Loading...
10/16/1986MINUTES OF THE STREET & DRAINAGE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL October 16, 1986 The Street and Drainage Committee of the City Council of the City of Paris met in Special session, Thursday, October 16, 1986, 7:30 P. M., Council Roan, City Hall. Chairman Mike Folmar called the meeting to order with the following Councilman present: Mayor Billy J. Burnett, and Councilman Travis Wortham. Also present was City Attorney, T. K. Haynes, Director of Engineering, City Engineer, David Tompkins, and City Clerk, Mattie Cunningham. Chairman Folmar announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of and action on recommendation concerning Drainage Improvement of Drainage Channel AlA.East of North Collegiate Drive, and called for a recommendation from the Committee which will be presented to the City Council at the Regular Council Meeting October 20, 1986. After discussion, Chairman Folmar made a motion that the Street and Drainage Committee recommend to the City Council to accept the donation of easements and authorize the cleaning out of the Drainage Channel AIA using City forces. The motion was seconded by Mayor Burnett and carried 3 ayes, 0 nays. Director of Engineering, John Buss reported that the procurement of easements in the 1700 Block of Henderson Street was in process. Mr. Buss also informed the Committee that he would have John Holmes to update a new map of flood areas within the City and get them copies as soon as possible. Mr. Buss presented two articles to the Committee, one regarding establishing a Stormwater Management Utility, and the other article was on charges for storm drainage, and Mr. Buss discussed those articles with the Committee. Mr. Buss reconmended that there should be parallel activities on funding construction each year and at the same time the Committee should recommend that a program from the Council be developed on a Stormwater Utility District. The Committee directed Mr. Buss to get the list of top 20 priorities from 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 in order for the Committee to go out and view the problem areas. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK why not charge- for storm drainageP Leal specialist-Patrick Gallagher, - contributions.- Boulder and Denver, litv are the residential commercial and Esq., and management consultant o ora o;: oivallis; Oregon; and Belle I. Washin on alread have user David Laredo, P.E., bothwiththe � . ?'_ . { arges forstorinwaterdrainage. Boston -based consulting ;: Reiyingonyser .fees rather than engineering firm of Camp Dressejog­ s.property tax- "revenues means viewing BcV�CKee sathere are good ?: stormwater ratnage as a u i i y'f w h reasonsto'charge contributors of .. costs allocate - accor mg to service re- stormwater flow for the cost of ceive . israisest a problFin o is in- facilities "-- designed to handle "guishing between users and beneficiaries. With most utilities users and benefi- runoff..But can it done eg ru at bly? ciaries are the same. Users o electrical service, for example, are also the princi- pal beneficiaries of the electrical system. Residential and industrial land develop - r-- A stormwater drainage utilitvdiffers'1 ment, by creating impermeable areas and changing natural drainage ways, often increases stormwater runoff. The burden of handling this sncreascd ritnof , tain stormwater drainage facilities using ad valorem property -tax funds. Drain - age system costs therefore are spread among nronertv owners without reeard ening municipal bud some communities to are hrouah user, 6hari=es "and developer rent. Users of a drainage system are ,e properties adding stormwater runoff, bile the beneficiaries are the properties •otectedfrom flooding: The distinction ot'the hill" resident obiects to paving iiii intended to protect the "bottom of the 1 hill- resi ent from flooding. J Wastewater treatment, commonl~ viewed as a utility service ma Offer some help in resolving the user vs. beneficiary conflict in stormwater drain- rial properties contributing waste �1 to the sanitary sewer system. e t The beneficiaries of wastewater treat-',, "` ment, on the of er hand are those who"" utilize "the river. or lake where water . gualit is.im rove or protec e y e y treatment" act ity. This user vs. bene, ficiary distinciion'is not often raised as an objection to user charges for waste= . water treatment, principally because the users recognize their legal duty to 9r-o-. vide minimum of levels of treatment. not as clearly arecognized as the provi e.•wastewater treatment. :y of land.developers and pro- perty owners, " oun ,ei er in s a u ory Qr m m .coon law, genera y is to protect 4ownstream properties from higher than natural runoff` rates. The precise scope of this duty.varies from state to state.., ."Once the "user vs. beneficiarv" d istinc -' age. Users of wastewater treatment faci J .tion has been resolved, the local. gover 's the duty of land developers and property owners to protect downstream properties, says Gallagher. AMERICAN CITY & COUNTY: May 1983 45 . x ■ CINCINNATI sought to correct such problems as this barricaded street inlet with its new stormwater program. Establishing a stormwater Management Utility Cincinnati's success story uses the "people" strategy. THOMAS A. STITT, P.E., P.S. City Stormwater Engineer Department of Public Works, Division of Stormwater Management Utility, Cincinnati, Ohio N many municipalities, developing a stormwater management pro- gram is one of a dozen items on the public works director's "to do" list. However, stormwater management usually remains a low priority unless a major flood or several severe storms actually damage property or threaten lives. Stormwater management includes a tota program o routine an reme- aial aintenance, master planning, capital needs, regulation, enforce- ment, and financial management. After more than three years of strategic planning, the city of Cincin- nati recently established the Division of Stormwater Management Utility within the Department of Public Works. The department convinced the city council and the public that there should be a comprehensive ap- proach to Cincinnati's stormwater needs. Community development in Cin- cinnati has spanned almost 200 years. (The city will celebrate its bicenten- nial in 1988.) Approximately 90 per- cent of the city is more than 50 years old, and about one third of the city's storm drainage system was built more than 100 years ago. Cincinnati has ap- proximately 30,000 inlets, 50 miles of water courses, more than 250 miles of storm sewers, 50 miles of channels and creeks, and 550 miles of ditches to maintain. In addition, the city has a combined system of sanitary and storm sewers with many stormwater drainage pipes emptying into the sani- tary sewers. Mounting Complaints Because of a lack of city funds and personnel, no new storm drainage systems were constructed a ter 196 . Because of budget restraints vily ,no new maintenance or capital stormwater improvements were undertaken. y�l 79 t11e problem stormwater management was evi- dent; the number of resident com- plaints in the city's file had greatly in- creased. The city called on Woolpert Consultants, a Cincinnati multidiscip- linary consulting firm, to study the complaint file, the city's drainage sys- tem, and to recommend improve- ments. The consultants concluded that more than $53 million in capital improvements were required to Rre per y repair, maintain, an man- tagoestrmw er sys em. Awareness —stormwater problems increased further in 1982, when two 100 -year storms dramatically demon- strated the deficiencies of the drain- age system. Many residents called and sent letters requesting an e- man ing t at repairs be ma e o e- �rainage system to prevent extensive flooding an property ama e m Me future. Despite the storms, immediate at- tention to other budgetary considera- tions dropped stormwater manage- ment to near the bottom of the list of city projects. Completing projects that affected the majority of citizens seemed the goal; in other words, it was more expedient to fill a pothole than clean an inlet. Cincinnati, however, was already searching for an equitable way to manage stormwater. The city man- ager formed a committee to study al- ternative methods for funding capital stormwater projects. The committee concluded that establishing a user charge, a concept discussed in the American Public Works Association Report No. 49, Urban Stormwater Management, had potential for meet- ing Cincinnati's needs. Storm drainage user charges are based on each property's runoff con- tribution to the system, benefits en- joyed, and service received. It was recommended that the city council es- tablish some form of a user charge for stormwater and the city manager di- rected the public works department to come up with a program within six months. The department initially contacted several cities that had stormwater agencies, although not necessarily in t i, orm of a utility, for information on those cities' experiences. After this preliminary research, the city sol- icitor examined the ease 1 i y o es- tablishing such a uti it y. ega y, es- tablishing a new utility in Cincinnati was possible; a section in Ohio's con- stitution permits corporations to es- tablish a utility for public purposes. Because there are many methods for establishing stormwater management programs in municipalities, it is im- 126 PUBLIC WORKS for September, 1986 portant for auy municipality consider- ing a program to consult with its legal advisors and ensure that the pro- posed solution coincides with state laws and the needs of the community. After six months of research, our department submitted a report to the city council in July 1982 that recom- mended the city create a stormwater management utility with user fees based on contribution to runoff'. By October, the council approved the recommendation. Developing the Utility From its inception, the stormwater management study was planned to maximize both interdepartmental coordination and public participation. Public input would ensure that the study did not proceed in a vacuum. Interdepartmental Coordination. The department first established a city management team to monitor the progress of a drainage finance study and coordinate activities among city departments. The team consisted of representatives from the engineering and highway maintenance divisions of the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati; the city depart- ments of buildings and inspections, law -civil division, law -real estate divi- sion, planning, finance and neighbor- hood housing and conservation; and the division of research, evaluation and budget in the city manager's of- fice. A representative from each city department would ensure that many diverse needs were accounted for and that public works managers would be involved with the implementation of the program. The team also drafted two ordi- nances tTiis project One au- t zec t e researcTi_an__d pry- nary planning for a stormwater man- agement utility, and the secon a Ot- te or the development p hase o t e project. Although council members were tightening their budget belts, both ordinances passed. The team then recommended that Water Resource Associates, Inc., Kirkland, Washington, prepare a drainage finance study. The goal of the study was to determine an adequate, stable, and publicly ac- ceptable method of financing the util- ity. The final study gave the public works department a functional re- quirements analysis, financing op- tions, a program and financing strategy, a rate structure analysis, and a rate study. After the program and financing strategy phase of the study was com- pleted in mid -1983, we submitted a progress report to the council. The report contained the study's prelimi- nary findings, a summary of the city's needs and functional requirements and a recommendation that the city establish a stormwater management utility. By this time, more than 10,000 com- plaints from residents had accumu- lated in the city's file. Public Involvement. After the council approved the progress report, Water Resource Associates, Inc. began the rate structure analysis. At this time, the real public involvement began, which meant getting to know the people and their particular stormwater - related complaints. To set the groundwork for later public involvement activities and to compile fast," a bimonthly meeting attended by the city manager and the executive boards of the community councils. Our challenge was to present this city -wide problem — which called for a $50 million solution of planned routine and remedial maintenance — and make it a priority in the minds of the public. Our presentation consisted of: 1) a statement of the seriousness of stormwater drainage in Cincinnati; 2) a slide show that demonstrated real drainage problems (inlets blocked with debris, living rooms damaged by flood water, and factory workers wading through a Iocal industrial ■ INADEQUATE roadside drainage was creating severe roadway flooding. The city's deteriorating drainage system prompted numerous complaints. information collected by the city man- agement team, several projects were established. Stormwater Functional Require- ment Maps. Since 1958, the depart- ment had kept careful records of the 10,000 stormwater complaints. Using these records, the locations of the complaints were noted on neighbor- hood maps. These 48 "Stormwater Functional Requirement Maps" were bound into a separate volume, which provided excellent source material for determining the worst drainage problem areas. Community Council Rapport. Es- tablishing a rapport with the commu- nity councils was crucial. Cincinnati has more than 48 "recognized" com- munities that are established political forces in the city. To ensure their in- volvement, we presented a program at the city manager's "working break- complex); and 3) a presentation of the "utility" solution. Because this first program was so well received, the director of public works asked each of the community councils if we could make a similar presentation at a future meeting. Property owners would be given the opportunity to listen to the proposal and give feedback. Many of the coun- cils accepted the invitation. The key to the community council talks was targeting and tailoring each presentation to an individual commu- nity. For example, in the Mt. Airy neighborhood, we used a map that pinpointed areas of local drainage problems and included locations of resident complaints. Showing photo- graphs of stormwater problems in that community, such as clogged in- lets, basement water destruction, and on (Ctinued on page 150) PUBLIC WORKS for September, 1986 127 i this field will often accept a cost of bet eexi W to 60 percent of the cost of buyin new. For anything over 60 percent, experts agree unanimously that it is, t worth it to refurbish. When evalua i ig the cost-effective- ness of refurbi- ing, remember t subtract any resale value you d be giving up by not tr in - the ve- hicle for a new one. Product Inf ation Networ (P1N) from it eport entitled Vehicle e- fur 's ment: Avoid Pitfalls While S ing Dollars. It is one of approxi- mate items on fleet mana nt in PI N's da se of o , 00 prod- uct �,call d servic uations for the pubs . For detai this Re- po (800) 223 -0740. IV • • • Stormwater Management (Continued from page 127) neighborhood flood damage was also very helpful. By relating the neighborhood prob- lem to the overall city problem we J Over 25 Attachments available now! • 50" - 60" snowblowers • 60" - 72" - 84" Angle plows with heavy duty trip edge • 50" - 60" V -plows • 60" - 72" Power angling sweepers • 175 - 225 gal Rear mounted water tanks and sprayer booms (Mall flushers available) • 74" - 88" Mott designed and manufactured industrial flail mowers • 5 models of salt /sand spreaders for front, rear, or over axle mounting • 7211- 82" Triumph sickle bars • Triumph under guardrail mower • 60" - 7211- 83" - 99" Heavy duty single deck rotary mowers Technical information • Two diesel engines available: 56 HP naturally aspirated 64 HP Turbocharged • Four wheel drive hydraulic diff-lock • Heavy duty outboard planetary axles • Frametess all cast construction • Two -man deluxe ROPS cabin with full instrumentation • Front and rear P.T.O. standard • Front and rear Category 13 -PT linkage • Hydrostatic articulated steering, two cylinder closed system • Fully synchronized transmission, 8 forward and 4 reverse speeds with shuttle shift Holder of North America 2079, Bank Place, Ottawa, Ont. Canada K1V 8A8 (613) 523 -8951 Telex: 0533734 For details circle No. A -119 on card 150 showed the people in each commu- nity that a comprehensive stormwater management program was neces- sary. Residents could see that the stormwater problem was not isolated — it existed in their own neighbor- hood, as well as in other neighbor- hoods throughout the city. Additional presentations were made to the chamber of commerce, the board of realtors, and the city manager's environmental advisory council, giving the proposed program even more public exposure. Implementing the Utility An updated progress report pre- sented to the city council in May 1984 included the following: ♦ A report outlining the status of stormwater management and the justification /alternatives for a com- prehensive program; data gathered from the regional stormwater agen- cies; an explanation of the utility con- cept, the public participation efforts, and the proposed rate structure. ♦ An ordinance implementing the utility. ♦ The volume containing the functional requirement maps. ♦ The drainage finance study. With the formal legislation process underway, two public hearings were held. Although some individuals voiced their disapproval of the pro- posal, no organized groups lobbied against the utility. Following the hear- ings, the council voted in favor of es- tablishing the new public works divi- sion. The new ordinance established a chapter on management and fi- nance in the Cincinnati Municipal Code, a rate structure, and a method for collecting revenue. The ordinance provides for: 1) the collection of stormwater service charges 2) the establishment of prop- erty classes within the city, rates and rate - -calculation method, and 3) a pro- adjusting charges Toun to Abe able. Responsibility for storm drainage was previously scattered over several city departments and creating a cen- ter to assume full responsibility for stormwater management was im- perative to the success of the new util- ity. However, at the same time it was necessary to avoid creating a new bureaucracy. With the division of stormwater management utility within the de- partment of public works as this cen- ter, it would not be necessary to hire a new engineering staff and support personnel. Purposely, the staff was to be kept small, and no new mainte- nance organization would be built. Resources within the city would be used, along with private contractors. PUBLIC WORKS for September, 1986 To help implement the utility, the city "loaned" $585,000 to the public works department. Other questions remained to be an- swered. For example, would the user fee be added onto the customer's water bill or property tax bill, or would the property owner be billed separately? Many Cincinnati prop- erty owners already believe they are charged too much for their water. In addition, the water bill contains a sewerage service charge for the col- lection and treatment of sanitary and industrial wastes. If the fee for the utility were added onto the bill, v believed this would have a det- rimental effect on the public's percep- tion of the new utility. Adding the user fee to the property tax bill would be inconsistent with the philosophy of the utility concept as the user fee is not a tax and does not relate to property valuation. Therefore, we opted for a separate billing system. Rate Structure It was, of course, not feasible to at- tempt to solve the entire $50 million problem at once. A modest budget of $5 million a year for the total operation of the Stormwater Management Util- ity was deemed sufficient. Water Resources, Inc. examined 14 com ma ions of ixe and varia le rates and recommended a scheme based on the rationa me )o o tia ing runoff. n m to t e system, the calculation takes into account the one its _er,)oyed and service receive Most nnportant y, rt was desig ne to be applicable and equitable for the entire city. To avoid making extremely precise measurements of each property, in -_ eluding impervious areas, we adopted the concept o an rea ` ange Number equal ,t\ota of area m square ee ivi e y 2,000 to represent the lot area. The ntens�ty o eve I opmen actor (IDF), which is related to land use, not zoning, is a measurement of impervi- ousness. The Equivalent Runoff mt (ERU) is the product of the ARN an the IDF. The ordinance established tFimonthly user fee at $1.28 multip- lied by the number o ERUs. After a statistical stu y of the 48 neighborhoods, we set flat, annual rates for one -, two- and three-family pproperties (which make up 60 percent of a p-II roperties in the city). I his stud y justified assump ions at these prop- erties are "equal" and contribute rel- atively the same amount of runoff to the system. Two flat rates were estab- lished: one for lot sizes up to 10,000 sq ft and another for lot sizes more t an 10,000 sq ft. The remaining 40 percent (48,000 proper yes) wou ave a variaD e ra e s rue ure ca cu a e accor mg to the ARN and IDF. To calculate the variable rates, Woolpert Consultants was hired again to investigate prop- erty data and tax information from city sources and to generate a data base using a Synercom interactive graphics mapping and data base sys- tem. Using the county auditor's plats, Woolpert Consultants digitized all 48,000 properties on the computer system according o e a s 1?ook, page, and parce num er.-'1 he area each parcel was computed to begin creating the data base. To generate a master account file, a computer tape from the Hamilton County real estate files containing demographic data such as names of property owners, mailing addresses, zip codes, and land use codes was combined with the consultant's gen- erated file. In January 1985, the city hired a joint venture team, Coopers & Lyb- rand and Automatic Data Processing (ADP), to design, operate, and main- tain the separate billing system. The final master account file contained property owners' names and ad- dresses, billing addresses, land use codes, the property's IDF, ARN, square footage, and parcel classifica- For details circle No. A -121 on card 152 PUBLIC WORKS for September, 1986 tion and is now used by ADP for man - aging acLounts receivable. 'This extensive process for calculat- ing rates his ensured that, the finni structure meets the test o equity. T17c, process was efficient; developing the gigital data base took essi six months. In addition. raving a com- puterized data base makes it easy for the utility to keep accounts up to date. The Calm Before the Storm In early 1985, the council was pre- sented with another ordinance that contained the stormwater manage- ment code, which officially estab- lished the user fee and permitted the department to implement the drain- age code. The stormwater manage- ment code, prepared by the city staff working with Burgess & Niple, Lim- ited, a local consulting firm, also set the date for the opening of the utility and defined the utility's respon- sibilities and the procedures for rnas- ter planning, inspections, violations, obtaining permits, and more. An ap- peals process and an appeals board were established for resolving in- equities. Before the bills were mailed, we sent a color brochure explaining the purpose of the utility to property owners as part of an overall public For details circle No. A -123 on card relations information program. (The mailing also served a dual purpose. Undeliverable brochures allowed us to check the accuracy of the names and addresses in the master account file.) More than three years of re- search, investigation, and planning ended July 11, 1985, when the first bills were mailed. On that day, a one -page newspaper advertisement with the headline, "It's going to keep on raining,' announced and ex- plained the new utility. The ad was still another way to inform people who might still be unaware of the new pro- gram. Prepared for questions from citi- zens, additional phone lines were in- stalled, and a temporary staff was hired from a local service to answer customer's questions. More than 1,000 phone calls were logged at the division that day. After a week; the utility was receiving onlyaout 100 calls a day. Even with the public involvement efforts, there were, of course, com- plaints. Some called to find out "what this was all about." Other property owners understood but called to cor- rect address errors. Still others t oug t the utility was a goo i ea u believed that their own bill was incor- rect. Some even called to say that it was "about time" the city did some - tjiing about stormwater. About 20 percent of the callers complained that the new utility was nu fair. We explained the purpose of the program, answered their ques- tions and told them about the appeals process that had been established as part of the stormwater management code. Follow Up With the program underway, the division is now finalizing documents that outline specifics of the utility such as detailed rules and regulations. This document will be reviewed by city departments and then by outside con- sultants and professional societies. This review process will ensure the proposed regulations are effective for operating the utility. Also being finalized is a mainte- nance master plan, which contains maintenance management objec- tives, resource requirements, infor- mation on handling complaints, and routine and remedial maintenance, among other guidelines. Six wa- tershed master plans, expected to be completed no later than 1988, will be the basis for the stormwater capital improvement program and are being derived directly from reported citizen complaints. To begin implementing some of these projects, the division is using microcomputers to help prioritize 154 PUBLIC WORKS for September, 1986 stormwater projects. Each project can be QxQmined and compared with other stormwater projects according to a set of parameters. The immediacy of each project is evaluated along with engineering and economic considera- tions, characteristics of the problem, public sensitivity to the problem, and upstream and downstream benefits from correcting the problem. This method, being developed jointly by the stormwater management staff in cooperation with WEGA. Inc., local engineering management consult- ants. allows projects to be judged fairly and gives the public works de- partment and city council recom- mendations for improvements on a "worst- first" basis. Because we proposed a modest budget of $5 million a year for stormwater management. the plan was accepted as a way to begin coping with Cincinnati's stormwater drain- age needs. If a group of frustrated public works officials had begged for $50 million to solve all of the city's drainage problems, this measure cer- tainly would have been defeated. However, by presenting the city gov- ernment and the citizens with a logi- cal, thought -out approach, we gener- ate a certain goo d faith and positive response that turned the concept into reality.- LJLF1 4. Lessons to be Learned You need a storm. Nothing was more helpful for stimulating public interest in the stormwater problem than the two 100 -year storms that Cincinnati experienced in 1982. If there is nothing to stimulate public interest, support for the program will likely be difficult to achieve. Positive attitudes help push the program. Because the idea of a stormwater management utility was innovative, there were those who said it would never work. The engineer or manager that directs a study on stormwater management needs a positive attitude to combat people who will give a whole list of reasons why something cannot be done. Buy a pair of sharp scissors. This is vital for cutting through the infamous amount of red tape that exists in a municipal government. You must proceed when there are problems, sell, and then resell your plan. Inertia is the greatest force in government. Doing homework paves the road to success. You must document the problem. Information collected must be accurate and given justification. It is not enough to say there is a problem. Proper documentation also is vital when selling the program to the public. Involve as many people as possible in the process. Within your own organization and among the public, make people aware of the problem. The thought of visiting 48 community councils and trying to sell them on a $50 million program may indeed be frightening, but it could make the difference between a plan and an implemented program. Do not create another bureaucracy. Citizens do not want more gov- ernment, just efficient service. We chose to think small organizationally — 15 to 20 people. Supplement existing stormwater management staff with existing city maintenance organizations and contract for needed design, construction, and additional maintenance services. 156 For details circle No. A -125 on card PUBLIC WORKS for September, 1986 Hydropower Catch Basin Cleaner •- Designed to vacuum clean catch • Tank is hydraulically raised and basins. digesters, deep wet wells, lowered for dumping sludge beds, etc. hose •Vacuum reel and operator • One man operation controls are located on curb side inches ft. • Delivers up to 380 of • Operates at depths to 35 water in vacuum (28 Hg.) . Vacuums up to 100 ft. away . Recovers material under water from unit i . Available with 1200 gallon . Recovers wet or dry material (6 cu. yd.) or 2000 gallon (10 cu. yd.) collector tank CLEANER CHOICE Hydropower Sewer & Catch Basin Cleaner • Combination machine designed . Tank tailgate is liquid tight to clean sewers and catch basins - Sewer hose reel (600 ft. capacity) - t3 One man operation is mounted behind truck cab `y / �! • Triplex pump cleans sewers • All operator controls are located S with 2000 PSI water pressure on curb side • Vacuum system removes debris . Vacuum power of 380 inches of from catch basin or manhole water (28 Hg.) • Available with 1200 gallon • Fully operational in cold climates (6 cu. yd.) or 2000 gallon (10 cu. yd.) collector tank See The All New HYDROPOWER LOADER MANUFACTURING COMPANY at Booth 500 APWA Show 3275 E. CENTRAL/ P.O. 80X341 / FRESNO, CA 93708 /PHONE(209) 268.8521 156 For details circle No. A -125 on card PUBLIC WORKS for September, 1986