This document summarizes a presentation on stormwater utility districts. It discusses the background and purpose of stormwater utilities in creating a regular funding source and encouraging regional watershed management. It provides an overview of the presentation topics, including the nature of stormwater utility districts and when they should be considered. The document then discusses specific examples from Connecticut, including New London's consideration of a stormwater utility to fund its stormwater management program and comply with permitting requirements.

1. When do Stormwater Utility Districts Make
Sense?
Moderator—M. James Riordan, AICP, LEED AP
Speaker—Christopher Stone, PE
Speaker—Harry A. Smith, AICP
Speaker—Maria Rose, CFM

2. Overview of
Stormwater Utility
Districts
M. James Riordan, AICP, LEED AP
Senior Project Manager

3. Background and Purpose
• Stormwater Utilities:
– Create a regular source of funding
– Encourage regional (i.e., watershed-based) management
• Potential Benefits and Concerns
• Practicability of Stormwater Utilities

4. Background and Purpose
• Stormwater Utilities:
– Create a regular source of funding
– Encourage regional (i.e., watershed-based) management
• Potential Benefits and Concerns
• Practicability of Stormwater Utilities

5. Overview of Presentation
• Nature of Stormwater Utility Districts
• When Should Stormwater Utility Districts be
Considered?
• What Authority Exists to Implement Utility Districts?

6. Nature of Stormwater Utilities
• What is this “stormwater utility district”?
– Dedicated revenue outside of general taxation.
– User fee, not a tax.
– Often regional in nature and may be watershed-based
• Once funding becomes predictable, long-term
planning can occur:
– Capital improvements
– Watershed management
– Technical assistance and demonstrations
– Flood control

7. Nature of Stormwater Utilities
• Connecticut’s Status
– OLR’s findings in 2004—No clear authority
– PA 7-154—Pilot Program (New Haven, Norwalk, New London)
– Interim Report—May be advantageous, but not authority to
regionalize
• Rhode Island’s Status
– Chapter 45-61of the Rhode Island Stormwater Management
and Utility District Act of 2002
• Massachusetts’s Status
– MGL Chapter 83, Section 1 was amended in 2006 to include
the ability to establish stormwater utilities

8. Nature of Stormwater Utilities

9. Nature of Stormwater Utilities
• Why Regionalize?
– Economies of scale—Share programs, labor and equipment
– Watershed as a unit of management

10. Nature of Stormwater Utilities
• Commonly Cited Concerns
– Bureaucracy
– New fees look like taxes
– Controversial basis for fees
– Politically untenable
– Public campaign may be needed for support

11. When Should Stormwater Utilities be Considered?

12. When Should Stormwater Utilities be Considered?

13. Connecticut Department of
Connecticut Department of Energy
Energy andEnvironmental Protection
and Environmental Protection

14. September 21, 2012
Christopher Stone, P.E.
DEEP Stormwater Section
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

15. Recent Permitting Issues
Registration review/approval
Public availability & comment
Impaired waters
WQ Standards - Anti-degradation
Low Impact Development (LID)
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

16. 2000 Census
130 Towns in UAs
113 Towns in permit
2010 Census
138 Towns in UAs
??? Towns in permit
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

17. Six Minimum Control Measures:
Public education and outreach
Public participation
Illicit discharge detect/eliminate
Construction site runoff control
Post-construction SW mgmt
Pollution prev./good hskeeping
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

18. MS4 Permit Updates/Changes
Public participation
- Public review comment
- Increased public participation
Illicit discharge detect/eliminate
- Increased emphasis
- In-depth methodology
Post-construction SW mgmt
- LID performance standards
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

19. PA 07-154 Created Pilot Program
3 Towns Develop SW Utility
Towns Develop Their Own Approach
2/09 Report to Legislature
Waiting for Legislative Action
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

20. Nisha Patel (860)424-3840
nisha.patel@ct.gov
Chris Stone (860)424-3850
chris.stone@ct.gov
Karen Allen (860)424-3842
karen.allen@ct.gov
Donna Seresin (860)424-3267
donna.seresin@ct.gov
Neal Williams (860)424-3356
neal.williams@ct.gov
Karen Pohl (860)424-4038
karen.pohl@ct.gov
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

21. City of New London
Stormwater Utility Consideration
Harry A. Smith, AICP - City Planner
SNEAPA – Hartford, CT
September 2012

22. City of New London
Connecticut
• Founded in 1646
• 2010 population 27,620 - first increase since 1960
• Land Area 5.75 square miles - densely developed
mature urban community
• Home of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Connecticut
College and Mitchell College
• General Dynamics/Electric Boat – 3,300 person
Engineering Group recently moved to City
• Located on Thames River Estuary/Long Island Sound
22 09/07/2012

23. New London Harbor 1911
23 09/07/2012

24. Pilot Program Summary
 State Legislature Established Grant
 Public Act 07-154
 New London one of three CT cities to receive grant
 New Haven
 Norwalk
 Complements Long Island Sound Resource & Water
Quality Protection Programs
 Report to the Legislature
24 09/07/2012

25. Stormwater Management Drivers
 Business Drivers
 Comply with Federal & State regulatory requirements
 MS4 permit (Phase II – expectation of new requirements)
 Rehabilitate/replace stormwater system infrastructure
 Stabilize resource, management, & financial capacity
 Enhance equity of cost distribution
 Environmental Drivers
 Protect Water Quality by mitigating runoff/pollutant discharge
 Mitigate beach erosion
 Manage flooding
25 09/07/2012

26. Stormwater Infrastructure Issues
Flooding at Major Intersection
26 09/07/2012

27. New London’s Program Needs
 Comply with permit requirements (O&M Activities)
 Develop illicit discharge and detection program
 Document outfall and drainage system inspection program
 Define construction and post-construction runoff control
measures
 Conduct construction / post-construction inspections
 Establish stormwater system map
 Clean catch basins once per year
 Establish best practices (sweeping; drain marking; etc)
 Implement stormwater training program for City employees
 Submit annual reports
 Improve system drainage infrastructure (Capital
Program)
Need $$$$$$$
27
27 09/07/2012

28. System Capital Improvements
Capital Projects
 A total of 25 problems areas identified
 Cost estimates for 14 problem areas were developed
 Estimated capital cost for the 14 problem areas:
$6,500,000
REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
 Several projects are currently underway or
have been completed
28
28 09/07/2012

29. System Capital Improvements
Sample listing of some of the 14 Projects
Problem Area Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Pequot Avenue Beach erosion due to undersized outfall. $200,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0
Montauk Avenue @ Orchard St. Insufficient capacity and/or debris problems $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Broad Street (at Rite-Aid) Insufficient inlet capacity $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $160,000
Mill Street Stone culvert deteriorating & insufficient capacity $0 $0 $250,000 $300,000 $300,000
REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Farmington Ave Roots entering failing pipe $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0
Shaw Street @ Ann Street Excessive flow raises MH lid and floods street $0 $190,000 $100,000 $0 $0
Riverview Ave @ Crescent St Insufficient drainage structures causing flooding $0 $0 $470,000 $0 $0
Jefferson and Garfield Avenues Closed system not terminated appropriately $0 $0 $0 $220,000 $260,000
$280,000 $740,000 $820,000 $670,000 $720,000
29
29 09/07/2012

30. Service Level and Funding Options
 Evaluated Three Option combinations
 Option1: Current Level of Service
 Service Level: Not in compliance
 Funding Option: General Fund Taxes
 Option2: Comply with Permit Requirements
 Service Level: Achieve compliance
REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
 Funding Option: General Fund Taxes
 Option3: Comply with Permit Requirements via Stormwater Utility
 Service Level: Achieve compliance
 Funding Option: Stormwater Utility
Projection: FY 2010 – FY 2014
30
30 09/07/2012

31. Comparison of Funding Options
 Cost difference between the Options
 Each Option included Operations and Maintenance, Salary & Wages,
Administration, and Debt Payments for capital expenses
2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014
(Option 1) Current Cost $506,935 $579,200 $658,246 $737,665 $809,442
(Option 2) Compliance Cost 909,197 878,033 965,124 1,052,816 1,133,101
(Option 3) Authority Cost 998,722 969,301 1,058,182 1,147,715 1,229,892
Cost Difference
(Between Option 3 and Option 2) $89,525 $91,267 $93,058 $94,899 $96,791
31 09/07/2012

32. Option 3: Stormwater Authority Benefits
 Facilitates sustainable stormwater management
 Full compliance with MS4 permit requirements
 Provides a new dedicated source of funding
 Creates a nexus between fees and cost of service
 Establishes a bondable revenue stream
 Enhances public awareness of the importance of stormwater
management
 Encourages practices that control quantity and improves the quality of
stormwater runoff
 Provides a more equitable basis for recovery of costs
32 09/07/2012

33. Option 3: Stormwater Authority Cost Impact
- Political Reality -
Permit Compliance through Permit Compliance through
Stormwater Authority Property Taxes
($13.33 million over 10 years) ($12.35 million over 10 years)
Tax-Exempt
$2.85
million Residential
21% $4.90 Non- Residential
million Residential $6.05
37% $6.31 million
million 49%
Non- 51%
Residential
$5.57
million
42%
33 09/07/2012

34. Stormwater User Fee Approach
(UNIT COST OF SERVICE)
 Based on Impervious Area of parcels – unit cost per
square foot
 Residential parcels
 Actual impervious area calculated from Tax Assessor data –
median value for a tier applied to all properties in the tier
 Non-Residential parcels
 Actual impervious area calculated from Tax Assessor data for
buildings/outbuildings
 In addition,10% of undeveloped lot size assessed as a minimum
impervious area for each parcel
34 09/07/2012

35. Property Characteristics
Impervious
Number of Percentage Parcel Area Tax Base
Cover
Parcels of Parcels Percentage Percentage
Percentage
Residential - Tier 1 1,047 15% 5% 8% 4%
Residential - Tier 2 2,980 41% 18% 27% 18%
Residential - Tier 3 878 12% 12% 14% 9%
Non-residential
Properties 1,938 27% 26% 51% 38%
STORMWATER USER FEES
Tax Exempt
Properties 245 3% 27% 0% 21%
City Properties 117 2% 12% 0% 10%
31% of Impervious Area contributes runoff but does not
contribute to paying for stormwater management costs!
35
35 09/07/2012

36. Stormwater Rate Structure
(ANNUAL CHARGE ESTIMATE)
 Residential
 Three tiered rates based on median Impervious Area of each tier
Average Lot Size Average Impervious Area Annual Charge
Tiers (square feet) (square feet)
6,050 950 $48.97
STORMWATER USER FEES
Tier 1
Tier 2 7,500 1,460 $75.02
Tier 3 16,500 2,370 $121.93
 Non-residential
 Individually calculated for each parcel based on estimated
impervious area
36
36 09/07/2012

37. Stormwater Rate Comparison
(ANNUAL CHARGE ESTIMATE)
Comparison of Stormwater Charge
Current Permit Permit Compliance through
Spending Compliance Stormwater Utility
(Option 1) (Option 2) (Option 3)
Annual City Total
Stormwater Stormwater Effective
Taxes Taxes Charge Charge Charge
STORMWATER USER FEES
Residential
Tier 1 (Avg. lot size 6,050 sq. ft.) $43.29 $77.64 $48.97 $5.10 $54.06
Tier 2 (Avg. lot size 7,500 sq. ft.) $54.59 $97.90 $75.02 $7.81 $82.83
Tier 3 (Avg. lot size 16,500 sq. ft.) $94.55 $169.58 $121.93 $12.69 $134.62
Non-residential Properties $156.79 $281.21 $232.99 $30.02 $257.25
Tax Exempt Properties - - $1,063.03 $110.68 $1,173.71
City Properties - - $973.36 - -
(1) Contribution for City Properties, should City properties be exempted.
37
37 09/07/2012

38. 10-Year Comparison
(REVENUES ESTIMATE)
STORMWATER USER FEES
38
38 09/07/2012

39. Study Recommendations
Consider Implementing a Stormwater Utility
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
 Over$314,000/year possible in revenue from Tax Exempt
Properties
 Reasonable nexus between user fee and cost of service
 Dedicated funds for current operations and future capital
projects
 Increased focus on Stormwater Management Activities
 Positions the City for future regulatory changes and community
needs
39
39 09/07/2012

40. Current Efforts
 Legislative Changes Sought – Cooperation with New
Haven
 New Form of Government: Strong Mayor/City Council
 Political Agreement to pursue Stormwater Utility
 Formation of Stormwater Utility Task Force
40 09/07/2012

41. Current efforts – Task Force
 Issues Task Force is reviewing include:
 Retaining current stormwater O&M thru DPW or looking at
alternatives
 Billing mechanism
 Appeals, waivers, & credits
 Public public education & outreach for Stormwater Utility
Implementation – How to get feedback - Citizens Advisory
Committee?
 Regionalization
 Funding for implementation
41 09/07/2012

42. Questions?
Harry A. Smith, AICP
City Planner
New London CT
Email: hsmith@ci.new-london.ct.us
Web: www.ci.new-london.ct.us
42 09/07/2012

43. Example Rate Calculations
Property Class Proposed Fee Structure Calculation
Residential Three Tiered Fees
Tier I: 0 – 1100 ft2
Tier 1
Tier II: 1100 - 2000 ft2
Tier 2 Tier III: > 2000 ft2
Parcels classified into three tiers based on the actual impervious area, as calculated
Tier 3 from City Assessor’s records of Building and Out Building Areas. The rate for each
tier is based on the median impervious cover for that tier.
Non-residential Impervious Cover
Step 1: Determined Impervious Cover from City Assessor’s records of Building and Out
General
Building Areas.
Tax Exempt Step 2: Applied a 10% runoff coefficient to the undeveloped proportion of the parcel
area.
City Parcels Step 3: Added the results from Step 2 to the Impervious area calculated in Step 1 to
derive the total impervious area.
Other Runoff Coefficient
Parcel area multiplied by runoff coefficient.
Vacant Parcels
Parcel area from Tax Assessor GIS for vacant parcels and Condominium mains
Condominiums respectively.
Runoff Coefficient of 10 percent and 30 percent for vacant parcels and Condominium
mains respectively..
43 09/07/2012

44. Problem Area
Bank Street
Problem Description
Flooding - Stormwater Pumps
Estimate Repair Cost
Complete
Priority
1
Areas Pequot Avenue
Montauk Avenue @ Orchard St.
Beach Erosion
Flooding
$350,000
$80,000
2
3
Broad Street (at Rite-Aid) Flooding $310,000 4
Dart Street Flooding Not yet estimated 5
Mill Street Infrastructure Issue $850,000 6
Farmington Ave Deteriorating Infrastructure $400,000 7
Shaw Street @ Ann Street Flooding $290,000 8
Riverview Ave @ Crescent St Flooding $470,000 9
Water Street Infrastructure Issue Unknown 10
Jefferson Avenue and Garfield Avenue Flooding $690,000 11
Pequot Avenue, Rockbourne Lane & Parkway
Flooding $450,000 12
South
Lower Boulevard Infrastructure Issue Not yet estimated 13
Oneco Avenue, Farnsworth St, & Deshon
Flooding $880,000 14
Street
Roosevelt Street Infrastructure Issue Not yet estimated 15
Fuller Street (Dead End portion) Flooding $120,000 16
Bayonet Street at Jennie Street Flooding $600,000 17
Caulkins Park Flooding Not yet estimated 18
Shermor Place to Henderson Rd. Flooding $230,000 19
Hempstead Court Flooding Not yet estimated 20
Manwaring St @ Hempstead St Infrastructure Issue Not yet estimated 21
Grove Street Infrastructure Issue $730,000 22
Hamilton Street @ Howard St Icing Not yet estimated 23
Federal Street Icing Not yet estimated 24
Hamilton Street Infrastructure Issue Completed 25
44 09/07/2012

45. City of Newton
Stormwater Utility / Drain Fee
Maria Rose, CFM, Environmental Engineer
Public Works Dept.

46. Newton, MA
 Population: 85,000  High and Medium Density
 Size: 18.1 sq miles Residential, Commercial &
Industrial land uses
 11.5 miles of riverfront
 20% Open Space

47. Source: CRWA

48. Newton’s Drainage Infrastructure
 12,750 catch basins
 320 miles of drainage pipes
 7 miles of streams
 155 major outfalls / drainage channels
 Six (6) perennial streams and 16
intermittent streams (most in culverts)

49. Historical Perspective
 Significant development 1950 to 1970
 Deferred maintenance
 NPDES Phase II in March 2003
 Pressure from EPA to address water
quality issues in Nov. 2004
 Increased demand for larger homes and
big box retail stores
 Additional impervious areas compound
flooding issues

50. Drivers
 Aging infrastructure needs
 Stream channels and pond maintenance
 Flooding issues
 Water quality issues
 NPDES Permit

51. How can Newton pay for the mounting
needs in stormwater management and
water quality improvement?
 General Fund
 Assessments
 Establish a user-fee based
Stormwater Utility

52. Neglected Leg of the Stool
Stor
m
wat
er
Sew
er
Utilit
y
Wa
ter
Ut
ty ili

53. Utility Concept Development
 Technical: develop the rate structure
 Uniform fee versus Unit-based fee
 MGL Ch 83 §16
 Regulatory: ordinance
 Revenue Allocation Plan
 Administrative:
 Implement transparent billing and credit procedures

Develop FAQs and Supplemental documents

Manage Program

54. Modest Start - Build Trust First
 Simplified Rate Structure and Billing
 Newton’s Initial Fee Structure based on
“bare bones” program
 Residential accounts: 23,762
 Commercial, Institutional & Industrial: 848

55. Stormwater Rate Structure
Median Residential Lot
Lot Size 10,062 Sq Ft
Structures,
1,912, 19%
Driveway,
Open 1,207, 12%
Space,
6,943, 69%
Impervious Area = 3,119 SF
Based upon a composite analysis of various sized
residential lots from the 14 villages in Newton.

56. Current Stormwater Rate Structure
Median Commercial Lot
Lot Size 19,565 Sq Ft
Open Space
5% Structures
36%
Pavement
59% Impervious Area
= 18,600 SF
For commercial properties analyzed: there was on average 6
times more impervious surfaces than residential.
$700,000 =23,762(x) + 848(6x)
“X” or the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) = $25 per yr

57. Resource Plan
 Stormwater Program Manager
 Dedicated DPW staff for maintenance,
special projects and IDDE component of
NPDES
 Cross-utilization of Public Works resources
 Generate revenue for capital improvements
and infrastructure maintenance

58. Public Approval Process
 Presented concept to our Sewer /
Stormwater Task Force
 Obtained letters of support
 Presentation to the Public Facilities Com.
 Action Alert
 Presentations made to the full Board of
Alderman
 BOA approve ordinance on May 24, 2006

59. User Fee Implementation
 Drain fee included in Water / Sewer bills
 Revenue dedicated for stormwater
management
 Elderly Discount Applies
 Credits given for owner maintained
stormwater management / recharge
systems

60. Public Education/ Program Roll-out
 News story on local cable TV
 Utility Bill Insert
 Newspaper Articles
 Stormwater Program FAQs
 Web site
http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/stormwater/

61. Bioretention Areas – Filters Stormwater
before entering Hammond Pond

62.  Pollutant Removal
Efficiencies:

TSS (80 - 90%),

Phosphorus (10-90%),

Nitrogen (30 - 50%)
 Metals: Copper, Lead,
Zinc (40 to 90%)
 Petroleum Hydro-
carbons (40- 60%)
 Bacteria / Pathogens –
insufficient data

63. Sand Filters
 Pollutant Removal
Efficiencies:

TSS (80%),

Phosphorus (10-50%),
 Nitrogen (20 - 40%)
 Metals: Copper, Lead,
Zinc (50 to 90%)

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

64. Sand Filters in Use

65. Replace Drain Pipes & Increase
Flood Capacity
Ashmont Ave Drainage Project, 2009

66. Water quality sampling

67. Sediment Sampling
Preparations for Pond Dredging Project

68. Cheesecake Brook

69. Public Education and
Involvement

70. Where do we stand now?
 Revenue generated is inadequate for our
SWM needs.
 March 2010 floods strained all available
resources and staff.
 Next generation of the NPDES MS4
Permit indicates additional revenue must
be allocated for compliance.
 Need to correct inequities in fee structure.
 Consultant retained for rate study analysis
and budget planning

71. Current System
Impervious Area Revenues
15%
26%
20%
65%
74%
Res Commercial Tax Exempt Res Comm, Inst., Industry

72. Fee Calculation
Mean Residential
Impervious Area
is 2300 sq ft.
Equals 1.0 ERU

73. Fee Calculation
Commercial Property
= 1 ERU
= 20 ERUs less credit
1.1 ac Lot with 46,000 sq ft impervious

74. Distribution Under Revised Rate
Structure
Impervious Area Revenues
15%
15%
18%
20%
65% 67%
Res Commercial Tax Exempt Res Commercial Tax Exempt

75. Preliminary Proposed Rate Structure
The average impervious area per unit
redefined at 2,300 SF, this becomes the base
unit.
 Single-family: 1 ERU = $25.00
 2-Family: 1.5 ERU = $37.50

3-Family and 4 or more unit apartments and
condominiums: fee derived from impervious
area
 Commercial and Tax-Exempt Properties: fee
derived from impervious area

76. New Rate Structure
 Increases our Stormwater Management
revenues to 1.1 Million annually
 Eliminates a loop-hole and corrects minor issues
in current rate structure
 Reinforces our SW Utility to be:
 Stable
 Adequate
 Flexible
 Equitable
 We have a planning level budget through 2017
that correlates to modest rate increases.

77. Lessons Learned
 Simplified initial approach worked for Newton;
notwithstanding some challenges
 Have at least one showcase project
 Document gains made with the fund
 Be responsive to every billing inquiry,
maintenance requests and flooding issues
 Build relationships with community & watershed
groups
 Be consistent with credits given for stormwater
recharge systems