Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force

AGENDA Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force December 13, 2011 City Hall, Room 209, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM 1. Introductions of Task Force members and meeting attendees. 2. Review and approval of the SSWFTF minutes from November 15, 2011. 3. Continued discussion of allocating combined sewer costs to the stormwater use charge versus the sewer use charge (20% ‐ 50%). 4. Presentation of draft Public Outreach Plan. 5. Review draft Task Force Report. 6. Confirm date for next meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2012. 7. Adjourn  MINUTES Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force November 15, 2011 City Hall, Room 209, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM 1. Introductions of Task Force members and meeting attendees. All members were present except for David E. Robinson, Curtis Bohlen, and John Cannell. Staff present included: Doug Roncarati, Katherine Earley. Also in attendance were Conrad Wensel, Rich Niles, and Andy Reese. 2. Review and approval of the SSWFTF minutes from October 18, 2011. Gellerson motion, Brooks seconded, all in favor for accepting minutes. 3. Continued discussion of allocating combined sewer costs to the stormwater use charge and sewer use charge. Reese presented updated cost information for the allocation of combined sewer costs to stormwater and illustrated the impacts to residential rate payers and other property types. Impacts to sewer and stormwater fees were presented based on % CSO allocations of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. The Task Force was asked to think about the allocation of CSO costs based on the numbers presented, as well as their subjective “gut” reaction when they think about what is reasonable and fair. Reese reminded the group that the allocation of CSO costs to a stormwater fee is not always an exact science and arguments can be made either way. The following comments and key points were discussed:  Those most financially affected should receive some kind of rate relief. Capping the rate increase is one method.  The analysis of impacted properties does not include all properties; only those with a water bill. Therefore, all of the greatest impacted properties may not be captured. Ian Houseal noted that the analysis was for approximately 15,000 parcels that matched water billing addresses to parcel data. Therefore, the analysis does not include properties that do not receive a water bill or those addresses that didn’t match between the two databases. For example, parcels may have multiple billing addresses for water billing purposes and may have different nomenclature for addresses.  Reese noted that approximately 1/3 of the total impervious area was accounted for in the analysis used to develop the analysis of properties. Members questioned whether the analysis was representative of the total properties and whether additional data work should be performed to capture all impacted properties.  Properties in the Long Creek watershed were used by Veroneau as a sample impact to the business community. Although comparing this program to the City’s is like comparing “apples to oranges,” it is helpful to consider the financial impact to commercial properties. Properties in the Long Creek watershed are charged $3,000/IA/year, which is roughly equivalent to $14.25/2500 SF IA/month. This seemed to be manageable for most properties in the Long Creek  watershed. Based on a CSO allocation of 50% or greater, many properties will have an annual bill greater than $7,300, which is almost $35/2500 SF IA/month. This cost is not sustainable for most businesses and the CSO allocation should be closer to 25%.  Suslovic noted that some part of the CSO cost is stormwater; therefore, some part of the program should be billed as stormwater.  Brooks noted that the residential sewer bill does not change significantly under the 0‐25% CSO cost allocation scenario and this may be appealing to residents. Reese noted that under a 0‐25% scenario, sewer bills for most rate payers go up only slightly and the residential stormwater fee is about $8‐9 per month. From a psychological standpoint, the residential monthly cost is still in the single digits and may seem “ok” to most people who are already used to slight increases in utility fees. A straw poll was taken to gauge what people were thinking for % CSO allocation. The question was asked “How many people think the CSO allocation should be greater than 35%?” 3 members responded in support and the following key points were made by various members:  From the perspective of residents, you could argue for an allocation of 40‐50% since the cost goes down for residential properties as % allocation increases.  50% of the rate payers have carried most of the current share of CSO costs, so the CSO allocation should stay closer to 50%. This seems more equitable.  One resident commented that the CSO allocation should be less than 25% to help businesses. In the end, the impact to businesses is felt by residents since it increases the costs of local goods and services.  It is difficult to isolate the cost allocations since you can provide the rationale for various allocations. The Task Force seems to feel that the CSO cost allocation to stormwater is somewhere between 20% and 50%.  Several members felt that more detailed analysis was needed for individual property impacts to better determine the most appropriate CSO allocation. Members requested a revised “Dow Jones” analysis using real properties and fewer numbers/types to focus on the most impacted properties. Preliminary Policy Recommendation #10: Portland should allocate somewhere between 20% and 50% of the combined sewer overflow costs to the stormwater fee. 4. Continued discussion of capping credits This item was tabled until the next meeting. 5. Review draft Task Force Recommendations The Task Force reviewed the draft recommendations memo (dated 11/15/2011) during the meeting to solicit comments and discuss any recommendations that required further review and consideration. In general, the members of the Task Force agreed with the understanding and background information provided in the memo. Additionally, the majority of the recommendations appeared to be consistent with the information and recommendations discussed at previous meetings. However, the following items were identified as requiring further review: Item 14. Funding 50% of Portland’s combined sewer costs through a stormwater use charge and 50% of Portland’s combined sewer costs through the sewer use charge.  Based on the results of the discussion for the allocation of combined sewer costs to a stormwater fee, it appears that further review of the recommended allocation is needed and it is in the range of 20% to 50%.  The group wants to review example properties and their impacts under various allocation scenarios to consider the most appropriate and fair allocation of costs. Item 21. The Task Force examined multiple rate structures for single family residential properties including a single tier for residential properties, two tiers, multiple tiers and a fully variable rate. The Task Force believes that Portland should use a simplified charge for single family residential properties consisting of two to three tiers. Commercial properties should be roughly approximate to the residential tiers set at 2500 square feet of impervious area.  Up to 4 units should be considered a residential property and residential properties that have greater than 10,000 square feet of impervious area should be treated (billed) as commercial properties.  This recommendation should be revised to: “Portland should use 2‐3 tiers for residential properties”. Item 24. The Task Force considered a credit system for properties to reduce their total stormwater use charge in addition to properties being able to reduce their charge by reducing their impervious area. The Task Force believes that credits should be tied to existing City development standards. Credits should be capped at 50% on the grounds that the majority of stormwater costs are unavoidable and due to maintenance and individual properties private action would not reduce the impact on the system above that level.  The cap of credits at 50% requires further review based on the information discussed previously. Some suggested that the cap be revisited during the next meeting based on the results of individual property impacts from the pending CSO cost allocation scenarios and the ability of affected property owners to seek a credit. Item 27. The Task Force believes that to reduce the impact on those properties that are most impacted, the total rate increase should be limited to some amount per year.  The limit on the amount of the rate increase should be more clearly defined based on the pending CSO cost allocation scenarios and the most impacted properties. 6. Confirm date for next meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for December 13, 2011. 7. Adjourn  MEMORANDUM To: Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force From: Ian Houseal, Sustainability Coordinator Date: December 13, 2011 Combined Sewer Allocation Impact Analysis The following memorandum is provided to the Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force to aid the Task Force in determining their recommendation for allocation of combined sewer costs. Data Summary The following analysis was created using annual sewer use data by address provided by the Portland Water District (PWD) matched to impervious area by parcel provided by the City of Portland. Approximately 2,000,000 Hundred Cubic Feet (HCF) of sewer usage was matched to approximately 21,000 parcels representing all the parcels in the City of Portland. Of total sewer usage approximately 13% of total sewer usage did not match to a parcel record due to differences in naming conventions between the City of Portland and the Portland Water District. Assumptions  Figure 1: projected wastewater expenses from Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 to FY 2040.  Table 1: projected five year average for FY 2013 – FY 2017.  Table 2: assume sewer use charge rate and the stormwater use charge rates per year. Impact of Allocating Combine Sewer Costs Of the approximate 21,000 total parcels, approximately 14,000 parcels have sewer usage and approximately 18,000 parcels have impervious area. Approximately 3,500 parcels have impervious area, but no sewer usage represents approximately 15,565 equivalent residential units (ERUs) and therefore $2,800,000 under the 25% CSO allocation scenario or $4,300,000 under the 50% CSO allocation scenario according to the assumptions outlined above.  Figure 2: relative cost burden by property classification under a sewer fee only scenario.  Figure 3: percent change in relative cost burden based for the 25% and 50% CSO allocation scenarios by property classification.  Figure 4: relative impervious area by property classification.  Figure 5: Distribution of total cost increase or decrease for all properties resulting from allocating combined sewer costs under 25% and 50% scenarios.  Figure 6: Distribution of total cost increase or decrease for all properties that have sewer usage resulting from allocating combined sewer costs under 25% and 50% scenarios.  Figure 7: Average cost increase or decrease for by property classification resulting from allocating combined sewer costs under 25% and 50% scenarios. 2  Figure 1: Projected Wastewater Costs $70 $60 $50 Five Year Average Millions of Dollars $40 $30 $20 $10 $‐ FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 FY 2039 FY 2040 Total Debt Service (including Existing Debt and CSO Tier II and Tier III) PWD Assessment Total Capital Renewal and Backlog (1.5% inflation rate applied to capital renewal and 30 yr construction @ 5.5% interest with 20 yr terms applied to backlog) Total Operating Expenses (1.5% inflation rate)  Table 1: Five Year Average Annualized Costs (FY 2013 ‐ FY2017) Capital PWD Operations Construction Debt Total Renewal Backlog Assessment Combined Sewer $ 3,212,855 $ 1,568,865 $ 395,200 $ 8,910,398 $ 5,625,240 CSO $ 19,712,559 Sewer $ 1,546,036 $ 1,249,863 $ 65,157 $ 4,287,711 $ 1,988,748 Existing Debt $ 9,137,514 Storm Water $ 1,835,572 $ 2,063,581 $ 117,476 $ 4,016,629 Total $ 6,594,463 $ 4,882,309 $ 577,833 $ 13,198,109 $ 7,613,988 $ 32,866,702 Notes: ‐ Operations ‐ 68% of sewer and combined sewer operating costs allocated to combined sewer based on total miles of sewer and combined sewer pipe. ‐ Operations ‐ 1.5% inflation rate applied ‐ Capital Renewal ‐ 1.5% inflation rate applied ‐ Backlog ‐ 30 year construction schedule @ 5.5% interest rate over 20 yr terms ‐ PWD Assessment ‐ 68% of Portland Water District costs allocated to combined sewer based on total miles of sewer and combined sewer pipe. Table 2: Sewer and Stormwater Rate Based on Five Year Average Annualized Costs Combined Sewer Allocation to Storm Water Rate Sewer Only Units 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Sewer Rate $/HCF/yr $ 16.39 $ 14.39 $ 11.93 $ 9.47 $ 7.02 $ 4.56 Stormwater Rate $/ERU/yr $ 80.26 $ 178.73 $ 277.21 $ 375.68 $ 474.16 Notes: ‐ units below in square feet unless otherwise noted. ‐ Roadways not included in impervious area calculations. ‐ Parcels of property less then 400 square feet no included in impervious area calculations. ‐ Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) equals 2,500 square feet. 104,601,621 Impervious Area (Parcels) 2,005,314 total sewer volume (HCF) 50,045 ERUs $ 8.11 current sewer rate Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force Working Document 1 of 1 December 13, 2011  Figure 2: Relative Cost Burden by Property Classification (Sewer Charge Only) LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS RELIGIOUS 1% SINGLE FAMILY BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE 0% 3% GOVERNMENTAL TWO FAMILY 4% OTHER WHOLESALE 4% THREE FAMILY 0% FOUR FAMILY WAREHOUSE & STORAGE 1% FIVE FAMILY PLUS MANUFACTURING & RESIDENTIAL CONDO CONSTRUCTION 7% RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE PARKING LOTS OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE 0% HOTEL & MOTEL SINGLE FAMILY HOTEL & MOTEL 2% 33% PARKING LOTS OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE 4% MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION RETAIL & PERSONAL WAREHOUSE & STORAGE SERVICE 7% WHOLESALE BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE TWO FAMILY 8% RELIGIOUS THREE FIVE FAMILY PLUS GOVERNMENTAL FAMILY 12% RESIDENTIAL CONDO 6% LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS 4% FOUR FAMILY OTHER 2%  Percent Change in Cost Burden ‐6.00% ‐5.00% ‐4.00% ‐3.00% ‐2.00% ‐1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% SINGLE FAMILY TWO FAMILY THREE FAMILY FOUR FAMILY FIVE FAMILY PLUS RESIDENTIAL CONDO RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL & MOTEL PARKING LOTS MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION Figure 3: WAREHOUSE & STORAGE WHOLESALE 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENTAL LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS SEWER FEE ONLY OTHER Relative Percentage Change in Total Cost Burden by Property Classification 25% CSO Allocation Relative Cost Burden by Property Classification 50% CSO Allocation 50% CSO Allocation 25% CSO Allocation  Figure 4: Relative Impervious Area by Property Classification SINGLE FAMILY LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS 1% TWO FAMILY RELIGIOUS THREE FAMILY 1% OTHER FOUR FAMILY 10% FIVE FAMILY PLUS GOVERNMENTAL SINGLE FAMILY 8% RESIDENTIAL CONDO BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE 23% 3% RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE WHOLESALE TWO FAMILY 3% HOTEL & MOTEL 4% PARKING LOTS WAREHOUSE & STORAGE THREE FAMILY MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION 7% 2% FOUR WAREHOUSE & STORAGE FAMILY 1% WHOLESALE MANUFACTURING & OFFICE & RETAIL & PERSONAL FIVE FAMILY PLUS BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS SERVICE 4% 5% PARKING LOTS SERVICE RELIGIOUS 12% RESIDENTIAL 2% 7% CONDO GOVERNMENTAL HOTEL & MOTEL 3% 1% LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS OTHER  Frequency 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 < $ (10,000) $ (10,000) ‐ $ (5,001) $ (5,000) ‐ $ (1,001) $ (1,000) ‐ $ (101) $ (100) ‐ $ (11) $ (10) ‐ $ (1) Change in Total Annual Fees: Impact of CSO Allocation on All Properties (Sewer $ 0 ‐ $ 9.99 Figure 5: $ 10 ‐ $ 99.99 Change in Annual Fee $ 100 ‐ $ 999 $ 1,000 ‐ $ 4,999 $ 5,000 ‐ $ 9,999 > $ 10,000 and Non‐Sewer) 50% CSO Allocation 25% CSO Allocation  Frequency 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 < $ (10,000) $ (10,000) ‐ $ (5,001) $ (5,000) ‐ $ (1,001) $ (1,000) ‐ $ (101) $ (100) ‐ $ (11) $ (10) ‐ $ (1) Change in Total Annual Fees: Imapact CSO Allocation on Properties with Sewer $ 0 ‐ $ 9.99 Figure 6: $ 10 ‐ $ 99.99 Change in Annual Fee $ 100 ‐ $ 999 $ 1,000 ‐ $ 4,999 $ 5,000 ‐ $ 9,999 > $ 10,000 Usage 50% CSO Allocation 25% CSO Allocation  $0 ‐$8,000 ‐$6,000 ‐$4,000 ‐$2,000 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 SINGLE FAMILY TWO FAMILY THREE FAMILY FOUR FAMILY FIVE FAMILY PLUS RESIDENTIAL CONDO RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL & MOTEL PARKING LOTS MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION WAREHOUSE & STORAGE Figure 7: WHOLESALE BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENTAL LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS OTHER Average Change in Annual Cost Impact by Property Classification TOTAL 50% CSO Allocation 25% CSO Allocation  ‐$30,000 ‐$20,000 ‐$10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $0 SINGLE FAMILY TWO FAMILY THREE FAMILY FOUR FAMILY FIVE FAMILY PLUS RESIDENTIAL CONDO RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL & MOTEL PARKING LOTS MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION WAREHOUSE & STORAGE Figure 7A: WHOLESALE BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENTAL LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS Average Change in Annual Cost by Property Classification OTHER TOTAL Note: Error Bars Represent Limits of One Standard Deviation 50% CSO Allocation 25% CSO Allocation  DOW PROPERTIES LIST 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE CURRENT FUTURE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY SINGLE FAMILY Low 1 34 275 555 177 404 581 274 321 595 26 40 Average 1 52 422 853 232 621 852 360 493 852 (0) (0) High 2 70 569 1,150 287 837 1,124 445 665 1,109 (26) (41) TWO FAMILY Low 1 52 424 857 219 624 843 340 495 835 (14) (22) Average 2 80 649 1,311 272 954 1,227 422 758 1,180 (84) (131) High 2 108 873 1,765 326 1,285 1,610 505 1,020 1,525 (155) (240) THREE FAMILY Low 1 75 606 1,226 209 892 1,101 324 708 1,033 (124) (193) Average 2 123 1,000 2,021 270 1,471 1,741 418 1,168 1,586 (280) (435) High 2 172 1,394 2,817 330 2,050 2,380 512 1,628 2,140 (436) (677)  DOW PROPERTIES LIST 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE CURRENT FUTURE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY FOUR FAMILY Low 1 96 782 1,580 239 1,150 1,388 370 913 1,283 (191) (297) Average 2 144 1,167 2,358 307 1,716 2,023 476 1,362 1,839 (335) (519) High 2 191 1,551 3,135 376 2,282 2,658 582 1,812 2,394 (478) (741) FIVE TO TEN FAMILY Low 2 153 1,237 2,500 270 1,820 2,090 419 1,445 1,864 (410) (637) Average 2 234 1,895 3,829 357 2,787 3,144 553 2,213 2,766 (686) (1,063) High 2 315 2,552 5,158 443 3,754 4,197 687 2,981 3,668 (961) (1,490) ELEVEN TO TWENTY FAMILY Low 2 305 2,471 4,993 360 3,634 3,994 558 2,886 3,444 (999) (1,549) Average 3 493 4,002 8,088 517 5,887 6,404 802 4,674 5,476 (1,684) (2,612) High 4 682 5,533 11,183 675 8,139 8,814 1,046 6,463 7,509 (2,369) (3,674)  DOW PROPERTIES LIST 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE CURRENT FUTURE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY TWENTY‐ONE PLUS FAMILY Low 7 338 2,737 5,532 1,179 4,027 5,205 1,828 3,197 5,025 (327) (507) Average 16 1,253 10,166 20,544 2,928 14,953 17,882 4,542 11,873 16,415 (2,663) (4,130) High 26 2,169 17,594 35,557 4,678 25,880 30,558 7,255 20,548 27,804 (4,999) (7,753) RESIDENTIAL CONDO Low 0 29 238 481 82 350 432 128 278 405 (49) (75) Average 5 220 1,788 3,613 885 2,630 3,514 1,372 2,088 3,460 (98) (153) High 9 412 3,337 6,745 1,687 4,909 6,597 2,617 3,898 6,515 (148) (230) GOVERNMENTAL Low ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Average 5 94 759 1,535 827 1,117 1,944 1,283 887 2,170 410 635 High 14 418 3,393 6,857 2,517 4,991 7,508 3,904 3,963 7,867 651 1,010  DOW PROPERTIES LIST 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE CURRENT FUTURE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY HOTEL & MOTEL Low 14 187 1,520 3,072 2,582 2,236 4,818 4,004 1,775 5,780 1,746 2,707 Average 25 2,055 16,665 33,679 4,502 24,513 29,015 6,982 19,463 26,445 (4,664) (7,234) High 36 3,922 31,810 64,286 6,422 46,790 53,212 9,960 37,151 47,111 (11,074) (17,175) LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS Low ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Average 7 125 1,013 2,047 1,199 1,490 2,688 1,859 1,183 3,042 642 995 High 15 333 2,703 5,464 2,620 3,977 6,596 4,063 3,157 7,220 1,133 1,757 MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION Low 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,647 ‐ 1,647 2,555 ‐ 2,555 1,647 2,555 Average 32 1,797 14,570 29,445 5,758 21,431 27,189 8,930 17,016 25,946 (2,256) (3,498) High 55 5,213 42,275 85,436 9,868 62,184 72,052 15,305 49,374 64,679 (13,383) (20,757)  DOW PROPERTIES LIST 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE CURRENT FUTURE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE Low ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Average 12 299 2,421 4,893 2,216 3,562 5,777 3,437 2,828 6,265 884 1,371 High 29 890 7,220 14,590 5,134 10,620 15,754 7,963 8,432 16,395 1,164 1,805 PARKING LOTS Low 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 145 ‐ 145 224 ‐ 224 145 224 Average 4 9 69 140 723 102 825 1,121 81 1,202 685 1,062 High 7 41 332 670 1,302 488 1,789 2,019 387 2,406 1,119 1,736 BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE Low ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Average 4 167 1,358 2,744 759 1,998 2,757 1,177 1,586 2,763 12 19 High 10 486 3,938 7,958 1,848 5,792 7,640 2,865 4,599 7,465 (318) (494)  DOW PROPERTIES LIST 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE CURRENT FUTURE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY RELIGIOUS Low 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 248 ‐ 248 384 ‐ 384 248 384 Average 5 49 397 801 968 583 1,551 1,502 463 1,965 750 1,163 High 9 101 817 1,651 1,689 1,201 2,890 2,619 954 3,573 1,239 1,922 RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE Low ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Average 9 219 1,773 3,582 1,567 2,607 4,175 2,431 2,070 4,501 593 919 High 19 467 3,789 7,656 3,319 5,573 8,891 5,147 4,425 9,572 1,235 1,915 WAREHOUSE & STORAGE Low 12 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,177 ‐ 2,177 3,376 ‐ 3,376 2,177 3,376 Average 27 191 1,548 3,128 4,762 2,276 7,038 7,385 1,807 9,193 3,910 6,065 High 41 485 3,937 7,957 7,347 5,792 13,138 11,394 4,598 15,993 5,181 8,036