Stormwater Management Program Business Plan and Rate Study · Pursuant to Federal and State...

Stormwater Management Program Business Plan and Rate Study

July 12, 2019

Prepared for:

Hillsborough County Public Works Department

Prepared by:

Public Resources Management Group, Inc.

Applied Sciences Government Services Group, Inc.

Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Utility, Rate, Financial, and Management Consultants

341 NORTH MAITLAND AVENUE – SUITE 300 – MAITLAND, FL 32751 Tel: 407-628-2600 Fax: 407-628-2610 Email: [email protected] Website: www.PRMGinc.com

July 12, 2019 Mr. John Lyons, P.E., PSM Public Works Administrator Hillsborough County 601 E. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33602 Subject: Stormwater Management Program Business Plan and Rate Study Dear Mr. Lyons: Public Resources Management Group, Inc. ("PRMG"), Applied Sciences ("AS"), and Government Services Group, Inc. ("GSG"), collectively, (the "Project Team") have prepared a Stormwater Business Plan and Rate Study (the "Business Plan") for Hillsborough County, Florida (the "County"). The Business Plan includes a review of the County's current stormwater management organization, governance, operations, service levels and costs of service and rate structure, as well as developing a recommended business strategy to address the County's stormwater management funding requirements. The Business Plan has been developed in conjunction with County staff and this report summarizes the results of our analyses considerations, assumptions and recommendations, which is submitted for your consideration. To develop the proposed Stormwater Business Plan and rates, we have relied upon certain information and data provided by the County including the County's Annual Budgetary Reports; records maintained in the maintenance work order system, information gathered through field interviews with County staff, stormwater billing statistics developed from the County's property tax records and GIS System, stormwater asset records, and the current capital improvements expenditure plan. To the extent our analyses use certain data and information obtained from the County in the preparation of this report, we have relied upon such information to be accurate and, consequently, we make no representations regarding its accuracy. The proposed Stormwater Business Plan and Rate Study presented herein is intended to meet certain goals and objectives. The two key objectives of the Business Plan were to: 1) develop a proposed organizational and operational strategy to provide sustainable stormwater services; and 2) develop a proposed rate alternative that funds the sustainable operating and capital expenditure requirements of the Stormwater System (the "System") and are fair and equitable based on industry standards and ratemaking methods that best meet the needs of the County. Underlying these objectives, the primary goal of the Business Plan is to maintain and improve stormwater management services provided by the County. This report summarizes the results of the Project Team's investigations and analyses and outlines our recommendations and conclusions for the County's consideration.

Mr. John Lyons, P.E., PSM Hillsborough County July 12, 2019 Page 2

The Project Team appreciates the opportunity to be of service to the County and would like to thank the County staff for the valuable assistance and cooperation that we received during the preparation of this study. Respectfully submitted, Public Resources Management Group Henry L. Thomas Senior Vice President HLT/dlc Attachments

-i-

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BUSINESS PLAN AND RATE STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page No. Letter of Transmittal

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... i

List of Tables, Figures, and Appendices ............................................................................... iv

SECTION 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Stormwater Management Program Utility Goals and Objectives.............................. 2

1.2.1 Scope of Services, Project Goals, and Objectives ........................................ 3 1.3 Existing Capital Improvement Program .................................................................... 5 1.4 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Summary and

Existing Maintenance Level of Service ..................................................................... 5 1.4.1 Stormwater Management Program Funding Sources ................................... 8 1.4.2 Current Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 9 1.4.3 Alternative Billing Methods ........................................................................ 10 1.4.4 Financial Reporting Options ....................................................................... 12

1.5 Existing Stormwater Organizational Structure Review ............................................ 15 1.5.1 Review of Organizational Charts ................................................................ 15 1.5.2 Public Works Division and Section Staff Interviews .................................. 15 1.5.3 Stormwater Consolidated Organizational Chart .......................................... 17

1.6 Existing Cost of Service (Capital, Operations and Maintenance, Engineering, and Investigations) .............................................................................. 18 1.6.1 Stormwater Engineering and Investigations ................................................ 18 1.6.2 Stormwater Field Operations and Maintenance Costs ................................ 19 1.6.3 Stormwater Capital Improvement Program ................................................ 19 1.6.4 Summary of Stormwater Related Costs ...................................................... 20



TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)

Title Page No.

-ii-

SECTION 2 – ENHANCED LEVEL OF SERVICE – SUSTAINABLE FUNDING PLAN ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 21

2.1 Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Enhancements......................................... 21 2.1.1 Existing Stormwater Maintenance Level of Service ................................... 21 2.1.2 Enhanced Stormwater Maintenance Level of Service ................................ 22

2.2 Asset Preservation ..................................................................................................... 24 2.2.1 Pump Station Renewal and Replacement .................................................... 24 2.2.2 Culvert Renewal and Replacement Program ............................................... 24

2.3 Flood Protection, Water Quality & Hazards Mitigation ........................................... 25 2.3.1 Flood Protection Projects ............................................................................ 25 2.3.2 Water Quality and Hazard Mitigation Program Projects ............................ 25

2.4 Enhanced Sustainable Funding Plan Summary ........................................................ 25 2.5 Basin Area ERU Analysis ......................................................................................... 27

SECTION 3 – STORMWATER RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS ............................. 29

3.1 Single-Family Residential Rate Structure Evaluation .............................................. 29 3.1.1 Single-Family Tier Methodology and Equivalent Residential

Unit Estimate ............................................................................................... 29 3.1.2 Single-Family Residential Impervious Area Collection Procedure ............ 31 3.1.3 Single-Family Residential Results .............................................................. 32 3.1.4 Condominium Rate ...................................................................................... 32 3.1.5 Condominium Results ................................................................................. 33 3.1.6 Apartments Rate Structure Assessment ...................................................... 34 3.1.7 Apartment Results ....................................................................................... 34

3.2 Rate Structure Analysis............................................................................................. 36 3.3 Proposed Stormwater Fee ......................................................................................... 37



TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)

Title Page No.

-iii-

SECTION 3 – STORMWATER RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS (cont'd.)

3.4 Comparison of Stormwater Rates by Customer Classification ................................. 38 3.5 Stormwater Mitigation Credits ................................................................................. 38

SECTION 4 – FINANCIAL FORECAST TO SUPPORT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 40

4.1 Five-Year Financial Forecast .................................................................................... 40 4.2 Assumptions and Considerations .............................................................................. 41

SECTION 5 – FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 58

-iv-



LIST AND TABLES, FIGURES, AND APPENDICES

Table No. Description Page No. 1 Inspection and Maintenance Schedule for Stormwater Assets 6 2 Stormwater Asset Inventory and Inspection and Maintenance

Records 7

3 Hillsborough County Existing Stormwater Fee Summary 9 4 Billing Methodology Pros and Cons 11 5 Comparison of Stormwater Utility Fund Classifications 13 6 Financial Reporting Requirements by Fund Type 14 7 Interview Dates with Public Works Divisions or Sections 16 8 Estimated Annual Stormwater Capital Improvement Program 20 9 Total Estimated Annual Stormwater Management Program

Costs Summary for Fiscal Year 2019 20

10 Enhanced Stormwater Maintenance Level of Service Scenarios and Costs

23

11 Estimated Sustainable Funding Plan Revenue Needs Over 5-Year Period (in Millions)

26

12 County Statistical Breakdown by Basin Area 28 13 Single-Family Residential Tiered Stratified Sampling for

Impervious Area Estimate 31

14 Single-Family Residential Tiered Equivalent Residential Unit Values

32

15 Statistical Analysis of Condominium Complex Sample Sets 33 16 Statistical Analysis of Apartment Complex Sample Sets 35 17 Rate Structure Analysis – Based on Fiscal Year 2018

Assessment Rate Billing Statistics 36

18 Rate Structure Analysis Alternative Rate Method 37 19 Stormwater Management Program Funding Levels 37 20 Proposed Stormwater Fees 38 21 Summary of FY2019 Budgeted Stormwater Operating Expenses 44



LIST AND TABLES, FIGURES, AND APPENDICES (cont'd.)

-v-

Table No. Description Page No. 22 Summary of Budgeted and Projected Baseline Operating

Expenses 48

23 Summary of Baseline Capital Improvement Program 53 24 Summary of Projected ERUs and Revenues 54 25 Projected Stormwater System Revenue Requirements -

Sustainable Funding Analysis 57

Figure No. Description Page No.

1 Comparison of Stormwater Billing Methods 12 2 Projected 10-Year Sustainable Funding Detail 26 3 Potential Capital Fee Basin Area 27 4 Single-Family Residential Tier Distribution Curve 30 5 Single-Family Residential Tier Analysis Based on Building

Footprint 30

6 Scatter Plot of Sampled Condominium Parcels ERU and Measured Impervious Area

34

7 Scatter Plot of Sampled Apartment Parcels ERU and Measured Impervious Area

35

8 Comparison of Annual Residential Assessment – Medium Size Home

39

9 Projected Stormwater Rate Sufficiency 43

Appendix No. Description Page No. A Public Works Department Organizational Chart [*] B Proposed Stormwater Organizational Chart [*] C Stormwater System Maintenance Photographs [*] D Stormwater Mitigation Credit Review [*] E Existing and Proposed Stormwater Rates by Customer

Classification [*]

__________ [*] Located at the end of Report.

-1-

SECTION 1 REVIEW OF EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

1.1 Background

Hillsborough County (County) is a coastal community located midway along the west coast of Florida. The County boundaries embrace 1,048 square miles of land and 24 square miles of inland water for a total of 1,072 square miles. With the largest bay in Florida opening to the Gulf of Mexico, the County's coastline spans 76 miles. The major riverine systems running through the County, such as the Hillsborough River, Little Manatee River, and Alafia River, combine to total more than 550 miles across 17 defined major watersheds. The unincorporated area encompasses 84% of the total county area. According to the latest population estimate from the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research, the county's April 1, 2017 total population was 1,379,302 making it the fourth most populous county in the state. Of this population, 905,007 or 68% live in the unincorporated area of Hillsborough County (County). Pursuant to Federal and State regulatory requirements, the County's Stormwater Management Program is responsible to regulate, maintain, and manage stormwater run-off within the County. As such, the County's Stormwater Management Program was established to: 1) reduce undesirable stormwater impacts through stormwater runoff reduction and pollution prevention strategies; 2) maintain the integrity of the County's stormwater infrastructure; 3) minimize flooding; 4) plan for and implement future Stormwater System improvements; and 5) ensure compliance with Federal, State and Local stormwater management rules and regulations. These regulatory requirements include federally mandated National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit requirements. The County's NPDES permit regulates what can be discharged into freshwater areas and delegates compliance enforcement to the County and requires that the County control and reduce pollutants entering the Stormwater System from residential and commercial properties. Through the County's Stormwater Management Program, Hillsborough County Public Works Department performs the maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction of the local stormwater conveyance and storage systems to provide public safety, asset preservation, and regulatory compliance. The County is committed to maintaining a sustainable level of service regarding stormwater quantity, stormwater quality, and stormwater management system maintenance throughout unincorporated Hillsborough County. The work performed by the County directly benefits residents and contributes to improved water quality in freshwater wetlands and the improved water quality of Tampa Bay. The County is committed to continue to meet these level of service criteria on an aging and increasingly stressed Stormwater System. Maintenance activities and ongoing improvements to the Stormwater System provide a direct benefit to existing residents as well as meeting the needs of a growing population. According to a study published by the Planning Commission in November 2017, the County is growing by more than 24,000 new residents every year. With little vacant land in the northwest portion of the County, high growth areas are concentrated in the south and south-central areas. As a result of the population growth trend increasing, the amount of stormwater assets and associated maintenance needs across the entire County are also increasing as the associated development

-2-

directly impacts the County stormwater infrastructure investment as well as the necessary level of ongoing inspections and maintenance activities. Stormwater Fees are typically established to provide a dedicated revenue source to fund the costs of stormwater management. While the County's current Stormwater Fee is not sufficient to provide revenues to fully fund stormwater management costs, the existing fee application structure that was implemented in 1991 also does not reflect the stormwater service area's current property characteristics and current industry practices used in Florida to establish the basis for Stormwater Fees. To partially fund the County Stormwater needs, a Stormwater Management Revenue Fund was established in 1991, including implementation of a Stormwater Fee. The Stormwater Fee is billed as a Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessment levied on the annual property tax bill and has been primarily used to help fund the stormwater capital reinvestment program. The capital reinvestments funded by the Stormwater Fee are primarily focused on renewal, replacement and rehabilitation (R&R) of existing Stormwater System assets located throughout the Stormwater System's service area. As such, the current fee level only funds a portion of the Stormwater Management Program requirements, specifically the R&R projects identified in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Stormwater Fee does not produce sufficient revenue to fund the remaining operating and maintenance activities, such as inspection, maintenance, project management, administration, planning, etc. To compensate for the Stormwater Fee revenue deficit, the Stormwater Management Program is reliant on supplemental contributions from Ad Valorem Taxes, Community Investment Tax, and State and Federal grants to fund the remaining costs. In addition to these funding challenges, the County's stormwater funding requirements have outpaced the available revenue, and the backlog of stormwater maintenance needs and unfunded capital requirements continues to grow now more than ever. 1.2 Stormwater Management Program Utility Goals and Objectives

The County has requested that a Stormwater Business Plan be developed that identifies the total cost of the County Stormwater related activities. Furthermore, the County has requested that the Business Plan include estimates of alternative Stormwater Fee levels that would result in a Stormwater Management Program that is self-sufficient, meaning it has a dedicated funding source with a revenue stream adequate to meet all of the program needs related to facility inspections, operations and maintenance, capital facility renewals and replacements, regulatory compliance, and planning, including recognition of the estimated cost of enhancing the level of stormwater maintenance activities and capital reinvestment to achieve a sustainable Stormwater Management Program. In addition to evaluating revenue requirements to fully fund the Stormwater Management Program, and potential enhancements to maintenance activities and capital reinvestment related to asset preservation, another significant objective of this study involves analyzing and recommending updates to the existing rate method used to develop the Stormwater Fee. This includes developing a fair and equitable rate structure based upon current property characteristics and industry standards.

-3-

The County's current rate structure for stormwater service is generally based on the impervious area per equivalent residential unit ("ERU") approach. An ERU, which was established by County Ordinance adopted in 1991, is defined as the average impervious area of a single-family residential home or 1,800 square feet. Impervious area includes items such as buildings, driveways, parking lots, swimming pools, and other hard surfaces that prevent stormwater runoff from being absorbed into the ground. Under the County's Stormwater Ordinance, multi-family residential properties and mobile homes are billed 0.5 ERUs per unit and for non-residential or general properties, each property's impervious area is measured and then divided by 1,800 square feet to determine the number of equivalent residential units to be billed for that property. A major task conducted as part of the rate structure analysis was to evaluate the current basis for calculating ERUs based on current property characteristics. 1.2.1 Scope of Services, Project Goals, and Objectives

The Business Plan has been prepared by a team of consultants with the necessary expertise to assist the County with the preparation of Stormwater Utility Business Plan and Rate Study. The consultants contracted by the County include Public Resources Management Group, Inc., (PRMG), Applied Sciences (AS), and Government Services Group, Inc. (GSG), collectively (the "Project Team"). The purpose of the Business Plan is to evaluate the County's Stormwater Management Program's goals and objectives, review the County's stormwater related organizational structure and staffing, prepare a cost of service analysis, evaluate stormwater rate structure alternatives, review of the projected expenditure needs associated with ensuring sustainable stormwater operations, and recommend a Stormwater Management Business Plan that meets the County Stormwater program demands, goals and objectives. The results of the Business Plan evaluation are described in the sections that follow.

The primary goal of the Stormwater System Business Plan and Rate Study is to estimate the cost of Stormwater Program activities including enhanced levels of service and recommend a fair and equitable rate structure to financially support the County's Stormwater Management Program. This goal included the following supporting objectives:

1. Identify the Divisions and Agencies that perform stormwater related services, and establish the type of support and level of involvement;

2. Estimate the current and future revenue requirements for the Stormwater Management Program;

3. Develop a fair and equitable rate structure to collect revenues based on industry standards and practices to best meet the County's objectives while considering data maintenance efforts and administrative burdens; and

4. Facilitate future program planning to develop a self-sufficient Stormwater Management Program and organizational strategy with sufficient revenue to fund the capital improvement program, field operations and maintenance, and support services needs to maintain and enhance stormwater services provided by the County.

-4-

In order to meet the intent of the Scope of Services and project goals and objectives, the Project Team performed the following activities, which are expanded upon in detail in this report:

● Met with County to refine the project scope to more clearly align with the County's goals and objectives;

● Reviewed County adopted reports and documents that define the County Stormwater Management Program, and datasets that support the County Stormwater Asset Inventory. These include, but are not limited to:

o Fiscal Year 2019-2024 Stormwater Capital Improvement Program;

o Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Public Works Budget;

o Stormwater Asset Inventory Geodatabase July 2017;

o County NPDES Permit (July 2016) and Annual Report (July 2017); and

o Draft 2018 and Adopted 2008 Unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan – Stormwater Management Element.

● Review of the current adopted Stormwater Utility Rate Structure

● Review of the County's Public Works Organizational Charts as of March 29, 2018

● Interviews with Divisions and Service Section staff members to understand stormwater roles and responsibilities, and level of involvement regarding stormwater-related maintenance activities

● Review of financial stormwater reporting options

● Cost of service analysis for related activities

● Review of the property and characteristics within the service area

● Impervious area sampling for Stormwater System customer classifications to evaluate Stormwater Fee application criteria

● Preliminary rate analysis based on revenue neutral rates

● Five-year financial forecast

● Analysis of enhanced sustainable funding plan

● Development of rate structure alternative and proposed rates

● Summary of stormwater industry credit practices

-5-

1.3 Existing Capital Improvement Program

As part of the Stormwater Business Plan, the Project Team reviewed the Fiscal Year 2019 through 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as well as the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Public Works Budget. The Hillsborough County Stormwater CIP prioritizes planning, design, and construction of Stormwater System projects that provide both water quantity and water quality benefits to the community and environment. The County has developed, and continues to maintain, a comprehensive Watershed Master Plan that is used to establish the existing flood level of service criteria, as well as water quality projects related to regulatory compliance and to meet environmental goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. The County has developed these plans for each of its seventeen watershed basins, which are routinely updated to keep up with changing County growth and development, as well as improvements to modeling techniques, increases in accuracy and resolution of datasets, and the evaluation of current best management practice (BMP) alternatives. Under the plan, the entire County (1,072 sq. miles) is divided into 17 watersheds (basins) and further subdivided into 7,000 sub-basins. As previously mentioned, these master plan studies look at water quantity, water quality and the natural watershed system and its functions. The plan identifies areas with inadequate conveyance systems or poor water quality with the objective of developing cost effective and technically feasible solutions. Flood control project evaluations take into consideration the following factors: frequency of flooding, the category of the road subject to flooding (local/arterial/collector road), the number of structures flooded, stormwater asset conditions (groundwater table, erosion/siltation and structure) and the potential of obtaining available grant funds. The County also maintains a separate list of non-watershed related neighborhood stormwater needs. Criteria for neighborhood stormwater projects is similar to criteria for watershed master plan projects, with the exception that environmental issues and the availability of matching grant funds are not included in the evaluation. Water quality or natural system projects are evaluated based on concerns identified by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or the County related to the sub-watershed segment of "impaired waters/water bodies," the criteria of water quality parameters and the benefits of a natural system. Both engineers and environmental scientists within the Stormwater Services Section of the Public Works Department contributed to this evaluation process. 1.4 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Summary and Existing

Maintenance Level of Service

The Project Team reviewed the Hillsborough County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit (FLS000006-004), a Major Facility classified permittee. The permit authorizes the discharge of stormwater to waters of the State, in accordance with the approved Stormwater Management Programs (SWMPs), effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other provisions as set forth in said permit.

-6-

In summary, the permit document establishes or defines what discharges are authorized under the permit, the requirements for the Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Management Program implementation controls and activities, the schedules for implementation and compliance, system monitoring and annual reporting requirements, and other specific conditions of the permit. The NPDES Permit establishes a standardized inspection and maintenance activities schedule based on stormwater asset type, which can be found in Table II.A.1.a of the Hillsborough County Final MS4 Permit document, issued July 11, 2016. The County stormwater asset inspection and maintenance schedules, according to the issued permit, are summarized in Table 1 below. Note that the maintenance is generally listed to be as needed based on inspection to ensure proper operation. These inspection and maintenance frequencies are considered to be the County's current Maintenance Level of Service.

Table 1 Inspection and Maintenance Schedule for Stormwater Assets

Asset Type Inspection Maintenance

Stormwater Facilities; Dry Retention and Wet Detention (New System) Annually first two years of operation

As needed based on inspection to ensure proper

operation

Stormwater Facilities; Dry Retention and Wet Detention (No Issues) Once every three years

Stormwater Facilities; Dry Retention and Wet Detention (Chronic issues) Annually until issues corrected

Underdrain filters, Exfiltration Trench, and Grass Treatment Swales Same as Stormwater Facilities (above)

Pollution Control Boxes Quarterly, unless determined otherwise

Pump Station Semi-annually, or more as needed

Alum Injection Monthly, unless observed otherwise

Major Outfalls Annually unless determined otherwise

Control Structures Same frequency as type of system associated with structure

Pipes and Culverts 10% of structures per year; At least one over two permit cycles (every 10 years)

Canals part of MS4 Annually

Inlets and Catch Basins 10% of structures per year; At least one over two permit cycles (every 10 years)

Ditches, Swales, and Other Conveyance 10% of structures per year; At least one over two permit cycles (every 10 years)

Source: Hillsborough County 2016 MS4 Permit

-7-

In addition, the Project Team reviewed the Hillsborough County NPDES MS4 Annual Report for August 2016 through July 2017 (the "Annual Report"). The Annual Report contains information ranging from fiscal analysis, to maintenance activities, development review, flood control projects, and environmental and water quality monitoring and TMDL compliance. The Annual Report summarizes statistics regarding the number of significant development reviews, litter control activities, maintenance services units, number of flood control projects, public outreach activities, illicit discharge prevention, environmental activities, and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) monitoring and reporting status update. The Annual Report also includes a summary table of the inspection and maintenance activity for the Stormwater Assets over the 2016-2017 NPDES Reporting period. These reported inspection and maintenance records appear to meet or exceed the maintenance level of service established in the permit document. The metrics provided herein will be considered when analyzing and recommending a future maintenance level of service for the proposed stormwater management program. The Stormwater Asset Inventory and Inspection and Maintenance Records have been summarized in Table 2 below. The County stormwater asset inventory database was provided by the County on June 14, 2018, which came from the operations and maintenance group, and the totals were determined to be comparable with what has been reported in the Annual Report.

Table 2 Stormwater Asset Inventory and Inspection and Maintenance Records

Type Total

Structures (Count)

Inspections (Count)

Percent Inspected

Maintenance (Count)

Percent Maintained

Dry Retention Systems 366 83 22% 81 22%

Underdrain Filter Systems 167 167 100% 0 0%

Wet Detention Systems 1,675 890 53% 30 1%

Alum Injection Systems 2 24 1,200% 7 350

Pollution Control Boxes 25 100 400% 1 4%

Pump Stations 36 1,108 3,077% 97 269%

Major Outfalls 196 196 100% 458 233%

Weirs or Other Control Structures 2,667 1,670 62% 106 3%

Pipes and Culverts (miles) 1,252 256.75 20% 51.4 4%

Inlets and Catch Basins 36,680 7,210 19% 210 0.50%

Ditches or other (miles) 1,347 218 16% 70.8 5% Source: Hillsborough County, 2016-2017 NPDES MS4 Annual Report

-8-

As for water quality, data was collected at more than 225 individual water bodies and over 3,261 sampling site locations. Several agencies contribute to data collection efforts. Data sources include Hillsborough County Public Works Department Environmental Services, Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, University of South Florida, and the University of Florida LAKEWATCH program. Data collected by these agencies are uploaded to the Hillsborough County Water Explorer (www.hch2o.org) which serves as a repository for water quality and other data collected in Hillsborough County. Through discussions and interviews with the staff of the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Service Units, there are challenges in meeting the routine inspection and maintenance scheduling. Between the sheer number of assets compared to the number of maintenance staff, combined with the number of work orders being placed and urgent/priority service requests, the service units on a whole are operating under a more reactionary, rather than proactive condition. There are also certain known problem areas within the system that require frequent attention and service during the wet season. Each unit has identified a backlog for work orders as well as routine asset inspection and maintenance schedules. The common objective expressed by each of the service units is to catch up on service requests and allow the service units to operate under a sustainable level of service target with a more proactive maintenance and capital reinvestment approach. Recommendations regarding the County's Stormwater Maintenance Level of Service are included in Section 2 along with estimates of expected costs and Stormwater Fees in Section 3 to meet the cost of service requirements of the proposed future stormwater management program. 1.4.1 Stormwater Management Program Funding Sources

The Stormwater Management Program relies on two primary sources of revenue:

● Unincorporated County Ad Valorem Assessment, utilized to fund operations and maintenance as part of the Public Works Department budget; and

● Stormwater Utility Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessment (Stormwater Fee), used to fund capital projects and respond to regulatory requirements.

Historically, the Ad Valorem Funding and Stormwater Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments have been leveraged with non-recurring supplemental funding including:

● Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)

● Cooperative Funding Agreements with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)

● Florida Department of Environmental Protection Grants

● Federal Emergency Management Agency Grants

● Community Investment Tax (CIT)

Of the revenue sources that have been utilized historically, the Stormwater Fee is the only recurring, specifically dedicated funding source. In order to meet the Stormwater Management

-9-

Program's goals and objectives, the County should consider increasing the Stormwater Fee levels in an effort to create a viable and sustainable revenue source able to fund the expenditure requirements of all essential Stormwater Management Program functions. These functions include stormwater operation and maintenance activities, capital project implementation, regulatory compliance, in addition to administrative, management, and support activities. This will allow the Stormwater Management Program to operate as a self-sufficient program without having to compete against other essential County programs funded by the Unincorporated Area General Fund.

1.4.2 Current Utility Rate Structure

The County's existing the Stormwater Utility Assessment Rate Structure has five customer classifications:

● Residential: Includes all single-family residential defined parcels with structures

● Multi-Family: Includes Townhomes, Condominiums, duplexes, and triplexes

● Mobile Home: Includes all mobile home parcels and mobile home/RV parks

● Improved Agricultural: Includes agricultural classified parcels with residential structures

● Non-Residential: Any developed parcel that does not fall into the previous four categories, such as commercial businesses and institutionally-owned properties

The current rate structure is assessed to these categories based on the currently adopted annual Stormwater Fees as shown in Table 3 on the following page.

Table 3 Hillsborough County Existing Stormwater Fee Summary

Category Annual Stormwater Fee

Residential Single-Family $42.00 per single family residence

Multi-Family $21.00 per dwelling unit

Mobile Home/RV Park $21.00 per dwelling unit

Improved Agricultural $42.00 per property

Non-Residential $0.035 per 1.5 square feet of impervious area per year

Stormwater rates are generally applied to each property's equivalent residential units (ERUs). For the purpose of the stormwater rate structure evaluation, the ERUs have been derived for each category based on the current rate structure. The County's ERU basis, which was derived from the annual Residential Rate of $42 divided by the non-residential rate of $0.035 per 1.5 square feet, is equivalent to 1,800 square feet of impervious area per ERU.

-10-

Under the current rate structure, the Residential Single-Family Stormwater Fee is the basis for equivalent single-family residential units (ERU), with an assumed value of 1.0. The Multi-Family and Mobile Home residential categories are assessed based on an ERU value of 0.5. Improved agriculture parcels, or agricultural parcels with structures, are charged an ERU of 1.0. Each non-residential property has a unique ERU value based upon the actual square feet of impervious surface area for the property. 1.4.3 Alternative Billing Methods

Stormwater utilities in Florida typically bill for services through the application of either a stormwater user fee as part of the utility bill or through a Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessment. Generally, based on Florida Statutes, in order to fall within the legal requirements of a special assessment billing approach, the amount of the assessment must be commensurate with a special benefit or an increase in the value of the assessed property. Stormwater services billed through a monthly user fee are typically based only on the estimated run-off burden caused by the property. Based on the most recent survey of stormwater utilities prepared by the Florida Stormwater Association, sixty-six percent (66%) of the stormwater utilities generate revenues from monthly user fees and twenty-nine percent (29%) utilize Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments. Under the monthly user fee approach, the "run-off burden" caused by the property is typically based on methods that estimate the amount of stormwater run-off generated by a property. Approximately sixty-nine percent (69%) of stormwater utilities who charge a user fee use impervious area as the basis for estimating a specific property's stormwater "run-off burden", while fourteen percent (14%) use both gross area and impervious area to establish the basis for charging Stormwater Fees. With this background, it can be concluded that the use of special assessments is more restrictive as to how stormwater costs can be levied to individual properties, since a special benefit related to stormwater facilities must be demonstrated while monthly user rates typically reflect system-wide rates based only on the estimated stormwater runoff generated by the property. These concepts are particularly germane to the recovery of costs associated with new capital facilities that can vary significantly for different water sheds or basins within a given jurisdiction and for which it may be difficult to demonstrate a County-wide benefit. For stormwater utilities in Florida that rely on the user fee or "run-off burden" approach, only three percent (3%) of the systems surveyed recently by the Florida Stormwater Association report that they charge fees for capital costs based on a "zone-of-benefit" approach. Accordingly, ninety-seven percent (97%) recover stormwater costs, including the cost of capital projects on a system-wide basis. However, there is nothing to preclude adopting a capital-related Stormwater Fee by basin. The County should establish a rate methodology that best suits the stormwater expenditure needs and the philosophy and goals of the community, recognizing that the Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessment Billing Method may require basin-specific assessments related to certain major capital improvements implemented in the future.

-11-

Table 4, below, provides a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the non-ad valorem special assessment bill collection method versus the utility bill collection method.

Table 4 Billing Methodology Pros and Cons

Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Method Utility Bill Method

Pros • Highest collection rate (95 – 98%)

• One bill with all charges

• Use tax roll data from PA

• Revenue received within 6 months of start of fiscal year

• Deadlines set by local government

• Timeframe set by local government

• Easier to charge exempt property

• May be able to use for government property

Cons • Strict statutory requirements regarding public notice

• Strict statutory timeframes

• Cannot use for government property

• May not allow for County-wide rates related to specific capital projects

• Difficult to correlate utility accounts to property uses (methodology issues)

• Collection issues regarding non-payment

• Utility bill gets crowded

• May miss property without utility account

• Revenue received on monthly basis

Set forth on Figure 1, on the following page, is a summary of stormwater billing methods used by a sample of Florida cities and counties. As shown in the summary, counties typically bill Stormwater Fees based on the Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessment method. Based on discussions with the staff of the Florida Stormwater Association, this is primarily due to the fact that many County properties do not have utility accounts and the difficulty of correlating utility accounts to parcels.

(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)

-12-

Figure 1 Comparison of Stormwater Billing Methods

Florida Cities Stormwater Billing Method

City of Bradenton Utility Bill City of Bradenton Beach Assessment City of Fort Myers Utility Bill City of Maitland Utility Bill City of Miami Utility Bill City of Miami Beach Utility Bill City of Palm Bay Assessment City of Palm Coast Utility Bill City of St. Petersburg Utility Bill City of St. Pete Beach Assessment City of Tampa – O&M Only Assessment City of Tampa – Capital Assessment City of Venice Utility Bill City of Winter Park Utility Bill

Florida Counties

Alachua County Assessment Brevard County Assessment Hillsborough County Assessment Leon County Assessment Marion County Assessment Miami-Dade County Utility Bill Pasco County Utility Bill Pinellas County Assessment Polk County Assessment Sarasota County Assessment Volusia County Assessment

1.4.4 Financial Reporting Options

Based on discussions about identifying, documenting and accounting for the expenditure requirements of Hillsborough County's (the "County") stormwater utility system, we have compiled a brief comparison of financial reporting methods implemented by Stormwater Systems in other communities. Table 5, on the following page, summarizes the financial reporting approach for each of the following jurisdictions with service populations equal to or greater than 150,000:


-13-

Table 5 Comparison of Stormwater Utility Fund Classifications

No. Jurisdiction Fund Classification

1 Polk County Special Revenue Fund 2 Lake County Special Revenue Fund 3 City of West Palm Beach Enterprise Fund 4 City of Port St. Lucie Enterprise Fund 5 Charlotte County Special Revenue Fund 6 City of St. Petersburg Enterprise Fund 7 City of Fort Lauderdale Enterprise Fund 8 City of Orlando Enterprise Fund 9 Pinellas County Special Revenue Fund 10 City of Tallahassee Enterprise Fund 11 Pasco County Special Revenue Fund 12 Sarasota County Enterprise Fund 13 City of Tampa Special Revenue Fund 14 Brevard County Special Revenue Fund 15 City of Jacksonville Enterprise Fund 16 Miami-Dade County General Fund 17 City of Miami General Fund 18 Hillsborough County Special Revenue/General Fund 19 City of Hialeah Enterprise Fund 20 Marion County Special Revenue Fund

As shown above, most of the surveyed communities use either an Enterprise Fund or a Special Revenue Fund to account for the annual stormwater revenues and expenditures. Like the County, a few of the communities also account for the cost of certain stormwater activities and transactions within the Public Works Department of the General Fund. Within the financial framework of governmental accounting, three (3) categories of financial funds are generally identified as follows: ● Governmental Funds including:

o General Fund

o Special Revenue Funds

o Capital Project Funds

o Debt Service Funds

o Permanent Funds

-14-

● Proprietary Funds including:

o Enterprise Funds

o Internal Services Funds

● Fiduciary Funds including:

o Agency Funds

o Trust Funds

As shown above, a Special Revenue Fund is a Governmental Fund that is generally used to account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditures for specified purposes other than debt service or capital projects. An Enterprise Fund is a Proprietary Fund that is used to account for business-type activities where the government provides goods or services to private parties. Special Revenue Funds and Enterprise Funds have specific reporting requirements established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board ("GASB"), which are summarized in Table 6 below:

Table 6 Financial Reporting Requirements by Fund Type

Description Fund Financial Statements [*]

No. Scope Special Revenue Fund Enterprise Fund

1 Financial Statements • Balance Sheet • Statement of Revenues,

Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances

• Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual

• Balance Sheet • Statement of Net Position • Statement of Revenues,

Expenses and Changes in Net Position

• Statement of Cash Flows

2 Basis of Accounting Timing of when revenues, expenses, or expenditures are recognized

• Modified Accrual Accounting

• Revenues recorded when measurable and available

• Expenditures recognized when incurred with certain exceptions

• Accrual Accounting • Revenues are recorded

when earned • Expenses are recorded

when the liabilities are incurred

3 Measurement Focus Types of resources being measured

Financial Resources: • Current assets less

current liabilities

Economic Resources: • Total assets less total

liabilities __________ [*] Derived from the County's 2017 Audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

-15-

When establishing the financial reporting procedures for a stormwater fund, it is important to examine the activities that meet the criteria for using a particular fund. For example, a Governmental Fund, such as a Special Revenue Fund, generally has activities which are funded through taxes, intergovernmental revenues and other non-exchange revenues. An Enterprise Fund generally has business-type activities which are funded in whole or in part by fees charged to external parties for exchange transactions involving goods or services. While the fund descriptions may allow for some interpretation, GASB Statement No. 34 suggests the use of an Enterprise Fund when one of the following criteria is met: ● An activity is financed with debt that is secured solely by a pledge of revenues from fees and

charges of the activity;

● Laws require that the activity's costs of providing service, including capital costs or depreciation, must be recovered by fees and charges rather than general taxes; or

● The pricing policy of the activity is designed to recover all costs including debt-financed and internally generated capital costs and/or depreciation.

It is our understanding that the County currently accounts for certain stormwater revenues and capital costs as a Special Revenue fund while certain operating and maintenance expenses are accounted for in Public Works funds. Based on the long-term goals and objectives identified for the Stormwater Management Program, the County's stormwater activities can be accounted for within either a Special Revenue Fund or an Enterprise Fund. Either approach provides for the allocation of direct and indirect system costs to the stormwater management function and establishes an accountable framework to evaluate the sufficiency of current and future stormwater assessments over time. To the extent that the County decides to establish a separate and dedicated workforce for the Stormwater Management Program or issue debt with its repayment pledged solely from Stormwater Fees to support the Stormwater Management Program in the future, the County may want to consider establishing an Enterprise Fund to account for stormwater revenues and costs. 1.5 Existing Stormwater Organizational Structure Review

1.5.1 Review of Organizational Charts

The County provided a comprehensive Public Works Department Organizational Chart, a 16-page document that identifies a total of 670 Public Works Staff, dated March 29, 2018 (Appendix A). Based on a review of this organizational chart and conversation with County, the Project Team created a list of seventeen (17) divisions or agency staff to interview.

1.5.2 Public Works Division and Section Staff Interviews

In person interviews were conducted with Divisions or Section staff within the Public Works Department. As mentioned in Section 1.5.1, through review of the organizational chart in Appendix A and discussions with the County staff, the Project Team created a list of seventeen (17) division or sections to interview. These seventeen (17) sections were identified as having varying level of responsibility and involvement regarding stormwater related activities. The

-16-

interviews were scheduled through Division Directors or Section Managers, and often included key staff.

The interviews and responses better defined each Division's responsibilities and involvement regarding the Stormwater Management Program, approximately how many full-time equivalents (FTEs) are in each Division, what percent of Staff's time is spent on stormwater-related activities, and whether there is any tracking of stormwater-related services (software, products, etc.). Additional questions were posed associated with the direction each agency is heading regarding the provision of stormwater services, and if the current challenges or obstacles to achieving the programs goals. The interview process with Public Works Department Divisions or Sections is summarized in Table 7 below.

Table 7 Interview Dates with Public Works Divisions or Sections

Count Division or Section Staff Date

1 Geomatics Section Eric Sumner 5/15/2018

2 Construction Services Jason Boulnois 5/17/2018

3 Field Ops & Transportation Maintenance Division

Robert Seuss 5/17/2018

4 Infrastructure Growth Planning John Patrick 5/17/2018

5 West Service Unit Otis "Lea" Hollar 5/22/2018

6 Operations Support Fred Hartless, Cristina Baldeon 5/23/2018

7 East Service Unit Becky Sanchez et. al 5/24/2018

8 Transportation Planning & Development Division

Mike Williams 5/24/2018

9 Specialized Services Don Heisserer, Tiger Harvey, et. al. 5/31/2018

10 Transportation Services Leland Dicus 6/1/2018

11 South Service Unit /Traffic Operations Debbie Hunt, Juan Olivero-Lopez, et. al. 6/1/2018

12 Transportation Services – Stormwater Ginny Zimmerman 6/21/2018

13 Capital Business Intelligence Maritza Ramirez 6/28/2018

14 Fiscal Services Koni Cassini, Tiffany Brasel 7/18/2018

15 Environmental Services John McGee, Christine Sciarrino 7/26/2018

16 Hazard Mitigation Program Gene Henry Various

17 Stormwater Services David Glicksberg Various


-17-

Some common themes or findings from the interviews include:

● With the exception of the Stormwater Services Section, it is difficult to track time spent on stormwater related activities, even through MaintStar;

● The Field Operations and Maintenance Service Units all have challenges with achieving a regular and routine maintenance schedule. The sources of this challenge include, but are not limited to, availability of staffing resources (vacancies), aging infrastructure, volume of special service requests, and increasing number of assets (growth).

● The organizational structure of the divisions and service sections across public works leads to communication and collaboration challenges throughout the planning, design, and construction of stormwater capital improvement projects. For example, the Stormwater Services Environmental Group is separated from the rest of Stormwater Services, while the Stormwater Design Project Managers are in a completely different Section. The collaboration and communication amongst the Sections throughout the project phases (planning, design, and construction) needs to be improved.

● Dedicated stormwater staff responsible for field operations and maintenance, geospatial services, and other support activities may be necessary or desirable.

● Improved tracking of stormwater activities will better support a Stormwater Fee that will fully recover the costs of both the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program as well as the Stormwater Field Operations and Maintenance and support activities.

In addition to identifying current stormwater costs, the feedback from these interviews provided valuable information to develop recommendations for establishing the proposed future stormwater program.

1.5.3 Stormwater Consolidated Organizational Chart

Based on the discussion with each Division listed in Table 7, a consolidated, stormwater focused, Public Works Organizational chart was created. This organizational chart is for internal use and intended to assist with determining which divisions or sections of Public Works staff and how many employees are involved with Stormwater System related activities. The stormwater organizational chart is a useful tool when allocating stormwater activity costs of service and is also a useful tool for designing the future Stormwater Management Program organization, activities and functions, as well as the associated costs.

The Proposed Stormwater Organizational Chart is set forth in Appendix B. The organizational chart provides a box for the director and or manager for each division or service unit. Tied to each director or manager is a circle with a number that represents the stormwater related staff associated with that division or service unit. The first chart shows the total number of stormwater related staff.

The estimated number of staff that performs stormwater related activities is approximately 405 (Appendix A). The estimated Full Time Equivalent (FTE) directly involved in stormwater activities, which is based on the estimated percent of time the 405 employees spend on stormwater related activity, is estimated to be approximately 164 (Appendix B).

-18-

1.6 Existing Cost of Service (Capital, Operations and Maintenance, Engineering and

Investigations)

The initial cost of service approach required extracting information from multiple data sources. Careful consideration was given as to not double count or miss any expenditures. The estimated cost of service considers costs associated with all seventeen (17) agencies previously identified. Examples of original sources to derive costs include interviews with Division directors and key staff, payroll data, tracking software (PTrack and MaintStar), Adopted Capital Improvement Program, Adopted Fiscal Year 2019 Operating Budget and Divisional breakdown. The exercise performed by the Project Team was further validated with the County Capital Business Intelligence section, where data was extracted from Department Budgets, Incumbent Report, and Cost Center analysis. The Stormwater cost of service breakdown was aggregated from four separate sources, which are also expanded upon in the following sub-sections:

● Stormwater Engineering and Investigations

● Stormwater Field Operations and Maintenance

● Stormwater Capital Improvement Program

1.6.1 Stormwater Engineering and Investigations

Initial discussion with County staff identified that there are many divisions and service sections that provide stormwater related support. These divisions include dedicated staff to support stormwater related activities in the areas of watershed planning, geospatial services, administration, project management, regulatory compliance, fiscal services, procurement, contract services, and business management. Through interviews with each director or manager, an estimated number of stormwater related staff, and percent of time spent on stormwater related activities were provided in order to establish an FTE for each division or service unit, which is illustrated in Section 1.4.3. The hourly salary breakdown for Public Works staff was referenced and weighted for each section, and an overhead burden rate was applied to estimate an average annual cost of service.

Through discussion with division manager, contractual services include activities services for MS4 Permit compliance. These contracts include an interlocal agreement with the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) for chemical Analysis of Water Quality Samples for TMDL and NPDES reporting requirements. The University of Florida LAKEWATCH monitoring program. The University of South Florida aquatic system assessment and reporting, which includes Stream Habitat Assessment (HA), Rapid Periphyton Survey (RPS), Linear Vegetation Survey (LVS) and Stream Condition Index (SCI) for up to thirteen (13) streams. Finally, there is a website contract for the management of HCH2O.org). Other Contracts included USGS and Hazard Mitigation and Floodplain Management Compliance Support. Note that the NPDES activities for street sweeping are accounted for in the Transportation Maintenance Cost Breakdown.

-19-

The stormwater engineering and investigations cost of service were based on a combination of division budgets, incumbent report, and cost center analysis to an estimated value of $4,802,452.

1.6.2 Stormwater Field Operations and Maintenance Costs

The original Stormwater Field Operations & Maintenance Costs estimation approach were estimated from two primary sources: 1) Costing information extracted from MaintStar tracking system; and 2) Interviews with Division Director and Service Units. The information from MaintStar was compared against the estimates collected from the incumbent report and Transportation Maintenance Division annual budget, and there was a noticeable discrepancy in the estimated annual expenditures. Through discussions with TMD, business and intelligences, and other Public Works leadership, it was determined that, although MaintStar system, although a reliable system for tracking and logging work orders and maintenance activity, it is not currently as accurate for tracking division and departmental costs. For these reasons, the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Costs were based on the division budgets, incumbent report, and cost center analysis to an estimated value of value of $15,977,542.

1.6.3 Stormwater Capital Improvement Program

As described earlier in this report, the Capital Improvement Program funds Watershed Master Plan Updates, the design of stormwater improvement projects identified in these plans, and ultimately the construction of these improvement projects. The program has also made a priority Culvert Renewal and Replacement Program (CRRP), Neighborhood Drainage Improvements, and the Stormwater Pumping Station Renewal and Replacement program. Also included in the CIP budget are Stormwater Pumping Station Renewal and Replacement, Water Quality and Environmental Projects, and Watershed Master Plan Updates. The Countywide Culvert Renewal and Replacement Program replaces or repairs culverts at various locations throughout Hillsborough County. The Watershed Master Plan Implementation Program studies the water quantity, and water quality if applicable in various watersheds within Hillsborough County. The Neighborhood Drainage Improvements Program is intended to alleviate flooding on County-maintained roadways that do not meet the County's level of service for flood protection. The total estimated Stormwater CIP for Fiscal Year 2019 is $22,610,000, as summarized in Table 8 below.


-20-

Table 8 Estimated Annual Stormwater Capital Improvement Program

Capital Improvement Program Total Costs

Canal Dredging and Preventative Measures Study Implementation $28,483 Canal Dredging Grant Program $20,000 Countywide Watershed Masterplan Update Phase II $41,839 Culvert Renewal and Replacement Program $15,075,907 Holloman's Branch – HBA 6C (Knights Griffin) $2,248,648 Major Neighborhood Drainage Improvements $1,559,553 Master Plan Implementation Program $1,173,035 Minor Neighborhood Drainage Improvements $713,276 Neighborhood Drainage Improvements $5,256,208 Stormwater Pumping Station Renewal & Replacement $913,889 Stormwater Utility Allocation $57,193 Water Quality Improvement and Environmental Program $591,803 Water Quality Improvements and Environmental Program $774,479 Watershed Drainage Improvements $558,058 Watershed Master Plan Updates $943,739 Total $22,610,000

1.6.4 Summary of Stormwater Related Costs

Totaling the three stormwater cost components provides a complete estimate of the Stormwater Management Program's cost of service. The total estimated current annual Stormwater Management Program Costs are $43,389,994 and the cost summary breakdown is provided in Table 9 below.

Table 9 Total Estimated Annual Stormwater Management Program Costs Summary for Fiscal Year 2019

Expenditure Functions Total Costs

Stormwater Engineering and Investigations $4,802,452 Stormwater Field Operations and Maintenance $15,977,542 Stormwater Capital Improvement Program $22,610,000 Total $43,389,994

This total is beneficial in understanding the County current and future Stormwater Management Program revenue needs in order to be self-sufficient, which is essential when determining the proposed stormwater billing rate.

-21-

SECTION 2 ENHANCED LEVEL OF SERVICE – SUSTAINABLE FUNDING PLAN ANALYSIS The proposed enhancements to stormwater program activities were developed for both stormwater operations and maintenance as well as stormwater capital improvement program. Over time the County has experienced increased demand for stormwater maintenance and flood reduction activities. This has been spurred by the need to mitigate pre-regulatory development, repair or replace aging infrastructure, and growing stormwater inventory due to the rate of current development. In addition, there has been an established need to increase frequency of maintenance to become more proactive in infrastructure maintenance, especially in flood-prone priority areas. To address these concerns, the sustainable funding plan looks at enhancements to Operations & Maintenance, Asset Preservation, Flood Protection and Water Quality Projects, and Hazard Mitigation Activities. As a result of this analysis, the total sustainable Stormwater Management Program funding requirements are estimated at $81.7 million, increased from the current program cost of $43.4 million. To achieve the goal of making the Stormwater Management Program self-supporting, there is also the goal of eliminating the need for revenue from the general fund, which is proposed to be phased-in by Year Three of the sustainable funding plan implementation. The estimated number of FTEs required to achieve the sustainable funding rate is an increase of 23 FTEs, as most of the cost of the increased O&M activities in the near-term are anticipated to be provided through contractual services. 2.1. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Enhancements

Proper and routine maintenance of stormwater assets is just as essential as incorporating new stormwater capital. Appropriate operation and maintenance activities ensure that the stormwater infrastructure will continue to function properly and yield expected design performance. Whether the stormwater asset is for conveyance and/or water quality, it is an important to provide regular inspection and maintenance in order to protect public safety, the environment, and the Counties financial investment. The following section provides recommendations regarding enhancements to Stormwater Maintenance Level of Services based on discussions with the maintenance unit divisions as well as review of the County's reported activities. Additional descriptions and details of each stormwater asset type and the associated maintenance activities are included in Appendix C. In addition, to further support the need for future enhancements to operations and maintenance activities, photographs from County Maintenance Work Orders providing examples of County Stormwater Asset and their conditions are included in Appendix C. Photographs are provided of both well maintained and functioning assets and failed or non-functioning assets. 2.1.1 Existing Stormwater Maintenance Level of Service

To properly assess expense increases resulting from stormwater maintenance level of service enhancements, an understanding of the existing stormwater maintenance level of service costs is required. As previously discussed, the County has an estimated annual budget for personnel and operating expenses regarding stormwater related activities under the Transportation Maintenance

-22-

Division. The budget estimate does not explicitly track and quantify expenses from specific stormwater maintenance activities, which is necessary when determining cost implications due to enhancements in maintenance level of service. In addition, the MaintStar maintenance and work order tracking does a good job of tracking work orders, but the data, as it is currently recorded, requires further processing to obtain useable information for budgeting and forecasting purposes. To perform these estimates for estimating future revenue requirements based on recommended enhancements, information from the three separate sources were brought together: ● Annual NPDES MS4 Permit Report; ● MaintStar Stormwater Work Orders FY 2016-2017; ● Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Annual Expense.

The NPDES MS4 permit report includes reporting quantities for annual stormwater maintenance by asset type. These reported values include asset type, quantity of asset, and current percent maintained, and is included in this report in Table 10. These maintenance frequencies were applied to unit costs specific to each stormwater asset. These unit costs were derived from MaintStar, where the FY 2016-2017 Work Orders were aggregated by stormwater asset type consistent with the NPDES reporting. This exercise included costs for labor, equipment, and materials per work order type. These costs were converted to a unit cost and applied to each of the NPDES line items. The combination of assets maintained and unit prices results in a total maintenance cost, which is compared against the Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Annual Expense. Some assumptions regarding administrative, management, and other supporting costs were required to match the estimated annual expense. The existing stormwater operation and maintenance is estimated to cost approximately $16.0 million. Including Stormwater Engineering and Inspection support increase the existing expenditure for operations and maintenance to approximately $20.8 million. 2.1.2 Enhanced Stormwater Maintenance Level of Service

Enhanced Stormwater Maintenance Level of Service recommendations provide a cost of service estimate for providing standardized frequencies for each of the reported stormwater maintenance activity categories. These recommended frequencies were determined based on discussions with key County staff regarding target performance improvements. Also, a sample of what other similar communities are reporting in their NPDES were reviewed, as well as publications from State and Federal Agencies and the Professional community. The recommended frequencies range from 60 days for pump stations to once every fifteen years for pipes, inlets, and channels. The complete frequencies of Stormwater are located in Table 10. The first year of implementation will consist of increased frequencies to underdrain systems, pipes, inlets, channels, and street sweeping. This increase in activities results in an increase in annual costs of approximately $5.95 million. The increase in activities will mostly be addressed through contractual maintenance services. There will be some increased FTE requirements associated with program management, engineering support, and project controls. Also, it is estimated that four inspectors will be required in the first year to lead the increase in inspection activities. The sustainable O&M level is estimated to be achieved by Year Two, where the proposed increase in activity frequencies results in an estimated cost increase totaling $11.9 million compared with

-23-

Fiscal Year 2019 levels including recommended increases in maintenance frequencies occur in all activities except dry retention systems and alum injection systems. The total sustainable program O&M and engineering services costs is estimated to be approximately $32.7 million. In addition to the cost of increasing maintenance activities, other operating costs supporting maintenance activities were increased as well. These include administrative, management, equipment capital, and other overhead. Also, increased maintenance activities will require additional staff support. In Fiscal Year 2020, two project managers and four inspectors are required. In addition, two FTEs associated with engineering support and one with stormwater administrative activities will be required. By Fiscal Year 2021, an additional ten positions associated with project controls, engineering support, and program management are recommended. Therefore, the required additional FTEs for Stormwater O&M and Engineering is nineteen (19).

Table 10 Enhanced Stormwater Maintenance Level of Service Scenarios and Costs

Type Total (count)

Current Year Year One Year Two

Maint. Cycle Cost Maint.

Cycle Cost Maint. Cycle Cost

Dry Retention Systems 366 5-Year $405,000 5-Year $405,000 5-Year $405,000 Underdrain Filter Systems 167 Not

Reported $0 Biannual $268,000 Annual $568,000

Wet Detention Systems 1,675 50-Year $195,000 50-Year $195,000 10-Year $1,040,000 Alum Injection Systems 2 Quarterly $70,000 Quarterly $70,000 Quarterly $70,000 Pollution Control Boxes 25 25-Year $2,000 25-Year $2,000 Biannual $100,000 Pump Stations 36 Quarterly $388,000 Quarterly $388,000 60 Day $864,000 Major Outfalls 196 2-Year $490,000 2-Year $490,000 Annual $823,200 Weirs or Other Control Structures 2,667 25-Year $265,000 25-Year $265,000 10-Year $635,000

Pipes and Culverts (miles) 1,252 25-Year $4,070,900 20-Year $5,385,600 15-Year $6,652,800

Inlets and Catch Basins 36,680 100-Year $210,000 30-Year $1,225,000 15-Year $2,040,000 Channel, Ditch, and Canal (miles) 1,347 20-Year $4,485,900 17-Year $5,449,000 15-Year $6,336,000

Street Sweeping (miles) 12,500 Annual $337,500 Quarterly $1,350,000 Quarterly $1,350,000 Wetland Mitigation Contract - $300,000 - $300,000 - $300,000 General Mowing Contract - $400,000 - $400,000 - $400,000 Inspections N/A - $1,218,600 - $1,401,400 - $1,523,300

Maintenance Activity Costs (Labor, Equipment, Materials)

$12,837,900 $17,692,000 $23,107,300

Other Operating Expenses $3,139,700 $3,547,900 $3,938,200 Annualized Additional Capital Equipment Costs

- $350,000 $520,000

TMD Stormwater – Total $15,977,600 $21,589,900 $27,565,500 Engineering and Inspections $4,800,000 $5,136,000 $5,136,000 O&M, Engineering, and Insp. Total $20,777,600 $26,725,900 $32,701,500 Net Increase - $5,948,300 $11,923,900

-24-

2.2. Asset Preservation

An asset life cycle consists of inspecting, maintaining, repairing, and replacement on specific frequencies. The County has dedicated renewal and replacement programs for pump stations and pipes (or culverts). The County, in conjunction with the Project Team, has conducted an assessment of the pump station equipment and pipe inventories and compared average of asset with the typical design life expectancy. The result of the assessment was that the County needs to increase the annual replacement frequency for both pump stations and culverts in order to achieve a sustainable rate to ensure that Stormwater System assets are functioning properly. Furthermore, in order to achieve the estimated sustainable rate, an additional catchup cost is required to replace existing assets already beyond their service lives to remove the backlog from both programs. The goal of these enhancements is to replace failing assets, eliminate asset renewal and replacement backlog, provide safety and property protection, and reduce annual repair costs. 2.2.1 Pump Station Renewal and Replacement

The Stormwater Pumping Station Renewal and Replacement Program Provides annual renewal and/or replacement of stormwater pump stations throughout the County. There are 40 Pump Stations, with a current annual replacement cost budgeted in the CIP of $900,000. The CIP budget for this program has incrementally increased over the past few budget cycles. After a study was performed for the County, it was identified that there is a backlog of approximately $28,175,000. This will be addressed over an over an eight-year period before returning to the sustainable replacement cost of $900,000 annually. 2.2.2 Culvert Renewal and Replacement Program

The Countywide Culvert Renewal and Replacement Program replaces or repairs culverts at various locations throughout Hillsborough County. The County has made CRRP a priority under the current the Stormwater CIP. The County has performed an analysis of the County Culvert Asset Inventory to assign replacement frequencies based on typical life cycles replacement. This analysis reviewed over 1,376 miles of pipes with various materials and life cycles. The total replacement cost for the entire pipe inventory approaches $1.5 billion, while the current estimated backlog is approaching $100 million. The primary pipe backlog categories consist of Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) and reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), with consideration towards type of installation (side drain, cross drain, and outside ROW). It was determined that the Required Annual Sustainable Replacement Cost is approximately $20,300,000. In addition, in order to catchup with funding for failing assets and assets beyond their service lives, an additional backlog funding rate of $4.9 million annually is estimated to be achieved by Fiscal Year 2022 for total annual funding of $25.2 million in seven years.


-25-

2.3. Flood Protection, Water Quality & Hazards Mitigation

2.3.1 Flood Protection Projects

The County Flood Protection Projects consist of neighborhood, intermediate, and regional improvement projects. These projects primarily consist of roadway drainage and culvert improvements. The County has a ten-year Flood Protection Project List containing various types of projects across the County identified and prioritized from the latest watershed management plans. This project list approaches $200 million, with the primary driver being regional projects. The sustainable funding plan proposes to ramp up the flood protection project expenditure from approximately $7 million annually to $17.0 million by Fiscal Year 2022. The neighborhood and intermediate projects will be implemented in the near-term, whereas the regional projects will be implemented more gradually. Also, State and Federal grants, such as SWFWMD Cooperative Funding Initiative (CFI) and FEMA assistance programs can be utilized as cost sharing opportunities to implement the project list. 2.3.2 Water Quality and Hazard Mitigation Program Projects

The County has two separate programs dedicated to Water Quality and Hazard Mitigation. As mentioned previously, the water quality program works with multiple agencies and academic groups to collect water quality data and conduct water quality studies to meet or comply with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations. The County recently launched a one-water initiative that proposed collaboration amongst various agencies and programs emphasizing regional ponds and regional offsite mitigation areas (ROMA), public-private partnership opportunities, and surface water resource assessments. In addition, the County will be establishing Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development (LID) guidance documents and design standards, with specific focus on green infrastructure retrofit opportunities. In terms of Hazard Mitigation, the County has over 200 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) defined repetitive-loss properties. As part of the sustainable program, the County is planning to establish a program to acquire these properties to eliminate future flood risk, and convert the property to stormwater treatment, flood attenuation, community park amenity or ecological area. This new and enhanced program will require a recurring annual funding amount of $3.9 million. Both Water Quality and Hazard Mitigation programs will seek cost sharing opportunities that align with the programs goals and objectives, in an effort to maximize benefits to the community. To support the increased activity of the Hazard Mitigation Program, a total of two additional FTEs have been identified. 2.4. Enhanced Sustainable Funding Plan Summary

By Fiscal Year 2022, the County plans to reach the enhanced sustainable funding target of $81.7 million. The five-year sustainable plan revenue requirements for each category is summarized in Table 11. Also, a projected 10-year sustainable funding plan graphic is provided in Figure 2. The revenue requirements within each category may shift over time, based on specific flood project or other factors, but the total expenditures are expected to remain at these levels over the next 10 years. The revenue requirements will be reassessed in the future and adjusted accordingly, based

-26-

on cost inflation and Stormwater Management Program needs. Other specific details regarding future baseline and enhanced program revenue and expenditures, as well as stormwater rate requirements, will be evaluated under the Financial Forecast Section.

Table 11 Estimated Sustainable Funding Plan Revenue Needs Over 5-Year Period (in Millions)

Category 2019 Existing

2020 (Year 1)

2021 (Year 2)

2022 (Year 3)

2023 (Year 4)

2024 (Year 5)

O&M, Engineering, and Inspections 20.8 26.8 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 Culvert R&R 14.2 17.0 19.7 25.2 25.2 25.2 Pump Station R&R 0.9 2.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Flood Protection 7.0 8.2 10.7 17.0 17.0 17.0 Water Quality and Hazard Mitigation 0.5 0.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Total 43.4 55.1 69.9 81.7 81.7 81.7

Figure 2 Projected 10-Year Sustainable Funding Detail

-27-

2.5. Basin Area ERU Analysis

As part of the Business Plan, an area-based assessment was performed to evaluate the land area, population, and ERUs within the County's major watersheds. As part of the basin analysis, the County was divided into four areas that roughly align with the following watersheds: ● West: Northwest 5 Watershed;

● North: Cypress Creek, Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass Canal, Pemberton Creek and Baker Canal, and East Lake;

● East: Alafia River and Delaney and Archie Creek;

● South: Bullfrog Creek, Wolf Branch, and Little Manatee River

The varying statistics regarding the properties of these aggregated areas have been summarized in the Table 12 on the following page. Furthermore, the ERU Totals based on the proposed rate structure were also spatially distributed into the areas shown on Figure 3.

Figure 3 Potential Capital Fee Basin Areas

-28-

Table 12 County Statistical Breakdown by Basin Area

Basin Area Percent Area Percent Population Percent ERUs

East 31% 26% 27%

North 31% 26% 21%

South 23% 14% 16%

West 15% 34% 36%

Total 100% 100% 100%


-29-

SECTION 3 STORMWATER RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

Based on the Scope of Services, an evaluation of Stormwater Rate Structure Alternatives was conducted to identify the most appropriate rate methodology for the County. Through numerous meetings and discussions with the County, it was determined that impervious area rate method remains the most reasonable basis for the County's Stormwater Fees. Also, a tiered single-family residential rate, rather than a single ERU rate for all single-family homes is considered a more fair and equitable approach and is recommended. Under the tiered rate approach to billing single-family residential properties, these properties are categorized by the size of the residence with larger properties billed a higher rate than smaller properties. Given the wide range of household sizes within the County's stormwater service area, the tiered approach matches the estimated stormwater cost / benefit relationship better than the current one-size-fits-all approach. Condominiums, mobile homes, and apartments were also evaluated. Since non-residential billing characteristics are already based on impervious area measurement for each individual property; no additional impervious area analysis is required for the non-residential properties at this time. 3.1 Single-Family Residential Rate Structure Evaluation

3.1.1 Single-Family Tier Methodology and Equivalent Residential Unit Estimate

Through statistical analysis of the County's single-family residential building footprint dataset, it was determined that natural breaks occurred between building footprints at or below 1,500 square feet (small tier) and building footprint at or above 3,201 square feet (large tier). These natural breaks generally fit a bell curve distribution, as represented in Figure 4, on the next page. The medium tier consists of building footprints between 1,501 and 3,200 square feet and totals 159,632 residential single-family parcels, which makes up approximately seventy-two and four-tenths percent (72.4%) of the total single-family residential properties. The small tier consists of building footprints between 100 and 1,500 square feet and totals approximately thirteen and three-tenths percent (13.3%) percent of the single-family residential households. The large tier contains parcels between 3,201 and 5,700 square feet and totals thirteen and eight-tenths percent (13.8%) of the single-family residential parcels. Additionally, there is a statistically significant population of single-family residential parcels above 5,700 square feet, totaling one-half of one percent (0.5%), or 1,067 parcels. A breakdown of the proposed single-family tier categories is provided in Figure 5.


-30-

Figure 5 Single-Family Residential Tier Analysis Based on Building Footprint

Figure 4 Single-Family Residential Tier Distribution Curve

-31-

Based on a generally accepted approach described by Peter Tryfos in his text Sampling Methods for Applied Research, a proportional stratified random sample is an appropriate method for accurately estimating the single family residential average impervious area to establish the updated ERU basis. This method has been determined to be an appropriate for estimating the ERU value, since a proportional stratified random sampling technique provides a more accurate means of sampling of the entire population of parcels. Sample sizes have been provided to produce impervious area statistical means bound by a 95 percent confidence interval of the entire population of single-family residential parcels. Using this method required the following steps to be performed:

1. Select random sample of parcels was selected from each tier group.

2. Determine the total impervious area of each selected parcel in each stratum.

3. Determine the total impervious area for each stratum by computing the product of the stratum mean and the total parcels in the stratum.

4. Sum the total impervious area for all strata.

Two assumptions that were made to determine the sample stratum sizes include: 1) the variance of the impervious area for the parcels in each stratum has a strong correlation to the variance of the square footage of the main structure in the parcels in each stratum; and 2) the distribution of total impervious area for each stratum is normally distributed.

To analyze the four single-family residential tiers, sample sets were provided for impervious area collection and verification, the sample size uses the "law of large numbers" to generate a statistically significant sample size, combined with the random stratified sampling. This summary is provided in Table 13 below.

Table 13 Single-Family Residential Tiered Stratified Sampling for Impervious Area Estimate

Building Footprint Range Tier Fiscal Year 2018

Parcel Count Sample Size

100-1,500 Small 34,634 24 1,501-3,200 Medium 162,488 85 3,201-5,700 Large 29,495 118

>5,700 Very Large 828 828 Total 227,445 1,055

3.1.2 Single-Family Residential Impervious Area Collection Procedure

Impervious areas for each tier were developed using a combination of manual Heads Up digitizing and area extraction of building footprints in GIS format provided by Hillsborough County. The

-32-

2016 Hillsborough County imagery was used in most cases. ESRI base map imagery was used for structures built after 2016.

The parcel map was not spatially correct in many areas. In some cases, the parcel lines did not match the aerial by as much as fifty feet (50 ft.). The impervious areas in these regions were digitized to the apparent property line based on observation of the aerial.

Hillsborough County building footprint polygons were utilized for building impervious area estimates. Each building polygon was compared to the aerial to verify spatial continuity. Buildings were manually digitized when they did not match the aerial. In low visibility areas due to overhead foliage, Google Street view was employed to better visualize obstructed impervious areas. These areas were approximated using this information together with visible elements.

3.1.3 Single-Family Residential Results

As a result of the impervious area delineation for the 1,055 proportionally stratified random samples, an average impervious area of 4,267 square feet was estimated for the residential single-family class of service as a whole. Applying this value to the results of the tier analysis of impervious area resulted in the ERU values included below in Table 14. The small residential tier has an assigned ERU of 0.55, the medium tier equals 1.00 ERUs, and the large tier category is assigned an ERU of 1.53. The very large tier parcels are to be assigned an ERU based on their actual measured impervious area, similar to non-residential parcels.

Table 14 Single-Family Residential Tiered Equivalent Residential Unit Values

Building Footprint Range Tier Parcel Count Assigned ERU

100-1,500 Small 32,697 0.55 1,501-3,200 Medium 153,402 1.00 3,201-5,700 Large 27,845 1.53

>5,700 Very Large 781 Actual The average single-family residential value of 4,267 square feet is the proposed basis for ERU measurements for the conversion rate of all other categories, such as multi-family, mobile homes, and non-residential. 3.1.4 Condominium Rate

Based on an August 16, 2018 meeting with the Project Team and County staff, it was requested that a similar impervious area analysis be performed on the condominiums as was performed on the single-family residential parcels. The County currently assesses residential condominiums at a rate of 0.5 equivalent residential units (ERUs).

From Hillsborough County's current tax roll, the Project Team extracted all residential condominium complexes (434 condominiums) in Hillsborough County in an Excel spreadsheet by

-33-

condo name, condo group code, condo code, example folio, example property identification number (PIN), and count.

The Project Team determined that the condominiums should be sorted and "grouped" by condo group code to create discrete condominium complexes. Through this sort and grouping, Applied Sciences created 202 unique condominium complexes ranging containing 2 to 43,186 units. The Project Team divided the list of condominium complexes into a "large" and "small" category and sampled 30 condominium complexes from each list for a total of 60 condominium complexes.

The median value of 82 units was the dividing criteria between the two sampling categories. Therefore, the "small" category was defined as condominium complexes with 2 to 82 units. The "large" category was defined as condominium complexes with 82 to 43,186 units. Each list was numerically stratified based on number of units and randomly sampled similar to the single-family residential analysis.

Once the Project Team randomly selected 60 condominium complexes, these properties were analyzed for impervious area similar to the single-family residential impervious analysis. During the random sampling process, we encountered certain developments with commercial developments and manufactured homes – in these instances, the nearest condominium complex in the stratified list was selected for analysis.

3.1.5 Condominium Results

Table 15 provides several statistics for the "small" and "large" categories based on the results of the sampled data. Statistics based on the combined data set (small and large categories combined) were also included in Table 15. In general, we found the standard deviation to be relatively large around the respective sample set averages.

Table 15 Statistical Analysis of Condominium Complex Sample Sets

Sampling Statistic Small Category Large Category Combined

Count (Condominium Complexes) 30 30 60 Average Impervious (square feet, sf) 96,154 341,058 218,606 Average Units (per condo complex) 35 200 118 Average Impervious/Units (sf /Units) 2,566 1,495 2,289 Standard Deviation (sf/Units) 1,513 742 1,315 Standard Deviation as a Percent of

Average Impervious/Units 59% 50% 57%

The combined average of 2,289 square feet per, unit as compared to the recommended ERU basis of 4,267 square feet, supports the County's current billing rate of 0.5 ERU on an overall customer class basis. However, the standard deviation demonstrates that the ERU values for each parcel vary within this service classification. To demonstrate this, the results of the small and large categories were plotted to try and derive any correlation in the data. As shown in Figure 6, no discernable correlation is recognized.

-34-

3.1.6 Apartments Rate Structure Assessment

Based on the September 21, 2018 meeting with the County, it was requested that a similar exercise as the Condominium assessment be performed on the Apartment parcel classes. There are 314 Apartments classified as multi-family residential (MFR) Class A through E. 180 are defined as MFR A through C, and 134 are Classified MFR D and E.

As previously performed, a stratified random sample of 30 parcels were selected for each category, and the impervious areas were estimated.

3.1.7 Apartment Results

Table 16 provides several statistics for the two categories based on the results of the sampled data. We also provided statistics in Table 1 of the combined data set (small and large categories combined). In general, we found the standard deviation to be relatively large around the respective sample set averages.

Both separated and combined, the measured average square footage suggests, on the basis of 4,267 square feet, an ERU of 0.33 for apartments. The standard deviation of MFR A-C is only twenty

Figure 6 Scatter Plot of Sampled Condominium Parcels ERU and Measured Impervious Area

-35-

percent (20%) of the average, and the Scatter Plot on Figure 7 supports a relative correlation. Category MFR D-E has a higher standard deviation, and a less noticeable correlation.

Table 16 Statistical Analysis of Apartment Complex Sample Sets

Sampling Statistic MFR A-C MFR D-E Combined

Count (Apartment Complexes) 30 30 60 Average Impervious (square feet, sf) 469,491 47,982 218,606 Average Units (per Apartment) 334 36 118 Average Impervious/Units (sf /Units) 1,354 1,427 1,390 Standard Deviation (sf/Units) 289 631 488 Standard Deviation as a Percent of Average Impervious/Units 21% 44% 35%

Figure 7 Scatter Plot of Sampled Apartment Parcels ERU and Measured Impervious Area

-36-

3.2 Rate Structure Analysis

Based on the County's Fiscal Year 2018 Stormwater Assessment billing statistics, the Project Team has developed an evaluation of rate structure alternatives, including updating the ERU definition from 1,800 sq. feet to 4,267 sq. feet and implementing a four-tiered residential rate structure as discussed previously in this report. Below is a summary of the County's Fiscal Year 2018 Stormwater Assessment billing statistics and revenues assuming a rate of $42 per ERU:

Table 17 Rate Structure Analysis –

Based on Fiscal Year 2018 Assessment Rate Billing Statistics

Current Method

Customer Classification Parcels ERUs

Single-Family Residential 214,727 214,727

Multi-Family/Mobile Home Residential 61,550 80,484

Agriculture 3,671 3,671

General /Non-Residential 12,417 258,270

Total 292,365 557,152

In the rate alternatives that are evaluated herein, based on discussions with County staff, we have assumed that the County will continue to bill all multi-family and mobile home customers based on 0.5 ERUs per unit and the agricultural customers based on 1.0 ERU per unit; therefore, the analysis shown in the rate alternative summarized below demonstrates the rate impact of changing the ERU standard from 1,800 sq. ft to 4,267 sq. ft. and implementing a TIERed single-family residential rate based on the size of the home.


-37-

The following tables recap the Fiscal Year 2018 billing statistics and revenue based on the alternative rate method.

Table 18 Rate Structure Analysis Alternative Rate Method [1]

Customer Classification Parcels ERUs [2]

Single-Family Residential 214,727 216,331

Multi-Family Residential 61,550 80,484

Agriculture 3,671 3,671

General /Non-Residential 12,417 108,949

Total 292,365 409,435 __________ [1] Based on Fiscal Year 2018 Billing Statistics [2] Based on an ERU equal to 4,267 sq. ft. and TIERed residential rates.

3.3 Proposed Stormwater Fee

The proposed stormwater fees are based on alternative rate methods including the revised ERU definition and the TIERed single-family residential rate are based upon a three- (3) year phase-in of the Sustainability Funding Plan discussed in Section 2 and summarized below in Table 19 by major stormwater function:

Table 19 Stormwater Management Program Funding Levels

Funding Levels ($ Million)

Expenditure Category Expense Funding Level

Incremental Funding

Proposed Fiscal Year 2022

Funding Level

Operations and Maintenance $20.8 $11.9 $32.7 Asset Preservation 15.1 13.7 28.8 Flood Protection, Water Quality, and

Hazard Mitigation 7.5 12.7 20.2 Total Funding Requirements $43.4 $38.3 $81.7


-38-

The targeted or maximum stormwater fee per ERU based on the alternative rate method and the Fiscal Year 2020 assessment statistics is calculated as follows:

Total Stormwater Program Costs $81.7 Million Revised Rate Method Fiscal Year 2020 (ERUs) 448,614 Stormwater Cost per ERU Adjusted for Early

Payment Discount and Tax Collector Fees $192.23 Based on implementation of the County's Stormwater Program Implementation Plan, the targeted or maximum fee per ERU is proposed to be phased-in over three years as follows:

Table 20 Proposed Stormwater Fees

Fiscal Year Proposed Stormwater

Fee per ERU

2019 (Current Fee) [1] $42.00 2020 [2] $92.41 2021 [2] $148.82 2022 [2] $193.23 __________ [1] Based on existing rate method. Reflects the stormwater fee for a

single-family residential home. [2] Based on revised rate method. The stormwater fee per ERU is equal

to the rate for a medium-sized single-family residential home.

3.4 Comparison of Stormwater Rates by Customer Classification

Figure 8 shows a comparison of the County's annual stormwater fees per ERU and per square foot for non-residential customers with those of other communities. 3.5 Stormwater Mitigation Credits

The County significantly increments Stormwater Fees and Stormwater Mitigation Credit Review may be helpful in gaining customer acceptance. Appendix D includes a discussion of Stormwater Mitigation Credits.


$42 $47 $53 $58 $60 $72 $82 $91 $91 $95

$118 $120 $125 $139 $143

$160 $160 $163 $163 $165

$175 $187

$230

$280

$-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Figure 8Comparison of Annual Residential Assessment - Medium Size Home

Proposed: $193.23

1) Currently Effective Rates as of 10/1/2018;2) Rates may not reflect Full Cost Recovery

-39-

-40-

SECTION 4 FINANCIAL FORECAST TO SUPPORT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A major component of the Stormwater Management Program's utility rate study and strategic plan is the development of a financial forecast to support the Stormwater Management Program's goals and objectives. The financial forecast task includes development of a five-year financial forecast based on the projected operations and maintenance levels currently provided by the County and the adopted "baseline" capital improvements plan. The funding needs associated with the enhanced operations and maintenance and capital costs associated with the sustainable stormwater plan are also included in the five-year financial forecast to estimate the total revenue requirements associated with the Stormwater Management Program Sustainability Plan. 4.1 Five-Year Financial Forecast

The County's Stormwater Management Program is currently funded from a non-ad valorem special assessment and from general fund tax revenues and other non-recurring minor sources used to fund certain functions that provide stormwater services. In preparing the five-year financial forecast, a major objective is to identify the total Stormwater Management Program revenue requirements to estimate the Stormwater Fee levels that would be required to fully fund the Stormwater Management Program costs on a sustainable basis, whereby the rates for service fully fund the operation, maintenance, repair, facilities construction, renewal and replacement of stormwater assets, and administration of the Stormwater System. The various expenditures associated with operating and maintaining a stormwater utility system, as well as the cost of financing capital improvements, are generally referred to as the utility revenue requirements. The sum of these cost components represents the rate revenue requirements. The revenue requirements for this financial forecast are predicated on an analysis of the "Forecast Period" stormwater costs for the five fiscal year period ending September 30, 2024. The projected revenue requirements included the various general cost components described below: ● Operating Expenses: These expenses include the cost of labor, materials, supplies, utilities,

and other items necessary for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system.

● Debt Service: Debt service includes the principal and interest on current and future obligations payable from the net operating revenues of the stormwater system. The County does not have any currently outstanding debt and does not anticipate issuing any debt during the Forecast Period.

● Other Revenue Requirements: This component of cost includes, in general, any ongoing capital improvements (capital outlay) to be funded from revenues for ongoing stormwater system renewals and replacements.


-41-

In conjunction with County staff, the Project Team has developed an estimate of stormwater water operations and maintenance costs based on an allocation of the adopted Fiscal Year 2019 budget for the following Public Works funds: ● Fund 10300 – Transportation Trust Fund

● Fund 00004 – Countywide General Fund

● Fund 00051 – Unincorporated General Fund

● Fund 10219 – Stormwater Utility Assessment Fund

The estimated cost of the Stormwater Management Program was generally based on the allocated number of full-time employees (FTEs) and related operating expenses involved in stormwater operations and maintenance activities. A summary of the estimated stormwater operating and maintenance costs based on an allocation of the Fiscal Year 2019 Public Works operating budget was developed in conjunction with the County staff as summarized below and shown in detail on Table 21. 4.2 Assumptions and Considerations

The projected revenue requirements for the Forecast Period are shown in Table 25 for the Stormwater System. The projected revenue requirements include the baseline operating and capital costs and the additional costs associated with the enhanced operations and maintenance activities and sustainable capital funding plan. The projected baseline revenue requirements associated with current operations reflect certain assumptions, considerations and analyses as follows: 1. As shown in Table 21, the proposed Fiscal Year 2019 operating budget associated with

Stormwater System activities serves as the basis for the operating expenditure projections for the Forecast Period shown on Table 22. The Fiscal Year 2019 Public Works budget was allocated between the Public Works and stormwater functions by County staff based on an analysis of staff activity levels. Unless otherwise noted, the underlying assumptions and expenditure amounts included therein are assumed to be reasonable and reflect projected stormwater operating and maintenance costs.

2. The baseline operations and maintenance expenses associated with current operations of the Stormwater System for Fiscal Year 2019 are projected for the remaining five (5) years of the Forecast Period (i.e., Fiscal Year 2020 through Fiscal Year 2024) as illustrated in Table 22. The following summarizes the general cost escalation factors used to project future expenses:

a. Labor-Related Increases = 3.0% Annually

b. Health Insurance = 10.0% Annually

c. Property and General Liability Insurance = 5.0% Annually

d. Fuel Costs = 5.0% Annually

-42-

e. Utilities Costs = 3.25% Annually

f. Repairs and Maintenance Expenses = 4.0% Annually

g. Professional Services = 3.0% Annually

h. All Other Costs Based on Projected Inflation of 2.5% per Year on Average

3. The projected operations and maintenance expenses also in the cost of increasing maintenance activities to enhance the level of stormwater service provides as identified in Section 2. In order to phase-in implementation of the Stormwater Program Sustainability Plan, the projections assume additional expenditures of $5.9 million in Fiscal Year 2020 increasing to approximately $11.9 in Fiscal Year 2021. Beyond Fiscal Year 2021, the projections assumed a three percent (3%) annual increase in the cost of operating and maintenance enhancements.

4. The capital expenditures for Stormwater System are based on estimated project costs included in the County's "baseline" Capital Improvement Program ("CIP"). Table 23 provides a detailed listing of the planned stormwater capital projects for the five-year Forecast Period. In general, the major expenditures in the CIP include the following type of projects:

a. Canal Dredging

b. Culvert Renewal and Replacement Program

c. Neighborhood Drainage Improvements

d. Stormwater Pumping Station Renewals and Replacements

e. Water Quality Improvements

f. Watershed Drainage Improvements

g. Watershed Master Plan Updates

5. The projected ERUs and revenues under the proposed stormwater rates by customer classification are set forth on Table 24. The projected ERUs are based on an average growth over the forecast period of approximately 1.7% annually. This growth rate is consistent with growth rates assumed in recent water utility system projections. The projected revenues on Table 24 show revenues that are anticipated based on the phase-in of the proposed maximum annual assessment over a three-year period.


-43-

As shown on Table 25, which summarizes the Stormwater Management Program cashflow, after adjusting for early payment discounts and tax collector fee, the amount of stormwater revenue received indicates that General Fund contribution to the Stormwater Management Program costs decline from an estimate of $17.4 million to approximately 1.6 million in Fiscal Year 2022. This decline reflects the phase-in of stormwater rate increases from Fiscal Year 2020 through Fiscal Year 2022. The cashflow projections are also shown on Table 25 and are also subject to assumptions regarding system growth and operating cost inflation. A summary of the five- (5) year projections showing the projected deficiency (i.e., required General Fund contributions) is summarized in Figure 9 below:

Figure 9 Projected Stormwater Rate Sufficiency

Fiscal Year Stormwater Rate Revenue Received

($ Millions)

Stormwater System Revenue

Requirements Surplus/Deficiency

2020 $39.0 $56.4 $17.4 2021 61.3 71.6 10.3 2022 84.0 85.6 1.6 2023 85.1 86.9 1.7 2024 86.3 88.2 1.9


of 4Table 21

Hillsborough CountyStormwater Rate Study

Summary of FY2019 Budgeted Stormwater Operating Expenses

Line 2019No Description Budgeted

Stormwater Expenses

Fund 10300Personnel Services

1 Regular salaries and wages 4,646,207$ 2 Additonal Personnel - 3 Cafeteria Plan Benefits 279,143 4 Deferred Compensation 39,855 5 Budgeted Temporaries (M&B Use Only) 16,366 6 Overtime Pay 30,881 7 Other Special Pay 94 8 Monthly Auto Allowance 1,254 9 FICA/Medicare Taxes 379,384 10 Florida Retirement System 401,241 11 Health Insurance 1,260,744 12 Short and Long Term Disability 59,890 13 Employee Life Insurance 4,964 14 Workers' Comp Assessments 268,491 15 OPEB Expense 26,302 16 Attrition Savings Adj (210,049)

17 Total Personnel Services 7,204,766

Operating Expenses18 Engineering Services 159,225$ 19 Information Technology Services 18,380 20 Other Professional Services 156,329 21 Outside Purchase Roadside Services 1,225 22 Other Contractual Services 2,537,484 23 Vicinity Mileage 705 24 Other Travel Expenses 3,371 25 Fleet Fuel & Oil (Fleet Mgmt Charges) 364,411 26 Fleet Vehicle Rental 970,132 27 Telecommunications Services 66,883 28 Cell Phones Equipment/Service 3,790 29 Other Communications Costs 459 30 Postage & Freight Services-General 1,298 31 Other Freight/Transportation Costs 490 32 Electricity 59,937 33 Utility Services 691,933 34 Rental Of Uniforms 613 35 Rentals & Leases -Other 27,798 36 Automobile Liability Insurance Assessments 42,440 37 General Liab Insurance Assessments 15,298 38 Automobile Liability Insurance Adjustment 26,305 39 Maintenance - Building/Facility 14,459 40 Maintenance - Equipment 17,761 41 Maintenance - Computer Equipment 1,021 42 Maintenance - Grounds & Landscaping 761,359 43 Fleet Management Services 571,036 44 Other Repair & Maintenance Services 82 45 Printing And Binding 5,963 46 Public Awareness Programs 2,532 47 Awards Programs 878 48 Legal Advertising 2,246 49 Professional Licenses & Certifications 1,290 50 Indirect Administrative Costs 2,021,699 51 Other Miscellaneous Expenses 2,048 52 Office Supplies & Minor Office Equipment 25,771

-44-

of 4Table 21




53 Computer Software/Hardware Upgrades 8,565 54 General oper supplies & minor equipment 133,762 55 Uniforms & Safety Apparel 27,953 56 Chemicals & Medical Supplies 4,084 57 Road Materials & Supplies 220,534 58 Road Materials & Supplies - Other 27,081 59 Memberships & Dues 3,468 60 Books & Subscriptions 5,373 61 Training/Educational Costs-General 10,619 62 Training - Locally 2,042

63 Total Operating Expenses 9,020,134

64 Total Fund 10300 16,224,899


65 Regular salaries and wages 43,489$ 66 Additional Personel - 67 Cafeteria Plan Benefits 2,159 68 Deferred Compensation 435 69 FICA/Medicare Taxes 3,531 70 Florida Retirement System 3,444 71 Health Insurance 10,463 72 Short and Long Term Disability 590 73 Employee Life Insurance 98 74 Workers' Comp Assessments 482 75 OPEB Expense 187 76 Attrition Savings Adj (13,220)

77 Total Personnel Services 51,658

Operating Expenses78 General Liab Insurance Assessments 1,080$ 79 Placeholder - 80 Placeholder - 81 Placeholder - 82 Placeholder -

83 Total Operating Expenses 1,080$

84 Total Fund 00004 52,738


85 Regular salaries and wages 874,873$ 86 Additonal Personnel - 87 Cafeteria Plan Benefits 58,968 88 Deferred Compensation 7,751 89 Overtime Pay 122,499 90 FICA/Medicare Taxes 72,032 91 Florida Retirement System 71,573 92 Health Insurance 285,106 93 Short and Long Term Disability 11,502 94 Employee Life Insurance 832 95 Workers' Comp Assessments 49,686 96 OPEB Expense 5,616 97 Attrition Savings Adj (72,818)

98 Total Personnel Services 1,487,620

-45-

of 4Table 21




Operating Expenses99 Other Professional Services 159,427$

100 Other Contractual Services 170,574 101 Fleet Fuel & Oil (Fleet Mgmt Charges) 42,511 102 Fleet Vehicle Rental 222,166 103 Cell Phones Equipment/Service 1,691 104 Utility Services 19,196 105 Rental Of Uniforms 919 106 Rentals & Leases -Other 7,903 107 Commercial Insurance Premiums 662 108 Automobile Liability Insurance Assessments 2,598 109 General Liab Insurance Assessments 2,841 110 Automobile Liability Insurance Adjustment 1,610 111 General Liability Insurance Dept. Adjustment 53,042 112 Maintenance - Equipment 310,411 113 Maintenance - Grounds & Landscaping 318,580 114 Fleet Management Services 152,029 115 Awards Programs 204 116 Professional Licenses & Certifications 234 117 Other Miscellaneous Expenses 265 118 Office Supplies & Minor Office Equipment 204 119 General oper supplies & minor equipment 26,816 120 Uniforms & Safety Apparel 12,760 121 Chemicals & Medical Supplies 4,084 122 Road Materials & Supplies 85,291 123 Training - Locally 3,063


125 Total Fund 00051 3,086,701


126 Regular salaries and wages 242,905$ 127 Additonal Personnel - 128 Cafeteria Plan Benefits 10,935 129 Deferred Compensation 2,999 130 FICA/Medicare Taxes 19,672 131 Florida Retirement System 19,238 132 Health Insurance 67,068 133 Short and Long Term Disability 3,299 134 Employee Life Insurance 450 135 Workers' Comp Assessments 2,710 136 OPEB Expense 960 137 Attrition Savings Adj -

138 Total Personnel Services 370,236

Operating Expenses139 Other Professional Services 100,000$ 140 Other Contractual Services 698,324 141 Other Travel Expenses 2,025 142 Fleet Fuel & Oil (Fleet Mgmt Charges) 10,191 143 Fleet Vehicle Rental 7,304 144 Telecommunications Services 380 145 Cell Phones Equipment/Service 1,080

-46-

of 4Table 21




146 Other Communications Costs 300 147 Postage & Freight Services-General 8,657 148 Utility Services 350 149 Rentals & Leases -Other 5,000 150 Commercial Insurance Premiums 37 151 Automobile Liability Insurance Assessments 420 152 General Liab Insurance Assessments 699 153 Automobile Liability Insurance Adjustment 260 154 Maintenance - Equipment 1,600 155 Maintenance - Grounds & Landscaping 15,000 156 Fleet Management Services 5,000 157 Printing And Binding 18,459 158 Public Awareness Programs 3,300 159 Indirect Administrative Costs 114,764 160 Other Miscellaneous Expenses 25,213 161 Office Supplies & Minor Office Equipment 964 162 General oper supplies & minor equipment 12,350 163 Uniforms & Safety Apparel 1,000 164 Chemicals & Medical Supplies 7,500 165 Memberships & Dues 1,000 166 Books & Subscriptions 600 167 Training/Educational Costs-General 3,643


169 Total Fund 10219 1,415,656

170 TOTAL: 20,779,994$

-47-

of 5Table 22


Summary of Budgeted and Projected Baseline Operating Expenses

Line 2019 Fiscal Year Ending September 30,No Description Escalator Budgeted Adjustments 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024


1 Regular salaries and wages Labor 4,646,207$ -$ 4,646,207$ 4,785,593$ 4,929,160$ 5,077,035$ 5,229,346$ 5,386,227$ 2 Additonal Personnel Calculated - - - - - - - - 3 Cafeteria Plan Benefits Inflation 279,143 - 279,143 285,842 292,988 300,313 307,820 315,516 4 Deferred Compensation Labor 39,855 - 39,855 41,051 42,282 43,551 44,857 46,203 5 Budgeted Temporaries (M&B Use Only) Labor 16,366 - 16,366 16,857 17,363 17,884 18,420 18,973 6 Overtime Pay Labor 30,881 - 30,881 31,808 32,762 33,745 34,757 35,800 7 Other Special Pay Labor 94 - 94 96 99 102 105 109 8 Monthly Auto Allowance Labor 1,254 - 1,254 1,292 1,331 1,371 1,412 1,454 9 FICA/Medicare Taxes Insurance 379,384 - 379,384 417,323 459,055 504,960 555,456 611,002 10 Florida Retirement System Labor 401,241 - 401,241 413,279 425,677 438,447 451,601 465,149 11 Health Insurance Insurance 1,260,744 - 1,260,744 1,386,818 1,525,500 1,678,050 1,845,855 2,030,441 12 Short and Long Term Disability Insurance 59,890 - 59,890 65,879 72,466 79,713 87,684 96,453 13 Employee Life Insurance Insurance 4,964 - 4,964 5,460 6,006 6,606 7,267 7,994 14 Workers' Comp Assessments Labor 268,491 - 268,491 276,546 284,842 293,387 302,189 311,254 15 OPEB Expense Labor 26,302 - 26,302 27,091 27,903 28,740 29,603 30,491 16 Attrition Savings Adj Eliminate (210,049) - (210,049) - - - - -

17 Total Personnel Services 7,204,766 - 7,204,766 7,754,933 8,117,435 8,503,905 8,916,374 9,357,064

Operating Expenses18 Engineering Services Inflation 159,225$ -$ 159,225$ 163,046$ 167,122$ 171,301$ 175,583$ 179,973$ 19 Information Technology Services Inflation 18,380 - 18,380 18,821 19,291 19,774 20,268 20,775 20 Other Professional Services ProfSvc 156,329 - 156,329 161,019 165,849 170,825 175,949 181,228 21 Outside Purchase Roadside Services ProfSvc 1,225 - 1,225 1,262 1,300 1,339 1,379 1,420 22 Other Contractual Services ProfSvc 2,537,484 - 2,537,484 2,613,609 2,692,017 2,772,778 2,855,961 2,941,640 23 Vicinity Mileage Inflation 705 - 705 721 739 758 777 796 24 Other Travel Expenses Inflation 3,371 - 3,371 3,452 3,538 3,627 3,718 3,811 25 Fleet Fuel & Oil (Fleet Mgmt Charges) Oil 364,411 - 364,411 382,632 401,764 421,852 442,944 465,092 26 Fleet Vehicle Rental Inflation 970,132 - 970,132 993,415 1,018,250 1,043,707 1,069,799 1,096,544 27 Telecommunications Services Inflation 66,883 - 66,883 68,489 70,201 71,956 73,755 75,599 28 Cell Phones Equipment/Service Inflation 3,790 - 3,790 3,881 3,978 4,078 4,180 4,284 29 Other Communications Costs Inflation 459 - 459 470 481 493 506 518 30 Postage & Freight Services-General Customers 1,298 - 1,298 1,354 1,411 1,465 1,522 1,580 31 Other Freight/Transportation Costs Inflation 490 - 490 502 514 527 540 554 32 Electricity Electric 59,937 - 59,937 61,735 63,587 65,495 67,460 69,484 33 Utility Services Inflation 691,933 - 691,933 708,539 726,253 744,409 763,019 782,095 34 Rental Of Uniforms Inflation 613 - 613 627 643 659 676 692 35 Rentals & Leases -Other Inflation 27,798 - 27,798 28,465 29,177 29,906 30,654 31,420 36 Automobile Liability Insurance Assessments Insurance 42,440 - 42,440 46,684 51,352 56,487 62,136 68,350 37 General Liab Insurance Assessments Insurance 15,298 - 15,298 16,828 18,511 20,362 22,398 24,638 38 Automobile Liability Insurance Adjustment Insurance 26,305 - 26,305 28,936 31,829 35,012 38,514 42,365 39 Maintenance - Building/Facility Repair 14,459 - 14,459 15,037 15,638 16,264 16,915 17,591 40 Maintenance - Equipment Repair 17,761 - 17,761 18,471 19,210 19,979 20,778 21,609 41 Maintenance - Computer Equipment Repair 1,021 - 1,021 1,062 1,104 1,149 1,195 1,242 42 Maintenance - Grounds & Landscaping Repair 761,359 - 761,359 791,814 823,486 856,426 890,683 926,310 43 Fleet Management Services Repair 571,036 - 571,036 593,878 617,633 642,338 668,031 694,753 44 Other Repair & Maintenance Services Repair 82 - 82 85 88 92 96 99 45 Printing And Binding Inflation 5,963 - 5,963 6,106 6,259 6,415 6,576 6,740 46 Public Awareness Programs Inflation 2,532 - 2,532 2,593 2,658 2,724 2,792 2,862 47 Awards Programs Inflation 878 - 878 899 922 945 968 993 48 Legal Advertising Inflation 2,246 - 2,246 2,300 2,358 2,417 2,477 2,539 49 Professional Licenses & Certifications Inflation 1,290 - 1,290 1,321 1,354 1,388 1,423 1,458 50 Indirect Administrative Costs Inflation 2,021,699 - 2,021,699 2,070,219 2,121,975 2,175,024 2,229,400 2,285,135 51 Other Miscellaneous Expenses Inflation 2,048 - 2,048 2,097 2,150 2,204 2,259 2,315 52 Office Supplies & Minor Office Equipment Inflation 25,771 - 25,771 26,390 27,049 27,726 28,419 29,129

-48-

of 5Table 22




53 Computer Software/Hardware Upgrades Inflation 8,565 - 8,565 8,771 8,990 9,215 9,445 9,681 54 General oper supplies & minor equipment Inflation 133,762 - 133,762 136,972 140,396 143,906 147,504 151,192 55 Uniforms & Safety Apparel Inflation 27,953 - 27,953 28,624 29,339 30,073 30,825 31,595 56 Chemicals & Medical Supplies Inflation 4,084 - 4,084 4,182 4,287 4,394 4,504 4,617 57 Road Materials & Supplies Inflation 220,534 - 220,534 225,827 231,473 237,260 243,191 249,271 58 Road Materials & Supplies - Other Inflation 27,081 - 27,081 27,731 28,424 29,135 29,863 30,610 59 Memberships & Dues Inflation 3,468 - 3,468 3,551 3,640 3,731 3,824 3,920 60 Books & Subscriptions Inflation 5,373 - 5,373 5,502 5,639 5,780 5,925 6,073 61 Training/Educational Costs-General Inflation 10,619 - 10,619 10,874 11,146 11,425 11,710 12,003 62 Training - Locally Inflation 2,042 - 2,042 2,091 2,143 2,197 2,252 2,308

63 Total Operating Expenses 9,020,134 - 9,020,134 9,290,886 9,575,173 9,869,014 10,172,791 10,486,902

64 Total Fund 10300 16,224,899 - 16,224,899 17,045,819 17,692,608 18,372,919 19,089,165 19,843,967


65 Regular salaries and wages Labor 43,489$ -$ 43,489$ 44,794$ 46,138$ 47,522$ 48,948$ 50,416$ 66 Additional Personel Calculated - - - - - - - - 67 Cafeteria Plan Benefits Inflation 2,159 - 2,159 2,211 2,266 2,323 2,381 2,440 68 Deferred Compensation Labor 435 - 435 448 461 475 489 504 69 FICA/Medicare Taxes Labor 3,531 - 3,531 3,637 3,746 3,858 3,974 4,093 70 Florida Retirement System Labor 3,444 - 3,444 3,547 3,654 3,763 3,876 3,993 71 Health Insurance Insurance 10,463 - 10,463 11,509 12,660 13,926 15,319 16,851 72 Short and Long Term Disability Insurance 590 - 590 650 714 786 864 951 73 Employee Life Insurance Insurance 98 - 98 107 118 130 143 157 74 Workers' Comp Assessments Labor 482 - 482 497 511 527 543 559 75 OPEB Expense Labor 187 - 187 193 199 205 211 217 76 Attrition Savings Adj Eliminate (13,220) - (13,220) - - - - -

77 Total Personnel Services 51,658 - 51,658 67,592 70,467 73,515 76,747 80,181

Operating Expenses78 General Liab Insurance Assessments Insurance 1,080$ -$ 1,080$ 1,188$ 1,307$ 1,437$ 1,581$ 1,739$ 79 Placeholder Inflation - - - - - - - - 80 Placeholder Inflation - - - - - - - - 81 Placeholder Inflation - - - - - - - - 82 Placeholder Inflation - - - - - - - -

83 Total Operating Expenses 1,080$ -$ 1,080$ 1,188$ 1,307$ 1,437$ 1,581$ 1,739$

84 Total Fund 00004 52,738 - 52,738 68,780 71,774 74,952 78,328 81,920


85 Regular salaries and wages Labor 874,873$ -$ 874,873$ 901,119$ 928,153$ 955,997$ 984,677$ 1,014,218$ 86 Additonal Personnel Calculated - - - - - - - - 87 Cafeteria Plan Benefits Inflation 58,968 - 58,968 60,383 61,893 63,440 65,026 66,652 88 Deferred Compensation Labor 7,751 - 7,751 7,984 8,223 8,470 8,724 8,986 89 Overtime Pay Labor 122,499 - 122,499 126,174 129,959 133,858 137,874 142,010 90 FICA/Medicare Taxes Labor 72,032 - 72,032 74,193 76,419 78,712 81,073 83,505 91 Florida Retirement System Labor 71,573 - 71,573 73,720 75,932 78,210 80,556 82,972 92 Health Insurance Insurance 285,106 - 285,106 313,617 344,979 379,477 417,424 459,167 93 Short and Long Term Disability Insurance 11,502 - 11,502 12,652 13,917 15,309 16,840 18,524 94 Employee Life Insurance Insurance 832 - 832 915 1,007 1,107 1,218 1,340 95 Workers' Comp Assessments Labor 49,686 - 49,686 51,176 52,711 54,293 55,922 57,599 96 OPEB Expense Labor 5,616 - 5,616 5,784 5,958 6,137 6,321 6,510 97 Attrition Savings Adj Eliminate (72,818) - (72,818) - - - - -

98 Total Personnel Services 1,487,620 - 1,487,620 1,627,718 1,699,151 1,775,009 1,855,654 1,941,483

-49-

of 5Table 22




Operating Expenses99 Other Professional Services ProfSvc 159,427$ -$ 159,427$ 164,209$ 169,136$ 174,210$ 179,436$ 184,819$

100 Other Contractual Services ProfSvc 170,574 - 170,574 175,691 180,962 186,391 191,983 197,742 101 Fleet Fuel & Oil (Fleet Mgmt Charges) Oil 42,511 - 42,511 44,637 46,869 49,212 51,673 54,256 102 Fleet Vehicle Rental Inflation 222,166 - 222,166 227,498 233,185 239,015 244,990 251,115 103 Cell Phones Equipment/Service Inflation 1,691 - 1,691 1,732 1,775 1,819 1,865 1,911 104 Utility Services Inflation 19,196 - 19,196 19,657 20,149 20,652 21,169 21,698 105 Rental Of Uniforms Inflation 919 - 919 941 965 989 1,013 1,039 106 Rentals & Leases -Other Inflation 7,903 - 7,903 8,092 8,295 8,502 8,715 8,933 107 Commercial Insurance Premiums Insurance 662 - 662 728 801 881 969 1,066 108 Automobile Liability Insurance Assessments Insurance 2,598 - 2,598 2,857 3,143 3,457 3,803 4,184 109 General Liab Insurance Assessments Insurance 2,841 - 2,841 3,125 3,437 3,781 4,159 4,575 110 Automobile Liability Insurance Adjustment Insurance 1,610 - 1,610 1,771 1,948 2,143 2,357 2,593 111 General Liability Insurance Dept. Adjustment Insurance 53,042 - 53,042 58,347 64,181 70,599 77,659 85,425 112 Maintenance - Equipment Repair 310,411 - 310,411 322,827 335,741 349,170 363,137 377,662 113 Maintenance - Grounds & Landscaping Repair 318,580 - 318,580 331,323 344,576 358,359 372,693 387,601 114 Fleet Management Services Inflation 152,029 - 152,029 155,678 159,570 163,559 167,648 171,840 115 Awards Programs Inflation 204 - 204 209 214 220 225 231 116 Professional Licenses & Certifications Inflation 234 - 234 240 246 252 258 265 117 Other Miscellaneous Expenses Inflation 265 - 265 272 279 286 293 300 118 Office Supplies & Minor Office Equipment Inflation 204 - 204 209 214 220 225 231 119 General oper supplies & minor equipment Inflation 26,816 - 26,816 27,459 28,146 28,850 29,571 30,310 120 Uniforms & Safety Apparel Inflation 12,760 - 12,760 13,066 13,392 13,727 14,070 14,422 121 Chemicals & Medical Supplies Inflation 4,084 - 4,084 4,182 4,287 4,394 4,504 4,617 122 Road Materials & Supplies Inflation 85,291 - 85,291 87,338 89,521 91,759 94,053 96,404 123 Training - Locally Inflation 3,063 - 3,063 3,137 3,215 3,296 3,378 3,462


125 Total Fund 00051 3,086,701 - 3,086,701 3,282,944 3,413,397 3,550,751 3,695,501 3,848,183


126 Regular salaries and wages Labor 242,905$ -$ 242,905$ 250,192$ 257,698$ 265,429$ 273,392$ 281,593$ 127 Additonal Personnel Calculated - - - - - - - - 128 Cafeteria Plan Benefits Inflation 10,935 - 10,935 11,197 11,477 11,764 12,058 12,360 129 Deferred Compensation Labor 2,999 - 2,999 3,089 3,182 3,277 3,375 3,477 130 FICA/Medicare Taxes Labor 19,672 - 19,672 20,262 20,870 21,496 22,141 22,805 131 Florida Retirement System Labor 19,238 - 19,238 19,815 20,410 21,022 21,653 22,302 132 Health Insurance Insurance 67,068 - 67,068 73,775 81,152 89,268 98,194 108,014 133 Short and Long Term Disability Insurance 3,299 - 3,299 3,629 3,992 4,391 4,830 5,313 134 Employee Life Insurance Insurance 450 - 450 495 545 599 659 725 135 Workers' Comp Assessments Labor 2,710 - 2,710 2,791 2,875 2,961 3,050 3,142 136 OPEB Expense Labor 960 - 960 989 1,018 1,049 1,080 1,113 137 Attrition Savings Adj Eliminate - - - - - - - -

138 Total Personnel Services 370,236 - 370,236 386,235 403,219 421,256 440,433 460,843

Operating Expenses139 Other Professional Services ProfSvc 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 103,000$ 106,090$ 109,273$ 112,551$ 115,927$ 140 Other Contractual Services ProfSvc 698,324 - 698,324 719,274 740,852 763,077 785,970 809,549 141 Other Travel Expenses Inflation 2,025 - 2,025 2,074 2,125 2,179 2,233 2,289 142 Fleet Fuel & Oil (Fleet Mgmt Charges) Inflation 10,191 - 10,191 10,436 10,696 10,964 11,238 11,519 143 Fleet Vehicle Rental Inflation 7,304 - 7,304 7,479 7,666 7,858 8,054 8,256 144 Telecommunications Services Inflation 380 - 380 389 399 409 419 430 145 Cell Phones Equipment/Service Inflation 1,080 - 1,080 1,106 1,134 1,162 1,191 1,221

-50-

of 5Table 22




146 Other Communications Costs Inflation 300 - 300 307 315 323 331 339 147 Postage & Freight Services-General Inflation 8,657 - 8,657 8,865 9,086 9,314 9,546 9,785 148 Utility Services Inflation 350 - 350 358 367 377 386 396 149 Rentals & Leases -Other Inflation 5,000 - 5,000 5,120 5,248 5,379 5,514 5,652 150 Commercial Insurance Premiums Insurance 37 - 37 41 45 49 54 60 151 Automobile Liability Insurance Assessments Insurance 420 - 420 462 508 559 615 676 152 General Liab Insurance Assessments Insurance 699 - 699 769 846 930 1,023 1,126 153 Automobile Liability Insurance Adjustment Insurance 260 - 260 286 315 346 381 419 154 Maintenance - Equipment Repair 1,600 - 1,600 1,664 1,731 1,800 1,872 1,947 155 Maintenance - Grounds & Landscaping Repair 15,000 - 15,000 15,600 16,224 16,873 17,548 18,250 156 Fleet Management Services Inflation 5,000 - 5,000 5,120 5,248 5,379 5,514 5,652 157 Printing And Binding Inflation 18,459 - 18,459 18,902 19,375 19,859 20,355 20,864 158 Public Awareness Programs Inflation 3,300 - 3,300 3,379 3,464 3,550 3,639 3,730 159 Indirect Administrative Costs Inflation 114,764 - 114,764 117,518 120,456 123,468 126,554 129,718 160 Other Miscellaneous Expenses Inflation 25,213 - 25,213 25,818 26,464 27,125 27,803 28,498 161 Office Supplies & Minor Office Equipment Inflation 964 - 964 987 1,012 1,037 1,063 1,090 162 General oper supplies & minor equipment Inflation 12,350 - 12,350 12,646 12,963 13,287 13,619 13,959 163 Uniforms & Safety Apparel Inflation 1,000 - 1,000 1,024 1,050 1,076 1,103 1,130 164 Chemicals & Medical Supplies Inflation 7,500 - 7,500 7,680 7,872 8,069 8,271 8,477 165 Memberships & Dues Inflation 1,000 - 1,000 1,024 1,050 1,076 1,103 1,130 166 Books & Subscriptions Inflation 600 - 600 614 630 646 662 678 167 Training/Educational Costs-General Inflation 3,643 - 3,643 3,730 3,824 3,919 4,017 4,118


169 Total Fund 10219 1,415,656 - 1,415,656 1,461,908 1,510,271 1,560,617 1,613,061 1,667,727

170 TOTAL SYSTEM O&M EXPENSE: 20,779,994$ -$ 20,779,994$ 21,859,450$ 22,688,050$ 23,559,239$ 24,476,056$ 25,441,796$

-51-

of 5Table 22


Operating Expense Escalation Factors

Line EscalationNo. Description Reference 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

1 Constant Constant 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.00002 General Inflation Inflation 1.0240 1.0250 1.0250 1.0250 1.02503 Professional Services ProfSvc 1.0300 1.0300 1.0300 1.0300 1.03004 Labor Escalator Labor 1.0300 1.0300 1.0300 1.0300 1.03005 Customer Acct. Growth + Inflation Customers 1.0437 1.0416 1.0387 1.0385 1.03836 Repair and Maintenance Repair 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.04007 Insurance Escalator Insurance 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.10008 Elimination Factor Eliminate 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

-52-

of 1Table 23


Summary of Baseline Capital Improvement Program

Line Fiscal Year Ending Septeber 30,No Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

Stormwater Master Plan Program

1 Culvert Renewal & Replacement Program 14,200,000$ 14,200,000$ 14,200,000$ 14,200,000$ 14,200,000$ 71,000,000$ 2 Major Neighborhood Drainage Improvements 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 3 Master Plan Implementation Program 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 2,050,000 4 Minor Neighborhood Drainage Improvements 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 5 Neighborhood Drainage Improvements 4,320,000 4,320,000 4,320,000 4,320,000 4,320,000 21,600,000 6 Stormwater Pumping Station Renewal & Replacement 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 4,500,000 7 Water Quality Improvements and Environmental Program 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 8 Watershed Drainage Improvements 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 1,900,000 9 Watershed Master Plan Updates 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,000,000

10 Total 22,610,000$ 22,610,000$ 22,610,000$ 22,610,000$ 22,610,000$ 113,050,000$

-53-

Table 24


Summary of Projected ERUs and Revenues

Page 1 of 3

Line Fiscal Year Ending September 30,No Description 2020 2021 2022

ERUs Rate Per ERU Revenue ERUs Rate Per ERU Revenue ERUs Rate Per ERU Revenue

Residential Single Family Accounts

1 Small Residential [1] 16,101 92.41$ 1,487,917$ 16,369 142.84$ 2,338,148$ 16,593 193.23$ 3,206,265$ 2 Medium Residential [2] 159,632 92.41 14,751,593 162,284 142.84 23,180,647 164,503 193.23 31,786,915 3 Large Residential [3] 46,821 92.41 4,326,734 47,599 142.84 6,799,041 48,250 193.23 9,323,348 4 Very Large Residential [4] 3,752 92.41 346,722 3,814 142.84 544,792 3,866 193.23 747,027 5 Total Residential Single Family ERUs 226,306 230,066 233,212 6 Total Residential Single Family Revenue 20,912,966$ 32,862,628$ 45,063,555$

7 Multi-Family/Mobile Home/RV Park Accounts [5] 84,534 92.41$ 7,811,787$ 85,938 142.84$ 12,275,384$ 87,114 193.23$ 16,833,038$

8 Agriculture Accounts [6] 3,995 92.41$ 369,178$ 3,995 142.84$ 570,646$ 3,995 193.23$ 771,954$

9 General / Non-Residential Accounts [7] 133,786 92.41$ 12,363,164$ 136,008 142.84$ 19,427,383$ 137,868 193.23$ 26,640,234$

10 Total Stormwater System 448,621 41,457,095$ 456,007 65,136,041$ 462,189 89,308,781$

Footnotes on Page 3 of 3:

-54-

Table 24



Page 2 of 3

LineNo Description

Residential Single Family Accounts

1 Small Residential [1]2 Medium Residential [2]3 Large Residential [3]4 Very Large Residential [4]5 Total Residential Single Family ERUs6 Total Residential Single Family Revenue

7 Multi-Family/Mobile Home/RV Park Accounts [5]

8 Agriculture Accounts [6]

9 General / Non-Residential Accounts [7]

10 Total Stormwater System

Footnotes on Page 3 of 3:

Fiscal Year Ending September 30,2023 2024

ERUs Rate Per ERU Revenue ERUs Rate Per ERU Revenue

16,817 193.23$ 3,249,549$ 17,041 193.23$ 3,292,832$ 166,721 193.23 32,215,499 168,937 193.23 32,643,697

48,900 193.23 9,448,947 49,550 193.23 9,574,547 3,918 193.23 757,075 3,970 193.23 767,123

236,356 239,498 45,671,070$ 46,278,199$

88,289 193.23$ 17,060,083$ 89,462 193.23$ 17,286,742$

3,995 193.23$ 771,954$ 3,995 193.23$ 771,954$

139,726 193.23$ 26,999,255$ 141,583 193.23$ 27,358,083$

468,366 90,502,362$ 474,538 91,694,978$

-55-

Table 24

Hillsborough County Stormwater Rate Study


Page 3 of 3

Footnotes:

[1] Small Residential equals 0.55 ERU's per household.[2] Medium Residential equals 1.00 ERU's per household.[3] Large Residential equals 1.55 ERU's per household.[4] Very Large Residential ERU's equal Impervious Area divided by 4,267 sq ft.[5] Multi-Family / Mobile Home / RV Park equals 0.5 ERU's per dwelling unit.[6] Agriculture ERU's equal 1.0 ERU per parcel.[7] General / Non-Residential ERU's for each parcel equal measured Impervious area divided by 4,267 sq ft.

-56-

of 1

Table 25


Projected Stormwater System Revenue Requirements - Sustainable Funding Analysis

Line Fiscal Year Ending September 30,No. Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

1 Operating Expenses 21,859,450$ 22,688,050$ 23,559,239$ 24,476,056$ 25,441,796$ Enhanced Levels of Service Additional Costs

2 Operating Enhancements 5,948,300 11,923,900 12,281,617 12,650,066 13,029,567 3 Total Operating Expesnes 27,807,750$ 34,611,950$ 35,840,856$ 37,126,121$ 38,471,364$

Other Revenue Requirements4 Transfer to Operating Reserves -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5 Capital Funded from Rates - Baseline CIP 22,610,000 22,610,000 22,610,000 22,610,000 22,610,000

Capital Funded from Rates - Enhanced Funding Needs6 Asset Preservation - Pump Station R&R 1,350,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 7 Asset Preservation - Pipes 2,750,000 5,500,000 11,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000 8 Flood Protection Projects 1,500,000 3,500,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 9 Water Quality Program 200,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

10 Flood Hazard Mitigation Program 200,000 1,200,000 1,440,000 1,440,000 1,440,000

11 Total Enhanced Capital Funding Projects 6,000,000$ 14,400,000$ 27,140,000$ 27,140,000$ 27,140,000$

12 Total Other Revenue Requirements 28,610,000$ 37,010,000$ 49,750,000$ 49,750,000$ 49,750,000$

13 Gross Revenue Requirements 56,417,750$ 71,621,950$ 85,590,856$ 86,876,121$ 88,221,364$

14 Net Revenue Requirements 56,417,750$ 71,621,950$ 85,590,856$ 86,876,121$ 88,221,364$

Stormwater System Revenue15 Stormwater Rate Revenue 41,457,095$ 65,136,041$ 89,308,781$ 90,502,362$ 91,694,978$ 16 Less Early Payment Discount (4%) (1,658,284) (2,605,442) (3,572,351) (3,620,094) (3,667,799) 17 Stormwater Rate Revenue Post Early Payment Discount 39,798,811$ 62,530,599$ 85,736,430$ 86,882,268$ 88,027,179$ 18 Less Tax Collector's Fee (2%) (795,976) (1,250,612) (1,714,729) (1,737,645) (1,760,544)

19 Total Rate Revenue Received 39,002,835$ 61,279,987$ 84,021,701$ 85,144,622$ 86,266,635$

20 Revenue Surplus/(Deficiency) - Amount (17,414,915)$ (10,341,963)$ (1,569,155)$ (1,731,499)$ (1,954,729)$ 21 Revenue Surplus/(Deficiency) - Percent -42.01% -15.88% -1.76% -1.91% -2.13%

-57-

-58-

SECTION 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on our investigations and analyses in developing the Stormwater System Business Plan and Rate Study, we offer the following findings and conclusions: 1. The County should consider updating its Stormwater Fee rate structure to incorporate the

revised Equivalent Residential Unit value and Residential TIERed rates.

2. The County should consider establishing a Stormwater Fee phase-in based on full cost recovery of the County's Stormwater Program Sustainability Plan including enhanced levels of maintenance activities and capital reinvestment in aging infrastructure.

3. The County should consider designating certain staff to the Stormwater System functions to be able to more accurately identify the cost of Stormwater System operations and maintenance.

4. The County should maintain its current Special Revenue Fund designation until such time that it implements specific stormwater staffing designation and cost accounting, which at that time the County may wish to establish a Stormwater Enterprise Fund.

5. The County should consider implementing a Stormwater Mitigation Credit Program over the next several years.

6. The County should maintain its current Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessment billing method, recognizing that certain future basin-specific capital investments may require a basin-specific capital charge rather than a County-wide rate to satisfy the special benefit rules of the Florida statutes related to the Special Assessments billing method.


APPENDIX A

Public Works Department Organizational Chart

Updated 03/29/2018

Field Operations & Transportation

Maintenance DivisionRobert Suess, Director

(813) 307-1854

John Lyons, PE, PSMDirector

(813) 307-4754

Development & Infrastructure ServicesPublic Works Department

Technical Services DivisionJames Hudock, PE

Director(813) 307-1827

Geomatics DivisionErick Sumner

Director(813) 307-4756

Solid Waste Management Division

Kim Byer, PGDirector

(813) 612-7718

Transportation Planning &Development Division

Michael Williams, PE, Director(813) 307-1851

Transportation Planning/Funding

Development Requirements Zoning Review Variance & Design Exception

Reviews Standards & Technical Manual

Requirements

Mowing Tree Trimming Stormwater Maintenance

GIS Cartography Spatial Analysis Right-of-Way Mapping Plat Review Land Surveying Asset Inventory Database Design & Maintenance Process Improvement Streets & Addresses

Roadway Maintenance Traffic Signs, Signals & Roadway

Lighting

Transportation/Stormwater ProjectDelivery

Stormwater Watershed Modeling Transportation/Traffic Engineering Natural Hazards Mitigation &

Planning Flood/Sinkhole Investigations Pedestrian/Bike Safety Traffic Studies

Residential/Commercial Disposal Residential/Commercial Recycling Transfer Station Operations Public Works Customer Service Community Collection Centers Electronics Recycling Yard Waste Composting Household Hazardous Waste Landfill Operations Resource Recovery Facility

Business ManagementMichele Lindsey

Business Manager(813) 307-1868

Fiscal ServicesVacant

Manager(813) 307-1860

314 129 18 52 15 118

8

670 Total

Accounts Receivables/Payables Budget Preparation/Monitoring Contract Management Financial Reporting Grant Writing/Monitoring CIP Payment Processing

Mosquito ControlDonald Hayes

Manager(813) 663-3646

Mosquito Population Monitor Mosquito-Borne Illness Testing Ground/Aerial Spray Missions State/County Health Agencies

Coordination

23

APPENDIX A

A-1

4847/GENJAdministrative Specialist I

John Ford

5334/GENLAdministrative Specialist II

Elizabeth Coronado

Public Works DepartmentBusiness Management Section

10350/CAUFBusiness Manager

Michele D. Lindsey

5337/GENNAdministrative Specialist III

Vacant


Claudette Lam


Vacant

8

Updated 3/29/18

5332/GENEOffice Assistant I

Evert Cabrera


Michelle Citino

Appendix A

A-2

II. CIP- Payments

4958/GENUAccountant

Patty Meachum *

5494/GENNAdmin Specialist

Vacant ***

Section ManagerKoni Cassini (Temp)

4716/GENMAccounting Specialist

Merle Carey


Ginnie Pernice **


Tomieka Manuel

5452/GENSAccountant

Melissa Tramel

4724/GENMContract Mgmt Assoc

Andrea Johnson

5411/GENUFiscal Mgr Const. Svcs

Vacant

4964/GENJAccounting Clerk

Diane Green

15747/GENSAccountant

Yolanda King

4721/GENJAccounting ClerkEsmeralda Ruiz

5440/GENSAccountant

Toni Diettert

5442/GENMContract Mgmt Assoc

Leslie Ford

15848/GENSFiscal AnalystNadine Ayo

I. Operations- Payments- Budgets-Operating- Bas-Operating III. Fixed Assets

- Grants- Work Orders-CIP Budgets-CIP Balance

16

Public Works DepartmentFinancial & Business Services Section

March 16, 2018

15850/GENSAccountant

Sean Williams

* Meachum on FMLA until 4/16/18** Pernice on intermittent FMLA effective 3/15/18*** Consider reclassification to Office Assistant

A-3

5506/GENUManager GIS Mapping

(Interim)Sarah Ellis

4830/GENLAdmin Specialist

Karen Perry

4929/GENMGIS Analyst

Yosdel Ramos


Freddy Delgado

12189/GENIGIS Map TechEric Santos

Public Works DepartmentGeomatics Section

5451/CAUDDivision DirectorErick Sumner

5491/GENSManager

Jeff Sanchez

15749/GENSGIS PMVacant


Ashley Davis

4454/GENOGIS AnalystSarita Karki

15251/GENOGIS Analyst

Larry Gaudieri


Jose Marnotes


Terri Dempsey

04858/GENNEngineering Associate

Charles Rush


Margaret Galo


Kevin Lynch

5482/GENIGIS Map Tech

Deborah Hooper

5492/GENIGIS Map Tech

Thomas Guerrero

4709/GENUManager Asset Registry

Erica Hall

4862/GENOProgram Coordinator

Vicky Bacilla

12186/GENQManager

Darin Windsor

5473/AFSKField Data Tech

Sadek Escander

5474/AFSKEngineering Tech III

Wendy Broom

5484/AFSHField Data TechJames Flood

5479/AFSHGIS PMVacant

5483/AFSHField Data Tech

Demetrius Catuey

12187/AFSEField Data Tech

Dontari Hitchman

5501/AFSEField Data TechJairo Tejeiro


Chris Sutherland

5495/GENNSr Engineering TechGeorge Gonzalez

5472/AFSKEngineering Associate

Vacant

5475/AFSKDrafting Tech

Camenjo Fumeiga

5456/GENUManager Survey

Chris Snyder

5464/GENSProf Land Surv/Map

Dan Sullivan


Ivia Lopez


Brent Ivy


John Collins

5463/GENNEngineering Assoc

Ron Acevedo


Harold Hilton


Richard Wester

13476/AFSKDrafting Tech

Vacant

GIS Mapping Services Asset Inventory Survey & Mapping

52

12191/GENIGIS Map TechDaron Nichols


Bryan Schoonard

5682/GENSGIS PM

Jason Balmut

12237/GENKAddressing Technician

Robert Ranck

4635/GENKAddressing Technician

Paul Liles

12234/GENMAddressing Technician

Ines Ortiz

4687/GENIGIS Mapping TechDustin Williams

4686/GENMGIS AnalystPaul Kranz

4605/GENGAdmin Specialist

Deborah Franklin

4606/GENMAddressing Technician

Terry Wiekhorst

Streets & Addresses

Updated 3/29/2018


Dave Carson

3450/GIS Server Admin

Earl Dame

3417/GIS Systems Analyst

Gui DeAlmeida

3380/GIS Server Admin

Eric Harvey

A-4

5287/CAUESection ManagerDonald Hayes

5111/GENKSr Crew LeaderSteve Sullivan

5282/AFSHInspector Spray Eqp Operator

Jenna Jacobson


Robert Martino


Vacant


Jaime Monserrat

5171/GENKSr Crew LeaderJohn Wetjen


Vic Paniagua


Vacant


James Hewitt

3976/GENKSr Crew LeaderJoseph Shiver


Kyle Yager


Joseph Sultenfuss

13242/GENOManager

Leonard Burns

5271/AFSJMosquito Inspector Charmont Bonner

5272/AFSJMosquito Inspector

Ron Kolsen

5283/AFSIEquipment Tech II

Tim Madden

5270/GENMSr SupervisorDan Ledford

4966/GENIOffice Assistant III Desiree Edwards

5269/GENOHelicopter PilotMike Muench


John Waleri


Nicholas White

Public Works DepartmentTransportation Maintenance Division

Mosquito Control

23

5279/GENQGeneral Manager IRon Montgomery

Updated 3/29/18

A-5

Public Works DepartmentSolid Waste Management Division

5652/XDDivision Director

Kimberly Byer

11976/XESection Manager

Larry Ruiz

13174/XEManager South SW

Tom Lister

13174/XEManager Northwest SW

Tom Lister

5737/XFManger CRU

Damien Tramel

5740/XESection ManagerNate Johnson

Southeast County Landfill Operations Section

South County Transfer Operations Section

Northwest Transfer Operations Section

Customer Resolution UnitDisposal Process

Mgmt Section

5654/GENOOps Supv

Michael Kickliter

6225/GENJ Admin Spec I

Yvette Alfonso

5622/GENJAdmin Spec I

Donna Norman

5643/GENOManager

R. Senkeleski

5660/AFSJSWTEO

M. Gonzalez

5702/AFSJSWTEO

James Jones

5689/AFSJSWTEO

Leonardo Mejia

5631/AFSISWCEO

Olon Miller

5715/AFSESWEO

Trucem Dang

13474/AFSESWEO

R. Stribling

5710/AFSECCC AttendantDoris Freeman

5713/AFSECCC AttendantG. Pollender

14469/AFSJSWTEO

Gary Grooms

5739/GENOManager

Jahel Sanchez

5688/AFSJSWTEO

Jose Batisa

5691/AFSJSWTEO

Michael Fearon

5723/AFSJSWTEO

Timothy King

5692/AFSJSWTEO

Manuel Sevila

14467/AFSISWCEO

C. Wright

14464/AFSISWCEO

James Garrett

5664/AFSESWEO

Weston Braxton

5642/AFSESWEO

Adil Lhamri

5650/AFSESWEO

Dakota Collins

5728/AFSECCC AttendantAdonis Scot

5623/GENGGM II

Walter Gray

7075/GENSGM II

Cindy Pelley

5864/GENOManager

Ron Wiesman

5262/GENOManager

Weston Braxton

13170/AFSJSWTEO

George Mann

14468/AFSJSWTEO

Joshua Grimes

5625/AFSJSWTEO

Riant Polson

5653/AFSISWCEO

Chris Walker

5714/AFSISWEO

Albert Kenyon

14466/AFSE SWEO

R. Del Rio

5668/AFSECCC Attendant

David Kirk

5637/AFSE CCC Attendant

Mary Brown

5626/AFSJSWTEO

Michael Friedrich

5663/GENGEnv Tech II

Michael Gryder

5712/AFSISWCEO

Arthur Fraser

5659/GENNSr Eng Tech

David Caswell

5708/AFSKMTW III

Joseph Kinsey


John McAllister


D’Norris Scott

5720/AFSISWCEO

Michael Bayne

13143/AFSISWCEO

Gerald Devoe

5645/AFSISWCEO

Oscar Ochoa

5699/AFSJSWTEO

Paul Fabricius

5745/AFSJSWTEO

Neal Pelaez

5616/ABUJUtilities Plant Op.Thomas Gormley

11651/ABUMIndustrial MechanicMarcus Hinderliter

5686/GENOManager

Chris Kolsen

5633/AFSJSWEO

Miller Huggins

5630/AFSJSWTEO

Troy McKee

5635/AFSESWEO

Shaun Cromartie

5679/AFSISWCEO

Leonard Lydick

5629/AFSJSWTEO

Mark Tyler

5685/AFSISWCEO

Joseph Puccio

5656AFSISWCEO

Ronald Milligan

5672/AFSESWEO

William Warren Jr.

5669/AFSE SWEOVacant

5636/GENO Manager

Jason Bishop

005647/AFSJSWCEO

Ramon Ponce

5696/AFSJSWTEO

James Mangialomini

5724/AFSECCC AttendantIsrael Vache

5656/AFSISWCEO

Desmond Smith

5701/AFSJSWTEO

Darryl Pitts

5639/AFSISWCEOVacant

5669/AFSESWEOVacant

5628/AFSESWTEOVacant

5722/AFSE CCC Attendant

Vacant

6249/GENOManager

Dustin Marshall

5723/AFSJSWTEO

Timothy King

13171/AFSJSWTEO

Jeffrey Wright

13535/AFSJSWTEO

Edward McAdoo

13176/AFSJSWTEO

Carlos Rivera

5695/AFSJSWTEO

Robert Harrison

13172/AFSJSWTEO

Luis Fonseca

5680/AFSJSWTEO

James Rice

5698/AFSJ SWTEO

John Salvaggio

5657/AFSISWCEO

Rolando Reyes

5685/AFSISWCEO

Leo Waldron

13254/GENQContracts ManagerEduardo Busquets

15913/GENOSr. Prog Coord

Christine Baker

15369/GENKCust Svc AnalystLaura Rodriguez

5718/GENICSRII

Angela Bailey

5882/GENTFCSR I

Melissa Anderson

5493/GENMProg. Coord.

Antonia Bailey

Project ManagerShane Barrett

5345/GENQGM I

Gary Mosby


Jessica Carraballo

15911/GENMProg. Coord

Marion Casaundra


Hannah Titirington


Heidi Schrock

15917/GENQContracts ManagerCoghill, Christine

VacantProg. Coord.


Patti Conover

5738/GENSGM II

Doug DeArmond

5624/AFSKEng Tech III

Blake Raymer

5667/GENGEnviro Tech IIJulia Hartman

5729/GENJScalehouse Spec

Erik Siegal

5709/GENMAcct I

Tangelia Aiken


Lindsey Ruis

5751/XFManager Scale House

OperAndrea Stermer

5705/GENJAdmin Spec I Lina Martinez

5725/GENJScalehouse SpecMarilyn Porter

5833/GENJScalehouse SpecCynthia Atkins

5658/GENPBusin Analy IIM. Chantigny


Galarza,Cassandra

Waste ReductionSpec Vacant

5661/GENMAcct I

Diane English

5721/GENRSpecial Proj Coord James Ransom

5733/ Profess. Eng II

Joe O’Neill

5732/GENSRecycling Coord.Travis Barnes

5654/GENOOps Supv

Bradley McGeathy


Donna Norman


Diana Cordero

5726/GENJScalehouse SpecShawn Bisson

5676/GENJScalehouse SpecCindy Williams

14463/GENJScalehouse SpecPetrenia Cookson

5674/GENJScalehouse SpecDenise Dillahunt


Sally Martz


Lovann Rodriguez

5671/GENJScalehouse SpecJoe Washington

5644/CECCC AttendantBasil Woods


5748/GENMEnviro Spec IILarry Sinatra

5627/GENKEnviro Spec I

Craig England

13473/AFSESWEO

Wesley Harshaw

5638/GENNAdmin Spec II

Vacant

5680/AFSESWTEOVacant

5663/AFSJSWTEOVacant

5749/GENKEnviro Spec IJulie Gordon

A-6

4850/CNPUR4Contract ManagerShawn Gilligan

5354/UNCLPR1 Engineer

Michael Hall


Dana Mackey

4910/UNCLPR1Engineer

David Vogel

4767/CNUPR6 Eng Assoc.

Tara Bauerle

4789/CNUPR4 Eng. Assoc.

Frederick Thomas

4772/CNUPR6Eng. Assoc.

George Drummond


Wayne Poole

4849/CAFSG10Eng. Tech

Matthew Hoskins

4780/CNUPR5 Eng. Assoc. Phil Cross

4800/CAFSG10Eng. Tech.

Jose Gomez

4763/CNUPR6Engineer Vacant

4771/CNUPR6 Eng. Assoc. Rob Swain

4768/CNUMG6 Eng. Assoc. Super

Chris Frock

4793/CAFSG10Eng. Tech

Sharon Strout

11963/CNUPR5Eng. Assoc.Roy Watson

4742/CNUPR6 Sr Eng Spec Irina Aubain

4781/CNUPR4Eng Assoc

Verlenny Lindsey

4779/CNUPR4 Eng Assoc

Eduardo Del Bosque

4801/CAFSG10Eng Tech

Todd Ford


Joshua Cooper

4812/CNUPR3 Eng.Assoc

Vacant


Anjana Swann

5073/CNUPR6 Eng. Assoc

Richard Burns


Orlando Aubain

4773/CNUPR6 Eng. Assoc.Aaron Post

4870/CNUPR4Manager Engineering Construction

Jason Boulnois

5293/CNUMG6 Eng. Assoc. Super

Amos Castillo


Swara Farheen


Robert Wood

5296/CAFSG10 Eng. Tech III

Vacant


Mike Flick


Vacant

5352/CNUPR5Eng. Assoc.Ed Albritton

4395/CNUPR3 Eng. AssocJT Cullins


David Brown

4814/CNUMG6Eng. Assoc. Super

Larry Webster


Amro Helwa


Jie Tong

4821/UNCLPR1Engineer Jie Gao


Orfilio Ramos


Jerry Hsu


John Warren


Jose Marquez


Steven Cumber


Michael Borzoie

12192/CAFSG10 Eng. Tech

Mike Martis

4751/UNCLPR1Engineer Vacant

4816/CNUPR6 Eng Assoc. Karl King


Rodney Phillips

4808/CNUPR6 Eng. Assoc

Jenny Benitez


An-Di Nguyen

4740/CNUPR7Proj. Mgr.

Richard Sanders

5350/CAFSG7 Eng. Tech II

Mike McClelland

4460/UNCLMG3Trans. Program Mgr

Bob Campbell

4815/UNCLMG4 Engineer

Chin-Feng Ho

5168/UNCLMG2Mgr. Transportation. Svcs

Leland Dicus

4503/UNCLMG4Mgr Hazard Mitig. Program

Eugene Henry

2029/CNPUR4Contracts Mgr

William Twaite

15347/CNUPR4Sr Planner

Christine Hummel

4743/UNCLMG1 DirectorTech. Svc. Division

Jim Hudock


Larry Josephson

4762 /UNCLPR2Engineer

Ron Steijlen


Abdel Abraham

4766/ UNCLPR2Eng. Assoc. James Mori

4961/CNUPR6Eng Assoc.

Jorge Guillermo 5323/UNCLPR2Engineer Vacant


A. Al-Rawashdeh


N. Alonso-Lima

4851/CAFSG10 Eng Tech

Jeffery Cox

5295/CNUPR4Eng. Assoc.Dante Ford

5001/CNUPR4 Eng. Intern

Johan Almanzar


Jeremy Ratliff


Edward Borsdorf

4786/CNPR5 Eng. Spec II

Vacant


Ramon Alvarez


Gary Zimmerman


Jeff Williams

4811/CNUPR3 Eng. AssocCurtis Settle


Dennis McAlister

4432/CNUPR3 Eng. Assoc.Scot Osborn


Donald Melone

15746/CNPR3Eng. Assoc.

Vacant


Ray Nogueras

15758/CNUPR3 Eng. Assoc.Paul Chin


Jeyson Arroyave

4348/UNCPR2Engineer

Ginny Zimmerman

15344/UNCLPR6Eng. Assoc.

Vacant


Jeremy Leuschke


Robert Wisemen

4785/CNUPR5Eng Intern

Nicole Turner

4794UNCLPR2Engineer

Chris Bridges


A. Sotomayor

5190/CNUPP3Contr Mgt Assoc.Sherry O’Donnell


Mary Sheets


Maximo Montel

Public Works DepartmentTechnical Services Division

4817/UNCLMG3 Mgr, Stormwater Services

David Glicksberg

4738/CNUPR3Envi. Sci

Dawn Ritter

4823/CNUPR3Envi. Sci

Christine Sciarrino

4867/CNUPR3Envi. Spec

Ryan Riordan

5035/CNUPP3Envir. Spec.Troy Green

4752/CNUMG6 Env ManagerJohn McGee


Thomas Rawls

15841/UNCLPR2U

EngMichaud Burgos


MarcelloTavernari


Manuel Santos


Vacant


Cliffton Griffiths


Diane Ramirez15842/UNCLPR2

EngineerPierre Valles


Benjamin Loeser

15747/CNUPR6l Bus. Analyst

Bibiana Pineda

119

5177/UNCLMG4Mgr, Capital Business Intelligence

Maritza Ramirez


Taha Ataya

Last update: 3/20/2018

15751/GENQ Eng. Assoc

R. Zayas-Lajara

11966/UNCLPR2Eng

Jayesh Bhatt

15849/UNCLMG5Process Imp. Cood.

Michael Farr

4765/UNCLMG4Engineer

Roger Cox

15985/UNCLMG5Data Scientist

Vacant

A-7


Countywide Construction4848/UNCLMG.4Section Manager

Larry Watts

South Service Unit5292/UNCLMG.4Section Manager

Debbie Hunt

West Service Unit5126/UNCLMG.4Section Manager

Lea Hollar

Traffic Operations4777/UNCLMG.4Section Manager

Juan Lopez

East Service Unit5067/UNCLMG.4Section Manager

Rebeckah Sanchez

4956/UNCLMG.1Division DirectorRobert Suess

(314 Positions)

4700/CAUBDepartment Director

John Lyons, PE, PSM

5191/CNUMG.5Manager

David Braxton

Specialized Services 4955/UNCLMG.4Section Manager

Bruce Harvey

Operations Support4758/UNCLMG.4Section Manager

Fred Hartless

Updated: 3/5/2018

14704/CNUPR.5Landscape Architect

Allen Howell

15752/CNUPR.3Engineering Associate

David H. Merritt

47 22 13 4459 65 60

A-8

5188/CNUPP.3Administrative Specialist

Sherrell Loyola

4952/AFSGAdvanced Transp Worker

Brian Sneed

4857/CNUMG.1Supervisor

Joseph Redgrave

4891/AFSCME (C)Trades Helper

George Windham

4947/AFSISr Transp Worker

Keith Faber


Vacant

4903/AFSISr Transp WorkerRonnie Stafford


Alfred Noel

5162/AFSETransportation Worker

Don Mosley

14694/AFSCME.CTrades Helper

James Chapman


Levidica Hudson


Jose Esquivel

4905/AFSCME.IMulti Trades Worker II

Sharod Dozier


Wade Kinman


Delbys Reyes San Roman


William Garner


Edmund Conklin


Gary O’Neal4921/AFSE

Transportation WorkerAaron Boyd

5169/CNUMG.1Field Operations Supervisor

Kam Dempsey


Gustavo Ortiz

4900/AFSCME.GMulti Trades Worker I

Randy Garcia


Dale Robinson

4909/AFSCMELaborer

Antonio Rivers

15921/CAFSG.5Storekeeper

Vacant


Terry Aiken


John Miller


Shannon Kilpatrick

4946/AFSISr Transp WorkerRichard Sheridan

5141/CNUPP.3Field Operations Supervisor

Vacant

4901/CNUMG.2Senior Supervisor

Wayne Miller

4902/CNUMG.2Senior Supervisor

Debra Levens

4927/CNUMG.3Manager

Donald Wade


David Raysin


Roger Fliehman


Nick Valdez


Cruz Gonzalez


Countywide Construction

4911/AFSISr Transp WorkerCharles Bethel


Otis King


Julio Rada


Ronald Holloway

4914/AFSCMELaborer

Charlie McCrary

4917/AFSCME.ALaborer

Gary Hill

4848/UNCLMG.4Section Manager

Larry Watts


Jacob Phetteplace

47

5164AFSETransportation Worker

Kenneth Mobley

Updated: 3/5/2018

14698/CAFSG.1Trades HelperCarlos Rivera

A-9


Rebeckah Sanchez


Richard Griffin

5090/AFSISr Transp WorkerCarlton Jonseck


LeaAnna Strunk

5147/AFSCME.GStorekeeper IIICarla Aubel


Eric Harris5071/CNUMG.1Supervisor

Larry Farkas


Charles Coleman

5082/AFSISr Transp WorkerNicholas Quilling

5079/AFSISr Transp WorkerFrank Martines


Matthew Livernois


Corey Hinson


Thomas Morris


Nicolas Trejo


Anecy Joseph


Harold Sutton


Dwight Rivera


Jeremy Behne

5167/AFSCME.CTrades Helper

Alberto Ramirez

4997/AFSISr Transp WorkerGeorge Nelsen


Barbara Mann


Leonard West


Jeffrey Kandle


Vacant


Carolyn Adair

5107/GCNUPP.3Field Operations Supervisor

Thomas Bazemore


Mark Grossman


Vacant


Calvin Langford


Ecru Richardson

4986 /AFSISr Transp WorkerThomas Bailey


Michael Brown


Vacant


Austin Lewis


Jerome Aguilar


Vacant


Ted DeGroat


Patrick Oduh


Vacant


Jerry Herndon


Kilby Morris

5075/CNUMG.4Operations Superintendent

Glen Kinman


William Bechtelheimer


Brady O’Neal

5081/AFSISr Transp WorkerTimothy Brannon


Joseph Bruce


Vacant


Robert Mullis

5093 /AFSGAdvanced Transp Worker

Vacant


East Service Unit

14705/CNUPP.5Ops Field CoordinatorMichael Holcombe

14703/CNUPP.5Ops Field Coordinator

Carlos Alvarez


John Jefferson

5109/AFSCME.CTrades HelperLoronne Wells


Gregory Turk


Jeremiah Green

59


Stephen Brownell

Updated: 3/5/2018

4892/AFSCME.CTrades HelperMarty Green


Kandyce Ferguson-Smith

4039/AFSELandscape Gardener

Daniel Linscott

A-10


Debbie Hunt


Donna Tressler


Troy Thomas

4972/AFSCME.GStorekeeper

J Westmoreland14695/CNUMG.1

Field Operations SupervisorNathaniel Singletary


Harry Muriel

5154/AFSISr Transp WorkerKenneth Starling


Bonnie Chancey


James Smith


James Stidham

5153/AFSISr Transp WorkerSteven Williams


Jeffery Lashley


Sooknarine Sampath


Watt Harrison


South Service Unit


Brenda Kah


Jeremy Childress


Melvin Hunte

4989/AFSISr Transp WorkerClifford Hurley


Justin Adams


Vacant


Arthur Lancy


James Wahlstrom


Robert Purmort

14699/AFSCMETrades HelperTarick Elrabi


Vacant

5063/AFSISr Transp WorkerNarine Sonnylal


Vacant5027/AFSG

Advanced Transp WorkerJames Rader


Shani Tavolaccio


Vacant


Judy Hare


Juan Olivero-Lopez


Marcus McCall

4291/CNUPP.1Administrative Assistant

Tenesha Smith

5266/AFSETransportation WorkerTerrino Montgomery


Douglas Reed


Jerome Bass


Lee Marean


Jacnel Soto-Carde


Mark Call


Isaac Jackson

5151/AFSISr Transp WorkerJames Starling

5140/AFSISr Transp WorkerJuan Fernandez


Tanya Black-Bryant


Joel Dodge


Vacant


Wanda Brown


Devin Storey


Thomas Mossop

5139/AFSISr Transp WorkerGraime Gumbs

5026/AFSCTrades Helper

Arnez Hargrove

5184/AFSALaborer

Phillip Chancey

5058/AFSIConstruction Eqt Op III

Daniel Darnell

14702/CNUPP.5Operations Field Coordinator

Mario Williams


Jerry Scoggins

14696/AFSCMETrades HelperJames Boyd


Shawn Icenogle


Vandell Waddell


David Horne

5138/AFSISr Transp WorkerCalvin Plummer

65


Derrick Fields

5055/AFSISr Transp WorkerZachery Hicks


Laccy Graham


Steven Mosley


Willie Sherman

Updated: 3/5/2018

A-11

4884/CNUPP.3Environmental Technician

Melvin Watson

4874/CNUOS.2Environmental Technician

Nicole Overton


Joel Khan


Brian Swarts


Daryl Flowers


Vacant


Brian Jones


Karl Wilber

5172/AFSCME.ITransportation Worker

Weston Braxton

4243/AFSCME.KEngineering Technician

Kortny Sneed

4250/AFSELandscape Gardener

John Teel


Vacant


John Gray


Donald Nicholson


Gilbert Garcia


Specialized Services

22

5053/CNUMG.2Senior SupervisorDerrick Santillan


James Hodges


Don D. Heisserer


Juan Castillo

4869/CNUPR.3Environmental Specialist

Mark Carter

Updated: 3/5/2018


Bruce Harvey


Vacant

A-12

4956/UNCLMG.1TMD Division Director

Robert Suess

4973/CNUMG.2Senior SupervisorKelly Thomasson

5347/CNUPR.6Project Manager

Michael Cox


Darrell Hartzog


Kim Nguyen-Hunsberger

4968/CNUMG.3Manager

Julie Johanboeke

5343/CNUPR.5Engineering Intern

Sean Riveron


Charles Holland


Operations Support Section

4783/UNCLPR.1Engineer

William Hand, P.E.

13

Updated: 3/5/2018

5506/UNCLMG.4Operations Support Manager

Frederick Hartless

4728/CNUPR.4Project ManagerMolly Conlon

5260/UNCLPR.3Solutions AnalystCristina Baldeon

12167/CNUPR.5Solutions Analyst

Vacant


Vacant

A-13

12609/CAFSB.N3Traffic Inst & Ctrl Tech

Robert Boyd

5308/CNUMG.1Traffic Sign/Marking Supervisor

Dean Flynn

5319/CNUMG.5Manager

Andy Morris

5313/CNUMG.1Traffic Sign/Marking Supervisor

Ricky Brown


Charles Hicks


Chris Lorentson


Kathryn Davis


Wanda Gail Truman5318/AFSCME.KTraffic Sign/Mark Tech II

William Most

5314/AFSCME.KTraffic Sign/Mark Tech II

Richard Dunaway

5335/AFSCME.HTraffic Sign/Mark Tech I

Eric Tidwell


Chris DeMay

5299/CNUMG.3Manager

George Aubel

5315/AFSCME.KTraffic Sign/Marking Tech II

Vacant

5316/AFSCME.KTraffic Sign/Marking Tech II

Frank Courtright


Mitchell Thomas


Martin Solano


Alfred Baumann


Alan Baker


Timothy Fox


Sebastian Williams


Traffic Operations Section


Thomas Hesse


Melvin Newby


Kevin Brogna

4777/UNCLMG.4Section ManagerJuan J. Lopez


Doug Gordon


Christopher Stone


Allen Turpin


Vacant


Stephen Guzman

5325/AFSCME.HTraffic Sign/Mark Tech IJohanthon Baumann

5317/AFSCME.KTraffic Sign/Mark Tech II

Gino Marzano


Kevin Schropshire


Joseph McKenna


William Davies


Clarence Gunter


Lenwood Pope


Tina McCluskey

15601 /CAFSB.N1Traffic Inst & Ctrl Tech

Vacant


Richard Zion


Darryle Norton


Wandre Reyes

44


Theresa Cerf

Updated: 3/5/2018


Danielle Dorizar

A-14


West Service Unit

5253/AFSALaborer

Jose Quiñones


Jose Sada


Michel Bueno

5249/AFSISr Transp WorkerAntonio McLeod


Delano Gadis


Mark Diaz

5258/AFSALaborer

Richard Dozier

5265/AFSALaborer

Yoander Padilla


Javier Roig Caro

5221/AFSICrew Leader II

Vacant


Kirk Kellog


Reuben Sardinas


Chad Arias

5137/AFSISr Transp WorkerJoseph Fuentes

5256/AFSALaborer

Gandolf Geib


Willians Leon


Dwayne Johnson


Steven Gentile


Rodney Cook


James Boyd

5214/AFSISr Transp WorkerWilliam Robinson


Linwa Wright


Kai Axelsen


Wilfredo Leon


Louis Brinson

5216/AFSISr Transp WorkerAngel Quevedo

5207/AFSISr Transp WorkerMichael Moreda


James Maccarone

5211/AFSISr Transp WorkerSuzanne Castle


Larry Oliver

5243/AFSISr Transp WorkerHumberto Mont

5236/AFSETransportation WorkerConfesor Rodriguez

14700/AFSCTrades HelperEdwin Sykes

5241/AFSISr Transp WorkerThomas Warren


Vacant

5126/UNCLMG.4Section ManagerOtis “Lea” Hollar


Selim Castillo


Vacant


Vacant

14701/AFSCTrades Helper

James Daniels


Sharlietta McDaniel


Kaniece Maxwell


Vacant

5298/AFSCMEHEngineering Technician

Carmelo DelValle


Douglas Meighen


Glen Foster


Eduardo Garcia


Steven Kynerd

5020/AFSISr Transp WorkerSalvatore Anfuso

5248/AFSISr Transp WorkerKalin Blackwell

5259/AFSETransportation WorkerLorenzo Hawthorne

5203/AFSISr Transp WorkerGerald Posada


Ralph Jackson


George Grause

5202/AFSISr Transp WorkerJohn McMorrow


Andre Arenas

60


Jim McCullough


Keith Etherton


Mitchell Dunkley

Updated: 3/5/18


Vacant

A-15

3/2/18

P#11965Engineer

Ben Kniesly

P#41767Admin Specialist

Vacant

Public Works DepartmentTransportation Planning & Development Division

P#5294Division Director

Michael Williams

P#4755Engineering AssociateMichael Washington

P#4735Engineering Associate

Laura Sierra

P#4395Manager/Inf. Growth Planning

John Patrick

P#15597Planner

Mikhail Alert

P#4865Planner

Richard Ranck

P#10811Manager/Trans Development

Charles White

P#4415Planner

Glen Shopmeyer

P#4407Planner

James Ratliff

P#15325Planner

Aiah Yassin

15

P#15923Executive PlannerMatthew Lewis

P#15644PlannerVacant

P#15924Planner

Alex Steady

A-16

APPENDIX B

Proposed Stormwater Organizational Chart

Public Works Director

APPENDIX B Public Works Department - Stormwater Associated Staff (Actual)

Transportation Planning &

Development Division

Director

Technical Services Division

Director

Field Operations &

Transportation Maintenance

Division Director

Geomatics Division Director


Section Manager

East Service Unit

Section Manager

South Service Unit

Section Manager


Section Manager

Operations Support

Section Manager

Traffic Operations

Section Manager

West Service Unit

Section Manager

Manager

Capital Business

Intelligence Manager

Stormwater Services

Manager

Hazard Mitigation

Program Manager

Engineering Construction

Manager

Transportation Services

Manager

Infrastructure Growth

Planning Manager

Engineering Associate

Fiscal Services Manager

47

59

65

22

13

44

60

3

3

21

X

2

13

12

5

Number of Stormwater Staff Business Management

Manager 8

6

405

Total

Key

Note: Total includes Managers and Directors 84

B-1

Public Works Director

APPENDIX B Public Works Department - Stormwater Associated Staff (Full Time Equivalent)

Transportation Planning &

Development Division

Director

Technical Services Division

Director

Field Operations &

Transportation Maintenance

Division Director

Geomatics Division Director


Section Manager

East Service Unit

Section Manager

South Service Unit

Section Manager


Section Manager

Operations Support

Section Manager

Traffic Operations

Section Manager

West Service Unit

Section Manager

Manager

Capital Business

Intelligence Manager

Stormwater Services

Manager

Hazard Mitigation

Program Manager

Engineering Construction

Services Manager

Transportation Services

Manager

Infrastructure Growth

Planning Manager

Engineering Associate

Fiscal Services Manager

18.8

23.6

26

8.8

5.2

17.6

24

3

1.3

21

X

0.6

13

6

0.9

Number of Stormwater FTE Business Management

Manager 1.2

4.2

164

Total FTE

Key

Note: Total is FTE, based on percent involvement with Stormwater

85B-2

APPENDIX C

Stormwater System Maintenance Photographs

APPENDIX C

STORMWATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PHOTOGRAPHS

Type Image Description Maintenance Activities

Dry Retention Systems

Constructed or natural depressional areas, where the bottom is typically flat, and natural ground cover or other appropriate vegetation is used to promote infiltration and treatment of stormwater runoff.

Maintain healthy vegetative cover to prevent erosion and nutrient uptake. Mow as needed. Remove accumulated sediment, trash, and debris from facility bottom and inflow/outflow structures.Repairs and replacement to damaged or aging piping and control structures. Restore infiltration capacity by scraping/aerating basin bottom

Underdrain Filter Systems

Stormwater Piping installed with the purpose of collecting stormwater runoff and allowing it to infiltrate into the surrounding soil and down to the groundwater table.

Inspection for clogging, vacuum or jet cleaning.

Wet Detention Systems

Designed to be permanently wet, which allows material to settle and be absorbed. After a storm, water leaves the pond through a pipe in the "control" structure. Part of the pond — known as the permanent pool — is always below the level of the drain structure. Sometimes aquatic vegetation is planted around the pond’s perimeter to help filter sediment in stormwater runoff.

Mowing (berm and embankments). Vegetation Management. Trash and debris removal. Control Structure inspection, cleaning, and repair/replacement.

Alum Injection Systems

Alum treatment is applied to enhance pollutant removal efficiencies in traditional stormwater treatment system. Components for alum stormwater treatment system often include chemical metering pumps, storm sewer flow meters, electronic controls, and an alum storage tank. These are typically housed in a central facility. Alum feed lines and electrical conduits are run from the central facility to each point of alum addition and flow measurement.

Maintain chemical levels. Routine mechanical and electrical equipment inspection and maintenance. Floc management and disposal.

C-1


Pollution Control Boxes

Boxes/Structures placed at outfalls or strategic locations within stormwater system to separate/trap trash, debris, sediment, and other pollutants from stormwater runoff. Examples include CDS, Baffle Box, Stormceptor, and Vault.

Inspection, cleaning, repair, and/or replacement. Has a tendency to require higher frequency of inspection and cleanout than typical inlets and catch basins, since it is designed to collect and trap trash, debris, sediment, and other pollutants.

Pump Stations

Stormwater conveyance when gravity drainage is not practical or feasible. Includes wet well, pumps, controls, drivers, and housing. Primary purpose is for flood protection.

Typical pump station O&M activities. Preventative Maintenance practices spec'd with each pump, including operational checkups. Note abnormal vibration and correct problems. Check motors and rotating elements for high temperatures. Inspect pumps and motors for coating failure, oxidation, and reapply coating. Fix leaking, corrosion, lubrication, and misalignment. Check for unusual grit and check if operating near shutoff head.

Major Outfalls

Outfalls are point discharge into major waterbodies and associated branches. These locations are critical for conveying stormwater away from County stormwater collection system and into the

inspect for clogging and obstructions, cleaning, repair, and/or replacement.

Weirs or Other Control Structures

Weirs and Control Structures regulate the release of stormwater. These are use to vary the rate of discharge downstream, meet peak flow demands, and provide attenuation for water quality treatment, and

inspect for clogging and obstructions, cleaning, repair, and/or replacement.

Pipes and Culverts (miles)One of two primary methods for stormwater conveyance. Utilized in developed areas or locations where there are open channel crossings.

TV Inspections, Clean, repair, and replacement. Pipe and Culvert end treatment repair and/or replacement.

C-2


Inlets and Catch Basins

A catch basin (a.k.a., storm drain inlet, curb inlet) is an inlet to the storm drain system that typically includes a grate or curb inlet where stormwater enters the catch basin. Includes some control structures.

Inspection, cleaning, repair, and/or replacement

Channel, Ditch, and Canal (miles) Other primary method of stormwater conveyance. Cleaning/scraping, mowing, and spraying

Street Sweeping

Street sweeping is performed to keep streets and stormwater systems clean, reduce flooding and enhance water quality. Street sweeping prevents trash, sediment, and other pollutants from entering the stormwater system and downstream waterbodies.

Contracted Out. 4 types of sweeping, routine arterials, demand sweeping, local sweeping, and sweeping for study of TMDLs in the East Lake area.Routine Arterials – approximately 663 lane miles monthly.Demand Sweeping – citizen call ins requesting sweeping services.Local Sweeping – consists of approximately 4500 lane miles swept once per year.

Wetland Mitigation

Areas where wetland enhancement, restoration, creation and/or preservation project serve to offset unavoidable wetland impacts. The ecological benefits of a mitigation project should compensate for the functional loss resulting from the permitted wetland impact.

Vegetation control (spray, scrape, trimming, burning); Topsoiling and seedbed preparation;planting and mulching;water level reporting and control;

General Mowing Mowing of County owned properties General Mowing Activities on County owned land

C-3

Channel Needing MaintenanceC-4

Channel NeedingMaintenance

C-5

CMP Culvert Crossing Needing Replacement

C-6

CMP Culvert Crossing Obstruction - Needing ImprovementsC-7

CMP Needing Replacement C-8

Control Structure Skimmer NeedingReplacement

C-9

Culvert Crossing Needing Replacement - ObstructionC-10

Culvert Crossing Needing Replacement and Ditch ReshapingC-11

Curb Inlet Needing ReplacementC-12

Pollution Control System needing cleanout and maintenance

C-13

Pollution Control System Needing Cleanout and Maintenance

C-14

Drop Inlet Collection System Needing MaintenanceC-15

Pollution Control Box Needing MaintenanceC-16

Riser- Control Structure Needing Renewal/ReplacementC-17

Road Side Ditch and Culvert Need Reshaping and ReplacementC-18

Roadside Ditch Needing Maintenance

C-19

Control structure in Good ConditionC-20

Functioning Skimmer and Control StructureC-21

Functioning Control StructureC-22

Roadside Swale in Maintained Condition

C-23

APPENDIX D

Stormwater Mitigation Credit Review

D-1

Appendix D

Fundamentals for Stormwater Mitigation Credits

OverviewStormwater Mitigation Credits have been offered stormwater utilities in order to demonstrate that the Stormwater Management Program equitably and fairly recognizes the mitigating benefits provided by certain properties and to encourage proactive stormwater investments and activities. Of particular interest is the encouragement of stormwater activities that support reductions of nutrients and improvement of water quality. The following is a discussion of basic stormwater credit programs offered by stormwater utilities in Florida. It is important to note that while some kind of credit program may be warranted based on the results of various court cases in Florida, the exact nature of such programs is not proscribed. If a Stormwater Mitigation Credit is going to be offered the County must define a program that is fair and equitable to the properties served by the Stormwater System based on the current and potential future enhancement of the stormwater benefits provided by the County.

In general, a credit is offered to customers of a service charge for two basic reasons:

to recognize properties that reduce their need for County stormwater service due to onsitereductions in stormwater discharge; and,

to encourage good stormwater management behavior (e.g., provide for the treatment ofstormwater runoff).

In either case, the mitigation credit reduces the Stormwater Fee applicable to the property and should be based on reductions in certain stormwater services provided by the County. Four fundamental tenets of credit policy must be considered in the development of stormwater mitigation credits.

Program/CreditConsistency. The first is that the credit program can only be as robust as the stormwater management program offered by the County; that is, the stormwater management ordinance and associated design manual must be coordinated with the credits offered. For example, a credit program should not offer reductions for green infrastructure (best management practices that mimic more natural runoff patterns) if the available stormwater design manual does not address such practices.

ProofofCreditEligibility. The second is related to the assurances that the credit activity is being completed on the parcel potentially receiving the credit. For example, if the credit is for a stormwater mitigation pond, then the pond must be properly designed, constructed and maintained to assure that the benefits of the pond are accomplished. If the pond is not designed properly, poorly constructed, or infrequently maintained, the pond will not provide stormwater improvements for which the credit is given. Therefore, whatever the credit is, proof must be demonstrated and documented by the applicant and confirmed by the County that the property is eligible.

BalanceofCostsandBenefitsofCreditandAdministration. The credit program must be balanced with the costs required to administer the program. A complicated credit program that requires significant administrative efforts to receive the application, confirm the applicability, modify the bill and to inspect the property can be expensive. This expense must be balanced with the benefit offered by the credit to the property owner and the associated benefit to the Stormwater System.

MaximumCredit. Finally, the maximum credit offered needs to be related to the service reduced by the credit recipient. That is, if the customer still receives stormwater service from the County but has reduced runoff from their site by some means, the maximum credit should not be 100 percent. Service is still being provided in this instance. The decision on the maximum credit should therefore be based rationally on the reduction in level of service provided.

Summary of Mitigation Credit Policy Options Provided below is a review of credit policy options provided by other Stormwater utilities. For the purposes of this review, an onsite mitigation facility or activity will be referred to as a stormwater control measure, or SCM.

Maximum Credit

As noted previously, the maximum credit should be related to the reduction in stormwater services required by the property. Stormwater services are categorized as Program Management (services to manage the program), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Compliance, activities required to comply with the MS4 permit, excluding O&M), Operation and Maintenance (O&M), and Capital Improvements (CIP).

In general terms, services in both the Program Management and MS4 compliance areas are provided to all customers in the County, regardless of individual activities (such as onsite SCMs) that are completed on a customer’s property. For example, for a parcel that does not discharge stormwater directly into a public stormwater system, development review and code enforcement services make sure that the development next to the parcel does not cause flooding. Therefore, a rational method to define the maximum credit is to limit credits to the percentage of the program costs that are most affected by connection to the public stormwater system e.g., operations and maintenance expenses (O&M)and capital improvements(CIP).

Maximum Credit Related to O&M and CIP

Pros Cons

Logical rationale for maximum credit Credit related to services reduced or not needed Simple to calculate maximum value

Precise percentages vary from year to year

Duration of Credit

Since the County’s Stormwater Fees are billed on an annual basis using the non-ad valorem special assessment method, once a credit has been approved, does the credit applies to a single annual service charge. The question is: “should the credit apply to successive service charges?” Another way to ask this is: “how often do you need to confirm that the basis for the credit still

D-2

works as designed?” This is an issue because on-site stormwater management facilities that are not maintained do not function as designed. On the other hand, excessive inspection of each on-site facility can be administratively overwhelming and costly. Some Stormwater System’s require the credit applicant to reapply once a year and some require reapplication after multiple year periods to reduce administrative costs. In some instances where private SCM maintenance is part of the properties NPDES permit, compliance with other permits (such as from the water management districts) may be sufficient assurance for the continued application of the credit. Two options are discussed below related to annual reapplication versus multi-year reapplication.

AnnualReapplicationPros Cons

Confirms applicability of credit each year Encourages proper maintenance for private

stormwater facilities Inspection of facilities can be used for NPDES

MS4 compliance

Requires higher administrative costs and efforts Requires more effort by credit recipient

Multi‐yearReapplicationPros Cons

Confirms applicability of credit after a number ofyears

Encourages maintenance of private stormwaterfacilities

Inspection of facilities may be used for NPDESMS4 compliance

Reduced administrative costs Reduced costs for credit recipient

Does not encourage annual maintenance Some facilities may not be working for the

duration of the credit

Credit for Achieving or Exceeding Code

The issue with this policy option is whether a credit is offered to customers who have onsite stormwater SCMs that meet current code or to only those who provide stormwater SCMs that exceed current code. In the first case (on-site facilities that meet code), the justification is that the parcel with the SCM results in a lower runoff rate, volume and/or pollutant loading compared to a parcel with no stormwater SCMs. So, for this option, all properties with SCMs that meet current code can receive a credit.

For the second case (on-site facilities that exceed code), only those facilities with SCMs that exceed current code requirements can receive a credit. New developments and significant redevelopment have been required to provide peak rate controls (i.e., attenuation) and water quality treatment since the mid-1980’s in Florida. The County’s Stormwater System has been built to accept such constrained runoff from new development since that time. That is, stormwater ditches and pipes built since the mid-1980’s have been sized to accept uncontrolled runoff from parcels developed before the mid-1980’s and SCM-controlled levels of runoff from those parcels developed after the mid-1980’s. Therefore, parcels with SCMs constructed to meet current development code do not measurably reduce the ability to manage the runoff burden to the Stormwater System.

D-3

The majority of Florida’s stormwater utilities that provide stormwater mitigation credits use the second method

SCMsThatMeetCodePros Cons

Larger potential for eligible credit recipients Recognition of the benefits of newer

developments with SCMs Encourages stormwater runoff attenuation and

treatment

Limited actual reduction in services Since more applicants, there is more

administrative cost Potential negative impacts on annual revenue

due to credits

SCMsThatExceedCodePros Cons

Recognition of SCMs that measurably reduceCity services

Encourages extra stormwater managementefforts by customers

Reduced administrative costs since reducedapplicants

Smaller potential for credit applicants May require additional tracking of private BMPs Difficult to achieve in urban areas

Credits for Reduction of Runoff

Stormwater runoff can also be reduced by structural controls. Structures such as stormwater ponds (detention and retention), and raingardens, as well as numerous other green infrastructure, can reduce the rate and/or volume of runoff to the County’s stormwater system. Also, some types of water conservation, such as runoff reuse, that reuse rainfall for irrigation also reduce the runoff. Each of these methods control runoff to a varying degree and so, two options have been used for credits: a variable credit that is dependent on the volume of runoff controlled (e.g., Pinellas County) or a single credit based simply on the presence of the structure. A variable credit is more difficult to administer and requires the applicant to provide additional information (likely from a professional engineer which may deter application for the credit). Also, for this type of credit structure, it is more important for the County to confirm applicability by review of the design, construction and ongoing maintenance to ensure continued reduced runoff from year to year.

It should be noted, however, that except for types of retention facilities (i.e., facilities that control volume), most stormwater facilities do not reduce the volume of stormwater that runs off the site – they slow the runoff to a manageable pace by attenuating the peak rates and let it leave the siteat a reduced rate. Therefore, such stormwater facilities do not significantly decrease the waterquantity related services that need to be provided by the Stormwater System.

D-4

RunoffReductionCreditPros Cons

Distinguishes between properties with andwithout stormwater facilities

Reduces runoff peak rates for flood reduction

Variable service reduction depending on type ofstructure

May require engineering evaluation to confirmapplicability

Credits for Treatment of Runoff

In 1982, the state of Florida adopted regulations that required new development to treat stormwater runoff. The rules were based on the treatment of suspended solids but in doing so also provided for the ancillary treatment of other pollutants. In 1990’s, these rules were expanded to include load reductions for pollutants that could cause or contribute to impairments. Recently, water management districts have required additional treatment when discharge is to state waters that are impaired (i.e., exceed the applicable water quality standards). Therefore, residential subdivisions and non-residential properties built after 1982 have stormwater facilities that treat runoff pollutants.

Sometimes independent of the reduction of runoff peak rates, stormwater facilities can reduce the pollutants contained in the runoff through treatment. Stormwater treatment comes in three forms: physical (settling), chemical (modification of pollutants to not-as-problematic forms) and biological (consumption of the pollutant by animals and plants). For example, a stormwater pond can slow stormwater runoff down to allow settling of particulate matter and allow the biological consumption of nutrients. Stormwater ponds can be augmented to enhance treatment by the introduction of a coagulant (e.g., alum) or by extra biological matter (e.g., floating mats or littoral shelfs).

The complication is that each method of treatment has different efficiencies of treatment of various pollutants. For example, a wet detention pond can reduce sediments by 80 to 90 percent but nutrients only by 30 to 50 percent. A retention pond, on the other hand, can reduce all pollutants by over 90 percent.

CreditsforStormwaterTreatmentPros Cons

Rewards customers with stormwater treatmentfacilities

Promotes maintenance of onsite systems Reduces stormwater pollutant discharges from

new development and those built after 1982

Can be highly variable by facility type andpollutant

Credits for No Discharge to the Stormwater System

A non-discharge would be either a parcel for which the runoff flows to a state water body or the 100-year storm event is retained entirely onsite. The original argument for this was that sincethey do not “use” the stormwater management system, they should not pay a Stormwater Fee.The majority of stormwater utilities in Florida do not offer properties that do not discharge to theStormwater System a one hundred-percent credit (100%) with the reason being that even

D-5

properties that do not discharge to the stormwater system still receive some stormwater services. Increased stormwater levels induced by non-County controlled systems into receiving waters reduce the availability of such capacity used by the overall Stormwater System. Also, if these properties discharge directly to an impaired waterbody, the County is still responsible for reducing the county-wide pollutant load discharging to these waters. If a property has no discharge to the County’s system, then services such as operation and maintenance of the facilities and capital improvements for flood control may not be provided to that specific property. However, the property will still receive services related to code enforcement, development review, water quality improvement projects, and MS4 permit compliance, to name a few. Therefore, many stormwater utilities offer credits to properties that do not discharge to the stormwater management system that include only the relative proportion of costs for program management and MS4 compliance and water quality projects.

CreditsforNoDischargePros Cons

Recognizes the control of the property’s runoff Reduces localized flooding

Properties still receive some of the Countystormwater services

D-6

APPENDIX E

Existing and Proposed Stormwater Rates

by Customer Classification

APPENDIX E


Existing and Proposed Stormwater Rates by Customer Classification

Proposed Proposed ProposedCustomer Classification Existing FY2020 FY2021 FY2022

(a) (b) (b) (c) (d)

1 Residential Single Family - Small (100 -1,500 sq. ft.) 42.00$ 50.83$ 78.56$ 106.28$

2 Residential Single Family - Medium (1,501 - 3200 sq. ft.) 42.00$ 92.41$ 142.84$ 193.23$

3 Residential Single Family - Large (3,201 - 5,700 sq. ft.) 42.00$ 141.39$ 218.54$ 295.64$

4 Residential Single Family - Very Large (> 5,700 sq. ft.) [1] 42.00$ 0.0217$ [2] 0.0335$ 0.0453$ [3]

5 Multi-Family (per Unit) 21.00$ 46.21$ 71.42$ 96.62$

6 Mobile Home/RV Park (per Unit) 21.00$ 46.21$ 71.42$ 96.62$

7 Improved Agricultural (per parcel) 42.00$ 92.41$ 142.84$ 193.23$

8 Non-Residential/General (per Sq. Ft.) 0.0350$ 0.0217$ [4] 0.0335$ 0.0453$ [5]

[1] Current fees billed per parcel; proposed fees billed per sq. ft. [2] Minimum assessment of $141.39 per parcel.[3] Minimum assessment of $295.64 per parcel.[4] Minimum assessment of $92.41 per parcel.[5] Minimum assessment of $193.23 per parcel.

Annual Stormwater Fee

E-1

Stormwater Management Program Business Plan and Rate Study · Pursuant to Federal and State...

Documents

Transcript of Stormwater Management Program Business Plan and Rate Study · Pursuant to Federal and State...