Roanoke Valley-AlleghenyRoanoke Valley-AlleghenyRegional CommissionRegional Commission

June 28, 2012

A multi-year effort:A multi-year effort:• August 3, 2009—City Council RetreatAugust 3, 2009—City Council Retreat• March 9, 2010—Physical Development Comm. (PDC)March 9, 2010—Physical Development Comm. (PDC)• April 13, 2010—PDCApril 13, 2010—PDC• July 13, 2010—Council Work SessionJuly 13, 2010—Council Work Session• September 28, 2010—City Council MeetingSeptember 28, 2010—City Council Meeting• December 14, 2010—City Council MeetingDecember 14, 2010—City Council Meeting• January 25, 2011—SWAC recs. To City CouncilJanuary 25, 2011—SWAC recs. To City Council• February 8, 2011—City Council MeetingFebruary 8, 2011—City Council Meeting• March 22, 2011—Council Work SessionMarch 22, 2011—Council Work Session• April 26, 2011—Council Work SessionApril 26, 2011—Council Work Session• September 13, 2011—Ordinance to City CouncilSeptember 13, 2011—Ordinance to City Council• October 25, 2011—Public HearingOctober 25, 2011—Public Hearing• December 13, 2011—Ordinance adopted with $0.00 feeDecember 13, 2011—Ordinance adopted with $0.00 fee• April 24, 2012—Fee adopted with Credit Program (eff. July 1, 2012)April 24, 2012—Fee adopted with Credit Program (eff. July 1, 2012)

3

The What, Why, How and When of Stormwater ManagementThe What, Why, How and When of Stormwater Management

April 26, 2011Council Work Session

4

The WhyThe Why

• Regulations are increasing Regulations are increasing • Stormwater services are increasingStormwater services are increasing• Organization is fragmentedOrganization is fragmented• Infrastructure needs are unknown Infrastructure needs are unknown • Funding; questions of fairness and equityFunding; questions of fairness and equity

5

The Why- Regulations are increasingThe Why- Regulations are increasing

Clean Water Act

Water Quality Standards

TMDL

NPDES

CSO WWTP Stormwater

6

The Why- Regulations are increasingThe Why- Regulations are increasing

Implementation

Loads Measures Plans

Stormwater

Wastewater

CSO

Total PhosphorousStormwater MS4- $120M

Total Nitrogen

Sediment

WWTPVPDES- $80M

CSOConsent Order- $325M

Bacteria

Current Chesapeake Bay RegulationsCurrent Chesapeake Bay Regulations

Point Source Non Point Source

• NPDESNPDES• Wastewater Wastewater

Treatment PlantsTreatment Plants• Municipal separate Municipal separate

storm sewer storm sewer system (MS4)system (MS4)

• Stormwater Stormwater • Erosion and Erosion and

Sedimentation Sedimentation (E&S)(E&S)

• Best Management Best Management Practices (BMPs)Practices (BMPs)

Phase II NPDES Stormwater RegulationPhase II NPDES Stormwater Regulation

• Lynchburg is in the second year of their Lynchburg is in the second year of their second five-year permit cyclesecond five-year permit cycle– First permit issued in 2003First permit issued in 2003– Current permit expires June 30, 2013 Current permit expires June 30, 2013 – Reduce the discharge of pollutants to Reduce the discharge of pollutants to

“maximum extent practicable” (MEP)“maximum extent practicable” (MEP)

• Protect water quality and aquatic habitatProtect water quality and aquatic habitat• Satisfy the appropriate water quality Satisfy the appropriate water quality

requirements of the Clean Water Actrequirements of the Clean Water Act• ““Six Minimum Measures”Six Minimum Measures”• Maximum of $10,000 fine per violationMaximum of $10,000 fine per violation

Phase II Purpose

The Phase II Rules apply to @ 100 stormwater The Phase II Rules apply to @ 100 stormwater system operators in Virginiasystem operators in Virginia

The U.S. Environmental Protection The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is leading a major initiative Agency is leading a major initiative to establish and oversee to establish and oversee achievement of a strict “pollution achievement of a strict “pollution diet” to restore the Chesapeake Bay diet” to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its network of local rivers, and its network of local rivers, streams and creeks. streams and creeks.

– US EPA Fact Sheet– US EPA Fact Sheet

Chesapeake Bay TMDLChesapeake Bay TMDL

Chesapeake Bay TMDLChesapeake Bay TMDL

• Initiative resulting in Initiative resulting in additional regulationsadditional regulations

• 64,000 mi64,000 mi22 watershed watershed• Covers six statesCovers six states• Approximately Approximately

17,000,000 people17,000,000 people

Lynchburg Impaired StreamsLynchburg Impaired Streams

• 10 streams (45 miles 10 streams (45 miles in length) identified as in length) identified as impaired by the Stateimpaired by the State

• Primary impairmentsPrimary impairments– NutrientsNutrients– BacteriaBacteria

12

The When- Regulations are increasingThe When- Regulations are increasing• What we know:What we know:

– MS4 (2013) and VPDES (2016) PermitsMS4 (2013) and VPDES (2016) Permits– CSO Consent OrderCSO Consent Order– General Watershed Nutrient Permit (2011)General Watershed Nutrient Permit (2011)– State Stormwater Regulations (<2014)State Stormwater Regulations (<2014)– Bacteria TMDLBacteria TMDL

• What we don’t know:What we don’t know:– Chesapeake Bay TMDL (WIP Ph. 2, Oct/Nov)Chesapeake Bay TMDL (WIP Ph. 2, Oct/Nov)– National Stormwater Regulations (2012)National Stormwater Regulations (2012)

Future Regulatory Impacts to LynchburgFuture Regulatory Impacts to Lynchburg

Chesapeake Bay TMDL and other TMDLs and Chesapeake Bay TMDL and other TMDLs and regulations:regulations:•Chesapeake Bay- “pollution diet,” 2-yr milestones Chesapeake Bay- “pollution diet,” 2-yr milestones begin 2013, 2025 completion datebegin 2013, 2025 completion date•Revised State stormwater regulations pending (2012)Revised State stormwater regulations pending (2012)•Bacterial TMDL for the James River and Lynchburg Bacterial TMDL for the James River and Lynchburg Creeks (2010)Creeks (2010)•Chlorophyll A TMDL for the James River (pending)Chlorophyll A TMDL for the James River (pending)•MS4 permit with focus on urban stormwaterMS4 permit with focus on urban stormwater•National stormwater regulations proposed (2012)National stormwater regulations proposed (2012)

$2.3M(current)

$3.2M(proposed)

TMDL TimelineTMDL Timeline

$2M

$4M

$6M

An

nu

al C

ost

Annual cost unknown, total cost

approx. $120M over 15 yrs

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20182018

An

nu

al C

ost $6M

An

nu

al C

ost

$4M

$6M

An

nu

al C

ost

$2M

$4M

$6M

An

nu

al C

ost

TMDL A

dopted &

Phase

I WIP

Phase

II W

IP &

New

State

SW

Reg

ulatio

ns

MS4

Perm

it re

newal

EPA Mile

stone

EPA Mile

stone,

60%

goal

& W

IP

adju

stm

ent (

i.e.

more

$$)EPA M

ilest

one

15

The Why- Services are increasingThe Why- Services are increasing

• CSO adds 2 miles per year of storm pipeCSO adds 2 miles per year of storm pipe• Public stormwater devicesPublic stormwater devices

– 16 in 200716 in 2007– 40 in 201140 in 2011– 20+ under design20+ under design

• Private stormwater devices Private stormwater devices • Erosion & Sediment Control Program Erosion & Sediment Control Program

improvementsimprovements

Combined Sewer vs. StormwaterCombined Sewer vs. Stormwater

Stormwater Management Affects Quality of Life and Economic Growth: Stormwater Management Affects Quality of Life and Economic Growth:

Why Do We Care About Stormwater?Why Do We Care About Stormwater?

Why Do We Care About Stormwater?Why Do We Care About Stormwater?

Compliance Language in City’s NPDES PermitCompliance Language in City’s NPDES Permit

“The failure to provide adequate program funding, staffing or equipment maintenance shall not be an acceptable explanation for

failure to meet permit conditions.”

“The failure to provide adequate program funding, staffing or equipment maintenance shall not be an acceptable explanation for

failure to meet permit conditions.”

4VAC50-60-1220. of NPDES General Permit

Stormwater Management - A City-wide FunctionStormwater Management - A City-wide Function

STORMWATERMANAGEMENT

PUBLICWORKS

UTILITIES

PARKS & REC

IT DEPT.

COMUNICATIONS& MARKETING

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

FINANCE

SUPPORT LEADING

22

The Why- Organization is fragmentedThe Why- Organization is fragmented

23

The Why- Infrastructure needs are unknownThe Why- Infrastructure needs are unknown• What we know:What we know:

– 50+ miles of storm pipe50+ miles of storm pipe– 10,000+ inlets and outfalls10,000+ inlets and outfalls– 100+ road culverts100+ road culverts– No funding for improvementsNo funding for improvements

• What we don’t know:What we don’t know:– ConditionCondition– AgeAge– LocationLocation

24

The HowThe How

• OrganizationOrganization– Stormwater UtilityStormwater Utility– Utilities Dept manages program and below groundUtilities Dept manages program and below ground– New branding; “Department of Water Resources”New branding; “Department of Water Resources”– Public Works manages above groundPublic Works manages above ground

• FundingFunding– Implement a fee for serviceImplement a fee for service– Implement a credit programImplement a credit program– Alternative: General Fund Subsidy (taxes & fees)Alternative: General Fund Subsidy (taxes & fees)

Virginia Dedicated Stormwater Funding ProgramsVirginia Dedicated Stormwater Funding Programs

• 16 programs have 16 programs have dedicated fundingdedicated funding– 13 are fee-based13 are fee-based– 3 are tax-based3 are tax-based

• Two communities Two communities have pending fee have pending fee programs and two programs and two are evaluating are evaluating optionsoptions

- Virginia First City

Guiding PrinciplesGuiding PrinciplesGuiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles

• Provide services that promote the health, safety Provide services that promote the health, safety and prosperity of the cityand prosperity of the city

• Manage the city’s stormwater needs and Manage the city’s stormwater needs and infrastructure effectively and efficientlyinfrastructure effectively and efficiently

• Comply with environmental regulationsComply with environmental regulations• Engage State and Federal regulators to keep the Engage State and Federal regulators to keep the

city well-positioned on future issuescity well-positioned on future issues• Fairly and equitably charge for services provided Fairly and equitably charge for services provided • Educate and engage the publicEducate and engage the public

Benefits of a Stormwater UtilityBenefits of a Stormwater Utility

• This is the most effective way to manage stormwater, regardless of TMDLs

• More accountability (annual rate study and budget)

• Manage stormwater system infrastructure similar to water and sewer systems

• Efficiencies gained through better coordination and management

Council “Roadmap”- SWAC RecommendationsCouncil “Roadmap”- SWAC Recommendations

Level of Service 2.5 3 3.5 4 5

Option A Option B

Funding Mechanism Fee or any combination of Fee/VDOT/General Fund

General Fund-Increase Real Estate Tax

or keep equal to current rate

Basis of Charge Impervious Area Property Value

Tax Exempt Properties Included?

Yes No

Enterprise Fund Required? Yes No

Who To Bill? Property Owner or Tenant Property Owner

How To Bill? Water/Sewer BillReal Estate BillSeparate Bill

Real Estate Bill

Financial Policy Required? Yes No

Ordinance Required? Yes No

Credits Allowed? Yes No

Council “Roadmap”- Staff RecommendationsCouncil “Roadmap”- Staff Recommendations

Level of Service 2.5 3 3.5 4 5

Option A Option B

Funding Mechanism Fee or any combination of

Fee/VDOT/General Fund

General Fund-Increase Real Estate Tax

or keep equal to current rate

Basis of Charge Impervious Area Property Value

Tax Exempt Properties Included?

Yes No

Enterprise Fund Required? Yes No

Who To Bill? Property Owner or Tenant Property Owner

How To Bill? Water/Sewer BillReal Estate BillSeparate Bill

Real Estate Bill

Financial Policy Required? Yes No

Ordinance Required? Yes No

Credits Allowed? Yes No

Staff Recommendations: Fair and EquitableStaff Recommendations: Fair and Equitable

• A fee is more equitable than a tax – all properties pay based on impervious area

• Credits incentivize good stormwater practices on private property

• Property owners can modify their impervious area, tenants cannot

• Water/Sewer bill allows 12 equal payments• Reduces burden on General Fund

• Finance-Billings and Collections-Utility Billing recommends changing from owner, occupant or tenant billing to all sewer/water/storm billing to owners as recorded on the City’s Real Estate RecordsAdvantages:

• Utility Billing maintains and manages all billing records for water, sewer and stormwater utility funds

• Administrative Cost Savings can be realized over two year period (see attached spreadsheet for details)

• This recommendation was soundly rejected by Council.

Staff Recommendations: EfficiencyStaff Recommendations: Efficiency

Justification of a Higher Level of ServiceJustification of a Higher Level of Service

• 3.5 FTEs for PM and O&M $200,000• Current MS4 permit requirements $100,000

– Buffer Program– GIS Analysis– Private BMP Program– Restore street sweeping effort

• Stormwater Utility startup $200,000• Master Plan work $150,000• Infrastructure repair/replace $250,000

$900,000

Benefits of a Higher Level of ServiceBenefits of a Higher Level of Service

• Ensure continued compliance with existing regulations

• Keep City well-positioned on future regulations• Address existing infrastructure and stormwater

needs more efficiently and effectively• Position City to qualify for grants or loans• Improved customer service• Better water quality

General Fund$1,229,000

VDOT$656,000

Sewer Fund$415,000

Staff Recommended Funding MechanismsStaff Recommended Funding Mechanisms

2011 Actual- $2.3M

Proposed 2013- $3.2M

Proposed 2012- $2.75M*

VDOT$656,000

Stormwater Fee$2,544,000

General Fund$822,000

VDOT$656,000

Stormwater Fee$1,272,000

*Fee effective for 6 months of FY 2012 Assumes a Utility is created. Thus, funding is from General Fund and VDOT only- no sewer fund money.

General Fund$784,000

VDOT$656,000

Stormwater Fee$1,760,000

Comparison of Funding Mechanisms$3.2M ProgramComparison of Funding Mechanisms$3.2M Program

General Fund$2,544,000

VDOT$656,000

VDOT$656,000

Stormwater Fee$2,544,000

Staff Recommendation

SWAC RecommendationCurrent Funding Methods*

*Assumes a Utility is created. Thus, funding is from General Fund and VDOT only- no sewer fund money.

Cost to Average Single Family HomeCost to Average Single Family Home

$2.3MProgram

Proposed $3.2M Program

*Assumes a Utility is created. Thus, funding is from General Fund and VDOT only- no sewer fund money.

A Tiered Rate Structure is Recommended for Single-Family Residential CustomersA Tiered Rate Structure is Recommended for Single-Family Residential Customers

Small Single-Family

> 4,257 Sq. Ft. = 1.6 SFU> 4,257 Sq. Ft. = 1.6 SFU1,294 to 4,256 Sq. Ft. = 1.0 SFU1,294 to 4,256 Sq. Ft. = 1.0 SFU < 1,293 Sq. Ft. = 0.5 SFU< 1,293 Sq. Ft. = 0.5 SFU

Average Single-Family Large Single-Family

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

The Average Single-Family Residential Unit (SFU) in Lynchburg is 2,672 sq. ft.

Non-Residential Customers Should Pay a Fee in Proportion to Absolute Impervious AreaNon-Residential Customers Should Pay a Fee in Proportion to Absolute Impervious Area

Non-ResidentialImpervious Area

SFU =SFU (2,672 sq. ft.)

554,750 sq. ft. impervious area = 208 SFUs554,750 sq. ft. impervious area = 208 SFUs

Lessons LearnedLessons Learned

• Start earlyStart early• Educate, educate, educateEducate, educate, educate• Hire consultant for technical and public outreach Hire consultant for technical and public outreach

supportsupport• Involve the public; SWAC, webcast, print and Involve the public; SWAC, webcast, print and

internet, community meetingsinternet, community meetings• Identify principles and stick with themIdentify principles and stick with them• Work regionally Work regionally • Be persistent, consistent and patientBe persistent, consistent and patient