Stormwater Oversight Commission Regular Meeting

Stormwater Oversight Commission Ottotorium Agenda Packet 1300 Market Ave. SW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 April 24, 2023 @ 2:00 PM Ottotorium Members: Julie Wildschut, Member Carlos Calderon, Member Katie Doyen, Member Brandon Simon, Member Kristine Bersche, Chair Ken Yonker, Member Jack Barr, Vice Chair Randal Meyering, Member Staff Members: Carrie Rivette Michael Staal Kolene Allen Daniel Taber Chad Reul Legal Counsel: Copies To: Tammy Helminski Wendy Ogilvie Cara Decker Scott Saindon Joe Sulak 1. Meeting Called to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes Approval of Minutes from January 23, 2024 5. Correspondence 6. Reports i. Asset Management ii. Public Education - Home Show iii. Project of Focus - The Highlands 7. Old Business i. Capital Budget Change ii. Capital Improvement and Asset Management Plan Addendum 8. New Business Generated 4/19/2023 08:21 AM  i. Value of Partnership Report 1. Value of Partnership ii. Annual Report 1. Annual Report 9. Agenda Items for Next Meeting 10. Date and Time of Next Meeting 11. Public Comment 12. Adjournment II. Communications Generated 4/19/2023 08:21 AM  1.4.1 Stormwater Oversight Commission Water Resource Recovery Facility - Ottotorium 1300 Market Ave SW Monday, January 23, 2023 – 2:00 PM MINUTES Members Present: Julie Wildschut, Katie Doyen, Jack Barr, Ken Yonker, Kristine Bersche, Randal Meyering, Carlos Calderon Others Present: Carrie Rivette, Tiffany Berry, Kelsey Liebenow, Cara Decker, Wayne Jernberg, Shanyn Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 23, 2024 2:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) Viars, James Hurt, Brian Bradley, Jen Smerecki, Nathan Williams, Dan Taber, Chad Reul Call to Order Meeting called to order at 2:00 PM by Kristine Bersche. Approval of Agenda Motion by Ken Yonker, supported by Jack Barr, to approve agenda for January 23, 2023. MOTION CARRIED Approval of Minutes Motion by Ken Yonker, supported by Carlos Calderon, to approve the minutes from December 19, 2022. MOTION CARRIED Correspondence None Reports i. Asset Management Chad Reul presented. Reul reviewed last year’s asset management goals and introduced progress to date in 2023 for the three categories. Storm sewer cleaning: cleaned 189 ft of pipe so far. Current goal for 2023 is 410,000 ft total. Typically, progress on cleaning accelerates in March as the weather begins to warm up. Storm sewer televising: completed 1,754 ft so far. Current goal for 2023 is 53,650 ft. Much of the televising completed has been done in conjunction with engineering projects. Catch basin cleaning: cleaned three basins so far. Current goal for 2023 is 4,164 basins. Similar to pipe cleaning, progress on basin cleaning typically accelerates starting in March as the weather begins to warm up. Packet Pg. 3  1.4.1 Reul would like to make recommendations to change goal amounts and metrics. For the televising item, the current goal and footage measurements are based on pipes that are over 75 years old only. Grand Rapids currently televises much more than the 53,650 ft annually but only the sections over 75 years old count towards the goal. Reul would propose dropping the age qualification for storm sewer pipes but raising the total linear footage. At this point in time, the City has televised the entire system over 75 years old and completed the first round of system catch basin cleaning. This has been helpful to identify the types of problems in the system and which items have been able to be addressed. When cleaning or televising crews find a problem, they issue a work order for the necessary fix. Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 23, 2024 2:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) Reul reviewed the number of major problems found through televising/cleaning over the last five years. Relatively few (2-5/year) major problems have been identified considering the amount of televising done. Reul would propose to line up televising/cleaning work and goals with the scheduled engineering work so that this work can better be coordinated with the typical investigation work that takes place prior to projects. This will be better facilitated if age restriction is lifted from goal qualifications. Proposed new goals: Storm sewer televising: 168,520 ft/year. This is based on televising the entire storm sewer network over 12 years. This would occur on a ¼ section grid system in tandem with engineering projects. Storm sewer cleaning: 168,520 ft/year. Cleaning work would be done in conjunction with televising to get a better televising product. Catch basin cleaning: 3,676 /year. The City just completed a full rotation of basin cleaning which has helped better understand the regular cleaning needs. Grand Rapids requires a 60” sump in catch basins, which is larger than most communities and requires less maintenance. This proposed new goal is based on cleaning all basins on a five-year rotation with capacity to revisit a few hundred targeted basins as needed that are in heavy sediment areas or have historically required more frequent cleaning. Kristine Bersche asked if this was consistent with the City’s level of service goal. Carrie Rivette responded that making these goal adjustments will require some adjustment to the current asset management plan. The problems typically found so far do not correlate with the age of the pipe – for instance, utility intrusions into pipes. Reul added that restructuring goals will allow for better collaboration with the engineering department for the cleaning/televising. This will allow for some shift in the budget to give more money to preventative repair practices. Shanyn Viars wondered if the added efficiency would allow the City to go above and beyond the MS4 stipulations and be able to relate that to the community. Packet Pg. 4  1.4.1 Rivette responded that all the preventative measures are part of the MS4 with the exception of repair work. The City goals already exceed MS4 minimum standards. Reul noted that directing more maintenance money to preventative repair measures like lining will help save on reactive repair measures that require excavation. For instance, the cost to line a catch basin chimney is approximately $500 while the cost to excavate and repair a damaged basin may be around $6,500. The City also recovers the cost of repair work caused from other utilities. Other utilities are billed the full amount if the City needs to make a fix from a private utility intrusion. Randal Meyering asked if the proposed adjustments would create excess funds or just a different budget Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 23, 2024 2:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) balance. Reul responded that the proposed goal adjustments allow metrics to tell a better story of what work is done by the City. There may be some savings, but mostly a balance between these three items with repair work. The total budget would not change much but the realignment would allow for more bang for the buck. Rivette added that next month will begin a new schedule format for EGLE reporting. Reul will be working to adjust existing reporting to fit new EGLE schedule. ii. Public Education – West Michigan Home and Garden Show Carrie Rivette presented. The West Michigan Home and Garden Show is coming up and will be held March 2-5, 2023 at the DeVos Place. The water department will be partnering with the stormwater department again this year to set up a booth at the show. This will serve as an outlet for public education. iii. Project of Focus – Alger Ravine Carrie Rivette presented. Rivette reviewed a fact sheet for the project that was also submitted to the project grant administrators. This included a numerical summary of the stream improvement measures, public outreach, and project overview. The project is largely complete at this point with vegetation getting established along the banks. Native plantings were planted by Plaster Creek Stewards and neighbors generally seem pleased with the contractor and the work completed. Rivette summarized the project and presented pictures of before/after work. The project is growing in well, but will not be a good project for public display since it is primarily in residential rear yards. Old Business i. Capital Budget Carrie Rivette presented. Packet Pg. 5  1.4.1 The City is working with FEMA for grant funding for the proposed daylighting project at Woodlawn Cemetery. The project would involve daylighting the existing storm sewer and including some additional storage and stream meandering. EGLE wants a full hydraulic study of the project. This will delay the original project schedule but may give a better and more comprehensive project with the FEMA funds once the study has been completed. ii. O&M Budget Final budget numbers submitted for the year. Total amount submitted is $1.7M (estimated $1.699M earlier). Of this, about $501K would be for the SESC program. Local Streets: No big changes from earlier estimate. Final submitted amount $897K. Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 23, 2024 2:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) Major Streets: No big changes from earlier estimate. Final submitted amount $665K. Estimates tend to be predictable for streets work after establishing a good baseline. i. SOC Renewals Everyone on commission has renewed membership on time for the year. New Business i. Election of Officers Commission will need to elect new officers for the year. Chair and Vice Chain positions will need to be filled again. Nomination made by Jack Barr, supported by Ken Yonker, for Kristine Bersche to serve as Chair. Nomination made by Kristine Bersche, supported by Ken Yonker, for Jack Barr to serve as Vice Chair. Motion by Ken Yonker, supported by Carlos Calderon, to elect Kristine Bersche as the Commission Chair. MOTION CARRIED Motion by Julie Wildschut, supported by Carlos Calderon, to elect Jack Barr as the Commission Vice Chair. MOTION CARRIED Agenda Items for Next Meeting i. Annual Report ii. The Highlands Project Update iii. New Asset Management Plan Goals Date and Time of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held April 24, 2023, at 2:00 PM at Water Resource Recovery Facility – Ottotorium at 1300 Market Ave SW. Packet Pg. 6  1.4.1 Public Comment Dan Taber: presented an update on City master planning efforts. Public outreach to take place the week of February 21 in each of the three wards. Community events are held with city staff present. Current discussion is still very broad; not yet ready to discuss stormwater details for City. Kristine Bersche: emphasized that the master planning effort is a big undertaking; discussions include highlighting housing, climate change impacts, clean water, and tree canopy goals. These topics seem to be resonating with the public. Adjournment Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 23, 2024 2:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) Meeting adjourned at 2:38 PM by Kristine Bersche. Packet Pg. 7  1.8.1.1 Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) Value of Partnerships in Reducing MS4 Compliance Cost A project by American Rivers in cooperation with the Lower Grand River Organization of Watersheds and the City of Grand Rapids Environmental Services Department (ESD) Shanyn Viars August 2022 Cara Decker Packet Pg. 8  1.8.1.1 CONTENTS Table of Contents Summary 3 Introduction 4 Regulating MS4s: Clean Water Act Requirements 5 Gaps in Funding MS4 Compliance 6 Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) Municipal Cost of MS4 Compliance 6 Grand Rapids, Michigan: A Case Study in Reducing Municipal Stormwater Program Costs 8 Cost Comparison for Stormwater Management Programs 10 A Closer Look: The Value of Collaborative Partnerships for Grand River MS4s 13 Conclusion 20 Appendix A: Summary of LGROW’s Activities to Support Member’s MS4 Compliance 23 Appendix B: Estimated Cost Comparison for MS4 Compliance Across Regions 25 Appendix C: Comparison of Proportional Expenditures for Each MCM 26 Packet Pg. 9 Photo Credit: Mike Staal  1.8.1.1 Summary Across the nation, municipal stormwater managers face financial burdens as they work to manage stormwater flows that jeopardize the health and safety of communities and the availability of clean water. Decreased federal funding for stormwater management in recent decades has resulted in local communities shouldering most of the rising costs to protect the nation’s water resources. The increasing fiscal gap, coupled with an urgency to reduce the likelihood of devastating flood events, has spurred creative partnerships in stormwater management to adopt green stormwater infrastructure. Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) Green stormwater infrastructure incorporates a variety of pathways that improve water quality and foster climate-resilient cities for current and future generations. Green stormwater infrastructure utilizes soils and vegetation to mimic natural processes that reduce stormwater runoff, enhance overall environmental quality and provide utility services. Among these pathways are important efforts to engage new partners and forge collaborative approaches for long-term watershed planning. This report examines the opportunities the private sector and non-traditional partners can provide to improve efficiency for municipal stormwater managers in meeting regulatory obligations, fostering watershed collaboration, and engaging public participation in reducing stormwater runoff. Packet Pg. 10  1.8.1.1 Introduction Increasingly, communities across the Great Surrounded by freshwater resources, cities in Lakes are adapting their cityscapes to the Great Lakes region are pioneering effectively mitigate the impacts of climate sustainable solutions and collaborating across change. Current and projected changes to agencies and communities to reduce the costs climate conditions are predicted to cause of stormwater management. In particular, intensified flooding, degradation to water several municipalities along the Grand River in bodies, loss of biodiversity, and risks to human Michigan have leveraged limited fiscal budgets health. An increase in the frequency of severe by partnering with a local organization that rain events will exacerbate stormwater-related provides technical support for staff, challenges in many cities already challenged community outreach and education, and Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) by outdated infrastructure, pressure on watershed-scale resiliency planning. existing capacity, and decreased fiscal budgets. The costs associated with managing Cost-saving efficiencies in stormwater stormwater runoff can place significant management can be achieved through burdens on municipal budgets. The recent collaboration with local organizations and American Society of Civil Engineers experts to overcome municipal capacity Stormwater Infrastructure Report Card constraints. Local partners can offer several estimated the 3.5 million miles of storm services to complement municipal stormwater sewers across U.S. cities are inadequate given programs and contribute to improvements in urbanization and rainfall trends.1 The report water quality, including technical support, card estimated it would cost Michigan $400- public outreach, and policy or program $500 million per year to replace aging water development. With capacity support, infrastructure across the state. stormwater managers are able to redistribute limited personnel and fiscal resources to address other watershed priorities, coordinate across jurisdictional boundaries, and cultivate public engagement in water stewardship. Photo Credit: LGROW Photo Credits: LGROW Photos Credit: LGROW 1. Stormwater Infrastructure Report Cards American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (2021) 4 Packet Pg. 11  1.8.1.1 Regulating MS4s: Clean Water Act Requirements Congress began enacting regulations to The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act control harmful pollutants from entering established regulatory differences for MS4s waterways in 1948 and expanded regulations based on population size in the serviced area; 2 through the Clean Water Act (1972). In 1987, Phase I permits are required for “incorporated Congress aimed to strengthen the Clean places” of at least 100,000 people, while MS4 Water Act (1972) by adding regulations to areas with smaller populations, like small reduce the discharge of pollutants and cities, towns or institutions, are regulated under 3 improve water quality in rivers and streams. Phase II permits. Phase I communities are Publicly owned pipes, gutters, catch basins, typically covered under an individual permit ponds, roadside ditches, and other tailored to a specific jurisdiction, whereas a Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) “conveyance or conveyance of systems” general permit covers similar Phase II designed to channel stormwater are referred communities within the state. The specific to as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer conditions for both categories of MS4 permits Systems (MS4s). Municipalities and other require implementing Best Management agencies that own and operate MS4s are Practices (BMPs) to reduce the discharge of required to obtain coverage under a permit for pollutants to protect water quality.4 MS4 discharging stormwater into lakes, streams operators are obligated to develop a and rivers. These permits are part of the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination detailing the approaches they will take to meet System (NPDES), a program administered by regulatory requirements. most states, including those surrounding the Great Lakes. A stormwater management program for all MS4s includes six minimum control measures (MCMs), listed in Table 1. Table 1: Six Minimum Control Measures 5 2. EPA Summary of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972) 5 3. EPA NPDES Stormwater Program 4. MS4 Stormwater Permitting Guide, The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, (2018) 5. EPA Fact Sheet 2.0, An overview of the Small MS4 Stormwater Program Packet Pg. 12  1.8.1.1 Gaps in Funding for MS4 Compliance Despite efforts across the country at least, 166,000 miles of rivers and streams were impaired from 2010-2018, signaling gaps in achieving water quality improvements.6 The threat of climate change prompted improvements in local MS4 regulations and sparked innovation in management strategies Photo Credit: LGROW to reduce stormwater impacts by implementing green infrastructure practices that improve water quality and provide other community and ecological benefits. Re- Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) designing urban landscapes to incorporate climate-resilient infrastructure necessitates fiscal resources to invest in sustainable Photo Credit: LGROW solutions. Sustainable BMPs recommended for MS4 communities to reduce pollutants in waterways also serve as drivers toward fostering greener, healthier communities and protecting communities from flooding. Yet, over recent decades, federal capital spending on water infrastructure has dramatically declined, leaving states and local governments to bear most fiscal responsibility associated with MS4 activities. In many municipalities, stormwater management is often underfunded in annual budgets and left with inadequate resources to protect critical waterways and communities. Municipal Cost of MS4 Compliance Addressing the urgent threat of climate Metropolitan areas with high impervious change, improving water quality, and avoiding coverage will face steeper increases in costs, costly flood damage will require a shift toward often without a corresponding increase in local managing stormwater with sustainable budgets to address stormwater and other approaches. Since its inception in the 1990s, urban resiliency goals. The Water Environment the MS4 program has evolved in response to Federation (WEF) surveyed 147 MS4s in 2018 emerging urban water management that identified aging infrastructure, funding, or challenges. Although necessary, these availability of capital, and increasing and evolutions have increased compliance costs expanding regulations as the top three for municipal stormwater programs. For stormwater program challenges.8 example, in 2018, stormwater experts in EPA The cost to manage stormwater and meet Region 9 reported inadequate funding and updated stormwater requirements is capacity constraints hindered the ability of significantly higher than reported in previous municipalities to implement and sustain years. Nationwide, municipalities are estimated stormwater programs.7 to collectively spend up to $24 billion for stormwater infrastructure annually, a 10% increase from 2018.9 6. Stormwater Infrastructure Report Cards American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (2021) 6 7. Evolution of Stormwater Permitting and Program Implementation Approaches, Workshop Report and Recommendations for Program Improvement EPA Region 9 (2018) Packet Pg. 13 8. National Municipal Storm Sewer System (MS4) Needs Assessment Survey Results, Water Environment Federation (WEF) Stormwater Institute, (2021) 9. National Municipal Storm Sewer System (MS4) Needs Assessment Survey Results, Water Environment Federation (WEF) Stormwater Institute, (2021)  1.8.1.1 The graph (Figure 1) illustrates the regional Fifty-eight percent of MS4 permittees surveyed cost difference for municipalities to meet across the U.S. and Puerto Rico reported an compliance and the increase in expenditures annual gap in stormwater funding that exceeds 11 associated with updated permit requirements. $8 billion. With limited fiscal support, some Municipal expenditures associated with local municipalities enact stormwater utility meeting MS4 permit requirements more than fees to collect revenue to support regulatory doubled in the last 15 years. The cost of obligations, develop programs that advance effectively managing stormwater in urban green infrastructure implementations, and fund areas will continue to rise as cities grow and proactive solutions for long-term watershed weather patterns become more unpredictable management. Currently, legal constraints limit 10 in the wake of climate change. the ability of Michigan municipalities to adopt stormwater fees. Cost differences among municipalities will vary Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) depending on the type of MS4 permit required and the management strategies in local SWMPs. Additional factors can also be attributed to cost variations including the size of land area, amount of impervious coverage, frequency of maintenance activities, condition and age of existing infrastructure, climate patterns, staff capacity, and budget limitations. Figure 1: Comparison of Estimated Annual Cost for MS4 Compliance in California (EPA Region 9) and New Hampshire (EPA Region 1).12 *The estimated annual cost reflects annual expenditures reported by MS4s in California (EPA Region 9), and annual expenditures reported by MS4s in New Hampshire, (EPA Region 1). 10. In 2020, the Environmental Finance Center (EFC) in EPA Region 9 and the Office of Water Programs at Sacramento State created a free toolkit to assist California municipalities in asset management and planning for stormwater management programs. The toolkit contains guidance for stormwater practitioners on identifying and estimating costs related to managing stormwater for fiscal budgeting. A report in the toolkit surveyed 146 MS4s in California and found cities spent an average of $3.1 million in total expenditures for stormwater management. 11. 2020 National Municipal Separate Storm System (MS4) Needs Assessment Survey, WEF Stormwater Institute, Water Environment Federation, (2021) 12. Estimates reflect inflation-adjusted prices in 2020 USD. Inflation rate determined by the CPI Index for Urban Consumers, U.S. Bureau Labor of Statistics. Estimates obtained from New Hampshire, (EPA Region 1) Phase II MS4s and California,(EPA Region 9) Phase I & Phase II MS4s in the following reports; https://www.owp.csus.edu/research/papers/papers/NPDES_Stormwater_costsurvey.pdf, https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/nh/nh- Packet Pg. 14 stormwater-program-cost-evaluation.pdf, https://www.efc.csus.edu/stormwater-funding-and-financing/  1.8.1.1 A survey of municipalities in 2021, reported in the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, found less than 30% of municipalities 13 For many small and mid-sized cities, a lack of receive revenue from stormwater utility fees. a dedicated source for repayment or the The same year, 80% of stormwater managers inability to extend current debt obligations and utilities surveyed in North Carolina prevents large-scale investments that are reported lacking sufficient revenue from needed to address the significant decline in stormwater fees to meet existing needs and existing infrastructure. plan for future capital projects.14 Stormwater requirements improve the water quality in In the face of these trends, innovative rivers and drinking water sources, and reduce strategies and partnerships between flood risks and threats to ecological habitats municipal agencies and the private and non- profit sectors can support compliance-related Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) but local communities with insufficient financial resources risk neglecting activities to reduce budgetary pressures and improvements that could jeopardize human achieve broader climate resiliency goals for and environmental health. Locally, a lack of communities. Cities in the Great Lakes region adequate financial resources dedicated to are innovating market-based approaches to meeting MS4 requirements could lead to reduce compliance costs and developing impaired waterbodies and sources of drinking collaborative programs to implement green water, increased flood risk, deteriorating infrastructure solutions and meet regulatory ecological habitats, and jeopardizing human requirements. Watershed approaches that health. Municipalities with access to financial encourage regional coordination and resources may be eligible for low-cost loans, comprehensive education campaigns are debt financing, and other capital investment recommended actions by the American approaches to fund stormwater infrastructure Society of Engineers to improve our nation’s 15 improvements. stormwater infrastructure. Grand Rapids, Michigan: A Case Study in Reducing Municipal Stormwater Program Costs Located 35 miles from the shores of Lake In the Lower Grand River watershed, Michigan (and within EPA Region 5), and coordination across municipal boundaries and sprawling across 46 square miles of land, the agencies improves the program’s City of Grand Rapids, Michigan is home to effectiveness, and non-traditional partners nearly 200,000 people.16 In the heart of provide additional capacity to sustain planning downtown, the Grand River is channelized initiatives. A project of the regional planning through the city before eventually flowing into authority, Grand Valley Metro Council, the Lake Michigan. Known for its local breweries Lower Grand River Organization of Watersheds and “green” initiatives, the Grand Rapids (LGROW) strengthens the abilities of 23 community is transforming its relationship municipalities in the region to develop and with the Grand River. The City of Grand Rapids implement long-term stormwater management has made exceptional progress at improving plans. water quality in the river and advancing green stormwater infrastructure solutions through creative strategies that result from watershed collaboration. 13. Cousins J.J. and D.T. Hill. “Green infrastructure, stormwater, and the financialization of municipal environmental governance.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2021 14. Results of the 2021 North Carolina Local Government Stormwater Management Survey, Environmental Finance Center-UNC, 2021 Packet Pg. 15 15. Stormwater Infrastructure Report Cards American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (2021) 16. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Quick Facts, US Census Bureau, V2019  Photo Credit: LGROW 1.8.1.1 Photo Credits: LGROW Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) LGROW provides the structure for communities Through a shared commitment to climate to develop cross-cutting strategies that resiliency strategies, member communities integrate plans, prioritize actions, and increase engage collaboratively in self-selected public stewardship to advance the clean water committees for peer-to-peer learning and goals in the region. In cooperation with state developing initiatives to further water quality agencies, LGROW also assists members with improvements. developing and implementing the following required MS4 obligations: The table in Appendix A details the compliance Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) standards LGROW provides to communities in the watershed. A further examination of Public Education Plan (PEP) associated activities and staff capacity dedicated to achieving the compliance Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan (IDEP) measures illustrates the economic benefits of partnering with community organizations. The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), Implementation Plan obligated in the MS4 includes required activities and recommended actions for Good Housekeeping and Pollution meeting the compliance measures. The level of activity and/or amount of time to perform Prevention Best Management Practices activities associated with each MCM will vary by community. For example, MS4s with more Keeping an updated Stormwater outfalls and discharge points to freshwater Infrastructure Inventory resources will have to spend more time completing required dry weather screening Assistance for reporting, audits, than those communities with fewer outfalls. monitoring, and enforcement 9 Packet Pg. 16  1.8.1.1 Cost Comparison for Stormwater Management Programs The toolkit developed by the Environmental Finance Center (EFC) at Sacramento State demonstrates methods for MS4s to estimate expenditures related to compliance utilizing stormwater management expenditures from the City of Grand Rapids. In 2018, EFC estimated 17 stormwater management in Grand Rapids to cost $1.05 million annually. The actual stormwater 18 management expenditures in 2018 reported by the City of Grand Rapids exceeded $2 million. The EFC’s lower estimations for expenditures could be attributed to the budget implications of vacancies in stormwater staff positions in previous years. Although the actual cost for Grand Rapids stormwater management was significantly higher than the EFC estimate, the cost categorization outlined in the EFC tool could be useful to assess actual expenditures for meeting MCMs and identifying areas to improve efficiency. Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) This analysis applies the cost categorization identified in the EFC toolkit to explore the stormwater management fiscal savings and capacity support created through non-traditional partnerships. Evaluating total expenditures for stormwater management and the path for meeting compliance varies by municipality, climate, and activities performed. In addition, some activities conducted to meet requirements may overlap multiple MCMs, increasing the difficulty in estimating the cost for meeting for each compliance measure. Due to the variation in cost to meet MS4 compliance, the following proportional cost estimations for implementing MCMs should only be used as guidance in comparing to actual stormwater management expenditures and adopting efficiency gains. In 2018, the EPA provided a cost breakdown to illustrate the proportion of total program funding dedicated for meeting compliance obligations for Phase II MS4s in New Hampshire (EPA Region 1). 19 Table 2: Cost Breakdown for MS4 Compliance in New Hampshire (EPA Region 1) The EPA estimated Phase II MS4s in New Hampshire will spend a generous portion (20%) of total program funding to implement public education and participation requirements. In 2019, the Sacramento State EFC estimated stormwater program expenditures by compliance measure (MCM) for MS4s in California (EPA Region 9). The EFC reported municipalities in California, on average dedicate 12% of total expenditures on activities related to implementing MCMs in public education and participation. Comparing the program expenditures identified by MS4s in New Hampshire and California to annual expenditures in stormwater management program for the City of Grand Rapids can help to identify cost savings in stormwater management that could be realized through partnering with non-traditional organizations. 17. A Toolkit for Stormwater Asset Management and Funding, Environmental Finance Center at Sacramento State, (2019); 10 https://www.efc.csus.edu/stormwater-funding-and-financing/ 18. FY2020 Annual Report Stormwater Oversight Commission, City of Grand Rapids Environmental Services Department 19. Stormwater in New Hampshire, US EPA Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, Spring 2018 Packet Pg. 17  1.8.1.1 In accordance with the requirement of its MS4s in urban areas with higher rainfall Phase I stormwater permit, the City of Grand averages are likely to spend more on Rapids is obligated to develop and implement a stormwater management programs to Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that is maintain existing infrastructure and will guided by the six MCMs. The cost of meeting require additional funding to implement compliance obligations includes staff time in sustainable infrastructure for a climate- implementing the SWMP, maintenance of resilient future. In regions with higher rainfall existing stormwater systems, developing averages, a larger portion of expenditures is control measures for Best Management required for pollution preventive measures Practices (BMPs), reducing polluted runoff (MCM #5) and water quality monitoring from roadways, permitting industrial facilities compared to a region that receives less and construction activities, water quality precipitation. Cities in the Midwest and New Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) monitoring, and public education and outreach. England states receive an annual average Maintenance and repairs to the existing rainfall of 37” and 43” (respectively), whereas stormwater infrastructure in Grand Rapids MS4 municipalities in California typically experience is performed by city staff with city-owned wet season/dry season precipitation patterns vehicles and equipment. as well as recent droughts and departure from historic annual rainfall averages.20 A future of The cost comparison in Table 3 demonstrates more heavy rainfall and severe storms in the proportion of expenditures dedicated for Midwest and New England cities will require each MCM category and highlights the frequent maintenance and extensive variation in activities preformed across regions housekeeping efforts to maintain the function to meet MS4 compliance. of stormwater management assets and reduce Minimum controls for MS4s in New Hampshire polluted discharges. (Phase II) do not include costs for water quality monitoring or industrial and Another notable comparison indicates a commercial management, although water significant variation in expenditures for MCM quality monitoring for impaired waters is a #1 that is less likely to be determined by required measure for Phase II MS4 differences in climate or regulatory communities. Following EFC’s toolkit, obligations. In Grand Rapids, the portion of proportional expenses for Public Education total spending on activities related to Public and Outreach (MCM #1) and Public Education, Outreach, Involvement, and Participation and Involvement (MCM #2) are Participation (MCM #1 & MCM #2) and Illicit combined in one category in Table 3. The Discharge Detection and Elimination (MCM #3) range of the expenditures for each MCM by is significantly lower than compared to the region suggests diversity in climate and other regions despite differing climates and regional priorities steer planning objectives type of permit program. The cost savings to and how requirements will be met. The cost of perform these activities are directly correlated stormwater management programs can be to the support LGROW provides the City’s in Photo Credit: LGROW attributed to differences in approach to administering the SWMP. The analysis compliance, size of population and watershed estimated expenditure for implementing the area, amount of impervious area, land-use SWMP in Grand Rapids is less than $12.00/ activities, climate patterns and the local per person, whereas municipalities in emphasis on long-term watershed planning. California reportedly spend up to $54.00/ per 21 person. 20. Average annual rainfall amounts retrieved from US Climate Data, 2021 11 21. Based on the population in Grand Rapids reported in the 2020 U.S. Census. California (EPA Region 9) estimates retrieved from Estimating Benefits and Costs of Stormwater Management, Part II: Evaluating Municipal Spending in California, EFC (2020) Packet Pg. 18  1.8.1.1 Table 3: Comparison of Proportional Expenditures Dedicated to MS4 Compliance Measures Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) Photo Credits: LGROW 12 Packet Pg. 19  1.8.1.1 A Closer Look: The Value of Collaborative Partnerships for Grand River MS4s The City of Grand Rapids and adjacent Increased coordination between agencies and municipalities turned to non-traditional local organizations cultivated initiatives to partners to assist in developing their SWMPs pursue resilient solutions through watershed- and in complying with MS4 permit standards. scale planning and program initiatives. As aPhoto Credit: LGROW Cities in Michigan also face legal constraints watershed partner, LGROW is uniquely on their ability to implement stormwater utility qualified to provide administrative and fees, restricting their ability to raise the funding technical support to municipalities in Photos Credit: LGROW needed to implement broad-scale resiliency implementing the MCMs as part of regulatory measures. A regional collaboration between obligations. the area’s MS4 permittees and LGROW created Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) LGROW prioritizes and implements watershed- the opportunity to develop watershed-based scale initiatives, supports basin-wide efforts, planning to meet regulatory obligations and and provides oversight for communities with encourage regional cooperation to achieve MS4 permits. Since its inception, member broader climate resiliency initiatives. municipalities credit LGROW’s support as Subcontracted by municipalities in the providing significant cost savings in meeting watershed, LGROW provides a structured regulatory compliance measures. As one opportunity for stormwater professionals to example, the City of Walker (MI) reported plan collaboratively, explore new sustainable saving approximately $86,000 after the first initiatives and receive ongoing training. 22 year of contracted support from LGROW. LGROW plays a key role in connecting MS4 communities, sub-watershed groups, Small but effective, LGROW consists of 4-5 community organizations, and local full-time staff that provide a wide range of stakeholders to address stormwater assistance to 23 municipalities, including the challenges collaboratively. following required activities: Implementing new post-construction stormwater control requirements and coordinating Post-Construction Control efforts in the region Developing the Stormwater Standards Manual and Design Spreadsheet Revising and Finalizing Permit Applications Deploying the LGROW Data Repository for water quality sample collections Creating the LGROW’s Natural Connections Map for visualizing green infrastructure practices in the watershed Providing training materials and videos for permittees Assisting in meeting new TMDL requirements and compliance Photo Credit: LGROW 22. GVMC Board Meeting, Department of Environmental Programs, Scott Connors, P.E. (2014) 13 Packet Pg. 20  1.8.1.1 Staff and partners from member communities In addition to supporting MS4 communities, voluntarily participate in LGROW committees to LGROW provides hands-on learning provide relevant expertise and resources in experiences for students, scientific research, stormwater management. Each committee and community support in green infrastructure plays a role in contributing toward the project planning and implementation. In fact, development of watershed-based planning and less than one-third of LGROW’s total meeting individual MS4 compliance. The organizational expenditures are committed to committees meet about six times a year to directly supporting member communities in discuss topics related to technical resources, meeting MS4 requirements while additional public engagement, sustainability, sub- programs and activities advance broader watersheds, and stormwater ordinances. The watershed climate-resiliency goals. collaboration increases knowledge and Watershed organizations like LGROW exist in Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) resource sharing and reduces redundancy to distribute water quality benefits across the many regions of the country and can provide watershed. support through a variety of mechanisms to assist MS4s in achieving regulatory goals, In 2020, LGROW dedicated more than 3,500 advancing stormwater education and advocacy hours assisting MS4s with required activities in in the community, and fostering climate- their SWMPs. Member municipalities resilient cities. The collaboration between compensate LGROW through annual fees for municipalities and LGROW establish a joint services that largely support advancing commitment to ongoing education and training, watershed stewardship through public data sharing, standardized procedures and education, participation, and outreach as well policy that improve program effectiveness and as assistance in meeting additional reduce overall stormwater management costs compliance measures. for each MS4 community. Member communities also benefit from The following sections examine the MCM LGROW’s wide reach of community and categories where LGROW’s supported activities environmental partners that collaborate to contributed to proportional cost savings in the implement green stormwater infrastructure Grand Rapids MS4 program illustrated in Table projects, riverbank restorations, daylighting, 3. Interestingly, more than one-third of MS4s invasive species removal, and more. Project nationwide reported an urgent need for more implementations and community-led initiatives resources to meet compliance in public are funded through grants and local foundation education, outreach and participation (MCM #1 support, alleviating fiscal burdens on & MCM #2), illicit discharge detection, and municipalities while contributing to overall elimination (MCM #4), and post-construction water quality improvements in the watershed. site runoff control (MCM #5).23 The coordination between MS4s delivers synchronized messaging to encourage Photo Credit: LGROW community-wide stewardship and reduces the cost and capacity for each individual permittee to achieve compliance. 23. 2020 National Municipal Separate Storm System (MS4) Needs Assessment Survey, WEF Stormwater Institute, Water Environment Federation, 14 (2021)) Packet Pg. 21  1.8.1.1 Public Education, Outreach, and Participation Engaging the public as active participants in Municipalities in California develop a managing stormwater runoff is necessary to community-specific public education and foster community support and gain greater outreach program with reportable outcomes compliance. The EPA acknowledges “an and training for municipal staff. Stormwater informed and knowledgeable community is staff are estimated to spend approximately crucial in the success of a stormwater $300,000 annually for activities related to 24 management program”. However even implementing public education, outreach, and 26 though public participation is listed first among participation. As a Phase I MS4, Grand Rapids the compliance measures, these are often the is required to implement similar measures as last measures considered in stormwater MS4s in California but spend less than $24,000 Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) management. The requirement is satisfied with annually to meet its regulatory obligations for the implementation of a public education MCM #1. program to distribute educational materials, Illustrated in Figure 2, approximately one conduct outreach activities, and develop a plan percent of total expenditures by the City of for appropriate BMP approaches. The activities Grand Rapids for stormwater management is include forming partnerships, providing spent on meeting public education, outreach, educational materials that reach diverse and participation measures. With the ability to audiences, and developing measurable goals to reach diverse audiences on a range of achieve environmentally positive behavior stormwater topics, LGROW develops and changes. implements the public education plan (PEP) Activities related to public education and and provides quality watershed education participation activities will vary by region, materials and programming. Member MS4s population size, and climate patterns. receive access to public education content to Compliance with public education measures eleven public education categories and for Phase II MS4s in New Hampshire (EPA achievable implementation strategies. LGROW Region 1) requires delivery of two separate creates social media posts, printed and messages to four separate audiences to the electronic materials, newsletters, signage, and community on relevant watershed topics. The staff host public events and activities that help EPA provides a page of resources to assist MS4 member communities meet the 27 MS4 in messaging although no guidance on educational requirements. the messaging format or delivery methods are provided. In addition, MS4s in New Hampshire must implement public involvement programming that is estimated to require up to 740 staff hours or an average cost of $60,000 25 per MS4 community. Photo Credit: LGROW 24. Public Education and Outreach Minimum Control Measure, Stormwater Phase II Final Rule, EPA, (2005) 25. Estimates reflect inflation-adjusted prices in 2020 USD. Stormwater in New Hampshire, US EPA Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, Spring 2018 26. Estimating Benefits and Costs of Stormwater Management Part II: Evaluating Municipal Spending in California. EFC at Sacramento State, May 2020 Packet Pg. 22 27. City of Grand Rapids MS4 Progress Report, 2019-2020 prepared by Grand Valley Metro Council/LGROW  1.8.1.1 Figure 2: Comparing Cost of Compliance for Public Education and Participation Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) Grand Rapids’ municipal expenses are reduced relative to other MS4s because they rely on the City’s partnership with LGROW for the bulk of the MS4 permit’s public participation provisions. On average, each member municipality receives 3.5 weeks of annual assistance from LGROW that allows stormwater staff to reduce time spent on meeting MCM #1 and re-allocate resource capacity toward completing other stormwater management activities. An added benefit of sharing public outreach materials is ensuring community members across the watershed are receiving the same messages across MS4 jurisdictions. In fact, all of LGROW’s member communities utilize the same PEP and related materials for consistent messaging across the watershed and encourage action to address priority concerns. LGROW also creates scheduled content for municipal leaders to easily share messages on social media platforms and public meetings to foster public engagement. LGROW’s ability to provide quality watershed education materials and programming surpass what most municipalities can achieve given limited resources and capacity. Throughout the year, LGROW provides watershed education opportunities to K-12 schools, hosts watershed education events for the community, and promotes community-based science and service programs. The creativity in messaging and methods of engagement LGROW provides to reach community support for improving water quality exceeds the limited capacity for many municipalities and reaches a broader audience. 16 Packet Pg. 23  1.8.1.1 For example, one LGROW public outreach LGROW leverages grant funding opportunities campaign mailed postcards to 2,500 riparian to expand watershed activities that result in landowners in the MS4 areas to encourage water quality and quantity improvements and riparian buffers and provided a free package of implement long-term strategies for purple coneflower seeds for planting. In communities with limited resources. addition, watershed-scale programs such as Approximately 30% of LGROW’s organizational Adopt-A-Drain and Rainscaping foster expenditures are dedicated to implementing watershed stewardship through individual the MS4 program, which would be a substantial actions driven by community members. burden on a municipal stormwater budget. Through the collaboration, the administrative LGROW’s regional approach allows member burden of managing a SWMP is spread across communities to share responsibilities, all the watershed, reducing LGROW’s cost to communicate to broader and diverse Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) provide support to approximately $11,000 per audiences, and deliver in-person resources MS4 community. through the watershed. For example, despite a COVID pandemic in 2020, LGROW’s public A significant portion of LGROW’s support is education plan work included: dedicated to public education. Assuming MS4s in California allocate the same portion of Planted 300 trees at 2 schools expenditures for administrating the SWMP, the 39 Watershed Activity Videos administrative burden for implementing MCM 50 green infrastructure site assessments #1 and MCM #2 could cost more than $25,000 300 attendees in Virtual workshops per community annually, without the support Reached more than 1,100 students from partners. LGROW’s program supports Additionally, 15 communities are participating MS4s in meeting specific compliance in the Adopt-A-Drain program to encourage measures but the collaborative effort helps community members to keep storm drains permittees achieve gains in water quality clear of debris resulting in more than 1,191 improvements that would be costly to achieve adopted drains in the watershed. individually. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination The MS4 permit program requires stormsewer operators to implement an Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program (IDEP, MCM #3). Activities required under the IDEP include developing, implementing, and enforcing a program to detect illicit discharges and map existing stormwater systems. MS4s in EPA Region 1, EPA Region 9, and the Grand River watershed are obligated to implement the Photo Credit: LGROW same requirements for MCM #3. Grand Rapids spends substantially less than MS4 operators in California and New Hampshire on meeting this requirement, as shown in Figure 3. 17 Packet Pg. 24  1.8.1.1 Compliance for MCM #3 includes inspecting reported potential illicit discharge and issuing enforcement actions. The EPA estimated stormwater staff in New Hampshire would dedicate more 28 than 3500 staff hours and up to $400,000 on average to meeting MCM #3. Phase 1 permittees in California spend more than $225,000 a year on expenses for developing and implementing the IDEP. Grand Rapids receives assistance from LGROW which reduces the capacity required on city staff and saves the city at least $150,000 annually compared to MS4s in California. LGROW’s dedicated staff reduces constraints on member communities in identifying sources of illicit discharge, reducing establishing an accessible method for reporting, and educating the broader community on the hazards of dumping fluids and other items into storm sewers. The regional collaboration establishes guidance for the watershed while alleviating capacity constraints for each MS4 while offering some adaptability to fiscal demands. Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) During years that dry-weather screening has to be performed, LGROW staff complete the work across the watershed with minimal assistance from MS4 managers. Meeting this compliance 29 measure in New Hampshire is estimated to consume 22% of total spending and every year. With LGROW’s support, Grand Rapids expenditures related to MCM #3 are only 3% of total program expenditures. In California’s drier climate, 9% of total stormwater management expenditures are needed to implement required measures for MCM #3. Figure 3: Comparing Cost of Compliance: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 28. Stormwater in New Hampshire, EPA Fact Sheet, (2018) 18 29. Stormwater in New Hampshire, EPA Fact Sheet, (2018) Packet Pg. 25  1.8.1.1 Post Construction Stormwater Management for New/Re-Development The conversion of undeveloped (or partially developed) urban properties through the real estate development process typically increases impervious cover. New and redevelopment projects that add impervious surfaces to the watershed increase the quantity of stormwater that flows into rivers 30 and streams. These projects also increase the type and quantity of pollutants carried in stormwater runoff. Developing, implementing, and enforcing a program that aims to reduce post- construction runoff is the “most cost-effective approach” to stormwater quality management, 31 according to the EPA. Yet, more than 40% of MS4s surveyed by WEF are requesting more information and technical resources to assist them with meeting MCM #5, Post-Construction 32 Stormwater Controls. The estimated portion of total expenses dedicated to implementing MCM #5 is relatively small Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) compared to the cost of meeting other compliance measures. However, on average, municipalities in New Hampshire and California are spending a larger portion of total expenditures on developing water quality treatment standards for new and redevelopment projects than Grand Rapids (Figure 4). Figure 4: Comparing Cost of Compliance: Post Construction Stormwater Management for New/Redevelopment Photo Credit: LGROW 30. Addressing America’s Largest Growing Source of Water Pollution: Stormwater Runoff, McMahon, M. Northwestern Institute for Energy and 19 sustainability (2016) 31. Stormwater Phase II: Post-Construction Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure, EPA, (2005) 32. 2020 National Municipal Separate Storm System (MS4) Needs Assessment Survey, WEF Stormwater Institute, Water Environment Federation, (2021) Packet Pg. 26  1.8.1.1 New and Redevelopment The estimated cost for municipalities to The support to meet MCM #5 provided by implement compliance measures aimed at LGROW improves efficiency in project reducing post-construction runoff in California permitting by streamlining the process for plan can range from $130,000 to over $500,000 review. The training provided to both municipal 33 annually. Phase II permittees in New agencies and the private developer community Hampshire are expected to spend more than help overcome the hesitancy in green 2% of the total stormwater program budget on infrastructure adoption and ongoing MCM #5 requirements. maintenance. LGROW also helps track project implementation in the MS4 for annual In Grand Rapids, the standards to meet water reporting. quality and quantity requirements for post- To advance green infrastructure Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) construction projects were developed through LGROW in cooperation with a technical implementations on new and redevelopment committee of stormwater managers and projects, LGROW created a Design Spreadsheet engineers. LGROW also developed a model to ease design decisions for developers as they stormwater ordinance for the MS4 member determine how to meet requirements. The communities to easily implement updated Design Spreadsheet also streamlines the requirements into municipal codes and are permit process for the private sector reducing working toward developing a system for the project timeline and saving money by tracking long-term maintenance and reducing project revisions. inspections. Compared to MS4s in California, Grand Rapids saves more than $100,00 a year on the post-construction runoff control program. Conclusion MS4 operators frequently must manage Through collective action, MS4s across 23 stormwater systems with insufficient budgets municipalities in the Lower Grand River and staff capacity. Partnerships with local watershed have reduced capacity strains and NGOs and other entities can provide eased the fiscal burdens associated with opportunities for improved efficiency in meeting their MS4 regulatory obligations. stormwater management to expand the LGROW’s impressive outreach activities assist abilities of local stormwater agencies and MS4 member communities in implementing reduce water quality and flooding impacts. long-term strategies to achieve water quality Non-traditional partners assist MS4 improvements through improved stormwater compliance in developing and implementing management stormwater management plans, creating and deploying public education, outreach and Photo Credit: LGROW participation activities, prioritizing actions to advance compliance goals and coordinating multiple agencies on long-term climate resiliency planning for the watershed. 33. Estimating Benefits and Costs of Stormwater Management Part II: Evaluating Municipal Spending in California. EFC at Sacramento State, May 2020 20 Packet Pg. 27  1.8.1.1 Due to this regional partnership created by LGROW, overall stormwater management costs are slightly lower in Grand Rapids compared to MS4s in California (Figure 5). With the support of LGROW, the City of Grand Rapids can devote a larger portion of its stormwater management budget toward water quality monitoring, long-term planning, and other priorities. If funding allocated for stormwater management program budgets remains the same over the next ten years, our analysis suggests that the estimated cumulative savings for Grand Rapids stormwater management program cost is over $2.5 million as a result of LGROW’s continued support. Figure 5: Comparison of MS4 Program Expenditures Over 10 Years 34 Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) Specifically, LGROW’s support for meeting regulatory obligations for MCM #1 results in sustainable savings over time. Figure 6 illustrates the average annual expenditures for MS4s to comply with MCM #1 over ten years, provided allocations for stormwater expenditures remain the same. Through the LGROW partnership, the City of Grand Rapids saves more than $320,000 in annual expenses to meet requirements for MCM #1 compared to MS4s in California, and nearly $40,000 less than the smaller Phase II MS4s spend in New Hampshire. Figure 6 also illustrates Grand Rapids’ estimated annual expenditures to meet MCM #1 without the support of LGROW. Municipalities across the country are turning toward non-profits and community organizations in a partnership to address stormwater discharge through education outreach and green infrastructure implementation projects. Yet, the financial gap hinders many MS4s from implementing sustainable solutions to address the impacts of climate change and protect communities. Through partnerships with the private sector, MS4s can reduce budgetary constraints and increase efficiency to achieve stormwater management goals. 34. Forecasted program expenditures are adjusted for average annual inflation per CPI Index (3%) 21 Packet Pg. 28  1.8.1.1 Further analysis examining MS4s costs that are closely similar in regulatory obligations, population, and climate would provide further details to determine efficiency gains. For this study, the simple comparison suggests partnering with the private sector has the potential to improve capacity in stormwater management and expand public stewardship toward achieving long-term climate resiliency goals. Although partnerships may alleviate some fiscal strains associated with implementing a stormwater management plan, communities lack significant funding to achieve water quality improvements and flood protections necessary to address the urgent threats of climate change. For municipalities in Michigan where stormwater utilities are not currently feasible, the fiscal flexibility and added capacity from partnerships can ease programmatic constraints and advance water quality improvements across the watershed. 35 Figure 6: Forecasted Expenditures for MCM #1 Compliance Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) 35. Forecasted program expenditures based on current costs and adjusted for average annual inflation per CPI Index 2020 (3%) Packet Pg. 29  1.8.1.1 Appendix A: Summary of LGROW’s Activities to Support Member’s MS4 Compliance. LGROW Activity Description Applicable MCM Stormwater Management Facilitate the process for Overall Permit Plan (SWMP) implementing SWMPs Compliance Promote, publicize, and facilitate watershed education and foster Public Education Plan MCM #1 stewardship (PEP) & Public + Provide public outreach, workshops, Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) Participation MCM #2 events, and training Track and report progress on public participation activities Develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit connections and discharges to Illicit Discharge MS4s Elimination Plan (IDEP) MCM #3 Model IDEP including dry weather screening Encourage partnerships to reduce sampling points Municipal Separate Storm Training on a variety of topics MCM #4 Sewer System (MS4) specifications in the SWMP + Training MCM #6 Provide model stormwater Overall Permit Model Ordinances and ordinance needed for permit Compliance Strategies compliance. 23 Packet Pg. 30  1.8.1.1 Appendix A cont: Summary of LGROW’s Additional Assistance to MS4 Members LGROW 's Additional Description Applicable MCM Assitance Collect available water monitoring Overall Permit Progress Reports data Prepare and submit progress Compliance reports Provide aid in case of of an audit Overall Permit Audits Compliance Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) Public outreach through Public Participation workshops, events, and training MCM #2 Track and report progress on public participation activities Permit Applications and Assist in transition to revised or Overall Permit Individual Permit Issuance new permits Compliance Develop approvable procedures for Enforcement Response enforcement Overall Permit Procedure Create system to track, record, and Compliance respond to violations Develop standards to reduce Stormwater Development stormwater runoff related to post- and Redevelopment MCM #5 construction activities Standards Develop a tracking system for long- term maintenance and inspections Total Maximum Daily Load Coordinate activities to collectively Overall Permit (TMDL) Implementation address water quality impairments Compliance Connect to a wide network of LGROW Network technical advisors, environmental BONUS and community leaders 24 Packet Pg. 31  1.8.1.1 Appendix B: Estimated Cost Comparison for MS4 Compliance Across Regions. Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) 25 Packet Pg. 32  1.8.1.1 Appendix C: Comparison of Proportional Expenditures for Each MCM across Regions. Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) Packet Pg. 33  1.8.1.1 Cover Page Photo Credit: LGROW Shanyn Viars American Rivers www.americanrivers.org Cara Decker Lower Grand River Organization of Watersheds www.lgrow.org Communication: Value of Partnership (Value of Partnership Report) Packet Pg. 34  1.8.2.1 FY2022 Annual Report Stormwater Oversight Commission Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) April 2023 City of Grand Rapids, MI Environmental Services Department 1300 Market Avenue SW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Packet Pg. 35  1.8.2.1 Table of Contents Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................1 2. STORMWATER PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................4 3. STORMWATER EXPENDITURES ............................................................................................................5 4. CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY ......................................................................................................8 5. STORMWATER TECHINICAL REFERENCE MANUAL ......................................................................11 6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2013 STORMWATER ASSET MANAGEMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................................................12 7. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING STORMWATER POLICY ........................................................15 Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission i Packet Pg. 36  1.8.2.1 1. Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Grand Rapids’ Stormwater Oversight Commission (SOC) was established by the City Commission by resolution number 83170 on January 28, 2014. Per the resolution, the SOC shall: 1. Support and advocate for the goals and objectives established in the 2013 Stormwater Asset Management Plan. 2. Monitor the community's changing stormwater needs and recommend program priorities to address those needs. 3. Be an advisory body of the City. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) 4. Report on and make recommendations to the City Manager and City Commission on stormwater performance, review expenditures and capital investment strategies. 5. Monitor achievement of stormwater outcomes. 6. Review the City’s annual (Stormwater) Progress Report. 7. Make recommendations to the City Manager and City Commission regarding policies. 8. Plan for achieving Stormwater Management Level of Service “C” as provided in the 2013 Stormwater Asset Management Plan. 9. Review, recommend and approve changes to the Stormwater Technical Reference Manual and report all changes to the City Commission and City Manager. 10. Annually review and recommend changes to the established criteria within the 2013 Stormwater Asset Management Plan for facility improvements, land acquisition, capital renovation or development. 11. Annually review the investments of the income tax extension designated for Vital Streets. 12. Advise the Environmental Services Manager regarding the effect of budgetary decisions on the stormwater system and interpretation of policy as needed. 13. Assist the Environmental Services Manager in the evaluation of stormwater programs and facilities and make recommendations for improvements. FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 1 Packet Pg. 37  1.8.2.1 Members of the 2022 SOC were: • Kristine Bersche – Chairperson • Jack Barr – Vice Chairperson • Julie Wildschut • Randal Meyering • Carlos Calderon • Ken Yonker • Katie Doyen The SOC began meeting in August of 2014. The meetings in 2014 focused on general stormwater education and state and federal regulations governing stormwater. The meetings in 2015 focused on achieving Level of Service “C” in asset management and developing new technical references for future changes to stormwater technical reference manual. The meetings in 2016 focused on policy development required for both the Vital Streets plan and the requirements of the upcoming municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Michigan Department of Environment Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE). In 2016, the Stormwater Oversight Commission served as the Green Infrastructure Work Group for the development of the Vital Streets Plan. The green infrastructure portion of the Vital Streets Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) Plan focused on fitting the green infrastructure best management practices to the Vital Streets Plan street type and mode. In 2017 and 2018, the SOC focused on continued progress toward Level of Service “C” in stormwater system asset management, reviewed the anticipated stormwater standards, had the Green Infrastructure Portfolio Standard (GIPS) policy adopted, and approved the Green Infrastructure Standards Manual (Green Book). In 2019, the SOC continued work on the upcoming MS4 permit and tracking Level of Service “C.” In addition, they reviewed activities performed under the Stormwater Asset Management Wastewater (SAW) grant. In 2020, the SOC further reviewed SAW grant deliverables, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan and Stormwater Control Design Benefits Tool. They were also presented with the draft stormwater section of the Comprehensive Master Plan. A review of SOC bylaws and how Design Team works were preformed to assist in bringing new Commissioners up to speed. Finally, several meetings included updates as to how COVID-19 was impacting the stormwater program. In 2021, the SOC was updated on the larger capital projects, Glen Echo and Alger Ravine; Rainy Day Project 2.0; and Kent County Drain Commission projects. An update on the status of the issuing of the MS4 Permit and corresponding changes was also provided for the SOC. The changes include the new Industrial Stormwater program, the Credit Trading program, new construction and reconstruction design standards, and necessary changes to the City Ordinance. In 2022, the SOC was updated on different projects throughout the year. The SOC received updates on future capital projects and current projects in different stages of the process. The current projects are listed below:  Alger Ravine Streambank Stabilization Project  Garfield Park Project  Highlands Daylighting Project  Glen Echo Project  Seymour Square Project FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 2 Packet Pg. 38  1.8.2.1 The SOC received updates on the Asset Management Plan, Annual Budget, Public Education, Water Quality Index, Stormwater Vulnerability Report, and changes to the City Stormwater Ordinance and the SOC By- Laws. Agendas and Minutes for the FY2022 meetings can be found on the City of Grand Rapids public meeting portal here. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 3 Packet Pg. 39  1.8.2.1 2. Stormwater Performance 2. STORMWATER PERFORMANCE 2.1 Reporting The City’s stormwater performance is governed by EGLE who uses an annual report to track the City’s progress. This report details the City’s stormwater work including but not limited to stormwater public education, stormwater maintenance, and soil erosion sedimentation control permit reviews. In FY2022, EGLE modified their reporting year to align with the calendar year (January to December). A partial progress report was submitted March 31, 2022, for the dates August 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. As of this submittal, the progress report was “accepted.” 2.2 Recommendations Given the performance report as stated above, there are no recommendations for the City’s stormwater performance at this time. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 4 Packet Pg. 40  1.8.2.1 3. Stormwater Expenditures 3. STORMWATER EXPENDITURES 3.1 Stormwater Management Budget The SOC reviewed expenditures at the end of FY2022 and also approved the FY2023 budget submission. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize stormwater management and stormwater maintenance budget expenditures. Table 1. FY2022 Stormwater Management Expenditures Percent Budget Expenditures of Budget Stormwater Management $1,993,159 $1,687,295 85% - Personnel $777,178 $640,593 82% - Contractual Services $1,078,073 $922,477 86% 3.2 Stormwater Maintenance Budget Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) Additional funds from Major/Local Streets were identified, which lead to spending above the budget. Table 2. FY2022 Stormwater Maintenance Expenditures Percent of Budget Expenditures Budget Stormwater Maintenance $1,614,881 $1,434,127 89% - Personnel $739,990 $742,180 100% - Contractual Services $481,871 $303,995 63% - Supplies $62,175 $26,171 42% 3.3 Vital Streets In 2022, the City of Grand Rapids installed 2 areas of porous pavers. With those improvements, the City is infiltrating an additional 46,896,060 gallons annually. In 2021 our calculations for volume infiltrated were reviewed. This review indicated that we have been overly conservative with our numbers. The recalculation indicates that our practices installed since 2018 are infiltrating over 75 million gallons per year. This puts us well over our goal of 20 million gallons per year by FY2023. Table 3 lays out the breakdown of cost for each project type below. Out of the total project costs of almost $23 million, over $700,000 was green infrastructure cost. According to the stormwater investment guidelines, approximately $5.3 million was estimated for expenditure on stormwater and green infrastructure in FY2022. According to Table 3, only 14% of the budget was spent. However, this is a substantial increase from the 3% that was spent in FY21. As the Vital Streets program progresses, more reconstruction will occur, which will increase the green infrastructure opportunities. FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 5 Packet Pg. 41  1.8.2.1 Table 3. 2022 Projects Funded by the Vital Streets Income Tax Investment Total Stormwater/ Volume Acreage of Green Infiltrated Treatment Infrastructure Total Project Project Name Infiltration Practice per Year (First Inch) Costs Cost Valley Ave - 4th St to 11th St Bioswale (84 sq yds) 5,116,693 6.20 $ 36,865 $ 3,186,784 Prospect Ave - Burton to Griggs Infiltration Basins 7,180,484 45.86 $ 52,000 $ 2,292,721 - Garden to Highland (10) Fuller Ave - Noble to Adams Infiltration Basins (8) 2,676,532 4.02 $ 48,216 $ 2,194,650 College Ave - Leonard St to Infiltration Basin (8) 2,273,554 0.11 $ 77,096 $ 3,429,870 Sweet St Bioswale (2,947 sq ft) Garfield Ave - Fulton St to 2nd St Veto St - Garfield Ave to Valley Infiltration Basin (11) Ave 3,847,527 0.24 $ 84,625 $ 2,891,811 Bioswale (3,511 sq ft) California St - Garfield Ave to Valley Ave Impervious Surface Ball Ave - Leonard St to Knapp St 31,200 0.00 $ 44,000 $ 1,585,352 (182,957 sq ft) Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) Robinson Rd - Lake Drive to Infiltration Basin (13) 6,895,719 0.57 $ 116,760 $ 2,828,588 Plymouth Ave Bioswale (2,051 sq ft) Cesar E. Chavez Ave - Beacon St Infiltration Basin (17) 7,347,984 2.51 $ 154,935 $ 2,683,502 to Martin Luther King Jr. St Bioswale (4,184 sq ft) Giddings Ave - Burton St to Infiltration Basins 11,526,367 13.96 $ 118,162 $ 2,311,637 Boston St (22) Total 46,896,060 73.46 $ 732,659 $ 23,404,914 FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 6 Packet Pg. 42  1.8.2.1 3.4 Grants 3.4.1 319 Grants Alger Ravine In 2017, the Stormwater Oversight Commission approved an application for a Michigan Part 319 grant to perform bank restoration, educate the public and install green infrastructure in the Alger Ravine watershed. Contracts for the grant were executed in late 2018. In 2019, the Quality Assurance Project Plan was prepared. This was required to be approved prior to any design work. Public education activities were initiated by our partners in the grant, West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC) and Plaster Creek Stewards (PCS). WMEAC performed a rain barrel workshop with specific invitations going to the residents in the watershed and PCS began performing “Rainscaping” Assessments in the area. Rainscaping assessments entail visiting a property and assessing appropriate green infrastructure for it. In 2020, public education was greatly curtailed by COVID. However, we performed individual meetings with homeowners on the ravine via electronic meetings and submitted plans to EGLE for permits. In 2021, we performed additional education, including a neighborhood gathering the Alger Ravine project construction was substantially completed. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) Final plantings were installed and the project was completed in 2022. Seymour Square In 2020, WMEAC submitted a grant application with the City and the Lower Grand River Organization of Watersheds (LGROW) for various projects across the watershed. The City will be creating green alleys in the Seymour Square area for stormwater improvements and to enhance walkability. These funds will be used as grant match for green infrastructure at commercial sites in the City and residential sites across the watershed. Funding was awarded and design began late 2021. In 2022, Seymour Square alley project design was completed in coordination with green infrastructure improvements for a private development in the area. Construction on both projects is estimated to begin in Spring of 2023. 3.4.2 High Water Infrastructure Grant In 2022, the City applied to EGLE for a High Water Infrastructure Grant in the amount of $335,000. The grant monies will be utilized for a Stormwater Resiliency Plan. We should hear about the grant award in late spring of this year. 3.5 Recommendations The SOC recommends continuing to seek grant opportunities to supplement the City’s funding of the stormwater program. FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 7 Packet Pg. 43  1.8.2.1 4. Capital Investment Strategy 4. CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY 4.1 Capital Budget The capital investment strategy is to achieve Level of Service “C” as outlined in the 2013 Asset Management and Capital Improvement Plan. Level of Service “C” is defined in Appendix A. FY2022 was a successful year for design of capital projects. The following capital projects were completed this year. • Alger Ravine Bank Stabilization (319 Grant) - Construction and planting were completed. • The Highlands Daylighting – Construction completed with a grand opening with City senior leadership. • Seymour Square/319 Grant – Design was completed. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) • Capital investment also goes to parts for pump station repairs, provided that the parts have been fully depreciated. Capital Improvement Funding has been planned out through 2028 to match the investment strategy in the plan, as shown in Table 4 through Table 9 below, with the exception that capital for KCDC’s projects and repairs for storm stations that have not been fully depreciated have been reallocated. FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 8 Packet Pg. 44  1.8.2.1 Table 4. FY2023 Capital Projects Indian Mill Creek Dredging FY2023 $380,000 Drainage Improvements and Emergency Repairs FY2023 $95,000 Water Quality Improvement from Daylighting Plan - Woodlawn Cemetery $206,000 GI Implementation - Seymor Sq/319 Grant $300,000 Pumping Station Capital Improvements $75,000 Catch Basin Lining $200,000 FY2023 TOTAL $1,256,000 Table 5. FY2024 Capital Projects 4450 - Drainage Improvements and Emergency Repairs FY2024 $100,000 Plaster Creek Bank Restoration - SE of Kalamazoo & 28th St - Burton-Breton $471,000 Green Infrastructure Implementation 2 $385,000 Riverside Park Water Quality & Daylighting $75,000 Pumping Station Capital Improvements $75,000 Catch Basin Lining $200,000 FY2024 TOTAL $ 1,306,000 Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) Table 6. FY2025 Capital Projects 4450 - Drainage Improvements and Emergency Repairs FY2025 $100,000 Bank Restoration $260,000 Riverside Park Water Quality & Daylighting $325,000 Pumping Station Capital Improvements $75,000 Catch Basin Lining $200,000 FY2025 TOTAL $ 960,000 Table 7. FY2026 Capital Projects 4450 - Drainage Improvements and Emergency Repairs FY2026 $100,000 Maple Grove Green Infrastructure $96,000 6968 - Daylighting Implementation 2 $240,000 7688-Pumping Station Capital Improvements $75,000 Catch Basin Lining $200,000 FY2026 TOTAL $ 711,000 Table 8. FY2027 Capital Projects 4450 - Drainage Improvements and Emergency Repairs FY2027 $100,000 Coldbrook Drain Rehabilitation – Michigan & Fuller $431,000 7688-Pumping Station Capital Improvements $75,000 Catch Basin Lining $200,000 FY2027 TOTAL $ 806,000 Table 9. FY2028 Capital Projects Plaster Creek Streambank Restoration w/PCS - 650 28th St SE $600,000 4450 - Drainage Improvements and Emergency Repairs FY2028 $100,000 7688-Pumping Station Capital Improvements $75,000 Catch Basin Lining $200,000 FY2028 TOTAL $ 975,000 FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 9 Packet Pg. 45  1.8.2.1 Projects were chosen using the 2013 Asset Management and Capital Improvement Plan, the 2015 Stream Daylighting Opportunities Assessment, additional projects identified that meet the Strategic Plan and the Green Infrastructure Portfolio Standards goals and emergency repairs, as needed. 4.2 Recommendations There are no recommendations regarding Capital Investment Strategy at this time. However, given that all recommended projects from the Capital Improvement Plan have now been scheduled, we will continue to incorporate the Large Scale Green Infrastructure Opportunities report and the Stream Daylighting Opportunities Assessment into the Asset Management and Capital Improvement Plan. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 10 Packet Pg. 46  1.8.2.1 5. Stormwater Technical Reference Manual 5. STORMWATER TECHINICAL REFERENCE MANUAL 5.1 Changes The SOC reviewed the Technical Reference Manual in 2016 in relation to proposed changes in conjunction with ordinance review for the MS4 permit issuance. As part of the EGLE permit process, however, and working with the other MS4 communities through the Lower Grand River Organization of Watersheds (LGROW), a Stormwater Standards Manual was prepared and approved by the SOC. In 2022, the SOC approved an update to the Bylaws to replace the Technical Reference Manual to the Stormwater Standards Manual. The revised Bylaws are presented in Appendix B. 5.2 Recommendations There are no recommendations regarding the Technical Reference Manual or the new Stormwater Standards Manual at Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) this time. The title of this section will be changed in the 2023 Annual Report to Stormwater Standards Manual. FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 11 Packet Pg. 47  1.8.2.1 6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2013 STORMWATER ASSET MANAGEMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2013 STORMWATER ASSET MANAGEMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 6.1 Facility Improvements During FY2022, the focus of facility improvements continues to be on asset management. In order to determine what facilities need improvement, the facilities need to be assessed through cleaning and televising. The 2013 Stormwater Asset Management and Capital Improvement Plan has set the goal to attain Level of Service “C”. The SOC has requested quarterly updates on progress made on stormwater assets that have been cleaned and/or inspected. Table 10 summarizes the annual cleaning and inspection data for the EGLE 2022 reporting year. Table 10. 202222 Asset Management Data Asset 2022 Annual Goal 2022 Totals Percentages Storm Main Cleaned (ft) 410,000 408,888 99.7% Storm Main Televised (ft) 53,650 67,124 125% Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) Catch Basins Cleaned (ea) 4,164 4,291 103% As noted above, all goals in 2022 were exceeded with the exception of one being very close. We have completed one full cycle of cleaning of catch basins. With the cycle completed and design of our catch basins with a bigger sump requiring less maintenance, we can lower the annual goal and target a few hundred catch basins that are in heavy sediment areas or have historically required more cleaning. This proposed goal will put all catch basins on a five-year rotation for cleaning schedule. We have completed the televising of the pipes that are over 75 years old. This current age qualifications limit the number of pipes we can televise and clean for our Asset Management Plan. After reviewing the televised lines within the program qualifications, reviewing the major problem on the entire system, and crew/equipment productivity, a proposal to remove the age qualification was suggested to the SOC. This proposed age qualification change will lengthen the televising and cleaning cycle from ten-years to twelve-years while capturing every stormwater pipe in the system. The proposal allows for crews and equipment to work more efficiently through the system. A cleaning crew and equipment can be dispatched and teamed with a televising crew and equipment. This will provide a better-quality recording of the stormwater pipes by having them cleaned right before the televising of the pipe. This will also allow the team to take advantage of work they accomplish for Engineering projects on the system. A change in the EGLE reporting year timeframe has changed to align with the calendar year. With this change, a proposal to the goals for three of the asset management tracking requirements was recommended. Table 11 shows the current goal and the proposed goal for each asset management to be changed. Table 11: Asset Management Proposed Changes to Annual Goals Asset Management Item Current Goal Proposed Goal Storm Main Televising 53,650 LF 168,520 LF Storm Main Cleaning 410,000 LF 168,520 LF Catch Basin Cleaning 4,264 3,676 FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 12 Packet Pg. 48  1.8.2.1 These proposed changes in Table 11 keep the City consistent with our Level of Service goal (C). In addition, around four miles of ditches were inspected in 2022. The FY2016 – FY2022 data for storm sewer repairs are shown in Table 12. Due to an increase in storm sewer cleanings and inspections, as well as the implementation of the City’s 311 customer service center, these values are not comparable to years before 2015. The lack of past investment led to a lack of preventative maintenance, but now that this maintenance is being performed, the corrective maintenance issues are being identified and reported at a higher frequency. Since the implementation of the 311 Customer Service Center in 2014, our citizens have better communication with us, and we have been able to address their problems more quickly. Table 12. FY2016-FY2022 Stormwater Repair Data Maintenance Type FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 CY2022 Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Storm Main – Point 23 23 21 154 (ft) 20 22 23 Repairs Storm Lateral Repaired 12 20 46 2 19 12 56 (ft) Storm Sewer Lined (ft) 392 1,375 0 0 4 0 204 Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) Storm Manholes 84 19 28 27 10 29 8 Repaired/Replaced (ea) Storm Catch Basins 109 65 53 66 71 46 1 Repaired/Replaced (ea) Roadside Ditches 875 3556 100 0 220 400 545 Shaping/Cleaning (ft) In 2022, the EGLE reporting year changed to the calendar year (CY). Table 12 will show the calendar year starting with CY2022. In CY2022, City staff maintained eleven stormwater pumping stations for use during major rainfall events. These stations pump stormwater to the river during times where the river level is too high to allow a gravity discharge. The lift stations are not designed to be in constant use, but because they are critical infrastructure, as they provide flood relief in the system during high river levels, reliable operation is mandatory. In order to maintain these stormwater pump stations, regular maintenance and inspections are necessary. Table 13 shows the type of work orders utilized to properly operate these facilities. Many of the work orders are for preventative maintenance. Any issues discovered are documented, and new corrective maintenance work orders are created. The corrective maintenance work orders may include troubleshooting pump malfunctions, bearing replacements, alarm diagnostics, and communication checks. Table 13. FY2022 Stormwater Station Maintenance Data Work Order Type Air Filter Inspections/Replacements Bar Screen Cleaning Motor Tests (Bi-annual) Electrical Preventative Maintenance (Annual) Instrumentation Preventative Maintenance (Annual) Wet Well Vactor Cleaning Stormwater Station – Biweekly Inspections Corrective Maintenance FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 13 Packet Pg. 49  1.8.2.1 6.2 Land Acquisition No land acquisitions were considered during FY2022. 6.3 Capital Renovation or Development During FY2022, the SOC continued to evaluate multiple ideas for capital development. As evidenced in the Capital Investment Strategy (Section 4.1), the SOC has continued to pursue opportunities in the large-scale green infrastructure opportunities and stream daylighting opportunities. The SOC has also taken a focus on recommending grant opportunities as shown in Section 3.4 to further expand the Capital Investment Strategy. 6.4 Recommendations The goal of the 2013 Stormwater Asset Management and Capital Improvement Plan was to reach the Level of Service “C” by 2020 through small step increases in annual asset management goals. As shown in Table 10, the FY2022 goals were exceeded. The SOC recommends continued monitoring of the Level of Service “C” goals and to continue pursuing projects from the large-scale green infrastructure and stream daylighting opportunities reports. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 14 Packet Pg. 50  1.8.2.1 7. Recommendations Regarding Stormwater Policy 7. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING STORMWATER POLICY In March 2015, the permit application for the discharge of stormwater to surface waters of the state from a MS4 was submitted to the MDEQ. Changes to the stormwater code will be required to address requirements under the upcoming MS4 permit. Proposed changes to code were presented to SOC in a series of six separate presentations to prepare for the upcoming MS4 permit. In FY2018, the City was given preliminary approval for its MS4 permit submittal. The SOC continued to approve changes as required in negotiations with the MDEQ. A revised permit package was submitted in 2019. Staff is currently working on City code to incorporate proposed changes. Discussions with EGLE (formerly MDEQ) in 2020 indicate that there will be a draft permit by the end of FY2021. At that time, the proposed code will be submitted to EGLE. SOC will review the code changes and make recommendations to the City Commission upon final approval by the EGLE. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) In 2021, the MS4 Permit was issued by EGLE in September. The City was given until September 2022 to implement the program. In 2022, the stormwater team created a draft update to the City Ordinance. The draft update included the required items to create an Industrial Stormwater Program, Stormwater Credit Trading Program, and other updates to the stormwater ordinances under the new MS4 Permit. The ordinance was presented to the SOC and the City Commission. The ordinance was approved and implemented in August 2022. FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 15 Packet Pg. 51  1.8.2.1 Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) Appendix A Level of Service “C” Parameters FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 16 Packet Pg. 52  1.8.2.1 Chapter 4: Level of Service Level of Service C This LOS is intended to allow the City to determine critical infrastructure and identify high priority areas. Refer to Table 4-3. Key elements of this LOS include: x Funding would increase for O&M to allow for the assessment of the entire collection system greater than 75 years old every 10 years. Funding also assumes performing corrective maintenance where necessary and preventative maintenance on 10 percent of all inspected assets. x Inspection of 50 percent of culverts annually, along with replacing or renewing the worst 5 percent. x Inventory and inspection of approximately 4 miles each of open channels and ditches annually with funding for preventative maintenance, and establishing a minimal annual renewal program. x Inspection of all discharge points every 5 years, with corrective maintenance to repair or replace the top 10 percent worst condition each year. And preventative maintenance on 5 percent of inspected outfalls annually. x Inspections and routine maintenance on other system assets would be organized so that pertinent data are collected and stored in the GIS database. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) x 10 percent of all new capital spending would be directed towards green infrastructure. x Regulatory spending would be increased to establish a public education program. x Capital spending would be based on an assumed system replacement every 150 years, with catch basins and laterals assigned a 100 year replacement cycle. 40 Grand Rapids Stormwater Asset Management Plan Packet Pg. 53  1.8.2.1 Chapter 4: Level of Service Table 4-3 Level of Service C Definition Asset Inspection Corrective Preventative System Renewal Gravity Mains PACP CCTV inspect pipes Replace 15% of Perform rehabilitation Replace every 150 years. greater than 75 years old assets that have to extend EEL for over 10-year period. reached end of EEL 10% of inspected over 10 years. sewers over 10 years MH Inspectmanholes greater Replace 15% of Perform rehabilitation Replace every 150 years. than 75 years old over 10- assets that have to extend EEL for year period. reached end of EEL 10% of inspected over 10 years. sewers over 10 years. Laterals Inpect CB laterals greater Replace 15% of Perform rehabilitation Replace every 100 years. than 75 years old over 10- assets that have to extend EEL for year period. reached end of EEL 10% of inspected over 10 years. laterals over 10 years. Catch basins Clean and inspect 25% Replace 15% of Perform rehabilitation Replace every 100 years. annually (Approx. 4264). assets that have to extend EEL for Record and monitor debris reached end of EEL 10% of inspected levels for cleaning over 10 years. catch basins over 10 prioritization. years. Force Mains Visual inspection every 2 Replace every 100 years. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) weeks during pump station inspection. PACP CCTV inspect every 15 years. Siphons Clean and inspect annually. Replace every 150 years. Culverts CCTV/walk/inspect 50% of Replace/rehabilitate Replace every 150 years. culverts annually. top 5% by POF. Open Channel Walk, inventory and inspect Remove debris at 1 Restore 7.5% minor, 3% 4 miles of open channel site per mile moderate and 1% severe annually. inspected. construction for length inspected each year. Ditches Inspect 4 miles of roadside Grade or clean 10% of ditch annually. length inspected. Discharge Inspect all discharge points Replace top 10% by Stabilize bank and Replace every 150 years. Points every 5 years per MS4 POF each cycle. erosion control at 5% requirements. of assets each cycle. Creek gates Inspect annually, clean as Costs included with needed. Record and monitor adjacent assets. conditions for prioritization. Detention Complete site inspection 3 Facility renovation every Basins times annually including 100 years. Includes re- routine maintenance. grading, seeding, renew inlet/outlet structures. Infiltration Clean and inspect every 5 Replace system every 150 Basins years. years. Lift Stations Inspect facility every 2 Replace pumps every 30 weeks. Log inspection data years, structural, in GIS every 6 months. mechanical and electrical components replaced every 100 years. Hydro Clean and inspect annually. Replace every 150 years. Separators Record debris accumulation for prioritizing cleaning schedule and frequency. Green Inspect and perform Invest 10% of all Infrastructure recommended maintenance collection system capital annually. renewal costs on GI. GI=+25% increase to construction costs. Grand Rapids Stormwater Asset Management Plan 41 Packet Pg. 54  1.8.2.1 Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) Appendix B Revised Bylaws FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 17 Packet Pg. 55  1.8.2.1 BYLAWS OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS STORMWATER OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Whereas, the City Commission has determined to establish an advisory body for matters involving stormwater and stormwater management, as established by resolution number 83170, the following rules of procedure are hereby adopted by the City of Grand Rapids’ Stormwater Oversight Commission (Commission). ARTICLE 1 – MEMBERSHIP 1.1 COMPOSITION The Commission shall consist of nine (9) members. Members shall be persons who represent varied interests within the watershed. 1.2 APPOINTMENTS Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) An appointment shall be made by each City Commissioner and the Mayor shall nominate three members, one shall be a the Kent County Drain Commissioner or his/her designee, one shall be a representative of the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, and one shall be a representative of the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce for terms commencing the first Monday in January, with the exception of the initial Commission members. Initial Commission members have terms beginning July 22, 2014. Commission members may be removed by a majority vote of the City Commission. 1.3 TERMS OF APPOINTMENT Appointments shall be for a three (3) year period and shall expire on the first Monday in January on the third year succeeding his or her appointment until his or her successor takes office. Initial Commission members will have terms expiring January 2, 2017. ARTICLE 2 - DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 SUPPORT The Commission shall support and advocate for the goals and objectives established in the 2013 Stormwater Asset Management Plan, as updated. 2.2 MONITOR The Commission shall monitor the community's changing stormwater needs and recommend program priorities to address those needs. 2.3 REVIEW AND RECOMMEND FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 18 Packet Pg. 56  1.8.2.1 The Commission shall: 2.3.1 Be an advisory body of the City. 2.3.2 Report on and make recommendations to the City Manager and City Commission on stormwater performance, review expenditures and capital investment strategies. 2.3.3 Monitor achievement of stormwater outcomes 2.3.4 Review the City’s annual (Stormwater) Progress Report. 2.3.5 Make recommendations to the City Manager and City Commission regarding policies. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) 2.3.6 Plan for achieving Stormwater Management Level C as provided in the 2013 Stormwater Asset Management Plan, as updated. 2.3.7 Review, recommend and approve changes to the Stormwater Standards Manual and report all changes to the City Commission and City Manager. 2.3.8 Annually review and recommend changes to the established criteria within the 2013 Stormwater Asset Management Plan, as updated, for facility improvements, land acquisition, capital renovation or development. 2.3.9 Annually review the investments of the income tax extension designated for Vital Streets. 2.4 ADVISE AND ASSIST The Commission shall: 2.4.1 Advise the Environmental Services Manager regarding the effect of budgetary decisions on the stormwater system and interpretation of policy as needed. 2.4.2 Assist the Environmental Services Manager in the evaluation of stormwater programs and facilities and make recommendations for improvements. ARTICLE 3 - OFFICERS 3.1 SELECTION FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 19 Packet Pg. 57  1.8.2.1 At the first regular meeting of each calendar year, the Commission shall select, from its membership, a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson, who shall be eligible for re- election on an annual basis. 3.2 TENURE The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall take office immediately following their selection and shall hold office for a term of 1 year or until their successors are selected and assume office. ARTICLE 4 – DUTIES OF ELECTED OFFICERS 4.1 CHAIRPERSON The Chairperson shall review and advise on all meeting agendas prepared by the Department, preside at all meetings, appoint committees and perform all other duties as requested by the Commission. 4.2 VICE CHAIRPERSON Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) The Vice Chairperson shall act in the capacity of Chairperson on her/his absence. In the event the office of the Chairperson becomes vacant, the Vice Chairperson shall succeed to this office for the unexpired term; and the Commission shall select a successor to the office of Vice Chairperson for the unexpired term. City staff shall act as Recording Secretary. The Vice Chairperson shall be responsible for reviewing and signing the minutes. ARTICLE 5 - MEETINGS 5.1 REGULAR MEETINGS Regular Commission meetings for each subsequent year shall be determined at the December meeting of the current year by a majority vote of the Commission. When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, the Commission shall select a suitable alternate date in the same month. FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 20 Packet Pg. 58  1.8.2.1 5.2 SPECIAL MEETINGS Special meetings shall be called at the request of the Chairperson or by majority vote of the members of the Commission. 5.3 PUBLIC RECORDS All regular and special meetings, including all meeting minutes, shall be open to the public. All meetings of the Commission shall be subject to the Michigan Open Meetings Act. 5.4 QUORUM A majority of the total number of members then appointed shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and the taking of official action. Whenever a quorum is not present at a regular or special meeting, those present may adjourn the meeting to another day or hold the meeting for the purpose of receiving Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) information reports or presentations not requiring action by the Commission. 5.5 PUBLIC COMMENTS Comments from the public shall be limited to 3 minutes and persons may speak only once on any given topic. Notwithstanding the above, at the discretion of the Chairperson, a person may be permitted to speak at any time on any matter for any length of time deemed appropriate by the Chair (even for periods longer than otherwise permitted by these rules) when the Chair determines that the Commission may benefit from such presentation. Speakers must address the Chairperson and must speak from the audience. 5.6 MOTIONS Motions shall be repeated by the appointed City staff member acting as Secretary if requested to do so by a member of the Commission. The name of the maker and supporter of a motion shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. 5.7 VOTING Voting shall be by voice and shall be recorded by yeas and nays. Roll call votes will be recorded only upon request by a member of the Commission. A majority vote of those members present shall be necessary to approve any motion, resolution or recommendation except for the amendment of these Bylaws which shall require a two-thirds majority. 5.8 COMMISSION ACTION Action by the Commission on any matter on which a hearing is held shall not be taken until the hearing has been concluded. FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 21 Packet Pg. 59  1.8.2.1 5.9 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE Parliamentary procedure in Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order (newly revised), except where state statute, these bylaws or local ordinance directs otherwise. ARTICLE 6 – ORDER OF BUSINESS 6.1 AGENDA The Chairperson shall consult with the Department on the preparation of an agenda prior to each meeting. 6.2 ORDER OF BUSINESS The order of business for all regular meetings shall be handled in the following order: 1. Meeting Called to Order. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) 2. Roll Call. 3. Approval of Agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes. 5. Correspondence. 6. Reports. a. Environmental Services Department 7. Old Business. 8. New Business. 9. Agenda Items for Next Meeting. 10. Date and Time of Next Meeting. 11. Public Comment 12. Adjournment. ARTICLE 7 – MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 AMENDING RULES FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 22 Packet Pg. 60  1.8.2.1 These bylaws may be amended at any regular or special meeting by a two-thirds vote of the members present. 7.2 ANNUAL REPORT The Commission shall make an annual written report to the City Commission in December concerning its operations, including recommendations related to Stormwater policies, management, rules and regulations. Communication: Annual Report (Annual Report) FY2022 Annual Report – Stormwater Oversight Commission 23 Packet Pg. 61