Stormwater Management Task Force

City of Springfield - Greene County, Missouri Stormwater Management Task Force Meeting Date: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Location: Public Safety Center 330 West Scott Street Springfield, Missouri 65802 Meeting purposes:  Develop Task Force Recommendations AGENDA 5:30 p.m. Welcome Co-Chair Fred Palmerton Co-Chair Dan Hoy 5:40 p.m. Discussion of Last Meeting Minutes Task Force Members 5:45 p.m. Presentation – Follow up from Last Meeting Project Team 6:00 p.m. Task Force Discussion Task Force Members 7:15 p.m. Next steps Sheila Shockey 7:25 p.m. Closing Remarks Co-Chair Fred Palmerton Co-Chair Dan Hoy 7:30 p.m. Adjourn In accordance with ADA guidelines, if you need special accommodations when attending any City meeting, please notify the City Clerk's office at 864-1443 at least three days prior to the scheduled meeting. Stormwater Management Task Force 1 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Meeting Site: Public Safety Center 330 West Scott Street Springfield, MO 65803 For assistance call (417) 864-1901 or (417) 818-6091 Directions: From the North: Travel south on N. Kansas Expressway to Chestnut Expressway. Turn left or east and travel to North Booneville Avenue. Turn left and proceed 3 blocks to Scott Street. The Public Safety Center is on your left. From Highway 65: Take the Division Street exit. Turn west (right if coming from the north, left if coming from the south) and travel to Booneville Avenue. Turn left and travel about 5 blocks to Scott Street. The Public Safety Center is on your right. From the west and I-44: Take the Chestnut Expressway east to Booneville Avenue. Turn left onto Booneville Avenue and travel 3 blocks to Scott Street. The Public Safety Center is on your left. Stormwater Management Task Force 2 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet City of Springfield - Greene County, Missouri Stormwater Management Task Force Recommendations (DRAFT for further refinement at the April 15, 2013 meeting) Background The 30-member Stormwater Management Task Force, appointed by City Council in September, was charged with studying the long-term needs for the City and County stormwater programs. The City and County will have ongoing costs to administer the stormwater program, and those costs will increase in the future primarily due to stricter environmental regulations and decaying infrastructure. The questions posed to the Task Force for consideration were:  How should we prioritize capital investments made?  What principles should guide the community stormwater management programs?  What investments should be made in stormwater management? o What amount of capital investment should be made over what time period? o Should a permanent dedicated source of funding be implemented for required programs and maintenance/repair/replacement of the decaying system? o Should the capital funding source have a sunset and specific projects identified? o What type of maintenance/system repair & replacement program should be implemented? o Should water quality programs be developed to comply with regulations or exceed standards?  What source(s) of funding are desired?  What level of funding is desired?  How should we explain the issues and task force recommendations to the community? Stormwater Management Task Force 3 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet The task force is focused on three major components of stormwater – water quality/unfunded mandates, minimizing flood risk and replacing aging infrastructure. A major stormwater funding source for both the City and the County for the last 5 years has been the 1/8-cent Parks/Stormwater Tax which expired in June, 2012. Since that time, neither the City nor the County has a dedicated funding source to address stormwater expenses in any of these three categories. Protect Water Quality (WQ Mandates) Invest in Infrastructure Minimize Flood Repair & Risk Replacement (Life‐Cycle) Program Goals & Priorities Recommendations The Stormwater Task Force discussed what outcomes are important for the City and the County’s Stormwater Management programs. They also discussed the program priorities which should be used to prioritize investments in the program including capital projects. The recommendations are listed here in priority order. 1. Reduce the risk of injury/death caused by flooding events. 2. Protect water quality and help our community comply with regulations. 3. Create multiple benefits with stormwater investments. 4. Reduce property damage caused by flooding events. 5. Make sure the system we have in place to manage stormwater is in good repair by investing in proactive infrastructure repair & replacement (lifecycle ). Stormwater Management Task Force 4 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Guiding Principles The Stormwater Task Force also recommends the following Guiding Principles be considered by the City Council and County Commission and staff for the community’s stormwater programs. Conservation:  The efficient use of resources should be encouraged. Economic Development:  We attract businesses and citizens to our community because of the value gained through investments made in environmental stewardship.  We safeguard our water resources while keeping tax rates and fees competitive with other jurisdictions to attract and retain business and citizens. Effectiveness:  Stormwater management programs utilize best practices & sound science; investments are effective.  Springfield/Greene County can’t meet all the financial needs that have been identified. Investments must be made that have the most impact for the dollar spent. Environmental Stewardship:  Springfield/Greene County should meet achievable regulatory requirements based in sound science with the goal of protecting water resources.  It is important to protect & improve drinking water sources and quality of water in streams in Southwest Missouri. Good stormwater management is in everyone’s best interest. Equity/Fairness:  Everyone in the community should pay for stormwater management.  The costs to administer & review permits should be fully recovered from the applicant and not subsidized by other customers. Financial Burden:  Springfield/Greene County should invest in stormwater management programs that are affordable.  Everyone in the community should pay for stormwater management. Innovation/Planning:  The long-term stormwater management program should be flexible to adapt to new technologies and innovations.  It is important to develop good plans before implementing projects so funds are spent wisely.  Master plans of capital improvements should be developed collaboratively on a watershed basis rather than by political jurisdiction. Stormwater Management Task Force 5 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Public Acceptance:  The public perception should be that the stormwater management programs are balanced; decision-making is open and is influenced by public input.  It is important to continue to prioritize, plan & build projects showing progress to the public. Public Benefit:  The public should benefit from the investments made in stormwater management. Understandability/Public Education:  Citizens should be made aware of how they can protect water quality through their actions.  Citizens should understand how improvements can help protect water quality and how improvement programs are funded. Funding Level Recommendations Springfield/Greene County can’t meet all the financial needs that have been identified with current sources of revenue and levels. The following levels of funding are recommended: The total annual expenditures are: $7.75 million currently increasing to approximately $11 million annually in 2020 in three major areas: Water Quality Mandates: Current annual operating costs for the City and County to meet federal and state regulations and manage the stormwater program are approximately $1.5 million and are expected to steadily increase to at least $2.8 million by fiscal year 2020. The majority of these costs are to fund regulatory compliance. Water quality mandates and TMDL planning costs are $900,000 currently, increasing to $2.2 million in 2020. Flood Risk Reduction: Approximately $6 million per year is needed for capital projects to allow the City and County to mitigate local flooding. It is important to develop good plans before implementing projects so funds are spent wisely. Master plans of capital improvements should be developed collaboratively on a watershed basis rather than by political jurisdiction. The City and County should maintain the capital investment levels made annually in the past on flood risk reduction. This funding level supports a good program that makes steady progress to eliminate the most severe flooding problems. This is approximately $6 million per year for the City and County together. These investments should also protect water quality as desired by the community and required by the state/federal regulators. Infrastructure Repair/Replacement: The task force recommends that total annual reinvestment should be $2.5 million annually, which would place the City and County on a 200-year replacement cycle for the $500 million in existing infrastructure. The City and County have built infrastructure to manage stormwater over the past 100 years, but resources have not been available to repair and replace it. The Task Force recommends the City/County total annual reinvestment should be $2.5 million which is more than is being spent currently but not as much as the industry best practice of a 100-year system replacement cycle. Stormwater Management Task Force 6 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Recommended Funding Sources In terms of funding sources, the following is recommended: 1. The capital funding source should be the 1/8th of a cent sales tax for Parks/Stormwater with a 7-year sunset and specific project list identified. 2. A permanent, dedicated funding source should be put in place to cover the costs of required programs and system repair/replacement activities. The funding source for ongoing and required costs should be reliable and not fluctuate greatly from year to year. The recommended funding source is:  1/10th of one percent sales tax for water quality ($4 million annually); or  1/8th of a cent sales tax for Parks/Stormwater with no sunset ($5.1 million annually); or  A stormwater user fee ($5.2 million annually). Community Outreach How should we explain the issues and task force recommendations to the community? Stormwater Management Task Force 7 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet City of Springfield - Greene County, Missouri Stormwater Management Task Force Background Information Revenues & Expenditures The following information was provided at the last Stormwater Task Force meeting in the agenda packet and presentation. It is provided again as background information to aid in the discussion on April 15, 2013. Estimated revenues for each source are listed in Table 1. Table 1. County-wide Annual Revenue Projections for Each Revenue Source Projected Annual County-Wide Funding Source Revenue 1 cent Property Tax $440,000 1/10th Cent Sales Tax $4,035,359 1/8th Cent Sales Tax $5,147,110 1/4 Cent Sales Tax $10,088,389 1/2 Cent Sales Tax $20,176,796 $1/month Utility $3,559,227 $2/month Utility $7,118,453 $3/month Utility $10,813,780 $5/month Utility $18,021,134 The following assumptions were used for the expenditures. A more complete breakdown of the expenditures was included in the last agenda packet and presentation. Operating Costs: The City and the County will have ongoing costs to administer the stormwater program and those costs will increase primarily due to stricter regulatory compliance. Because the range given at the last several meetings was so wide due to the uncertainty of these regulations, the project team has narrowed these down to what is known to be required for compliance with the MS4 permit and to funds for TMDL planning. It does not include the estimated costs to address TMDLs with programs/projects because of the difficulty in estimating costs without more information. Current operating costs for the City and County are approximately $1.5 million and are expected to increase to approximately $2.8 million in Fiscal Year 2020. The majority of this cost is for water quality compliance activities. Stormwater Management Task Force 8 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet  Table 2. City & County Known Operating Costs for 2013 – 2020 Known City + County Current FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY 20 Ongoing Operating Costs City Operating Costs $1,210,000 $1,755,000 $1,840,000 $1,870,000 $1,960,000 $1,985,000 $2,110,000 $2,110,000 County Operating Costs $321,000 $373,000 $693,000 $707,000 $712,000 $715,000 $726,000 $726,000 TOTAL $1,531,000 $2,128,000 $2,533,000 $2,577,000 $2,672,000 $2,700,000 $2,836,000 $2,836,000 Capital Costs & Life Cycle Replacement Costs: At the last Task Force meeting, the members asked that scenarios be developed to include costs to minimize flood risk and repair & replace infrastructure (lifecycle). The targets set were based upon the following:  Amount the City and County historically has spent annually on flood risk reduction. This funding level supports a good program that makes steady progress to eliminate the most severe flooding problems. This is approximately $6 million per year for the City and County together.  A life-cycle replacement program spanning 200 years for the entire system. The life-cycle replacement target is more than is being spent currently. It is not as much as the industry best practice of a 100-year system replacement cycle. We’ve included approximately $1.7 million in the scenarios which is less than the 200-year lifecycle cost.  Staffing needed to support these programs. The City & County Seven Year Capital Plan is $53.31 million for projects that improve water quality, minimize flood risk and replace existing infrastructure. These investments are not required. Table 3: City & County Capital Costs for 2013 – 2020 (7 Year Plan) TOTAL CAPITAL & INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR COSTS ‐‐ CITY + COUNTY Total Project Costs Annualized Cost Minimize Flood Risk Capital Projects $36,030,000 $5,147,143 Infrastructure Repair & Replacement (Lifecycle) Program $17,280,000 $2,468,571 TOTAL $53,310,000 $7,615,714 One of the priorities established by the Task Force was to look for ways to stretch the dollars to be spent by looking for ways to spend one dollar to address all three goals:  Protect water quality and meet environmental regulations.  Minimize flood risk  Reinvest in infrastructure repair & replacement (life-cycle) Stormwater Management Task Force 9 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Figure 1 shows the three goals of the program overlapping. The areas where there is overlap of the circles depicts those programs and projects that are multi-objective or multi-benefit. Figure 1. Stormwater Management Program Goals Protect Water Quality (WQ Mandates) Invest in Infrastructure Minimize Flood Repair & Risk Replacement (Life‐Cycle) To comply with TMDLs, the City and County will be required to build projects to improve the streams that are designated as polluted. Section 2 of the agenda packet for the February 28th meeting describes the streams designated as polluted and what may be required to reduce the pollution. Many of the capital projects proposed will accomplish at least two or three of these goals. Tables 4 and 5 provide a list of prioritized projects that could potentially be completed with a description of the goals achieved through the project investment. Table 4. City of Springfield, Mo. Example Prioritized 7-Year Multi-Objective Capital Program Protect Reduce Replace Water Flood Risk Infrastructure Project Cost Quality (life cycle) Complete Phase 1 of System Evaluation, $1,000,000 x X x Condition Assessment & Prioritization Upper Fassnight in area of $3,000,000 x X x Grand/National Lower Fassnight in area of $3,000,000 x X x Kimbrough/Cherry Stormwater Management Task Force 10 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Boonville and Central to County Campus $2,000,000 X x Additional Priority Infrastructure Repair & $3,000,000 Replacement Projects to be identified x X x through assessment Watershed Planning & Project $1,000,000 x x x Prioritization & Program management Renew Jordan Creek (USACE match $7,000,000 x x phase 1 & 2) Renew Jordan Creek (Grant viaduct to $4,000,000 x x Boonville) Fassnight Creek (Jefferson to Holland) to $3,000,000 x x x Phelps Grove Park Ravenwood Branch (Charleston/Carleton $3,000,000 x x to Lake Springfield Galloway Stream Stabilization (South of $1,000,000 x x Battlefield Road) Jordan Creek Stream Stabilization and $1,000,000 habitat enhancement (downstream of x x Grant) Wilsons Creek Stream Stabilization and $2,000,000 x x habitat enhancement (downstream of RR) Dickerson Park Zoo channel restoration, $2,000,000 x x water quality enhancement Grant Beach Park channel day-lighting & $1,000,000 x x x box replacement program Additional Priority Projects to reduce $10,000,000 flooding/improve water quality and x x manage the capital projects program TOTAL $47,000,000 Table 5. Greene County, Mo. Example Prioritized 7-Year Multi-Objective Capital Program Protect Replace Water Reduce Infrastructure Project Cost Quality Flood Risk (life cycle) Watershed Planning & Project $100,000 x x x Prioritization Oak Knolls Subdivision $1,000,000 x x Stormwater Management Task Force 11 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Cherokee Estates $1,300,000 x x Prairie View Heights $500,000 x x Chapel Hill $400,000 x x Comar Addition $75,000 x x Monta Vista Heights $500,000 x x Town and Country Estates $750,000 x x Woodsboro Estates $320,000 x x Cedar Crest Estates $335,000 x x Needmore Branch Drainage and Greenway $700,000 x x x Trail of Tears Drainage and Greenway $130,000 x Springday Hills Drainage Project Phase 2 $200,000 x x x TOTAL $6,310,000 Table 6 is a summary of the 7 – year plan capital and infrastructure repair costs. Table 6. City & County Capital & Infrastructure Replacement/Repair (Life-Cycle) Costs TOTAL CAPITAL & INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR COSTS -- CITY + COUNTY Total Project Costs City Capital & Infrastructure Repair $47,000,000 County Capital & Infrastructure Repair $6,310,000 TOTAL $53,310,000 Stormwater Management Task Force 12 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet City of Springfield - Greene County, Missouri Stormwater Management Task Force Meeting Notes – February 28, 2013 Welcome & Introductions The Springfield/Greene County, Missouri Stormwater Management Task Force met in the Greene County Public Safety Center. The meeting commenced at 5:00pm. Task Force Co-chairs Dan Hoy and Fred Palmerton welcomed the task force members and community members in attendance. Those present included the following. Task Force Brain Perdue Rick Scarlet Daniel Beckman Fred Palmerton Matthew Pierson Eric Dove Geoffrey Butler Dana Elwell Patrick Harrington Chris Carson King Coltrin Stacey Armstrong Tiffany Frey Fred Schlegel Ronda Headland Casey Haynes Dan Hoy Tom Kissee Bill Bretall Chris Macioce Tom DeWitt Absent: Aaron Wahlquist, Karen Spence, Jerany Jackson, Dave Murray, Patty Hamilton, Erik Fjeseth, Andy Hosmer, Harlan Hill, Matt Bailey City and County Staff Carrie Lamb Barbara Lucks Kimberly White Vanessa Brandon Justin Foss Tim Davis Tim Smith Sheila Shockey Kevin Barnes Chris Coulter Fred Marty Jan Millington Visitors Milton Dickensheet Mike Pessina Roddy Rogers Minutes Minutes from the last meeting were approved. Presentations Sheila Shockey gave a brief presentation summarizing the meeting packet. She reviewed the task force’s charge and the status of each item of the charge. Tonight will focus on what investments should be made in stormwater management and what source(s) of funding are desired. Next meetings will focus on principles to guide the program and how to communicate the recommendations to the public. She Stormwater Management Task Force 13 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet reviewed the priorities established by the task force, with reducing injury/death due to flooding and protecting water quality being the top priorities. Sheila explained the revenue and expenditure assumptions that were used in developing the five funding scenarios. The revenue needs for water quality mandates are based on MS4 permit costs we are certain about and costs for TMDL planning, but not implementation. Capital costs were based on continuing the current level of funding for flood risk reduction (about $6 million/year) and a 200-year infrastructure lifecycle replacement ($2.5 million/year). The Wilson/Jordan and Pearson TMDL lawsuit has been dismissed and the USEPA will be developing new TMDLs. TMDL planning cost is to fund monitoring and study to work cooperatively with USEPA on developing new ones. The TMDLs currently in place are for the James and Little Sac River. Those on the horizon are the new Wilson, Jordan, and Pearson TMDLs and potentially others. Staff put together a list of projects that are multi-objective, meeting two or three of the objectives of water quality protection, minimizing flood risk, and infrastructure replacement. Maps of the City and County proposed projects lists were shown. Todd Wagner discussed Renew Jordan Creek as an example project on the list that meets multiple objectives. This project includes multiple projects throughout the Jordan Creek watershed, and will incorporate community input and partnerships. It includes bridge replacements, channel work, such as stream daylighting, and regional detention basins. The feasibility study with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been completed and determined that detention basins and flood protection of Euticals pharmaceutical plant meet the criteria for Corps funding. That would be one piece of the overall Renew Jordan Creek project. Todd showed renderings of what daylighting Jordan Creek in the downtown area could look like. It would provide flood protection and economic development. Another part of the project is the brownfields environmental cleanup in West Meadows. With local match, we’ve been able to leverage USEPA funds. It will incorporate riparian corridor improvements and a trail. Todd also showed a rendering of a bridge replacement with a pedestrian underpass. Similar example projects include Antelope Creek in Lincoln and Cherry Creek in Denver. The entire project cost range is $75-$100 million but would likely occur over a long time period of 15-20 years. Guiding Principles Survey Results Sheila reviewed the results of surveys taken by the task force members establishing guiding principles, and discussed how the various funding sources compare to those results. There was agreement on the following:  A permanent, dedicated funding source should be put in place to cover the costs of required programs and maintenance activities.  The funding source for ongoing and required costs should be reliable and not fluctuate greatly from year to year.  A capital funding source should have a sunset and specific project list identified. Fifty-nine percent (59%) said the funding of stormwater management should be linked directly to the amount of runoff a property produces. Those who cause more of the problem, pay more for stormwater management services. This would point to a user fee for a funding source. Stormwater Management Task Force 14 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Presentation on Funding Scenarios Sheila explained the assumptions used in the user fee scenario: Start receiving revenue in second half of 2014; $150,000 to set up the utility and $40,000 annual cost to administer; gradual increase from $1.00 to $2.00/month/ERU; 20% reduction in revenue for incentives/credits. She presented a chart summarizing and comparing all 5 scenarios. Scenario #1: 1/10 cent + 1/8 cent sales tax (sunset 1/8th after 7 years) Scenario #2: Property tax increase 9 mils + 1/8 cent (sunset 1/8 cent after 7 years) Scenario #3: Property tax only – increase 20.7 mils Scenario #4: ¼ cent sales tax Scenario #5: $1-$2/month ERU user fee + 1/8 cent sales tax (sunset it after 7 years) All provide a similar amount of revenue, so would fund the same program levels with the exception of ¼ cent which would provide more capital and lifecycle replacement funding. With scenario #5, examples of what that user fee impact would be on churches, businesses, and the City and County were shown. The 1/10th cent to ¼ cent options would represent an approximate 1-3% increase in the overall sales tax rate. The two property tax increase scenarios would increase tax on $120,000 value by 2% and 4% respectively. Discussion of Scenarios Sheila asked the task force if they want to get rid of any of the 5 scenarios. There was consensus to eliminate the scenarios with property tax as the funding source. Sheila asked for thoughts on the ¼ cent sales tax. She noted that it would prevent Parks from getting additional funding unless a portion of it has a sunset. (1/8th cent sales tax permanent, 1/8 cent sales tax with sunset for capital.) Question: What is the probability of approval of the ¼ cent by voters? Response: Think it would be difficult. Voter education would be necessary. Comment: All of the scenarios will be hard to sell. Need to explain the need and then explain the funding source as simply as possible. With sales tax, the voters will need to understand that the visitors also pay it. Springfield is a regional destination. That’s a plus to sales tax scenario. Comment: If you build impervious, you should pay. User fee is easy to explain – everyone pays. Those who have invested in a higher level stormwater management service would pay less on the credit system. Comment: What about the impact on churches? Response: They contribute to the problem too so they should pay. Comment: It makes sense for visitors to help pay for a commodity that they use like highways. Visitors don’t utilize the stormwater system to the same extent as a citizen. Stormwater Management Task Force 15 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Response: The connection between visitors and sales tax includes keeping roads free of flooding, and water quality. If that connection is not as strong, you’re just passing the buck rather than having those using it pay for it. Comment: A temporary funding source for a permanent problem doesn’t make sense. Infrastructure won’t last 200 years. Comment: Makes most sense long-term to do a utility because it’s the only one that builds in the motivation to invest in good stormwater management up front. Incentivize for a long-term change in better stormwater management practices. Comment: Before even taking it to the voters, would need to craft the credits so that each individual property owner would know what their cost would be before voting for it. City/County Response: We’ve done a lot of the background work on that already. Experts have told us the expected loss in revenue from credits which are only about 5%. The number of properties that would be eligible for credits is a small percentage of the total number of parcels. Tim Smith provided history on why we’ve done background work on a user fee. He said the County knew the 2006 parks/stormwater tax would sunset in 5 years so we funded a user fee study in anticipation that it may be one potential funding source when the tax sunset occurred in 2012. Question: Are there credits for residential? Response: yes Comment: Our economy is growing and we’ll continue to be a regional destination. Those who visit do benefit from infrastructure maintenance and water quality. We need to emphasize that if we move forward with a sales tax. Question: Would raising rates in the future if we have a utility have to go to the voters? Response: Yes, due to legal precedence. Comment: Iowa has a drainage district with a drainage tax that is billed through the assessor. It’s $10/year. That’s a good value for having the storm system available for sump pump connection to keep basement from flooding. Comment: The term utility may have a negative connotation. Calling it a user fee would be better because you are paying to use the stormwater system by the amount you contribute to the system. Comment: Other communities have used the terms stormwater fee or water quality fee. Comment: If we don’t pass a funding source and get sued by the USEPA for not fulfilling mandates, where would the funding for those mandates come from? General fund? Comment: Citizens will know what their monthly user fee will be and it doesn’t fluctuate. Sales tax fluctuates based on what you spend. User fees are more known and easier to budget for than a sales tax. Stormwater Management Task Force 16 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet There was consensus among the Task force members that 1/8th cent sales tax for capital projects should sunset. Question: Would utility require hiring more staff? We assume 0.5 FTE to handle billing/questions. Question: Would credits be one-time or ongoing? Staff Answer: Could be some of both. Example credits we looked at were basins, education, maintenance which would be ongoing but may fluctuate for example if your education efforts decrease. Information was handed out from the Chamber about their perspective on the impact of the different funding sources. Comment: Non-profits and churches would be hit hardest by a user fee. Comment: Incentive to go above and beyond on stormwater requirements will be driven by buyer/tenant desire for environmentally-friendly development regardless of incentives. We are starting to see more of that practice. Comment: Cost share program may incentivize more than a user fee credit would. Comment: In 1993, we got a lot of push back and negative press from churches and educational institutions on the user fee that was put on the ballot. Question: How were those challenges dealt with in Lenexa and Overland Park? Staff Response: It was in Kansas so the user fee didn’t have to be voted on. We got businesses to help pass a sales tax at the same time so the user fee didn’t have to be as high. Lenexa created Rain to Recreation as the program name for the user fee. Comment: In commercial real estate, whether the user fee is on a utility bill or the property tax bill will make a difference on how it’s passed on to tenants. Comment: A utility/user fee can be packaged in a way to make it easier to sell. It could be called a pollution prevention fee, water quality fee, etc. Comment: Being able to potentially incentivize maintenance is a pro of the user fee. Comment: No matter the land use, the site can be designed to have minimal runoff and keep the user fee low. The user fee would incentivize that type of design. Sheila asked the Task Force members to vote on the source of funding for ongoing program costs. It was a tie vote: Utility – 9. Sales tax – 9. Sheila gave the task force a homework assignment. Over the next month until next meeting, ask as many people as you can whether they prefer a sales tax or user fee. Request: Bring an example of how another community packaged and explained/sold their user fee to the voters. Stormwater Management Task Force 17 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Tim Smith reiterated that the ¼ cent and 1/8th cent sales tax compete with Park’s interests, whereas the 1/10th cent sales tax doesn’t because Parks isn’t able to get the 1/10th of a cent sales tax by statute because it’s authorized for water quality only. The ¼ and 1/8th cent sales tax are part of the ½ cent sales tax statutorily authorized for parks or stormwater. Next Steps and Closing Remarks The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Stormwater Management Task Force 18 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet City of Springfield - Greene County, Missouri Stormwater Management Task Force Recommendations (DRAFT for further refinement at the April 15, 2013 meeting) Background The 30-member Stormwater Management Task Force, appointed by City Council in September, was charged with studying the long-term needs for the City and County stormwater programs. The City and County will have ongoing costs to administer the stormwater program, and those costs will increase in the future primarily due to stricter environmental regulations and decaying infrastructure. The questions posed to the Task Force for consideration were:  How should we prioritize investments made?  What principles should guide the community stormwater management programs?  What investments should be made in stormwater management? o Should water quality programs be developed to comply with regulations or exceed standards? o Should a permanent dedicated source of funding be implemented for required programs and maintenance/repair/replacement of the decaying system? o What amount of capital investment should be made over what time period? o Should the capital funding source have a sunset and specific projects identified? o What type of maintenance/system repair & replacement program should be implemented?  What level of funding is desired?  What source(s) of funding are desired?  How should we explain the issues and task force recommendations to the community? Stormwater Management Task Force 1 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet The task force is focused on three major components of stormwater – water quality/unfunded mandates, minimizing flood risk and replacing aging infrastructure. A major stormwater funding source for both the City and the County for the last 5 years has been the 1/8-cent Parks/Stormwater Tax which expired in June, 2012. Since that time, neither the City nor the County has a dedicated funding source to address stormwater expenses in any of these three categories. Protect Water Quality (WQ Mandates) Invest in Infrastructure Minimize Flood Repair & Risk Replacement (Life‐Cycle) Program Goals & Priorities Recommendations The Stormwater Task Force discussed what outcomes are important for the City and the County’s Stormwater Management programs. They also discussed the program priorities which should be used to prioritize investments in the program including capital projects. The recommendations are listed here in priority order. 1. Reduce the risk of injury/death caused by flooding events. 2. Protect water quality and help our community comply with regulations. 3. Create multiple benefits with stormwater investments. 4. Reduce property damage caused by flooding events. 5. Make sure the system we have in place to manage stormwater is in good repair by investing in proactive infrastructure repair & replacement (lifecycle ). Stormwater Management Task Force 2 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Guiding Principles The Stormwater Task Force also recommends the following Guiding Principles be considered by the City Council and County Commission and staff for the community’s stormwater programs. Conservation:  The efficient use of resources should be encouraged. Economic Development:  We attract businesses and citizens to our community because of the value gained through investments made in environmental stewardship.  We safeguard our water resources while keeping tax rates and fees competitive with other jurisdictions to attract and retain business and citizens. Effectiveness:  Stormwater management programs utilize best practices & sound science; investments are effective.  Springfield/Greene County can’t meet all the financial needs that have been identified. Investments must be made that have the most impact for the dollar spent. Environmental Stewardship:  Springfield/Greene County should meet achievable regulatory requirements based in sound science with the goal of protecting water resources.  It is important to protect & improve drinking water sources and quality of water in streams in Southwest Missouri. Good stormwater management is in everyone’s best interest. Equity/Fairness:  Everyone in the community should pay for stormwater management.  The costs to administer & review permits should be fully recovered from the applicant and not subsidized by other customers. Financial Burden:  Springfield/Greene County should invest in stormwater management programs that are affordable. Innovation/Planning:  The long-term stormwater management program should be flexible to adapt to new technologies and innovations.  It is important to develop good plans before implementing projects so funds are spent wisely.  Master plans of capital improvements should be developed collaboratively on a watershed basis rather than by political jurisdiction. Stormwater Management Task Force 3 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Public Acceptance:  The public perception should be that the stormwater management programs are balanced; decision-making is open and is influenced by public input.  It is important to continue to prioritize, plan & build projects showing progress to the public. Public Benefit:  The public should benefit from the investments made in stormwater management. Understandability/Public Education:  Citizens should be made aware of how they can protect water quality through their actions.  Citizens should understand how improvements can help protect water quality and how improvement programs are funded. Funding Level Recommendations Springfield/Greene County can’t meet all the financial needs that have been identified with current sources of revenue and levels. The total annual expenditures are: $7.75 million currently increasing to approximately $11 million annually in 2020 in three major areas: ongoing operating expenses including water quality mandates, flood risk reduction and infrastructure repair/replacement. No dollars for unknown future costs were included in these funding level recommendations such as the capital costs to comply with unknown environmental regulations for water quality (Total Maximum Daily Loads – TMDLs). Only the costs to plan for TMDL compliance are included in the ongoing operating expenses recommendation. The following levels of funding are recommended: Ongoing Operating Expenses including Water Quality Mandates: The task force recommends that the City and County fund ongoing operating costs to meet federal and state regulations and manage the stormwater program (approximately $1.5 million this year and steadily increasing to at least $2.8 million per year by 2020.)  The majority of ongoing operating costs are to meet federal and state regulations..  It is recommended that the City and County fund the required costs to meet regulations. Infrastructure Repair/Replacement: The task force recommends that total annual reinvestment should be $2.5 million annually.  The City and County have built infrastructure to manage stormwater over the past 100 years, but resources have not been available to repair and replace it. Stormwater Management Task Force 4 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet   This is a 200-year replacement cycle for the $500 million in existing infrastructure. This amount is more than what is being spent currently but not as much as the industry best practice of a 100-year system replacement cycle. Flood Risk Reduction: The task force recommends approximately $6 million per year be invested in capital projects to allow the City and County to mitigate local flooding.  The City and County should maintain the capital investment levels made annually in the past on flood risk reduction. This funding level supports a good program that makes steady progress to eliminate the most severe flooding problems.  It is important to develop good plans before implementing projects so funds are spent wisely. Master plans of capital improvements should be developed collaboratively on a watershed basis rather than by political jurisdiction.  These investments should address flood risk reduction but also protect water quality as desired by the community and required by the state/federal regulators. Stormwater Management Task Force 5 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet Recommended Funding Sources The Task Force considered the pros and cons of property tax, sales tax and user fee for funding stormwater management. The property tax was eliminated from further consideration because voters are typically not supportive of increases to property taxes, it cannot be dedicated to stormwater management and therefore competes with other sources and it doesn’t consider ability to pay. (Should we insert something here to explain the pros and cons of what was selected and what wasn’t selected?) Pros & Cons to Consider Sales Tax User Fee Community would be supportive. Voters have approved in the past. Yes No All entities in the community pay. No Yes Visitors from outside the community pay. Yes No Those who generate more stormwater runoff pay more. No Yes Cost to establish billing system is minimal. Yes No Easy to administer billing system. Yes No Requires a vote of the people. Yes Yes Stable source of revenue -- doesn't fluctuate with the economy. No Yes Structure considers ability to pay. No No Stormwater competes with other funding needs unless dedicated Yes No specifically to stormwater. Stormwater Management Task Force 6 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet In terms of funding sources, the following is recommended: 1. The most urgent need is a permanent, dedicated funding source to cover the ongoing operating expenses and water quality mandates and infrastructure repair/replacement expenses. The funding source for ongoing and required costs should be reliable and not fluctuate greatly from year to year. The recommended funding source is: (Is this the most urgent need? – What is the sense of this urgency? How quickly should the City/County move on this recommendation?) (What will the public accept in terms of these sources? Sales Tax or User Fee – What are the pros and cons of each?) (Can we come to consensus on one source? Definition of consensus – an accepted recommendation, one that can be supported, even if not the favorite of each individual.)  1/10th of one percent sales tax ($4 million annually); OR  A stormwater user fee ($5.2 million annually). 2. The capital funding source for flood risk reduction should be the reinstatement of the 1/8th of one percent sales tax for Parks/Stormwater with a 7-year sunset and specific project list. These investments should also protect water quality as desired by the community and required by state/federal regulations. (What about the uncertainty of TMDLs? Do we want to have specific projects locked in on a published list or should the projects be somewhat flexible to meet the future TMDL capital project investment requirements?) Community Outreach  How should we explain the issues and task force recommendations to the community? o The Chamber of Commerce representative at a previous meeting suggested reaching out to other groups more specifically. Do you want to do this and if so, do you do it before your final meeting? What is the right process? o How quickly should the task force recommendations go to the City/County? o How should this be presented to the decision-makers? Stormwater Management Task Force 7 April 15, 2013 Agenda Packet