ESTES VALLEY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Phase I. Stormwater - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ESTES VALLEY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Board of Realtors Meeting May 3, 2018

• Stormwater Master Plan – Summary
• Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study – Draft Fee Summary

Phase I. Stormwater Master Plan Phase II. Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study

5/3/2018 1

Presentation Outline

• Purpose and Need
• Phase I. Stormwater Master Plan
• Phase II. Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study
• Next Steps
• Input and Questions

5/3/2018 2

Why is Public Works Pursuing a Stormwater Utility?

• 1. After the 2013 flood, the Federal Emergency Management Agency launched the

standard flood disaster response effort to update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Estes Valley. The existing maps were based on floodplain hydrology and mapping from 1977, 1985, and 2013. Example: the adopted peak 1% Probability annual discharge in Fall River was 680 cubic feet per second (cfs).

• 2. Updated hydrology was completed for the Town by Wright Water Engineers in
• 2016. Example: the modeled peak 1% Probability discharge in Fall River is 1860 cfs

(nearly 3x the previous value). The 2013 flood discharge in Fall River was estimated to be about 2000 cfs.

• 3. The proposed new FEMA floodplains will be much larger, causing new challenges

for redevelopment and increased flood insurance premiums for many parcel

• wners. The size of these expanded floodplains (and the associated negative

impacts) can be reduced by building the proposed new stormwater infrastructure.

5/3/2018 3

Why is Public Works Pursuing a Stormwater Utility?

• 4. In 2016 the Town Board established the following infrastructure objective:

Explore the need for a stormwater master plan and the feasibility of a stormwater utility (including floodplain considerations).

• 5. In 2017 the Town Board identified the following infrastructure objective:

Consider implementation of the Stormwater Master Plan and formation of a stormwater utility.

• 6. The Board of Trustees included the following three objectives in the 2018

Strategic Plan:

• Pursue funding for flood mitigation projects.
• Implement recommendations of the Stormwater Master Plan.
• Prioritize and pursue projects and funding to reduce flood risk and flood

insurance costs for the property owners and businesses of the Estes Valley.

5/3/2018 4

Guiding Principle for the Proposed Stormwater Utility

Past and future floods damage transportation and utility infrastructure that is essential for community safety and well-

• being. Substantial private property damage also occurs.

These repetitive risks of adverse economic impacts are a community problem which should be addressed by all community members. Our local elected officials and staff (Town of Estes Park and Larimer County) should lead the effort to mitigate these flood damage risks.

5/3/2018 5

Purpose of a Stormwater Master Plan

• 1. Identify Stormwater Infrastructure Problems
• 2. Develop Conceptual Solutions to Improve Drainage Issues
• 3. Develop Concept Level Costs for the Potential Improvements
• 4. Provide an Implementation Plan based on a Prioritization of Identified

Improvements

• 5. Provide the Basis for Funding Capital Improvements Program

(solicit grants/loans/etc. & form the basis for fees/assessments/tax/etc.)

• 6. Provide a Flexible Document to Guide Program Implementation and

Integrate New Development within the Watersheds and the Community

5/3/2018 6

PHASE I. STORMWATER MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN

5/3/2018 7

• Five Major Drainage Basins
• Dry Gulch Basin
• Black Canyon Basin
• Fall River Basin
• Big Thompson River Basin
• Fish Creek Basin
• Development Code Boundary
• 8471 parcels (5191 in Town of Estes

Park and 3280 in unincorporated Larimer County)

Focus of the EV SMP

5/3/2018 8

5/3/2018 9

• PUBLIC FACILITIES over MAJOR DRAINAGEWAYS
• 57 Total Road and Pedestrian Bridges and Culverts
• ~23 Capacity Deficient (Mostly over Fall River and Big

Thompson Rivers)

• ~6 Additional Facilities in Poor Condition (Half over

Dry Gulch)

• STREAM AND CHANNEL CAPACITY
• The lower reaches of Black Canyon, Fall River, & Big

Thompson River generally have insufficient capacity to carry the 1% annual probability flood flow.

Facility Evaluations – Results

Facility Evaluations – Results

5/3/2018 10

• PUBLIC FACILITIES ON SECONDARY DRAINAGEWAYS & LOCAL DRAINAGE ISSUES
• Flooding Issues Generally: Small, Localized, and Impact Few Properties
• Lack of Defined Conveyance Path
• Limited Capacity in Streets and/or Roadside Swales
• Conflicts with Existing Buildings and/or Property

Facility Evaluations – Results

5/3/2018 11

• LOCAL DRAINAGE ISSUES
• Based on the Known Local Flooding Issues

a GIS Screening Tool was Developed to Estimate Number of Potential Local Flooding Issues

• Screening Estimated the Potential for

Approximately 600 Similar Small/Localized Drainage Issues within the EVDC Boundary

Potential Improvements – Primary Focus

5/3/2018 12

• Life/Health Safety
• On Major Drainageways
• Dry Gulch, Black Canyon, Fall River, Upper Big

Thompson, Fish Creek

• On Arterials
• US 34, US 36, SH 7, SH 66, Devils Gulch Rd,

Marys Lake Rd, Fish Ck. Rd., etc.

• On Critical Facilities & Access
• Hospital Routes and Police/Town Hall

Potential Improvements – Secondary Focus

5/3/2018 13

• On Local Roads
• On Property Damage along Major Drainageways
• On Secondary Drainageways
• Known and Repetitive Problem Areas
• On Property Damage along Secondary/Tertiary Drainageways
• On Tertiary Drainageways
• Minimal Focus on Private: Roads/Driveways, Culverts, Bridges, etc.

Potential Improvements – Minor Focus

Conceptual Improvement Maps (Appendix D)

5/3/2018 14

Improvement Plan - Updated

5/3/2018 15

PHASE II. STORMWATER UTILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY

5/3/2018 16

Feasibility of a Stormwater Utility

Separate but related issues

• Financing and financial impacts
• Time frame for implementation
• Organizational structure

Financing and Financial Impacts

• Total Estimated Cost of Master Plan Capital Improvements: $79.0 million (2017

dollars—increases to $128 million for 30 year implementation)

• Priority 1 Projects: $44.2 million
• Priority 2 Projects: $23.2 million
• Priority 3 Projects: $11.6 million

Time Frame for Implementation

• The time frame can be flexible. 30 years is proposed to keep user fees low.
• Driven by the community’s desire to increase public safety by reducing flood risks; not regulatory driven
• The ability to pay for capital costs will play a major role in project completion

Figure: One possible expenditure pattern based on the Master Plan

Financing Implementation

• Who pays and how?
• Owners of all parcels in the Development Code Boundary (Town and County), with

fee consideration for the different types of land use

• Charges are proposed to be in the form of monthly bills, like water and sewer
• For new development, an impact fee is proposed to buy-in to the existing system
• Impervious area, such as the areas covered by roofs and concrete, is the basis for

assessing charges.

• Downtown businesses tend to have relatively more impervious area than residences,

and are expected to receive the greatest direct benefit from the proposed improvements.

Financing Implementation

• Assumed impervious area percentages of parcel for cost modeling and fee estimating are:
• 0% vacant parcel
• 5% Rural Estate zoning
• 10% Accommodations, Low Density
• 20% Estate zoning
• 30% Single Family zoning
• 45% Multi-family zoning
• 50% Accommodations, Highway
• 60% Industrial zoning
• 90% Downtown Commercial zoning
• Monthly user fee consists of three parts: monthly service fee ($2/mo), operation &

maintenance fee (formula), and facility expansion fee (formula)

• Formula = Parcel area (sf) x impervious factor x (O&M rate of $0.0002 + CEF rate of $0.0016)
• A calculation limit of 10 acres is proposed for any single parcel to keep fees reasonable.

Cost of the Master Plan to Property Owners

• A detailed, pay-as-you-go financial model for a

stormwater entity over the 30 year planning period 2018-2047 was developed to assess impacts

• Operation & Maintenance and inflation costs

are included in the model

• Implementing the SMP within a 10-20 year

time frame will require debt financing or major grants, and high user fees

• Avoiding debt requires additional years to fund

and build projects, and requires discipline in establishing and managing capital reserves

Estimated O&M Costs

• Costs are uncertain due to nature of the assets and how future capital R&R costs are

recovered

• The preliminary analysis assumes $430,000 per year, increasing with inflation
• Approx. $200k for O&M and initial capital replacement, $50k for Admin, $180k for

personnel

• Other Stormwater utilities
• Town of Windsor: $350,000 range without capital R&R; personnel costs are relatively

low

• Lafayette: $750,000 range, without capital R&R; personnel costs approx. $190,000
• Box Elder Stormwater Authority: $450,000/year, mostly contracted

Potential Fee Structure

• Based on a Range of Possible Stormwater Financing Plan

Implementation Scenarios

• Varying implementation periods, primarily 20-30 years
• Varying financing sources: user charges, sales tax revenues, grants, loans
• User charges were adjusted to meet desired implementation period and availability of
• ther funds
• 9 scenarios were analyzed

Summary of Implementation Scenarios Focus on Scenario No.s 1A, 3A, 5A

5/3/2018 25

Scenario 1A Financed with 30 years of User Charges Only

• Most of the High Priority Projects constructed between 2024 through 2036
• Entire 30 years is needed to complete the projects in appropriate sequence
• Total Cost of Plan: $128 million; Revenues Generated: $149 million
• Potential Monthly Bills for 2018, 2023, and 2028

5/3/2018 26

2018 2023 2028 Single Family Estate (1 acre parcel) $15 $29 $35 Single Family Residential (1/4 acre parcel) $7 $12 $15 Accommodations (2 acre parcel) $79 $153 $183

Scenario 3A Financed with 30-years of User Charges and 0.4% Local Sales Tax Beginning in 2024

• Construction of most high priority projects constructed 2024 through

2035

• Projects could be completed in less than 30 years, but more than 20 years
• Total Cost of Plan: $128 million; Revenues Generated: $177 million
• Potential Monthly Bills for 2018, 2023, and 2028

5/3/2018 27

2018 2023 2028 Single Family Estate (1 acre parcel) $15 $26 $26 Single Family Residential (1/4 acre parcel) $7 $11 $11 Accommodations (2 acre parcel) $79 $138 $138

Scenario 5A Financed by 30-years of User Charges, 0.4% Local Sales Tax beginning in 2024, and Grant Assistance for Major Projects

• Most High Priority Projects Constructed between 2023 through 2032
• Projects could be completed in less than 30 years, but more than 20 years
• Total Cost of Plan: $102 million; Revenues Generated: $163 million
• Potential monthly bills for 2018, 2023, and 2028

5/3/2018 28

2018 2023 2028 Single Family Estate (1 acre parcel) $15 $20 $20 Single Family Residential (1/4 acre parcel) $7 $9 $9 Accommodations (2 acre parcel) $79 $108 $108

Property Owner Impact: Regional Comparison

5/3/2018 29

Monthly User Charge Development Impact Fee ($/parcel) Monthly User Charge Development Impact Fee ($/parcel) Greeley 5.57 $ 369 $ 82.32 $ 4,000 $ Longmont 13.05 $ 862 $ 39.97 $ 5,516 $ Fort Collins 11.49 $ 498 $ 159.98 $ 7,400 $ Loveland 11.98 $ 500 $ 90.86 $ 6,200 $ Windsor 4.00 $ 485 $ 25.40 $ 7,200 $ Box Elder Stormwater Authority 5.50 $ 440 $ 108.00 $ 862 $ Lyons 10.00 $ 10.00 $ Steamboat Springs None None None None Aspen1 NA 12,600 $ 2018 Baseline Level 6.87 $ 500 $ 70.23 $ 2023 Baseline Level 11.29 $ 600 $ 127.96 $ Single Family Residential (7,000 sf lot, 40% Impervious area) Commercial (1 acre site, 90% Impervious Area) Jurisdiction Town of Estes Park

Figure: Proposed Initial EVDC Stormwater Rates - Sample of Regional Comparisons

Organizational Structure

• What sort of entity is required to finance and implement the Plan?
• A range is considered:
• The Town, through the General Fund.
• Competes with other Town services for sales tax funds
• The Town, through a new Stormwater

Enterprise Fund. Recommended structure.

• Regional Stormwater Authority. BCC will not support
• New Regional Entity (District?) Encompassing

Wastewater and Stormwater. Sanitation Districts do not support this option.

Stormwater Enterprise Fund

Advantages

• Puts stormwater on par with other Town Enterprise Funds, a common approach for

municipalities

• Allows for cost-of-service based rates and fees
• Town Board has rate-setting authority
• A range of funding sources may be available. Sales tax would require Town voter

approval.

• Town could operate entity or it could be operated through contract
• Town has existing administrative structure to bill existing utility customers

Disadvantages

• New staff and equipment are required to manage the projects and expanded

maintenance efforts.

Who Decides?

• The elected officials (Board of County Commissioners and Town Trustees) must adopt

an Intergovernmental Agreement that establishes roles and responsibilities for each jurisdiction (similar to Town administration of the Estes Valley Development Code)

• Why is this not decided by a public vote?
• An election administered by the Town only allows Town residents to vote. Not fair to

County residents within the EVDC boundary.

• An election administered by the County would allow all County residents to vote. Not

fair to Estes Valley residents to have larger County population of voters determine the

• utcome of this local issue.
• A regional stormwater authority or district boundary could be created and a special

election conducted for the impacted property owners. BCC does not wish to be involved in the formation and administration of another district. No champion exists to form the required administrative structure.

NEXT STEPS (dates still tentative):

• June 7, 8, 10: Public Open Houses to present draft Stormwater Master Plan and

proposed user fees. We want to learn:

• Should the Town be leading this effort, or do nothing while waiting for occasional grant

funding for a few of the big projects?

• Are most residents willing to pay the proposed fees?
• Should owners of vacant land be obligated to pay the monthly service charge and O&M

charge (but no facility expansion fee)?

• Is the longer 30 year project delivery period an acceptable tradeoff for lower monthly user

fees?

• What else should we be asking?
• July 2, 2018: Public comment/survey period closes.
• July 24, 2018: Study Session with EP Board of Trustees to discuss draft IGA and

citizen comments received on proposed stormwater user fees

5/3/2018 33

NEXT STEPS:

• Date to be determined: Work Session with BCC to discuss draft IGA and citizen

comments received on proposed stormwater user fees

• Date to be determined: Public Hearing with EP Board of Trustees to approve SMP,

approve IGA, and adopt new stormwater utility enterprise ordinance

• Date to be determined: Public Hearing with BCC to approve SMP and approve IGA

to authorize Town to collect new stormwater user fees for county residents within the Estes Valley Development Code Boundary

• Date to be determined: Town Public Works and Finance Depts implement new

user fees, hire a Stormwater Engineer, and begin designing the new projects.

5/3/2018 34

INPUT &/or QUESTIONS???

View the Stormwater Master Plan on the Town website (estes.org) and search for “stormwater”. Hard copy to be available in the Estes Park library by mid-May.

5/3/2018 35