed is enhanced in value at least to the amount of the assessment. Iike service fees. special assessments are intended for a specific purpose tathet than simply as a revenue generating mechanism. A common requirement of assessments is that there must be a tational linkage (nexus) between the use of the revenue derived from the assessment and the benefit to the parry' to whom it is applied. Assessments may be based on property value (ad- valorem) or other factors (non ad-r-alorem) such as front footage along a street or sidewalk improvement. Regardless, the standards applied by the courts are more rigorous than in the case ofserrice chatges (or fees), where the courts' application of iudicial deference has allowed local legislative authorities greater latitude. It may be difFrcult to allocate storm water quality costs on t}re basis of direct and special benefit to individual properties, making an "assessment" to support the program difFrcult to justi$. Exactions are most cor nonly associated with franchise rights and or the approval of developments or development-related activities or impacts. Or-er many years the term has come to mean and include practically any t -\ that is not an ad-valorem tax. In contrast to a tax on propertt', an exaction (or excise tax) is not based on the assessed value of the property but, instead, is associated with or conditioned upon the performance of an acg the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment ofa pdvilege. Fot example, franchise fees on telephone utilities are commonly based on the rationale that telephone wires are run along and thus "use" the public rights-of-way. In many states, though not 2.11, an "impact fee" on new development is considered an exacdon. A significant change has recendy been occurring in traditional local govemment "utility" functions. Historically, utility programs were considered to be proprietary public functions H-5 Exhibit C Bozeman Storm Water Facilities Plan comparable in firany ways to a private business actir-ity. There is now a general tecoglition that most municipal utility progams concurrendy also serve a geneml gor-emmental function of protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and are regulatory progtams as well as proprietarl functions. In the case of stom water management, the federal Clean \7ater Act (?ublic Law 92-500) and subsequent amendments tequire that many local govemments apply fot, obtain, and comply with storm water discharge permits intended to limit the dischatge of pollutants to receir-ing waters such as sreams and rivers. The Ciq'of Bozeman is now subiect to Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System QTIPDES) program. This generally parallels the impact of the Clean'Watet Act on local wastewater treatment Proglams, the federal Safe Drinking Water Act on watet supply programs, and the fedetal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act on solid waste management. In the past all of these functions have been essentially ot primarily a proprietary function of local govemments, i.e., one in which cities and counties would be involved as a sen'ice providet in a mannet comparable to a private business. Now the activities that local govemments must perform in each case are dictated to a large degree by the regulatory tole that the federal and associated state legislation mandate. The funding of these ptograms has become latgely incidental to the local governments' mandated regulatory role rather than the proprietary function itself. It follorvs that the funding of most municipal utilities is thetefore now incidental to a regulatory function and not associated purely with a proprietary activity. Service chatges (fees) are adopted in tesponse to the programs necessary to meet the tegulatory mandate, with the intent of equitably allocating and recovering the cost ofsen'ices and facilities (including those of a regulatory nature). This cleady contrasts with taxes, which are consideted by the courts to primarily be a revenue generating mechanism supportive of govemmental functions and unrelated to specific applications or purposes. Such distinctions make it very important to tie a storm water service charge rate methodology very closely to the purposes of the program that is being funded and to the cost of ptoviding its various sen'ices and facilities. In addition to the regulatory mandate note above, courts in seveml states have broadened the responsibiJities of local govemments to encompass greater involvement in soh-ing the problems that may result from their ministerial actions. This has begun to impact municipal util.ities especialiy. For many years, local govemments approved subdivision and commetcial development proposals without incurring any specific responsibility or liability for service deficiencies that might result or impacts on nearby properties. In recent yeats, t}le courts in se\-eral states har.e begun to make local goveflrments responsible for considering the potential for problems through environmental impact assessments or other analyses, and for mitigating the impacts that occur. For example, local govemments in sevetal states have been tequired to improve downstream &ainage systems subjected to increased storm watet runoff and resultant flooding and erosion created as a coflsequence of subdivision and commercial development apptovals they issued. There are parallels in which local govemments have been required to provide adequate water supply, wasteu/ater treatment, and solid waste management to meet the needs of developments they har-e approved. As the City of Iflissoula continues to develop and annexadons occur, its stom watet management role and costs could be significandy influenced if older downltjll systems become inadequate due to H-6 Exhibit C Appendix H: Financial Methodologies new development in upland ateas or if the City inherits responsibility for systems that are currendy inadequate. H.4 Additional Considerations Regarding Storm Water Charges An important aspect of a drainage fee model is the allocation of capital, and operation and maintenance costs equitably among the customers. However, beneficiaties of the storm watet management ptogram may be broadet than the current City customer base. In a sense, development of the Storm Water lUaster Plan could be considered a multi-purpose rvater project which ad&esses drainage needs, flood control, water quality (?hase 2 NPDES) and potentially open space, habitat, and recreation (floodplains, riparian corridors, BMPs, etc.). In order to take advantage of the cost allocation metlods and funding mechanisms coftrmon to these complex projects, considemtion may be given to multiple project beneficiaries: o Local propert'' owners and residents o Residents who use the associated floodplains, open space, habitat, and tecreation amenities o All residents of the tegion Local Property Owners Direcdy ot indirecdy, local property owners ffaditionally fund the bulk of storm watet imptovements, eithet thtough tax a.ssessments or periodic user charges. They receive the obvious bene6t fiom storm rvater management efforts in the fotm of reduced incidence of flooding and higher property values associated with this reduced risk. Further, residential pfoperty values increase with ptoximity to a greenbelt, an urban trail area, and other natural amenities. Other Residents Residents who use the associated amenities and outdoor tecreation facilities are rvilling to pay fot that use, according to a large body of literature. Thus, providing amenities fot recteational use and natural resource presenation in addition to flood conffol could be used to justify a multi-use project and, potentially, to pay for some of the facilities and their maintenance. By defining recreadon as a project purpose (in addition to flood contol and/or water quality), sevetal methods of recovering fees from this group could be considered, including user fees for some of the recreation facilities, a local bigcle license tax, special purpose sales taxes, pfoperty tax assessments, and other potential methods. Regional Beneficiaries All residents ofa region benefit from improved flood control, through increased property tax revenues and improved water quality, and through the indirect economic benefits stemming from increased local spending by those using the facilities for tecreation. All Denver-area residents, for example, p^t- ^ t^x assessment to Urban Drainage and Flood Control Disttict, the regional agency that develops regional and multi- judsdictional storm water proiects. The basis for this charge is that all tesidents of the region will benefit ftom Utban Drainage's efforts. H-7 Exhibit C Bozeman Storm Water Facilities Plan Regional beneficiaries in the Bozernan atea include residents living in Gallatin County in the r"icinitl' of the City. These residents benefit from storm water management proglam activities tllat reduce the potential for flooding, improve water quality, and ptovide othet community enhancements. H.5 Funding and Operation Mechanisms for Programs in Other Municipalities A ter.iew of storm water programs and funding mechanisms fot communities in Ntontana and adjacent states was completed to evaluate what other municipalities are doing in terms of funding. The clear ttend is that for communities that have implemented any significant storm water programs is that the funding mechanism is a utility. This trend is seen in N{ontana, Idaho and Washington. Although many communities condnue to fund their storm water programs through genenl funds, or as an extension of their sfteet maintenance funds, it is clear that the level of these progtams is much less than in those communities that have a clear dedicated funding source. The operation of storm water programs is also evoh-ing. Historically, the focus on storm rvater has been related to street drainage and as such operations have genetally been based out of municipal street divisions. As the focus of storm vater programs has changed to include water quatty, municipalities are adding storm water divisions to manage and implement their storm water progtams. In some instances these stom water divisions tely on other vater, u/astewater and street divisions for equipment and labor for ma.intenance activities. H.6 Example Storm Water Rates from Other Municipalities Storm water rates, programs, and policies vary gready actoss the country and actoss the state of lt{ontana. In NIontana, Billings, Kalispell and Great Falls have storm drainage sen-ice charges based on the land use as established by the zoning classification, rvhile Helena measures imperrious area. Runoff factors or coefficients are assigned for each zone classiFrcation using the rational method to estimate the runoff potential. The assigned rate for each zone classification is applied to the amount of land area in each parcel. Other communities are using a method where the charge rate is based on the amount of impen'ious surface on each parcel of land. The amount of impervious surface is established by actual measurement, often taken ftom lorv-level aerial photogtaphy. This method has a relatively high initial cost in measuring the amount of impen-ious surface and requires constant update when improvements are added to parcels of land. However, this method would encoutage developers and home ownets to reduce the amount of impen'ious sutface on their property to reduce their storm water charges. In some cases, ^ fl^t r:;te has also been used to establish service charges. Often, when a flat fee is included in the rate s&ucture, it is only fot a portion of the total funds being generated. It gpically tepresents the property's share of the fixed cost of the utiliq, which includes administration, billing, planning, and code enforcement. H-8 Exhibit C Appendix H: Financial Methodologies Othet charges being made by stonn drainage utilities include special fees to cover the cost of issuing and administrating permits or teviewing development plans. Connection fees to reimbuse the utility fot the histotic share of its pdor investrnent are increasing. These fees are similat to those being used by water and sewef depaftments for new customers connecting to their utility system. As examples, the City of Billings' current storm water utility charge generates apptoximately $2.2 million annually. Kalispell generates about 9400,000 and Helena about 9500,000. A portion of the expenditwes is for bond debt serrice, in support of major capital improvements to the stoffi vater systems. Debt service, minor capital and remedial repair projects ty,pically represent 25'h-50'/o of the overall storm watet budget (non-operational expenses). The remaining 50oh-75oh ts for operation and maintenance. Storm Drain utility chatges are related to the physical infiastructure, level of service and size of the community. There is, howevet, data that provides ranges fot these chatges based on speciFrc measures. One measure is that storm water charges genetate g100 per acte per year. Given the Ciq's area of about 8,320 acres, this would genemte 9831,997 per year. A second comparable is $5-$7 per household per month. Using the City's 17,246 utiJity accounts and the midrange Frgue of $6 per month, revenue of $1.5 million per year would be generated. While the above figures var), they are of the same general magnitude. This offers the City of Bozeman an overall perspective of storm water utilities and associated costs. It{ost cities consciously Iimit their "extent of service" (i.e., the proportion of the total &ainage system actively managed by the City) to storm sewets in road rights-of-way and a few easements. This has an impact on the allocation of resources to opetational expenses. Some communities have assumed maintenance responsibility for detention facilities constructed in conjunction with subdivisions and even commercial developments to ensure that they temain functional. Studies elsewhere (Snohomish Counq', WA; Knon.ille, TN, and others) indicate that sevent)'-five p5) to ninety (90) percent ofon-site detention s).stems become dysfunctional in some mannet within seven years if not aggressively maintained. The implication is that a city's reliance on private maintenance of on-site detention systems may be ill-advised. A signifrcant backlog of work may be building up, with the potential for very negative impacts on the publicly-maintained portions of the systems if the on-site facilities do not function as designed. Table H.6-1 presents a comparison of monthly storm water fees in N{ontana. Another comparison offered in Table H-6-2 to other communities in the RoclrJ' N{ountain Area and the Pacific Northurest. Many of the communities on the West coast devote a significant effort to stom water management. A signiFrcant driver west of the Cascade Mountains is related to climatology and that larger communities were included in the Phase 1 Storm Water Pernit program in tlle eady 1990's. More recendy, regulatory agencies have focused on the drier climate east of the Cascades and the Phase 2 Storm rWater NPDES program includes many more communities. ri/ater quality protection is a maior emphasis of contemporary tegulatory efforts. H-9 Exhibit C Bozeman Storm Water Facilities Plan Monthly Storm Water Fee (Single Fami$ Residential Patcel) City Population Monthly Storm Water Fee (Single Family Residential Patcel) City of Pordand 500,000 fill.42 City of Seatde 535,000 $8.75 King County 1,630,000 $8.s0 Lake Oswego, OR-36,000 $6.26 Milwaukee, OR'21,000 $6.00 City of Portland 500,000 $r1.42 City of Seatde 535,000 $8.75 King County 1,630,000 $8.50 Lake Oswego, OR'36,000 $6.26 Milwaukee, OR'21,000 $6.00 Great Fells, MT s5,000 $4.84 Billings, MT 90,000 $4.47 Coeut d'Alene, ID 35,000 $4.00 Oregon City, OR 27,000 $4.00 Tigard, OR',+4,000 $4.00 West Linn, OR 23,000 $J. /5 Vancouver, \74 14s,000 $3.00 H-10 Exhibit C Appendix H: Financial Methodologies Monthly Storm Watet Fee (Single Family Residential Patcel) H-11 Exhibit C Page 1 of 3 Summary of MS4 Storm Water Program Management Audit City of Bozeman - 2011 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: Permit Violations: • The storm water system is not adequately mapped or available for the public. Program Deficiencies: • Need a more detailed written plan and procedure for Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination that meets all criteria listed in Section II.B.3 of the General Permit. • MDT should ensure that the MOU with Billings (they must mean Bozeman?) specifically says they can use the City’s storm water ordinance. • Need to improve measurability and evaluation techniques to determine the effectiveness of selected BMPs. Recommendations for Improvement: • Significant baseflow at outfall 001A. The City should investigate the source of this flow. • Better document all storm water activities, including; dry weather screening, maintenance activities, spill response, public input, and training frequency. • Provide more specific training for staff. • MSU should have a written spill response plan. • The City must identify volumes and types for illicit discharges. Currently the ordinance only addresses type of discharge, but doesn’t address volumes. • Must identify procedures to notify the DEQ if an illicit discharge occurs. Commendable Elements: • Everyone has a household hazardous waste (HHW) program. • City monitors upstream and downstream of their outfalls to help understand the impact of storm water on the local waterways. Program Management: Permit Violations: • NONE Program Deficiencies: • Execute formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MSU and Gallatin Local Water Quality District (GLWQD). Recommendations for Improvement: • Form formal MS4 umbrella group. Encourage regular communication and meetings to provide forum where stakeholders can discuss storm water issues. • Provide training for MSU’s new employees who work in the MS4 program. • Stronger connection between Total maximum daily load (TMDL) impairments and activities identified in the storm water master plan (SWMP). Exhibit D Page 2 of 3 • The 2005 SWMP should be updated with stronger focus on improved documentation and measurability of goals. • MDT is making changes to their MS4 program based on feedback from the DEQ, complete these changes soon as possible. Commendable Elements: • Great cooperation and communication between all of the co-permittees and stakeholders of the MS4 program in Bozeman. Public Education and Outreach/Public Involvement and Participation: Permit Violations: • NONE Program Deficiencies: • More organized approach to public education and public involvement. This help in documenting goals and permit objectives. • Improve measurability and evaluation techniques to determine the effectiveness of selected best management practices (BMPs). Recommendations for Improvement: • Work more closely with co-permittees in public education and involvement activities. • SWMP should be available for the public for review. • Get MSU students more involved in storm water education and public involvement. Commendable Elements: • MDT’s website is very good, with a wide variety of information available. Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control: Permit Violations: • NONE Program Deficiencies: • Need to improve project database tracking. • City should confirm notice of intent for storm water pollution prevention plan (NOI/SWPPP) package has been submitted to the DEQ for projects. • MSU needs to incorporate an inspection program specific to MS4 issues. • Need to improve measurability and evaluation techniques to determine the effectiveness of selected BMPs. Recommendations for Improvement: • Provide more specific storm water training to internal staff and departments related to construction site storm water control. • City needs to improve outreach and education for contractors regarding storm water issues. Exhibit D Page 3 of 3 • City should consider assigning additional staff to assist with storm water inspections or train inspectors from other departments. Commendable Elements: • City and MDT require storm water management plans for sites less than 1-acre. MS4 Maintenance – Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping: Permit Violations: • NONE Program Deficiencies: • Must develop site-specific storm water plans for major permittee-owned facilities like maintenance shops, industrial facilities, parks, gravel/sand pits. • Should perform and document regular storm water inspections of all public facilities. • Need to improve measurability and evaluation techniques to determine the effectiveness of selected BMPs. Recommendations for Improvement: • Should document and evaluate maintenance data so permittees will have a better picture of MS4 maintenance activities and needs. Commendable Elements: • City has an aggressive street sweeping program that minimizes the amount of sediment that gets washed into the MS4. Industrial/Commercial Facilities: Permit Violations: • NONE Program Deficiencies: • NONE Recommendations for Improvement: • The City should have an inventory of industrial and heavy commercial facilities, particularly those with other Montana pollution detection elimination system (MPDES) permits. • The City should ensure the public education programs include outreach for industrial and commercial businesses. Commendable Elements: • NONE Exhibit D Date: 3/31/2012 FY13 #2 CM REC STORM WATER UTILITY Budget Miscellaneous Details Report Page 1 Division Description Account Number Object Description Miscellaneous Data FY13 REQUEST ADMINISTRATION:ENFORC+ MAP 670-4510-435.10-01REGULAR EARNINGS NEW - ONE FTE - GIS TECHNICIAN (ALL COSTS)$52,296.00 NEW - TWO GIS INTERNS (TOTAL MANHOURS: 400)$21,000.00 ADMINISTRATION:ENFORC+ MAP 670-4510-435.20-20COMPUTER SUPPLIES NEW - GIS SOFTWARE $18,700.00 NEW - GPS $7,730.00 NEW - TOUGHBOOK $3,514.00 NEW - GPS SOFTWARE - INTERNS $3,000.00 NEW - PC WORKSTATION $2,000.00 ADMINISTRATION:ENFORC+ MAP 670-4510-435.50-99GENERAL FROM 111.4110.433.50.99 STORMWATER SAMPLING SUPPLIES AND TESTS $2,400.00 ADMINISTRATION:ENFORC+ MAP 670-4510-435.60-10IN-STATE TRAINING FOR GIS TECHNICIAN $1,500.00 ADMINISTRATION:ENFORC+ MAP 670-4510-435.70-99GENERAL FROM 111.4110.433.70.99 STORMWATER PERMIT FEE $3,000.00 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 670-4520-435.10-01REGULAR EARNINGS FROM 111.4110.433.10.01 60% OF STREET SWEEPING LABOR (TOTAL)$50,059.00 60% OF LEAF CLEAN-UP LABOR (TOTAL)$7,508.00 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 670-4520-435.20-50ROAD SUPPLIES FROM 111.4110.433.20.50 STORM SEWER GRATES & MANHOLE RINGS & COVERS $2,400.00 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 670-4520-435.20-60VEHICLE SUPPLIES FROM 111.4110.433.20.60 60% SWEEPER BROOMS AND BROOM WIRE $8,400.00 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 670-4520-435.20-61GASOLINE AND OIL FROM 111.4110.433.20.61 60% ESTIMATE FOR STREET SWEEPERS $12,120.00 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 670-4520-435.20-65SMALL EQUIPMENT ANFROM 111.4110.433.20.65 HAND TOOLS FOR STORMWATER REPAIRS $1,500.00 NEW - METAL DETECTOR FOR LOCATING INFRASTRUCTU $2,000.00 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 670-4520-435.20-70BOOKS & REFERENCEFROM 111.4110.433.20.70 STORMWATER TRAINING MATERIALS AS REQURIED UND PHASE II REGULATIONS $500.00 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 670-4520-435.20-99GENERAL FROM 111.4110.433.20.99 STORM SEWER REPAIR PARTS $7,400.00 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 670-4520-435.30-10REPAIR & MAINT- EQU FROM 111.4110.433.30.10 60% STREET SWEEPER MACHINE MISCELLANEOUS REP $9,000.00 REGULAR EARNINGS $73,296.00 COMPUTER SUPPLIES $34,944.00 GENERAL $2,400.00 IN-STATE $1,500.00 GENERAL $3,000.00 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION:ENFORC+MAP $115,140.00 REGULAR EARNINGS $57,567.00 ROAD SUPPLIES $2,400.00 VEHICLE SUPPLIES $8,400.00 GASOLINE AND OIL $12,120.00 SMALL EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS $3,500.00 BOOKS & REFERENCE MTRLS $500.00 GENERAL $7,400.00 REPAIR & MAINT- EQUIPMENT $9,000.00 Exhibit E Date: 3/31/2012 FY13 #2 CM REC STORM WATER UTILITY Budget Miscellaneous Details Report Page 2 Division Description Account Number Object Description Miscellaneous Data FY13 REQUEST OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 670-4520-435.30-30REPAIR & MAINT - OTHFROM 111.4110.433.30.30 MISC REPAIRS TO WELLS FOR DEICING BOZ CREEK $2,500.00 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 670-4520-435.80-20M&E:MACH+EQUIP/HE FROM FUND 111 CIP STRM05: STREET SWEEPER LEASE 60%$45,000.00 NEW CIP STRM03: RETROFIT TV VAN $130,000.00 REPAIR & MAINT - OTHER $2,500.00 M&E:MACH+EQUIP/HEAVY TRUK $175,000.00 TOTAL OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE $278,387.00 $393,527.00 Grand Total Exhibit E St o r m W a t e r U t i l i t y - 5 Y e a r B u d g e t & R a t e P r o j e c t i o n FY 1 3 B u d g e t P r e p a r a t i o n Ad o p t e d P r o j e c t e d P r o j e c t e d P r o j e c t e d P r o j e c t e d Projected Ra t e I n c r e a s e 0% 0 % 4% 4 % 4 % 4% Cu s t o m e r I n c r e a s e - ? ? 0% 0 % 1% 1 % 2 % 2% FY 1 2 F Y 1 3 F Y 1 4 F Y 1 5 F Y 1 6 F Y 1 7 Be g i n n i n g F u n d B a l a n c e - P r o j e c t e d - - 8 1 , 4 7 3 28 2 , 3 6 7 15 1 , 1 2 3 111,265 Es t i m a t e d R e v e n u e s : St o r m W a t e r U t i l i t y C h a r g e s - 4 7 5 , 0 0 0 49 8 , 7 5 0 52 3 , 6 8 8 55 5 , 1 0 9 588,415 In t e r e s t E a r n i n g s - - 81 5 2, 8 2 4 1,511 1,113 To t a l E s t i m a t e d R e v e n u e s : - 4 7 5 , 0 0 0 49 9 , 5 6 5 52 6 , 5 1 1 55 6 , 6 2 0 589,528 Pr o p o s e d E x p e n d i t u r e s : Pe r s o n n e l - M a p p i n g - 73 , 2 9 6 75 , 8 6 1 78 , 5 1 7 81,265 84,109 Pe r s o n n e l - 6 0 % o f S t r e e t S w e e p i n g / L e a f C l e a n u p L a b o r 57 , 5 6 7 59 , 2 9 4 61 , 0 7 3 62,905 64,792 Pe r s o n n e l - 3 4 % E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o o r d i n a t o r 18 , 8 3 5 19 , 4 9 5 20,177 20,883 Pe r s o n n e l - R e h a b : P a r t - T i m e F o r e m a n & 1 S e a s o n a l 49 , 6 3 2 51 , 1 2 1 52,655 54,235 Op e r a t i o n s - 87 , 6 6 4 50 , 0 4 7 52 , 5 5 0 55,177 57,936 Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n - 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 45 , 0 0 0 39 5 , 0 0 0 32 4 , 3 0 0 245,000 To t a l P r o p o s e d E x p e n d i t u r e s : - 3 9 3 , 5 2 7 29 8 , 6 7 0 65 7 , 7 5 5 59 6 , 4 7 9 526,955 A. R o s e n b e r r y 3/31/2012 pp , , , ,, En d i n g F u n d B a l a n c e - P r o j e c t e d - 81 , 4 7 3 28 2 , 3 6 7 15 1 , 1 2 3 11 1 , 2 6 5 173,838 A. R o s e n b e r r y 3/31/2012 Ex h i b i t F St o r m  Wa t e r  Ut i l i t y    ** D R A F T * *   Ca p i t a l  Im p r o v e m e n t  Pl a n Fi n a n c i a l  Su m m a r y Cu r r e n t  Ye a r FY 1 2 F Y 1 3 F Y 1 4 F Y 1 5 F Y 1 6 F Y 1 7 Unscheduled Pr o j e c t e d  Be g i n n i n g  Re s e r v e  Ba l a n c e  De d i c a t e d  to  CI P ‐ $                                 ‐ $                                       38 , 7 5 0 $                     21 8 , 1 8 8 $             58,847 $                 12,101$              Pl u s :    St o r m  Wa t e r  Ut i l i t y  Fe e s  De d i c a t e d  to  Ca p i t a l ‐ $                                 21 3 , 7 5 0 $                       22 4 , 4 3 8 $               23 5 , 6 5 9 $             27 7 , 5 5 4 $           294,208$             Le s s :    Sc h e d u l e d  CI P  Pr o j e c t  Co s t s (1 7 5 , 0 0 0 ) $                   (4 5 , 0 0 0 ) $                 (3 9 5 , 0 0 0 ) $           (3 2 4 , 3 0 0 ) $         (245,000)$      (132,000)$          Pr o j e c t e d  Ye a r ‐En d  Ca s h  De d i c a t e d  to  CI P ‐ $                                 38 , 7 5 0 $                           21 8 , 1 8 8 $               58 , 8 4 7 $                 12,101 $                 61,309$         (132,000)$          As s u m p t i o n s  Ma d e  fo r  Re v e n u e  Es t i m a t e s : Cu r r e n t  Ye a r FY 1 2 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 F Y 1 6 F Y 1 7 Es t i m a t e d  An n u a l  St o r m  Wa t e r  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e ‐ $                                       47 5 , 0 0 0 $                             47 5 , 0 0 0 $                   49 8 , 7 5 0 $                   523,688 $                 555,109$              Es t i m a t e d  An n u a l  In c r e a s e  ‐   At t r i b u t e d  to  Gr o w t h 0% 1% 1% 2%2%    Es t i m a t e d  An n u a l  In c r e a s e  ‐   Ra t e  In c r e a s e 0% 4% 4% 4%4% To t a l  Es t i m a t e d  Re v e n u e s ‐ $                                       47 5 , 0 0 0 $                             49 8 , 7 5 0 $                   52 3 , 6 8 8 $                   555,109 $                 588,415$           Cu r r e n t  Re v e n u e s  De d i c a t e d  to  CI P  % 0. 0 % 45 . 0 % 4 5 . 0 % 4 5 . 0 % 4 5 . 0 % 5 0 . 0 %    Pl u s :    In c r e a s e  De d i c a t e d  to  Ca p i t a l 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 5.0%0.0% l dd Pr o j e c t e d Pr o j e c t e d    To t a l  % De d i c a t e d  to  CI P 0. 0 % 45 . 0 % 4 5 . 0 % 4 5 . 0 % 5 0 . 0 % 5 0 . 0 % To t a l  Es t i m a t e d  Re v e n u e s  De d i c a t e d  to  CI P ‐ $                                       21 3 , 7 5 0 $                             22 4 , 4 3 8 $                   23 5 , 6 5 9 $                   277,554 $                 294,208$           45 0 , 0 0 0 40 0 , 0 0 0 35 0 , 0 0 0 30 0 , 0 0 0 25 0 , 0 0 0 20 0 , 0 0 0 15 0 , 0 0 0 10 0 , 0 0 0 50 , 0 0 0 0 FY 1 3 F Y 1 4 F Y 1 5 F Y 1 6 F Y 1 7 U n s c h e d u l e d St o r m  Wa t e r  Pr o j e c t s   Exhibit G CI P  PR O J E C T  FU N D PR O J . DE P A R T M E N PR O J E C T  NA M E FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY16Unscheduled FY 1 5 FY17 St o r m  Wa t e r  Fu n d ST R M 0 1 St o r m  Wa t e r VA L L E Y  UN I T  PA R K $80,000 ST R M 0 2 St o r m  Wa t e r RO C K Y  CR E E K  ST O R M  WA T E R   IM P R O V E M E N T S $20,000 ST R M 0 3 St o r m  Wa t e r RE T R O F I T  EX I S T I N G  (B A C K ‐UP )  TV  VA N  FO R   ST O R M  WA T E R  UT I L I T Y  US E . $1 3 0 , 0 0 0 ST R M 0 4 St o r m  Wa t e r GE N E R A L  TR E A T M E N T  SY S T E M S ,   RE H A B I L I T A T I O N ,  AN D  RE P L A C E M E N T $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $100,000 ST R M 0 5 St o r m  Wa t e r SW E E P E R S $4 5 , 0 0 0 $4 5 , 0 0 0 $4 5 , 0 0 0 $4 5 , 0 0 0 $45,000 ST R M 0 6 St o r m  Wa t e r RE G E N E R A T I V E  AI R  SW E E P E R $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 ST R M 0 7 St o r m  Wa t e r ME C H N I C A L  SW E E P E R $132,000 ST R M 0 8 St o r m  Wa t e r RO U S E  AV E N U E  ST O R M  DR A I N  UP S I Z I N G $1 8 6 , 3 0 0 ST R M 0 9 St o r m  Wa t e r RO U S E  AV E N U E  ST O R M  WA T E R   TR E A T M E N T $9 3 , 0 0 0 Su m m a r y for    St o r m  Wa t e r  Fu n d  (9 it e m s ) To t a l s  by  ye a r : $1 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 3 9 5 , 0 0 0 $3 2 4 , 3 0 0 $132,000 FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY16UnscheduledFY17 $245,000Exhibit G CIP Project Fund Storm Water Fund PROJECT NUMBER STRM01 DEPARTMENT Storm Water PROJECT NAME Valley Unit Park FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Improvements to the detention pond at Valley Unit Park, as described on page 6-5 in the Storm Water Facility Plan. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Will reduce flooding along Meagher Avenue and Durston Road ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES Storm Water Utility, possible Grants. New Replacement Equipment Project FY17 $80,000 Exhibit G CIP Project Fund Storm Water Fund PROJECT NUMBER STRM02 DEPARTMENT Storm Water PROJECT NAME Rocky Creek Storm Water Improvements FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Improvements to increase and restore the native vegitation cover and diversity, thereby reducing sedimentation and improving water quality in Rocky Creek, as described on page 6-7 of the Storm Water Facility Plan. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Reduced sedimentation and improved water quality. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES Storm Water Fund, possible grants. New Replacement Equipment Project FY17 $20,000 Exhibit G CIP Project Fund Storm Water Fund PROJECT NUMBER STRM03 DEPARTMENT Storm Water PROJECT NAME Retrofit existing (back-up) TV Van for Storm Water Utility use. FY13 $130,000 FY14FY15FY16Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Used to assess the condition of existing Storm Water infrastructure. We propose using an old, existing TV Van and making retro-fits for use in our Storm Water system. The retro-fit process will take approx 6 months to bid, ship and complete; Because this equipment is needed at the beginning of Year 2 of the utility, we are recommending funding the retrofits in Year 1. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Buy a new TV Van, or look for another used van to purchase. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Cost savings to the utility in its start-up years. Ability to accurately assess the condition of underground storm water infrastructure and develop a maintenance and replacement plan ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Because this equipment is critical to the operation of a storm water utility, it will need to be maintained, and eventually replaced, in future years. FUNDING SOURCES Storm Water Utility. New Replacement Equipment Project FY17 Exhibit G CIP Project Fund Storm Water Fund PROJECT NUMBER STRM04 DEPARTMENT Storm Water PROJECT NAME General Treatment Systems, Rehabilitation, and Replacement FY13 FY14 FY15 $200,000 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT General repairs and infrastructure maintenance were recommended in the Facility Plan at $200,000 per year. After mapping and condition assessments are complete, the utility will begin a systematic program of infrastructure repair and replacement, including installation of Storm Water Treatment systems. In the future, specific projects and project areas will be defined. Until then, this item acts as a financial indicator of that work program. When specific projects are scheduled in the CIP, those amounts will reduce the $200,000 scheduled in this item each year. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES Storm Water Fund, grants when available. New Replacement Equipment Project FY17 $100,000 Exhibit G CIP Project Fund Storm Water Fund PROJECT NUMBER STRM05 DEPARTMENT Storm Water PROJECT NAME SWEEPERS FY13 $45,000 FY14 $45,000 FY15 $45,000 FY16 $45,000 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ***Previously STR34, STREET MAINTENANCE CIP***This is a request to replace a sweeper every 5 years. In the past we depended on the State for funds through the MACI program to purchase a sweeper every five years if funding was available. Funding is very sporadic. Industry standards recommend replacing municipal street sweepers every 4-5 years. We will always pursue a sweeper through the MACI program when it becomes available. Our current fleet of sweepers include a 1991, 1999, 2005 and a 2009 model. The 1991 and 1999 models will be replaced in 2012. One is through the MACI program and one will be leased. The 2005 will be replaced in 2017 if no MACI funds become available. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Budget 200k every year until all sweepers are replaced. Cut back on our sweeping There are no local contractors at this time. Continue to use what we have. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Much improved operations. Better air quality. Improved storm water discharge. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED None. FUNDING SOURCES 60% Storm Water Utility ($45,000 each year), PREVIOUSLY from Street Maintenance District. 40% Street Maintenance District ($30,000 each year.) New Replacement Equipment Project FY17 $45,000 Exhibit G CIP Project Fund Storm Water Fund PROJECT NUMBER STRM06 DEPARTMENT Storm Water PROJECT NAME REGENERATIVE AIR SWEEPER FY13 FY14 FY15 $150,000 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ***Previously STR35, STREET MAINTENANCE CIP***This is a request for a new regenerative air (RA) sweeper. This would an addition to our sweeper fleet. RA sweepers use a blast of air to dislodge the street debris and suck it into the hopper. It reuses the air so no polluted or particulate air is released into the atmosphere. These type of sweepers help us to comply with air quality requirements (particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less) and storm water Best Management Practices. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Only use mechanical sweepers which discharge dust when sweeping. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL We could improve our discharge into the storm water system. Spring sweeping of the winter sand would generate less dust therefore eliminating complaints from citizens and DEQ. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Normal sweeper maintenance costs. FUNDING SOURCES 60% Storm Water Utility ($150,000), PREVIOUSLY from Street Maintenance District. 40% Street Maintenance District ($100,000). New Replacement Equipment Project FY17 Exhibit G CIP Project Fund Storm Water Fund PROJECT NUMBER STRM07 DEPARTMENT Storm Water PROJECT NAME MECHNICAL SWEEPER FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $132,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ***Previously STR36, STREET MAINTENANCE CIP***This is a request for a mechanical street sweeper. This would replace our 2005 sweeper. Mechanical sweepers still have a place in our fleet as they can be used in weather below freezing because they can operate without water. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Continue to use 2005 model. Lease. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL More reliable newer equipment. Much less expense for maintenance. Better job of sweeping. Better fuel mileage and lower emissions. Less down time. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES 60% Storm Water Utility ($132,000), PREVIOUSLY from Street Maintenance District. 40% Street Maintenance District ($88,000.) New Replacement Equipment Project FY17 Exhibit G CIP Project Fund Storm Water Fund PROJECT NUMBER STRM08 DEPARTMENT Storm Water PROJECT NAME Rouse Avenue Storm Drain Upsizing FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 $186,300 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project is in coordination with the MDOT improvements to Rouse Avenue. It entails the upsizing of Stormwater Infrastructure on Rouse. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES Storm Water Utility, TSEP Grant, other grants. New Replacement Equipment Project FY17 Exhibit G CIP Project Fund Storm Water Fund PROJECT NUMBER STRM09 DEPARTMENT Storm Water PROJECT NAME Rouse Avenue Storm Water Treatment FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 $93,000 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project is in coordiantion with the MDOT improvements to Rouse Avenue. It will provide Storm Water treatment facilities for run-off on Rouse Avenue. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES Storm Water Utility, TSEP Grant, other grants. New Replacement Equipment Project FY17 Exhibit G ME T H O D A FY 1 3 FY 1 4 F Y 1 5 F Y 1 6 FY17 Pe r M e t e r P e r M o n t h : ( a l l m e t e r s s a m e ) 3. 7 4 $ 3. 9 3 $ 4. 1 2 $ 4. 3 7 $ 4.63 $ ME T H O D B Pe r M e t e r P e r M o n t h , b y M e t e r S i z e ( s i m i l a r t o c u r r e n t W a t e r B a s e C h a r g e ) Si z e : Fa c t o r Qu a n t i t y We i g h t e d T o t a l C h a r g e / M o n t h 5/ 8 " 1. 0 0 9 , 8 7 5 9 , 8 7 5 3 . 5 2 $ 3 . 7 0 $ 3 . 8 8 $ 4 . 1 2 $ 4 . 3 6 $ 1" 1. 3 2 4 4 9 5 9 5 4 . 6 7 $ 4 . 9 0 $ 5 . 1 4 $ 5 . 4 5 $ 5 . 7 8 $ 1 1/ 2 " 2. 0 8 1 7 6 3 6 7 7 . 3 4 $ 7 . 7 1 $ 8 . 0 9 $ 8 . 5 8 $ 9 . 0 9 $ 2" 3. 0 3 6 4 1 9 4 1 0 . 6 7 $ 1 1 . 2 1 $ 1 1 . 7 7 $ 1 2 . 4 7 $ 1 3 . 2 2 $ 3" 5. 2 4 8 4 2 1 8 . 4 5 $ 1 9 . 3 7 $ 2 0 . 3 4 $ 2 1 . 5 6 $ 2 2 . 8 5 $ 4" 8. 4 0 1 0 8 4 2 9 . 5 9 $ 3 1 . 0 7 $ 3 2 . 6 2 $ 3 4 . 5 8 $ 3 6 . 6 5 $ 6" 15 . 6 6 2 3 1 55 . 1 5 $ 57 . 9 1 $ 60 . 8 0 $ 64 . 4 5 $ 68.32 $ 8" 24 . 7 5 2 5 0 87 . 1 9 $ 91 . 5 5 $ 96 . 1 3 $ 10 1 . 9 0 $ 108.01 $ 10 , 5 8 6 11 , 2 3 7 An n u a l A m o u n t s C o l l e c t e d FY 1 3 FY 1 4 F Y 1 5 F Y 1 6 FY17 5/ 8 " 41 7 , 4 2 4 . 5 9 $ 4 3 8 , 2 9 5 . 8 2 $ 4 6 0 , 2 1 0 . 6 1 $ 4 8 7 , 8 2 3 . 2 5 $ 5 1 7 , 0 9 2 . 6 5 $ 1" 25 , 1 4 0 . 4 5 $ 26 , 3 9 7 . 4 7 $ 27 , 7 1 7 . 3 5 $ 29 , 3 8 0 . 3 9 $ 31,143.21 $ 1 1/ 2 " 15 , 4 9 9 . 3 1 $ 16 , 2 7 4 . 2 8 $ 17 , 0 8 7 . 9 9 $ 18 , 1 1 3 . 2 7 $ 19,200.06 $ 2" 8, 1 9 7 . 5 9 $ 8, 6 0 7 . 4 7 $ 9, 0 3 7 . 8 4 $ 9, 5 8 0 . 1 2 $ 10,154.92 $ 3" 1, 7 7 1 . 0 8 $ 1, 8 5 9 . 6 4 $ 1, 9 5 2 . 6 2 $ 2, 0 6 9 . 7 7 $ 2,193.96 $ 4" 3, 5 5 0 . 7 5 $ 3, 7 2 8 . 2 9 $ 3, 9 1 4 . 7 0 $ 4, 1 4 9 . 5 9 $ 4,398.56 $ 6" 1, 3 2 3 . 5 5 $ 1, 3 8 9 . 7 2 $ 1, 4 5 9 . 2 1 $ 1, 5 4 6 . 7 6 $ 1,639.57 $ 8" 2, 0 9 2 . 6 8 $ 2, 1 9 7 . 3 1 $ 2, 3 0 7 . 1 7 $ 2, 4 4 5 . 6 0 $ 2,592.34 $ 47 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 49 8 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $ 52 3 , 6 8 7 . 5 0 $ 55 5 , 1 0 8 . 7 5 $ 588,415.28 $ Exhibit H ME T H O D C Pe r  Sq u a r e  Fo o t a g e ,  By  Zo n i n g ,  Pe r  Mo n t h Zo n e To t a l S q F t Me a n P r o p e r t y Si z e Fa c t o r W e i g h t e d T o t a l F Y 1 3 F Y 1 4 F Y 1 5 FY16FY17 B- 1 3, 3 3 2 , 4 3 3 29 , 7 5 4 10 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 2 5 0. 0 0 0 1 3 1 0. 0 0 0 1 3 7 0.000146 0.000154 B- 2 46 , 1 1 9 , 9 8 5 38 , 4 3 3 12 . 5 5 7 6 4 9 9 8 1 3 0 . 0 0 0 1 5 6 0. 0 0 0 1 6 3 0. 0 0 0 1 7 2 0.000182 0.000193 B- 3 39 7 2 9 0 8 31 5 3 12 . 5 4 9 6 6 1 3 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 5 6 0. 0 0 0 1 6 3 0. 0 0 0 1 7 2 0.000182 0.000193 BP 14 3 3 1 9 0 7 1 5 2 4 6 7 10 1 4 3 3 1 9 0 7 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 2 5 0. 0 0 0 1 3 1 0. 0 0 0 1 3 7 0.000146 0.000154 HM U 12 4 2 7 2 1 42 5 5 12 . 5 1 5 5 3 4 0 1 2 . 5 0 . 0 0 0 1 5 6 0. 0 0 0 1 6 3 0. 0 0 0 1 7 2 0.000182 0.000193 M- 1 30 8 6 3 8 3 2 39 8 2 4 12 . 5 3 8 5 7 9 7 9 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 5 6 0. 0 0 0 1 6 3 0. 0 0 0 1 7 2 0.000182 0.000193 M- 2 94 0 3 0 5 0 29 5 6 9 12 . 5 1 1 7 5 3 8 1 2 5 0 . 0 0 0 1 5 6 0. 0 0 0 1 6 3 0. 0 0 0 1 7 2 0.000182 0.000193 PL I 76 3 9 8 7 9 2 31 8 8 5 5. 5 4 2 0 1 9 3 3 5 6 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 8 0. 0 0 0 0 7 2 0. 0 0 0 0 7 6 0.000080 0.000085 R- 1 64 5 3 4 9 4 4 14 7 7 7 5. 5 3 5 4 9 4 2 1 9 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 8 0. 0 0 0 0 7 2 0. 0 0 0 0 7 6 0.000080 0.000085 R- 2 27 0 8 2 8 3 1 64 3 6 5. 5 1 4 8 9 5 5 5 7 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 8 0. 0 0 0 0 7 2 0. 0 0 0 0 7 6 0.000080 0.000085 R- 3 73 2 0 7 3 9 0 17 7 3 0 5. 5 4 0 2 6 4 0 6 4 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 8 0. 0 0 0 0 7 2 0. 0 0 0 0 7 6 0.000080 0.000085 R- 4 34 2 2 3 1 7 0 18 3 0 1 5. 5 1 8 8 2 2 7 4 3 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 8 0. 0 0 0 0 7 2 0. 0 0 0 0 7 6 0.000080 0.000085 R- M H 52 3 3 4 2 4 22 8 5 3 5. 5 2 8 7 8 3 8 3 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 8 0. 0 0 0 0 7 2 0. 0 0 0 0 7 6 0.000080 0.000085 R- O 19 1 7 3 0 5 9 64 9 9 3 5. 5 1 0 5 4 5 1 8 2 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 8 0. 0 0 0 0 7 2 0. 0 0 0 0 7 6 0.000080 0.000085 R- S 37 0 6 4 3 7 5 85 7 9 7 5. 5 2 0 3 8 5 4 0 6 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 8 0. 0 0 0 0 7 2 0. 0 0 0 0 7 6 0.000080 0.000085 UM U 13 6 5 5 4 3 1 3 6 5 5 4 3 3 4 0 9 6 6 2 9 0 . 0 0 0 0 3 7 0. 0 0 0 0 3 9 0. 0 0 0 0 4 1 0.000044 0.000046 44 7 , 5 5 0 , 3 6 4 31 7 8 8 2 0 1 4 7 An n u a l A m o u n t s C o l l e c t e d FY 1 3 FY 1 4 FY 1 5 FY16FY17 B- 1 4, 9 7 9 . 5 4 $ 5, 2 2 8 . 5 2 $ 5, 4 8 9 . 9 4 $ 5,819.34 $ 6,168.50$ B- 2 86 , 1 4 4 . 3 5 $ 90 , 4 5 1 . 5 7 $ 94 , 9 7 4 . 1 5 $ 100,672.60 $ 106,712.96$ B-3 7 4 2 0 7 2 $ 7 7 9 1 7 6 $ 8 1 8 1 3 5 $ 867223 $ 919256$ B-3 7,42 0 .72 $ 7,79 1 .76 $ 8,18 1 .35 $ 8,672.23 $ 9,192.56$ BP 21 , 4 1 5 . 6 7 $ 22 , 4 8 6 . 4 5 $ 23 , 6 1 0 . 7 7 $ 25,027.42 $ 26,529.07$ HM U 2, 3 2 1 . 1 9 $ 2, 4 3 7 . 2 5 $ 2, 5 5 9 . 1 2 $ 2,712.66 $ 2,875.42$ M- 1 57 , 6 4 8 . 4 3 $ 60 , 5 3 0 . 8 6 $ 63 , 5 5 7 . 4 0 $ 67,370.84 $ 71,413.09$ M- 2 17 , 5 6 3 . 3 1 $ 18 , 4 4 1 . 4 8 $ 19 , 3 6 3 . 5 5 $ 20,525.36 $ 21,756.89$ PL I 62 , 7 8 8 . 0 3 $ 65 , 9 2 7 . 4 3 $ 69 , 2 2 3 . 8 0 $ 73,377.23 $ 77,779.86$ R- 1 53 , 0 3 7 . 7 7 $ 55 , 6 8 9 . 6 6 $ 58 , 4 7 4 . 1 4 $ 61,982.59 $ 65,701.55$ R- 2 22 , 2 5 7 . 9 1 $ 23 , 3 7 0 . 8 1 $ 24 , 5 3 9 . 3 5 $ 26,011.71 $ 27,572.41$ R- 3 60 , 1 6 5 . 1 9 $ 63 , 1 7 3 . 4 5 $ 66 , 3 3 2 . 1 2 $ 70,312.04 $ 74,530.77$ R- 4 28 , 1 2 6 . 1 7 $ 29 , 5 3 2 . 4 8 $ 31 , 0 0 9 . 1 0 $ 32,869.65 $ 34,841.83$ R- M H 4, 3 0 1 . 0 7 $ 4, 5 1 6 . 1 2 $ 4, 7 4 1 . 9 3 $ 5,026.44 $ 5,328.03$ R- O 15 , 7 5 7 . 3 0 $ 16 , 5 4 5 . 1 6 $ 17 , 3 7 2 . 4 2 $ 18,414.77 $ 19,519.65$ R- S 30 , 4 6 1 . 2 0 $ 31 , 9 8 4 . 2 6 $ 33 , 5 8 3 . 4 7 $ 35,598.48 $ 37,734.39$ UM U 61 2 . 1 4 $ 64 2 . 7 5 $ 67 4 . 8 9 $ 715.38 $ 758.31$ 47 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 49 8 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $ 52 3 , 6 8 7 . 5 0 $ 555,108.75 $ 588,415.28$ Exhibit H ME T H O D C , c o n t ' d Me a n L o t S i z e M o n t h l y C h a r g e Sq F t FY 1 3 F Y 1 4 FY 1 5 FY16FY17 B- 1 29 , 7 5 4 3. 7 1 $ 3. 8 9 $ 4. 0 8 $ 4.33 $ 4.59$ B- 2 38 , 4 3 3 5. 9 8 $ 6. 2 8 $ 6. 6 0 $ 6.99 $ 7.41$ B- 3 3, 1 5 3 0. 4 9 $ 0. 5 2 $ 0. 5 4 $ 0.57 $ 0.61$ BP 15 2 , 4 6 7 18 . 9 9 $ 19 . 9 3 $ 20 . 9 3 $ 22.19 $ 23.52$ HM U 4, 2 5 5 0. 6 6 $ 0. 7 0 $ 0. 7 3 $ 0.77 $ 0.82$ M- 1 39 , 8 2 4 6. 2 0 $ 6. 5 1 $ 6. 8 3 $ 7.24 $ 7.68$ M- 2 29 , 5 6 9 4. 6 0 $ 4. 8 3 $ 5. 0 7 $ 5.38 $ 5.70$ PL I 31 , 8 8 5 2. 1 8 $ 2. 2 9 $ 2. 4 1 $ 2.55 $ 2.71$ R- 1 14 , 7 7 7 1. 0 1 $ 1. 0 6 $ 1. 1 2 $ 1.18 $ 1.25$ R- 2 6, 4 3 6 0. 4 4 $ 0. 4 6 $ 0. 4 9 $ 0.52 $ 0.55$ R- 3 17 , 7 3 0 1. 2 1 $ 1. 2 7 $ 1. 3 4 $ 1.42 $ 1.50$ R- 4 18 , 3 0 1 1. 2 5 $ 1. 3 2 $ 1. 3 8 $ 1.46 $ 1.55$ R- M H 22 , 8 5 3 1. 5 7 $ 1. 6 4 $ 1. 7 3 $ 1.83 $ 1.94$ R- O 64 , 9 9 3 4. 4 5 $ 4. 6 7 $ 4. 9 1 $ 5.20 $ 5.51$ R- S 85 , 7 9 7 5. 8 8 $ 6. 1 7 $ 6. 4 8 $ 6.87 $ 7.28$ UM U 1, 3 6 5 , 5 4 3 51 . 0 1 $ 53 . 5 6 $ 56 . 2 4 $ 59.62 $ 63.19$ Exhibit H