9. Surface Water Mgmt Program 1 CITYOF
_____ci
I
r _
1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
10 r CHANHASSEN
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I -s
L-.:':. !____1//-24441-
i,lkr
1 MEMORANDUM �'�`" M'-•
TO. Don Ashworth, City Manager t- , E.
IFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director POp °-w------- -- . -
DATE: June 5, 1991 _.___,G__/o -_ l
ISUBJ: Consultant Selection Process and Funding Issues, Surface
Water Management Program
1 .As the Council is aware, staff has developed a short list of five
firms to interview to undertake the work effort for our Surface
I Water Management Program. The five firms represent the best of the
sixteen firms who originally responded to our request for
proposals. Interviews are scheduled for the morning of Thursday,
I June 20, 1991, and I am hoping to get good representation from
members of the City Council and Planning Commission to assist us in
making this critical decision. A copy of the memorandum which you
received previously has been attached to this report. We need to
IIhave some idea as soon as possible who will be in attendance.
The second related matter concerns the financial aspects of the
I program. Staff continues to receive a decreasing and small number
of complaints raised by the billing program. At this point, we
believe that virtually all of these concerns have either been
I addressed through provision of additional information whereby
modifications to individual bills were made as appropriate. We
have attempted to keep you informed of this by providing copies of
our responses to individuals in the administrative section.
IWe have completed two billing cycles and have found that there are
some problems that may affect the long term ability of this program
I to be completed as proposed. As you will recall, staff originally
laid out a program that would have raised $1.734 million over a
five year period. The breakdown of projected costs is provided on
I pages 10 and 11 of the report from Short Elliott Hendrickson as
delivered to the Council last August, a copy of which is attached
to this memo. The Council ultimately appropriated 60% of the
requested total or $1,040,400. Staff continued to remain confident
I that the initial work program at any rate, could be completed for
this amount of funding, although we anticipated the likelihood of
having to come back after two to three years when a list of lake
I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
June 5, 1991
Page 2
' improvements, wetland protection and engineering projects were •
developed to obtain sufficient funds to complete them. To this
funding, we must also add the $86,500 that the city received in
payment from Redmond Products for the purchase of city property
relative to an expansion of their plant. However, we have just
received information from Tom Chaffee indicating that actual
' revenues are falling significantly below projections. On a
quarterly basis we were projected to have received $52, 000; .
however, actual revenues are only $35, 000. The only reason we can
find for this is that SEH, in developing their projections of cash
flow, over-estimated the funds that would be received based on
their analysis of land use and parcels in our community. Thus, the
five year program would only be generating a total of $700, 000.
' This represents a significant shortfall not only from the original
request of $1.7 million, but also, more importantly, a significant
shortfall from the 60% funding level that was approved by the City
Council. Even with the funds we received from Redmond Products
added into this mix, the $800, 000 we will have available over the
five years still falls far short of what had been appropriated by
the Council. •
The question must be asked, "Where do we go from here?" I believe
that we have sufficient funds to get the program rolling. We are
not therefore going to be asking the Council to approve an increase
in monthly charges at this time. However, you should keep in mind
for future reference that we are operating the program on an
extremely tight budget and that there are bound to be a variety of
programs and projects which we will want to undertake that will
exceed available funds unless adjustments are made in the future.
In developing this program, we have agreed that we will be coming
back to the Council each year during the budget process to keep you
abreast of work that is being undertaken and work that is
anticipated. We will raise this matter again in the normal budget
' process.
The last item concerning this program is an informational one.
Staff has obtained copies of a letter that Eagan distributed to all
' the residents in the community which is part of their educational
effort relative to water quality protection. The letter outlines
a number of ways that homeowners can directly participate and have
a beneficial impact on water quality. It is our intention to
reformulate this letter somewhat to meet our own needs, but to get
something like this out to our property owners in the very near
' future. Please let me know if you have any comments, pro or con,
on this letter and any suggestions you might have for additional
educational efforts would be appreciated.
I
I
EAGAN RESIDENTS PLAY VITAL ROLE
IN WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Plan Focuses On Homeowners
Recently, the City of Eagan completed the development of a Comprehensive Water
Quality Management Plan. This plan, thought to be the first of its kind in the state, was
undertaken in response to the growing concerns of Eagan residents and public officials '
over the degradation of water quality in the City's lakes and ponds.
With the recent adoption of the plan, the City will now begin the process of implementing 1
the various policies, programs, and lake management strategies aimed at improving and
maintaining water quality. Among the most cost effective methods will be the
development of educational programming opportunities in the community. Specifically, the
plan will be offering informational resources to City staff, state and local agencies, land
developers, and perhaps most importantly, the homeowners residing in the City. ,
Everyone Contributes to the Problem
It is widely known among water quality planners that phosphorus is the leading cause in
the deterioration of water quality in lakes and ponds. When "artificially" introduced into
waterbodies, as a result of human activity, phosphorus can lead to the overgrowth of
aquatic vegetation, emergence of algae, depletion of oxygen, and loss of game fish. This
cause and effect relationship, known as "cultural entrophication", will almost always result
in the accelerated aging and premature decline of a pond.
Among the major contributory factors to the pollution of water in urban areas are the
practices carried out by property owners in the maintenance of the home landscape.
These can include the overuse of phosphorus fertilizers in lawn care, detrimental mowing
practices, the placement of compost piles and grass clipping piles near ponds, and the
disposal of household chemicals and cleaning agents into the City storm drainage system.
Volunta ry Assistance Is Part of the Solution
In order for the Water Quality Plan to be effective in achieving the goals for the City's I
lakes and ponds, the numerous management strategies outlined in the plan must be
undertaken in a coordinated fashion. The voluntary assistance of City residents in helping
to reduce urban water pollution will not only be financially prudent, but essential to the
success of the water quality program. As a starting point, the City would like to offer the
following suggestions to Eagan homeowners in helping to reduce the amount of
phosphorus runoff entering area lakes and ponds:
1
5
1. On new construction sites, homeowners should take steps to establish turfgrass as
soon as conditions permit. On steeply sloping banks, sod should always be secured
through proper staking; or where seed is used, siltation fences should be installed
' across the hill to prevent erosion of soil and/or siltation into streets and storm
drains. For further information on seeding or sodding methods, contact the Dakota
County Extension Office at 463-3302.
' 2. On existing lawns, soil testing is the first step towards efficient lawn care. Soil
' testing kits are available through the University of Minnesota's Soil Testing
Laboratory at 625-3101. Test results may indicate that phosphorus or other
nutrients are already in adequate supply in your soil. If this is the case, fertilization
' rates can be cut back while still maintaining a green and healthy lawn.
3. When purchasing a low phosphorus fertilizer, carefully review the analysis on the
' outside of the fertilizer bag. Three large numbers will usually appear indicating the
percentages of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). Be sure to select
a fertilizer with a,hosphorus content of less than five percent.
' 4. When fertilizing your lawn, avoid spray or drift of the pellets onto hard surface
areas, such as driveways, sidewalks, or the street. This will lessen the chance of
rain or lawn irrigation washing the fertilizer directly into the storm drainage system.
5. Whenever possible, avoid using a grass catcher when mowing your lawn. Research
has shown that leaving clippings on your lawn is equal to approximately one
fertilizer application per year. As the clippings decompose, they will release
' valuable sources of nutrients to the lawn.
6. When mowing, direct the discharge chute of your mower towards the interior of
' your lawn. This will avoid depositing the clippings directly onto the street where
they can be washed into the storm drains. As grass clippings (organic material)
decompose in a pond, they will release high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen,
' which further encourages plant and algae growth.
7. Wherever possible, homeowners should leave an eight to ten foot wide
' unmaintained buffer around the edge of lakes and ponds. This area of taller grass
and plant growth will intercept and absorb a large portion of nutrient runoff before
' it can reach the water.
8. Grass kept at a height of 2 to 2 1/2 inches can withstand heat stress better than
close-clipped grass. This higher mowing height encourages deeper rooting and there
is less need for frequent watering and fertilization. In addition, grass kept at a
higher height tends to shade broad-leaved weeds, giving your lawn a competitive
edge over dandelions and other weeds.
2
I
9. Whenever leaves or grass clippings are collected from a lawn, they should never be
deposited in or adjacent to nearby waterbodies. Rather, compost piles should be
established and maintained far enough from the water's edge to avoid leaching
into the pond. Suggestions for establishing an effective home composting system
can also be obtained from the Dakota County Extension Service.
•
10. Use compost instead of fertilizer for enriching home gardens. Not only is compost
more environmentally sound, but it provides a long lasting source of organic
nutrients for vegetables and flowers.
11. When using pesticides, consider spot spraying of problem areas, as opposed to full
lawn treatments. Chemical runoff can be further reduced by spraying just once a
year in the fall, when pesticides are most effective.
12. In low traffic areas of your lawn (where neighboring properties will not be affected),
consider the establishment of non-maintained prairie grasses, wildflowers, or mulch
beds. Creation of"natural areas" in the home landscape encourages songbirds and
wildlife while reducing the amount of lawn requiring fertilization.
13. Residents should be cautious in their disposal of household chemicals and waste. 1
Motor oil should never be drained directly onto the street. Similarly, liquid
chemicals, such as pesticides, paints, or solvents, should never be dumped onto the
lawn or into street gutters. Rather, they should be disposed of in accordance with
product label instructions. Phosphorus-free detergents should also be used when
washing vehicles on driveways or in the street.
14. Finally, property owners, with septic systems near lakes or ponds, are urged to take
the following precautions: have the system checked every two years and pumped
when necesary; use nonphosphate detergents and employ water conservation
techniques; minimize use of garbage disposals; and keep solvents, plastics, paper
diapers, and similar products, out of the system. 1
Through the voluntary participation of Eagan residents in these pollution abatement '
techniques, the City of Eagan can help to ensure an environment of Improved water
quality, enhanced recreational opportunities, and the preservation of critical habitat for
wildlife. • '
1
20wp:eaganres.ide
I
3
I
•
CITY OF
t‘v' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1
MEMORANDUM
DATE : Me'. 24 . 1091
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manaaer
' FRO ': Tom Chaffer",„ Data Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT : Surface Water Management Utility
Financial Status
' we ar= currently in the process of preparing our sixth billing
including charges for the Surface Water Management Utility. (This
will actually complete two full quarterly cycles. ) Having recently
completed the annual audit process and carry-forward of 1990 balan-
ces along with the April 1991 monthly closing, I thought it would
be appropriate to identify where we are and where we might be
aping .
The Budget and Revenue Reports for April (copies attached) startled
me somewhat , initially, but I felt there would be a reasonable,
logical explanation for the apparent low revenues versus estimated
revenues . Put very simply, the revenues are not too low, the esti-
mates are too high ! Based on the data available at this time. our
' current billing basis will generate approximately $35,000 quarterly
revenue in contrast to the $52,000 estimate projected in the Exhi-
bit A attachment to Council Resolution 90-149 which established
' rates .
The bottom line is: at current levels, we should generate approxi-
mately $165,000 in 1991 rather than the estimated $205,000.
' Perhaps_ it would be advisable to re-define our work program for
1991 and 1992 to be certain we don' t over-step our bounds of
' available resources.
cc : Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Charles Folch, Asst. Public Works Director
I
APRIL 1991 CITY OF CIHANHASSEN DETAIL BUDGET REPORT -REVENUE APRIL 1991
( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
FUND 720 SURFACE WATER MGMT.
BUDGETED COLLECTED COLLECTED PERCENT PERCENT UNCOLLECTED
REVENUE THIS MONTH TO-DATE TO-DATE LAST YR BALANCE
CURRENT SERVICES
3660 SEWER CUSTOMERS 205,000.00 12,369.34 35,030.33 17.09 169,969.67
3662 UTILITY PENALTIES 2,500.00 540.79 540.79 21.63 1,959.21 I
, 3667 CERTIFICATION FEE 1,000.00 .00 .00 1,000.00
TOTAL CURRENT SERVICES 208,500.00 12,910.13 35,571.12 17.06 172,928.88
OTHER REVENUE
3801 INT. EARNINGS 1,200.00 .00 .00 1,200.00
TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 1,200.00 .00 .00 1,200.00
-.. N
TOTAL 720 SURFACE WATER MGMT. ~� � - --�
209,700.00 12,910.13 35,571.12 16.96 174,128.88
- I I
a
NM MN in - am ,�
O NM = NM NM MN OM M IIIIII N INNI NM Min Mi. iiii MS MS MN Mai
APRIL 1991 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DETAIL BUDGET REPORT -EXPENDITURES APRIL 1991
33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
FUND 720 SURFACE WATER MGMT.
BUDGETED EXPENDED EXPENDED PERCENT PERCENT UNENCUMBERED
EXPENDITURES THIS MONTH YEAR-TO-DATE ENCUMBRANCES TO-DATE LAST YR BALANCE ! '
PERSONAL SERVICES
4010 SALARIES L WAGES, REG. 22,000.00 1,251.88 5,004.01 22.75 16,995.99
40L0 SALARIES S WAGES, TEMP. 2,000.00 .00 .00 2,000.00
4030 CONTRIBUTIONS, RETIRE. 3,000.00 151.96 607.54 20.25 2,392.46 1
4040 CONTRIBUTIONS, INSURANCE 2,600.00 89.37 463.97 17.85 2,136.03
4050 WORKMENS COMP. 100.00 .00 61.05 61.05 38.95 1
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 29,700.00 1,493.21 6,136.57 20.66 23,563.43 I'
MATERIALS + SUPPLIES
•
4110 SUPPLIES, OFFICE 200.00 .00 .00 200.00
4130 SUPPLIES, PROGRAM 500.00 .00 .00 500.00
4210 BOOKS S PERIODICALS 100.00 .00 .00 100.00
~ M
TOTAL MATERIALS + SUPPLIES 800.00 .00 .00 Boo.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4300 FEES, SERVICE 250,000.00 .00 591.39 299.41 .36 249,109.20
4301 FEES, FINANCIAL/AUDIT 1,000.00 .00 .00 1,000.00
4310 TELEPHONE • 100.00 .00 .00 100.00
4330 POSTAGE . 2,000.00 .00 .00 2,000.00
4340 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING 500.00 .00 826.64 165.33 326.64CR
4370 TRAVEL S TRAINING 500.00 .00 .00 500.00
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 254,100.00 ~�- .00 1,418.03 N 299.41 -~.68 -~- 252,382.56
TOTAL 720 SURFACE WATER MGMT. -
284,600.00 1,493.21 7,554.60 299.41 2.76 276,745.99
•
•
I
. 1
City of Chanhassen
Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota '
DATE: November 19 , 1990 RESOLUTION NO: 90-149
MOTION BY: Dimler SECONDED BY: Chmiel
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING UTILITY RATES FOR THE
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY
WHEREAS, on September 24, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council
adopted a Surface Water Management Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the
fee structure for the Surface Water Management Utility shall be
established as shown on Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the funds received from the sale
of the land described in Exhibit B to Redmond Products shall also
be dedicated to the Surface Water Management Utility Account. '
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 19th
day of November, 1990.
ATTEST:
k,5Db
/Mr/
Don Ashworth, Cl y
Clerk/Manager Donald J. C�-•- e, Mayor ,
YES d0 ABSENT
Chmiel Johnson None
Dimler
Wing
Workman ,
1
'1
I/
- O 111118 MS MO NOM 01111 I MN . - O MI MEN UNO MN MO WM NI MO
**** SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY SPREADSHEET ****
Exhibit A
• CITY: CHANHASSEN • .
JOB NO. : 90284 .
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1990 '
RAINFALL: 2 IN. •
5 YR REVENUE: $1,040,400 .
% OF INITIAL ESTIMATE: 60.00% •
REVISEDA0/2/90 MLL
*******************************************************************************************************
* RUNOFF TOTAL UTILITY QUARTERLY COSTS *
* PROPERTY * LOT RUNOFF • AREA VOLUME % FACTOR TOTAL PER PER ' *
* ZONING SIZE CN (INCHES) .(ACRES) . (AC.in) RUNOFF (1) (2) ACRE . LOT *
(ACRE) • (4) (3) *
* rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrr..rrrrrr.Trrr�.�rrrrrrrr..r*-
* RSF,PUD-R 0.33 72 0.29 ' 2065 603.54 39.2% 1 $20,156 $9.76 - $3.22 *-
* RR 2.5 • 60 0.06 1297 78.61 5.1% . 0.21 $2,625 $2.02 $5.06 *
* R-4,R-8 82 0.65 0 0.00 0.0% 2.22 $0 $21.67 NA *
* R-12 88 0.97 45 43.44 2.8% 3.30 $1,451 $32.24 NA *
* BN,BH,CBD,BG,BF 92 1.24 226 279.57 18.2% 4.23 $9,337 $41:31_x- NA *
* OI,IOP 88 . 0.97 394 ' 380.30 24.7% 3.30 $12,701 $32.24 ' NA *
* INST. * (1) '
'* DEVELOPED 88 0.97 90 86.87 5.6% 3.30 $2,901' $32.24 NA *
* UNDEVELOPED ** • 0.00 1630
. * PARKS * 65 0.14 486 65.65 4.31 0.46 ' $2,193 NA $NA, *
,193 $4.51 - N *
0 A2 • 40 ** 0.00 ' 3814 . $307 NA $3:22 *
* u * 40 ** 0.00
* . . 2708
$218 NA $3.22
. * TOTAL 12755 1537.98 - *
* (1) UTILITY FACTOR IS RUNOFF (INCHES) DIVIDED BY RUNOFF ' IN $552020 ,1 " *
( cHES - L-52020-
--
( ) FOR SINGL S2fl20
* (2) TOTAL QUARTERLY COST FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL QUARTERLY *
* REVENUE EQUAL TO THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RUNOFF *
* (3) COST PER ACRE IS PER ACRE COST OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLIED BY UTILITY FACTOR *
* (4) TOTAL QUARTERLY COSTS FOR PROPERTIES OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EQUAL *
* COST PER ACRE TIMES TOTAL ACRES. FOR AG AND UNDEVELOPED,THE FIXED FEE FOR THE AVERAGE *
* • AVERAGE PARCEL SIZE IS EQUAL TO THE RSF RATE. *
*******************************************************************************************************
I
EXHIBIT B
to
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER AGREEMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY:
That part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 59, files of
Registrar of Titles, County of Carver, which lies North of a line
drawn East perpendicular to the West line of said Tract C from a
point thereon distant 103.00 feet South, as measured along said -
West line from the Northwest corner of said Tract C.
That part of the following described:
The West 149 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 7, Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the 5th
Principal Meridian, lying Southerly of the right-of-way of the
Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railway;
which lies North of a line drawn East perpendicular to the West
. line of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 59, files of Registrar
of Titles, County of Carver, from a point thereon distant 103.00
feet South, as measured along said West line from the Northwest
corner of said Tract C.
•
1
1
. 1
I/
j •
I
I
5EH. .�.. :
Financing Storm
Water Projects
' using a
Surface Water
Management Utility
1
--Final Report--
1
A Report to the City of Chanhassen
1 ,
City Project# PW207
1
1 •
{
1 August 3, 1990
r
SEH FILE NO. 90284.01
•
11.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
1.
AUG 29 1990
I. ENGINEERING DEPT.
SHORT ELLIOTT
HENDRICKSON INC.
1 f
I
1
I
Financing Storm
Water Projects
using a i
Surface Water Management Utility
-FINAL REPORT- I
Report to the City of Chanhassen
City Project Number PW207 I
August 3, 1990 I
SEH File No.90284.01
NOTE:THIS REPORT I
INCLUDES REVISIONS AS OF
AUGUST 24, 1990
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
ENGINEERS I ARCHITECTS■PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE,5T PAUL,MINNESOTA 55110 612 490.2000
August 3; 1990
•
Re: Chanhassen,Minnesota
' Surface Water Management Utility
City Project No. PW 207
SEH File: 90284.01
Honorable Mayor
City Council and City Staff
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mayor, Council Members and Staff:
' Please find enclosed our final report for financing surface water projects using a utility or
user charge. The final report follows the Concept Plan dated May 14, 1990 and does
several things:
' • Defines what a utility is and how its implemented
• Reviews financing alternatives
• Estimates projected expenditures
' • Recommends related utility fees
• Compares utility to other communities and to City tax revenues
' • Outlines Administration procedures
• Presents model ordinance
' • Summarizes public information process
We recommend that this report be considered by Council and staff,as well as legal and
financial advisors..We are available to provide further assistance at your request.
1 Sincerely,
1 Mar L. Lobermeier,P.E.
Project Manager
js •
1
ISHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS,
HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN
•
I
f
•
Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal '
Section 1 Summary Page 1
Executive Summary 1
Why Consider a Utility? 1
1
Section 2 Introduction 3
What is a Surface Water Management Utility? 3 '
How will it Benefit the Community? 3
The Financing Dilemma 4
Selecting the Best Option 6
Section 3 Fee Basis 7 ,
Philosophy 7
Cause and Effect 7 '
Revenue Equation • 7
How Much Rainfall 8 1
Land Use Types 9
Expenditures 10 '
Typical Charges 12
Cost Comparison 13
Exclusions 13
Comparison of Current Taxing Status 14
1
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report
1
1
1
1
Table of Contents
Section 4 Administration 15
I
Section 5 Model Ordinance 16
' Section 6 PUblic Information Program 22
Education Process 22
' Results 22
• Public Information Meeting 22
' • Questionnaire 22
Public Hearing 25
I
Bibliography 26
•
•
I
I
I
I
1
Financing Storm Water Projects• Final Report
I
• Section 1...Summary I
Summary
Executive Summary
Paying for storm water (drainage) projects has become more complex in '
recent years.Additionally, the costs related to water quality management
and wetland portection continue to rise. In the past, special assessments
against benefitted properties financed most of the necessary improvements. 111
However, special assessments are being challenged in courts more often.
Benefits are difficult to demonstrate for properties on high ground. -
Assessment hearings can create irreconcilable differences between
- neighbors. Consequently, many communities lack the proper funding to
undertake water-related projects. • ,
Traditional methods of financing storm water improvements through City
general funds are becoming less viable. (Ref. 1) Instead, user or utility
charges,which have been implemented by communities to finance sanitary
sewer and watermain programs are now being applied to storm water
projects. (Ref. 2) The utility approach is gaining recognition as the most
equitable way to finance storm water projects. (Ref.3)
This report is intended to provide guidance to community representatives
and citizens for understanding and implementing a surface water
management utility. The report defines what a utility is, how it benefits a
community,and how it is implemented. '
Why consider a utility? (Ref. 2) C. Dedicated Funds
These funds can only be used to I
A. Fairness finance surface water
Charges are based on how much management related projects.
the property contributes to the D. Unrestricted Use
problem. Funds can be used for any type of
B. Dependability administrative, planning, main-
A utility produces consistent tenance, construction or other
funding and is easily projectable. uses associated with water I
quality, wetland p-otection and
drainage system operation.
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 1
ISection 1...Summary
II
I •
I
E. Legal Defensibility F. Tax Levy Reduction
Special assessment projects are Because municipalities are no
being challenged more often in longer funding these activities
courts. Benefits are difficult to with tax-supported general
Idemonstrate for high ground funds, tax levies can be reduced
properties which drain down- or applied elsewhere.
I stream. The utility prevents legal
challenges by not having to G. Simplicity and Flexibility
consider market value increase of Activities involved in forming a
iproperty. storm water utility (securing City
By implementing the utility, the approval, developing a charge
need for public hearings and system, explaining the system to
Ilengthy assessment proceedings the public, and adding an extra
can be avoided for many projects. line on utility bills) are not
difficult. The fee system is
Iadaptable to local situations.
I
I
.1
I
I
I
IFinancing Storm Water Projects sects- Final Report Page 2
I
Section 2...Introduction I
I
- . I
•
Introduction
What is a Surface Water the means to handle increasing I
Management Utility? costs by having the users of the
facilities pay. Rooftops,
A utility is a service charge based driveways and parking lots on a
on a property's contribution of property result in more runoff.
water to the drainage system. A Therefore, the property should I
surface water management utility incur a greater contribution
is a method of financing water toward the storm drainage costs.
I
quantity and quality •
This consistent and dependable
improvements. The utility is
based on the premise"users pay." revenue source provides the I
(Ref. 3) The "utility" or "user means to manage the storm
charge" is like sanitary sewer and drainage system without
water utilities operated by increasing property taxes or using I
communities. A quarterly fee is controversial assessments.The
typically charged against all user charge is not associated in
I
developed parcels within the any way property value or
•
City. The fee is based on how property taxes. All properties are
much water is contributed. subject to the utility charges, I
Where land is in an undeveloped, including tax exempt parcels and
•
natural state, much of the rain City-owned lands.
soaks into the ground or is How will it benefit the
retained in small depressions. community?
However, where development
I
has been prevalent, rooftops, The utility benefits the
driveways, and parking lots community by providing a
prevent rainfall from soaking in. dedicated fund for surface water I
The rain runs off into streets,
management activities including
ditches,ponds,and lakes. planning and inventories, capital
Operation and maintenance of expenditures, personnel and ' . I
storm drainage facilities cons- equipment and administration of
titutes increasing expenditures of the utility. The utility provides a I
tax money. The utility provides continuous source of revenue for
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 3 1
Section 2...Introduction
•
i
' surface water management • Improved lake water quality
competing with the p q ty
general fund. In fact, with the • Wetland protection
' utility in place,the tax levy which
• Erosion and sediment control
supports the general fund can be • Enhancement of recreational
reduced or applied elsewhere. opportunities
The benefits associated with • Drainage system maintenance Y ce -
surface water management . Community education
' include the following elements:
• Flood control
The Financing Dilemma
' Paying for storm water management projects has become more complex in
recent years. In the past, special assessments against benefited properties
"financed most of the necessary improvements. However, with recent
Ilegislation, the financial options have broadened considerably: The
question is, which method best suits the needs of the City?
' The major categories of funding sources are (1) Ad Valorem Taxes; (2)
Special Assessments; (3) Building Permits, Land Development Fees and
Land Exaction; (4) User charges; and (5) Grants. Following is a description
and financing principles used with each of these financing mechanisms.
Ad Valorem Taxes B. Special Tax District (M.S.
' 473.875 to 473.883)
A. General Taxes The tax district is similar to the
' General taxation is the most administrative structure under
common revenue source used to general taxation except that all or
finance government services part of the community may be
' including minor maintenance placed in the tax district. The
measures for drainage and water principle is to better correlate
quality facilities. Using property improvement costs to benefited or
Itax has the effect of spreading the contributing properties. ._
cost over the entire tax base of a
community.
•
I
Financing Storm Water Projects - Final Report Page 4
Section 2...Introduction I
I
Special Assessment (M.S. 429) in this method is to charge for
I
.services rendered to properties
Municipalities are familiar with generating runoff, as well as the
the use of special assessments to service to properties being
I
finance special services from protected from the effects of
maintenance of sidewalks to runoff without consideration to
construction of capital an increase in market value of the '
improvements. The assessments property. -
are levied against properties I
benefiting from the special Grants
services. The philosophy of this
method is that the benefited State grants are available for
I
properties pay in relation to surface water management and
benefits received. In this case,the non-point source pollution. It is
benefit is the increase in the generally not a good financial I
market value of the properties. practice to rely on grants for a
service program. This source of I
Building Permits, Land revenue is not dependable and
Development Fees and Land requires constant speculation as
Exaction to its availability. Grants are
I
useful but should only be used to
As land is developed or built supplement a planned local
upon, surface water runoff and revenue source.
I
pollution loading increases.
Administrative and capital costs A. Minnesota Pollution Control
can be recovered at the time of Agency (MPCA) I
building permit issuance or land Previously the MPCA had
development approval. A city Federal matching funds for
can require dedication of land for
preserving and protecting lakes I
ponding or drainage purposes. P g P g
The land, however,must be from and for enhancing their public
the parcel being developed. use an enjoyment, under the I
Federal Clean Lakes Program.
User Charges (M.S. 444.075) MPCA is optimistic that funding I
will continue to be available.
User charges, such as a storm Currently, MPCA is involved in
water utility,are a mechanism by the State Clean Water Partnership
I
which a City can generate funds (CWP) Program. The CWP
through billings similar to water provides matching funds for lake
and sewer billings. The principle improvement projects and non-
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 5
I
ISection 2...Introduction
I
I point source pollution reduction. • Fairness
There is a great deal of • • Dependability
competition for the available
ICWP donors. • Legal Defensibility
B. Minnesota Department of • Simplicity
Natural Resources (MDNR) • Flexibilty
The MDNR has available funding The surface water management
I through its Flood Hazard utility or user charge method best
Mitigation Grant Assistance meets the criteria. Fees are
Program. The program provides assessed against properties based
I financial support for planning on the properties contribution of
and implementing structural and runoff. The utility represents a
non-structural flood damage steady and reliable source of
1 reduction measures.The program revenue. The utility prevents
includes 50/50 matching funds legal challenges to assessments as
through either a general fund or a was frequently the case when
1 bonded fund. • special assessments were levied
against properties. The utility
I C. Minnesota State Board of eliminates the need to
Water and Soil Resources demonstrate benefit or fair
(MSBWSR) market increase for properties
IMSBWSR has limited matching within a project area. Moreover,• funds available for erosion the simplicity of the utility makes y
control projects. Most often these this financing method attractive.
Imonies are administered through Gaining approval and public
the county Soil and Water support is relatively easy.Adding
I Conservation District. an additional charge to existing
utility billings is a simple process.
Selecting the Best Option (Ref.3)The quarterly charge is an
I approach that meets with more
public acceptance than a one-time
In evaluating financing options, charge.Lastly, the utility method
I the community should consider is flexible, making it easier to
the following criteria: administer projects.
I .
I .
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 6
I
Section 3...Fee Basis 1
I
I
Fee Basis
1
Philosophy Revenue Equation
The general philosophy behind The revenue equation follows the
the storm water utility program is Soil Conservation Service
simple- contributors'pay. (Ref.2) Methodology outlined in the SCS
To develop a fee basis, the City National Engineering Handbook
must make a determination of Section 4-Hydrology. (Ref.4)
which properties pay what The general runoff equation is:
amounts.
Q_ (p-0.25)2
Cause and Effect P+0.8S ,
Q= Actual Runoff
To remain fair to all properties, -
the utility is based on how much a P=Potential Maximum Runoff '
particular parcel contributes to S =Potential Maximum Retention
the drainage system needs. The and initial rainfall abstraction
amount of contribution should The "S" term can be expressed in
not be based solely on the amount terms of the runoff index,or curve
of rooftops and pavement on a number(CN). '
parcel. The contribution should
consider how much rain runs off.
Different amounts of rain will S= (1000/CN)-10 1
produce different amounts of
runoff.However,the difference in
runoff for a residential property For convenient solution,tables are
and a business area is not constant easily developed. For use in the
for all rainfall depths. Therefore, utility,P will remain constant and 1
rainfall depth used in the fee CN will be assigned to the land
equation should result in the use types identified by City
appropriate properties paying an zoning. 1
appropriate amount.
. 1
1
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 7
I
ISection 3...Fee Basis
I
How much rainfall? .
Almost 1/2 of the city is currently zoned for agriculture.The majority of the
Ideveloped part of the City is zoned RSF-Single Family Residential. Of the
nonresidential land uses, Business/Industrial zoning prevails. The
I following table compares the percentage of total runoff contributions of
Residential (CN 75) versus Business/Industrial (CN 90)for different rainfall
depths.
U RAIN RUNOFF
DEPTH Business/ Residential Ratio*
IIndustrial
1" 032" 0.03" 10.68
I 2" 1.10" 0.38" 2.90
3" 1.99" 0.95" 110
I 4" 2.92" 1.67" 1.75
5" 3.88" 2.44" 1.59
I *Ratio equals Business/Industrial runoff divided by Residential runoff.
IThe comparison illustrates that as the rainfall increases, the difference in
runoff between intensely developed properties versus residential developed
properties becomes significantly less.
IGreater runoff as well as greater pollutant load is generally associated with
intensely developed properties (business/industrial). Therefore, using the
Ibasic premise of the utility (contributors pay), a rainfall amount that will
result in highly developed properties paying more than residential
properties should be used. A 2" rainfall results in almost three times the
Irunoff from a business/industrial acre then from a residential acre.
Therefore, business/industrial properties would pay up to three times as
Imuch as a residential lot. .
Using a rainfall amount of 2",the runoff equation becomes:
(16-(1600/CN) + (40,000/CN2))
C2 =
((800/CN)-6)
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 8
1
•
Section 3...Fee Basis I
Land Use Types INST* Institutions (churches, I
schools,government
buildings, hospitals)
I
Existing land use is used to p* Parks/Golf Courses/ •
determine each property's Cemeteries/Aboretum
contribution to the utility. PL* Parking Lots
I
Existing land use was determined
from 1989 aerial photos. (Ref 5) * Not a zoning designation
Zoning and street base maps were For these land uses,runoff indices
I
used to verify land uses. (Ref 6,7) (CNs) can be applied to
Residential land use types have determine the amount of runoff
overlapping permitted uses. For from an area resulting from a I
pp• g specified amount of rainfall.
example, R-4 includes single
(Ref 8)
family dwellings (RSF) and two I
family dwellings such as The contribution towards the
duplexes. The R-8 zone allows storm water utility is equated to
two family dwellings and higher the percentage of the total runoff
I
density development, but is for each property type.
zoned with the intent of single Expenditures
family attached residential I
development at a maximum of The following table illustrates
eight dwelling units per acre. anticipated 5-year expenditures I
The highest density development to be financed with the surface
allowed in any particular zone water management utility. The
will be used for determining a expenditures consider both one- I
developed property's contri- time costs and annual costs.
bution and related fee. Using this Funding considers the major
I
criteria, the following land use categories of Planning and
designations are suggested for Inventories, Surface Water
use in the utility equation: Management Utility, Capital
I
RR Rural Residential(21/2 acre Expenditures and Personnel and
lots) Equipment.
RSF, Single Family Residential The utility will not eliminate I
(1/3 acre lots) contributions from new
R-4,R-8 Two Family Residential developments or future
III
(1/4- 1/8 acre lots) assessments. All new plats will
R-12,R-16 Apartments continue to pay towards water
BN,BH,CBD,BG,BF Commercial management features . Similarly I
OLIO? Industrial piojects will still be assessed,
A2 Agriculture (zoned) with the utility funding the City's I
share of the costs.
U* Undeveloped
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 9
iSection 3...Fee Basis
I
ESTIMATED 5-YEAR EXPENDITURES
IItem Annual Total Cost
I (5 Year)
Planning and Inventories
I1. Identify wetlands,prepare City wetland
map and review wetland ordinance. $--- $55,000
I 2. Storm Sewer Mapping
• Initial Mapping --- 8,000
I • Updates 1,000 5,000
3. Local Surface Water Management Plan
(509 Plan) --- 135,000
I4. Local Surface Water Management Plan
Amendments 5,000 25,000
I 5. Water Quality Plan --- 72,000
I 6. Water Quality Monitoring and Improvements
(Chemical Application,Weed Harvest,Etc.) 10,000 50,000
1 Subtotal $350,000
Surface Water Management Utility
tY
I1. Utility Implementation --- 6,000
2. Billing and Collection System Modification --- 6.000
I Subtotal 12,000
I
I
Financing Storm Water Projects - Final Report Page 10
1
Section 3...Fee Basis
I
I
Capital Expenditures
Item
Annual Total Cost
(5 Year)
I
1. Backlog of Construction Projects $30,000 $150,000
Future Construction Projects 180,000 400,000
2. Engineering Discretionary Fund 10,000 50,000
(Small Projects)
3. Property Acquisition 35,000 175,000 111
4. Automation
I
• Software (GIS,Hydrology,etc.) --- 5,000
• Hardware --- 20000
Subtotal 800,000
I
10% Contingency 80.000
- $880,000
15% Engineering and Admin. 132,000 I
Subtotal $1,012,000
I
Personnel and Equipment
1. City Administration,Development Reviews 6,000 30,000 I
2. Maintenance: i.e.,Street Sweeping,Catch Basin
Cleaning, Ditch and Pond Maintenance,Labor 1
(Street and Utility Superintendents) 30,000 150,000
3. Semiannual Lake,Pond,and Wetland 4,000 20,000 I
Inspections
4. Drainage/Utility Engineer ^ 20,000 100,000 '
5. Ordinance Review 2,000 10,000
6. Utility-Customer Service and General 5,000 25,000 1
7. Automation Personnel - '5,000 25,000
I
_ Subtotal 360,000 -
Total $1,734,000
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 11
I
•
ISection 3...Fee Basis
ITypical Charges acres (Ref 9). This results in an
estimated total area, in acres, of
ITo determine typical charges for tax exempt property in the City.
different properties, the This area is compared to known
I estimated expenditures for a tax exempt parcels and listed
given period of time are under the "Institutions" (LNST)
apportioned according to the category with an appropriate CN
I percentage of total runoff value to estimate the runoff
attributed to that property type. contribution.
The charge for agricultural and Planned Unit Develop (PUD)
Iundeveloped property has been zoning will be assessed at the rate
set at $0.50 per acre to keep the most appropriate for each
' quarterly charges at an acceptable individual development.
level. The following Table shows
I Tax exempt property example calculations for
contributions have been determining typical charges. The
estimated by relating the market Table is based on a $1,734,000
I value of tax exempt parcels to the five-year improvement program,
ratio of market value for taxable or$86,700 per quarter.
properties to the taxable area on
ITypical Charges
Is Runoff Total Quarterly Costs
Property Runoff Area Volume Runoff: Total Per Per
Zoning CN (Inches) (Acres) (Ac.in) % Contrib. Per
Lot
IRR 60 0.06 1297 78.61 4.9 $4,223 $3.26 $8.14
RSF, 72 0.29 2065 603.54 37.4 32,424 15.70 5.18
I R-4,R-8 82 0.65 0 0 0 0 35.19
R-12,R-16 88 0.97 45 43.44 2.7 2,333 51.86
BN,BH,CBD, 92 1.24 226 279.57 17.3 15,019 66.46
BG,BF
OLIO? 88 0.97 394 380.30 233 20,431 51.86
A2 *• 0.01 3814 35.50 2.2 1,907 0.50
I U* ** 0.01 2708 25.20 , 1.6 1,354 0.50
Inst.•(1)
Developed 88 0.97 90 86.87 S.4 4,667 51.86
I Undeveloped *• 0.01 1630 15.17 0.9 815 0.50
Parks* 65 0.14 486 65.65 4.1 3,527 7.26
TOTAL 12,755 100.0 $86,700
I • Not a zoning designation
**Runoff computed on basis of fixed fee equal to$030 acne
(1)Tax exempt parcels(approximate)
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 12
I
Section 3...Fee Basis
I
Cost Comparison Wetlands have been documented I
as a benifit to surface water and
As a comparison, Roseville's ground water systems. However, - I
utility uses $4.35 per residential wetlands can also release
lot and $65 per acre for nutrients from decaying
commercial/industrial property. vegetation. The fee equation I
Mounds View is currently factors wetlands in as non-
considering $3 per residential lot developed acerage through the I
and $27 for commercial property. established runoff indicies (CN). .
- Bloomington uses $7 per Therefore,no credit is considered.
residential lot and $16 for Storm water detention may III
commercial/industrial. reduce the rate of peak flow from
When comparing rates with other a development,but the volume of I
communities, it is important to runoff is greater than the pre- I
recognize that the actual rates are developed condition. This
dependent on the required increased volume must be
I
quarterly revenue, and the handled downstream therefore
established City policy regarding no credit is given for on-site rate
which property should pay what control. I
amounts. Therefore, rates should All credits will be evaluated by a -
be established which, are staff commitee. Council will hear I
acceptable and which will result all appeals of utility charges.
in the appropriate level of Procedures for receiving credits
funding. and appealing charges is
I
established by City policy.
Credits
Exclusions
I
Credits may be applied for which .
can reduce the utility fee for Exclusions from the utility are
I
individual parcels. Credits are , few. Only street and highway
available where runoff is retained right-of-way, and lakes are
on a single parcel, when an . excluded under this formula.
I
individual has inadequate Future Highway 212 right-of-way
income to pay the fee,or where a will be exempt from the utility
qualified conservation program charges when the right-of-way is I
• (agricultural) is implemented. purchased, but will be billed out
according to existing landuse
I Credits are not considered for until construction occurs.
wetlands or detention ponds. Undeveloped (vacant) land is
charged a minimum amount,as is
I
agricultural land.
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 13
Section 3...Fee Basis
1
' Comparison of Current Taxing Status
•- to Storm Water Utility Fee Basis
. (Ref.10, 11)
% f
o % of
' VC. Total Tax Total
Capacity Utility
• Residential 51.1 42.3
' Apartments 3.6 2.7
Commercial 11.6 17.3
' Industrial 23.1 23.5
Agricultural 3.4 2.2
' Vacant 7.2 1.6
Tax Exempt 0 6.3
' Parks 0 4.1
•
1
1
1
Financing Storm Water Projects - Final Report Page 14
I
Section 4...Administration I
I
•
•
Administration
i
Administering the Surface Water Implementation of the utility
Management Utility will require should closely follow the I
several phases. The first phase ordinance and adoption of City
' involves drafting a final policy regarding the utility. The
ordinance to provide the legal utility would take affect January I
basis of implementation of the 1, 1991, with fees payable as part
utility. The second step includes of the first utility billing cycle.
I
establishing the individual
property charges based on The major effort in administering
acreages,land use, and the rate as the utility will be to expand the
I
established by ordinance. Step billing process to include those
• three involves modification of the properties which do not currently
current billing procedure. Step receive City water and sewer I
four creates an account to which service. This task may be
utility funds would be paid into, somewhat lessened by the fact
Iand from which revenues can be that mailing labels were received
made available for identified from the County as part of the
expenditures. The last step Public Information Program. II
identifies the administrator of the T information will be
Surface Water Management available when the billing process
Utility. is amended.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 15
I
ISection 5...Model Ordinance
1 Model Ordinance (Ref 12) •
I
00. Surface Water Manaaement Utility
' 00.010. n
Ge eral Operation. The City surface water system shall be
I operated as a public utility (hereinafter called the surface water
management utility), pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 444.075, from
which revenues will be derived subject to the provisions of this Chapter
Iand Minnesota Statutes.
I00.020. Definitions.
Utility Factor. The utility factor is defined as the ratio of runoff volume,in
inches, for a particular land use, to the runoff volume, in inches for a 1/3
acre residential lot, assuming a 2" rainfall and Soil Conservation Service
. •(SCS) `Type B"soil conditions.
I Surface Water Management Fee. The surface water management fee is
defined as the annual charge developed for each parcel of land.
I Surface Water Management Budget. The surface water management
budget is the estimated annual expenditure for planning and inventories,
• capital expenditures, personnel and equipment and operation of the
I surface water utility, in accordance with established City policy. The
surface water management budget and resulting surface water
management fees shall be established for a period of time as set by City
Ipolicy which shall be no.less than three (3) years and no more than five (5)
years.
I 00.030. Surface Water Management Fees. The utility factors for various
land uses are as follows:
I Classification Land Use Utility Factor
1 Rural Residential (2-1/2 acre lots) 0.21
I 2 Single Family Residential (1/3 acre lots) 1.00
3 Mixed Low and Medium Density Residential 2.24
i .4 Apartments,Industrial Office, 3.34
Institutions (Churches,Schools,Government
Buildings,Hospitals)
I5 Business/Commercial 4.28
I
Financing Storm Water Projects Final Report Page 16
1
Section 5...Model Ordinance 1
I
1
6 Agricultural 0.03
7 Undeveloped 0.03 '
8 Parks,Cemeteries,Golf Courses,Arboretum 0.45
9 Parking Lots 6.14
The Surface Water Management Fee shall be determined by first
determining the percentage of total runoff in the City which is attributed to
Single Family Residential property. The Fee per acre for Single Family
Residential is computed by equating the runoff percentage to an equal
percentage of the Quarterly Surface Water Management Revenue,divided '
by the estimated total acres of Single Family Residential land use in the
City. The per acre Fee for all individual parcels shall be defined as the
product of the Single Family Residential Fee,the appropriate utility factor
and the total acreage of the parcel. Single Family Residential and Rural
Residential parcels shall be assessed on a per lot basis using 1/3 acre for
Single Family Residential and 21/2 acres for Rural Residential.
00.040. Credits. The Council may adopt policies, by resolution, for
adjustment of the surface water management fees. Information to justify a
fee adjustment must be supplied by the property owner. Such adjustments
of fees shall not be retroactive. Credits will be reviewed annualy by a staff
committee. I
00.050. Exemptions. The following land uses are exempt from the surface
water management fee:
(a) Public Right-of-way
(b) Lakes ,
00.060. Payment of Fee. Surface water management fee shall be invoiced 1
every three (3) months on or about the day of the month. The fee
shall be due and payable on or before the day of the month in which
the statement is mailed.Any prepayment or overpayment of charges shall
be retained by the City and applied against subsequent fees.
00.070. Appeal of Fee. If a property '
ppe pope ty owner or person responsible for
1
Financing Storm Water Projects-- Final Report Page 17
Section 5...Model Ordinance
paying the surface water management fee believes that a particular
assigned fee is incorrect, such a person may request that the fee be
recomputed. Appeals will be heard by Council once a year in accordance
with the schedule established for credit applications, in established City
policy.
00.080. Penalty for Late Payment. Each billing for surface water
' management fees not paid when due shall incur a penalty charge of ten
percent (10%) of the amount past due.
00.090. Certification of Past Due Fees on Taxes. If any two (2) quarters of
' surface water management fees have not been paid when due, then a
penalty as set forth on Section 00.080, shall be added to the amount due.
•
Any such past due fees may then be certified to the County Auditor for
' collection with real estate taxes on the following year pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 444.075, Subdivision 3. In addition, the City
shall also have the right to bring a civil action or to take other legal
' remedies to collect unpaid fees.
t
1 .
1
Financing c g Storm Water Projects -- Final Report Page 18
I
Section 5...Model Ordinance 1
1
CHANHASSEN SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY
City Policy
Policy Statement
All properties within the City of Chanhassen shall contribute to the Surface
Water Management Utility in an amount proportional to the runoff
• contributed by each particular parcel.
Exemptions
(a) Agricultural Land - Agricultural (tilled) land will be charged a flat
rate of$0.50 per acre per quarter.
(b) Undeveloped Lands - Undeveloped lands, or land in a natural,
undisturbed condition will be charged the rate of$0.50 per acre per '
quarter.
(c) Street and Highway Right-of-Way- Street and highway right-of-way
shall be exempt from all charges.
(d) Lakes - Lakes listed by the Minnesota Department of Natural _
Resources as Natural Environment Waters, Recreational
Development Waters or General Development Waters shall be
exempt from all charges.
Fee Basis '
(a) Land Use -Land use for determining surface water management fees
shall be the existing land use at the date of enactment of the Surface
Water Management Ordinance. As land is developed, or
• redeveloped, the fees will be recomputed based on the revised land
use. •
(b) Soils-Soil Conservation Service(SCS)-Type B soils shall be assumed
for determining the runoff index(CN)in the revenue equation.
(c) Rainfall (P) -A 2"rainfall will be used on the revenue equation. '
(d) Runoff Indices (CN) - The runoff indices for the property
classifications are as follows:
•
Classification Land Use Runoff Index(CN)
1 Rural Residential(2-1/2 acre lot) 60
2 Single-Family Residential(1/3 acre lot) 72
3 Mixed Low and Medium Density Residential 1
(1/8 to 1/4 acre lot) 82
Financing Storm Water Projects-- Final Report Page 19
,. Section 5...Model Ordinance
1
Classification Land Use Runoff Index(CN)
4 Apartments,Industrial Office and Institutions
' (churches,schools,govern.buildings,hospitals) 88
5 Business/Commercial 92
6 Agricultural NA
' 7 Undeveloped NA
8 Parks,Cemeteries,Golf Courses 65
' 9 Parking Lots 98
NA-Curve no. not applicable due to fee based on fixed rates.
' (e) Revenue Equation - The revenue equation for computing the runoff
volume (Q) shall be based on the runoff equation in the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) National Engineering Handbook Section
' 4-Hydrology. The equation is as follows:
Q = (P-0.2S) 2 where S= (1000/CN)-10
' P+ 0.8S and P=2"
Credits
' Surface water management fees may be adjusted under the conditions
stated below. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to provide
justification for the fee adjustment.Credits must be applied for by October
31st of the year preceeding the year in which the credit is to be considered.
(a) Storm Water Retention - If it can be demonstrated that an individual
' parcel retains all or a portion of the rainfall that it receives,the surface
water management fee will be reduced by a percentage equal to that
percent of the parcel which produces no external runoff. A fee
' reduction of 20% or greater must be demonstrated.
(b) Low Income - The surface water management fee will be waived for
any property owner with income which is or below the established
minimum income of for the year prior to issuance of any
charges.This credit must be applied for each year.
(c) Agricultural Conservation Program (Ref 13) - A fifty percent .-
reduction will be granted to the owner of agricultural lands if the land
owner has a conservation program filed with the United States
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS), or
County Soil and Water Conservation District. To qualify for the
credit, implementation of conservation programs must be verified by
the SCS.
Financing Storm Water Projects-- Final Report Page 20
Section 5...Model Ordinance '
i
The surface water management fee will be reduced eighty percent if a
conservation program is implemented which will meet the soil
tolerance levels as established by the SCS.The credit must be applied
for each year.
Adjustment of Fees
Surface water management fees will be adjusted under the following
conditions. '
•
(a) Revision of Quarterly Surface Water Revenue - The estimated
expenditures for the management of surface water shall be revised at
a frequency specified in the ordinance. The fees will be adjusted
accordingly and will follow established City procedures for this
adjustment of utility (water and sewer) rates.
(b) Application for Credit
(c) Change in Developed Condition of Parcel.
•
1
1
I
I
i
Financing Storm Water Projects-- Final Report Page 21
' Section 6...Public Information Program
Public Information Program
' The surface water management utility will succeed if it has complete
public understanding and support. Additionally, the decision makers and
the public must understand the benefits to be derived from such a
program.
Education Process Results
The process of educating the Public Information Meeting
' community as to the benefits of The Public Information Meeting
the utility began with the was lightly attended. Following
' presentation of the utility concept the presentation portion of the
at the April 30, 1990 special program, a lively discussion
Council meeting and again at the developed. Most of the
' May 14, 1990 regular Council discussion was favorable; many
meeting. (Ref 14) issues raised were in regards to
' The second step on the public how the utility would work and
information program involved what the funds should be asked
the use of newspaper articles, for. Some opposition was voiced,
and an informational flyer and especially in regards to
questionnaire mailed to each agricultural lands.
resident of the community. The
iarticle, flyer and questionnaire Questionnaire
follow the bibliography. The City mailed out 4025
' The third step involved a public questionnaires; only 169 or 4.2%
informational meeting, held on were returned.Of those returned,
' June 21, 1990. This meeting
included an open house 64% were in favor of the utility,
34% were opposed and 2% were
discussion, formal presentation undecided. (Ref 16)
and question and answer session.
Financing Storm Water Projects - Final Report Page 22
•
I
Section 6...Public Information Program
I
I
- i
I
Many of the responses showed a watershed and not the individual I
lack of complete understanding communities. The Districts do
of what the utility is and how it not have the resources to address
I
will function. In an effort to the specific issues identified in
clarify these issues, the following this report. The Districts and
statements, from questionnaires other agencies will be utilized to
I
received, and corresponding the greatest extent possible.
explanatory responses, are However, it is recognized that
presented here. (Ref 15) the most effective management is I
done at the local (City) level.
"When will it (the fee) stop and Programs funded by the utility
be reduced - presently (it is) will not be redundant to services I
$1.50, next year $3.00 and so provided by the watershed
on..." districts.
I
The Ordinance establishes the Why should I pay if I don't
surface water management fees drain into a (drainage) system? I
for a three to five year period. As am being taxed by the Ci ty now I
the community develops, rates
could decrease since developed for services I do receive!"
properties contribute significant- There are two principles I
ly more than undeveloped fundamental to the storm water
properties. management program: I
"Aren't we already paying for 1. All real property within a
this (service) by the property drainage basin will benefit
I
taxes we pay to the watershed from installation of an
districts?" adequate storm drainage
•
• system.
I
Watershed Districts have broad 2. The cost of installing an
responsibilities in surface water adequate drainage system
management. However, the should be assessed against I
Districts focus is on the - the developed property in a
basin.
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 23
I
ISection 6...Public Information Program
I
I
1
IThese principles are not easy for "Don't create a separate
property owners to understand government agency! Why is the
Iat first, but they are key to the present engineering department
storm water management not capable of handling this
I concept. It is difficult for a need?"
property owner who lives on a A utility is defined as service
hill to understand how the charge based on a property's
I construction of a' torm drain in a
low-lying area benefits him. But contribution of water to a
storm drainage includes much drainage system. The utility is a
I more than just flood control. financing method,not an agency;
Keeping streets open to the Director of Public Works will
emergency vehicles, maintaining be the administrator of the
Iponds and open channel so they program. The utility will be the
do not become health and safety primary responsibility of the
I hazards, and promoting use of engineering department.
drainage facilities for recreation Is the utility really necessary?
all contribute to enhancing he
g Hooray! - now we get taxed
Iquality of life. because it rains - good idea -
It is important to recognize that consider one for wind too! Or
I development adds to existing maybe sunshine!"
drainage problems. The property Rainfall causes the need for an
owner on a hill has, by adequate drainage system.
Iconverting the natural ground Development increases the
cover into streets, concrete and volumes of runoff and associated
rooftops, increased the storm pollutant loads.To address water
Iwater runoff. This contributes to quantity, (flooding) and water
the drainage problem of quality issues, a utility or user
I , neighbors in low-lying areas. To charge is necessary to finance the
some extent then, the property cost of the programs.
owner should contribute to the
1 cost of correcting that problem.
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 24
I
Section 6...Public Information Program
.
I
I
I
The need for the programs is Public Hearing
I
demonstrated by these received .
comments: A public hearing has been
I
• Algae is a problem! scheduled for August 27, 1990.
• Eliminate direct discharge of The utility will be considered for
storm sewers into lakes adoption at that time.
I
• Protect marshes and wet-
lands
I
- • Why live in a City with lakes
unless we protect them • I
• ControI (Eurasian) Milfoil
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
Financing Storm Water Projects - Final Report Page 25
P g
I
1 .
Bibliography
' Works C`ted
1. Krempel, Roger E. "Storm Water Management by Utility Approach."
' Proceedings of the 1988 National Conference, Hydraulic Engineering,
eds. Steven R. Abt and Johannes Gessler, New York: ASCE, 1988 pp.
-' 1234-1239.
' 2. Jouseau, Marchel. "Storm Water Management: Financing Local Storm
Water Management," Publication No. 10-83-143, Metropolitan Council
t of the Twin Cities Area,St. Paul,MN,Oct. 1983.
3. Honchell, Charlie V. "Creating a Storm Drainage Utility." APWA
' Reporter,Jane 1986: 10-11.
4. Mockus, Victor., "SCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 4,
Hydrology,"U.S.Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service,
' 1969 pp 10.3- 10.6a.
5. City of Chanhassen., Orto-photographic Topography Maps, April -
' 15,1989 and May 9, 1989 Photography.
6. City of Chanhassen,Base Map,Revised January, 1990.
' 7. City of Chanhassen,Zoning Map,Revised August 17,1989.
8. Midje,Howard, "Hydrology Guide for Minnesota,"U.S.Department of
' Agriculture,Soil Conservation Services, 1975
9. Winter,Scott,Carver County Assessor's Office,July 31,1990,telephone
' conversation.
10. Winter, Scott., Carver County Assessor's Office, April 23,1990
Telephone Conversation.
' • 11.Johansen, Larry., Hennipen County Assessor's Office, April 23,1990
Telephone Conversation.
12. City of Roseville,MN,Storm Water Utility Ordinance.
13. Neumann, Paul., Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District,
July 26, 1990 telephone conversation.
14. SEH,Inc. "Financing Storm Water Utility",May 14,1990.
15. City of Chanhassen, Tabulated Questionnaire Results, Fax transmittal,
July 3, 1990.
I
Financing Storm Water Projects- Final Report Page 26
I