Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force
Regular MeetingPortland, ME · March 20, 2012
Minutes
MINUTES
Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force
March 20, 2012
City Hall, Room 209, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM
1. Introductions of Task Force members and meeting attendees.
All members were in attendance except for David E. Robinson, John Cannell, Vin Veroneau, Ron Miller,
and Michele Brooks. Cathy Ramsdell came in place of Task Force member Joe Payne. Tom Brigham
came in place of Bill Bennet. Also in attendance was Mayor Michael Brennan, Tom Bell, Seth Garrison,
Martha Sheils, Tamara Pinard, Lisa Cowan, Conrad Welzel, and two Preti Flaherty representatives. Staff
in attendance included Doug Roncarati, Mike Bobinsky, Katherine Early, and Ian Houseal.
The Mayor thanked the Task Force on behalf of the City Council and the citizens of Portland for their
hard work during the past year.
2. Review and approval of the SSWFTF minutes from December 13, 2011.
Gellerson motion, Martin seconded the motion. Approved by all in attendance.
3. Report and discussion of Task Force public outreach.
The Task Force reviewed the public outreach efforts made since December and the comments received.
Suslovic summarized the groups that had been heard from including Portland Water District Board of
Trustees, the Greater Portland Chamber of Commerce, University of Southern Maine, City Manager’s
Neighborhood Advisory Group, and Convention and Visitor’s Bureau as well as the public meeting held
on March 12, 2012.
Suslovic stated that he heard broad support for the policy concept of a stormwater fee. He said he
heard that there were some details that the public was in disagreement including Chris O’Neil’s
comments that combined sewer costs allocated to the stormwater fee should be less than 50%, while
Mark Eyerman suggested that the allocation should be more than 50%. Suslovic stated that he felt this
represented that the Task Force’s draft recommendations were probably where they needed to be.
Bobinsky stated that there was a need to move forward with combined sewer projects and was looking
for funding to do so.
Connolly stated that he felt it was a weakness of the public presentation that specific cost implications
were not mentioned. He stated that he felt cost examples were necessary when referred to the
business community.
Dillon said that he felt there was need of specific cost examples.
Houseal stated that he noted that cost examples were absent and would have been helpful to the
presentation.
Suslovic suggested a presentation of the magnitude showing that the impact would be valuable to allay
fears that the fee represents a huge change. The ramp‐up (fee cap) would also help in how the
recommendations are presented.
Martin stated that he wanted it to be clear that everyone understood fees were going up either way
(stormwater fee or no stormwater fee) and that to suggest that someone’s fee was going to go down
was not correct. People need to understand that their total fees are going up, just not as much is some
cases. The way this is said is important.
Dillion stated that there was importance to the time table for implementation and the resources that
were used to getting the message out to the public after the Task Force has finished their activities.
Suslovic stated that the process that had been taken so far was taken at a measured pace and has been
very transparent. He expects that pace and transparency to continue.
Ramsdell pointed out that there was importance to marketing as roll‐out occurs. When the first bill is
sent out is probably the most important period. The language surrounding the marketing is also
important.
Suslovic presented a proposed public process including a workshop in May or June, followed by a
Council item and then a proposed ordinance in the fall. Implementation and policy details would take a
year to a year and a half after that time. Suslovic asked the Task Force if they would be willing to review
documents at a time in the future.
Bohlen stated that would be a need for multiple meeting to provide feedback on process as
implementation begins and he recommended that feedback based on his involvement in Long Creek.
Ramsdell asked if there would likely push and pull on the allocation recommendation at the Council
workshop. Suslovic stated that questions may be asked, but there are a lot of good reasons to stick with
50%.
4. Review draft Task Force recommendations.
Potter suggested a grammatical change to Task Force Recommendation #19.
Connolly suggested a change to Recommendation #18 to include all impervious area in the statement,
not just parking lot area.
Connolly asked about past Task Force discussion surrounding exempting the airport runway
(Recommendation #23.) Other Task Force members spoke that the Task Force agreed to exempt the
runway.
Dillon brought up the question of exempting roads since the question was discussed in the public
meeting. Suslovic summarized Mark Eyerman’s comments about shifting the burden of roads to the
property tax. Martin stated he believed that homeowners would rather not reduce costs by
complicating their tax returns with tax deductions on property taxes. Suslovic stated that he felt
property taxes were not the best place to put additional costs. The Task Force was in agreement not to
modify their recommendation on exempting roads.
There was discussion on Recommendation #27. Martin questioned how an educational credit would be
applied or used. Houseal stated that the Task Force did discuss educational credits, but did not
recommend their use. The Task agreed to remove #27 from the list.
Bohlen asked for changes to Recommendation #26 to include more specificity about what the incentives
would be. The Task Force agreed to have more specificity “retrofits that reduce stormwater runoff
volumes such as rain barrels or rain gardens.
Sheils asked that Recommendation #25 be split into two sentences. Bohlen stated that the
Recommendation was about credits would be offered for to reduce charges not credits for reducing
impervious area.
Suslovic suggesting a recommendation for a citizen oversight panel to annually review sewer and
stormwater fund activities. Connolly suggested an audit. Ramsdell suggested an auditing requirement.
Brigham suggested an audit. Bobinsky stated that there was an annual audit conducted.
Bohlen asked if there was a need for an oversight board. Gellerson stated monitoring a fund was a lot to
ask of a citizen committee and liked the idea of an audit. Bobinsky stated that there were oversight
mechanisms within the staff structure.
Ramsdell stated that there was a need for a citizen board during the period of transition as the
stormwater fee is implemented. Bohlen also suggested a board for that purpose. The Task Force
agreed to include a Recommendation of a board for the transition to the stormwater fee.
Task Force members asked for additional language on scale and timetable of costs.
5. Recommendations of the Task Force to the City Council.
The Task Force then recommended their finding to the City Council as amended. Gellerson motion,
Connolly seconded the motion. Approved by all in attendance.
6. Adjourn.
Agenda
AGENDA
Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force
March 20, 2012
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 December 13, 2011.
3. Report and discussion of Task Force public outreach.
4. Review draft Task Force recommendations.
5. Recommendations of the Task Force to the City Council.
6. Adjourn.
MINUTES
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.
All members were in attendance except for David E. Robinson, John Cannell, and Michele Brooks. Cathy
Ramsdell came in place of Task Force member Joe Payne. Also in attendance was Jami Fitch, Ralph
Carmona, Conrad Welzel, Zach Henderson, and Andy Reese. Staff in attendance included Danielle West‐
Chuhta, Doug Roncarati, Mike Bobinsky, Katherine Early, and Ian Houseal.
2. Review and approval of the SSWFTF minutes from November 15, 2011.
Martin motion, Veroneau seconded the motion. Approved by all in attendance.
3. Continued discussion of allocating combined sewer costs to the stormwater use charge versus the
sewer use charge (20% ‐ 50%).
Task Force members continued the discussion on how much of the combined sewer costs to allocate to
the stormwater use charge. Houseal presented a number of figures showing the impact of the fees on
property classifications.
Bennet made the point that if 25% of the combined sewer cost is allocated to the stormwater use
charge then 75% of the costs remain with the sewer charge.
Connolly stated that 50% or more of the problem (cost) was caused by stormwater.
Ramsdell stated that 50% should be the minimum.
Reese stated that some of the reasons for keeping the costs with the sewer use charge are headroom.
What Portland is doing is cutting edge. Reese stated that the City might want to consider one bill with
four items on the bill: water charge, sewer charge, runoff charge, and combined sewer charge.
Veroneau stated that the information shows that residential property is minimally impacted, but the
question is which commercial industry would be impacted to what degree.
Suslovic asked the Task Force to take a straw poll of where they stood on a spectrum of allocating
combined sewer to stormwater. Veroneau and Dominski felt that the allocation should be between 25%
and 37.5%. Gellerson felt that the allocation should be between 37.5% and 50%. All other members
present felt that the allocation should be greater than that amount. Suslovic asked if there was a
limitation on the shift between the two fees, graduating increases over time, could the Task Force stand
behind 50%?
Miller stated that the revenue would have to be absorbed on the other side of the equation; the sewer
fee and stormwater fee would have to make up the difference if there was a limit in the rise of the fee
per year.
Suslovic stated that he wanted the cap to be phased on over time.
There was a general consensus with allocating 50% of the combined sewer costs to the stormwater use
charge if there was an annual increase cap with a reasonable ramp‐up period.
4. Presentation of draft Public Outreach Plan.
Henderson presented the draft Public Outreach Plan to the Task Force.
5. Review draft Task Force Report.
This item was not reviewed.
6. Confirm date for next meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2012.
7. Adjourn
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Sustainable Stormwater Funding Task Force
Date: March 20, 2012
Draft Recommendations of the Sustainable Stormwater Funding Task Force to the City Council on
Funding the City’s Wastewater Program Obligations
The Task Force understands that:
1. Portland’s wastewater assets maintained by the City including the separated sewer system (62 miles
of line), combined sewer system (133 miles of line), and storm drain system (133 miles of line)
comprised of the sewer or storm drain lines themselves, catch basins, manholes, detention ponds,
underground waste water storage facilities, and sewer pump stations.
2. The City is responsible for maintaining the stormwater and combined sewer system.
3. The City maintains the stormwater system to convey stormwater runoff away from private property
and public right‐of‐ways to prevent flooding and control erosion.
4. The City maintains the combined sewer system and the sewer system convey sewerage to the waste
water treatment facility.
5. The City’s stormwater conveyance system may also include any roads with drainage systems,
municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human‐made channels or storm drains
owned or operated by the City of Portland.
6. The City is legally obligated to eliminate combined sewer overflows and administer a storm water
program aimed at preventing polluted stormwater runoff from entering streams, rivers, wetlands,
and coastal waters and restoring water quality in urban impaired streams located in Portland.
7. Sewer use charges are currently used to defray the current expenses of operating and maintaining
the wastewater system, including any assessment made by the Portland Water District; to pay the
interest and repay the principal on any outstanding or future indebtedness of the city for
construction of sewers heretofore or hereafter constructed within the city; and to reimburse the city
for the cost of computation, billing and enforcement of such charges.
8. Sewer use charge rates are increasing and will continue to increase as a result of decreasing sewer
use volumes caused by water conservation activities by rate payers and increasing costs related to
maintaining the wastewater systems and meeting the City’s legal obligations.
9. Funding Portland’s wastewater assets require an ongoing flow of funds raised either through taxes
or service charges.
10. Portland’s current wastewater costs are related to the operation, capital renewal and reinvestment,
and construction of the Combine Sewer Overflow Abatement Plan.
11. Portland’s future stormwater conveyance capital and program cost requirements for meeting
undetermined State or Federal regulations is unknown.
The Task Force recommends:
12. Continuing to funding Portland’s wastewater assets through service charges as opposed to taxes.
13. Continuing to fund Portland sewer costs through the current sewer use charge which is by‐nature
derived from water usage billed to rate payers.
14. Funding Portland’s stormwater costs through a stormwater use charge based impervious area (i.e.
an area of a property comprised of rooftops, driveways, and parking lots.) of a property which is a
surrogate for stormwater runoff.
15. 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.
The Task Force’s believes that a stormwater use charge:
16. Will contribute to Portland’s regional and national competitive advantage because it will lower
Portland’s sewer rate as compared to other municipalities in the country.
17. Will diversify the funding streams available to meet the City’s wastewater costs, reducing the total
cost burden to most sewer rate payers.
18. Will reduce the relative cost burden to Portland industry, specifically industries located in Portland
that are high water users and other entities that are relative high water users compared to
properties that have extensive parking lot area.
19. Will be a more fair method of disturbing cost with respect to the impact urban runoff has on the
drainage system of the City.
20. Will offer opportunities to rate payers to reduce the overall impact to the system by making site
improvements that reduce site runoff and improve the water quality of stormwater runoff.
2
The Task Force recommends developing a stormwater use charge according to the following criteria:
21. The Task Force examined multiple rate methodologies including a flat rate for all properties, a rate
based on impervious area only, a rate based on impervious area and gross area, and a rate based on
intensity of development. The Task Force believes that Portland should charge on the basis of
impervious area only because impervious only rate is most directly related to stormwater impact on
the system.
22. The Task Force examined multiple rate structures for single family residential properties including a
single tier, two tiers, multiple tiers, and a fully variable rate. The Task Force believes that Portland
should use a simplified rate for residential properties consisting of two to three tiers. The tiers for
commercial properties should approximate increments comparable to the residential tiers.
23. The Task Force considered whether roads should be exempt since roads are part of the conveyance
system. The Task Force believes that Portland should exempt roads (i.e. public, private, and the
airport runway) and should allocate wastewater costs on the grounds that the funding pool would
shift from rate payers to property tax payers if not the case. Furthermore, the airport runway
should be exempt on the grounds that it is a road.
24. The Task Force considered whether City property should be exempt and determined that City
property should not be exempt on the grounds that if City property was exempt then other public
property in the city might be arguable exempt as well and public property has an impact on the
system.
25. 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.
26. The Task Force briefly considered incentives and believes that offering one‐time incentives to
residential and commercial property is a valuable activity to support the City’s stormwater program
objectives.
27. The Task force believes that credits should be offered for education if it makes sense from the
perspective of the current stormwater education program.
28. The Task force believes that to reduce the impact on those rate payers that are most impacted by
the stormwater use charge, the annual rate change should be limited.
3