The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0394_001I. N MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE NOVEMBER 13, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald L. Farley; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Besse, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros, George Van Geem (at 5:10 p.m.) and Theodore Wattenberg. also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John Fulton Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg, Finance Director David Jepson, Planning and Zoning Director David Clements, public Works Director Herb Weeks, Personnel Coordinator Donna Pike, Public Works Superintendents Mel Both and Jerry McIntosh, Police Chief Ron Pavlock, Deputy Fire Chief Lonnie Jackson, Deputy Police Chiefs Tom Daley and Ron Richardson, Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Economic Development Director Ken Fritz, four representatives from RJN and Associates, Mike Garfield of CPC; three members of the press, many Police and Fire personnel with approximately 200 persons in the audience. The Minutes of the Committee of the accepted and filed. There were no citizens to be heard. Whole meeting of October 23, 1990 were Village Manager John Dixon introduced the discussion of the Employee Assistance Program. He recommended that the Committee approve this Program. Personnel Coordinator Donna Pike outlined the reasons why the Employee Assistance Program would be good for the employees and the Village. Mayor Farley said he now feels the Village should pay the full cost for this Program.. He suggested trying this for two years to see if it would help the supervisors and the employees. Trustee Wattenberg said he is very much in favor of the Program now after looking at the additional information. Trustee Busse said he supports the Program. He asked what better investment can the Village have than putting it into its employees. He feels the Village should pay the full cost of the program. Trustee Arthur does not support the Program. He said the taxpayers are facing difficult economic conditions at this time. He said the Village has four certified counselors, and some employees have used them. Trustee Corcoran said he cannot support this Program. He considers this to be a duplication of coverages and services we already have now. He felt this Program can be handled by personnel in the Human Services Division. Trustee Floros asked if we are duplicating coverage here. Donna Pike said she did not think so. Mike Garfield, of CPC, referred, to the report indicating that the number one cause of hospital stays in 1988 in Illinois was for mental health care. He said the number six cause is substance abuse. Ten years ago, only 5% of hospital admissions were for trental health e. 'He said that 95% of the Fortune 500 companies have 'Employee Assistance Programs. He said they adopted the Programs not only to help employees but also to save money. Trustee Floros asked how many member communities of the NWMC have enrolled in this Program. Mr. Garfield said that three communities have joined the Program since it was started three weeks ago. He said eight others are committed to the Program and ten others are considering it. Trustee Floros said he is leaning toward the Program but he has not decided yet. Mayor Farley requested that this item be placed on the November 20 Agenda for further discussion. . Mayor Farley said that he and the Village Board were disappointed With the results of the Referendum as were the employees and many citizens. He expressed appreciation to all those who supported the Referendum d those who worked so hard to try to make the Referendum successful. At this point, at 8:10 p.m., Trustee Van Geem arrived. -2- Mayor Farley indicated that a very critical problem still exists and it must be addressed somehow. He noted that the service of the Police and Fire Departments will not diminish. He said we have an excellent Accredited Police Department, the 97th community, to be accredited nationally. He said we have an excellent Fire Department with an ISO R rating.'Very ;dew communities are, able to obtain such a Fire rating. Mayor Farley then indicated that he wanted to open the floor to comments by the residents because the Village Board would like to have any direction that can be provided. Ray Guilfoyle, the Police Union President, made a presentation on behalf of the Police Officers. He said the Village has one of the best Police Departments in the State but the worst facility for a town of this size. He said this was an Advisory Referendum and now the tough decision must be made by the Village Board. He said that the Mayor and Board are on record as supporting the Facility. He said the Facility is needed and it is the right thing to do. He urged that the Village Board set aside the results of the Referendum and go forward with the project. Larry Selbach, an active member of the Senior Citizens' Advisory Council and Neighborhood Watch, said that the seniors as a group are disappointed at the failure of the Referendum. He read a letter dated November 13 from the Senior Citizens' Advisory Council signed by 23 individuals supporting the new Public Safety Facility. He said the Village President and Board should assume a leadership role and implement the construction of a new Facility. Dennis Saviano, President of the Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber Board was deeply disturbed that the Referendum did not pass. He urged the Mayor and Village Board to set aside results of the Advisory Referendum and to vote to proceed with the construction of the Facility. Fourteen other people in the audience stated their support of the Public Safety Facility. Typical comments included: 1. The Referendum should be set aside and the new Facility should be built. 2. The present facility has many problems ,and is terribly inadequate. 3. Those who voted no were not properly informed. The Village needs to do a better sales job. 4. There was confusion about the term, 'Public Safety Facility." It should have been called a Police/Fire Building. 5. Some offered to help the Village sell a Referendum in April. 6. The Board could consider other options such as locating the Facility at the site of the old Public Works Building or splitting the Police and Fire facilities. -3- 'Me commentson for 1time.point, the Mayor •' • that it was necessary • end tht comment, period in order to get on • other on the Agenda. He llowed three additional people to speak at that a «« been • • in the audienceopposed to the Publ Safety Facility, no one came forward to comment on the issue. Trustee Corcoran noted that the room was filled with insiders, those who know the need for the Facility. He said we need to get better information out to residents. He said that some of the Trustees made promises when they were elected to place these kinds of important issues on the ballot for residents to consider. He could not condone going against the results of the Referendum. He said the only way this Referendum will pass is if everyone in this room gets out and pushes for the new facility. Trustee Floros said he is proud of the Board for its policy of openness in conducting its business. He said the Beard is not afraid to go to the voters. He said 6500 ;people voted yes but you cannot ignore the 6700 who voted no. He said, the Board would be derelict in its duty if it overturned the results of' the Referendum. He could never support this kind of action. He suggested that we do our homework and do a better job of selling it the next time. Trustee Arthur said that we, as a Board, did not do the selling job we could have done. He said the nest time, he feels the Board will really get out and try to sell the Referendum. He agreed that we ;must respect the vote of the people. However, next time he will get out and work very, very hard to ensure the success of a Referendum. Trustee Van Geem said he never went on record saying that he would not build without a Referendum. He said he would vote to build the Facility tomorrow. He said the Village performed an extensive study, spent a lot of money on it and spent thousands of man hours to determine the best alternative. He asked who is served by a delay. He said this is acritical need. The building is dangerous. Something must be done now. He then said that he does not intend to seek re- election. He said that perhaps some might view, his comments in light of this decision. He strongly feels that the project must go forward immediately but he will work Avery hard to pass a Referendum in April if the Board chooses to go this way. Trustee Busse said he would rather wait to make a decision until we re -visit the Downtown Redevelopment issue this coming Monday. He said staff did an excellent job in trying to sell the Referendum. He said this is a need that will not go away. H , he was not willing to make a decision as to the direction he feels the Bcwd should go until reviewing the Downtown Redevelopment information. Mayor Farley recapped the discussion and indicated there will be additional discussions on this issue at future meetings. He noted that an Ordinance to authorize Referendum in April does not have to be passed until January 15. -4- There was a recess from 9:35 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. VI. FLOOD STUDY Four representatives of RJN Associates of Wheaton were on hand to make a presentation on the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Report. The areas studied included Weller Creek, Feehanville and the Des Plaines River drainage areas. Catherine A. Morley and Randy Patchett were the major spokespersons. The presentation lasted approximately one hour with slides on the overhead projector. Mayor Farley said he assumes that RJN has taken into account the effect on other areas in the Village and elsewhere: He asked what impact there would be on neighbors such as Des Plaines. Randy Patchett said there will not be a significant impact on Des Plaines. Trustee Floros asked if they took into account the huge facility by the Airport. Ms. Morley said this project will take away some of the flow from,,. TARP. . She said, at present, TARP backs up during a three year storm. The new reservoir should be able to handle a three year storm. Trustee Van Geem said that $23 million is a lot of money to spend to prevent basements from flooding especially since the proposed improvements only take care of a ten or twenty-five year storm. However, there are portions that need to be done. He suggested that we study this issue at future meetings. Trustee Wattenberg said we are in the midst of a tax revolt. He questioned spending $23 million to protect basements. He indicated that we had asked for figures as to the dollar amounts lost when basements were flooded but we have never received information on this to be able to determine whether such a project would be cost effective. Mayor Farley indicated that a report on the financing is due two weeks from now. He indicated this is an important project and the Committee will continue discussing this project as expeditiously as possible. Trustee Corcoran requested copies of topographical maps of the Village, Arlington Heights and Prospect Heights. Mr. Patchett said he will have these available at future meetings. It was noted that the cost of property acquisition was not included in the Report. The discussion was then opened to anyone in the audience who wished to speak. Four people had various comments and questions, mostly about the Central/Wa- Pella area. -5- VII. MANAfiEWIS There was no report given. VIII. Rolm There was no other business to come before the Committee of the Whole. IX. ADIQUMM The meeting adjourned at 11:27 p.m. JPB/rcw -6- Respectfully submitted, I)Al� 3P JOHN P. BURG Assistant Village Manager " '"i la",. a of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 1990 SUBJECT: RECYCLING PROGRAM You have on the upcoming Committee of the Whole Agenda an item dealing with plastic recycling._ I wish to inform you of my concerns over the continued expenditures in the recycling area. You will recall that our present Refuse Contract is up for rebidding in July of next year. The Recycling Commission has been moving forward very aggressively in a number of recycling projects including brush removal and yard waste disposal. My concern is that every time the Recycling Commission moves into a new area, the present contractor adds a cost on to our present Refuse Contract and is not giving us any benefits on the existing refuse pick up costs. While the present contractor did indicate that our actual cost for providing recycling is lower than other communities, one would feel that there would also be less refuse that is actually being picked up throughout the community, therefore, less trips to the landfill and a lower cost for tipping fees. We have not heard of any reductions in this area. My recommendation is to hold off on plastic and tin recycling with the present contractor since that cost would add an additional $52,000 on to our present refuse costs just for the remainder of this fiscal year. Once a program is started and fees are established, it then becomes the base that contractors will be increasing and adding additional costs on top of that. While I am firmly committed to recycling ventures and in partici recycling, I feel that at this point in time, we would be better would wait until the entire Contract can be put together to see receive better financial opportunities for the Village. We have other refuse companies who have an interest in bidding on oui first time, in my 17 years of serving local government that there companies that have come forward indicating an interest. JFD/rcw filar, the plastics and tin served financially if we if we might be able to been contacted by two Contract. This is the have been other refuse JOT FULTON D ON Mount Prospect Public Works Deplartment INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM: Deputy Director Public Works DATE: November 16, 1990 SUBJ: BFI Contract Amendment/Plastics Over the past several months the Recycling Commission has been exploring the possibility of expanding our recycling program to include plastics (milk jugs and pop bottles) and tin. Several discussions have been held with BFI and a program has now been formulated. TM crnr � BFI is currently in the planning stages of relocating their site to Palatine, which will include a material recovery facility. This facility would enable BFI to accept plastic and tin and give them the -ability to sort, shred and/or bale the materials. BFI has been reluctant to commit to the expansion of our recy- cling program until this facility is in operation. However, due to internal delays, the earliest their new site will be opera- tional is not until April or May of next year. The Commission did not want to wait until then, so we have nego- tiated a price with BFI to pick up the plastic and tin, which they will accumulate at the Multigraphics transfer point and then haul to a third party processing facility. To do this BFI has requested an additional $1.26 per single family unit per month. Per the contract we are entitled to a 5% "prompt pay" discount, thus the net increase would be $1.20 per month. Based on the current number of single family homes and the recently added multifamily units this new charge would equate to an in- crease of $15,758.00 per month. With plastic and tin added our new combined recycling rate, less discount, would be $2.25 per unit per month. Attached to this memo is a survey that we conducted of ten other communities' recycling costs. As you will note the proposed $2.25 appears to be a reasonable cost in comparison. If you factor in the 55% share of revenue we receive from the sale of our recyclables there is an approximate $.25 per unit per month reduction, which leaves us with a $2.00 net fee. Please note that communities that show 100%, less processing fee revenue split, on the average are only receiving a 5%-10% net return. Therefore it is the Recycling Commission's recommendation that the Mayor and Board of Trustees authorize a contract amendment to BFI's contract and add plastics and tin to the list of recyclables picked up and processed at an increased cost of $1.26 per unit, per month. The Commission also requests that this recommendation be presented to the Mayor and Board of Trust- ees at the Committee of the Whole meeting on November 27, where Chairman Ken -Westlake and other Commissioners will present their recommendation. Glen R. Andl r GRA/eh cc: Herbert L. Weeks Lisa Angell Ken Westlake Recycling Commissioners Legend: A - Aluminum G - Glass N - Newspaper P - Plastic (C&C - Clear/Colored) S - Steel cans • Contract effective 4-1-91; currently have Waste Management for recycling collection, $2.40 per home/month for same materials. •• Cost when plastic Is added to program; Village adds on $0.18 per home/month to cover administrative and education costs. 100% lea* processing fee: The net revenue to Village's with this agreement Is, on the average, 5%-10% of revenue sales. Recycling - Curbside Mount Mount Arlington Buffalo Des Elk Grove Hoffman Prospect Prospect Rolling Heights Barrington Grover Plaines Village Estates (current) (proposed) Palatine Meadows Schaumburg Wheeling Contractor Laidlaw • BFI Waste Mgt. Laidlaw Waste Mgt. BFI BFI BFI BFI Waste Mgt. Laidlaw Waste Mgt. Items Collected A,G,N A,G,N A,G,N A,G,N&S A,G,N A,G,N&S A,G,N A G,N A G,N A,G,N A,G,N A,G,N P(C&C),S P&S P(C&C),S P(C&C),S P&S P(C&C),S P(C&C),S P(C&C),S Costs Inc. w/ $2.05 $1.95 $1.35 $1.60 $2.58 •* $1.11 $2.25 $1.25 $2.37 Inc. w/ $1.95 solid waste solid waste Revenue to 100%1096 none 100% less 100% less 100% less Diversion 55% 55% 50% 100% less 100% less 100% less Community processing processing processing $35.00 per credit processing processing processing fee fee fee ton $8.10 fee fee fee per cu.yd. Legend: A - Aluminum G - Glass N - Newspaper P - Plastic (C&C - Clear/Colored) S - Steel cans • Contract effective 4-1-91; currently have Waste Management for recycling collection, $2.40 per home/month for same materials. •• Cost when plastic Is added to program; Village adds on $0.18 per home/month to cover administrative and education costs. 100% lea* processing fee: The net revenue to Village's with this agreement Is, on the average, 5%-10% of revenue sales. Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John -Fulton Dixon, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director TJ, DATE: November 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Stormwater User Charge Study In the 1990/91 budget, a Stormwater User Charge was proposed as a means of financing a portion of the costs associated with expected flood control projects. Although the extent of the project costs were unknown when the budget was prepared, the indications were that they would be substantial. The expectations were that a Stormwater User Charge of $2.00 per month for a residential property and correspondingly higher rates for non-residential properties would support a $4 million bond issue. The intention was to adopt a user charge rather than increase property taxes. The principle of a user charge is that users or the beneficiaries of a service are directly responsible for paying for the service received. Common examples of user charges are water rates based upon water consumption and vehicle license fees. The concept of a Stormwater User Charge was appealing, but concerns were raised that if a fee was adopted it must be equitable. There were questions as to the application of the fee to non-residential properties and the considerations that should be given for on-site detention. Accordingly, RJN Environmental Associates, Inc. was engaged to conduct a formal rate study. RJN found that over 10 communities operate a Stormwater Utility, whereby the management of stormwater is addressed much like a water or sewer utility. The user fee supports operating and maintenance costs as well as construction costs. RJN's study confirmed that a $2.00 per month residential charge would pay operating and maintenance costs as well as support a $3.1 million bond issue, and a $3.00 charge would support 0 & M costs and a $5.9 million bond issue. The study concludes that a Stormwater User Charge is not only a reasonable way to provide funding for stormwater or flood projects, it is equitable and effective. I believe a Stormwater User Charge could be adopted in Mount Prospect and could be helpful in funding at least a portion of the proposed Flood Control Project. A copy of RJN's report is attached. DCJ/sm Enc G R O U P RJN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS November 2, 1990 Mr. David Jepson Finance Director Village of Mount Prospect 100 South Emerson Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Subject: Final Report Village of Mount Prospect Stormwater Management User Charge Study Dear Mr. Jepson: We are pleased to present the enclosed Stormwater Management User Charge Study Report. This study contains a review of existing stormwater user charges and their application to the Village's system. The report was prepared in accordance with the Agreement of May 21, 1990 between the Village of Mount Prospect and RJN Environmental Associates, Inc. We wish to express our appreciation for the excellent cooperation received from the Village Staff during all phases of the project. We look forward to a continuing professional relationship. Very truly yours, RJN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATE, INC. Catherine L. Mor:bey, P. E. Project Manager William G. Dinchak, P.E. Branch Manager CLM/WGD:mam 202 W. FRONT STREET WHEATON, ILLINOIS 60187 (708)682-4777 Date: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT USER CHARGE STUDY FOR THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS NOVEMBER, 1990 I hereby state that this report was prepared under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Illinois. -2 /'?90 Registration No. o&.2 - 0 �� 3 ,p w�� :r�raWXl/tlri r743. rrry4.'.�iC�EJf :.,t�vnc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RJN Environmental Associates, Inc. was retained by the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois to review existing stormwater user charge systems and to address their appropriateness as a revenue source for the Village's Stormwater Management plans. Conclusions 1. The stormwater user charge is an equitable, legally defensible source of revenue. 2. An advantage of the user charge is that it provides a dedicated source of revenue enabling long term planning of stormwater management programs. 3. For a user charge to be publicly acceptable the charges have to be easily understood and perceived to be fair and reasonable. 4. An initial charge in the range of $2.00 to $3.00 per homeowner per month is considered, based on implementation in other communities, to be publicly acceptable. However, these initial levels were implemented in previous years and the Village of Mount Prospect, may determine, based on stormwater management needs, that a higher initial level of charge should be considered. 5. The proposed user charge method for the Village of Mount Prospect, based on the available data, is the "impervious area" method. This method charges all users in proportion to the total impervious area of their property. It is an equitable system and easily understood. -1- 6. A sample of 166 homes (1.21 percent) of residential properties in the Village of Mount Prospect indicates a mean residential impervious area of 3,150 sq. ft. 7. It is estimated that a $2.00 per month residential charge would raise $542,064.00 in revenue and that a $3.00 per month residential charge would raise $813,096.00 on an annual basis. A $5.00 per month residential charge would raise approximately $1.4 million and a $10.00 per month residential charge would raise approximately $2.7 million. 1. It is recommended that a stormwater user charge be implemented to enable the Village to pursue a long term stormwater management plan. 2. It is recommended that before the final basis for charging is determined a review of Cook County Tax Assessor's records be undertaken to confirm mean residential impervious area and if considered applicable a further sample of residential properties may be analyzed. 3. It is recommended that the initial residential charge be established after a review of the stormwater management needs has determined the funding priorities. 4. It is recommended that credit be given for on-site detention facilities for all users excluding single-family residential property. The credit should be in proportion to the flow detained and the effectiveness of the facility. Properties developed subsequent to the Village's 1976 Stormwater Detention Ordinance mitigate their peak flow by approximately 75 to 80 percent. -2- It is therefore recommended that these properties be given a 75 percent credit on their user charges. It is further recommended that properties with detention facilities that were developed prior to the Stormwater Detention Ordinance be evaluated individually to determine their level of credit. 5. It is recommended that the Cook County Tax Assessor's records be reviewed to estimate impervious area of commercial, industrial, multifamily and other non- residential properties. In addition impervious areas should be confirmed from aerial maps or by site survey. 6. It is recommended that an extensive public information campaign be implemented to increase the awareness of the stormwater user charge and its purpose. -3- TABLE OF CONTENTS ` TABLE OF CONTENTS Ite Page No, - I GENERAL BACKGROUND 1 II EXISTING STORMWATER USER CHARGE SYSTEMS 2 Requirements of a Stormwater User Charge System 2 Fairness 2 Legally Defensible 3 Simplicity and Flexibility 5 Accuracy and Implementation Costs 5 Dedicated Source of Funds 6 Alternative Stormwater User Charge Systems 7 Type 1. - Charges based on Impervious 9 Area Only " Type 2. - Charges based on Lot Area and a 12 Rate Factor based on Zoning, Intensity of Development or Percent Impervious Area Charges Based on Lot Area 12 and Land Use Charges based on Intensity of 15 Development and Lot Area Comparison of Stormwater User Charge Systems 17 III PROPOSED USER CHARGE SYSTEM 21 Projected Operation and Maintenance Costs 21 Operation and Maintenance Costs 21 Existing Billing System 21 Availability of Existing Information 22 User Charge System 22 Mean Residential Impervious Area 22 Non-residential Impervious Area 23 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Section Item III pagg HQ - Level of User Fee 26 Credit for Detention Facilities 27 Development and Zoning Relaxation Fees 30 Income Projections 1991-2000 31 IV RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 34 Recommendations 34 User Charge Method 34 Single Family Residential Charge 35 Implementation 35 Conclusions 37 REFERENCES ii LIST OF TABLES II - 1. Stormwater Charges Based on Impervious Area 10 II - 2. Stormwater Charges Based on Lot Size and 13 Intensity of Development II - 3. Stormwater User Charge Structure, 14 City of Roseville, MN II - 4. Stormwater User Charge Structure, 16 City of Bellvue, WA II - 5. Comparison of Stormwater User Charge Systems 18 II - 6. Comparison of stormwater User Charge Systems, 19 Based on a Common Single Family Charge III - 1. Non -Single Family Residential Users, 24 Village of Mount Prospect III - 2. Estimates of Gross Impervious Area by User Groups 25 III - 3. Projected Income Based on Varying Residential Charges 28 III - 4. Stormwater Charges - Typical Users 29 III - 5. Income Projections 1991-2000 32 $2 and $3 Residential Charge per month III - 6. Income Projections 1991-2000 33 $5 and $10 Residential Charge per month iii LIST OF APPENDICES Titig A City of Wooster, Ohio, Stormwater User Charge Ordinance City of Bellevue, Washington Storm and Surface Water Ordinance City of Roseville, Minnesota, Stormwater,Drainage Utility Ordinance B City of Roseville. When it Rains. Questions??? & Answers!!! Public Information Leaflet C Village of Mount Prospect. Impervious Areas of Residential Lots Statistical Analysis D Stormwater Charges, Current Data for 31 Communities iv REPORT Chapter I GENERAL BACKGROUND The Village of Mount Prospect is located in Cook County approximately eight miles northwest of the City of Chicago. The Village is served by both separate and combined sewer systems. Stormwater drainage facilities consist of sewers, open channels, culverts, flow control structures, detention and retention facilities and receiving streams. Several areas experience flooding during moderate to severe storm events. RJN Environmental was retained under a separate contract to study selected areas and recommend strategies to reduce the incidence of flooding. The stormwater studies undertaken indicated a need for substantial stormwater improvements and increased maintenance. Consequently, the Village requested RJN Environmental to investigate alternate methods of generating revenue specifically to fund the operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system. This report addresses the stormwater user charge option. Individual stormwater utilities exist in more than 70 communities in the United States. The user charge system has been adopted by these agencies as being the most dependable and equitable approach to financing stormwater management. The existence of a dedicated source of revenue enables the utility to plan routine maintenance and program capital improvements. This report compares various user charge strategies with alternatives for potential Village implementation. The complexity of the systems, ease of implementation, fairness and cost of operation are all addressed. A user charge system for the Village of Mount Prospect is proposed and an estimate of projected revenues for typical users is presented. -1- Chapter II EXISTING STORMWATER USER CHARGE SYSTEMS Stormwater user charge systems have been adopted by more than 70 communities throughout the United States. The administrative agency is most commonly the Department of Public Works or Utilities. However, a few are administered by separate stormwater utility agencies, departments of transportation and bureaus of environmental services. All existing utilities perform operation and maintenance of stormwater systems. The majority have the responsibility for capital improvements and some include water quality management. The following criteria are considered to be essential to the implementation of a successful plan in establishing a stormwater user charge system. Fairness It is considered that public acceptance of the fairness of a system is the single most important factor in selecting a User Charge system(1). Cyre states: "It must be recognized that some citizens in every community will not wish to pay anything through any financing method to fund drainage control. In most cases a larger segment of the population will understand the need for an adequate stormwater management program and the necessity of paying for it. To these citizens the critical issue is usually equity."(2) -------------------------- (1) Quentin L. Hampton Associates Inc., Preliminary Engineering Study for the City of Port Orange Stormwater Management Utility January 1986 (2) Cyre, Hector J. Developing and Implementing a Stormwater Management Utility - Key Feasibility Issues. International Public Works Congress. a s September 1986 -2- For a user charge system to be considered equitable, the charges per user need to bear a substantial relationship to the service provided. Consequently, stormwater user charge programs that have been successfully implemented, impose a fee on the consumer based on the volume of stormwater generated on the property. On an equal area basis, more intensively developed properties typically pay more than residential parcels under a stormwater rate structure. Charging public and tax exempt properties legitimizes a service charge by treating all properties which contribute to the problem, or are benefitted or served, equally. "Many legal issues can be pre-empted effectively through a thoughtful, rigorous and well documented program analysis and development process"(3) State Supreme Court Decisions in Washington and Colorado have indicated that the courts consider the planning and development process critical, especially in determining if the authority acted in a fair and reasonable, rather than an arbitrary manner. Decisions have supported the prerogative of local governments to determine their own method of financing stormwater management. (3) Cyre, Hector J. Developing a Stormwater Management Utility March 1987 -3- The most recent judgement in favor of the City of Wooster cited the Ohio municipal code that a municipal corporation may ".... establish just and equitable rates or charges of rents to be paid to the municipal corporation for the use of such services, by every person, firm or corporation whose premises are served by a connection thereto."(4) In the case of Illinois, under the constitution of 1970 communities in excess of 25,000 population were granted homerule status. These communities are entitled to unrestricted means of taxation. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the Village of Mount Prospect, which is a homerule community would not be challenged on the legality. It is noteworthy that of the 19 communities surveyed by Lindsey (5) only 5 were involved in legal action. Four suits were brought by groups opposing the utility. The fifth suit was brought by a community (City of Wooster, Ohio) against a shopping mall owner who refused to pay his assessment. Communities whose stormwater charges were not the subject of legal challenges assert that opposition was minimized by extensive public information and educational programs. A key to the acceptance level of the charges was the public's perception of the need and the equity of the "typical" homeowners charge. (4) City of Wooster vs. Stuart J. Graines Wayne County, Ohio Judgement 87 -CI -107 and Appeal No. 2401 for every tax parcel and the determination of the runoff (5) Lindsey Greg A Survey of Stormwater Utilites, Sediment and t w Environment March 1988 -4- User charges are typically based on the stormwater runoff generated by individual properties. While the fairest system would require the measurement of pervious and impervious areas quantities, this system would be extremely cumbersome and technically complex. Consequently a system must be adopted that balances the need for fairness with ease of implementation and operation. The degree of accuracy desired or achievable will be subject to available data, its accuracy and the existing billing system. Once in place the system must be easy to up -date and modify without having to reprogram the entire structure. An additional benefit of a system with inherent simplicity is the ability of the general public to understand the principle of the charges. Systems that are based on complex formulas involving varying runoff coefficients, while technically defensible, are likely to receive less public acceptance because of the inference of being "blinded by science". As discussed previously, a complicated user charge system has to rely on accurate data. A strong negative public reaction can be expected if bills are based on inaccurate data. It is evident that the system which includes the most rigorous data will be the "fairest". However, the more complex a system the more expensive the implementation and operating costs. For example, in Cincinnati (population 385,000) the tax assessor's maps were digitized which accounted for $766,000 of the $785,000 cost of implementation. -5- It is difficult to generalize on implementation costs because user charges vary as do existing billing mechanisms. Implementation will comprise a data acquisition phase, a public information program and preparation or modification of the " billing system. Implementation costs per capita ranged from $0.22 in Austin, TX (established in 1982) to $6.67 in Auburn, WA (established in 1986). Excluding those communities that used a digitized mapping system the typical implementation costs were in the $0.50 to $1.00 per capita range. Consequently it is desirable to choose a system that retains a high degree of accuracy while minimizing the data retrieval required. The chief advantage of a stormwater user charge is a stable, secure source of revenue that is responsive to need. In general, most local governments have failed to address financial needs for effective stormwater management programs. Responsibility for various aspects of stormwater control may be dispersed among several departments or administrative bodies. This has resulted in the funding for stormwater management being derived from diverse sources and being project orientated rather than being driven by a long term management program. The diversity of funding has resulted in stormwater projects competing for revenue with other public works, or capital improvement projects, often to their disadvantage. Consequently, a dedicated source of revenue is desirable both in availability of funds for operation and maintenance of the existing system, and as a means of generating funds to capitalize a long term stormwater management plan. The American Public Works Association has concluded that "The user charge and utility concept are the most dependable and equitable approaches available to local governments for financing stormwater management".(6) In adopting a stormwater user charge system, it is necessary to balance the requirements of fairness, flexibility, simplicity and accuracy. A first approach would be to: Levy a flat rate to all properties regardless of size and intensity of development While simple to administer, this system would be the least equitable in that homeowners would be charged the same fee as commercial development while contributing significantly less flow to the system. A second approach would be to: Measure all impervious and pervious areas for each tax parcel. Determine appropriate runoff coefficients and calculate runoff for a typical storm based on the Rational or Soil Conservation Service TR55 methods and then charge each parcel in relation to its runoff. Ann Arbor, Michigan (population 108,000) has adopted the impervious and pervious area method. The charges are based on "hydraulic acreage" which applies a weight factor to both pervious (0.2) and impervious (0.95) areas. The current standard rate is $2.03 per dwelling unit per month. Multifamily, commercial and industrial users are charged $21.67 per month per hydraulic acre. ------------------------- ,...... (6) American Public Works Association Special Report No. 49 -7- The following examples illustrate its application, using selective properties in Mount Prospect. Total area= 469,900 sq. ft impervious area= 70,100 sq. ft pervious area= 399,800 sq. ft. 1 acre= 43,560 sq. ft. Charge =$21.67 x (Q.2 X. 399,BQQ+ ) 43560 $72.91 per month Total area= 47,200 sq. ft impervious area= 45,800 sq. ft. pervious area= 1,400 sq. ft. 1 acre= 43,560 sq. ft. Charge = $21.67 x (0.2 x 1,400 + 0..95 x 45.800) 43560 = $21.78 per month Although this method is fair, it is complex to implement and administer and the resultant costs of establishing the billing system would be high. Consequently, most stormwater utility charges are determined as a function of impervious area or parcel area and a rate factor which relates to the intensity of development., Rate factors can be derived from runoff coefficients which are considered to be representative for the intensity of the development, or they can be based on parcel measurements to determine a typical percent impervious. -8- The following examples illustrate the variety and yet underlying similarities of systems currently in place. The billing systems can be divided into two basic categories: Type 1: Charges based on impervious area only. Type 2: Charges based on lot area and a rate factor based on zoning, intensity of development, or percent of impervious area. Some of the municipalities that currently employ this system are shown in Table II -1. In most cases the typical impervious area of a single family parcel is determined and a flat rate is assigned. This rate is known by various terms including single family residential unit (SFR), single family equivalent (SFE) and equivalent residential unit (ERU). Other users are charged based on a multiple of the base rate. Typical rates charged by these communities and the median impervious area for a single family unit are also shown in Table II -1. As all other rates are multiples, it is imperative that the typical impervious area of the residential unit be determined by some rigorous method, and not arbitrary means. For example, if a typical commercial property were 150,000 sq. ft., and one were to reduce the SFR from 3,000 sq. ft. to 2,500 sq. ft., then the user charge would increase by 20 percent. Table II -1 STORMWATER CHARGES BASED ON IMPERVIOUS AREA 1/ Portland charges non-residential customers $2.30 per 1,000 sq. ft. impervious area. Multifamily charged $2.30 x number of multifamily units. -10- Impervious Area Typical SFR Charge !QgMMunitys ft Montpelier, OH 4,400 4,000 $ 3.00 Wooster, OH 20,000 3,050 $ 2.90 Dunedin, FL 37,000 1,708 $ 3.00 Corvallis, OR 45,000 2,750 $ 2.15 Medford, OR 45,250 3,000 $ 2.95 Tallahassee, FL 130,000 2,659 $ 2.52 Tulsa, OK 400,000 2,650 $ 2.00 Portland, OR 400,000 1,500 $ 3.45.1/ Louisville, KY 685,000 2,500 $ 1.75 1/ Portland charges non-residential customers $2.30 per 1,000 sq. ft. impervious area. Multifamily charged $2.30 x number of multifamily units. -10- Using the previous examples of property in Mount Prospect, a standard rate of $2.50 per single family unit per month, and a median impervious area of 3,000 sq. ft., the charges would be: Impervious Area = 70,100 sq. ft. Charge = 70,1000 3,000 $58.42 per month Impervious Area = 45,800 sq.ft. Charge = 50 3,000 $38.17 per month Portland, Oregon bases its commercial charge on multiples of 1,000 sq. feet of impervious area, and charges multifamily $2.30 multiplied by the number of units. Measurement of impervious areas for these communities were obtained by various methods - tax assessor's records, site surveys, measurement of aerial photographs and digitizing. All communities provide for some method of review of data when challenged by a property owner (excluding residential) and most provide for some reduction in the rate for on-site retention. The applicability of this method to Mount Prospect will be discussed in the next chapter. -11- Some of the communities that currently employ this system of charging and their associated populations are shown in Table II -2. The following describes some of the typical charging systems. Charges based on Lot Area and Land Use. Roseville, Minnesota charges on the basis of the lot area and land use. Their rates ... were determined by comparing typical lot coverage for each category and applying Soil Conservation Service theory of relative runoff (TRS5). The rates are presented in Table II -3. Using the Roseville rates the following charges would be applied in Mount Prospect: Fairview School Charge = $10.77 x 5.42 = $58.37 per month Village Hall Charge = $1.084 x 10.83 = $11.74 per month Lot Area = 469,000 sq. ft. 10.77 acres Lot Area = 47,200 sq. ft. 1.084 acres Similar rate structures are used by Bloomington, Minnesota; Great Falls, Montana; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Billings, Montana. The City of Billings bases its charges on r zoning classifications but the principle of charging a fixed rate according to land use is the same. Fort Collins classifies properties according to one of five uses and assigns an appropriate rate factor determined by the runoff coefficient. The charge is then calculated as a product of the rate factor, the base rate charge, and the lot size. -12- 1/ Most communities using this method do not charge a flat rate for homeowners. 2/ Population unknown, multi -jurisdictional community. -13- Table II-2 STORMWATER CHARGES BASED ON LOT SIZE AND INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT Typical Monthly Roseville, MN 36,000 $ 1.44 Clark County, WA 50,000 $ 1.25 Great Falls, MT 65,000 $ 3.25 Bellevue, WA 80,000 $ 7.29 Fort Collins, CO 80,000 $ 2.50 Billings, MT 85,000 $ 1.74 Bloomington, MN 90,000 $ 2.36 Boulder, CO 90,000 $ 4.03 Tacoma, WA 160,000 $ 2.30 Cincinnati, OH 385,000 $ 1.28 Denver, CO 500,000 $ 1.43 Seattle, WA N/A2/ $ 2.64 1/ Most communities using this method do not charge a flat rate for homeowners. 2/ Population unknown, multi -jurisdictional community. -13- Table II -3 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA STORMWATER USER CHARGE STRUCTURE 1� Qatpgory Rate Single Family/ Duplex $ 1.44 /month Cemeteries, Golf Courses $ 1.083 /acre/month Parks with Parking Facilities $ 3.25 /acre/month Schools $ 5.42 /acre/month Multifamily/Churches/Governmental Bldgs $ 10.83 /acre/month Commercial/Industrial $ 21.67 /acre/month 1/ As of June 9, 1984 -14- {" Q11grges Based v and Lot AIgg. The communities that have charging systems based on the intensity of development include Bellevue, Washington; Denver, Colorado; Tacoma, Washington and Vancouver, Washington. In the case of Bellevue parcels are categorized accordingly to the percentage of impervious area and an appropriate rate charged per 2,000 sq. feet. The development classifications range from undeveloped (0 percent impervious) to extra heavy development (greater than 70 percent impervious). All residential property is classified as moderately developed. The current rate structure for Bellevue, Washington is presented in Table II -4. Using the Bellevue rating structure, the typical 10,000 sq. ft. residential property charge in Mount Prospect would be $5.30 per month (plus $0.93 billing charge). Bellevue's stormwater levy is used for extensive stormwater management projects including water quality. Corresponding charges for the Mount Prospect example properties would be : Fai,rview_5c'oo Area = 469,900 sq. ft. Impervious Area = 70,100 sq. ft. Percent Impervious = 14.9 Charge = $1.7 x 469,900 / month 2 2,000 = $199.71 / + $0.93 (billing charge) = $200.64/ month Village Hall Area = 47,200 sq. ft. Impervious Area = 45,800 sq. ft. Percent Impervious = 97 Charge = $4.26 x 47,200 /month 2 2,000 = $50.27 / + $0.93 (billing charge) = $51.20/ month -15- Table II -4 CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON STORMWATER USER CHARGE STRUCTURE 1/ Percent Rate/2,000 Sq.Ft.2/ Devglopment Category Wetlands 0 0 Undeveloped 0 $ 0.30 Lightly Developed up to 20 $ 1.70 Moderately Developed up to 40 $ 2.12 Heavily Developed up to 70 $ 3.18 Very Developed > 70 $ 4.26 1/ As of January 1, 1989. 2/ Bi -monthly rates plus billing charge of $1.86 -16- Tacoma, Washington uses a similar intensity of development table but their charges are in increments of 500 sq. ft. instead of the 2,000 sq. ft. adopted by Bellevue. Seattle has six intensities of development and residential parcels are categorized as "very light" (0-10 percent impervious surface) while both Bellevue and Tacoma place residential properties in the moderate development category. Denver, Colorado assigns each parcel to one of ten groups representing percentage of impervious area ( 0 to 0.10, 0.11 to 0.20, etc.) and a rate per 100 sq. ft. of impervious area is applied. Although Denver's structure is applied on an impervious area basis and not total lot area, the system is still comparable to the others in this group as its determining factor is intensity of, and not type of, development. ,�. . . .INN,. The four user charge structures previously discussed and the associated charges if applied to the Fairview School and the Village Hall in Mount Prospect are presented in Table II -5. While it is difficult to compare the charging systems directly as the rates applied vary according to revenue required, it is possible to present these charges as if based on a common single family charge of $2.50 per month and adjust the other rates accordingly. The resultant charges are presented in Table II -6. It is apparent from review of Table II -6 that the method of charging has a significant effect on the projected income from different categories of property and the perceived equity of a system is therefore of great importance. The impervious area method does not consider "soft" pervious areas in its calculations even though runoff is ultimately generated from these areas. Therefore, this method could be regarded as discriminating in favor of properties that have large land areas with less intensity of development, for example schools and residential areas. The contrary argument is that both the volume and rate of runoff are of paramount importance in contributing to stormwater flooding and this is exacerbated primarily by impervious areas. -17- Table II -5 COMPARISON OF STORMWATER USER CHARGE SYSTEMS 1ARNA t Chargin System w School Village Hall. Ann Arbor, MI $ 2.03 $ 72.91 $ 21.78 (Pervious and Impervious Coefficients) Impervious Area Method $ 2.50 $ 58.42 $ 38.17 Roseville, MN $ 1.44 $ 58.37 $ 11.74 (Lot Size and Land Use) Bellevue, WA $ 6.23 $ 200.64 $ 51.20 (Lot Size and Intensity of Development) 1/ Based on 3,000 sq. ft. impervious area. -18- Table II -6 COMPARISON OF STORMWATER USER CHARGE SYSTEMS BASED ON A COMMON SINGLE FAMILY CHARGE rains Svstem ale Familv Fairview Sghgoi V Ann Arbor, MI $ 2.50 $ 89.79 $26.82 (Pervious and Impervious Coefficients) Impervious Area Method2� $ 2.50 $ 58.42 $38.17 Roseville, MN $ 2.50 $101.33 $20.38 (Lot Size and Land Use) Bellevue, WA 3/ $ 2.50 $ 94.21 $23.71 (Lot Size and Intensity of Development) 1/ All rates pro -rated to equate single family rates. 2/ Based on 3,000 sq. ft. impervious area. 3/ Excluding billing charge. -19- While the previous sections explained the fundamentals of the systems currently in place, each system is ultimately tailored to the particular municipality. A common modification to the system is a reduction in stormwater fee for the provision of on-site retention for non-residential property. This provision has the advantage of encouraging the reduction and rate of flow entering the system and in providing a method of mitigating fees to commercial/industrial users who may see the charge as unfairly discriminating against them. Other modifications include the following: 1. Separate charges for capital improvements 2. Surcharges for parcels in the floodplain 3. Exemption for parcels that drain directly to receiving waters 4. Rebates for elderly Portland, Oregon currently has an exemption for parcels that drain directly to receiving waters, however their charging system is currently under review and this exemption may be removed from the modified system. -20- Chapter III PROPOSED USER CHARGE SYSTEM • M _. w16. voiWad, In evaluating the expenses associated with a user charge system for the Village of Mount Prospect the following items were considered: 1. Operation and maintenance costs of the stormwater system. 2. Existing billing system. 3. ' Availability of existing information. The current 1990-1991 operation and maintenance budget costs are estimated at $181,984 including overhead. This includes $154,750 of routine maintenance including cleaning of catch basins, grit removal etc. The stormwater management study recently completed by RJN Environmental Associates, Inc. included extensive maintenance recommendations particularly in the vicinity of Weller Creek to reduce undercutting, and erosion, and to increase bank stabilization. Consequently the maintenance budget may need to be increased in future years to address these maintenance requirements. Single family residential customers are currently billed bi-monthly for their water and wastewater charges based on water consumption. All other customers are billed on a monthly basis. It is considered by the Village a relatively easy task to add the stormwater charge to the current bills. -21- It is estimated that 3,612 users who are billed by Citizens Utilities for their sanitary and water service will require a new billing system. Consequently, it is estimated that the additional administrative costs will be approximately $20,000.00 annually. The costs of setting up the system will be determined by the user charge method adopted and its method of implementation. The Cook County Tax Assessor's office has been applied to for information concerning tax parcels, areas, and impervious lot coverage. This data could reduce substantially the start-up costs of the project. It is considered however, that as many as 1,050 properties may require individual measurement, consequently it is projected that start-up costs would be approximately $40,000.00. This however will be a one time only charge against the budget. The user charge system that is proposed herein is based on the impervious area method. All homeowners would be charged a flat rate and all other users would be charged based on multiples of the impervious area of a typical single family parcel. There are currently 13,698 residential properties in the Village of Mount Prospect, including the Citizens Utilities Area. The impervious area of 166 residential properties (1.21 percent) was evaluated. This included driveways, roof tops, garages, patios and private sidewalks. -22- The sample included all residential areas of the Village and was required to provide a representative sample of all residential properties in the area. The impervious areas evaluated ranged from 1,750 sq. ft. to 4,950 sq. ft. The mean residential impervious area for the Village was determined to be 3,148 sq. ft. with a standard deviation of 556. To test the validity of the mean, it was calculated that 79 percent of the data fell within one standard deviation and more than 98 percent fell within two standard deviations. For a statistical analysis Lto be valid it is considered that 67 percent of the data should fall within one standard deviation. Consequently, it is considered that the statistical mean is appropriate. It is however recommended that during any implementation phase the Cook County Tax Assessor's Records, if available, be reviewed to confirm the mean impervious area and, if considered necessary, a further series of properties be evaluated to provide a larger sample. For the purpose of this report, the figure of 3,150 sq. ft. was used. There are approximately 1,050 non -single family residential users of stormwater services in the Village of Mount Prospect, with the classifications shown in Table III -1. For the purpose of this study an approximate evaluation of the gross impervious area was determined. In the absence of County records, the survey was conducted on the 1978 Chicago Aerial Survey Maps (scale of 1:100) and the 1985 NIPC aerial survey maps (scale of 1:400). Consequently some of the information will be out of date. However, it is considered that the data compiled is a conservative estimate as further development has occurred. The estimates of impervious areas are presented in Table III -2. The total impervious area is estimated to be approximately 32.6 million sq. feet. -23- Table III-1 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT NON -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USERS Multifamily 2-4 Multifamily 5-10 Multifamily 41-100 Multifamily 101 + Multifamily General with Pools Miscellaneous Residential Commercial Group/Master Metered Hotels/Motels Manufacturing Miscellaneous Industrial Government and Miscellaneous Municipal Parks Schools Churches Miscellaneous Public Total -24- 5 371 19 3 10 1 473 28 1 2 76 2 2 12 20 21 1 1,047 Table III -2 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ESTIMATED GROSS IMPERVIOUS AREA BY USER GROUP -25- Area User . ft. Industrial 6,200,000 Business 14,100,000 Parking 400,000 Multifamily 9,000,000 Schools 2,700,000 Parks 160,000 Total 32,560,000 -25- Certain properties currently have on-site detention. If it is determined that a reduced charge is appropriate for this benefit an estimate of facilities currently with detention is required. For the purpose of this analysis it is proposed to reduce the "effective" impervious area for both industrial and multifamily by approximately 30 percent to account for existing detention facilities. This will result in a total impervious area of 28.0 million sq. ft or 8,888 equivalent residential units. Level of User Fee As was discussed in the previous chapter current user fees are typically in the range of $2.00 to $3.00 per residential unit per month. While some municipalities have higher fees most have been gradually increased and have stated that the impact of the initial fee is important. There appears to be a psychological ceiling of $3.00 a month or half of the water and sanitary charges whichever is less (3). From discussions with the Village it is estimated that the typical sanitary sewer bill is $1.65 per month. In addition, residents pay sewer treatment fees direct to the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of $0.52 per $100.00 of equalized assessed valuation. A typical homeowner's charge for this service would be approximately $12.50 per month. The typical homeowner's water bill is $17.10 per month. An additional charge is paid to the Joint Action Water Agency for the acquisition and supply of Lake Michigan Water of $5.00 per month. Consequently, a fee of $3.00 a month for the initial charge might be considered the limiting factor. However, the Village of Mount Prospect does experience frequent widespread flooding. ------------------------- 3. Cyre, Hector J. Developing a Stormwater Management Utility APWA Reporter, March 1987 -26- A higher user fee might be acceptable to the public if it could be demonstrated that the flooding could be substantially reduced by the implementation of a stormwater management plan funded by this user charge. Projected income based on $2.00, $3.00, $5.00 and $10.00 per residential unit per month is shown in Table III -3. A review of Table III -3 indicates that the Village could generate substantial revenue to fund stormwater maintenance and improvements, over and above the current budget requirements. To understand how this charging system would affect individual users, comparative rates have been computed for various non- residential users within the Village of Mount Prospect and are shown in Table III -4. As would be expected, the large commercial developments with little or no pervious area would be required to pay a much higher fee than properties with extensive pervious areas. It may be anticipated that there will be strong opposition to the user charge system from these users. Consequently, it is recommended that a reduction be given to all non -single family residential properties that have on-site detention facilities. This rebate will encourage properties that were developed prior to the Village's stormwater ordinance to institute some method of on-site detention. In addition it will reward those newer developments that have on-site detention in place. The method of evaluating the reduction in fee may be a flat rate (for example 50 percent). Alternatively, each detention area can be evaluated for its effectiveness and the charge, based on reduced runoff, adjusted accordingly. This latter method, while more complex to institute would be equitable. -27- Table III -3 PROJECTED ANNUAL INCOME BASED ON VARYING RESIDENTIAL CHARGES �10.QQ Residential 13,698 $ 27,396 $ 41,094 $ 68,490 $ 136,980 Non-residential 8,888 $ 17,776 $ 26,664 $ 44,440 $ 88,880 Total/Month Total/year 22,586 $ 45,172 $ 67,758 $ 112,930 $ 258,860 --- $542,064, $813,000 $ 1,355,160 $ 2,710,320 -28- Table III -4 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT STORMWATER CHARGES - TYPICAL USERS User Area Sa. Ft.)2 3 01 1/ $5.00 Fairview School 70,100 $ 44.51 $ 66.76 $ 111.27 Lincoln Jr. High 184,900 $ 117.40 $ 176.10 $ 293.50 Prospect High School 786,000 $ 499.05 $ 748.57 $ 1,247.63 St. Cecilia Church 159,600 $ 101.33 $ 152.00 $ 253.33 ' So. Community Baptist 27,500 $ 17.46 $ 26.19 $ 43.65 Fire Station No. 2 13,500 $ 8.57 $ 12.85 $ 21.43 Public Works Facility 300,000 $ 190.50 $ 285.72 $ 476.25 Village Hall 33,000 $ 20.95 $ 31.43 $ 52.38 Lions Park 155,700 $ 98.86 $ 148.29 $ 247.14 Grove Apartments 162,000 $ 102.86 $ 154.29 $ 257.15 Mount Shire Apartments 499,000 $ 316.83 $ 475.24 $ 792.08 McDonalds 26,100 $ 16.57 $ 24.86 $ 41.43 First Chicago Bank 86,490 $ 54.91 $ 82.37 $ 137.29 Fannie Mae 26,000 $ 16.51 $ 24.76 $ 41.27 Multigraphics 1,300,000 $ 825.40 $ 1,238.10 $ 2,063.49 Randhurst 3,230,000 $ 2,050.80 $ 3,076.19 $ 5,126.98 Walmart2/3/ 375,000 $ 59.52 $ 89.29 $ 148.81 Lederle 2/ 181,500 $ 28.82 $ 43.22 $ 72.02 Kensington Corporate 418,000 $ 66.35 $ 99.52 $ 165.87 Center I & II 2/ 1/ Based on a charge per 3,150 sq. ft. impervious area 2/ Evaluated with a 75 percent credit for detention facilites 3/ Proposed development -29- Properties that have been developed in accordance with the Village's detention ordinance guidelines of 1976, 1981, and 1985 mitigate their peak runoff by approximately 75 to 80 percent. Consequently, it may be appropriate to give these properties a 75 percent credit and evaluate other properties with detention facilities individually. The user charges for three properties (two existing and one proposed) that have detention facilities designed in accordance with the Village's current ordinance have been evaluated with a 75 percent credit. These charges are presented in Table III -4. An additional source of revenue may be obtained from charging new single-family homes, residential extensions, and residential developments of less than five acres for their increased contribution to the stormwater system. These categories are not governed by the detention development ordinance and are not required to maintain their runoff at pre - development rates. Consequently the Village may desire to address the imposition of a development fee for these situations. The fee could take the form of a flat rate or a scale fee dependent on the increase in impervious area. It is also recommended that property extensions to residences that would require a relaxation of the zoning requirement of 45 percent maximum paved area be surcharged either 1.5 SFR (on an annual basis) or the measured impervious surface whichever is greater. While commercial property would be charged based on their total impervious area it might be considered fair to charge homeowners who through excessive use of driveway, patios etc. have changed the nature and resultant runoff of their property. -30- RIMMAIRM0 UNAKOWM!!1 The income projections from a user charge of $2.00 and $3.00 per SFR per month are presented in Table III -5. The income projections corresponding to a user charge of $5.00 and $10.00 per SFR per month are presented in Table III -6. For the analysis it was assumed that current billing, overhead and routine maintenance would be increased in line with inflation at an annual rate of 5 percent. The analysis consequently assumes no increase in the level of maintenance expenditure in real terms over the ten year period. The data indicates that a residual income of $320,000.00 declining to $230,000.00 could be anticipated for the $2.00 SFR per month. This residual income would be sufficient to service a $2.5 millon bond issue over 20 years with repayments of $250,000.00 per annum until 1998 when the SFR charge would require an increase. A review of the projected income for the $3.00 SFR per month scenario indicates that the residual income declines from $590,000.00 to $500,000.00. This residual income would be sufficient to service a $ 5.5 million bond issue over 20 years with repayments of $550,000.00 per annum until 1997 when the charge would require an increase. The residual income for $5.00 per month residential charge would be in excess of $1.0 million and this would be sufficient to service a $10.00 million bond issue over 20 years. The residual income for the $10.00 SFR per month scenario would decline from approximately $2.5 million to $2.4 million and this would be sufficient to service a bond issue in excess of $24 million over 20 years. -31- Table III -5 i TOTAL INCOME $502,064 J $542,064 $542,064 $542.064 $542.064 $542.064 $542,064 $542,064 $542,064 $542,064 i $3.00 per Single Family Residential Unit(SFR)/Month ROUTINE MAINTENANCE J $154,750 $162,488 $170,611 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT $188,100 $197,505 $207,380 $217,749 $228,636 $240,068 OVERHEAD 11 $27,234 STORMNATER USER CHARGE $31,527 $33,103 $34,758 $36,496 $38,321 $40,237 $42,249 BILLING 1 $20,000 INCOME PROJECTIONS $22,050 $23,152 $24,310 $25,526 $26,802 $28,142 $29,549 $31,027 RESIDUAL INCOME $591,112 1991-2000 $590,410 $579,275 $567,583 $555,307 $542,418 $528,884 $514,674 $499,752 $2.00 per Single Family Residential Unit(SFR)/Month YEAR 1991 '992 1993 1994 1995 1996 19'97 1998 1999 2000 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 1/ $154,750 $162,468 $170,611 $179,142 $18810 $197,505 $207,380 $217,749 $228,636 $240,068 OVERHEAD 11 $27,234 $28,596 $30,025 $31,527 $33,103 $34,758 $36,496 $38,321 $40,237 $42,249 BILLING $20,000 $21,000 $22,050 $23,152 $24,3'0 $25,526 $26,802 $28,142 $29,549 $31,027 RESIDUAL INCOME $320,080 $329,980 $319,378 $306,243 $296,551 $284,275 $271,386 $257,852 $243,642 $228,720 i TOTAL INCOME $502,064 J $542,064 $542,064 $542.064 $542.064 $542.064 $542,064 $542,064 $542,064 $542,064 i $3.00 per Single Family Residential Unit(SFR)/Month ROUTINE MAINTENANCE J $154,750 $162,488 $170,611 $179,142 $188,100 $197,505 $207,380 $217,749 $228,636 $240,068 OVERHEAD 11 $27,234 $28,596 $30,025 $31,527 $33,103 $34,758 $36,496 $38,321 $40,237 $42,249 BILLING 1 $20,000 $21,000 $22,050 $23,152 $24,310 $25,526 $26,802 $28,142 $29,549 $31,027 RESIDUAL INCOME $591,112 $601,012 $590,410 $579,275 $567,583 $555,307 $542,418 $528,884 $514,674 $499,752 TOTAL INCOME $773,096 J $813,096 $813.096 $813396 $813,096 $813.096 $813,096 $813,096 $813,096 $813,096 1 INFLATION 5% PER ANNUM, / REDUCED BY $40,000 FOR IMPLEMENTATION COSTS. $10.00 per Single Family Residential Unit(SFR)/Month ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 1/ $154,750 $162,488 $170,611 Table III -6 $188,100 $197,505 $207,380 $217,749 $228,636 $240,068 OVERHEAD 1/ $27,234 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT $30,025 $31,527 $33,103 $34,758 $36,496 $38,321 $40,237 $42,249 BILLING IJ STORMNATER USER CHARGE $21,000 $22,050 $23,152 $24,31P $25,526 $26,802 $28,142 $29,549 $31,027 INCOME PROJECTIONS $2,488,336 $2,498,236 $2,487,634 $2,476,499 $2,464,807 $2,452,531 $2,439,642 $2,426,108 $2,411,898 1991-2000 $5,00 per Single Family Residential Unit(SFR)/Month YEAR 1901 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 1 $154,750 $162,488 $170,61( $179,142 $188,100 $197,505 $207,380 $217,749 $228,636 $240,068 OVERHEAD 1/ $27,234 $28,596 $30,025 $31,527 $33,103 $34,758 $36,496 $38,321 $40,237 $42,249 BILLING 1J $20,000 $21,000 $22,050 $23,152 $24,310 $25,526 $26,802 $26,142 $29,549 $31,027 RESIDUAL INCOME $1,133,176 $1,143,076 $1,132.474 $1,121,339 $1,109,647 $1,097,371 $1,084,482 $1,070,948 $1,056,738 $1,041,816 w TOTAL INCOME $1,315,160 9 $1,355,160 $1,355,160 $1,355,160 $1,355,160 $1,355,160 $1,355,160 $1,355,160 $1,355,160 $1,355,160 Lk) $10.00 per Single Family Residential Unit(SFR)/Month ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 1/ $154,750 $162,488 $170,611 $179,142 $188,100 $197,505 $207,380 $217,749 $228,636 $240,068 OVERHEAD 1/ $27,234 $28,596 $30,025 $31,527 $33,103 $34,758 $36,496 $38,321 $40,237 $42,249 BILLING IJ $20,000 $21,000 $22,050 $23,152 $24,31P $25,526 $26,802 $28,142 $29,549 $31,027 RESIDUAL INCOME $2,488,336 $2,498,236 $2,487,634 $2,476,499 $2,464,807 $2,452,531 $2,439,642 $2,426,108 $2,411,898 $2,396,976 TOTAL INCOME $2,670,320 J $2,710,320 $2,710,320 $2.710,320 $2,710,320 $2,710,320 $2,710,320 $2,710,320 $2,710,320 $2,710,320 INFLATION 5% PER ANNUM. REDUCED BY $40,000 FOR IMPLEMENTATION COSTS, Chapter IV RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS It is recommended that the Village review the alternatives and determine if a stormwater user charge system is an appropriate method of generating revenue for the Village's stormwater needs. If it is considered as a viable method of revenue generation the following need to be addressed: 1. User charge method 2. Single family residential charge (SFR) 3. Implementation This report recommends the,use of the "impervious area,, method. For this method, all stormwater charges would be based on multiples of the impervious surface area of a typical single family parcel. This method is straightforward to implement while being technically defensible. Its concept is relatively simple to understand and therefore is considered more likely to receive public acceptance than the more complex alternatives. This structure would also allow a credit for the provision of on-site detention facilities. This would reward those commercial and multi -family properties that mitigate their peak runoff and provide a financial incentive to users who do not currently provide on-site detention. -34- Single Familv Residential Qgrgg (SFR) The single family residential charge will determine the extent of revenue that can be generated under this system. As discussed previously the initial fee may be determined as much by a level considered publicly acceptable as by revenue requirements. Initial rates for other communities were in the $1.00 to $2.00 per SFR range. However, these charges were implemented in previous years and have all been raised since their inception to allow for increased needs and inflation. Current rates are generally in the $2.50 to $3.00 per SFR range. For comparison, the current SFR or equivalent charges from other communities with populations that range from 30,000 to 90,000 are presented in Figure 1. A comprehensive list of 31 communities and their associated populations and typical single family charge is presented in Appendix D. Mount Prospect currently has an estimated population of 52,000. While these charges are based on available data, many are currently under review and are expected to be increased in the near future. The implementation phase will consist of acquisition of detailed technical data, preparation of the billing system and the associated ordinance and a public information program. Other communities have taken from six months to two years to develop a stormwater user charge. It is considered that six months to one year is typically the lead time required to fully prepare the system. In some communities the charge has been implemented in phases, for example, the flat homeowners rate has been applied while the commercial charges have been estimated. -35- Community (population) Auburn, WA (30,000) Kent, WA (31,000) Renton, WA (34,460) Roseville, MN (36,000) Dunedin, FL (37,000) Corvallis, OR i (42,000) Medford, OR (45,000) Clark County, WA (50,000) Great Falls, MN (65,000) Ft. Collins, CO (80,000) Billings, MT (85,000) Boulder, CO (90,000) Bloomington, MN (90,000) 11 $2.50 $2.50 $1.44 I I $1.25 $3.00 $2.15 $2.95 $3.25 $2.50 I® $2.36 I $3.50 $4.03 I - - -•- .... .... .r.v �.v �..i %J.v Residential Charges ($/month) RJN Environmental Associates, Inc. FIGURE 1 It is important during preparation of the ordinance that an ,m. appeals procedure be instituted for users other than single family. The ability to appeal an assessment and to provide for its review is considered crucial to the acceptability of the charging structure to the public. The projected revenues developed in this report are considered conservative and an accurate determination of total impervious area would have to be made at the implementation stage. This would determine the level of charge that would be required to address stormwater needs. As a guide to existing ordinances the following are included in Appendix A - City of Wooster, Ohio; City of Bellevue, Washington; and the City of Roseville, Minnesota. Each of these communities uses one of the methods discussed in the report. An important element in implementation is public awareness and acceptability of the user charge. The communities that received the least negative reaction from the public to the system had an extensive public relations program prior to its implementation. An example of a mass mailing used by the City of Roseville is included in Appendix B. Conclusions This report explains the stormwater user charge systems and their applicability to the Village of Mount Prospect. The proposed system is considered both technically and legally defensible. It is important in proposing a stormwater user charge that it be both equitable and publicly acceptable. The chief advantage of the user charge is that it provides a dedicated source of revenue. Stormwater needs do not therefore compete for revenue with other portions of the general obligation budget. -37- This enables an effective long term stormwater management strategy to be implemented. It would also be able to address additional funding needs when and if statewide stormwater quality requirements are imposed on communities by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. It is anticipated that a substantial amount of revenue could be raised by this method and this would provide a dedicated source of funds with which the Village could address their stormwater management requirements. -38- REFERENCES References Cited 1. Quentin L. Hampton Associates Inc.,Preliminary Engineering Study for the City of Port Orange Stormwater Management Utility January 1986 2. Cyre, Hector J. Developing and Implementing a Stormwater Management Utility - Key Feasibility Issues. International Public Works Congress and Equinment-Show, Ne Orleans September 1986 3. Cyre, Hector J. Developing a stormwater management utility APWA Rgporter March 1987 4. City of Wooster vs. Stuart J. Graines Wayne County, Ohio Judgement 87 -CI -107 and Appeal NO. 2401 5. Lindsey Greg A Survey of Stormwater Utilites, Sediment gnd t w Environment March 1988 6. American Public Works Aggggiation Special Report No. 49 Other References Used: 7. Financing Urban Drainage August 1980 8. Diessner Damon, An Integrated Approach to Urban Stormwater Managment: A Strategy for Local Government. City of Bellevue. Washington, USA 1989 9. Engemoen and Krempel A Utility Approach to Comprehensive Storm Water Management, City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1293 IntgInational Symposium on Urban Hydx:ology. HyargIllics and Sediment Control.,, University of Kentucky. 10. Ibid Public Works April 1985 11. Gallagher and Laredo, Why Not Charge for Storm Drainage? Amerign city angi Qountry May 1983 12. Godfrey, Jr. K.A "Tampa Does It With Mirrors", Civil Epgipggring�, December 1985 13. Honchell, Charles V. Creating a Storm Drainage Utility, Roseville, Minnesota. Al2LNA RgMrter1986 14. Lindsey, Greg; Financing Stormwater Management: The Utility Approach Sediment and Stormwater Administration Maryland Departngnt of the nvirgpMent. August 1988 15. Lindsey, Greg. Charges for Urban Runoff: Issues in Implementation Americans Water Resources Association Water Resources Bulletin February 1990 16. Poertner, Herber PE Better Way to Finance Stormwater Management Civil Engipegring April 1981 17. Steeves, Malcolm and Chapman, Charles Public Accepts Stormwater Control Plan. Mobile Alabama. Water Engineering April 1988. 18. Stitt, Thomas A. Solving Drainage Problems APWA Reporter November 1986 19. Stitt, Thomas A. Establishing a Stormwater Management Utility. Cincinnati, Ohio Pqhlig, Works Sept. 1986 20. City of Wooster Stormwater Runoff Project Valuable information was provided by the following: Mr. Greg Lindsey Sediment and Stormwater Administration Dundalk, Maryland Mr. Dick Viesel City of Ann Arbor, Michigan Mr. Bud Schardein Human Relations Coordinator, Metropolitan Sanitary District Louisville, Kentucky Mr. David Reid Financial Accounting Supervisor, City of Talahasse, Florida Ms. Kelly Hephner Clerk Treasurer, Village of Montpelier, Ohio Mr. Dan Zantop Assistant Finance Director, Budget Manager, City of Dunedin, Florida Mr. Tom Liptan Commercial Accounts Coordinator, Environmental Services, City of Portland, Oregon. Ms. Dorothy Hicks City of Medford, Oregon Mr. Malcolm Steeves BCM Engineer, Mobile, Alabama Mr. Tom Sartain Senior Technician, Utility Services, City of Tulsa, Oklahoma Mr. Jim Pierce Storm Drainage Engineer City of Great Falls, Montana Mr. Charles V. Honchell Director of Public Works, City of Bloomington, Minnesota Mr. Karl Keel Assistant Director of Public Works, City of Roseville, Minnesota Mr. Rick Fernandez Quentin L. Hampton Associates Port Orange, Florida Mr. Rick Oswald City Engineer, City of Wooster, Ohio Mr. Glen Dorsey Burnt Bridge Drainage Utility Clark County, Washington Mr. Cary Roe Utilities Engineer City of Auburn, Washington Ms. Dottie Nazarenus City of Fort Collins, Colorado Ms. Melissa Ware Utility Billing City of Corvallis, Oregon Mr. Ken Haag Director of Public Works, City of Billings, Montana Mr. Bill Chamberlin Bureau Chief, Stormwater Utility Bureau City of Orlando, Florida APPENDICES APPENDIX A CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDINANCE NO. -'• ;, AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 74 TO THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ESTABLISHING A STORINITIATER DRAINAGE UTILITY. The City Council of the City of Roseville does hereby ordain: The City Code of the City -of Roseville is amended by adding a new Chapter 74, to read as follows: 74. STORM WATER DRAINAGE UTILITY 74.010. Storm Water Drainage Utilit7 Established. the municipal storm sewer system snag be operated as a public utility pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 444.075 fro^i which revenues will be derived subject to the provisions of this Chapter and Minnesota statutes. The storm water drainage utility will be part of the public works department and under the administration of the public works director. 74.020. Definitions. (1) Residential equivalent factor, (REF) - One (1) RE= • s deiineda as the ratio of the average vol,=e of runoff generated by one (1) acre of a given land use to the average volume of runoff generated by one (1) acre of typical single family residential land, during a standard one (1) year rainfall event. 74.030. Storm Water Drainage Fees. Storm water drainage fees for parce s oz land snail be determined by multimlying the REF for a parcel's land use by the parcel's acreage and then multiplying the resulting product by the storm water drainage rate. The REF values for various land uses are as follows: CLASSIFICATION LAND USES REF 1 Cemeteries, golf courses 0.25 2 Parks with parking facilities 0.75 3 Single family and duple% residential 1.00 4 Public and; private schools, community renter 1.�5 5 11ultiple family residential, churches and governmental r" buildings 2.50 6 Commercial, industrial, warehouse 5.00 7 Improved vacant as assigned For the purpose of calculating storm water drainage fees, all developed one family and duplex parcels shall 5e considered to have an acre �e of one-third e4,� ,eo ,. (1/3) acre. %z r oc., de..... 'Pee Atr 74..040. Credits. The Council may adopt policies recommended by the public wdirector, by resolution, for adjustment of the storm water drainage fee for parcels based upon hydrologic data to be suppled by property owners, which data demonstrates a hydrologic response substantially different from the standards Such adjustments of storm water drainage fees shall not be made retroactively. 74.050. Exemptions. The following land uses are exempt from storm water drainage tees. (a) Public Rights of way. (b) Vacant, unimproved land with ground cover. 74.060. Payment of Fee. ,Statements for storm water drainag fee shall be computeo every three (3) months and invoiced by the finance department for each account on or about the fifth (5th) day of the month following the quarter. Such statement shall be due on or before the last day of the month in which the statemen- is mailed. Any prepayment or over a ^y..gent of charges shall be re- t ined b�" y the City and. applied against subsequent quarterly fees 74.070. Recalculation of Fee. If a property owner or responsible for paying tree storm water drainae �.ee questions the correctness of an invoice for such charge,'such person may to e t Public determination of the charge recompted by written reque. have the deterr;t.n works director made within twelve (1) months of mailing of the-invoice in question by the City. 74.080. Penalty for Late Payment. Each 'quarterly billing fo= storm water rainage =ees not pa�.o when due shall incur a penalt� charge of ten percent (10 a) of the amount past due. 74.090. Certification of Past Due Fees on Taxes, due storm water arainage Tees in excess or E-H-e `may Past due on October 1 of any year may be certified tofthe OCounty Past ,... ., y Audi: for collection with real estate taxes in the following year Dur- suant to :Minn. Stat. Section 444.075 Subdivision 3. the City shall also have the right to bring a civil actidtir take other legal remedies to collect onoro unpaid fees. II. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. k PASSED by the City Council of the City of Roseville this day of ATTEST: Manager :savor CITY POLICY TITLE Credits and/or adjustments of municipal storm water drainage fees. BACKGROUND STATE -HENT The municipal storm water drainage utility utilizes a fee structure based on the anticipated relative contribution of storm drainage runoff volumes to the storm water drainage system. A parcels contri bution is detern.ined by that parcels size and ,its land use, ;ander th, principal that more intensively developed ,land uses,typically have a larger percentage of impervious surface and contribute a much great er volume of water and/ r sediment/nutrient loadings to the system. ,It is recognized that some parcels, due either to their unique topo- graphic, vegetative, geologic and other characteristics, or the eis• tante and maintenance of onsite storm drainage control, detention, o: retention facilities have a hydrologic and sediment/nutrient loading response substantially different from that of similarly sized parcei. Of the same land use. To provide for an ecuitable assessment of storm drainage fees, based on reasonably expected contribution of f1cws and, sed=,ment/rutr ents, provisions need to be made to permit adjustments or cr:cits to the storm drainage fees for those parcels with uni.gue or unususl o the - teristics, POLICY STATEMENT The basis of the City of Rosevillets s�o� water drainace fees is the contributionanticiPated relative of st"orm nutrient . ,sediment conditionse stoirn drainage sYstem from, a given parcel. Where unique or unusual loadingstions of water volume and sediment/nuttient parcel are substantially different forn those anticipated by - the sto: drainage fee structure, the Public works dizector or his designate MZ adjust or credit the storm drainage fee for said parcel to an'appro- priate level in accordance with the guidelines speclf4ed herein. PROCEDURE STATE.ME*:T (1) Property Owner,to Provide Detailed Inforratien t is the responsibility of the property owner or his agent to present to the public works director or his desir'nate, sufr:cient in- formation concerning a -parcels hydrologic charas-eristics to permit an accurate assessment of the conditions that exist. tion may include', but is not limited to: This informa- A. Site plan showing locations Of all builAir.rs and other relative to lot lines. B. The total lot area and area of impervious surfaces. C. Site topoaraphv or contours of sufficient detail to ascer- tain flow directions, rates and volumes. - D. Size, details and/or volumetric characteristics of any drainage control facilities. _ -2- E. Hydraulic calculations specifying outflow volumes and rates for various rainfall events. (2) Adjustments Where Parcel Runo " Is Significantly Different ro Lana asSt e andara ';`le`e the unit runoff generated by a parcel differs from the assigned amount for that land use catagory by more than 20%, the P -11-D. may adjust the parcels storm water drainage fee in accor- dance with the following procedure: a. Calculation of unit runoff for the parcel shall be deter- mined by the methods outlined in the Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 55, utilizing a 2" total rainfall amount and antecedant moisture condition II. b. If calculated unit runoff is shown to differ from the assigned amount for that land use catagory by 200 or more, the number of -assigned P.EU's f be adjusted by multiplyingb -or that parcel shall unit runoff to the standard unit runoff. the calculated C. A parcels storm water drainage fee shall be subject to increases as well as decreases by this procedure. d. Because single family and duplex fees are not based u_con actual parcel acreage, no adjustments for unit runoff dif- ferences will be made for those land uses. (3) Procedure for Calcualtion of Credits for Wet Ponds A parcel may be credited for up tQ fifty )cent othe storm water drainage fee for onsite measures whicharr eownedand main-tained by the applicant which effectively reduce the outflow of sediment/nutrients from the site. Creait percentage cnall b- teased on one-half of the actual percentage of seaiment removal efficiency, as determinea ny the following procedure, rounded to the nearest 5,; except that no credit will be given for sediment removal efficiencies of less than 20%. A. Calculation of Credits for Wet Ponds a. Determine total site acreage and percent of site that has an ir,.proved or impervious surface. b. Calculate the annual depth of runoff from the following ecuation: Dr = P(.75 Im+,15)-5.234.4(.25-.1875 Im)-597 Where Dr = annual depth of runoff in inches. Im =percent of site i.- eLti-ices area, evnressed as a dec=al. P = annual depth of precipitation = 29 inches. C- Calculate annual volLune of runo-cf in acre-feet: vannual = site acreage x Dr/ 12 d. Determine pond capacity below outlet elevation in acre-feet. e. Calculatepcapacity inflow ratio (CIR), where: CIR - onain ca ac-ty / V annual f. Read sediment removal efficiency from following graph: .,o so z �o 2 _W U_ W W W J 0 50 W 0L �O F� 2 W 70 D W 20 H w 0 0.001 Q. CO2 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 as 4.0 20 SA 10 BRUNETS TRAP EFFICIENCY CURVE g. Credit = % sediment re. -oval efficiency,/2 x stez drainace (4) Credits for Storm Water Detention: A parcel may be credited for up to 25% of the storm water drain- age fee for onsite measures which limit storm water outflow rates from the site in accordance with the following procedure: a. _' 0 s Credit for ":aresis iUch limit seat' out'lc:w mates durina a 5 -year rainfall event to predevelopment rates. r b. Additional 150- credit for parcels which li-:it pear outflow rates during a 100 -year rainfall event to predevelopment rates. (Based on the rational method of runoff analysis. Predeveloc ment condition shall be considered to '-ave a rational "C" val of 0.2. Time of concentration shall be no shorter than 30 rd c. No detention credits will be given for parcels which do not limit 5 -year event outflow rates to prede:velopment levels. (5) Credits Shown in (3) and (4) Above I-iav be Cumulat_•;e. (6) Periodic Inspection and Credit Adjustments. Public Works Director reserves the right to ins=ect periodically all storm drainage control facilities to ascertain that they are operas inn properly. If such a system, due to improper maintenance or other reason, -fails to detain or cleanse storm water runoff in an effective manner, the director may eliminate or reduce water cuali`. or detentio; credits to an aczrcpriat.e level. Any such facilif; shall not be eli- gible to apply for storm drainage fee adjustments for a neriod of 12 r..onths follewing any credit adjustment. Credit adjust.ments shall not be made retroactively. .he issuance of any building permit or other action :which changes or is tensifies an existing land use shall be cause for 'an adjustment of sto: water drainage fees to an appropriate level. AU FORITY Section No. 74 of the Roseville Cit•, Code. PUBLIC WORKS PROCEDURE ST0R,%1 DRAI\AGE CREDITS March 27, 1954 BACKGPOU\D In January of 1984, the Roseville Council adopted a storm drainage utility, together with city policy allowing for adjustments or credits to storm drainage fees. The following procedure shall be used to calculate these credits to assure consistant application to all situ ations. CREDITS A. LAND USE INTE`7SITY CREDITS 1. Criteria: When unit runoff generated by a parcel differs from the assign( amount by more than -200-, parcel drainage fee is to be adjusted to reflect actual runoff. 2. Required information by applicant: a) Complete site plan. b) Site area and percentage of "improved" surface. 3.. Calculate Procedure: a) Calculate unit runoff by SCSS method; using actual percent improved surface, 2" rainfall, Soil Group "B", Anticedent Moisture Condition b). Compare with "Standard" Unit Runoff. Land Use "Standard" 2" Runoff Single family .24" Cemeteries F golf courses .091, Developed parks .181, Schools & community centers .301, Multiple & churches .56" Commercial/industrial 1.24" c) If calculated unit runoff differs from standard by 200 or more, ad- just parcels REU value by ratio of actual unit runoff to standard unit runoff. •- 4. Exceptions: a) No adiustments to single family parcels, as their fees do not deper on lot size or intensity. b) For parcels with drainage e#sements, reduce parcel size to non -ease nent area, then calculate unit runoff. B. Rate of Discharge Credits 1. Criteria-- When peak runoff from site is limited to pre -development level by on-site facilities owned and maintained by property owner, up to 250 _,reduction in drainage fee can be granted. 2. Required information by applicant: a) Complete site plan. b) Area of site draining to each outlet point. e) o improved surface draining to each outlet point. u d) Specific details about outlet facility(s). e) Calculation of peak outflow rate for 5 -year and 100 -year design rai fall, using modified rational method with tc of 30 min. or more. 3. Calculation Procedure. A) Divide site into areas which drain to each drainage outlet. b) Select design rainfall. c) Route rainfall through pond using modified rational r•eth od. choose tc at least 30 min., and use "C"" value .:r= Rossnillers Equation Graph, Determine peak outflow rate by summing all areas. d) Check other rainfall events to determine "worst" case. e) Calculate pre -development rates for parcel using "C"=.20 and assnm ing no on-site retention. f If peak S -year outflow less than predevelopment--l0" credit, . If peak 100 -year outflow less than predevelopment--additional 15 -credit. 4, Exceptions, Special Cases. a) Off-site water drains to outlet --owner has right -to drain this wat, through his site without detention. Grant credits if he provides sufficient control for his portion of the total flow. (This will require applicant,to provide iniormation about watershed beyond hi: parcel). b) Outlet facility owned by city or others --\o Credits.(See Criteria c) Shared Ponding Situation: All ponds have an outlet. If outlet is on another's land, no credits (as in b) above), except if the Pon: tseevelcino manly below outlet, (requires historic docLLnentation). overrlow occurs in a 5 -year event, parcel gets 10 credit. If no overflow occurs in 100 -year event, additional 15 c: C. {Yater Quality Credits ( 1. Criteria:hben a parcel provides on-site treatment facilities which funct to�: a the quality of runoff exiting the site, UP to 500 of the drains, fee may be credited depending of treatment effectiveness. 2. Required information by applicant: a) Ilhen treatment facility is a "wet" pond. (1) Area of site draining to pond and percent impervious. (2) Volume of pond below outlet elevation. b) When treatment facility not a pond, applicant to furnish sufficient documentation to ascertain the effectiveness of the facility in remo; suspended solids. 3. Calculation procedure for wet ponds: a) Divide site into areas draining to each outlet or facility, b) Calculate the average annual runoff for each area using the following equations: .Sflr ` Dr=P (.75 Im + .15) -5.234 (.25-.1575 In) where Dr=annual runoff depth P=annual rainfall = 29 inches Im=o 0. improved, expressed as a decir-al. c) Calculate annual runoff volume (V annual = Dr V x area acreage. d) Calculate or verify pond volur..e in acre-feet below outlet elevation.` e) Calculate, capacity -inflow ration (CIC) CIR=pond volume/V annual f) Read sediment removal efficiency from Brune's Trap Efficiency Curve. (See policy). " 1, _�_ 13 g) Calculate total site efficiency by proportioning the efficiency of each area, and adding together. h) Calculate credit: Credit=site efficiency/2 x RGU value x current rate, .4. Exceptions and special cases. a) Off-site water drains to treatment area -- Ignore effects of off-site water in calculating pond efficiency. b) Parcel shares ponding facility. If parcel has water normally ponded on site, calculate volume of pond on that site below outfall. Then calculate credit per normal procedure.. D. Other Credits Where, in the opinion of the staff, the above procedures do not result in anapprc priate storm drainage charge, the Public Works Director has the authority to make Adjustments consistant with the intent of the storm drainage utility. AUTi O R I TY Drainage, Chapter 74, Storm Water Drainage Utility, adopted January, 1984. City Policy, e d o a a :, adopted January, 1984. . zz r„, - -3- STOP -%I WATER UTILITY TYPICAL IMPERVIOUS I. RESIDENTIAL: Typical lot and house Impervious: House 1690 Drive 900 Patio, Deck, sidewalks 300 2,890 Total area: -11,475 $ Imp.= 2890/11,475 = 25.18% 25% II. MULTIPLE FAMILY III. CO:•LtiIERCIAL E1 Tbrito Rosedale Tbwers M & M Office Lexington Plaza Roseville Siop. Ctr. Eu_-opean Health Spa Red Lcbster I era Lot Area Location sa. _t. Roseville Estates 2735-2855 Rice 988,000 PwamSey Square 2710 Co. Rd. C 422,000 Westwood -Village III 395-477 m.Rd.0 220,000 405 Terrace Dr. 45,900 1.370 Terrace Dr. 137,000 1714 Marion St. 63,800 175 Iarpenteur 54,000 2220 Co. Rd. B 425,000= III. CO:•LtiIERCIAL E1 Tbrito Rosedale Tbwers M & M Office Lexington Plaza Roseville Siop. Ctr. Eu_-opean Health Spa Red Lcbster I era % II,- rcrred % 438,000 440L 223,000 53% 110,000 50% 23,500 62% 69,000 51% 44,000 69% 27,700 51% 201,000= 47% Lean = 53% _ . Location Lot area II,- rcrred % Acres Area In--?rm-ed 1925 W. Perireter 1.43 .25 83% 1700 17. 1111. 36 4.62 4.12 89 1611 Co. Rd. B 2.38 2.03 10 1700± Lexing`cn 6.54 6.54 100 1150± Iar enteur 4.96 4.75 96 2525 Snelling 1.87 1.5 80 2330 Prior Ave. 1.85 1..53 33 85.8 = :1Z IV. INDUSTRI.IAL SCHOOLS, LIBRARY & MISC. PUBLIC Fairview Sr. Ctr. 1910 Fairview 15.8 916 VoTec Max. Elem.) 2151 N. Lexington 8.54 Parkview Jr. III Co. Rd. B & Lamle 26.8 Group 1•7 Uk Mmsso) Victoria & Woodhill 7.55 U.S. At-ry (Lk -,',]cCar ron) 211 9M. McCarron 9.0 NM Conten Scool (R.ieeder) 2800 E.Snelling Rd. 13.26 Central Park Elem. 535 Co. Pd. B-2 9.51 Ramsey Hi School 1250 Cb.Rd. B-2 36.71 GOVERN'44ENT BUILDINGS Ramsey Co,-hty Library Co. Rd. B & Hamlin Fmseville Civic Canter 2660 Civic Ctr.Dr. 19.49 (Hall, arena, garage, ; ec) (Less roar:) CHURCHES No. Hgts. Lutheran Roseville Commant Advent Luti:eran St. Ciristc_=he_'' 12nlscoo. Prince of Deace King of Tangs Rosetc7wn Lutheran 2701 Rice (w/school) 11.5 NH COMM "C"& Ia mine Area F..&mline & Jos. Rd. Location Acres Garrett Freightlire 2845 Cleveland 14.3 Nielson Warehouse 2281 Co. Rd. C 6.65 Warehouse 1975 Co. Rd-. B2 4.42 Warehouse 2250 Terminal 3.32 Truck Terminal 1717 Co. Rd. C 11.3 SCHOOLS, LIBRARY & MISC. PUBLIC Fairview Sr. Ctr. 1910 Fairview 15.8 916 VoTec Max. Elem.) 2151 N. Lexington 8.54 Parkview Jr. III Co. Rd. B & Lamle 26.8 Group 1•7 Uk Mmsso) Victoria & Woodhill 7.55 U.S. At-ry (Lk -,',]cCar ron) 211 9M. McCarron 9.0 NM Conten Scool (R.ieeder) 2800 E.Snelling Rd. 13.26 Central Park Elem. 535 Co. Pd. B-2 9.51 Ramsey Hi School 1250 Cb.Rd. B-2 36.71 GOVERN'44ENT BUILDINGS Ramsey Co,-hty Library Co. Rd. B & Hamlin Fmseville Civic Canter 2660 Civic Ctr.Dr. 19.49 (Hall, arena, garage, ; ec) (Less roar:) CHURCHES No. Hgts. Lutheran Roseville Commant Advent Luti:eran St. Ciristc_=he_'' 12nlscoo. Prince of Deace King of Tangs Rosetc7wn Lutheran 2701 Rice (w/school) 11.5 NH COMM "C"& Ia mine 2.1 F..&mline & Jos. Rd. 5.0 2300 Ilamline 4.43 2561 Victoria 5.3 Dale & TH. 36 5.0 1946 Fe=Ax)od 3.33 86% = 85% 5.6 30% Area T---.r-.-ed 12.5 87% 5.4 81 3.78 86 2.92 88 10.2 90 86% = 85% 5.6 30% 2.3 27 5.7 21 2.4 32 2.15 24 2.5 19 3.17 33.3 13.1 36 30 a 65's 12.5 - .85 60 Il �' 62.5$ 60% 5.51 481- 801.4 1.4 67 2.3 46 2.5 56 2.0 38 1.2 24 2.5 75 5 = 50$ PARKS Developed* ° J cr--- Licn Axeea � ,.c.�=y. r� ;�es Al --a ;',c. i� r Bruce Russell 1350 Tbodhill Dr. 4.39 0.7 16% Autumn Grove Hamlin & Lydia 6.65 0.85 13 McCarrons Beach ?L�ons Tk. (Rice) 10.8= 1.9 17 Sand Castle 3060 Old Hwy 8 2.={ 0.54 22 RQsebrook 2575 Snelling (& "C") 8.25 0.9 11 15.83 = 15% C-MN7TM= . GCT -t" CCG -r S, -S Cedaxi'.oLa :cpl. Golf 2323 Flamline (TIz.36) 25.8 0.75 3% Midland Hills Golf 2001 Fulham 160.93 3:5 2 ibselawn Cmetary Larp. & Victoria 75.0 5.0 6 4 STORM WATER UTILITY RUNOFF FACTORS .7CS. S r " St=mnn Water Catagory Tyne al "S " Rain Land Use 2" Rain Factor Im�,erv�aus (Soil 'B") Rwnoff (Iced) Pesidential 25% 70 .24 Multiple 50 80 .56 G r-mr-rcial 85 92 1.24 In lustrial 85 92 1.24 Schools 30 72 .30 Churct,.es/Govt 50 80 .56 Developed Parks is 67 .18 Omretaries, Golf C. 4 62 .09 * Utiple of -typical residential rumofj- 1 2.5 5 5 1.25 2.5 .75 .25 3772c ,gym 11-30-88 CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE N0. 3980 AN ORDINANCE increasing storm and surface water drainage charges for the Storm and Surface Water Utility of the City of Bellevue; and amending Section 4 of Ordinance No. 2429, as amended. WHEREAS, Section 4 of -Ordinance No. 2429, as amended, requires that the rates and charges established therein be reevaluated no later than five years from March 1,-1982; and WHEREAS, the Storm and Surface Water Utility, with the advice and assistance of a rate consultant, has reviewed the financial condition of the Utility and has reviewed the rates and charges provided by Ordinance No. 2429, as amended, and the policies upon which said rates and charges were established; and WHEREAS, the rate consultant and the Utility have determined and recommend that the rates and charges of the Utility be modified to provide for a more equitable distribution of said rates and charges; that revenues available to the Utility be increased; and that certain rate policies with respect thereto be adopted; and WHEREAS, additional revenues for the Utility are necessary to fund the 1989-1993 Utility CIP; maintain adequate reserves; and to provide for increased operations and maintenance costs resulting from CIP construction, plat dedications, annexations and requirements of the National Urban Stormwater Permit; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 5, 1988, with regard to the budget of the City of Bellevue for 1989; and WHEREAS, the Storm and Surface Water Advisory Commission has reviewed the proposed modifications to the Utility's rates and charges and on November 3, 1988, recommended adoption of said modifications; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEMUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 2429 as amended by Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2577 and as further amended by Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3080 and Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3688 is further amended to read as follows: Section 4. There is hereby levied upon all real property within the City of Bellevue which contributes drainage water to or which benefits from the function of the Storm and Surface Water 3772c 11-30-88 0 Utility of the City of Bellevue, and there shall be collected from the owners thereof, monthly service charges based on the square footage of the properties and on the appropriate intensity of development classification(s) of such properties, such that for each 2,000 square feet of area or increments thereof, the property shall be charged an amount per month as follows: Light Moderate Heavy Very Heavy Wetland Undeveloped Develonnt Develogment Development Devel opment $0.00 $0.15 $0.85 $1.06 $1.59 $2.13 and each account shall be charged an additional customer charge in the amount of $0.93 per month, and there shall be collected from the owners of undeveloped properties which become developed a "late -comer" facilities' charge of $11.87 per equivalent billing unit per year from March 1, 1982 to date of development, pro -rated ` on a monthly basis. An equivalent billing unit shall be defined as the number of square feet of property divided by 2,000 square feet times the runoff coefficient associated with the newly developed property's intensity of development classification. The runoff coefficient for the following development classifications are defined as follows: Wetland: 0.00; Undeveloped: 0.25; Light Development: 0.4; Moderate Development: 0.5; Heavy Development: 0.75; Very Heavy Development: 1.00. The rates and charges established herein shall be reevaluated no later than five years from September 1, 1986. Section 2. The revised monthly service charges and monthly customer charge established in Section 1 of this ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 1989. -2- ORDINANCE NO. 1985-9 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY, AND LEVYING JUST AND EQUITABLE CHARGES UPON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM USERS. WHEREAS, the growing drainage problems brought about by increasing levels of development within the city have had a direct effect on the city's storm drainage system and shown the need not only for planning, design, construction and maintenance of existing and future contributing storm drainage systems, but also for measures to lessen the demand of such develoopment upon such systems; and WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 1979-16 passed May 7, 197,9, the City Council of Wooster created a new Chapter 907 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Wooster entitled Erosion and Storm Water Runoff Controls, for the purpose of controlling erosion and storm water runoff and thereby reducing -the adve.rse impact on adjacent or downstream property; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Division of the City of Wooster has prepared a priority list of storm sewers and drainage facilities dated August, 1981 which identifies needed storm drainage projects totaling $13.6 million; and WHEREAS, the costs of handling storm water problems should be charged to those properties which contribute to storm water problems and that impervious area of the property is an appropriate measure of storm water contributions from property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOOSTER, STATE OF OHIO: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the general laws of the State of Ohio and the powers granted in the Charter of the City of Wooster, the Council of said city does hereby declare its intention to acquire, own, construct, equip, operate and maintain within the city limits of the City of Wooster, Ohio, open drainageways, underground storm drains, equipment and appurtenances necessary, useful, or convenient for a complete storm drainage system; and also including maintenance, extension and reconstruction of the present storm drainage system of said city; to minimize by suitable means said system's contribution to flooding; and to seek the cooperation of other neighboring jurisdictions in minimizing the contribution of all such system, and other sources of accelerated run off to said flooding. (a) The improvement of both public and private storm drainage facilities through or immediately adjacent to a new development shall remain the responsibility of the developer. 2 P qk Said improvements shall comply with policies and standards ® outlined in Chapter 907 of the City's Codified Ordinance. . (b) No portion of this ordinance or statement herein or 4 subsequent council interpretation policies shall relieve the property owner of assessments levied against their property for r public facility improvememt projects, except as outlined in Section 9 (e) It is the policy of the city to participate in improvements to storm drainage facilities when authorized by the City Council. To be considered for approval by Council a I facility must: (1) be either a new public facility or be a rehabilitation/replacement of existing ti public facilities. (2) be a major benefit to the community. 6 (d) The city shall maintain all public storm drainage facilities located within city owned land, public right-of-way, and public easements. Public facilities include but are not limited to: i (1) open drainageways owned by the City or where the City has public drairrage easements; (2) a piped drainage system and its related appurtenances which has been designed and constructed expressly for use by the general public; (3) bridges on public streets; �$ (4) roadside drainage ditches within the public right-of-way along unimproved streets; (5) flood control facilities, (levees, dikes, overflow channels, detention basins, e groundwater recharging basins, etc.) that p have been designed and constructed expressly for use by the general public. r, u na , ,C (e) Facilities not qualifying as public facilities y include but are not limited to: {p (1) private parking lot storm drains; (2) roof, footing, and area drains; 'w x (3) drains not designed and constructed for use by the general public; (4) open drainage swales or ditches on private �d property for which no public easement of record has been granted. (5) access drive culverts. SECTION 2. The Director of Administration shall be ex officio administrator of the City storm drainage utility, ;and w 3 steal; be authorized to develop and adopt policies, standards and financial incentives to promote, regulate and administer the City's storm drainage utility. SECTION 3. There is hereby levied and imposed upon all premises which have been improved within the City of Wooster just and equitable charges for storm drainage service or subsequent service maintenance, operation and extension; and to establish a -Storm Drainage Fund for the foregoing purposes. SECTION 4. That the said charges shall be collected with ,.� the monthly water bill of water users, billed with sanitary sewer for those connected to sewer alone or billed alone as storm drainage charge for those users not connected to and/or not charged for city water and/or sanitary sewer. SECTION 5. Such charges shall be paid monthly by those liable therefore and placed in a Storm Drainage Fund into which all of said charges so collected shall be deposited and kept as a fund to be used only for the purposes stated herein. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that property is furnished service in proportion to the amount of the property's impervious surface. The basic unit of service is 3,050 sq. ft. of impervious surface applicable to all conventionally developed residential properties in R-1 zoning districts. Sixty percent (60%) of one basic service unit is the equivalent service unit for one and two family residential properties in R-2, 3, 4, and 5 and non-residential zoning districts. All other properties shall be furnished service equivalent to multiples of basic service units of 3,050 sq. ft. of impervious surface as calculated for individual properties by the City Engineer's office. SECTION 7. Rates shall be maintained and set by action of the City Council of the City of Wooster. In no year shall the operating fund of the drainage utility show a loss. SECTION 8. The established rates may be reduced for a property, other than conventionally developed one and two family, where approved runoffs control measures have been implemented. Review and analysis of these measures shall be handled on an individual case basis by the City Engineer, according to established policies and standards. Maximum rate reduction shall be 50% of the established rate. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the City Engineer under this section may appeal such decision to the Court of Common Pleas under Ohio R. C. Chapter 2506. ' SECTION 9. The owner of any property subject to a charge provided herein shall pay the same, when due, to the City of Wooster. If any charges due hereunder shall not be paid when due, the Director of Law shall collect them by actions at law in the name of the City of Wooster. Properties which have been i a 4 assessed for storm drainage improvements as part of the East University Street Storm Sewer Project shall receive credit toward said utility charges equal to the total amount paid or being paid, including any interest, for the East University Street Storm Sewer Assessment and shall not be subject to a user charge until such credit is used up, thereby, assuring that all properties in the City will be equitably treated with respect to storm drainage project financing.. SECTION 10. If any provision of a section of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect the other provisions or applications of the section or related sections which can -be given effect without the invalid provisions or application and to this end the provisions are severable. SECTION 11. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after the earliest date allowed by law. Passed: �'� , 1985 President of Council 11 * Mro . �► . f ,, 90! Approved:—, 3.._ 1 1985. Mayor a r° Introduced by: Jon Ulbright ORDINANCE 1985-5 y AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RATES FOR THE STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY, AND I DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Wooster, State of Ohio, on March 18, 1985, passed an Ordinance No. 1985-8, establishing a Storm Drainage Utility; and WHEREAS, as of January 1, 1986, this Ordinance will be implemented, "and rates have to be established, as provided for i Section 7 of the above mentioned Ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOOSTER, OHIO, STATE OF OHIO: q SECTION 1. That the rate for residential properties in a f R-1 district, which is based on a unit of service of 3,050 sq -ft; shall be $2.90 per month. All other residentially zoned dis- tricts will be billed at 60% of one basic service unit, or $1.741 per month. All other properties shall be billed at multiples of basic service units of 3,050 sq. ft. per month. SECTION 2. This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an emergency measure necessary to the immediate health, safety and welfare of the Citizens of said City; and for the further reason! that it is necepsary to pass this Ordinance in order to implement the collection of these funds on January 1, 1986; wherefore, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval by the Mayor. Passed:�� 1985 Wires!en *o -;C ounca T--- Attest: 1 0ou c" Approved: , 1985 ayor 0 Introduced by: Chuck Wheatley APPENDIX B t rains. Why do Roseville plans to use a "new" technique to pay�� for the costs of managing storm water runoff — — a Storm Drainage Utility. This leaflet is prepared f\\ to introduce you to this new utility and answer your question's. Questions?.7.7 & Answers!1T * & 00 we have a storm drainage system? Before people settled in Rose- ville, the natural state of the land was rolling prairie covered with grass and trees. When it rained, the water soaked into the ground or flowed naturally to the rivers and streams. When people came to Roseville, they built homes, stores, offices, churches, and paved the land with streets, parking lots, and driveways. Now, when it rains, the ground cannot absorb the water as easily, and more water flows off. As the development of the land continued, it became increasingly Why is a utility needed? Recent State legislation now re- quires Rosmille to tai:e grrater and costlier actions to protect water quality in our community than ever before. These actions will include forming two new water management organizations and developing regional and local plans to identify problems. Today, storm water costs are paid for using general tax money --property taxes. These newcosts,. when combined with the nearly 5200,000 Roseville must spend for ongoing storm drainage main- tenance each year, represents a Mawr expenditure of tax money., tRoseville must find a way to meet 'these rising costs in a fair and equitable manner. without adding additional burden to the property tax rolls. important to control the storm water. Storm drainage facilities had to be built, maintained and renewed in order to: • PROTECT PEOPLE • PROTECT PROPERTY • REDUCE INSURANCE RISKS • IMPROVE PROPERTY VALUES • ENHANC? THE ENVIRONMENT • PROVIDE FOR SAFE TRAFFIC FLOW To control storm waters and receive these benefits, there is a cost. The proposed storm drainage utility will spread these costs to those who "create" the storm water runoff. What is a storm drainage utility? A storm drainage utility is similar to the familiar sanitary sewer utility. The fee is based on the amount o1 u-ster that is discharged into the system. For instance, a parking lot creates more runoff than a grass area the same size. so it pays a higher rate. Similarly, a large parcel creates more runoff than a small parcel, so it too pays a higher amount. In this way, the citizens of Roseville will pay for the management of storm water in proportion to the amount of water they `rontribute". not on the value of their property. What's my share of the costs? The expected.quarterly fees in 1984 to various types of properties are shown below: PROPERTY TYPE QUARTERLY RATES Single Family Homes and Duplexes .. „ ... " . „ ,,, , , , , , , , , , , $4.351iof Cemeteries and Golf -Courses . ........ . .. . .. . . . . $3.251acre Parks and Parking Lots .. ........... . . . . 59.751acre Schools and Community Centers ................ S16.25/acre Multiple Family Dwellings and Churches . , " . , „ ..532.501acre Cum mercialllndustnal ............................... 565.001acre Your storm drainage fee will be included on the same water and sewer bill you receive each quarter. Also, your fee can be reduced if you can demonstrate that your pro- perty has on site facilities which improve water quality or reduce its outflow rate. What portion of the costs are paid by single family properties? Currently, nearly fifty percent of the citywide costs of managing storm water are received through property taxes to single family homeowners. Under a storm drain- age utility, the overall single family share is reduced to about twenty- five percent. That means the single family share of storm water costs is cut in half with a utility. Other more intensively deve- loped properties will assume an increased share of these costs due to the greater share of runoff they create. Also, an additional ten per- cent of total costs will now be paid by tax exempt properties„ who usually pay no property taxes. How will my money be used? Roseville munitY, And Planning for the future as well as the present is . «. beve- loped and keptto date to determine- 0 • Where changes or repairs to existing facilities need to be made. • Where and when future facilities will be needed. • What should be done to protect the gstality of water in our lakes and streams. 1) Money., to op.. stormrate and maintain the Present storm draina rtion of the be • Enhance wetlands to clean storm water and retard flows • Maintain existing storm facilities so they will operate p►operiv for a longer period of time. • Replace existing stgrm facilities that hare become unusable r: er the years, due to the natural deterioration process. Sweep streets and pick up leaves. so this material does not enter the system„ 'ro It I want more information! City of Roseville 2600 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Bulk Rate PAID St. Paul, Mir Permit 243' APPENDIX C Village of Mount Prospect Storm Water User Fee Study 6 ec:tion Number 1 Impervious Areas Of Residential Lots 2 3 4 5 Average SE -24 3,200 3,150 2,700 3,335 3,670 3,211 SW -24 3,225 3,450 3,575 4,300 3,525 3,615 NE -25 2,700 3,180 2,750 3,500 N/A 3,033 NW -25 3,325 2,850 3,400 33075 3,020 3,134 SE -25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SW -25 3,400 2,875 2,450 2,840 2,925 2,898 NE -26 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 NW -26 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SE -26 3,400 3,300 2,750 4,950 2,875 3,455 SW -26 3,300 3,550 3,850 3,400 2,800 3,380 NE -27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 MW -27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SE -27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SW -27 3,425 3,980 4,385 3,575 4,125 3,898 NE -33 3,150 3,930 3,000 2,700 3,075 3,171 NW -33 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SE -33 2,900 3,700 3,300 3,900 N/A 3,450 SW -33 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 NE -34 2,225 2,225 4,175 3,750 2,300 2,935 NW -34 2,525 3,025 3,600 3,175 3,325 3,130 SE -34 2,500 2,850 2,600 3,050 2,975 2,795 SW -34 3,450 2,900 3,225 3,050 3,500 3,225 NE -35 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 NW -35 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SE -35 3,300 3,850 3,950 3,550 3,350 3,600 SW -35 3,225 3,250 3,675 N/A N/A 3,383 NE -36 2,675 3,650 3,700 3,075 2,400 3,100 NW -36 4,250 4,000 2,700 3,150 N/A 3,525 SE -36 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SW -36 3,600 3,450 3,300 N/A N/A 3,450 NE -10 2,950 3,050 2,150 3,500 N/A 2,913 NW -10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A CJ SE -10 3,900 3,525 3,125 3,600 3,200 3,470 SW -10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 NE -11 31100 2,950 2,500 2,400 2,200 2,630 NW -11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SE -11 3,475 3,450 3,200 2,750 2,575 3,090 SW -11 3,850 3,300 4,375 N/A N/A 3,842 m Section 1 2 3 4 5 Average NE -12 1,800 3,300 2,700 2,400 2,150 2,470 NW -12 3,350 3,325 2,550 2,200 2,525 2,790 5E-12 2,600 2,350 2,375 2,400 2,600 2,465 SW -12 1,750 2,250 2,350 2,100 3,700 2,430 NE -15 2,925 3,175 3,450 2,950 N/A 3,125 5E-15 3,200 3,175 3,250 3,150 N/A 2,555 NE -14 2,950 3,450 3,150 2,550 2,700 2,960 NW -14 4,000 3,300 3,950 3,325 3,100 3,535 5E-14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SW -14 2,800 2,750 3,000 3,050 1,900 2,700 NE -13 3,550 4,200 3,625 3,325 3,175 3,575 NW -13 2,400 2,600 3,400 3,450 2,650 2,900 NE -22 3,650 3,600 3,575 N/A N/A 3,608 5E-22 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 NE -23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 NW -23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 5E-23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SW -23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Average For All Sections 3,148 Nuber Of Entries 166 Maximum 4,950 Minimum 1,750 Standard Deviation 556 Variance 308,953 Root Mean Square 3,197 NOTE: Areas are given in square feet APPENDIX D APPENDIX D STORMWATER CHARGES CURRENT DATA FOR 31 COMMUNITIES Typical ` Single Family Residential Charge 44,000 Montpelier, OH 3.00 20,000 Wooster', OH 2.90 30,000 Auburn, WA 3.50.1/ 31,000 Kent, WA 2.50 34,400 Renton, WA 2.50 36,000 Roseville, MN 1.44 36,000 Port Orange, FL 2.50 37,000 Dunedin, FL 3.00 42,000 Corvallis, OR 2.15-1/ 45,000 Medford, OR 2.95 52,000 Clark County, WA 1.25.1/ 65,000 Great Falls, MT 3.25 80,000 Bellvue, WA 7.29 80,000 Ft. Collins, CO 2.50 85,000 Billings, MT 1.74 90,000 Boulder, CO 4.03 90,000 Bloomington, MN 2.36 108,000 Ann Arbor, MI 2.03 130,000 Tallahassee, FL 2.52 150,000 Orlando, FL 3.00 150,000 Everett, WA 1.83 160,000 Tacoma, WA 2.30 220,000 Aurora, CO 2.65 385,000 Cincinnati, OH 1.28 400,000 Portland, OR 3.45.1/ 400,000 Tulsa, OK 2.00 450,000 Austin, TX 1.30 500,000 Denver, CO 1.43 685,000 Louisville, KY 1.75.1/ N/A Seattle, WA 2.64 Proposed: 290,000 Mobile, AL 3.00 1/ Rate under review Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager David C. Jepson, Finance Director November 20, 1990 Budget Projections for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year During the past several weeks, each line item in the 1990/91 budget has been reviewed with the goal of developing projections of total revenues and expenditures for the budget year. Using this and other available information, estimates have been made of the expected revenues and expenditures by fund and the fund balances that should be available to start the next fiscal year. The results are reported in four attached schedules: 1) Estimated Revenues by Fund; 2) Estimated Expenditures by Fund; 3) Estimated Available Fund Balances and 4) Estimated Revenues and Expenditures of the General Fund. Schedules 1 and 2 are organized by fund and contain the actual 1989/90 fiscal year totals, 1990/91 budget amounts, 12 month estimated amounts for 1990/91, and the expected increase or decrease from the original budget. Schedule 3 contains the actual available fund balances as of April 30, 1990, the estimated revenues and expenditures for the 1990/91 fiscal year from Schedules 1 and 2 and the estimated fund balances as of April 30, 1991. The fourth schedule shows specific information for the General Fund and includes supplementary pages which explain significant increases or decreases. A discussion of some of the more noteworthy information in the attached schedules follows: Schedule 1 - Estimated Revenues By Fund Total Village revenues, net of interfund transfers, for the 1990/91 fiscal year are expected to be $34,722,610, a total of $5,318,020 less than had been budgeted. The most significant portion of the decrease is in the Capital Projects Funds which are expected to be down $4,777,700 due to the deferring of expected bond issues for flood control and downtown redevelopment purposes. Other differences are identified below: General Fund - The decrease of $83, 885 can be attributed primarily to lower Sales Tax Revenues and lower Permit Fees. However, there are a number of increases and decreases which are discussed in more detail in the Explanatory Notes to Schedule 4. Flood Control Revenue Fund - The 90/91 budget had anticipated user charges for stormwater control of $305,000. This fee will not be implemented in the current fiscal year. John Fulton Dixon November 20, 1990 Budget Projections for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year Water and Sewer Fund - Water sales in 90/91 are expected to be approximately 5% less than in the 89/90 fiscal year resulting in reduced revenue of $64,000. Additionally, reduced building activity has resulted in lower water tap revenue and sewer inspections. Reimbursements are also less than anticipated. Risk Management Fund - The increase of $76,500 is due to higher contributions from the Village, employees, retirees and the Library as a result of higher medical insurance costs. Capital Improvement Fund - The decrease in the Capital Improvement Fund is due primarily to a reduction of $70,000 for developer donations. General Obligation Bonds - Because two bond issues are expected to be deferred, the expected revenue for current interest payments has been decreased. Pension Funds - The proposed 1990 tax levy has been reduced by $50,000 for both the Police and the Firemen's Pension Funds. The most recent actuarial reports indicate that the Police Pension Fund is funded at 122.9% of actuarial requirements and the Firemen's Pension Fund is funded at 133.3%. Accordingly, the corresponding funding requirements are less than expected. When the proceeds from the two bond issues and the Flood Control User Charge revenues are excluded, total estimated revenues are expected to be 99.1% of the budgeted amount. Schedule 2 - Estimated Expenditures By Fund Total Village expenditures, net of interfund transfers, for the fiscal year ending April 30, 1991 are expected to be $34,883,545, some $5,520,840 less than had been budgeted. As in the revenue discussion, the greatest portion of the decrease is in the Capital Projects Funds due to the delay in the Flood Control Project and the Downtown Redevelopment Project. The reduction in expenditures for these two projects accounts for $4,690,000 of the overall decrease. Following is an explanation of other noteworthy increases and decreases: General Fund - The total decrease of $131,450 is made up of a number of increases and decreases. The most notable increases are additional insurance costs of $89,000 and an increase in the General Fund portion of street reconstruction of $50,000. Decreases will be found in the Melas Park Project of $85,000, refuse disposal costs of $95,000, and in personal services of $97,000. Other specific increases and decreases are discussed in the Explanatory Notes to Schedule 4. Motor Fuel Tax Fund - The reduction in the MFT Fund of $96,325 is made up of decreases in street resurfacing and reconstruction of $67,000, a delay 2 John Fulton Dixon November 20, 1990 Budget Projections for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year in the Wolf Road Opticom installation, and a reduction in traffic signal maintenance charges. Flood Control Revenue Fund - The 90/91 budget had anticipated user charge revenue of $305,000 which would have been used for payment of interest on project bonds. The project has been deferred and no revenues or expenditures will be realized in the 90/91 fiscal year. Water and Sewer Fund - The decrease in the Water Fund is due to lower personnel costs of approximately $50,000 and reduced payments to JAWA for water purchases, operating costs, and fixed costs. Risk Management Fund - Medical insurance claims and costs are expected to rise by approximately $80,000. Motor Equipment Pool - The decrease is due primarily to the elimination of a tow truck that had been budgeted at $97,500, along with reductions in other purchases. Capital Improvement Fund - The reduction in estimated expenditures in this fund is due to a delay in the Wolf Road Street Light Project ($90,000) and a lower amount for the repair of Public Buildings of $50,000. General Obligation Bonds - Interest costs will be lower because of the deferral of two proposed bond issues. Pension Funds - The proposed reduction in the 1989 tax levy of $50,000 in both the Police and Firemen's Pension Funds will result in reduced amounts set aside for future pension. When the costs associated with the two deferred bond issues and the Flood Control Revenue Fund are excluded, total expenditures are expected to be 98.5% of the budgeted amount. Schedule 3 - Estimated Available Fund Balances This is probably the single most important source of information for financial planning purposes for the next budget year. The schedule contains the available fund balances as of April 30, 1990, the 1990/91 estimated revenues and expenditures from Schedules 1 and 2 and the estimated balances that should be available to start the next fiscal year (April 30, 1991). By knowing the fund balances that will be available to start the next budget year, a more accurate and appropriate budget financing plan can be presented. Following is a summary of some of the more important items of information in this schedule: 3 John Fulton Dixon November 20, 1990 Budget Projections for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year General Fund - It is expected that the fund balance in the General Fund as of April 30, 1991, exclusive of State Income Surcharge receipts of an estimated $2,387,249, will be approximately $2,578,000. This balance takes into consideration the revenues and expenditures summarized in Schedules 1 and 2 and explained more fully in Schedule 4. I have mentioned on other occasions that 15% of expenditures is the level of fund balance that should be maintained to assure a strong financial position. Fifteen percent of current expenditures is $2.68 million. Based upon this criteria, the fund balance is starting to drop and an effort should be made to increase it in the 91/92 fiscal year. Motor Fuel Tax Fund - The balance in the MFT Fund as of April 30, 1991 is expected to be $520,736, which represents a draw -down of $129,000 from the start of the year. Based upon the size of the projects financed from this fund, a balance of at least $400,000 should be maintained. This standard would allow another draw -down of approximately $100,000 in the next fiscal year. Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Fund - The balances listed for the Water and Sewer Fund, Parking Fund, Risk Management Fund and the Motor Equipment Pool Fund are not available fund balances but rather the net working capital (current assets less current liabilities) of these funds. In these types of funds, the focus of financial planning is not on the fund balance so much as on the premise that revenues should equal expenditures. Additionally, unique circumstances of each fund needs to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate fund balance. For example, the net working capital of the Water Fund includes approximately $600,000 in receivables and inventories that will not be liquidated, and is not available for current expenditures. Also, it is our intention to maintain a balance in the Risk Management Fund which will enable us to meet future liability and medical claims. The balance in the Water and Sewer Fund is at a level which represents approximately six months cash requirements and this is more than adequate at this time. However, revenues in the current fiscal year include a one- time grant of approximately $400,000. If this amount is excluded, expenditures in the current fiscal year will exceed revenues by $585,000. Rates were increased on May 1, 1988 and May 1, 1989, but there has not been an increase in the current year. To maintain a strong financial position in the Water Fund, I believe rates will need to be increased May 1, 1991 by approximately 10%. The fund balance in the Risk Management Fund is expected to be $1,095,891 as of April 30, 1991, the same level as at the beginning of the year. With the increases that have been experienced in insurance claims and the level of self-insurance the Village is assuming, I believe we should try to 4 John Fulton Dixon November 20, 1990 Budget Projections for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year establish a minimum fund balance of $1,250,000 in the Risk Management Fund. This could"be accomplished over the next 2 to 3 years by funding $100,000 to $150,000 more per year than is actually needed. It is mandatory that this fund balance be reevaluated and our requirements updated on an annual basis. Motor Equipment Pool - This is a new fund to provide the resources for replacing motor equipment. The operating departments pay an annual lease fee to this fund and the actual expenditures for vehicles will be made out of this fund. It is our intention to eventually build up the fund balance to represent accumulated depreciation on the equipment. Capital Projects Funds - The fund balance of the Capital Improvement Fund will be reduced from $716,269 to $419,874 during the current fiscal year. Previously this fund was used for capital equipment and improvements but in the future will only fund special projects. The fund balance will vary in relation to special types of revenue that are received. The balance in the Downtown Redevelopment Fund will be used for downtown redevelopment project costs and/or property acquisition. Debt Service Funds and Pension Funds - These balances are restricted for future principal and interest payments and employee benefits. The Debt Service Fund and the Pension Fund'balances are adequate for the current requirements of these funds. Any excess funds that accumulate will be used to abate subsequent tax levies. Total Village balances are expected to decrease approximately $160,000 from May 1, 1990 to April 30, 1991. Schedule 4 - Estimated Revenues and Expenditures, General Fund This report summarizes the revenues by category and expenditures by function in the General Fund. Total revenues, exclusive of the State Income Tax Surcharge, are expected to be $17,905,615 and total expenditures are expected to be $17,858,050 for an excess of revenues over expenditures of $47,565. There are a number of revenue changes which are explained in the Notes that accompany the statement. However, it should be pointed out that several revenues that reflect the local economy are all less than the budgeted amount (Sales Tax, Food and Beverage Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, and Licenses and Permits). Most of the departmental expenditures are higher than budget because of higher costs for medical insurance. Additionally, gasoline and diesel fuel are about 25% higher than had been anticipated. Other changes are pointed out in the Explanatory Notes. 5 John Fulton Dixon November 20, 1990 Budget Projections for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year In conclusion, the attached schedules show total estimated revenues and expenditures for the current fiscal year along with estimated fund balances that should be available as of April 30, 1991. The protections are based upon actual data for the first six months of the year and although they are subject to change, I believe they are reliable. The budget as adopted, becomes the fiscal plan of the Village. This plan, as is the case with other plans, may need to be changed when circumstances change or when new opportunities become available. Changes within a fund may be made at the discretion of the Village Manager; however, changes that increase the amount of any specific fund must be formally approved by a budget amendment. A schedule of budget amendments to provide for changes during the first six months of 90/91 has been prepared and will be presented at a December Board meeting. DCJ/sm Attachments C VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Estimated Revenues By Fund For the Fiscal Year Ending April 30, 1991 General Fund I I .(A) Special Revenue Funds: Flood Control Revenue Fund Motor Fuel Tax Fund Comm. Development Block Grant IL Municipal Retirement Fund Totals Schedule 1 Fiscal Year 89/90 90/91 90/91 Increase or Actual Budget Estimated <Decrease> $16,954,847 $17,989,500 $17,905,615 $< 83,885> $ - $ 305,000 $ - $< 305,000> 1,093,666 1,210,000 1,135,300 < 74,700> 37.4,556 589,725 554,680 < 35,045> 600,402 690,200 684,000 < 6,200> $ 2,068,624 $ 2,794,925 $ 2,373,980 $< 420,945> Enterprise Funds: Water & Sewer Fund $ 6,960,156 $ 6,493,200 $ 6,336,050 $< 157,150> Parking System Revenue Fund 184,538 174,880 184,380 9,500 Totals $ 7,144,694 $ 6,668,080 $ 6,520,430 $< 147,650> Internal Service Fund: Risk Management Fund $ 1,633,150 $ 1,831,000 $ 1,9Q7,500 $ 76,500 Motor Equipment Pool Benefit Trust #2 - 20,000 593,500 - 601,200 $ 3,583,436 7,700 Totals $ 1,633,150 $ 2,424,500 $ 2,508,700 $ 84,200 Capital Projects Funds: $< 13,400> $ 407,000 Capital Improvement Fund $ 633,673 $ 607,400 $ 518,000 $< 89,400> Corp. Purposes 1990 Imprv. - 4,025,000 - <4,025,000> Downtown Redevlpt. 1985 48,626 21,000 22,700 1,700 Downtown Redevlpt. 1990 - 1,005,000 340,000 < 665,000> Totals $ 682,299 $ 5,658,400 $ 880,700 $<4,777,700> Debt Service Funds: General Obligation Bonds $ 1,200,177 $ 1,408,425 $ 1,133,700 $< 274,725> Special Service Area Bonds 114,326 92,200 91,350 < 850> Totals $ 1,314,503 $ 1,500,625 $ 1,225,050 $< 275,575> Pension Funds: Police Pension Fund $ 1,587,986 $ 1,652,000 $ 1,600,000 $< 52,000> Firemen's Pension Fund 1,707,190 1,753,000 1,701,535 < 51,465> Benefit Trust #2 288,260 20,000 20,000 - Totals $ 3,583,436 $ 3,425,000 $ 3,321,535 $< 103,465> Totals - All Funds $33,381,553 $40,461,030 $34,736,010 $<5,725,020> Less Interfund Transfers $< 205,795> $< 4209400> $< 13,400> $ 407,000 Totals - Village Funds $33.175.758 $40 040.630 $34.722,610 $0.318.02D (A) General Fund totals do not include the State Income Tax Surcharge. Schedule 2 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Estimated Expenditures By Fund For the Fiscal Year Ending April 30, 1991 Totals - All Funds Less Interfund Transfers Totals - Village Funds $33,614,035 $< 205,795> $33.408,240 $40,824,785 $< 420,400> $40,4041385 $34,896,945 $< 13,400> x $<5,927,840> $ 407,000 Fiscal Year 89/90 90/91 90/91 Increase or Actual Budget Estimated <Decrease> General Fund $17,221,799 $17,989,500 $179858,050 $< 131,450> Special Revenue Funds: Motor Fuel Tax Fund $ 1,170,406 $ 13,361,000 $ 1,264,675 $< 96,325> Comm. Development Block Grant 374,557 589,725 554,680 < 35,045> IL Municipal Retirement Fund 584,886 677,000 668,400 < 8,600> Flood Control Revenue Fund - 305,000 - < 305,000> Totals $ 2,129,849 $ 2,932,725 $ 2,487,755 $< 444,970> Enterprise Funds: Water & Sewer Fund $ 69634,684 $ 6,711,470 $ 6,522,870 $< 188,600> Parking System Revenue Fund 159,808 207,545 229,530 211985 Totals $ 6,794,492 $ 69919,015 $ 6,752,400 $< 166,615> Internal Service Fund: Risk Management Fund $ 1,713,941 $ 1,741,000 $ 1,907,500 $ 1669500 Motor Equipment Pool - 3939200 262,275 < 130,925> Totals $ 1,713,941 $ 29134,200 $ 29169,775 $ 35,575 Capital Projects Funds: Capital Improvement Fund $ 698,430 $ 973,080 $ 814,395 $< 158,685> Corp. Purposes 1990 Imprv. - 4,025,000 - <49025,000> Downtown Redevlpt.. 1985 540,644 90,735 22,405 < 68,350> Downtown Redevlpt. 1990 - 1,005,000 340,000 < 665,000> Totals $ 19239,074 $ 6,0939815 $ 1,176,800 $<4,917,015> Debt Service -Funds: General Obligation Bonds $ 1,089,160 $ 1,238,625 $ 19038,725 $< 199,900> Special Service Area Bonds 101,816 85,905 85,905 - Totals $ 1,190,976 $ 1,324,530 $ 1,124,630 $< 199,900> Pension Funds: Police Pension Fund $ 1,587,986 $ 1,652,000 $ 1,600,000 $< 529000> Firemen's Pension Fund 1,707,190 1,753,000 19701,535 < 51,465> Benefit Trust #2 28,728 26,000 26,000 - Totals. $ 3,323,904 $ 3,431,000 $ 3,327,535 $< 103,465> Totals - All Funds Less Interfund Transfers Totals - Village Funds $33,614,035 $< 205,795> $33.408,240 $40,824,785 $< 420,400> $40,4041385 $34,896,945 $< 13,400> x $<5,927,840> $ 407,000 Schedule 3 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Estimated Available Fund Balances April 30, 1991 Actual 90/91 90/91 Estimated Balance Estimated Estimated Balances 4/30/90 Revenues Expenditures 4/30/91 General Fund (A) $ 2,531,014 $17,905,615 $17,858,050 $ 2,578,579 Special Revenue Funds:" Flood Control Revenue Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - Motor Fuel Tax Fund 650,111 1,135,300 1,264,675 520,736 Comm. Development Block Grant - 554,680 554,680 - IL Municipal Retirement Fund 15,667 684,000 668,400 31,267 Totals $ 665,778 $ 2,373,980 $ 2,487,755 $ 552,003 Enterprise Funds: Water & Sewer Fund $ 3,680,781 $ 6,336,050 $ 6,522,870 $ 3,493,961 Parking System Revenue Fund 238,652 184,380 229,530 193,502 Totals $ 3,919,433 $ 69520,430 $ 6,7529400 $ 3,6879463 Internal Service Fund: Risk Management Fund $ 190959891 $ 199079500 $ 199079500 $ 190959891 Motor Equipment Pool - 601,200 262,275 338,925 Totals $ 1,095,891 $ 2,5089700 $ 2,1699775 $ 1,434,816 Capital Projects Funds: Capital Improvement Fund $ 716,269 $ 518,000 $ 814,395 $ 4199874 Corp. Purposes 1990 Imprv. - - - - Downtown Redevlpt. 1985 1B6,708 22,700 229405 187,003 Downtown Redevlpt. 1990 - 3409000 340,000 - Totals $ 9029977 $ 8809700 $ 19176,800 $ 606,877 Debt Service Funds: General Obligation Bonds $ 907,532 $ 19133,700 $ 19038,725 $ 19002,507 Special Service Area Bonds 126,364 91,350 85,905 1319809 Totals $ 1,033,896 $ 1,225,050 $ 1,124,630 $ 191349316 Pension Funds: Police Pension Fund $ _ $ 19600,000 $ 19600,000 $ - Firemen's Pension Fund - 19701,535 19701,535 - Benefit Trust #2 260,415 20,000 26 000 254,415 Totals $ 260,415 $ 3,3219535 $ 3,327,535 $ 254,415 Totals - All Funds $10,409,404 $349736,010 $3498969945 $1092489469 Less Interfund Transfers $ - $< 13,400> $< 13,400> $ _. Totals - Village Funds $ $34,722,610 $34,883 545 L10,2484469 (A) General Fund totals do not include an estimated total of $2,387,249 of State Income Tax Surcharge receipts. Schedule 4 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Estimated Revenues and,Expenditures For the Fiscal Year Ending April 30, 1991 General Fund Expenditures: Public Representation $ 65,903 $ 63,250 $ 67,045 Fiscal Year 3,795 89/90 80/91 90/91 Increase or 79950 Actual Budget Estimated <Decrease> ( A) Revenues: Cable TV Operations 115,271 144,970 150,285 Property Taxes $ 4,831,371 $ 4,910,000 $ 4,904,750 $< 5,250> < Sales Tax 5,682,413 5,925,000 5,700,000 < 225,000> ( 1) Sales Tax - Special Payments 100,000 - 126,815 806,190 126,815 ( 2) State Income Tax 1,775,156 1,775,000 1,900,000 4,515,115 125,000 ( 3) State Sales & Use Tax 96,818 125,000 287,500 3,884,865 162,500 ( 4) Food & Beverage Tax 532,403 550,000 535,000 < 15,000> < Real Estate Transfer Tax 196,187 525,000 420,000 < 105,000> ( 5) Other Taxes 71,818 42,000 40,500 < 1,500> Licenses, Permits, Fees 2,020,119 1,888,500 1,743,600 < 144,900> ( 6) Intergovernmental Revenue 1949077 2119000 203,275 < 79725> < Service Charges 289,326 3099500 311,575 175,000 2,075 < Fines 275,086 280,500 300,500 75,900 20,000 Sale of Refuse Bags - 312,500 300,500 < 12,000> < Investment Income 421,889 4259000 403,500 < 219500> $< Other Income 468,184 710,500 728,100 17,600 Total Revenues (B) $16,954,847 $17,989,500 $17,9059615 $< 83,885> ( 7) Expenditures: Public Representation $ 65,903 $ 63,250 $ 67,045 $ 3,795 Village Administration 3379189 409,550 417,500 79950 Salary Administration (C) - - - Cable TV Operations 115,271 144,970 150,285 5,315 Village Clerk's Office 136,301 146,695 141,525 < 5,170> Finance Department 1,047,152 1,113,225 1,119,820 6,595 Inspection Services 855,973 806,190 823,270 17,080 Police Department 49214,501 4,515,115 4,5109115 < 5,000> Fire Department. 3,791,764 3,884,865 3,-914,985 30,120 Central Dispatch 376,620 339,600 339,590 < 10> Human Services 250,046 281,970 287,985 6,015 Planning and Zoning 242,120 262,925 279,570 16,645 ( 8) Streets & Public Property 3,348,005 3,465,170 3,431,115 < 34,055> ( 9) Refuse Disposal 1,852,851 29222,750 2,127,175 < 95,575> (10) Capital Improvements 456,574 175,000 90,130 < 84,870> (11) Civic Groups 58,437 75,900 799615 3,715 Pensions & Debt Service 73,092 82,325 78,325 < 4,000> Total Expenditures $17,221,799 $179989,500 $17,858,050 $< 131,450> (12) Excess or <Deficiency> of Revenues over Expenditures $< 266 952> $ - $ 47 56547,565 (13) (A) See attached explanatory notes. (B) State Income Tax Surcharge Revenues are not included in totals. (C) Salary Administration amount of $10,000 redistributed to Police Department. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT General Fund Estimated Revenues and Expenditures For the Fiscal Year Ending April 30, 1991 Explanatory Notes ly Sales Tax revenues are expected to total $5,700,000 compared to $5,925,000 that had been budgeted for 90/91, for a decrease of $225,000. Receipts for the first five months of the fiscal year totaled $2,272,263 compared to $2,306,782 for the same period last year, for a decrease of 1.5%. However, we are expecting that the opening of the Penny's store at Randhurst will help to bring us up to the same level of receipts as last year. 2. The Village received a one-time payment of Sales Tax revenue that had been held in escrow by the Illinois Department of Revenue. The payment represents the Village's portion of sales tax for the businesses on South Busse Road included in the disconnection suit and covers the period of January 1987 - June 1990. 3. State Income Tax receipts are expected to be $125,000 more than anticipated. The increase is due to the revised method of distributing Income Tax and Income Tax Surcharge receipts. 4. State Sales and Use Tax is expected to be $162,500 more than had been anticipated. The increase is the result of receipts for the Village's share of the State's inter -state use tax which became effective January 1, 1990. The State started collecting this tax and distributes a portion to municipalities on a per capita basis. 5. The Real Estate Transfer Tax is expected to be $105,000 less than expected because of two factors. The rate was changed from $1 per $1,000 to $3 per $1,000 on May 1, 1990, but any contracts entered into prior to May 1 and which closed after May 1 were only charged the $1 per $1,000 rate. The second factor is that the level of activity has declined from last year. 6. Licenses, Permits, and Fees are expected to be down $144,900 primarily because of the decrease in building activity. The comparison of budget and estimated amounts for the various accounts are listed on the following page: t Building Permits Electrical Permits Plumbing Permits Plan Examinations Public Impr. Inspections Budget Estimated $275,000 $200,000 45,000 40,000 27,500 20,000 50,000 40,000 65.000 30.000 $462,500 J330,000 In addition rental fees for the Pine Street property are expected to be $22,500 less than anticipated. 7. Total revenues, exclusive of State Income Tax Surcharge receipts, are expected to be $83,885 less than the amount budgeted. 8. The increase in Planning and Zoning is due to increased costs associated with the Downtown Redevelopment Project outside the TIF area. 9. The reduction in Streets and Public Property can be attributed to lower personal services of $24,000 and lower than expected sidewalk construction costs. 10. Refuse Disposal costs are expected to be $95,575 less than the budgeted amount primarily because of lower than expected yard bag purchases and disposal fees and the delay in implementing the multi -family recycling program. It should be pointed out that 90/91 estimated costs are $274,000 more than the actual 89/90 costs and $648,000 higher than the total costs incurred in 88/89. 11, The decrease in Capital Improvements is the result of the reduction in the Melas Park Project. 12. Total estimated expenditures for the General Fund are expected to be $131,450 less than the amount budgeted. 13. The net effect of the decrease in expenditures of $83,885 and the decrease in expenditures of $131,450 is an excess of revenues over expenditures of $47,565. 2