Stormwater Management Task Force

City of Springfield - Greene County, Missouri Stormwater Management Task Force Meeting Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Location: Public Safety Center 330 West Scott Street Springfield, Missouri 65802 Meeting purposes:  Select guiding principles to assist the Task Force members in their role, process, and issues to be addressed.  Provide background on revenue sources.  Where should the City and the County focus their efforts to address needs?  What are the pros and cons of each revenue source? AGENDA 5:00 p.m. Welcome Co-Chair Fred Palmerton Co-Chair Dan Hoy 5:10 p.m. Survey Results & Task Force Discussion Sheila Shockey 5:30 p.m. Revenue Options Discussion All 6:45 p.m. Next steps - Information needed for upcoming meetings Sheila Shockey 6:55 p.m. Closing Remarks Co-Chair Fred Palmerton Co-Chair Dan Hoy 7:00 p.m. Adjourn In accordance with ADA guidelines, if you need special accommodations when attending any City meeting, please notify the City Clerk's office at 864-1443 at least three days prior to the scheduled meeting. Stormwater Management Task Force February 7, 2012 Agenda Packet  Springfield/Greene County, Missouri Stormwater Management Task Force Meeting #4 Meeting Notes January 17, 2013 Welcome & Introductions The Springfield/Greene County, Missouri Stormwater Management Task Force met in the Springfield – Greene County Public Safety Center. The meeting commenced at 5:00 p.m. Task Force Co-chair Dan Hoy welcomed the Task Force members and community members in attendance. Those present included the following. Task Force Daniel Beckman Dave Murray Ronda Headland Fred Palmerton Patrick Harrington Casey Haynes Matthew Pierson Chris Carson Dan Hoy Karen Spence Stacey Armstrong Tom Kissee Jerany Jackson Tiffany Frey Bill Bretall Geoffery Butler Fred Schlegel Chris Macioce Dana Elwell Andy Hosmer Tom DeWitt Absent: Brian Perdue, Rick Scarlet, Aaron Wahlquist, Patty Hamilton, Erik Fjeseth, King Coltrin, Harlan Hill, Matt Bailey City and County Staff Kevin Barnes Tim Davis Todd Wagner Vanessa Brandon Carrie Lamb Kimberly White Phil Broyles Barbara Lucks Jon Williams Greg Burris Fred Marty Jan Millington Chris Coulter Steve Meyer Sheila Shockey Sarah Davis Tim Smith Shelby Ferguson Community Stakeholders: Michael Pinkley Milton Dickensheet Mike Pessina Stormwater Management Task Force February 7, 2012 Agenda Packet Repair and Replacement Infrastructure Todd Wagner, Stormwater Engineer, City of Springfield, began by focusing on infrastructure repair and replacement, including the age and size of the infrastructure. He reviewed the three areas of stormwater management: flood risk and damage reduction, water quality protection, and maintenance infrastructure investment. Mr. Wagner said he would present what has been done in the City. Kevin Barnes Stormwater Engineer, Greene County, will talk about what has been done in the County. Currently, the City has a drainage system map which includes the City’s entire infrastructure, with the exception of a few older areas. The infrastructure system is made up of open systems, grass or concrete channels, box culverts, inlet structures and junction box structures. The majority of the infrastructure is 0-20 years-old, making up 46 percent of the system. Infrastructure 20-50 years- old comprises 27 percent of the system, and infrastructure more than 50 years-old also comprises 27 percent. Although the majority of infrastructure is 20 years of age or less, the system size has doubled with newer, small pipes and inlets. In addition, replacement cost is greater for areas 50 years of age and older. The older infrastructure has larger pipes and requires more work to replace, with a replacement cost of $160 million. The estimated replacement cost of the current constructed system is $500 million, an average of $5 million for the next 100 years. The following is an inventory breakdown of the infrastructure system by category and maintenance requirements:  Pipes – 294 miles o Erosion around the pipe, generally on the top  Box Culverts – 59 miles o Size-width and height cause problems for crews to efficiently access with vehicles  Grass and Concrete Open Channels – 321 miles o Concrete channels require restoration of walls, concrete repair and removal of debris and sediment o Grass channels require frequent mowing and removal of debris  Inlet Structures – 13,324 o Damage from maintenance vehicles and traffic  Junction Boxes – 1,947 o Damage from maintenance vehicles and traffic  Flood Control/Walter Quality Basins – 1,050 o Regular maintenance, sometimes specialized  Best Management Practices - 250 o Regular maintenance, sometimes specialized Maintenance of these systems is a continuous effort on the City and County’s part with no long-term dedicated source to fund maintenance of the stormwater system. Currently, maintenance of the system is broken down into two general categories: Reactive Maintenance and Vegetation Maintenance. Reactive Maintenance – These are areas of routine maintenance with concerns about sediment, weeds and other debris. These are maintained by street crews and the majority of these areas are in the right-of-way. This type of maintenance is funded through the gas tax, use tax and transportation fund. Vegetative Maintenance – These are areas of routine maintenance including mowing, bush/weed control and planting of trees and other natural vegetation. This type of maintenance is funded through the gas tax, use tax and transportation fund. Kevin Barnes, Greene County, gave a brief overview of similar infrastructure, located in the urban services area, which is development served by the sanitary sewer and rural areas outside of the city limits. The system in these areas was mostly built since 1990. Areas built before 1990 had minimal consideration for stormwater management. Stormwater Management Task Force February 7, 2012 Agenda Packet The value of Greene County’s stormwater system is approximately $100 million, of which $40 million is private infrastructure needing retrofitting consideration as the structures age. The remaining $60 million is highway funds/right-of-way. The following is the breakdown of infrastructure by category for the county:  Box Culverts - 126  Inlets and Junction Structures – 4,809  Pipe – 85 miles  Detention Basins – 400  Open Channels – 22 miles Maintenance of the County infrastructure is inspected during construction phases to ensure functionality and maximize serviceable life before repairs are necessary. In systems within the right-of-way, crews replace and repair as necessary, while also removing debris and sediment from large box culverts and bridges. The County’s maintenance for private properties is minimal due to the inability to enforce maintenance codes on properties containing pipes, inlets and other hard structures. Questions and Answers Task Force members asked questions and the following answers were given by the support team: Question: Of those 13,324 inlet structures, how many are precast? Response: Almost all have precast lids, but there are some which have precast bases. Question: Is all of the vegetation maintenance done by the City and City employees? Response: Yes. Question: Is there a human health concern for young adults, kids and maintenance crews who go into box culverts and get hurt? Is there contact with police or hospitals to keep track of how many incidents occur in or around the culverts? Response: This is a concern, but we do not keep records or notifications of these incidents involving residents who have entered the box culverts. Question: Are you able to teach homeowners how to maintain the channels? If so how do you educate them? Response: We are able to educate homeowners with basic maintenance guidelines for mowing and keeping the channel free of debris. Question: Is maintaining the channel the property owner’s responsibility? Response: When the channel is located behind their home, yes, they are responsible. Unfortunately it’s difficult to enforce maintenance, due to drainage laws. Question: Are there property maintenance codes? Response: No. Stormwater Management Task Force February 7, 2012 Agenda Packet Task Force Survey Results Discussion Sheila Shockey reported that 23 members of the Task Force participated in a Guiding Principles survey. The purpose of the survey was to gain initial input and help guide decision-making regarding the City of Springfield & Greene County’s stormwater management programs. The survey was comprised of nine questions, all of which asked respondents to provide their “level of agreement.” Five response options were provided: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. The results showed agreement on the Public Acceptance and Ease of Administration survey topics with some of them showing “neutral” responses. The survey results showed some disagreement on the survey topics: Economic Development, Equity/Fairness and Ability to Pay. Economic Development: The Task Force discussed rewording the Economic Development guiding principle: “Tax rates and/or fees should be competitive with other jurisdictions to help attract and retain businesses and citizens.” The following points were discussed: 1. Don’t try to be the cheapest and miss out on the opportunities. 2. Economic energy drives everything. If you don’t have that then you can’t pay for anything. 3. It would be more appealing if it said “was adequate to services.” 4. What’s important is: as long as you can do the things that you need to--- balance the needs. 5. If we are going to make a statement about economic development we need to have a statement about striving for competitive tax rates and another about the value of what we receive. Task Force members generally agreed to add “We safeguard our water resources” and to change “should be competitive” to “while keeping tax rates and fees competitive.” “We safeguard our water resources while keeping tax rates and fees competitive with other jurisdictions to attract and retain businesses and citizens.” There was also general agreement to add a second principle for Economic Development: “We attract businesses and citizens to our community because of the value gained through investments made in environmental stewardship.” Equity/Fairness The Task Force talked about rewording the Equity/Fairness guiding principle: “Everyone in the community should pay their fair share for stormwater management.” 1. Fair share is the issue in this statement. 2. Just because it’s controversial doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it. 3. It doesn’t matter who is at the bottom or top and/or has the problem, everyone should pay. 4. We need to consider those who have made infrastructure improvements and are proactive in helping stormwater issues. 5. We need to consider incentives for those who go above and beyond. There was a general agreement to take out “fair share” and leave the guiding principle intact otherwise. “Everyone in the community should pay for stormwater management.” The Task Force talked about rewording the Equity/Fairness guiding principle: 5 “The funding of stormwater management should be linked directly to the amount of runoff a property produces. Those who cause more of the problem pay more for the stormwater services management.” Comments included: 1. This one is difficult as you are going to have runoff no matter what, but it just depends on the factors and what type of conditions you have. 2. How we fund the stormwater utility is the ultimate question. 3. What about using the word “negatively” impact? 4. We need to consider that we all own the watershed and not just the small section we live on or own. It’s our responsibility as a whole. The Task Force agreed to put this guiding principle on hold and continue the discussion at the next meeting. Ability to Pay The Task Force discussed rewording the Ability to Pay guiding principle: “A program should be developed to reduce the burden of paying for the stormwater management on low-income households, spreading the subsidy across to other citizens.” Comments included: 1. Many households would have difficulties paying more for stormwater. Maybe we should look at the 2% of median household income that regulatory agencies use to determine affordability. 2. Consider that many low-income families rent. The property owners are the ones affected. There was a general agreement to put this guiding principle on hold and continue the discussion at the next Task Force meeting. Equity/Fairness The Task Force talked about rewording the Equity/Fairness guiding principle: “The funding of stormwater management should be linked directly to use of the service. Those who need the services pay more.” The Task Force agreed to delete this guiding principle. Equity/Fairness The Task Force discussed rewording the Equity/Fairness guiding principle: “New development and redevelopment should not cause downstream impacts. The costs should be fully recovered.” 1. There is the issue that you can’t make everyone fix something. 2. “As known by current science” should be added to this statement, allowing for the principle to evolve as science does. There was general agreement for the time to add “negative” before impacts. The following sentence was also added: “This should consider water quality and flooding using sounds science.” “New development and redevelopment should not cause negative downstream impacts. This should consider water quality and flooding using sound science” in the revised statement, which is still under discussion with potential deletion of the complete statement. 6 Ms. Shockey wrapped up the meeting with a quick session of five keypad polling statements regarding Priorities. She asked the Task Force to rate their level of importance for each Priority. Five options were provided: “very important,” “important,” “neutral,” “not important,” “should not be funded.” The following are the Priority statements the Task Force participated in and the results listed in priority order: 1. How important is it to fund projects/programs that reduce the risk of injury or death due to flooding those that keep streets from flooding and bridges from overtopping? (very important 54%, important 46%) 2. How important is it to fund projects that have multiple benefits: those that reduce flood damage and risk, improve water quality and help main existing infrastructure while creating community amenities? (very important 41%, important 59%) 3. How important are projects and programs that protect water quality and help our community comply with water quality regulations? (very important 53%, important 67%, neutral 6%) 4. How important is it to make sure the system we have in place to manage stormwater is in good repair by investing in proactive rather than reactive maintenance of the system? (very important 28%, important 67%, neutral 6%) 5. How important are projects that reduce property damage due to flooding - those projects/programs that keep buildings from flooding? (very important 57%, important 36%, neutral 7%) After the Task Force rated their level of importance for the Priority statements they were asked to finish by ranking their top two priorities from the following statements. The statements are listed in the order in which they were ranked by the Task Force. 1. Projects and programs that protect water quality and help our community comply with regulations should be the highest priority. (12 votes) 2. Projects that reduce the risk of injury or death due to flooding should be the highest priority. (9 votes) 3. Projects that have multiple benefits should be the highest priority. (6 votes) 4. Projects that reduce property damage due to flooding should be the highest priority. (5 votes) 5. Our community’s highest priority is to make sure the system we have in place to manage stormwater is in good repair by investing in proactive rather than reactive maintenance of the system. It is important to protect our investment in the existing stormwater management systems. (4 votes) Next Steps and Closing Remarks Ms. Shockey and Mr. Hoy thanked the Task Force for their participation and reminded them the next meeting would cover funding mechanisms next month: February 7, 2013, 5:00-7:00 p.m. at the Springfield – Greene County Public Safety Center. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. 7 Stormwater Funding: History & Options Introduction This report focuses on potential major funding sources. Supplemental revenue sources do not provide enough funds to cover the basic costs of the stormwater program. Revenue estimates provided in the following discussion are estimates and based on available data. This report also provides expenditure projections based upon various service levels. The Task Force is charged with identifying funding source(s) and recommending the amount of each stormwater program area represented by the "circles" below. Historical Funding Sources and Levels The City of Springfield has funded stormwater management using several sources of revenue:  Property Tax o Level Property Tax used to pay back bond issues for capital projects  Gas Tax & Use Tax (from Street Maintenance Fund)  Sales Tax from general sales tax and a revenue allocation from two specific sales taxes. o The primary source of revenue in the General Fund is sales tax. o ¼ cent City Capital Improvement Sales Tax (subject to voter approval and internal appropriation every three years) o County Parks & Stormwater Sales Tax – 1/8 cent with a portion allocated by County to City with a 5-year term expired July 2012 Greene County has funded stormwater management using two prim ary sources of revenue:  County Parks & Stormwater Sales Tax  General Fund (comprised of sales & property tax) Both programs have also received state/federal grant funds. Grants typically require a local match of 20 to 50 percent local funds. They are not a consistent source of revenue. The following is a description of primary funding sources and historical levels. 8 Level Property Tax: The City of Springfield has used level property tax revenues in the past to pay back $56 million in General Obligation (GO) bonds issued between 1995 – 2011. The bonds for stormwater projects will be paid off in 2031. The tax is 26 cents per $100 of assessed valuation which generates $8 million per year. Sixty-percent (60%) or 16 cents, generating $4.8 million annually, is used to pay back the debt for stormwater projects. As capacity is available the City can ask voters to approve new projects without raising property tax. The annual surplus or capacity is $800,000 in 2014, $1 million in 2016 and goes up to $8.1 million in 2031. The City is currently planning to use the available level property tax funds beginning in 2016 to fund replacement of equipment and major repairs to city buildings. Gas Tax & Use Tax (from Street Maintenance Fund): The City of Springfield uses funds from the Street Maintenance Fund to pay for maintenance staff and expenses. This would include repairs, minor capital improvements, and channel cleanouts. Gas Tax & Use Tax go into the Street Maintenance Fund. A Gas Tax is a tax on fuel. A Use Tax is a tax on goods and services over $2,000 purchased out-of-state. General Fund: The City’s General fund contributions are approximately $500,000 per year. This is used for administrative costs of operating the stormwater program and maintenance activities such as repairs, minor capital improvements, channel cleanouts, mowing and tree maintenance. The source of General Fund dollars is primarily sales tax, payment in-lieu of taxes and use tax. The County’s General Revenue Fund contributions are approximately $250,000 per year. This was used for operations of the stormwater program. The source of revenue for the General Revenue Fund is primarily sales tax and property tax. City Capital Improvement ¼ cent Sales Tax: This sales tax was passed in 2010 and generates about $8 million per year for the City of Springfield. For the three year period, 2010 – 2012, the City has allocated a total of $2 million for stormwater improvements from this source; specifically for flood control projects. This sales tax will sunset in 2013. Voters will be asked to renew it in April 2013 for three more years. The proposal is to have $4.5 million of revenue over next 3 years for stormwater if the sales tax is approved by voters. County Parks/Stormwater Sales Tax: Collected from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012, the ¼ cent sales tax was used to fund park and stormwater improvements. One half of the total tax or 1/8 cent was used for stormwater improvements benefitting parks. The 1/8th cent portion generated a total of $24.2 million, or $5.15 million annually and the revenue was allocated to stormwater management for the cities and county based upon population. Springfield’s total was $16.2 million over that time period or approximately $3.24 million annually. The County’s total was $ 7.7 million over that time period or approximately $ 1.54 million annually. This funded operations and capital projects. The Springfield/Greene County Parks Board received half of the ¼ cent sales tax. There was no sunset on Parks’ portion and this tax is still in place. Stormwater programs received half of the sales tax or 1/8th cent and this portion had a sunset ending in 2012. Missouri law allows counties to enact a maximum of ½ cent sales tax for parks and/or stormwater management. Historical Summary: The following tables show revenue sources and totals historically for the City and County stormwater management programs. 9  Table 1. City of Springfield Annual Funding Summary Revenue Source 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 General Fund – Stormwater $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Division Level Property Tax - Mowing $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 City Gas/Use Tax -- Maintenance. $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 City Level Property Tax – System $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Improvements County Parks/Stormwater Sales $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Tax (1/8th) City Capital Improvement Tax (1/4 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 cent-part to Stormwater) Total $8,500,000 $8,500,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 Table 2. County Stormwater Program Funding Breakdown (2000-2012) Revenue Source 2000-2012 Average Annual Federal/State Funds $ 700,000 $ 53,846 Parks/Stormwater Sales Tax (2007-2012) $7,700,000 $ 592,307 General Fund (approx. $250,000/year 2007-2012) $1,500,000 $ 250,000 TOTAL 1995 - 2012 $9,900,000 $896,153 The County received only two grants, one in 2000 to buy flooded homes in the FEMA floodplain, and a smaller one in 2006 for stream stabilization. These totaled $700,000, but federal/state grants are not an ongoing funding source. Potential Sources Moving Forward The City of Springfield has three (3) primary sources of revenue available to fund stormwater management in the future: property tax, sales tax and utility. The following are some options available for each revenue source.  Property Tax o Use a portion of existing property tax revenue from property tax; o Increase property taxes through a public vote; and o Use a portion of Level Property Tax as existing stormwater debt is paid off.  Sales Tax o Use a portion of existing sales tax revenue from General Fund; o Use a portion of City Capital Improvement Sales Tax on the ballot in 2013; o Use a portion of County Parks & Stormwater Sales Tax; o Increase the County Parks & Stormwater Sales Tax; and o Enact a new 1/10th cent Sales Tax authorized by the State to address water quality. 10   Utility o Enact a user-fee based stormwater utility related to the level of usage of the system, typically measured by the amount of runoff that leaves a property. Greene County has three (3) primary sources of revenue available to fund stormwater management in the future: property tax, sales tax and utility. The following are some options available for each revenue source.  Property Tax o Use a portion of existing property tax revenue from General Revenue Fund; and o Increase property taxes through a public vote.  Sales Tax o Use a portion of existing sales tax revenue from General Fund; o Use a portion of County Parks & Stormwater Sales Tax; and o Increase the County Parks & Stormwater Sales Tax o Enact a new 1/10th cent Sales Tax authorized by the State to address water quality.  Utility o Enact a user-fee based stormwater utility related to the level of usage of the system, typically measured by the amount of runoff that leaves a property. The following describes each revenue source in more detail and provides an indication of the revenue that could be generated with each source. Property Tax Property tax is levied on real estate and personal property, such as automobiles, boats and equipment. Many programs and capital projects compete for City and County property tax funding. These competing uses must be considered when choosing to use property taxes to pay for stormwater management. A permanent dedicated property tax levy could be approved by voters for stormwater management. A $0.01 cent of $100 assessed valuation increase in county-wide property tax would generate approximately $400,000 annually. A $0.01 cent of $100 assessed valuation increase in property tax generates $300,000 annually for the City. An example of a tax bill for a $120,000 residential property is listed in Table 3 to show the relative tax levy for each taxing entity. Table 3. Example Tax Bill Residential Property Inside Springfield City Limits, $120,000 Value 2012 Taxing District Levy Amount Springfield R12 School District 3.6999 $843.58 City of Springfield 0.6083 $138.69 Springfield-Greene County Library 0.2433 $55.47 Ozarks Community Technical College 0.1408 $32.10 County Road & Bridge 0.1206 $27.50 County General Revenue 0.1206 $27.50 County Senior Citizens' Services 0.0496 $11.31 County Developmental Disability Programs 0.0466 $10.62 State of Missouri 0.03 $6.84 Total $1,153.61 11  Residential Property In Northern Greene County, $120,000 Value 2012 Taxing District Levy Amount Pleasant Hope School District 4.054 $924.31 Ebenezer Fire District 0.8579 $195.60 Springfield-Greene County Library 0.2433 $55.47 Ozarks Community Technical College 0.1408 $32.10 County Road & Bridge 0.1206 $27.50 County General Revenue 0.1206 $27.50 County Senior Citizens' Services 0.0496 $11.31 County Developmental Disability Programs 0.0466 $10.62 State of Missouri 0.03 $6.84 Total $1,291.26 A comparison of property tax rates for benchmark communities is provided in Table 7 near the end of this paper. Sales Tax Sales taxes dedicated to stormwater are common revenue sources for local governments. All sales taxes in Missouri are subject to the Hancock Amendment and must be approved by voters. Table 4 includes revenue estimates for four sales rate tax options for Springfield and Greene County. Nearly 100 Missouri cities have implemented local sales taxes for stormwater programs. A comparison of sales tax rates for benchmark communities is provided in Table 7 near the end of this paper. Table 4. Estimated Annual Revenue - Summary Various Sales Tax Rates 1/10th 1/8th 1/4th 1/2 Sales Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax Greene County, $ 4,035,359.22 $ 5,147,110.98 $ 10,088,398.06 $ 20,176,796.12 Missouri Stormwater Utility Municipalities and governmental entities create stormwater utilities so that dedicated funds are available to operate, maintain, manage, construct or reconstruct their municipal stormwater drainage systems. A stormwater utility is a dedicated revenue source intended to alleviate the burden on general funds. Essentially, the stormwater utility is identical to a water or sanitary sewer utility, in which the utility’s users finance the utility’s infrastructure costs. The stormwater utility charge is not associated in any way with property value, property taxes, or the owner's income. Typically, the municipality charges a stormwater utility fee to all users within the city based on the amount of runoff that each property generates and contributes to the stormwater system. As a rule, the runoff generated relates directly to the amount of hard surface, or impervious area, found on the property. Hard surfaces such as roof-tops, driveways, and parking lots prevent rainfall from infiltrating into the ground, thus increasing the amount of runoff that a property generates. Consequently, a property with more impervious area uses the stormwater system to a greater 12 extent than a property with less hard surface. For estimation purposes, we calculated an average amount of hard surface a single-family residential property would have at 3,200 square feet. All other properties would pay a fee based upon the amount of hard surface they have divided by 3,200 square feet which is an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). Table 5 shows the estimated annual revenue generated by a stormwater utility, based on various rate levels. Three rate levels are selected for demonstration purposes, $2 per month, $3 per month and $5 per month. These are within the range of stormwater utility rates in other communities (see Table 7). A stormwater utility can be implemented in a variety of ways to meet the community’s needs, such as phasing in the rate over a period of time and allowing credits for installation of BMPs and good practices. Table 5. Estimated Annual Revenue By Area at Various Levels Impervious Areas Revenue/Year @ Revenue/Year @ Revenue/Year @ Covered $2/month/ERU $3/month/ERU $5/month/ERU Springfield $4,219,314 $6,328,972 $10,548,286 Urban Service Area $948,861 $ 1,423,292 $2,372,154 Greene County $2,040,278 $3,060,416 $5,100,694 Total $7,118,453 $10,812,680 $18,021,134 A stormwater utility is often viewed as a tax but it is not a tax. It is a user fee. It is based upon the amount of impervious surface on a property and does not consider ability to pay or property classifications. For example, government and nonprofit tax payers do not pay sales tax. Properties owned by government or non-profit entities are not subject to paying property tax. A stormwater utility charges all properties with hard surfaces, even government and nonprofit entities because they generate stormwater runoff. Government and nonprofit entities pay for other utilities such as water, sewer, gas and electric. Table 6 on the next page provides a few examples of the annual fees that would be paid by a few example properties. Table 6. Examples of Commercial and Institutional Rates By Area at Various Rate Levels Equivalent Property Number of Residential Base Monthly Annual Example Properties Size Parcels Units, ERU Rate Fee Fee Ridgecrest Baptist Church 12.9 acres 1 175 $ 3.00 $ 525 $ 6,300 Price Cutter - Republic Road 6.3 acres 1 85.8 $ 3.00 $ 257 $ 3,089 Battlefield Mall 90 acres 1 1225 $ 3.00 $ 3,675 $44,100 Greene County 27.4 acres 2 373 $ 3.00 $ 1,119 $13,428 City of Springfield 890 acres 1+ 12,115 $ 3.00 $36,345 $436,140 Ridgecrest Baptist Church 12.9 acres 1 175 $ 5.00 $ 875 $10,500 Price Cutter - Republic Road 6.3 acres 1 85.8 $ 5.00 $ 429 $ 5,148 Battlefield Mall 90 acres 1 1225 $ 5.00 $ 6,125 $73,500 Greene County 27.4 acres 2 373 $ 5.00 $ 1,865 $22,380 City of Springfield 890 acres 1+ 12,115 $ 5.00 $ 60,575 $726,900 13 Comparisons of Tax/Utility Rate Levels to Benchmark Communities The following table compares Springfield to their benchmark cities in terms of sales tax, property tax, income tax and stormwater utility levels. Table 7. Rate Comparisons of Selected Municipalities Sales Tax, Property Tax, Stormwater Utility, Income Tax Property Tax Stormwater Median RET Community Sales Tax Rate Utility State Income Tax Rate Rate per $1000 Monthly Fee Value Kalamazoo, MI 6.00% 19.33 N/A 4.35%* Grand Rapids, MI 6.00% 13.08 N/A 4.35%* Salt Lake City, UT 6.85% 6.49 $3.00 5% Savannah, GA 7.00% 6.58 N/A 6% Evansville, IN 7.00% 7.65 N/A 3.4%* Fort Wayne, IN 7.00% 9.37 $3.65 3.4%* Columbia, SC 7.00% 7.19 $3.95 7% Springfield, MO 7.60% 7.50 N/A 6% Columbus, GA 8.00% 4.50 N/A 6% Huntsville, AL 8.00% 4.58 N/A 5% Abilene, TX 8.25% 14.99 $2.45 0 Amarillo, TX 8.25% 17.65 N/A 0 Waco, TX 8.25% 15.91 N/A 0 Wichita Falls, TX 8.25% 17.23 $1.75 0 Chattanooga, TN 9.25% 10.19 $3.00 6% Knoxville, TN 9.25% 10.18 N/A 6% Notes: 1. * percent of Federal adjusted gross income with modification 2. Sales Tax Rates are from www.sale-tax.com 3. Property Tax information is from NAHB study and represents 2009 effective property tax rates 4. Stormwater Utility information is from the "Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2007" 5. State Income Tax information is from www.taxfoundation.org. Rates are for a household income of $40,000 as of July 1, 2012. 14 There are a pros and cons to each type of funding source considered. Table 9 below lists them. Table 8. Pros and Cons of Funding Sources Pros & Cons to Consider Property Tax Sales Tax Utility All entities in the community pay. No No Yes Visitors from outside the community pay. No Yes No Those who generate more stormwater runoff pay more. No No Yes Cost to establish billing system is minimal. Yes Yes No Easy to administer billing system. Yes Yes No Requires a vote of the people. Yes Yes Yes Stable source of revenue -- doesn't fluctuate with the No No Yes economy. Voters have approved in the past. Yes Yes No Structure considers ability to pay. No No No Stormwater competes with other funding needs unless Yes Yes No dedicated specifically to stormwater Supplemental Funds Supplemental funding sources are those that can enhance stormwater program elements when funds are available or economic forces make them feasible. These include the following:  Permit fees – funds permit application review and approval.  State & Federal Grants  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – federal budget earmark projects. 15 Expenditure Projections by Various Service Levels Table 9 provides estimates through 2021 for the following service levels for the City of Springfield’s Stormwater Program:  Meet Water Quality Mandate (low estimate based upon current understanding of regulations);  Meet Water Quality Mandate (high estimate based upon current understanding of regulations);  Mandate (low) + Current Infrastructure Repair & Replacement Level which is minimal & reactive in nature;  Mandate (low) + more Proactive Infrastructure Repair & Replacement Level;  Mandate(low) + Current Infrastructure Repair & Replacement Level (reactive & minimal) + Current Flood Reduction Investment level (about $5 million per year);  Mandate (low)+ Proactive Infrastructure Repair & Replacement of Old System ($5 - $5.5 million per year) + Current Flood Reduction Service Level ($5 million per year) Table 9. City of Springfield Projected Expenses by Service Level. Mandate (low) + Proactive Mandate (low) + Reactive Mandate (low) + Proactive WQ Mandate (Minimum) WQ Mandate (Maximum) Infrastructure Repair & Infrastructure Repair & Infrastructure Repair & Annual Revenue Replacement & Current Replacement + Current Revenue Surplus Replacement Flooding Service Level Flooding Service Level (Shortfall - Year Max) 2013 $850,000 $1,000,000 $5,850,000 $7,050,000 $10,850,000 $5,000,000 $(5,850,000) 2014 $950,000 $1,300,000 $6,000,000 $7,200,000 $11,000,000 $4,500,000 $(6,500,000) 2015 $1,300,000 $2,812,500 $6,370,000 $7,570,000 $11,370,000 $3,000,000 $(8,370,000) 2016 $1,950,000 $4,325,000 $7,050,000 $8,250,000 $12,050,000 $3,000,000 $ (9,050,000) 2017 $ 2,212,500 $5,500,000 $7,362,500 $8,562,500 $12,362,500 $1,500,000 $(10,862,500) 2018 $3,075,000 $6,675,000 $8,275,000 $9,475,000 $13,275,000 $1,500,000 $(11,775,000) 2019 $ 3,167,250 $6,875,250 $8,467,250 $9,667,250 $13,467,250 $1,500,000 $(11,967,250) 2020 $ 3,262,268 $7,081,508 $8,662,268 $9,862,268 $13,662,268 $1,500,000 $(12,162,268) 2021 $3,360,136 $7,293,953 $8,860,136 $10,060,136 $13,860,136 $1,500,000 $(12,360,136) The City’s revenue estimate for 2014 – 2016 if the City Capital Improvements Sales Tax is passed on the April 2013 ballot includes $1.5 million per year for capital projects. In 2021, the shortfall is between $5.5 million to $12.5 million. The future numbers to meet mandates are based upon the best information available at this time. They assume the City and County reach agreement on the MS4 permit and current and future TMDLs that ultimately result in actions to improve waters on the 303d list and hold to requirements of the CWA and current and future rules and standards of DNR and EPA. 16 Chart 1 shows the current revenue levels and projected expenses for stormwater by service level for the City of Springfield, Missouri. Chart 1. City of Springfield Current Revenue Levels and Projected Expenses by Service Level. 16000000 Mandate (low) + Proactive Infrastructure Repair & Replacement + Current Flooding 14000000 Service Level Mandate (low) + Reactive Infrastructure Repair 12000000 & Replacement & Current Flooding Service Level Mandate (low) + 10000000 Proactive Infrastructure Repair & Replacement 8000000 WQ Mandate (Maximum) 6000000 WQ Mandate (Minimum) 4000000 Existing with 2000000 April1/4 Portion 0 Existing Revenue 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 17 Table 10 provides estimates through 2021 for the following service levels for the Greene County’s Stormwater Program:  Meet Water Quality Mandate;  Meet Mandate + Current Flood Reduction Service Level which is minimal & reactive in nature;  Mandate + Proactive Infrastructure Repair & Replacement of Old System ($900,000 per year) + Current Flood Reduction Service Level. Table 10. Greene County Stormwater Expenses By Service Level, Annual Revenue and Shortfall Meet Mandates Meet (min) + Meet Mandates Proactive Projected (min) + Repair & Water Maintain Replacement + Meet Projected Quality Flood Current Flood Revenue Water Quality Mandates Service Reduction Annual Surplus Year Mandates (min) (max) Level Service Level Revenue (Shortfall) 2013 $417,000 $500,000 $817,000 $1,717,000 $750,000 ($967,000) 2014 $577,000 $792,000 $1,084,500 $1,984,500 $750,000 ($1,234,500) 2015 $1,042,000 $2,167,000 $2,004,500 $2,907,720 $250,000 ($2,657,720) 2016 $1,467,000 $3,267,000 $2,770,510 $3,676,973 $250,000 ($3,426,973) 2017 $1,892,000 $4,217,000 $3,461,625 $4,371,353 $250,000 ($4,121,353) 2018 $2,317,000 $5,167,000 $4,152,849 $5,065,865 $250,000 ($4,815,865) 2019 $2,266,000 $5,201,500 $4,265,435 $5,217,841 $250,000 ($4,967,841) 2020 $2,333,980 $5,357,545 $4,381,398 $5,374,376 $250,000 ($5,124,376) 2021 $2,531,848 $5,646,120 $4,500,839 $5,535,608 $250,000 ($5,285,608) Current revenue levels for Greene County are $250,000 per year. Revenue shortfall is $967,000 in 2013 to $5,200,000 in 2021. Chart 2 shows the current revenue levels and projected expenses by service level. 18  Chart 2. Greene County Current Revenue Levels and Projected Expenses by Service Level. $16,000,000 Mandates (min) $14,000,000 + Proactive Repair & Replacement + Current Flood Reduction $12,000,000 Service Level Meet Mandates (min) + Maintain $10,000,000 Flood Service Level $8,000,000 Meet Projected Mandates (max) $6,000,000 $4,000,000 Meet Projected Manadates (min) $2,000,000 Annual Revenue $0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 19 Summary Table 11. shows the revenue estimated from various sources for Springfield and Greene County. Table 11. Sources of and Annual Projected Revenue for City of Springfield & Greene County. Unincorporated County Annual Total Annual Source City Annual Revenue Urban Service Area Revenue Revenue 1 Cent increase property tax $300,000 $440,000 1/10th cent sales tax $4,035,359 1/8th cent sales tax $5,147,110 1/4 cent sales tax $10,088,398 1/2 cent sales tax $20,176,796 $2/month utility $4,219,314 $948,861 $2,040,278 $7,118,453 $3/month utility $6,328,972 $1,423,392 $3,060,416 $10,812,780 $5/month utility $10,548,286 $2,372,154 $5,100,694 $18,021,134 NOTE: In the past, the City of Springfield has received approximately 60% of the sales tax revenue (allocated based upon population) collected by Greene County when distributed to multiple taxing jurisdictions. 20  City of Springfield - Greene County, Missouri Stormwater Management Task Force Guiding Principles Survey Results GUIDING PRINCIPLES As part of the stormwater management process, the Stormwater Management Task Force had the opportunity to respond to a survey to develop a discussion regarding guiding principles for stormwater management. Twenty seven Stormwater Management Task Force members completed the survey, which comprised of a series of 9 questions, all of which were statements respondents were asked their “level of agreement.” Five response options were provided strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. The following statements were asked of the Stormwater Management Task Force members:  Ability to Pay: A program should be developed to reduce the burden of paying the stormwater management programs on low income households, spreading that subsidy across other citizens  Economic Development: Being good environmental stewards, to include attention to water quality measures, will be increasingly important to the community's ability to attract and retain businesses and citizens in the future.  Funding Strategy: A permanent, dedicated funding source should be put in place to cover the costs of required programs and maintenance activities.  Funding Strategy: A capital funding source should have a sunset and specific project list identified.  Funding Strategy: The funding source for ongoing and required costs should be reliable and not fluctuate greatly from year to year.  Innovation Planning: Projects that best address the problem for the entire county should be funded jointly by jurisdictions benefiting.  Intergenerational Equity: Stormwater improvements should be paid for over time, to distribute costs over multiple-generations who will use the system.  Equity/Fairness: New development and redevelopment should not cause negative downstream impacts.  Fairness/Equity: The funding of stormwater management should be linked directly to the amount of runoff a property produces. Those who cause more of the problem, pay more for stormwater management.  Ability to Pay: A program should be developed to reduce the burden of paying for stormwater management on low-income households: spreading the subsidy across to other households who can afford to pay more. 21 Ability to Pay: A program should be developed to reduce the burden of paying the stormwater management programs on low income households, spreading that subsidy across other citizens Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 15% 4% Agree 29% Disagree 22% Neutral 30% Economic Development: Being good environmental stewards, to include attention to water quality measures, will be increasingly important to the community's ability to attract and retain businesses and citizens in the future. Strongly Disagree 4% Disagree 7% Neutral 11% Strongly Agree 37% Agree 41% 22  Funding Strategy: A permanent, dedicated funding source should be put in place to cover the costs of required programs and maintenance activities. Strongly Disagree 7% Disagree 15% Strongly Agree 26% Neutral 7% Agree 45% Funding Strategy: A capital funding source should have a sunset and specific project list identified. Strongly Disagree 4% Strongly Agree Disagree 15% 18% Neutral 22% Agree 41% 23 Funding Strategy: The funding source for ongoing and required costs should be reliable and not fluctuate greatly from year to year. Strongly Agree 7% Disagree 19% Neutral 11% Agree 63% Innovation Planning: Projects that best address the problem for the entire county should be funded jointly by jurisdictions benefiting. Neutral 4% Strongly Agree 29% Agree 67% 24 Intergenerational Equity: Stormwater improvements should be paid for over time, to distribute costs over multiple-generations who will use the system. Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 11% Disagree 4% 11% Neutral 22% Agree 52% Equity/Fairness: New development and redevelopment should not cause negative downstream impacts. Disagree 7% Neutral 11% Strongly Agree 30% Agree 52% 25 Fairness/Equity: The funding of stormwater management should be linked directly to the amount of runoff a property produces. Those who cause more of the problem, pay more for stormwater management. Strongly Disagree 8% Strongly Agree Disagree 22% 22% Neutral 11% Agree 37% Ability to Pay: A program should be developed to reduce the burden of paying for stormwater management on low-income households: spreading the subsidy across to other households who can afford to pay more. Strongly Disagree 18% Agree 30% Disagree 22% Neutral 30% 26 EMAILS FROM TASK FORCE MEMBERS TO SHARE: On Feb 4, 2013, at 8:42 AM, "dave murray" <dave@rbmurray.com> wrote: Shelia, If you didn't see the USA Today article, suggest you take a peak. I note this because retail development is still a struggle and if these folks are having trouble it explains why so many others are too. This is obvious to yours truly but the public has a tendency to not pay attention, unless of course it’s t he poor soul that works for one of these companies Why bring this up, well whatever is done with SW needs it must be done gently or we stand the risk that future new development will not stand a chance. It’s hard now due to the econo mic conditions, make too difficult there will not be any revenue generators, can you say sales tax? http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/02/01/retailers-close-stores-24-7/1873745/ David C. Murray SIOR CCIM Vice President R.B. Murray Company 2225 S Blackman Rd Springfield MO 65809 417 881 0600 - phone 417 882 0541 fax dave@rbmurray.com www.rbmurray.com From: Ronda Headland [mailto:Ronda.Headland@mdc.mo.gov] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 8:37 PM To: Sheila Shockey Cc: Bill White Subject: RE: Stormwater Management Task Force Survey - Please Respond Sheila, In regard to question #8 – Equity/Fairness: New development and redevelopment should not cause negative downstream or upstream impacts. Negative impacts due to development and redevelopment practices can occur upstream as well as downstream. If the elevation of a stream channel is changed it may create head-cuts upstream of where the change was made as the energy of the stream seeks to regain its equilibrium. I recommend that we modify this statement to reflect that possibility. The following was typed mostly for my benefit as I needed to “think out loud” so to speak on the funding issue: 27 Has the City/County conducted any type of Benefit-Cost Analysis in regard to its stormwater program? If the benefits of the stormwater program can be shown to outweigh the expense then it makes economic sense to fund it…up to the point that additional money does not result in additional worthwhile benefits. I’m going to pull some information from book Environmental Policy because A. Myrick Freeman III makes some good points in his chapter titled, “Economics, Incentives, and Environmental Regulation”. He states that, “We should undertake environmental protection and pollution control only if the results are worth more, in terms of individuals’ values, than what is given up by diverting resources form other uses. This is the underlying principle of the economic approach to environmental policy. Benefit-cost analysis is a set of analytical tools designed to measure the net contribution of any public policy to the economic well-being of the members of society. The term, benefit-cost analysis, is used to describe a more narrowly defined, technical economic calculation that attempts to reduce all benefits and costs to a common monetary measure (that is, dollars). It seeks to determine if the aggregate of the gains that accrue to those made better off is greater than the aggregate of losses to those made worse off by the policy choice. The gains and losses are both measured in dollars and are defined as the sums of each individual’s willingness to pay to receive the gain or to prevent the policy-imposed losses. If the gains exceed the losses, the policy should be accepted according to the logic of benefit-cost analysis. Policies where the aggregate gains outweigh the aggregate costs can be justified on ethical grounds because the gainers could fully compensate the losers with monetary payments and still they are better off with the policy. Thus, if the compensation were actually made, there would be no losers, only gainers. The logic of benefit-cost analysis does not require that those who benefit pay for those benefits or that those who ultimately bear the cost of meeting a standard be compensated for those costs. Whether compensation should be paid is considered to be a question of equity or distributive fairness. Benefit-cost analysis is concerned exclusively with economic efficiency as represented by the aggregate of benefits and costs. If standards are set to maximize the net benefits, then the gainers could fully compensate the losers and still come out ahead. But when beneficiaries do not compensate losers, there is political asymmetry. Those who benefit call for ever-stricter standards and more cleanup because they obtain the benefits and bear none of the costs, while those who must bear the costs of controlling pollution call for less strict standards. Even if one objects, for either philosophical or pragmatic reasons, to basing environmental policy on benefit-cost analysis, it still makes good sense to favor cost-effective environmental policies. Cost-effectiveness means the stated environmental quality standards are achieved at the lowest possible total cost.” He goes on to state that if polluters are not required to compensate those who are harmed, they have no incentive to alter their practices. I’ll end my summary with this last point he makes on how, “it is not true that benefit-cost analysis is always biased against environmental protection. For many years decisions on funding for federal water resource development projects …used techniques that systematically overstated the benefits of development; understated the economic costs; and ignored the environmental costs of building dams, diverting water for irrigation, and so forth. As a consequence, a number of economically wasteful and environmentally damaging projects were undertaken. A comparison of the benefits to recreational fishing expected to come from removal of an existing dam with the costs of removal, including the forgone hydroelectric power generation, was used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to help justify its order to remove the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River in Maine.” And just to remind myself of some of the funding mechanisms mentioned at previous meetings: a stormwater utility fee (such as a bill a homeowner or renter pays for water and sewer services), permit fees (such as paid by developers at the Planning and Zoning Department), user fees (paid by a property owner based on the amount of runoff from the property – may be calculated based on the percentage of the property covered by impervious surfaces), sales tax (paid by all who spend money within our jurisdiction). We’ve also discussed equity issues in regard to low-income residents and have considered strategies such as setting fees based on percentages of income versus flat rates. A sales tax is not equitable in that low-income people pay in a higher percentage of their income to a sales tax than do higher-income people. Thanks (and sorry for the long ramble), RONDA HEADLAND 28 COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLANNER // PRIVATE LAND SERVICES DIVISION // MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 320 N. MAIN AVENUE, SPRINGFIELD, MO 65806 // 417-866-1127 EXT. 150 // RONDA.HEADLAND@MDC.MO.GOV The book I referenced can be cited as: Freeman, A. M. III (2000). Economics, incentives, and environmental regulation. In M. E. Kraft & N. J. Vig (Eds.), Environmental Policy (4th ed. pp. 190-209). Washington, D.C.: CQ P ress. From: Pierson, Matthew C [mailto:MatthewPierson@MissouriState.edu] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:09 PM To: Sheila Shockey Subject: RE: Stormwater Management Task Force Survey - Please Respond Hi Sheila, Let’s please have a survey question or a discussion on the merits of incentivizing good behavior. Since development similar to the Habitat for Humanity development won’t be required, there isn’t much of a reward structure for developing in a way that is better for the environment and for public awareness of water quality issues. The upside: I strongly feel that it should be up to the developer to decide how to develop their property, within the bounds of the law. If incentives can get even a few developments to go above and beyond the standard, maybe that can keep the EPA off everyone’s back when future regulations come down which would potentially require this type of low impact development. At the least the development community will have better learned how to implement these best management practices before they become required by law. In the future this would potentially expand Springfield companies’ customer bases to other communities who now need expertise in implementing practices required by law, which our companies would already have lead the way on implementing here in Greene county. At the least: No one would take the incentive and nothing would be lost or gained. Thank you for your consideration, Matt P.S. I just read through this and if you feel like that will derail or distract from your intended purposes please disregard my request. Have a good weekend, Matthew C. Pierson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering Missouri State Cooperative Engineering Program 901 S. National Springfield, MO 65898 785-393-2427 (cell) 417-836-4947 (office) MatthewPierson@MissouriState.edu 29 From: Geoffrey Butler [mailto:butler@brpae.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 10:26 AM To: Lamb, Carrie (CLamb@springfieldmo.gov); twagner@springfieldmo.gov; Kevin Barnes (kbarnes@greenecountymo.org); TSmith@greenecountymo.org; Broyles, Phil (PBroyles@springfieldmo.gov); Burris, Greg; fmarty@springfieldmo.gov Cc: Sheila Shockey Subject: Storm Water Management Guiding Principals I came away last night feeling a little conflicted. While the discussion was healthy, I do not think we really got into the meat of the matter or solved anything. For what it is worth, below are my suggestions and some discussion points 1. Public Acceptance: It is important to identify, prioritize, plan, source appropriate funding & build projects showing progress to the public. There has always been reluctance in this community to hand a blank check to anyone. It might be the conservative nature of the community coupled with a natural distrust (rightly or wrongly) of government. The most successful means of funding public improvements has been through the Capital Improvements Tax. Identify the problem, determine the solution and propose it to the community as a CIP sales tax. So this Public Acceptance principal needs to be drafted with that in mind. 2. Ease of Administration: The cost related to collecting the funding for to administrate the storm water management maintenance and improvements should be minimized and uncomplicated. No one wants to increase the City or County bureaucracy. Figure out how to do what needs to be done with the staff we have so any dollars available for public improvements can be committed to that work. 3. Economic Development: Tax rates and/or fees should be competi tive with other jurisdictions to help attract and retain businesses and citizens. A community which has good long term plans for managing and protecting its resources at a nominal cost can promote the Economic Development of the area. Economic Development is driven not just by tax rates but and existence of good planning and management of these issues at a reasonable cost. 4. Equity/Fairness: Everyone in the community should pay their fair share for contribute to the effort to manage our storm water issues.. It is not a matter of paying their fair share (which is difficult to define), it is a matter of contributing to the effort to manage it. Some can do it with proper planning and development of their properties, other can pay a fee to help fund work to solve existing problems. The equity thing will take a lot of work but we need to all agree that everyone needs to contribute in some fashion. 5. Equity/Fairness: The costs to administer & review permits should be fully recovered from the applicant and not subsidized by other customers. I think we all understand that the City now does this. It does not need to be addressed. 6. Equity/Fairness: The funding of storm water management should be linked directly to the amount of runoff a property produces. Those who cause more of the problem pay more for the storm water 30 services management There are three components to this Storm Water Management issue: 1. Mandates from EPA/DNR – these are generally raising the bar on water quality and pollution control. They are a community wide burden and need to be funded by the community as a whole. 2. Maintenance of existing systems – we have a significant investment in our City/County storm water management infrastructure. As has been demonstrated, we have to maintain it or face huge future costs to replace deteriorated elements of the system. Like the Fram Oil Filter Guy said: “Pay me now or pay me MORE later.” 3. Public Improvements - Without a doubt, there are areas of the community which have problems due to old development which failed to address storm water adequately or due to the growth of the city where the new developments added storm water that even with required detention systems. Regional approaches to solving these problems is often the best means of addressing this. There is also a need to anticipate the needs and provide this infrastructure BEFORE development occurs. The funding of each elements might be better addressed separately rather that with one single funding source. 7. Ability to Pay: A program should be developed to reduce the burden of paying for the storm water management programs on low income households, spreading that subsidy across other citizens. This community does not favor subsidies. While it is easy for everyone to vote for taxes and fees that the other guy pays, it is really difficult to get the voting public to agree to pay for the other guy. 8. Equity/Fairness: The funding of storm water management should be related to the source of the problem or benefactors of the management effort. linked directly to use of the service. Those who need the services pay more. While this sounds logical, HOW you determine and measure the nature of the service they use is a snake pit of problems. Particularly water quality. Does a golf course using well water and spraying lots of nutrients need to pay for water quality controls any more than the Battlefield Mall with its huge parking lot? How do you measure the impacts? And the treatment for maintenance is different from the mandates or public improvements. 9. Equity/Fairness: New development and redevelopment should not cause increase downstream problems. impacts. The costs should be fully recovered This is basically current City Council policy. We have ordinances written designed to do this, though Todd did mention that it does not say this, the ordinances are written prescriptively in a manner which is supposed to do this. Bottom line, I you are driving this bus looking for a single silver bullet, I don’t think you will find it. This will take several different approaches to solving the problem and each needs to be easy to explain and sell. The last Task Force finally ended up agreeing that the best bet was to tag onto a very popular and easier to sell issue (the Parks Tax) to fund this. The lost opportunity was passing on the Parks Tax renewal…. I will only be able to attend the first part of our next meeting on Feb 7th. I have a zoning meeting which I might need to attend. Accordingly you might want to adjust the program so the fun stuff or controversial stuff happens when I am there or when I am gone – whatever you think suits your goals. Geoffrey H. Butler AIA l Architect & President Butler, Rosenbury & Partners 31