The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN NOV 02 1999 M I N U T E S - CITY OF BEAUMONT Lulu L. Smith DAVID W. MOORE, MAYOR John K. Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Guy N. Goodson COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING Andrew P. Cokinos Bobbie J. Patterson NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Becky Ames Lane Nichols, City Attorney Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager Barbara Liming,City Clerk The City Council of the City of Beaumont, Texas, met in Workshop Session on November 2, 1999, in City Council Chambers, 801 Main Street, Beaumont, Texas, at 1:30 p.m. to discuss the following: OPENING • Invocation Pledge Roll Call • Presentations and Recognition Mayor Moore called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. City Attorney Lane Nichols gave the invocation. Mayor Moore led the pledge of allegiance. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Moore, Mayor Pro Tern Davis, Councilmembers Goodson, Cokinos, Ames, and Patterson. Councilmember Smith was absent. Also, present were: Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager; Lane Nichols, City Attorney; and Barbara Liming, City Clerk. * Presentations and Recognition Two proclamations were issued: "Telephone Pioneers Week," October 31-November 6, 1999; and in celebration of the investiture of Dr. James Michael Simmons, "Lamar University Day," November 4, 1999. STRATEGIC ISSUES Public Works * Storm Water Drainage Utility Fee The City Manager introduced the subject of creating a storm water utility and implementing a storm water fee. Public Works Director Tom Warner shared information as shown in Exhibit "A."* Council discussed federal mandates, segregating funds, pros and cons, grants, and fee structures with consensus of Council to conduct a feasibility study. * Port Channel Deepen/Widen Mr. Bonczek presented preliminary information, and Public Works Director Tom Warner reviewed information shown in Exhibit "B."* Discussion included financial participation by the Port of Beaumont, the Navigation District and Jefferson County, diminishing federal funding, economic development benefits for public and private sectors, regionalism opportunity, and appointment of a Deepening and Widening Committee. * Relocation of Railroad Interchange Yard The City Manager presented the topic of relocating the Interchange Yard from its present location behind City Hall. Tom Warner, Public Works director, analyzed the potential relocation process as shown in Exhibit "C."* Council discussion included disruption of traffic flow, dispensing complete information to the public, emphasizing economic development advantages, financial impact upon community, City acquiring property, possible relocation of tracks near Franklin, traffic tie-up at Park, Pennsylvania, and Franklin, and following the Port's direction relative to property acquisition, and keeping Council informed. Finance * Investment Policy After introduction of the Investment Policy, Finance Officer Beverly Hodges apprised Council of relevant changes as shown in Exhibit "D"* and expressed intention of placement of the item on the next Council agenda. Parks and Recreation * Henry Homberg Golf Course Improvements The City Manager and Parks and Recreation Department Director Luke Jackson informed Council of the contract expiration with Andy Hebert to operate the Henry Homberg Golf Course. They shared his proposal for a five year contract and option to renew for an additional five years and intended improvements as outlined in Exhibit «E „* *Permanent audio tape in records retention files. The Workshop Session adjourned at 3:32 p.m. David W. Moore, Mayor Barbara Liming, City Clerk Minutes;November 2.1999;Page 2 CITY OF BEAUMONT u PUBLIC WORKS �7 L INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM . October 29, 1999 TO: Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager FROM: Tom Warner, Public Works Director SUBJECT: CREATION OF STORM WATER UTILITY COMMENTS In November 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. The EPA required cities with a population greater than 100,000 to obtain a permit for the storm drainage system. The Drainage District No. 6 (DD##6) is a co-applicant and shared equally with the City in the permitting cost. The permit was received from the EPA in October 1998. The City contracted with the firm of Woodward Clyde Consultants, now Woodward Clyde/Greiner (WC/G), in 1991 to prepare the permit application. Included in the scope of work with WC/G was the feasibility of establishing a storm water utility. The enclosed report was prepared by the consultant in 1994 outlining the utility approach and implementation process. Additionally, information on storm water utilities implemented by cities from throughout the country was included with the report. As a follow-up to the Partnership in Governance meeting with City Council, Public Works will present the above information to Council during the November 2 workshop. Also, the contract with WC/G has not been finalized although the City has received the permit from the EPA. Since receiving the permit, WC/G has assisted the City-in preparing reports and conducting the necessary testing to meet the terms of the permit. It will be recommended to City Council that WC/G and the local sub-consultant be retained to assist the City in determining the feasibility of establishing a storm water utility. Tom Warner Enclosures EXHIBIT,w, CREATION OF STORM WATER UTILITY The 1987 amended Clean Water Act requires municipalities of 100,000 or more-to establish storm water management programs. A storm water utility provides a community with a cost-effective alternative to address storm water management programs. The basis for establishing most storm drainage service charges and rates is the degree to which a customer uses or contributes runoff to the storm drainage program/system. The degree of use is typically related to the property's contribution of storm water to the drainage system owned, operated and maintained by the jurisdiction. The need for comprehensive approaches toward storm water management stems from the alteration of natural storm water conditions and from the development of "impervious area." Thus the degree or amount of use, and therefore the size or amount of the charge, is in proportion to magnitude of the property owner's contribution to the total volume of storm water runoff. A properly established storm water utility: 1. Generates a steady flow of revenue into an enterprise fund for maintenance and capital improvements to the storm water drainage system. Typical maintenance activities include ditching, street sweeping, ditch mowing, pipe replacement and pipe flushing. 2. Provides for an equitable or "fair share" method of revenue collection under a structured user fee. The residential community, along with the business community, will both contribute their proportional share in service fees based on their proportional share of the problem. 3. Creates a semi-autonomous entity that has the ability to borrow funds. This separate and dedicated enterprise fund also improves a community's eligibility for federal and state funding. 4. A storm water utility fee would replace approximately $4 million in general fund expenditures that could be used to pay for other services and provide financial stability. • Should the City establish a storm water utility fee and fund to charge all costs to maintain and operate the storm water system? FINANCING FOR STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT THE UTILITY APPROACH AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS for the City of Beaumont, Texas Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6 by Woodward Clyde Consultants and Shaun Pigott Associates FINANCING FOR STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Abstract The basis for establishing most storm drainage service charges and rates is the degree to which a customer uses or degree of use is typically related to the property's contribution of stormwater to the drainage system owned, operated and maintained by the jurisdiction. The need for comprehensive approaches toward storm water management stems from the alteration of natural stormwater conditions and from the development of"impervious areas." Thus, the degree or amount of use, and therefore the size or amount of the charge, is in proportion to the magnitude of the property owner's contribution to the total volume of storm water runoff., All properties within a proposed service are served by or benefit from having an adequate system of storm drainage facilities and controls. Such benefits include: the reduction of hazards to property and life resulting from uncontrolled storm water runoff, such as erosion; improvements in the general health and welfare through reduction of standing water, and other undesirable storm water conditions; improvement of the water quality within the system and its receiving waters; enhancement of water related habitats; and the elimination of potentially harmful land alteration or development activities which may negatively impact the drainage system or its receiving waters. Consequently, there are general benefits from a storm drainage program which accrue to all property owners in the service area as well as benefits which are in approximate proportion to the amount of runoff from a given piece of property. The amount of runoff from a parcel of property depends upon the specific conditions at that site which may include gross area, slope, soil type or intensity of development. This paper summarizes alternative methods utilized to establish Storm Drainage Service Charges and Utility Rates applying the concepts of use and contribution. Other sources of revenue for storm water management programs are also discussed within the context of storm water quantity and quality management. The national references contained in this paper are based upon Shaun Pigott's project work with storm and surface water financing in Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Kentucky. Page 1 of 14 FINANCING AND SERVICE CHARGE ALTERNATIVES FOR STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Introduction There are several alternative methods used by local governments throughout the country for funding storm and surface water management. The methods used are typically selected based on a number of factors including: 1. the scope of program to be funded; 2. the authority available through state or local statutes to impose a funding method; 3. existing local funding policies and practices; 4. the general financial health of the local government and constituents; 5. the local political atmosphere in which elected officials must make funding decisions; and, 5. special causes or results of existing storm water conditions. More and more the selected method is some type of service charge, thus establishing a "utility" or special district/authority with the power to impose a specific fee for service. This paper addresses this concept and discusses the alternative methods and implications associated with establishing such a funding approach. The basis for setting most storm drainage service charges and utility rates is the degree to which a customer contributes runoff to, or is served by, the operations of the storm drainage program. The degree of use is typically related to the customer's contribution to the community's storm water problems. Such problems stem from the alteration of natural conditions and from the development of impervious areas. Thus, the degree or amount of use, and therefore the size or amount of the charge, is in proportion to the magnitude of the property owner's contribution to the total volume of storm water runoff. All properties within a proposed service area will either directly or indirectly make use of the storm water system by having an adequate infrastructure of storm drainage facilities and controls. Such use includes: the reduction of hazards to property and life resulting from uncontrolled storm water runoff, such as erosion; Page 2 of 14 improvements in the general health and welfare through reduction of standing water, and other undesirable storm water conditions; improvements in the water quality within the system and its receiving waters; enhancements of water related habitats; and the elimination of potentially harmful land alteration or development activities which may negatively impact the drainage system or its receiving waters. Consequently, there are general benefits from a comprehensive storm drainage approach which accrue to all customers in the service area as well as benefits whiuh are in approximate proportion to the amount of runoff from a given parcel of property. The amount of runoff from a property depends upon the specific conditions at that site which may include such factors as gross area, slope, soil type and intensity of development. Service Charges A decade ago, very few communities employed service charges for drainage or storm water management. Recently, it has become widely recognized and accepted that the control of increased runoff due to urbanization has a community-wide benefit and provides specific service to individual properties -- those which are developed and those which can be developed because of these adequate runoff controls. Today, most communities which have a storm/surface water management program utilize some type of service charge as the program's main funding source. The primary reasons to utilize a service charge concept are as follows: • Fairness ...properties are measured and evaluated based on contribution to the drainage system ...the greater the impervious area development on a parcel, the greater the service provided to that customer ...courts have held this action to be equitable • Dependable ...revenues provide a reliable source of support for surface water operations which is predictable and uniform ...the consistency and reliability of this revenue flow enable the utility to develop sources of revenue beyond service charges Page 3 of 14 ...consistency allows accurate forecasting of revenues which enables better planning for physical improvements to the surface water control system • Dedicated ...by law, revenues raised through the surface water utility must be expended on maintenance, operation and/or capital improvements to the system and may not be allocated to other general funds • Legally Defensible ...state supreme courts have held that surface water utilities do have the authority to establish rates based on a contribution to runoff methodology and rates based on impervious surface measurement are not considered arbitrary • Clear ...the rate structure is usually very straightforward as it is based on the amount of impervious surface or runoff contribution There are three basic methods currently in use for establishing drainage utility service charges: Extent of Impervious Surface -- The rates under this approach are in direct proportion to the measured, estimated, or assumed extent of impervious area for each parcel of land. Impervious surface is that land occupied by roofed buildings, pavement or similar surfaces. Rational Method -- Under this approach the rate is determined by a runoff factor or coefficient which is deemed to be appropriate for the type of land and the nature of the improvements on each parcel. Flat Fee -- This mechanism utilizes a constant or a uniform fee applied against each customer on a community-wide basis. In most cases, the flat fee is used mainly because of its administrative simplicity. Page 4 of 14 Combination -- Some communities have chosen to utilize a flat fee for parts of the service charge calculation such as administration, accounting, planning and use other approaches for maintenance and capital costs. In the cases of the impervious surface method and the rational method, land use may be taken into consideration. The rate is graduated to correspond with the increasing intensity of actual land use. The categories of intensity may reflect zoning ordinance classifications, actual use or be based on some other classification specifically adopted in the rate-settling ordinance. Actual calculations or ranges or density can be applied. Several communities utilize the single-family residence or property as a base unit or equivalent service unit. A service charge is assigned to this unit, then multiples of this unit area assigned to various types of development such as multi-family residences, commercial property, and industrial property. Other communities use categories such as: undeveloped land, light development or single-family residential, moderate development, and intense development (that is commercial or industrial) to establish rates which are based either on impervious area or on rational method calculations. The size of the property served is also usually taken into consideration when utilizing either the impervious area method or the rational method. Also, ratios of the developed portions to the total parcel size can apply. Other Revenue Sources In most communities, the overall financing structure is based upon a mix of funding sources. These funding sources may include: • Special fees including the cost of reviewing and administering permits or of regulatory activities. • Connection fees to reimburse the agency for the historic share of its prior investment in storm drainage facilities. • Gasoline taxes or road and street funds when the entity handles runoff from roads and streets and/or when responsible for maintenance of drainage facilities within the street right-of-way. • Revenues from Drainage Districts if the entity provides service through an agreement with such a district. • Special assessments/local improvement districts. Such an approach Page 5 of 14 would be utilized where capital improvements, special studies or extraordinary maintenance would benefit a specific area or number of properties, for example, those located in one sub-basin. • Revenue bond funds for capital improvement projects. These bonds are retired though rate revenues. • General obligation bond funds form improvements which have a justifiable community-wide benefit. These revenue sources are discussed in more detail below: Special Fee Some activities of individual citizens or property owners create a workload or costs from which the individual primarily benefits. Cumulatively such activities are a part of the basic workload of the entity. Special fees for such activities can recover the segregated costs of such efforts and serve as a partial funding source. Examples include fees to cover the cost of administering permits through which drainage-related activities are regulated. Properties which have been excused from sharing in the cost of facilities from which they will benefit upon development of their property are sometimes charged a facility development fee to cover the increased cost of facilities necessitated by their development; and/or sometimes are charged a "latecomers" or "connection" fee to reimburse the agency for its prior investment in facilities. Other special fees can be used to provide incentives or disincentives aimed at achieving certain community goals. For example, some communities have levied a fee for any occupation of the 100-year storm flood plain to discourage such occupation and as a reflection of the greater costs of planning providing for flood flows in the face of restrictions. Other User-based Fees A traditional source of financing for storm drainage improvements has been gas taxes in the several categories (city street fund, county road fund, arterial, street fund, federal aid funds). These funds are justified on the basis the need for a street, road or highway improvement to pass storm water from one side of the roadway to another, and to provide for the increased runoff from the paved surfaces themselves. Much of the existing storm drainage facilities has been financed from gas taxes. The degree to which gas tax is used by a drainage utility will reflect the degree to which the community believes streets contribute to the runoff and/or benefit from management of it. Taxes now collected by regional drainage and flood control districts can be directed to the Storm Drainage Entity by agreement of the proper officials, or not, depending on the extent to which the Entity assumes responsibility for storm drainage within those areas. Page 6 of 14 General Fund/Prol2rty Tax/Sales Tax The general fund is normally unrestricted in its use for general Government purposes and therefore, could be applied to storm drainage goals of the Community. In most cases, however, the inherent flexibility for use of this fund causes it to be in high demand and thus more likely to be programmed for activities of the City or County where direct users/beneficiaries cannot be so easily identified and charged directly for the benefits received. Special Assessments There are any number of requirements that are unique to a particular drainage basin or sub-basin. Capital improvements, special studies and extraordinary maintenance can be financed through special assessments against the properties or customers benefitting from the expenditure. For example, capital improvements that have the effect of improving property value can be financed through local improvement districts. Studies to analyze a localized storm water quality problem could be financed through a special fee added to the bills of the affected properties. Debt Sources Drainage improvements with a higher first cost than can be met through annual income or accumulated reserves can be financed through the issuance of revenue bonds if a utility or enterprise fund concept is adopted. These bonds are retired by an increment added to the regularly established billing rate. Improvements which have a community-wide benefit can be financed by general obligation bonds. These generally must be approved by the electorate. Councilmanic bonds may also be issued in some circumstances. These bonds can be retired by property taxes or sales taxes. Grants A final revenue source for a drainage program is grants in aid from other jurisdictions and programs. Storm drainage was eligible for federal grants in aid under HUD, EPA, or Corps of Engineers water and sewer facility grants, but drainage improvements have always been in the lowest priority grouping and few storm state programs have provided aid in isolated cases. Although this is a potential funding source and one for the Drainage Utility to always monitor, it is not a highly viable source in the foreseeable future, except if related to water quality. Water Resource grants or Clean Water Funding are also possible under certain conditions. Exceptions/Reductions Offsetting the revenue generated on a community or basin-wide basis are the exceptions or reductions wherein certain classes of users are excused from all or some of the drainage fees. Many communities, however, desire a natural system Page 7 of 14 and therefore offer a reduction in fees proportional to the reduction in runoff from a property through on-site provisions for limiting runoff. It can be agreed that this is not a reduction in financial responsibility at all, but rather a recognition that the contribution to the community storm water problem has been reduced. Deductions or exemptions are built into a rate mechanism in order (1) to provide financial incentives to implement the overall community drainage concept or plan, e.g., use of detention/retention facilities; or (2) to advance other social or environmental objectives, for example, senior citizens or agricultural lands deductions. Adjustments in rate structures are commonly made for: • on-site detention/retention facilities • public lands such as school districts, parks, roads, streets, state highways, or federal properties • properties with direct discharge to major water courses • senior citizens • runoff from agricultural lands Evaluation Criteria Rate structures should be designed and evaluated using criteria such as the following: • Workability, ease of administration • Fairness and equity • Consistency with local policy • Ability to meet revenue requirements • Objectively versus discretionary determination • Applicability to entire service area • Effectiveness of desired incentives As a practical matter, it is not possible to maximize adherence to all desirable criteria since some are mutually exclusive. Therefore, some degree of priority must be assigned to these criteria. For example, as objectivity in the rate mechanism increases through actual measurement of impervious area, careful field checking, mapping and topographical analyses, administrative procedures become more complex, more expensive, and more difficult to manage. In addition, if the rate structure is so complex that consumers do not understand the approach, the implementation process can be compromised through inquiries, appeals, and even higher administrative costs. Page 8 of 14 In order to evaluate a capital program, a process should be developed to prioritize recommended solutions by watershed and also for the total service area. Specific criteria that may be used in this process: • Public safety • Property damage • Population impacted • Existing versus preventive • Cost benefit • Eligibility for external funding • Area distribution • Political implications • Water quality problems • Ability to implement solution • Environmental impact • Reliability • Maintenance and operation cost • Recreational potential • Joint use • Public support Experience of Other Communities This is a dynamic area of interest as the number of communities moving to establish storm water management programs is rapidly expanding. Variations in rate structure are similarly increasing. Representative communities were recently selected for review of their actual or proposed rate setting practices. These included: Portland, Unified Sewerage Agency, Clackamas County, Aurora, Colorado; Bellevue, Washington; Billings, Montana; Boulder, Colorado; Clark County/Vancouver, Washington; Corvallis, Oregon; Denver, Colorado; Portland, Oregon; Snohomish County, Washington; Tacoma, Washington; King County, Kent, and Seattle, Washington. Evaluation Criteria Used by Other Communities Several of these communities have not expressly stated their evaluation criteria for appraising and selecting rate setting mechanisms. All of the communities which directly or indirectly identified evaluation criteria viewed by them to be important espoused workability, simplicity, and ease of administration. At least 60% of them declared equity and sufficiency of the revenue source to meet needs of the utility to be important. When it comes to equity, however, views differ regarding the definition. One community sees it as equity among user groups; another as equity related to the ability to pay; still another as equity between present and future Page 9 of 14 customers. In all but two cases, and virtually always in the most recent drainage utility initiatives, high importance is placed on encouraging use of "natural" systems in the control of runoff. Several communities identified public acceptance of the rate structure, and a rate mechanism clearly recognizable as related to storm drainage problems/benefits as important. Sources of Revenue Five of the communities levy a basic service charge against all property. Three of the communities levy the basic service charge against all developed property, but two of these allow exceptions for on-site control of runoff that can eliminate the service charge where runoff is not greater than under natural conditions. One community levied its basic service charge against all water/sewer customers. Only in a few of the cases do special fees show up in the drainage rate ordinance. Apparently permit fees to construct facilities are usual practice, but drainage related permit fees are not necessarily placed in the drainage utility fund. Use of permit fees is a mixed bag, but probably they are most frequently allocated to administration of the permits processes. Aurora, Bellevue and Boulder have a development fee (charged to the developer at the time of development) for future public facilities, a "latecomers" fee (due at the time of development) as a contribution toward existing public facilities, and a one hundred-year storm floodplain location fee, respectively. The majority of the communities are either using or anticipate using revenue bonds redeemed by an increment added to the service charge as a source for funding capital improvements. These communities anticipate using general obligation bonds, but the only one that has actually tried this failed to get voter support. By far the most frequent exception or reduction to the established service charge, allowed in the large majority of cases, is the pro rata reduction for on-site detention/retention to mitigate the effects of development. Three of the communities excuse city streets, and two excuse state highways and county roads from paying the service fee. Two communities reduce the fee for properties which have a direct discharge to a major water course, such as the Tualatin, Willamette, Columbia or the Puget Sound; that is a fairly high percentage of those for which it is possible. The other significant category is for no exceptions whatever; this is the case in only Aurora and Denver, Colorado. Offering no exceptions whatever to the rate is the exception to the rule. Rate Mechanisms Used by Other Communities The communities which have a rate mechanism based on impervious surface slightly outnumber those which have a basic mechanism based on the rational Page 10 of 14 method. Of course, in both cases, the driving consideration is recognition that runoff and contribution to the community's storm water stems from alteration of natural conditions by development of impervious areas. Several of the communities with an approach based on impervious surface area take the impervious area of the typical single family property as a base unit (or an equivalent service unit), attach a service charge to it, then apply graduated service charges related to increasing intensities of land use through multiples of the equivalent service units. This approach is typified by Corvallis and Portland. Several other communities established graduated rates, increasing with land use intensity patterned after the zoning ordinance classifications and applied them to threshold groupings of land area. This approach is typified by Bellevue and Billings. All of the communities using the rational method assign assumed runoff factors or coefficients of runoff, based on sound engineering judgment, to the various categories of land use intensity. They then assign service charges to each runoff coefficient, and apply them to increments of parcel size. Typifying this approach is Boulder, Clark County and Tacoma. All communities in both approaches combine their basic consideration with the consideration of land use. Bellevue, Seattle and Tacoma have an initial category of "undeveloped" land. Bellevue and Tacoma have a second category of "light development" meaning cemeteries, playgrounds, etc. The communities next category, and the lowest category for Corvallis, Boulder and Portland is the single family residential unit. However, the assumptions regarding single family residential impervious areas may vary. Based on actual measurements of a random sample, Corvallis uses an average of 2750 square feet impervious area; on the same basis, Portland uses an average of 1500 square feet impervious area; and Kent is proposing to use an average of 2500 square feet. The next category in general use is moderate development or multiple family residential. Bellevue treats this as impervious area greater than 20% or less than 40% of the land area, Portland and Tacoma treat it simply as multiple family residential land use, and Corvallis treats it as 4.8 times the equivalent service unit (i.e., single family). The upper or highest land use category in frequent use is commercial/industrial. Corvallis treats this as 12.5 times the equivalent service unit. Bellevue takes a different approach and treats very heavy development as being land uses with greater than 70% impervious area. Billings does not use categories per se but uses rates which vary in direct proportion to land use density based on the zoning ordinance categories. Several communities, notably Bellevue and Tacoma, have an element of their service charge based in a flat fee intended to recover the fixed costs of the Utility, Page 11 of 14 viewed as a community-wide benefit. Another community charges a flat fee, but it is all inclusive for drainage benefits and is based on the size of the water meter serving a property. Clearly this is an expedient for ease of administration and is not related to hydrologic benefit. Most communities in describing the objectives and benefits to be gained from a storm water management program include improvements to water quality. Only Clark County purports to actually consider it in their rate mechanism, and even there it is only indirectly considered. Kent is proposing to include a water quality element in its rate structure. Clark County/Vancouver and Kent by virtue of phased development of its storm water utility anticipate rates to be developed and applied on a basin by basin basis. Bellevue intends to add basin by basin charges to its rate structure. All other communities apply their rate mechanisms on a community-wide basis, although this is usually taken to include an entire basin where they extend beyond the political boundary. Two communities have been instrumental in implementing storm drainage service charges are Tulsa, Oklahoma and Louisville, Kentucky. These communities use an impervious surface charge on a community wide basis. The rate structure is based on an equivalent service unit (ESU) concept and a direct allocation of the ESU measurement to all non-residential parcels. The basis of the ESU calculation was an actual measurement of a random sample of residential parcels. Uses of Funds Virtually all of the communities apply the service charge revenue and fees to all of the basic aspects of the program, including: maintenance, operations, new construction, administration, planning, design engineering, land acquisition, and debt service. Three utilities go beyond maintenance and operations of public facilities to include maintenance of facilities on private property. In two cases, however, there is a property owner option in return for certain commitments. For example, in Tacoma selection of this option requires payment of the full service charges without regard to the fee reductions for on-site control. Two of the communities expressly report application of revenue to water quality monitoring. Use of revenue and fees for regulation -- permitting, inspection, enforcement -- is only implied in every case, except Aurora where it is specifically provided. One community, Billings, expressly included depreciation/reserves as a use of the drainage service charge revenue. Special purpose funds such as bond funds and special assessments are used primarily for new construction, and the associated engineering and land acquisition. Page 12 of 14 Aurora and Tacoma have used revenue bonds and Tacoma has used LID assessments. Aurora and Portland use development fees assessed against properties at the time of the development for construction of future facilities. Other communities anticipate the use of revenue bonds and general obligation bonds. On-site Controls A system.of standard reductions in storm and surface water utility charges for retention measures is possible. Such reductions should be commensurate with the mitigative effects so that the reduction in rates is in approximate proportion to the reduction in runoff. It should be noted, however, that in no case should such a reduction result in a rate less than the monthly charge for a single family residential parcel, nor should reductions be made for mitigative measures which are required to meet any other ordinance or regulation. Such reductions should remain in effect only so long as: 1. The owner of such a system has obtained the proper permits and constructed the system according to approved plans; 2. The owner remains responsible for all costs of operation and maintenance of the system (consistent with Utility standards), whether operated and maintained by the owner or by the Utility; and 3. Access is provided for inspection of the system to determine if it is in compliance with design and maintenance standards and functioning properly. Undeveloped parcels are usually not assessed under the proposed rate structure. Such parcels do not contribute to the storm and surface water problem. In fact, they usually help to alleviate runoff problems through natural means. Consideration could be given to assessing a minimum charge for undeveloped parcels. The purpose of the charge is to cover the costs of utility-wide administration, engineering, planning, etc., however, such requirements are difficult to enforce. In fact, collection costs might amount to more than the actual revenue received. The financial impact of this exemption is also minimal. Agricultural Lands It is quite common to endorse a rate structure where assessments for agricultural parcels are limited to the single family residential rate regardless of the amount or degree of impervious surface. This approach is usually taken in order to encourage the preservation of farm lands and to avoid financially over burdening existing operating farms in the basin. Such parcels however can have a significant impact Page 13 of 14 on water quality resulting from chemical fertilizers or animal waste. Low Income Senior Citizens It is common for any owner of real property who is a low income senior citizen qualifying_for "life line rates" to be excused from any portion of the storm and surface water utility charges which will be used for the construction of new facilities or for any associated debt. The amount of this reduction should be established each year by the Governing agency. Stream Enhancement It is also possible that a deduction in the service charge be made for improvements by a property owner to existing natural water courses which will result in enhanced water quality or the restoration of natural spawning or rearing grounds. Water Quality The most significant factor moving many communities toward dedicated funding for storm water management is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirement. The Part 1 and Part 2 application process has identified significant costs related to constructing a discharge characterization program not withstanding the actual remediation work for nonpoint source pollutant sources. For this reason, a key element of virtually all storm water utility budgets is water quality management/NPDES compliance. In addition, many utilities are investigating ways for equitable allocating storm water quality costs to specific customers through means varying from site sampling to standard industrial classification (SIC) rate tiers. This is an area, however, where additional research and innovative analysis is needed before a final approach can be implemented. Page 14 of 14 u . s . stormwater , uAiIities __.•--------a._._�._. . __... . . What's the Latest? By Robert B. Benson and Anna M. White Stormwater management is undergoing an evolutionary process similar to that witnessed in the water and wastewater industries several decades ago. The "utility"concept of fundins* and managing stormwater programs is becoming increasingly popular as cities and counties strive to plan and carry out effec- tive programs to control or eliminate pollution. erosion, and flooding. t To help those involved with stormwater utilities stay well- informed regarding how others in their industry are addressing important issues, Black R Veatch has conducted its fourth national Storm%yater Utility Survey. Stormwater Getting the Answers less common structures include com- management is Responses were received from 112 bining the stormwater service with utilities in 22 states. These utilities are transportation, maintenance, or enai- undergoing an funded in whole or in part through neering services (31ic). Sixty-two per- evolutionary user fees. The populations served by cent of the responding utilities said process similar the respondents range from 9,000 to that their state had specific statutes 3.5 million people. The questionnaire governing the formation of stormwater to that witnessed included 52 questions that addressed utilities and user fee frnancirtg. in the water orLanization and administration. plan- ning. operations, finance and account- Planning and wastewater ins. user fees and billing, quality Ninety-three utilities reported they industries several issues, public information and educa- have prepared master plans. Of these, decades ago. Lion. future challenLes, and sianificant most completed their stormwater facil- events affecting, utilities. ities master plan in the last three years: 22 percent in 1998 and 29 percent in Organization and 1996 or 1997. Another 34 percent Administration have completed a master plan since Eighty-eight percent of respondents 1990 and 15 percent prior to 1990. indicated that they provide stormwater The majority of utilities responding management services only within the use a form of HEC computer models municipal boundaries of the communi- for planning studies: 38 percent use tv served. The remaining 12 percent HEC-1, 19 percent use HEC-2, and said they serve all or most of the coun- five percent use HEC-RAS. Other ty in which they are located. models also used include EPA SWMM Stornnvater management operations (2610),TR-55 (25ic), SP-SWMN4 are administered under a variety of (20%), and HSPF (5%). organizational structures. Some serve With regard to NPDES permitting. as separate stormwater entities (3710), 52 respondents indicated they are clas- othens function as a pan of a public sified as Phase I (100.000 population works department (5217c) or the sani- or more) for permitting purposes. Of tarp• wastewater utility (8 ). Other these, all but eight have had their per- 12 APWA REPORTER OCTOBER 1999 mit application approved. Fifty-„c-cn + Operations remaindcr operate and maintain hoth rc>pondents classified them elves as Ei+hty-fixn•percent of the rc.pon- ,tormwaicr trcilities and ,anilary potential Phase II entities (less than dents indicated that their operating � crs.or storm water facilities and com- 100.000 population). Eleven of these responsibilities are limited exclusively � bined sanitary-stormwater sewers. indicated they have submitted permit to stormwater facilities. Four percent , Most utilities rely on their own applications, of which 10 tall in are responsible for combined sanitary- I staff to perform operation and mainte- Florida) are reported to have been stormwater sewer systems. The nance tasks. Eighty-five percent of► approved. When asked which performance indicators were considered most important in measuring? improvement .t in stormwater management success, a variety of examples were given. They most common responses included the amount of reduction in flooding and t flood damage (54%), monitoring of i pollutant reductions and improvements in water quality (46%), the number of _ customer complaints and customer sat- ' �~ isfaction (229c), improved cost effi- ciency (13%). and erosion control ^- (9co). Respondents were liven the opportunity to select more than one response, so the percentage total is ri✓�..�w ti- i rr/ -_— -reater than 100 percent. owa eo AIN Pago”" vawv � People Ea„°,,,m,U, Employment Law: A Making Guidebcok for Public Works Supervisors History Recovering Preparing Sewer From Disaster s Overflow Response Plans.A Guidebook �--- for Local Governments r AMA much more' OCTOBER 1999 APWA REPORTER 13 enues are adequate to meet most utility needs. The remaining 40 percent reported that revenues are either inade- quate or sufficient to meet only the most urgent needs of the utility. More than half(62%) of the respondents indicated that all capital ' improvements are paid for directly from revenues on a pay-as-you-go basis. Only seven percent said they debt finance all capital improvements. The remaining 31 percent reported that they use a combination of both cash and debt financing for this purpose. The majority of responding utilities (529c)indicated that their accounting system permit cost tracking by operat- ing activity, and 80 percent indicated that their accounting system identified user fee revenues by customer class. the survey participants indicated that ported utilities depend on ad valorem User Fees and Billing the majority of this work is performed taxes to meet more than half of their Because stormwater utility user fees by in-house-personnel; six percent total revenue needs. are typically expressed in terms of depend on personnel from other gov- Only 16 percent of the respondents equivalent residential units and most ernmental departments; and the indicated that current fundine levels customers are residential, survey par- remaining nine percent rely on private are adequate to provide for all utility ticipants were asked to indicate their ^ontractors to provide most of their needs. However, 44 percent said rev- current average residential charges. ,)peration and maintenance services. Nonetheless, two-thirds of all utilities rely on a combination of in-house staff, other governmental personnel, or ^• _ private contractors to provide these services. An analysis of operation and main- tenance expenditures relative to popu-. lation services showed that two-thirds spend $20 or less per capita annually. About 22 percent spend between $21 and $40 per capita. Only 11 percent spend more than this amount. Finance/Accounting Most respondents, (82 percent), indicated that they rely on user fees for at least 90 percent of their total rev- enue needs. Other supplemental sources of revenue include ad valorem taxes, permitting fees, special service charges, investment earnings, reserves, developer fees, special tax assess- cents, and contributions by other gov- ernments. Only three user fee-sup- 14 APWA REPORTER OCTOBER 1999 'mcse charges ruwacd from So.24 to information Svstem (_19"C). and plant- to help recover growth-related capital Si :.,1 per month. wera_e equivalent metric Wrap take offs 12� fL More facility cots in developin, areas. monthly charges for residential cus- than half of the responding utilities uti- Utilities employ various methods to tourers ranged between S1.00 and lizcd a combination of two or more of enforce payment of user charges. 51.00 for nvo-thirds of the respon- these resources. Thirty-ei_ht percent of the respondents dents. All but three of these reported One-fourth of responding utilities indicated they can shut off water ser- that the revenue collected is adequate first implemented their user fees within vice for non-payment of overdue to meet most if not all of the utility the past five years,and three-fourths stormwater user charges. Thirty-six financial needs. One-fourth of respon- within the past ten years. The vast percent said that they can attach liens dents revised their rates in the last 12 majority use the revenue received from to property to enforce payments. months. Of these, 27 utilities imple- user charges to pay for both operation Other means used by some utilities mented rate increases ranging from and maintenance expenses and capital include the ability to shut-off electric two percent to 300 percent, and two implemented rate decreases of 12.5 and 17.5 percent. F Stormwatcr char�_,es tend to be based,either directly or indirectly, on ,d customer impervious area as a measure of stormwater runoff in most utilities C that administer user fees. Fifty-four . r' percent of respondents said they base ' their charges directly on impervious area determinations, while 16 percent N said they base their charges on gross area in conjunction with a runoff or �' •j',•. � intensity of development factor. For those utilities that base charges on gross property area. average equivalent residential unit measures ranted from :• ff. ' 1,760 square feet total area to 11.000 .- square feet, with an avera<,e of 6,535 ' square feet. For those utilities that • base charges on impervious area, impervious areas per equivalent resi- dential unit range from 960 square feet to 3.329 square feet, with an average of 2.411 square feet. Twenty-one per- improvements. Eight percent of the or other utility service, the use of law- cent of the utilities use both impervi- utilities only pay for O&'M expense suits, and referrals to collection ous and dross area as the basis for with user fees, and one percent use fees agencies. their user fees. The remaining nine only to pay for capital improvements. percent of utilities base their charges Nearly one-fourth of the utilities Quality Issues (Best on other measures. such as the number have faced a legal challenge regarding Management Practices) of rooms in a home, a flat charge per user fees. Of 25 reported challenges, Respondents were given the oppor- dw'elling unit, or water consumption. 13 were still pending. nine were ruled tunity to select more than one program Of the 91 percent of responding in the utility's favor, and three ended and/or practice being used to protect or utilities which base their user fees on in a ruling against the utility. improve their water quality. The fol- area, several resources were employed Exactly half of the responding utilities lowing practices are employed by the to create and maintain the customer indicated that they have adopted proce- majority of participating utilities: street database used to compute the charges. dures for granting credits against user sweeping (889c), public education Such resources include property tax charges for qualifying stormwater (84%), erosion/sediment controls assessor records (48`c), aerial pho- detention-retention facilities. Nearly (80%), stormwater quality monitoring tographs (44%). on-site property mea- one-Fifth also administer a one-time (6990), inlet stenciling(64%), residen- surement (35%). Geographic impact fee or capital recovery charge tial toxins collection (649c), illegal OCTOBER 1999 APL'/A REPORTER 15 issues include how to maintain the existing level of services with increas- ing infrastructure needs, while staying competitive. Lack of public awareness and recognition of the need for stormwater user fees is also a concern. Significant Recent 1 Events Affecting Utilities The-most signifeanf events cited by responding utilities involved the weather, regulatory requirements, capi- tal improvements, and funding. The weather, specifically El Nino, was the most common significant event that negatively affected utilities in recent years. Some utilities, however, report- ed that bad weather positively impact- ed them by creating increased public awareness and concern. Regulatory issues included NPDES regulations. the Endangered Species Act and its potential impact. and state and federal discharge detection (639c), litter col- public about utility services, program regulations as Navin;both positive and lection (5790), and commercial/indus- needs and financing, and citizen negative impacts. Several utilities trial regulation (5717c). responsibilities. The most frequently indicated that a significant achieve- Slightly more than a quarter of listed examples include: bill inserts ment was the completion of needed respondents provide user fee credits or (4690), public hearings and presenta- major capital projects. Many utilities other incentives to encourage cus- tions (189c), newspapers (139c), reported fee increases which positively torners to control or reduce stormwater brochures and flyers (139c), speakers affected the utility budget, but also had pollution. One-fifth of participating bureau 1290 public schools 1190 a negative impact in terms of customer P P P ( ). P ( )- utilities indicated they design their direct mail (1190), television (890), complaints. Other significant events user fees specifically to provide for newsletters (790), and the internet include organizational, administrative the separate recognition and equitable (290). and staffing changes;court challenges; recovery of costs associated with and new or updated master plans or stormwater quality management Challenges floodplain management plans. and quantity (runoff) management, The greatest challenges cited by respectively. survey participants concern funding, regulatory requirements. stormwater Public Information/ quality, and public acceptance issues. Robert B.Benson is a senior Project Education With respect to funding, several utili- Manager and stormwater Utility Services The majority of responding utilities, ties noted concerns regarding the lack Coordinator with the Management Consulting 58 percent, believe that ongoing public of adequate funding for operating and Division of Black&Veatch in Kansas City,Mo. information/education efforts are capital improvement requirements. Anna M.White is a tvlanal�emem Analyst with the Mana_ement Consulting Division of essential to the continuing success of a Regarding regulatory issues, respon- - user fee funded stormwater utility. dents indicated challenges complying Black&Veatch in Kansas City.Mo. Thirty-six percent of the utilities find with federal National Pollutant A complimentary copy of the compiled sur- that these efforts are helpful and the Discharge Elimination System Bey results may be requested by writing to j Robert B.Benson at Black&Veatch,P.O.Box remaining six percent find that these stormwater management regulations efforts are not necessary. Respondents and requirements. The Endangered b4o5.Kansas City,MO C41 l�or by e-mail at :ere asked what means they find to be Species Act was also mentioned as a bensonrb@bv.com. the most effective in educating the source of concern. Quality-related 16 APWA REPORTER OCTOBER 1999 111I`U. { ;.... r;U. 51C4��jI418 P. 01 CHAPTER 18--3: MUNAG'E iTTM= Section 183.3-2 DEFIP MONS. 18-3-1 Declaration of purpose For purposes of this chapter, the following terms 19.3-2 Dehnition3 shall be defined as set forth below: 18-3-3 Establishment and dedication of drainage utility assets PROPER77means a lot or tract to 18-3-4 Establishment and revisions to drainage which drainage service is made available under this utility service area ordinance and which receive:* water, wastewater. or 18-3-5 Establishment and revisions of drainage electric utility service trom the City of Austin. charges 18-3-6 Drainage utility fund COST OF SEMCE as applied to a drainage 18-3-7 Delinquent drainage charges; system service to any benefitted property, mean:.: enforcement J8-3-8 Adrabtistration: rules and regulations (1) The prorated cost of the acquisition, 18-3-9 private property whether by eminent domain or otherwise, of land. 1 E-3-10 Exemptions nghts-of-way,options to purchase larA easements,and 18-3-11 flood; nonpoint source pollution interests in land relating to structures, equipment, and control; liability facilities used in draining the beneftted property; (2) The prorated cost of the acquiskion, § IS3I DECLARATION OF PURPOSE. coaztzmction, repair, and maintenance of structures, equipment,and facilities used in draining tho benefitted (n) After a public hearing on the matter,the City property; Council hereby finds, determines and declares that In order to protect the citizenry torts the loss of life and (3) The prorated cost of architectural, properly caused by surface water overflows, surface engineering, legal, and related'services, plafts and water stagnation and pollution arising from nonpoint specircations, studies, surveys, estimates of cost and source run-otiwithin the boundaries of the service area of revenue, and all other expenses necessary or established herein, it is necessary and in the best incident to planning, providing, or deternul.�ting the interest of the ptiblic health and safety to establish a feasibility and practicability of structures. equipment, drainage utility, as authorized by state law, and face ties used in draining the benefitted property; (B) To the end,the City Council will establish a (4) The prorated cost of all machinery, schedu to of drainage charges (see Table III of the equipment, furniture, and facilities necessary or Tables of Special Ordinances)against all real propes;y incident to the provision and operation of-drahting the in the service area established herein, subject to the benefuted property; limitations of state law, and the city shall provide drainage for all real property in the service area (5) The prorated cost of funding and established herein on payment of the drainage financing charges and interest arisingfrornconstruction charges, except as real property is exempted projects and the start-up cost of a drainage facility hereunder. The city will offer drainage service on used in draining the bertefated property; nondiscrirruinatory, reasonable and equitable terrra;. (Ord. 911121-D) (6) The prorated cost of debt service and reserve requirements of structures, equipment, and facilities provided by revenue bonds or other drainage 35 1992 5-I Repl. .111 'J. I1 . .a•. ltl.'. J.� ...'t a`J 1. L� L 36 'Ausda-UtnitSao revenue-pledge securitles or obligations issued by the SEMC14.tiRSAmeans the geographic area which city; and shall be served by the city's drainage utility, which area is established pursuant to thi:chapter and which (7) The administrative costs of a drainage service area confonns to the limitations of the Tex. utility system. Local Government Code Ann.§ 402.044(Vernon 1988), as amended from ttne to time. E CMR means the Director of the Department of Public Works and -Transportation, its successor [JSER means the person or entity who owns or agency or his designee, occupies a benefuted property- (Ord. 911121-D) DPAU1U GE means bridges, catch basins, channeL^,conduits, creeks,culverts,detention ponds, ditches, draws, flumes, pipes, pumps, sloughs. § 18.33 ESTARLISHMENT AND D®IGATION OP treatment works, and appunenances to those hems, I MUNAG'E UTlII.ITt1LSSETS. whether natural or artificial, or using force or gravity, that are used to draw off surface water from land, The City Council hereby establishes the city of carry the water away,collect,store,or treat the water, Austin Drainage Utility as a public utility and dedicates or divert the water into natural or artificial to the Utility all city-owned property,real and personal, watercourses. facilities, materials and supplies constituting the city's drainage system as constituted on the effective data of ZVUL YR X C7WGr means; this chapter and as may be acquired in the future, to be used for the purposes of the Drainage Utility. (1) The levy imposed to recover the cost of (Ord. 911121-D) the service of the city in furnishing drainage for any benefitted property; and § 18-3-4 ESTABLLSH34ENT AND REVISIONS TO (2) If specifically provided by the ordinance DRAIr ZE Xr=TY SERVICE AREJL establishing the drainage charges(see Table III of the Tables of Special Ordinances), an amount made in (A) The City Council hereby establishess the contribution to funding of future drainage system drainage utility service area as the city 13rrtits of the City construction by the city, of Austin,as presently configured and as the saute may be amended from time to time. A reap of said service tWVUX�SYSTEM means the drainage owned area as of September 1991,as attached to Ord.911121- or controlled in whole or in part by the city and D. is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set dedicated to 'the service of benefitted property, forth herein. Including provisions for addition; to the system. (B) Revisions to the drainage utility service area FACZAr= means the property, either real, shall be made only after the publication of notice and gntsanal,or mixed,that is used in providing drainage the conduct of a public healing as required by slate and Included in the system. law. (Ord. 911121-D) PUBLIC UTI=Ymearts a drainage service that Is regularly provided by the city through municipal property dedicated to that service to the users of 4 1838 ESTARLM04ENT AND REVISIONS OP benefitted property within the service area and shat is DR)MiAGE CHARGES. based on- (A) The City Council hereby establishes drainage (1) An established schedule of charges; charges to be paid by user- of benefitted property in the service area of the Drainage Utility. The (Z) The use of the police power to determination of the schedule of drainage charges is implement the service; and deemed nondiscriminatory, zeasonable and equitable to provide for the creation, operation, planning. ` (3) Nondiscriminatory, reasonable, and engineering, inspection, construction, repair, Cquftable terms as declared sunder this chapter. Dra3aag�Utility 31 maintenance, improvement, reconstruction and drainage charge. The size for commercial property administration of the Drainage Utrlir/. which shall be subject to the charge shall be ba,;Cd upon its developed acreage as recorded in appraisal (B) The schedule or drainage charges, as district•property tax records. If such information is authorized herein, and as set by separate ordinance determined to be in error or not available, the Director (see Table III of the Tables of Special Ordinances), shall correct or establish the developed acreage based shall be based on the following factors: upon best available information. (1) The developed use of the property, (D) The monthly charge for each lot or parcel shall be calculated according to the following formulas- (2) The amount of Increased ninoff because of land development, above the level contributed by Uniform Monthly Residential Fee= (Monthly undeveloped property; and Residential Fee per Acre) x GISS3 Acre) (3) The size of the developed property. Commercial Monthly Fee = (Monthly Residential Fee per Acre) x 2 x (the developed (C) The Director of the Depanment of Public acreage of the commercial property) Worl6 and Transportation shall determine the category that shall apply to each benefitted property within the (E) The montWy charges per acre are approved g>'idelines set forth herein and shall recommend the in a separate tee ordinance(see Table III of the Tables charge In accordance with the category of use and the of Special Ordinances) and are based on the revenue following Lzctors: required to support the Drainage Utility dfvided by the total amount of acreage projected to be billed. (1) Categories of developed use. Each beneWed property shall be placed by the Director in (F) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the minimum a specific category of developed use,which category monthly fee for commercial property shall be Shall be based upon the actual land use of the subject according to the following formula: lot or parcel. Such categories shall include but not be limited to residential and commercial. (Monthly Residential Fee Per Acre) x 2 x (.18n Acre) (2) Runotf coefficient,The runoff coefficient relates rains intensity to the stormwater runoff rate (G) Calculation of charge in the event of multiple Per unit of land surface area, and is used to determine users. For any conuriercal lot, parcel of land or the amount of drainage service provided to benefitted premises for which there is more than one user who properties• receives utility services tom an indvidual meter,each user's fee shall be based upon the relative contrtibut3on As specified in the City's Drainage Criteria to runoff of the lot, parcel of land or premises Manual (1988), the runoff coefficients for developed controlled by that user. property for a 100-year storm event, minus the corresponding runoff coefficient for undeveloped (I) City Council reserves the tight to adjust the property, are az follows: applic- le drainage charges by separate ordinance from time to time. Commercial: 0.87 - .47 = 0.40 Residential: 0.66 - .47 = 0.19 (1) Billing of the drainage charge against each benefited property within the service area shall be Therefore, commercial development accomplished by a separate listing In the monthlyu0ty Produces approximately twice the increase in drainage bill from the City of Austin. All such balls shall become runoff as resldent9nl development. due and payable In accordance with the rules and regulations of the Utility Customer Service offffcs (3) SL-a of developed property. Because pertaining to collection of fees and charges. single family and duplex residential properties are relatively uniform in size, a uniform residential lot size of .1853 acres is hereby established as the base residential lot size for purposes of calculating the 1992 S-1 Repl. 38 Ausittt-Ut>IftSae M No utility deposit shall be required as a 519-3-7 DEUNQUENT DRILMCE c1MGES; precondition to accepting surface flow in the Drainage ENFORCE M--N'T. Utility. (Ord- 911121-D) Any drainage charge due hereunder which shall not be paid when due may be recovered in an action at law by the city. In addition to other reTriedies or s I8-,W DRAIPIUM IMIL PY FUND, penalties provided by this chapter or state law, failure of a user of any utility within the service area to pay (A) A separato fund shall be created effective as the drainage charges when due shall subject such user or the effective date of this chapter, known as the to discontinuance of any utility services provided by Drainage Utility Fund, for the purpose of identifying the city. The employees of the Drainage Utility shall and controlling all revenues and expenses attributable have access, at all reasonable times, to any benettted to the Drainage Utility. All unexpended drainage fees properties served by the Drainage Utility for inspection, held by the city prior to the effective date of this repair or enforcement of this chapter. chapter shall be deposited into the Drainage Utility (Ord. 911121-D) Fund upon the elective date of this chapter as the Fund beginning balance. All drainage charges collected by the city after the effective date of this 4 18-3-8 ADMINISTRATION; RULES AND chapter and such other monies as tray be available to REGULATIONS. the city for the purpose of drainage shall be deposited In 6e Drainage Utility Fund. Such utility revenues (A) The Director of the Depaztment of Public shall be used for the purposes of the creation, Works and Transportation shall be responsible for the operation, planning, engineering, inspection, administration of this chapter. The Director of the construction, repair, maintenance, Improvement, Department of Public Works and Transportation shall reconstruction, administration and other reasonable be responsible for the developing rules, reQulatio= and customary charges associated with the operation and procedure for the administration of drainage of a utility for the Drainage Utility of the city. It shall charges and the consideration of variances;developing not be necessary that the expenses train the Drainage maintenance programs; and establishing drainage Uti'iry Fund for any authorized purpose specifically criteria and standards for operation of the drainage relate to any particular benefitted property from which system The Director of the Environmental and the revenues for such purposes were collected. Conservation Sez vices Department shallberesponsible for developing and administering standards, criteria, (S) All funds collected pursuant to this chapter rules and procedures for the treatment or prevention of for creation, operation, planning, engineering, pollution in drainage. �spectlon, construction, repair, maintenance, Improvement,reconstruction,administration and other (E) Any user who disputes the category of land reasonable and customary charges as sociated with the use, size of commercial developed properly or any operation of a drainage utility shall be used solely for other factor upon which his drainage charge is bused those purposes unless otherwise directed by City for his benefitted property,may petition the Director of Council for other drainage and water quality purposes Public Works and Transportation fora hearing on a not specified above. In the event a portion of the revision or modification of such charge, The Director drainage revenues Is pledged to retire any outstanding shall promulgate fair hearing standards for the prompt indebtedness or obligation incurred,or as a reserve or conduct of such hearings,which provide due process- arl'O nt in contribution for future construction,repairor In the event a user wishes to appeal the hearing enension or maintenance of the usury assets, then decision, the u-ser znay Sle an appeal to City Council. such pledged portion of revenues may not be in writing, with the City Clerk within 15 days of the transferred to the general fund. effective date of the hearing decision. Action by the City Council will be scheduled within 30 days of the (C) An annual report of the Drainage Utility Ring of the appeal. If the City Council falls to take Mvenuez,expenses and programs shall be provided to action on the appeal within 45 d.zys of the Ring of the City Council. appeal with the City Clerk, the hearing decision shall :3 (Ord. 911121-D) be deemed final. '- (Ord. 911121-D) 1992 S-I Repl. homeless housing program that is approved by and § 18-3-8 PRIYAT8 PROPERTY, meats guidelines establihcd by the Cirj Ma.-Lager. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the duty of (C) Section 18-3-10(8)(4) expires on September private property owners to comply with Chapter 10-2 30, 1998. and §§ 13-6-2 and 13-S-83 of the Land Development (Ord_911121-D;Am Ord.96021 S-..Arn.Ord.970807-C) Code. (Ord. 911121-D) g 1t33-I1 FLOOD;NONPOLNT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL;LL%BU=. § 16.3-10 MMNUMONS. Floods from drainage runoff gay occasionally (A) The following users ownlria bene9lted occur which exceed the capacity of the drainage property within the service area are hereby exempt system maintained and financed with the draj=get from this chapter and all rules and regulations adopted charges. In addition, surface water stagnation and pursuant thereto, as authorized by state law: pollution arising from nonpoint source runoff may occasionally occur which exceed the capacity of the (1) The State of Texas; drainage system maintained and financed wilh drainage charges as defused herein. This chapter does (2) The Counties of Travis and VYrllian=n; not imply that properties subject to charges shall always be free from flood:ng or flood damage,surface (3) The Austin Independent School District; water stagnation or nonpoint source pollution or that all and flood control and water treatment projects'to control the quantity and quality of runoff can be constructed (4) The Del Valle Independent School cost-effectively. Nothing whatsoever In this chapter District. should be construed as or be deemed to create additional duties on the past of the City of Austin or (H) The following properties shall be exempt hold the city liable for any d.arLages incurred in a flood from the provisions of this chapter in accordance with or from adverse water quality due to drainage runoff state law; Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to waive the city's immunity under state law cr reduce tha need or (1) Property with proper construction and necessity for flood insurance. maintenance of a wholly sufficient and privatelyowned (Ord. 911121-D) drainage system; (2) Property held and maintained in its natural stale, until the time that the property is developed and all or the public hdrastmcture constructed has been accepted by the city for maintenance; (3) A subdivided lot, until a structure has been built on the lot and a eer frcate of occupancy has been issued by the city; and (3) Property owned and used by a zehCious organization for religious services that Is exempt from taxation under § 11.20. Texas Tax Code, if the organization submits a request for exemption from drainage utility charges supported by 1) a copy of the organization's tax exemption certificate and 2) an affidavit executed by the religious organtzatkm 3leader stating that the religious organization participates in a coalition of religious organizations that provides a 1997S-11 V`/1 L.J v. I l.V V J' 1 V 1 I I V✓1 L✓✓ /V I i..v.l. . . .l l i J• .1 1 i..l .1�. �.� •"" ♦V ORDINANCE NO. 911221-E AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 910912-P; ESTABLISHING TRe D"INAGE UTILITY FEES AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 127. E. OF CHAPTER 12-2, CODE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, 1981, AS MEND ED; VAIVING TIM RMQUIREMENT THAT ORDINANCES HE READ On TilREB (3) SEPARATE DAYS; AND PROVIDING AA Er PECTM DATE. BL' IT ORDAINED BY THE CI:71 COUNCIL- CAP THE CITY OP AUSTIN; Part 1. That Ordinance No. 910912-P be and the same hereby repealed. Part 2. That the Drainage Utility Fees authorized by Section 121 E . of Chapter 12-•2 of the Ccde of the City of Austin, 1981, as amended, shall be and hereby are established as follows: Category of Devel.0oed Property 11onthl Fez y,y S� 1 . Residential benefited c3.- /a-coun[ property �.lt �.. �L- .'i``1 bats-,n' Ir 2 . Commercial beneiitaci S�3/rievPlore' P�ope1_ty ar__e I 3,.L-,r , u; �- Par:._s. That to the extent any rrevicus ordinance or part tharoof J-= in conflict with this v.rdinu:iCa, s::ch ordinance- or Parc therzof is zqp-?aled. Part 4 - 'rho raquiramonts imposed by Sections 2-2-3 ,. 2-2-5 an 2-2-8 of the Austin City Cade of 1981, are hereby Waived by the affirmative vote of at leasi: five (5) menbars of the City Council. Part 5. That this ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the data of its final, passage. PASSED A-ND APPROVED: � . S S f November 21 1°91 § Bruce Todd Mayor AP)?;"*0VED; _ *� n - / r-- -r:�s s dm I�,dLty ' y C1er. J v CJ11:alc 10026 Z -d LOL9-9bE ziS III `ea-JOW „4f'43.. -H 'n d00 = L0 96 S[ [0C _ S." nd PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY \%fume 9, No. 4 SEPTJOCT. 1994__---- =_--- F"�mp ' PROTECTING WETLANDS PROTE(TS ' ' ' ' RESOURCES AND ECONOMY VJ ew natural resources are as important . ing comment letters and talking to elect- to Puget Puget Sound's health as : ed officials. One of the key goals is r 1'1 lands. Swamps,bogs and marshes are helping local governments integrate 11 natural filtering systems,cleaning pol- wetlands protection with growth-man- i luted runoff before it flows into the agement planning. To achieve regional sound. In the process of absorbing sur- : consistency,the Authority is encourag- " face water,wetlands also help slow ing planners to coordinate comprehen- �� down flood waters and reduce erosion. sive plans with the plans of neighboring Many of the region's fish spend at least local governments. w pan of their life cycle in wetlands. Workin with other state agencies to liet despite their importance,the Q degradation and destruction of wet- establis criteria for reviewing '' '" ' ' lands---caused by activities ranging from critical-areas ordinances. i , , , , ' , small,backyard fill projects to poorly Local ordinances that protect critical managed development—continues,harm- : areas arc reviewed by numerous state J ing both our resources and economy agencies to ensure they are consistent Effective,local programs and ordi- with growth-management and environ- nances to protect critical areas help pre- : mental-protection goals. However,the ^� vent further destruction of commercially criteria for reviewing ordinances has not valuable fish runs, damage to private been consistent among agencies. property and water quality degradation The Authority is working with the B.C./Washington panel in Puget Sound. Many local govern- Department of Community,Trade& releases report on status of merits in the basin have adopted good : Economic Development and other state critical-areas ordinances. Others have agencies to achieve uniform,predictable shared waters not,and they need to take action. In review criteria. Among other things,the A joint British Columbia/Washington i some areas,good ordinances have been criteria need to ensure consistency with state panel cites habitat loss as the most weakened or repealed because of a lack : the Puget Sound Water Quality Man- of public support. agement Plan. alarming and potentially harmful trend in I Through the Action for Puget Sound shared B.C./Washington waters. campaign,the Authority is advocating = Promoting wetlands protection ! wetlands protection in the following ways: beyond minimum Growth The panel made its determination after p g y ' : Management Act requirements. analyzing water quality, contaminants and i Reviewing and commenting on local marine life in the Strait of Georgia, Puget I comprehensive plans and critical- The most effective approach to pro- : tectingwetlands makes use of both regu- Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. areas ordinances. latory and non-regulatory cools. The Nonpoint-source pollution,which Because no state law to protect wet- : Growth Management Act requires local includes stormwater runoff,failing on-site lands currently exists,one of the best governments to adopt critical-areas ordi- sewage systems and improperly managed ways to avert many threats to wetlands is : nances. The Authority encourages cities animal wastes, is also listed as a serious to manage growth and adopt ordinances and counties to supplement these ordi- problem in the report. to protect critical areas. nances with non-regulatory approaches, State and local support for these such as acquiring and restoring wet- For information,contact Dr.Andrea efforts is vital to their success. The lands, in order to further protect our Copping, (206) 685-8209. Authority supports local comprehensive natural resources and economy.—��- _ - plans and ordinances by testifying,writ- SOUND WAVCSiPSWQA SEPT./OCT.1994 P U G E T SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY o u r n Recommendations for Research conference deadline extended Aut ority s future to The deadline for submitting posters for Puget Sound be announced Research '95,a conference on research in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia,has been extended until October After months of intensive review, 18, 1994. To be eligible,applicants must submit an abstract the Legislative Budget Committee of 200-300 words and biographies for all authors (both a (LBC) is ready to issue a final rec- hard copy and on an IBM-compatible disk in WordPerfect ommendation on the future of the or ASCII format) to Tim Ransom, Puget Sound Water Puget Sound Water Quality Quality Authority,P.O.Box 40900,Olympia,WA 98504-0900. Authority. Under state law,the Authority is scheduled to At the conference,which takes place in Bellevue on Jan- phase out its work after June 30, 1995,unless the Legisla- uary 12 - 14, 1995,researchers,scientists and others will ture decides that the agency continues to perform a neces- share knowledge about such issues as the effects of pollu- sary service. tion,living resources,coastal erosion,habitat,sediments, The LBC meets to make its recommendation on Septem- storm water and toxic algae. ber 21 (10 a.m. - noon),at the O'Brien Building in To receive a registration packet, contact the Authority at Olympia. On September 23,the LBC and the Office of (206) 407-7300 or 800-54-SOUND. Financial Management will present their sunset reviews of the Authbrity at a Senate Ecology &Parks Committee hear- Authority ember moves on ing (1:30-3:30 p.m. in the Cherberg Building in Olympia). Y At that meeting,the Authority will present the 1994 Puget Les Eldridge,an Authority member since the agency was Sound Water Quality Management Plan and estimated created in 1985, has accepted a new position with the West- costs of fully implementing the Plan. ern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and will no longer serve on the Authority board. Future "Les has offered us valuable insight and experience in Authority working with local governments," said Authority Executive Director Nancy McKay. "He has put in countless hours of September'21 October 19*`- Sovember16 effort to see to it that the Puget Sound Plan makes sense 1 I I I I I and is being implemented. We will miss him." John L O'Brien Weyerhaeuser Tty Hall I As part of his new job,Eldridge will hear and rule on appeals regarding whether local comprehensive plans com- ' Corp.Headquarters" Council Chambers ply with the Growth Management Act. 'Capitol 33663 210 lWe Street.. Eldridge said he looks forward to the challenges of his Olympia.. '' `' new position, but won't forger the time spent on the federal Way Authority board. "It was a tremendous opportunity to be in on the ground floor of an effort to stabilize and improve the quality of Explore-ways to improve management Puget Sound," said Eldridge. "I've enjoyed every minute of it."�1�� of on-site sewage systems Are on-site systems a legitimate treatment option? How j/� do we set up septic-maintenance programs? How are sep- tics pan of the land-use debate? The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority was created by the Washington State These issues and others related to on-site sewage systems Le islature to develop and oversee a comprehensive plan to protect and will be examined at Clearing the Waters,a two-day work- enhance the water quality of Puget Sound. shop on November 14 - 15, 1994. The workshop is spon- The Authority is an equal-opportunity and affirmative-action employer. sored by the Authority and funded by the Environmental If you have special accommodation needs or need this document in an after- Protection Agency. The informal workshop will bring native format please contact the Authority's ADA representative at(206) together elected officials,public-health and water-quality 407-7300. Ae Authority's MD number is 1-800-833-6388. professionals,land-use and watershed planners,building and septic-industry representatives,tribal representatives Sound Waves is published bimonthly by the Authority and distributed to Puget and others to examine policies and programs for on-site Sound residents and local officials. Deadline for submissions a the 151h of the sewage systems. month before publication. Send to: P.O.Box 40900,Olympia,Washington To request a registration packet,contact the Authority at 98504-0900. 1-800-54-SOUND. Editor. Susanne Hindle Articles maybe (206) 407-7300 or 800-54-SOUND, Ireproduced Please credit the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. SOUND WAVES;PSWOA © SEPT IOCT. 1994 Farm owners take charge : integrity of concrete." WACA : Marina owners,city officials believes the pavement,which : and PSA will work together to "` "' r�1 Owners ofnon-p riority would be used mainly for explore pumpout options and farms in Thurston Counry are : , learning to develop their own : parking lots, sidewalks and best management practices for low-volume roads could elim- Gig Harbor. Contact: Pat plans for reducing and pre- inate the need for stormwater Buller, (206) 286-1309. i h f venting pollution from ter a p Km,.t t ,;, ,,,, . property. ("Non-priority" basins in new development. ' refers to farms that do not pose The new pavement is made of : �•+ It 1' + p fiber-reinforced, "no-fines" = Projects planned to protect a high pollution threat.) Tra- "'� "' concrete (reduced sand con- Dungeness River , ditionally,conservation dis- ,• , •, , ,• • , , • ,�, „ tent) with a layer of fill below Clallam Count has tricts develop farm plans,but Y that approach has not always it to act as a drainage layer. received a number of grants to succeeded in getting farmers Contact: WACA, (206) 575- carry out projects to protect 'iI ' 17r '' ' �r'l' to participate. The Thurston 3665. : the Dungeness River from fur- : „ ,, „ 1114111 Conservation District will ther degradation. Planned " train and coach groups of farm : Water watcher activities include a model � � • ��.+ 'Ili owners to write their own watches water streambank-stabilization pro- plans. Farms with a high ject, acquiring park property potential for water pollution When John Liczwlnko and conducting citizen educa- still require plans prepared by noticed a large, red plume in tion. The county is already Water-friendly car washes the district. This approach is the water as he crossed the distributing an action guide to also used successfully in King Hood Canal floating bridge : help landowners protect the Summer wouldn't be the County. Contact: Jeff Swotek, recently, he suspected it might riparian zone along the river. same without kids on street (206) 754-3588. be paint tailings from sand The Dungeness River Green- corners hawking their fund- ; blasting that was going on way Information&Action raiser car washes. But soaps below the bridge. Familiar : Guide answers questions and other pollutants that was with the Water Watcher pro- about landowner options, lia- down the drain at these car gram, he contacted WSU bility concerns,acquisition = washes can have unintended It "" ' " ' ' ' Cooperative Extension in Port : and maintenance and poten- : negative effects on water qua fill Townsend,which in turn con- : tial economic benefits of ity: The Sound Car NVashes • • ,, tacted the Department of greenw•ay corridors. Contact: Project,sponsored by the Kit Ecology. As it turns out the : David Stachei k' ( )206 417- : sap County Department of " ' ' ' '`!fill contractor was not using th ' e 2277. : Public Works and funded by „ the Authority's PIE Fund. ^ � � �i � � : � : right mesh of tarp,did not have it correctly connected to provides a water-friendly soli the bridge and,as a result,was : Lion. The project helps grout polluting the water with a _ lead-based paint. The con- oil III , , , , ,• .r a �C= ' ' sii :"�i` '_�i:-i•,•~.. tractor voluntarilvcorrected , to „ , , the situation. i Smoller�cifies,towns and rural'cotinties that do of h + i Gig Harbor marinas to : tackle pollution �" "developing stormwater program are Gig Harbor has been select- Ecology. ed for this year's Marina Ecology,„ with EPA funding through the Authority,is meeting with local „ Technical Assistance Project, ernments in the Puget Sound basin to provide technical assistance for level-� : led by the Puget Soundkeeper ' Pavement that reduces : Alliance (PSA) and funded by oping and implementing " stormwafer programs. ' ? the Authority's Public extended deadline ' ”" programs” January stormwater runoff. Involvement and Education related article on "'' of Sound ' The Washington Aggregates (PIE) Fund. Through the The technical-assistance project inclu'' 'ns,one-on-one h' ' and Concrete Association ; project,PSA will work with sessions and workshops to benefit communities. The training feachesio(al (WACA) is testing a new type Gig Harbor's many marina staff how to design and implement a stormwater „program, of pavement that it says "has : owners to identify, develop ment projects,and develop , the filtering capacity of a : and implement specific pollu- : Contact: , I, sponge with the structural Zion-prevention practices. SOUND WAVESiPSWOA Q SEPTIOCT. 99-4 U " G rganize car washes that pol- polluting the area. j'. M --�_ i T1 .. _ice Lam_...a.,..-• '', ;. ., ate less and helps youths - ' •.`'- ;'„' ' ':•:+ ,'. The new classification �,.._... escarch methods that capture leaves a large portion of the irtv wash water and route it : bay open. A much smaller y�ay,.'•? ; +R;I:;f �the sanitary sewer system or area approaching the shoreline ., 6:1.111 ,•nn n;;., isperse it onto a lawn. will be restricted,which allows 11•I I „ n Y. Fill n n, u, ,I n t,. n ,.'ri '•� ;ontact: Joe Zukauskas, (206) for relaying shellfish into 76-7121. cleaner waters for a few weeks M,„ , so they can flush out pollu- for projedswithin unincorporated King County Mn ,,, , �, I I I omprehen5lVe farm = tants prior to harvesting. The I „) I" , ,•05,1994. Contact: Johnson,(206) prohibited area has been iventory helps identify established around the docu- onpoint pollution : mented sources of pollution. Local ' ' planning One of the biggest chat- The Samish River, Edison grants available ,nges faced by conservation Slough and Colony Creek Department , Development ,' istricts is coming up with were cited as contributing ata that pinpoint agricultural fecal coliform bacteria to the ' grants III ' " planning ' , ollution problems and : bay. Contact: Jack Lilja, (206) The Community Development Bl' intended )urces. The Pietcc Conscr- 753-5959• moderate-income people ' "pay for a wide range of planning ' ` anon District has made total S300,000 be ' ' " ' Deadline: October" rogress in overcoming that 'Moonsnai(s added to Roe, I' " ' :zallenge by using a compre- PSP list ensive approach to inventory : i Fund es nd forestry land in the A new Environmental Pro- provid or :,- ,.Aally watershed. The tection Agency report has pd1lution-prevention technology iventory was modeled after prompted Washington state •atershcd characterization : health authorities to add ' " ' Revolving regularly provides ' assistance iethods developed for the moonsnails to the list of and entrepreneurs ' ' "unable ' "obtain ' uget Sound local watershed marine life possibly affected by purchase ' develop" new"pollution-prevention equipment. non-pro it rogram to identify nonpoint- PSP (paralytic shellfish poi- : community group ' ' '' "ns at market rates. ' " ' " ' ollution problems. The dis- Boning). The little-known prevention lending pro ram will provide sm+ businesses access to funds ict used a GIS Arc-Info data marine invertebrate is harvest- with which to implement strategies pollution stem to map agricultural ed as a food item by some informative workshop is scheduled for October 4. Deadline: , nd use and to identify poten- members of the Asian com- tions , • accepted ., , , Contact: (20 6) , al water-quality problems. munity within the Puget hher partners in the project Sound region. Moonsnail ere the Nisqually Indian warnings will be added to the PUD to maintain septies : Puget Sound. Contact: Larry gibe, Pacific Lutheran Uni- Department of Health's PSP In Jefferson County alterna- : Fay, (206) 385-9444 ,rsiry, Pierce County Surface Hotline (800-562-5632). tive on-site sewage systems titer Management and Key : must be maintained by a Innovative pro'ect receives ank. Contact: Tom county-approved entity. The zhroedell, (206) 536-2945. county's preferred entity is = national awar� �� the local public utility district The National Association of fill amish Bay shellfish (PUD). For a fee to the prop- : Counties has selected Track- ' e owner,the PUD provides ing the Thunderbird,a project osures confirmed m P sponsored b Iiitsa County After monitoring portions of , ; maintenance work fo�these P y y P : and funded b the Authori- amish Bay that were closed ; systems. Care of on-site sys- : tv's PIE Fund,as one of its ,cause shellfish from the area ' ' tems has traditionally been left 1994 achievement award w•in- ,ade people sick earlier this to property owners,but this ners. The project taught Kit- ar the Department of , , , , , , , ; approach provides no guaran- sap County school children has formally closed : tee that systems will be main- : and parents about water quali iei,ttsh harvesting in a small : tained. By using a utility dis- ty through a game in which >rtion of the bay The ' ' trict,the count-, hopes to pre- they searched for thunderbird apartment's review indicat- 11 ' ' ' ; vent the level of system fail- tracks at hydrological sites. 1 that sewage was directly : ures currently seen around : Contact: (206) 876-7181 PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY © SEPT.IOCT. lac Developers tackle the challenges of meat the handles les local govern- stormy+•ater managing stormwater in Puget Sound ' requirements. We started on a project that is in the preliminary Houses,office buildings, = ties. : and in many cases exceeds ; planning stages about three retail centers, roads and Bill Eckel of King Coun- them. ; months ago and we're on parking lots are among the ty's Surface Water Manage- Asked why Port Blakely our third version of the plat largest sources of stormwater ; merit Division said the has gone out of its way to because each time we go in, runoff in the Puget Sound : Grand Ridge proposal pro- protect water quality, the city changes its mind," basin. Although it can be dif- : tects Lake Sammamish and : Strelinger admitted it's in said Deatherage. "First it ficult to correct past building the North Fork of Issaquah their best interest. Under the : Was going to be a regional practices,there are many Creek. current rural zoning designa- : drainage area. The next tim things that can be done to The western portion of = tion Grand Ridge can only be we went in they said the prevent stormwater runoff : Grand Ridge sits on an : divided into five-acre lots. : regional system may not haj from new development. important recharge area for Strelinger hopes that in pen,so we planned to detail Many cities and counties the Issaquah aquifer—the exchange for the 80 percent all our 100-year storm event have adopted stormwater reg- ; city's only source of drink- open space their project runoff in underground stor ulations that require develop- ; ing water. Strelinger said the would provide,the county age. Yesterday we went bacl ers to meet"minimum stan- will extend its urban growth again and they told us we dards" for preventing runoff. : area to include part of the : can't have grassy swales in Those that have not yet Grand Ridge property. the front of the property and adopted programs for con- We could have just sub- : more,now we have to move trolling storm water from divided into five-acre lots. : them to the rear,and they new development and redo- But that's not our best : told us to give up three lots velopment must do so by the option," Strelinger said. : and put in a stormwater por. first of the year under the "We'd have about 300 five- : instead." Puget Sound Water Quality : acre lots priced$200,000 and Deatherage said he is on Management Plan. The up. We could have pretty the verge of abandoning the standards include such prat- slow absorption for lots project because the require- tices as biofiltration,retention : priced like that." ; merits keep changing. and detention of storm water. : j ' By clustering the housing, It's frustrating and real "The challenge for : expensive," he added. builders is to work these Pan of the problem, requirements into their site project would go above and explained Don Davis,assis- plans while balancing envi- : beyond the county's sur- tant executive director of thr ronmental and economical face-water requirements to : Master Builders Association benefits," said Vallana Picco- protect water quality. For _ of Bing and-Snohomish lo,stormwater program lead example,the proposal calls - counties, is that stormwater for the Puget Sound Water : for separating rooftop runoff P roblems are becoming Authority. "We're from road and surface runoff. increasingly difficult to solve seeing more and more devel- Only rooftop runoff will be =- opment projects that strike purposely infiltrated into the "Less land is available fo: that balance successfully." ground. Road and surface : development,and the sites Grand Ridge,a project pro- : runoff will be treated in f - are tougher to develop," sal posed by the Port Blakely detention ponds and biofil- Davis. "For example,they : have steeper slopes and mot Communities development tration swales before being : wetlands." company,promises to be such : discharged into the North ; the company could get closer The builders association i a project said Piccolo. Exact- : Fork of Issaquah Creek. : to 3,000 small lots,which : working on an Authoriry- ly how the company's 2,200 : "We're also trying to would be priced more afford- : funded public involvement acres are to be developed will : move storm water from our ably and would probably sell ; and education project to heI be determined by a unique ; development ahead of peak ; quicker. : builders do a better job of three-way agreement being : storm-event flows that come • This could be an example : addressing stormwater negotiated by King County, : from another large develop- : of how public and private runoff Davis said the assoc Issaquah and Pon Blakely. merit upstream," said processes work together to : anon hopes to extend its Grand Ridge is located just Strelinger. "We want to get achieve the goals we all : Environmental Constraints northeast of Issaquah. : our water in the creek before have," Strelinger added. : Management project,whicl- "We've proposed that 80 : theirs so we don't exacer- Not all developers are as : consists of course for percent of our land remain bate flooding in the creek." financially able or willing to : builders,beyond King and open space and 20 percent of The development is also strike that delicate balance Snohomish counties. Any- the land be developed with designed not to encroach on between environmental and one interested in adapting high-density,clustered hous- : any of the wetlands on the economic benefits. : the course to his or her coui ing," said Pctcr Strelinger, property. Strelinger said the Leo Deatherage,a long- ty's or organization's Grand Ridge project manager : project meets standard buffer : time developer in South needs can contact Don Dav for Port Blakely Communi- : requirements for wetlands, Puget Sound,said he cannot at (206) 451-7920. �� 0 C*A* L* E* N * D* September 21 : October 1 October 8 = Contact: (206) 407-7300 Puget Sound Water Quality : Pipers Creek Watershed Living by the Shore TDD: 800-833-6388 Authority Meeting Tour Kitsap County Extension/ 9 a.m. -4 p.m. Seattle Dept. of Parrs and Sea Grant November 3 John L. O'Brien Building Recreation : Kitsap County : Establishing Quality Spil: Hearing Room E Seattle Contact: (206) 876-7157 : Prevention Svstems Olympia Contact: (206) 684-0877 : WA Office of Marine Safc- Contact: (206) 407-7300 October 15 : ty/Dept. of Ecology/U.S. TDD: 800-833-6388 October 2-4 Puget Sound Kids Day : Coast Guard/EPA Pacific Coast Oyster People for Puget Sound and Seattle September 22 Growers Association other organizations Contact: (206) 753-4809 Salmon in Your Backvard Annual Conference Locations around Puget City of Bellevue Stream Seaside,Oregon Sound : November 10 Team : Contact: (503) 459-2828 : Contact: (206) 382-7007 River Dvnamics,Land Bellevue Forms and Land Use Contact: (206) 637-5200 October 5 October 15 = American Water Resources Applied Stormwater Pollu- Tree Planting along Association/WA Section September 24 : tion Prevention Planning : Sammamish River Trail Bellevue jr.Ecologists "Food : UW Engineering Professional King County Surface Water Contact: (206) 388-3313 Webs" : Programs Management Breazeale Interpretive Center Seattle Woodinville&Redmond : November 14-15 Mt.Vernon : Contact: (206) 543-5539 : Contact: (206) 296-8361 Clearing the Waters: Contact: (206) 428-1558 : Improving the Use&Man- Contact: 7 October 19 agement of On-Site Sewage September 30-October 2 Whatcom Waterways: Puget Sound Water Quality Systems in Puget Sound OysterFest 1994 : Merging Streams of : Authority Meeting Puget Sound Water Quality Aookum Rotary Club Education 9 a.m. -4 p.m. : Authority Mason County Fairgrounds Grater Resources Education Weyerhaeuser Corporate Bothell Contact: (206) 426-2021 Committee Headquarters Contact: (206) 407-7319 Bellingham 33663 Weyerhaeuser S. TDD: 800-833-6388 Contact: (206) 676-6850 Federal W`ay »rvm Wulnivo.7-god !'f,•.,. .,.r , 1 .. ..:..: 1. ..c...:... ..! 1 ; •,.1 o/SI B r P n xur 6001 ruv u- ':; .-!.i..:':• _�..'cc {� °�•� (:f r;;.,.,,% ; onhvdojvH •rutxorpojgvi»i2pou8uvnpord ` pua.,uuojp jmwrwp ou 8urrn pinxwfnuvtu n y.,rgm tz-,dvd jnbvdojvH s.nu.io r rroiD uo pnuud -suvdioiuno.,p.,rvq-tanolouiod i.togi .l.J_1_�''!7..:a i'•;!.;'.:a :. uvgt rl��l DOA—01 Ifjruv-1�iuBLf-vg orjv 111111111111111111t1t 111111111111111111111111111fi111111 fill 11 I '"lno".i ojgvm7wJ v ulolfgvru But.Iq of uoii -rppv ty p_,-q'jgm_,B,A '(rOOA)ipunod taw.�tuv&o"'latvloe fo uourrw.,gl y2nolg1 uotinjjod wivm pua qv of nnquiuo_7 ruotinjor urviunof jogo_,jy r�ur p7rvg-714vi�87v Eurm rr»d».f jogo.,jv up uo unl n"nvm punos palsanbald u01132A00 ssajppV 6uilwid 1<o -idea 'EIdwA alelS uol6ulysem 0060-ti0986 dM 10 ie a6e so 0060V X08 '0'd P. d i d 'S'fl fl!joUlntl�4pnp jajuM punos'la6nd _ ales >i1n8 - ��•/� _ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN MILWAURIE CITIZEN U P K>.^Ar E City of Milwaukie, Oregon - December 1993 SOME BACKGROUND As many of you may be-aware, the federal Environ- ment program that includes engineering standards, mental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Oregon maintenance,regulation and enforcement of a compre- State Department of Ecology has established a new set hensive storm-water quantity/quality effort. A key of laws pertaining to stormwater runoff and water element of this program is development of a financing quality. The intent behind these laws (known as the plan to support these stormwater operations. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or NPDES) is to reduce the amount of stormwater Over the last 18 months Milwaukie has been working "nonpoint"source pollution being carried to receiving with other jurisdictions in Clackamas County toward waters such as the development of a joint action Willamette River.Nonpoint ti 11 program that is directed atmeet- source pollution is a sec- ing the stormwater quality per- ondary sourceof waterpol- the National Pollutant Discharge mit requirements. lution that cannot be traced (NPDES) to a specific location but Maintaining the quality of life results from pollutants here in Milwaukie is important (such as oils, phosphorous, and heavy metals) being to all of us.The new water quality laws and the City's picked up and carried to receiving waters by storm water commitment to meeting these requirements present an runoff. As part of its NPDES requirement, the Citv opportunity and a challenge. The City's stormwater prepared and submitted in May of 1993 its permit management program will reflect this commitment application for regulatory compliance.This permit ap- while assuring that management of the problem will be plication committed the City to a stormwater manage- done in a cost effective manner. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION - THE ISSUES - Here are some of the questions and concerns raised control efforts. The program will also include during our first round of citizen meetings regarding stormwater quality issues and how to effectively de- stormwater management in Milwaukie. sign new stormwater systems and regulate new con- struction. Many of the issues being addressed through What are the major problems? Milwaukie's stormwater program and stormwaterdis- charge permit application are problems resulting from When you compare Milwaukie's stormwater increasing stormwater volumes as more impervious problems with the flooding that occurred area (rooflines, pavement, asphalt) covers previously last summer in the Midwest, well, it's hard to call our undeveloped areas. Public awareness is another key problems very serious. But stormwater management issue. For instance, dumping motor oils into catch in the 90's is less about levies and flood gates than it is basins is an all too common practice as is dumping of about water quality enhancement and neighborhood yard debris into drainage ditches and channels.These system improvements.Make no mistake,we know that have a direct impact on receiving waters. The regula- some flooding occurs in neighborhoods such as Arden tory side of the issue is also a key element of Milwaukie's Park,Fieldcrest,and Island Station.The program being program. developed in Milwaukie will address these flood 1 CITY OF MILWAUKI E, OREGON - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CITIZEN UPDATE- DEC 1993 People need to be aware of the How will this be paid for? problems they create. What will Will we have to raise taxes? be done to get the word out to the public? Several financing alternatives were evaluated by the City, however, the most viable approach that fits the Development of the stormwater program has involved nonpoint source/stormwater management program is 2 neighborhood meetings in the City.This is the third the formation of a "stormwater management utility." informational flyer distributed to Milwaukie citizens. The advantage of a utility approach for stormwater is In addition,we have worked through the Citizens Util- that service charges can be based on factors other than ity Advisory Committee regarding what pieces need to property value(which has very little relationship to use be included in the stormwater pro- or contribution of runoff to the gram and how they best fit together. , stormwater system). The method NP DES / most jurisdictions are using to es- involvement and what individuals Water Act compliance tablish rates is based on the amount can do to mitigate stormwater prob- of impervious surface (rooflines, lems. This must include both wa- pavement, asphalt) contained on a ter quality and water quantity is- property. The typical amount sues.Proper disposal of oil,paints and yard waste along charged for stormwater services is in the range of$4.00 with the correct use of fertilizers are some of the least per month for a single family residence. Commercial cost/most effective means of reducing nonpoint source and industrial developments would pay a multiple of pollution. Keeping these kinds of pollutants out of the this base single family rate.The focus of the rate design stormwater system is much cheaper than having to will be on relating the amount a property is charged to remove them.A series of newsletter like this one will be the amount of runoff that property contributes to the published with information on how to reduce nonpoint stormwater system. source pollution. What's being done to preserve natural What would the monthly charge 7 pay for? areas for storage of runoff and other stormwater management purposes? It will make sure that existing problems do not get any worse. This will be reflected in improved Johnson Creek is an invaluable resource. Preservation regulations, maintenance and enforcement of design of natural drainage areas is an important element of a standards.Another critical element will be anion-going comprehensive stormwater program. Understanding public awareness program to assure that citizens un- how these areas fit into the overall management of the derstand theirrole in nonpoint source/stormwater man- watershed is even more significant. Our stormwater agement. This approach will also develop a revenue management regulatory structure will be coordinated base for capital improvements in future years.Another with the City's land use plan to assure that these areas focus will be implementation of the City's final permit can continue to function as critical elements of the conditions under the NPDES stormwater program. stormwater system. Isn't Clackamas County's The City should take action ' Department of Utilities doing to stop erosion and runoff this kind of work now? through better regulation of CP development. Clackamas County does have a stormwater program AND utility in place for two areas...the unincorporated Site improvements,including drainage,mustbe in place portion of North Clackamas County and the Lower before Milwaukie gives final approval for construction Tualatin Basin unincorporated area.These two"surface of new houses/developments. The City's stormwater water service districts"do not include any areas within design standards may be revised as part of its compre- the City. However, activities in the North Clackamas hensive planning. Recommendations for new or re- area do impact Milwaukie's stormwater system. For vised standards will be included in this program. that reason,the County and City are working closely on issues affecting stormwater - particularly in terms of 2 CITY OF MILWAUKIE, OREGON—STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CITIZEN UPDATE— DEC 1993 regulations,public awareness/involvement,waterqual- Will there be a way to charge ity permitting and capital improvement planning. No developers? stormwater utility fees for these two county service � P districts are collected from within the city of Milwaukie. If new or re development causes an impact on the system then those impacts should be funded b that I am on high ground and have y p Y new construction.Secondary fees such as system devel- no drainage problems, why opment charges are commonly used to offset the im- should I have to pay? pacts of new development on the overall stormwater system. These types of new development fees will be All developed properties contribute stormwater to the examined as part of this program. system and everyone will be served by improved water quality. Storm water management will provide better i Will this plan require another access to transportation systems and city emergency level of City management? services during storms. Clearly, some will be served more quickly or more directly than others,but all prop- ertiescontribute some level of stormwater runoff to the No, while the stormwater utility approach will require establishing a new enterprise fund, the system. The utility's service charge is designed to re- cover costs in proportion to a property's contribution of program's administrative/management structure will fit into the existing Department of Public Works organi- runoff to the system. Where the stormwater system zation. currently does not exist, the program will enable an orderly approach toward planning and constructing these system extensions. What about federal and state money? Where do my current taxes go, No federal or state money is likely to be and couldn't they be used for available on a consistent basis. The City,as stated in the the stormwater system? stormwater NPDFS regulations,must develop its own Some very limited stormwater system maintenance is consistent and reliable funding base. being done through the street fund (gas tax support) What is the timeline? and general fund (property tax support).Where appro- priate and related to drainage impacts on the sewer The stormwater utility is d be u" system, sanitary sewer fund monies are spent on y expected to p and running' by March 1994. The compli- an stormwater system maintenance. The City's general ce period for the NPDES permit will extend approxi- fund is being directed at a number of human services mately through 1996. and functions.The growing demand for City services in conjunction with the public's desire to limit property taxes severely restricts the general fund revenue avail- able for programs such as stormwater. Maintenance of the City's existing stormwater system Virtually all jurisdictions in cannot be adequately funded Counties Clackamas and Washington --i within current revenues. •d or are stormwater in the process of forming Milwaukie has significant stormwater utilities • •d which were identified well before ' I 3 CITY-OF MILWAUKIE, OREGON — STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CITIZEN UPDATE— DEC 1993 Come to our STO RMWATE R d ° a s d NEIGHBORHOOD 2 0 ¢ �� MEETING e _ ��-j December 15, 1993 . s To �Z v% 7:00 pm U T Public Safety Building 3200 SE Harrison If you have questions, please call `-' Tim Corbett or Greg Drechsler at 652-4410 a b � o e 0 _ BULK RATE � G1� ®� ► { � U.S. Postage • 10722 S.E. MAIN STREET • PAID I MILWAUKIE,OREGON 97222 Permit No. 990 Milwaukie,OR 1VHI=RE IS THE PROPOSAL NOW? O a TO hr l ny (uuniil 1141< u•hCihllid a pul►lir 111C.1111111', lur w ,�.. � CITY OF PALO) ALTO O►TlAber h. 1989.to rci Clve cununcnls un die prulkisal. Q �� -�t 3 /.� torm y;ov �-+ �• ~� ��D n a�n o�N A�o n Drainage SANTA CLARA ch o w- ALLEY WATER DISTRICT Enterprise e��LREADY DOING THIS? (Q Fund e S.Inta Cl,va Valley Water District currently changes �D "�• w annual assessment against all property in Palo Alto Q c°� ttk•maintenance and rehabilitation of major creeks 3 J 0wrincls within the Disuicl's jurisdiction. These San Francisyuuo,Matadcro,Marron,and Adobe eek•. The single family assessmenttrom the District PALO ALTO HAS A 'uffently$43.60 per year for a 1/4-acre lot in Palo M. Large lots and commercial properties pay a higher cssanent. �► a A DRAINAGE PROBLEM 0 0 .M DDS e District doesn't have authority over City drainage Ivc%tnce systems within the City streets and righu of D N 0 HERE'S WHAT IS Y. a ro HAPPENING • w ILL THIS 7OGRAM =LP IMPROVE 7 A. ER QUALITY? R � � > :. Surface water runoff is a =,� ice III[pollutants.Maintenance of facilities is one u' a ,1 rT d v ay to prevent"flushing"of chemicnls into the ; A%.end to eliminate illicit connections to the drain- 13 sy.acm. The overall stnrm drainage program will he n 1 ttc.l lnw:lld Improved water quality. � :3 n � u pC (�r, ` iw nl(' Palo Alto r �� V 1 Ptiblir �Vmks I)t paillllent • „ 1, I/? MORE INFORMATION call Rick Sim•l-wr N' y ro N1�vt'Itllk•r I98') I,.uln rnt III Public Wtwk"at 31')•212'1. '� ......... ... ....;-..., ,......rl uv� urc Irunr,( REALLY 1 VE A ST0I7M � r� I-.its.Oct(I IC,.11,1%k f,an11 me. utilities ctufcnlly %u ccLl.%ulewit bike Ili lh%,autl r Iruhlrc,1ac11111r. DRAINAGC PROBLEM? operated by n(c Cfly. and this ingrcrviowl;area was also urn%idcrcd Ili arrivn,t al life decision to treat each single family pmp. sty the Ac with Ihrsi othrr utililics,the City pmlx►ccs to assess %:tine. a rnt►nthly service Ice for satin drainage. llre monthly Yes, we tau. With even minor rainfall each w intrr,there service Ice would Ix: limcd on the amount of storm Aparlrnenl and condominium residents will Il;IN- slrl!htt) is.ucct and yard (heeling. l he result is nol only irxon- drainage 111111111 conuib11tcd to me storm drain.system by It'cs.IK•c:nrsc they generally have less imlervww%;Irc;f vcnfcnce,but also prolxrty dwitage. the Santa Clara each properly. Ix:r unit. Vallcy Water District is spending millions of dollars to ail provide inctewed capacity in the ma)rr creeks passing through Palo Alto. However,it is the City's reslxmsibil- it% to get storm water to the Disuict's facilities. WHAT WILL THE WHAT WILL PROGRAM COST? ljlc caisling storm drainage system,including the COMMERCIAL (nnnpfng sLrliuns,is irKOmplt'le and undcrsiictl.Uvct AND INDUSTRIAL life inilial budget for the Sloan Drainage 514 1111111011 in capil:ll needs have teen fdcmillcd to Enterprise fund will be nppro><imatcly 51,5OO,U(X). PROPERTIES PAY? complete the drainage system,improve the pumping st:ltions and increase overall system caixicity. ibis funding evel will provide for stem maintenance, R P Y Commercial and industrial properties would pay a water qualify in)provemenls,new facilities aril system month) service fee based on the actual amount of In aoklition,the City will soon Ix required by td►e im )rnvcmcnts,administration/rnana cmcnt,and system Y I cdcral Frivironrnental Protection Agency arxd tale I K y impervious surface on the properly. The Public Works reserves. It will not cover Ilse entire S 14 million in i(len- Department will measure the amount of imI)cr-%fous arc. Stale tkpartment of Water Resources to address water lif ic(l siorin (in. ina;e nee(Is,but will Permit issuance of quality problems associated with storm water runoff I � on each property(i.e.,roofs,parking,etc.)and will tx)rxds Ili provide funds for highest priority pri)jccm As divide this area b 2,5UO square feet(5n. which is die farm cuccls and private prolfcrtics in the City. 1 he Y 1 Cray is currcnnd participating in studies involving the syslcm maintenance is irnprovtxl,a pxrtioxt of these average impervious area for single family pr(4)crtic%. funds would pair fx'available ftx facility improvcmcac 7hc result will be the number of equivalent residential crrurc South Day. These studies indicate that storm I and minor x repairs. w units(I-R )on the property. Vie number of ERU will water rwx)rf is a major contributor of px)IIuCnILt to San U s framisco Day. Ile multiplied by die single-family rate to determine the At some time in Jre future,it may be necessary to monthly service fee. irx:rcasc the store)drainage service fcc to lurid addi- ffnatly•there is a nccJ W improve the cleaning and tional irnprovcmcnls. Ilowcvcr,n)c intent is that life mamtcnancc of the slum drafr>Jgc sycicm. flu%, in initial talc not Ile ircreaccd fix at lead three years. it,.Clf, will hell)resolve sane t+tisting pruhlcros. I low- ..�7 C% r,nfajrr improvements are needed to rife limited WHO WILL PAY sy icm now in place. �-- WHAT WILL TtIE FEE? PROPOSED THE AVERAGE AP ACTION HOMEOWNER PAY? Tlfc storm drainage service fcc wound appear nn the regular City utility hills. If you receive a wales or sewer " uulny hill now,you wcx►Itl Iray the sltrmn drain;ge [cc. It, uili r Its allrt.I any All siiigic•lamily propx•rtics would pay a flat n11mntly for condominium owners,apartnrcnl trnanLs.;fed It: ,novcnrcnj% of etc storm draimigi: systcnf,addruonal fcc of no afore Ihmm 51.25,hawd on an avcral!c s igle- IC11:nfrs of cortrrncrcial buildinp,c,nos usually means Iltal III '11111J.. i.nccdt d. 'f r this end,life C'ny has IK t n utvcs- lamily injpctvious arca of 1,5(X)square Icc). U%init an the ptopx•rly owner or building msociption would ul•.r1ml• an ;lpproath now in 11sc 111 tomiq p;tits of the avcral,c area of intpx•rvinns cover IK•r home It►sel the receive the hill.Ivirause life drainal;c fcc is r0mcd to Ili(, tiruutry. Iln� apprnath is In ton�idcr %iorm drautal-.c as sinl;lc•lanfily resielcnti:fl Icc,rcdlx(s tlrc coil of admini• overall prnpx sty and not In Icnant spaccc. Roseville plans to use a "new" technique to pay ��` When for the costs of managing storm water runoff — — a Storm Drainage Utility. This leaflet is prepared y\ itrains to introduce you to this new utility and answer your questions. Questions ??? & AnswersH.T . Why do we have a storm drainage system? What is a storm Q) important to control the storm drainage utility? water. Storm drainage facilities had to be built, maintained and A storm drainage utility is renewed in order to: similar to the familiar sanitary • PROTECT PEOPLE sewer utility. The fee is based on • PROTECT PROPERTY the amount of mater that is discharged Before people settled in Rose- . REDUCE INSURANCE RISKS into the system. For instance, a ville, the natural state of the land • IMPROVE PROPERTY parking lot creates more runoff was rolling prairie covered with VALUES than a grass area the same size, so grass and trees.When it rained,the it pays a higher rate. Similarly, water soaked into the ground or • ENHANCE THE a large parcel creates more runoff flowed naturally to the rivers and ENVIRONMENT than a small parcel, so it too pays a - streams. When people came to • PROVIDE FOR SAFE higher amot ... In this way, the Roseville, they built homes,stores, TRAFFIC FLOW citizens of P. :seville will pay for offices, churches, and paved the To control storm waters and the managernen:of storm water in land with streets,parking lots,and receive these benefits, there is a proportion to the amount of water driveways. Now,when it rains,the cost. The proposed storm drainage they"contribute'", not on the value of ground cannot absorb the water as utility will spread these costs to their property. easily, and more water flows off. those who "create" the storm As the development of the land water runoff. continued, it became increasingly F' Why is a utility needed? What's my share of the costs? Recent State legislation nom re- The expected quarterly fees in 1984 to various types of properties are quires Roseville to take greater and shown below: j costlier actions to protect water PROPERTY TYPE QUARTERLY RATES quality in our community than ever before. These actions will Single Family Homes and Duplexes •••••••••••••••••••••• $4.3511ot include forming two new water Cemeteries and Golf Courses ................... ....... $3.251acre management organizations and Parks and Parking Lots ................................ $9.751acre developing regional and local plans Schools and Community Centers ..................... $16.251acre to identify problems. Multiple Family Dwellings and Churches .............. $32.501acre Today, storm water costs are Commercial/Industrial ............................... $65.001acre paid for using general tax money Your storm drainage fee will be —property taxes.These new costs, included on the same water and when combined with the nearly sewer bill you receive each quarter. $200,000 Roseville must spend for Also•your fee can be reduced if you ongoing storm drainage main- can demonstrate that your pro- tenance each year, represents, a perty has on site facilities which major expenditure of tax money. improve water quality or reduce its Roseville must find a way to meet outflow rate. 1 these rising costs in a fair and equitable manner, without adding additional burden to the property tax rolls. A Note About the Edina Storm Sewer Utility THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL has adopted The major rain storm of July, 1987, a new technique to pay for costs of main- demonstrated that opportunities dlso exist taining and protecting the infrastructure of to route stormwater from private to public our stormwater runoff system—a Storm properties providing better overall perfor- Drainage Utility. mance of the stormwater system. The Storm Drainage Utility is a service All three of these concerns are directly ad- similar to the water and sanitary water dressed through this new utility fund The utilities. Fees are based on the amount of results will be as follows: water discharged by individual properties . Increased protection for people and into the storm sewer system. For ex- property ample, a parking lot creates more runoff . Reduced insurance risks than a grass area of the same size, so com- . Improved property values community- mercial, industrial and multiple dwelling wide properties pay higher rates than residen- tial properties. The Storm Drainage Utility allows the The quarterly fees for various types of City to accomplish a number of important properties are shown in this table: goals related to Edina's storm water han- dling system. Among these goals are to: • Maintain existing storm water facilities City of Edina so they will operate properly for a longer " Storm Sewer Utility period of time Quarterly Fees . Provide and improve wetlands to clean=- storm water and retard flows Shje Family Homes . Replace existing storm facilities which and Duplexes . . . . . . . . . . . . $5-00Axt could become unusable over the years Parks.Cemeteries due to natural deterioration and Goff CaAsm . . . . . . . . . .515.90/Acre . Maintain strong street-sweeping and Churct,es,Insthfibnaf leaf pick-up programs so this material and Multiple Family Dwellings . . . .$40.3WAcre does not enter and hinder the system Commercial and Industrial . . . . . .$67.25/Acre If you have questions A, �. not addressed in this The fee for your property will be listed on note, please call the ,� Edina Engineering e this and future water/sewer bills. Department at 927- 6 8861, between 8:00 �'` Q The City of Edina is aging. Our am and 4:30 pm, stormwater system, originally built by Monday through the assessment process, now needs updated Friday. maintenance and capital improvements. 1eBB ITf 8 A FACT 2._ n A a GET THE FACTS ON Planning for the future as well aB b �- the present is important to Fridley. A o � o storm drainage master plan will be ::j J • developed and kept up to date to determine: " " " STORM Ul =1 v � w r • How to better protect our infra- '� m r* M structure investment. ' o '� • Where changes or repairs to o °' 0 DRAINAGE existing facilities teed to be made. u' v� c A . UTILITY • Where and when future facilities W z ' will be needed. to • What should be dine to protect . the quality of water in our I I lakes and creeks. l I (J GET THE FACTS ON M STORM DRAINAGE 0 UTILITY M You are invited to attend a public Z 1 hearing on Storm Drainage Utility on ( 1 January 21, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center. For more information, call the NMI Public Works Department at 571-3150. Fridley's residential, commercial and industrial growth is increasing - that's good news. However, as development increases so does the cost of managing storm water runoff. In addition, the City's storm drainage system is getting •d older and in need of attention, State statute now requires surface water ' r• :n c of cmmmunityy water qualityeta than ever f / `''d D before. z o F-. •v In order to meet these concerns and provide an equitable distribution for n 'incraasing_costs Fridley intends to use a ' "• �' oo n different technique, a Storm Drainage CO m Utility. Ibis flyer was prepared as an introduction to the new utility system and to explain in detail why it is necessary. TT'S A FACT MIJ1T . IT'S A FACT THAT . . . TT'S A FACT TW . . . A storm drainage utility is similar Nearly 501 of the citywide costs of Years ago Fridley land, in its to the familiar sanitary sewer utility, managing storm water are currently paid natural state, was sandy prairie covered the fee is based on the 'amount of water' through the property taxes of single with grass and trees. Rain water soaked that is discharged into the system. Fcr family home owners. With a storm drainage into the ground and flowed naturally to example, a Forking lot creates more runoff utlity, the single family share is reduced the creeks and rivers. When people than a grass area of the same size, so it to 201. The single family share of storm settled in Fridley they built homes, pays a higher price. Similarly, a large water costS is cut by more than half With stores and churches. Later development parcel creates more runoff than a small a utlity, included offices, parking lots and paved parcel, so it too pays a higher amount. streets and driveways. Today the ground With this new utility, Fridley residents cannot absorb rainwater as easily as in will pay for the management of storm water the past and more water flows off as in proportion to the amount of water they development of the land continues. ■contribute', not on the value of their property. IT'S A FACT THAT . . . other, more intensively developed IT'S A FACT THAT . . . properties will assume an increased share rT'S A FACT THAT . . . of these costs due to the greater share of It is increasingly important to runoff they create. Moreover, an control storm water. Storm drainage Fridley must find an equitable way to additional lot of total costs will now be facilities have to be built and maintained meet the rising costs of storm water paid by tax exempt properties. in order to: control and maintenance. A large portion of the storm drainage A storm drainage fee will be included fee will be used to: • PROTECT FWRX on your quarterly water and sewer bill. Your fee will be reduced if you can * Enhance wetlands to clean storm • PROTECT HOW= demonstrate that your property has the water and retard flows. necessary or-site facilities which improve • RMJCE IlLSHRANCB RIM water quality and maintain preeonstruction • Construct necessary storm water outflow rates, detention facilities. • Il41iOVE PROPERTY VALUES The expected 1985 quarterly fees for various types of properies are listed • Maintain existing storm facilities • PROME FOR SAFE below: so they will operate properly for TRAMSPO[OXTIEN a longer period of time. PROPERTY TYPE: QuARTmy PATES • E THE �� • Replace existing storm facilities XkM )QUIM Single Family that have became unueeable over the Saves and Duplexes . . . . . .$1.75/lot years, due to the natural • eBHCE THE EVIADNMERr deterioration process. aaneteries and It costs money to control storm water Golf Courses . . . . . . . . .$1.31/acre and receive these benefits. Fridley's proposed storm drainage utility will Parks and spread these costs to those who contribute Parking Lots . . . . . . . . .$3.94/acre to the problem of storm water runoff. IT'S A FACT TW . . Schools and Community Centers . . . . . . $6.56/acre State legislation now requires III Fridley to take greater and costlier Multiple Family actions to protect surface water quality. Dwelli4gs and Churches $13.12/acre 'These actions WIT include the formation of a new water management organization and Qmnercial and the development of regional and local Industrial . . . . . . . . . $26.25/acre plans to identify problems. all city of bloomington, minnesota Storm Water Drainage Utility �I y A Charge for Storm Water Utilities -a is Included in Your Statement. Why is a Utility Needed? The major storms in July 1987 , now be charged directly for a portion of created flooding problems in many areas the City's drainage expenses. throughout the entire City. The Citizens have made it clear to the City Council In the past, storm water maintenance :hat improvements to the existing Storm costs were paid from general tax money - Drainage System are needed to alleviate property taxes. These costs represented a the flooding problems. major tax expenditure. The storm water drainage utility was established to meet In May of 1988 , the City Council the rising costs in a fair and equitable established a storm water drainage manner. utility. Bloomington property owners will Why Do We Have a Storm Sewer Drainage System? Before Bloomington was settled, the could not absorb the storm water easily natural state of the land was rolling and runoff increased. prairie covered with grass and trees . When it rained, water soaked into the Storm drainage facilities are built, ground or flowed naturally to the rivers, maintained and renewed in order to control streams or land locked ponds and lakes. storm water. A storm sewer drainage As the city was developed, homes, stores, system protects people and property, offices and churches were built along with reduces insurance risks, improves property streets, parking lots and driveways. As values , enhances the environment and land development continued, the ground provides for safe traffic flow. How Will My Money Be Used? A large portion of the storm drainage •Floodproof existing homes. fee will be used to: *Replace facilities that have become •Provide flood protection projects. unusable over the years, due to the •Install larger pipes b enlarge ponds. natural deterioration process. • Maintain facilities so they will operate *Enhance wetlands to clean storm water properly for a longer period of time. and retard flows. \dhat ia- a Storm Water Drainage Utility? A storm water drainage utility is the amount of water they contribute, not ,.milar to the sanitary sewer utility. on the value of their property. The fee is based on the estimated amount of , water that is discharged into the PLEASE NOTE system. For instance, a parking lot causes more runoff than a grass area the These are not assessments. Most of the same size, so it pays a higher rate. properties in the City of Bloomington have Similarly, a large parcel has more runoff been assessed for storm sewer. Those than a small parcel, so it too pays a properties which have not been fully higher amount. In this way, the property assessed for storm sewer installations owners of Bloomington will pay for the will be assessed in the future through management of storm water in proportion to normal assessment procedures. What Are the Rates? Charges are based on the amount of For purposes of calculating storm runoff created by a parcel of land. (i.e. water drainage charges all developed parking lots cause more runoff than grassy single family and duplex parcels of 2 front yards) acres or less shall be considered to have The S.D. on your utility bill is the an average of 1/3 acre per unit. Storm Drainage Charge. PROPERTY TYPE RATE PER BILLING MONTHLY BI-MONTHLY Single Family & Duplexes - $ 4.72 per unit Multiple Family $ 1.08 per unit $ 2.16 per unit Cemeteries, Golf Courses, Parks & Vacant Land $ 4.96 per acre $ 9.92 per acre Public/Private Schools & Institutional $ 9.21 per acre $18.42 per acre Churches $12.04 per acre $24.08 per acre Commercial & Industrial $16.29 per acre $32.58 per acre Adjustment of Charges: Some properties Applications , required drawings and have a level of development or use varying calculations must be filed with the City significantly from the "typical". When within 30 days of the mailing. of the the owner can supply information that billing to be eligible for adjustments to demonstrates such facts, adjustments can the initial storm sewer billing. be made to reduce utility charges. If you think you qualify for an adjustment , obtain an application form by contacting the City of Bloomington, Engineering Division, 9750 James Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55431. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON BILLING ADJUSTMENTS OR OTHER DETAILS, CALL THE BLOOMINGTON ENGINEERING DIVISION, 887-9614 *TDD (TElecommunicationsDevice for the Deaf) 887-9677 CITY OF BEAUMONT PUBLIC WORKS INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM October 28, 1999 TO: Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager �r 16 I?qll FROM: Tom Warner, Public Works Director SUBJECT: PORT CHANNEL DEEPENING AND WIDENING COMMENTS The Partnership in Governance meeting with City Council included discussions regarding the project to deepen and widen the port channel. The estimated cost for the US Army Corp of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study is $7.58 million. The Corp is providing $4.1 million with a local match requirement of approximately $3.48 million. Currently the Navigation District and Port of Beaumont have pledged a total of$865,000 toward the local share. Although Commissioners Court has not taken action as of this date, the County is anticipated to pledge $500,000 toward the project. An additional $2.115 million of the local match is needed to fully fund the study. The County Jvidge established a Deepening and Widening Committee to develop local industry support for the feasibility study. Based on recent discussions with various groups, it does not appear that local industry will provide any financial support toward the study. The boundaries of the Navigation District and Port of Beaumont extend into the city limits of Beaumont. Since the Navigation District and Port of Beaumont have taxing authority, a contribution by the City would result in different entities financing the study through the same taxpayers. In light of the City's current financial position, a better approach to funding the local share of the study may be for the Navigation District and Port of Beaumont to finance the local portion through a special assessment, surcharge or tax increase. The charge could be removed once the study is complete or the debt service has been retired. The Public Works Department will share information regarding the study with City Council and seek their direction on the financing issue during the November 2 workshop. 1 CIS Tom Warner Warner EXHIBIT "B" PORT CHANNEL DEEPENING AND WIDENING An important issue for the future of the Port of Beaumont is the project to deepen and widen the channel. There is a Deepening and Widening Committee established through appointment by Judge Griffith. The purpose of the committee is to develop local industry support for the Feasibility Study. This project will increase the width of the channel from 400 to 500 feet and the depth from 40 to 45 feet. The study is a $7.58 million project. The Federal Army Corp. is providing $4.1 million with a local match of$3.48 million. Currently the Navigation District is providing $365,000 and the Port $500,000 which leaves a balance of$2.62 million needed to complete the study. It is important that the local financial support for the study be achieved this year or there is a risk that the Corp. of Engineers allocation of$700,000 of federal funds will be diverted to other projects. Last year the Army Corp. allocation of$365,000 was lost due to lack of local participation. The Corp. has extended these monies on two occasions and will probably not consider a third opportunity to reallocate it to the Port of Beaumont. • Should the Navigation district and Port take a primary role in providing the local share for the feasibility study? e Is the economic development benefit of the project to the City so significant that City Council should consider participating in the cost of the feasibility study? Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas Project Study Plan In the late seventies the federal government did a study on enhancing navication of the Neches River. The study was completed in the early eighties at about the same time as the crash in the oil business. There has been a remarkable change in the wor!d economy since then. Refineries and chemical plants have much more comoetit:on world wide from companies operating with much less stringent environmental rules, which makes production less costly. Shipping has also undemcne major chance since the 1970's. Ships are larger making it impossible for some of them to use the Neches River. Since we currently have cr i!y one way traffic,ic, ships sometime have to wait days to navigate the river causing demurrage charges of 525,000 a day. Congress decided to address these problems by passing the W.R.D.A. Act, (Water resources Development Act). The legislation among other things authorizes deepening and modification projects at the nation's ports. Improving navication infrastructure generates economic returns at the local,.regional, and national levels; and also contributes to the national defense. Current projects include the Columbia River in Oregon, Ports of Baltimore, MD, Oakland, CA, Savannah & Brunswick, GA, Jacksonville and Tampa, FL. Within the state of Texas, a deepening project is underway at the Pcrt of Houston. Also, Corpus Christi is conducting a feasible study to make channel improvements. Our area is already behind the competition making it critically important to complete a project study plan at once. The government, at its expense, has completed a reconnaissance study that concluded channel enlargement is potentially feasible and it is in the interest of the Federal Government to conduct a more derailed feasibility study of the Neches River. Three deepening alternatives with three incremental widths for a total of nine di.."erent plans will be analyzed at a level of detail sufficient to determine the recommended plan. A completed project, which improves navication, could lead to tremendous economic growth, a larger tax base, and jobs. Several hundred million fec'erai dollars would be invested in the project making our area one of the leading trans CCrtation centers in the nation. We have 1-10, the nations longest freeway connection, four rail lines, and we would have an improved deep-.eater channel with inland protection from hurricanes. If the plan is to go forward we must come up with '/2 the cost of the sti,:dy which would amount to around S3.48 million dollars. One half of this ceuid be "in kind" contributions such as direct contracts :+Ih encineering services and local universities fcr par cf the study. The fee would be paid to the government over a four-year period. Many feel the project could lead to economic development similar to the Houston snip channel, or Bush Intercontinental and DFW airports. The downside is if we do no; go forward we could lose some of our industries to more cost-effective locations and the jobs they produce. County Judge Carl Griffith has appointed a Ship Channel and Navigational Improvement Committee chaired by C. L. Sherman, Jr. and members of area Chambers of Commerce, the Jefferson County Navigation District, Ports of Beaumont, Orange, Port Arthur, and Sabine Pass, economic development groups and area industries. The Beaumont Chamber of Commerce has passed a resolution endorsing the concept of enhancing the navigability of the ship channel and strongly urges business, economic development and government entities and industry to make commitments to fund the study. Strong support has been offered by the Navigation District, the Port of Beaumont, and Jefferson County. The committee will soon be contacting others for financial commitments to complete the study. CONIMIITTEE REGARDING SHIP CHANNEL AND NAVIGATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS Chamber Representatives Steering Committee Beaumont John Breier John Breier Port Arthur Art Spencer Dale Emanual Orange Carl Himel An Spencer Port Neches Karen Carnahan Tom Jackson Nederland Richard Cox C..L. Sherman Groves Karen Carnahan Lonnie Arrington Economic Development Organizations Beaumont Jim Rich Nederland Jess Fuller Port Arthur R.L. Eldridge POST Steve Buser Entergy Greg Shepard Industry/Business Fina Dale Emanuel E.I. du Pont Roy Wells Motiva Michael Killien iVi obi I Tom Moeller Ritter Lumber C.L. Sherman Navigation DistrictlWater Authority Jefferson County Tom Jackson LNVA Lonnie Arrington Ports Beaumont Larry Curtain Orange Gene Bouillion Port Arthur Raymond Johnson Sabine Pass Macy DuBose f a l l US Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District Galveston District Southwestern Division Project Study Plan Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas Deepen and Widen Project Feasibility Study Phase December 1998 r Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas Project Study Plan INTRODUCTION The Sabine-Neches Waterway is a deep-draft navigation project which connects the harbor facilities of Sabine Pass, Port Arthur, and Beaumont, Texas with the Gulf or Mexico. The project is being maintained at its authorized depth of 40 feet and includes about 65 miles of deep-draft channel. This area is about 75 miles northeast of Galveston, Texas, and borders the southeastern end of the state of Louisiana. The study area is shown as Figure 1 . A reconnaissance study was undertaken to determine whether commercial navigation benefits produced by enlarging the Sabine-Neches Waterway are sufficient to offset the costs and environmental consequences of the enlargement. The reconnaissance study also identified existing water resource problems and needs through coordination with Federal and State agencies, area residents, waterway users, and the project sponsor. Most of the identified problems are not unique to this area but are common to many of the bays and estuaries in Texas. The reconnaissance study concluded that channel "enlargement is potentially feasible and that it is in the Federal interest to conduct more detailed, feasibility-leve! studies. The feasibility study is scheduled to begin in April 1999, after the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) has been executed and Federal and sponsor's funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 are made available to the District. This Project Study Plan (PSP) presents the aciivities required to accomplish the feasibility study and submit a feasibility report to Conaress for authorization. The cost of the feasibility study will be shared equally between the Corps and the study sponsor, Jefferson County Navigation District. The schedule for the feasibility study phase can be found in Section VI of this document. STUDY TEAM The PSP for feasibility studies to be conducted on the Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas Project, was prepared by the District's study team in cooperation with the study sponsor. All team members contributed toward the identif-ication of work to be accomplished, the necessary funding, and an acceptable schedule which complies with District and sponsor work plans, budgets and manpower constraints. The following team members were responsible for preparing this PSP: Richard Tomlinson CESWG-Pl\XJ Project Manager Frank Garcia CESWG-PE-P Planning Jack Otis CESWG-CPS Engineering Terry Roberts CESWG-PE-E Environmental Carol Hollaway CESWG-PE-E Economics Art Martin CESWG-RE-A Real Estate Approval of the PSP was facilitated by the District's Project Review Board. The endorsement page, required by EC1105-2-208, is provided as Attachment 1. SECTION II - STUDY PROCESS AND SCOPE OF WORK This section identifies the work required by each District function during the feasibility study phase and the contribution that the study sponsor wig; be making toward each activity. The work effort and estimated costs are based on the following study criteria: • Three deepening altematives with three incremental widths, for a total of nine different plans, will be analyzed at a level of detail sufficient to determine the recommended plan. The channel depths to be analyzed will be provided by the_ Planning, Environmental, and Regulatory Division. The channel widths will be determined by the Engineering Division based upon the design economic vessels provided by the Planning, Environmental, and Regulatory Division. The design vessel for each of the nine reaches below will be provided by the Planning, Environmental, and Regulatory Division. Only one dredged material placement pian will be developed for each Of the nine alternatives at this stage. Each alternative will be divided into the following increments for quantity computations, dredged material placement plans, and cost and benefit estimating purposes: • Sabine Bank and Outer Bar Channel • Entrance (Jetty) Channel • Sabine Pass Channel and Anchorage • Port Arthur Canal and Turning Basin • Sabine-Neches Canal • Neches River, Channel to Beaumont • A. dredged material placement plan will be developed to contain both new work dredging and the estimated 50-year maintenance requirement. During development of the channel optimization study (the ten alternatives in paragraphs above), the dredged material placement plan developed wi!I be preliminary in nature. Once a channel design is selected, a detailed dredge material placement plan will be developed, which will include maximizing i✓eneficial uses of dredged material. These plans will be used to determine the recommended dredge material placement plan. • The PER will determine and furnish the design vessel sizes which will be used in channel optimization studies. v • A without-project 50-year Dredged Material Management Plan (DI✓1MP) will be developed from the existing 20-year DMMP. • The engineering studies will be performed to a level of detail as to preclude preparation of a Project Design Memorandum. An Engineering Appendix will be prepared in accordance with ER 1110-2-1150. The Engineering Appendix will consist of narrative 7 v and plates required to document the engineering studies conducted and the results of those studies. 8 CESWG-PE-P 7 August 1998 SECTION 905(B) (WRDA 86) ANALYSIS SABD -E-N-ECHES WATERWAY, TEXAS 1. STUDY AUTHORITY: This study is authorized by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Resolution adopted 5 June 1997 which reads: That the Secretary shall review his prev:eus repots on the Sabine-Neches `Fate^.�*av published as Senate Document No. 80, 83`d Consress, Second Session; Hcuse Document No. 553, 871� Cong7ress, Second Session; and other pertinent repo;�s to dete=ine the feasibilir•: of r.:ci vi.^.a the c'.annels serif -, the Poris of Beau: ent, Por Arthur, and Orange, Texas in the interests or comme.vial navigation. The District received S100,0G0 in Fiscal Year 1998 to conduct the reconnaissance phase. 2. STUDY PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the need for Federal navigation improvements for the Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas. The study wviil also investigate opporur�ties for ecosrstern restoration, including beneficial use of dredged rnate:ial. 3. LOCATION OF PROJECT/CONGRESSIOtiAL DISTRICT: The Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas project is located (see Figure 1) in the vicinities of Beaumont, Por Arthur. Orange, and Sabine Pass in Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas, and Cameron and Calcasieu Parishea, Louisiana. The Sabine-Neches Waterway is a 75 mile-long deep draft channel which extends from the 42-foot contour in the Gulf of Mexico t' rough a jertied Channel to Port Arthur, to Beaumont via the Neches River Channel and to Orange via the Sabine River Channel. The study area is located in the jurisdiction of the following legislators: US Senator Phil Gramm (R) US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R) US Representative, 2nd District —Jim Turner (D) US Representative, 9`" District - N:ck Larnpson (D) 4. DISCUSSION, OF PRIOR STU-DEES, REPORTS, AND EXISTItiG NVATER PROJECTS: A Draft Feasibility Report was completed on the Sabine-Neches Wale:'Vay in April 1982. The report dete.-mir:ed that it was feasible and advisable to deeYen and v,-icen the Sabine-Neches Waterway. The selected plan recommended a channel 52 feet deep at t::e Gulf Entrance and a channel 50 fee: deep for the Sabine Pass Chanel, Por Ashur CanzL. Sabire- 1 Neches Canal, and the lower 12 miles of t: c N-c;les Fiver Cha=eI. The Flan !so included widening of the Sabine-Neches Canal, located ad;acent to Port Arthur, from =00 fe:: to 500 feet to reduce traffic congestion and delays in this reach of the wate:-wav which also serves as part of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). The selected plan was not implemented because the local sponsor withdrew their support of the project. A Reconnaissance Report was completed on the Channel to Orange in February 1994. The report showed a need and opportunity to increase the et;iciency of the Channel to Orange by increasing the channel depth from 30 to 35 feet. Ho%vever, the benefits «ere cor.side:ed too speculative to warrant moving into feasibility phase. 5. PLAN FOR:tiIULATION a. Identified Problems: (1) Existing Conditions: The existing 40-foot channel to Por: Arthur and Beaumont was designed to efficiently and safely accommodate vessels of appreximatel:, 40,000 DWT with drafts of 36 feet. Since the authorization of t're existing project, the size and drat. of vessels calling on the Sabine-Neches V�'aterway have si ei icar.t!y increased to meet the competitive demand for more efficient movements of bulk conur:odities, particularly crude petmleum. Tankers loaded to depths greater than the desig: ed safe operation depth of 36 fe:: frequently transit the waterway to industrial sates at For, A.hur and Beaumont. These vessels inc!ude tankers with deadweight tonnages ranging in size from 67,000 to 150,000 tors. Over 30% of 1996 to 1997 deep draft vessel tries consisted of vessels with bears of over 130 fee:. lenzhs of 800 feet or more, and fully-loader drafts in excess of 50 feet, �v ich move on tie waten:av light-loaded. Congested traffic conditions are a major pro cie,-:, especially i- the Sabine-Neches Canal because it also serves the tlrxoug; traffic of the G5VW. The larger volume of barges and shallow-draft vessels in this reach of the waterxav in addition to thle deep-draft traffic moving to or from Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Omnce. ;neatly compound safety probler-s. and make maneuvering extremely complicated. Relatively narrow channel widths and the lack c- passing areas to accommodate movement of two la_ge deep-draft vessels cause arrival an c.,.-a:-cure de'.ays The restriction, of vessel movements result in economic penalties that are costly to the shipper, to the ports, and in turn to the ultimate customer. In addition to the increased vesse! operating costs caused by t.af is delays, resricted vessel movements have also resulted in ize. icient use o:docking facilities, pa:,icuiarly a: Beaumont. Vessels in port are frequently ccn ronted «^tra de!a•:ed depa-u-c times, and a:ri:ir.j vessels often experience long waits for the :rater way to i,e c!ea.ed for inbound movements (2) Expected Future Conditions: Vessel move,:.e::ts to Beaumont and Port AnhU7 will continue to be restricted as well as subject to navigational hazards resu':ing from conge5'Led tra_f5c conditions. Without the ability to increase tae ef -iciency of transportation, waterborne 2 commerce, particularly crude petroleum, will a gradual loss of efficiency and could result in local industry losing some comparability with those in other ports along the Gulf Coast. The number of vessels constrained by the dimensions of Sabine-Neches Waterway is expected to increase because of other pons that already have deeper and wider channels. The transport of commodities is expected to increase mainly due to the increase in crude petroleum from l,vfexico and South America. Without the increase of channel depths and widths to accommodate the increased commodity transport more vessels will need to make lighter drafting trips. (3) Concise Statements of Specific Problems and Opt erunites The major problem.orl the Sabine-Neches Waterway is the inefficient movement of bulk commodities by vessels which are forced to light load their carso and/or delays in tr ansversing the waterway. Other water resource problems and needs relate to the safety of the waterwa , trafc delays, environmental quality, severe bar1: erosion along the Port a_rthur Canal, preservation of critical Fish and wildlife habitat in adjacent areas, availabiiity of e�ivironrrenta!ly acceptable placement areas, and concerns of limited economic growth. b. Alternative plans: The likely alternative plans to be studied in the feasibility phase consist of the following depth and width combinations: Deepen the channel to 47 feet deep at the Gulf Entrance and 45 feet on the Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur Canal, Sabine-Neches Canal, and the Neches River Channel; Deepen the same reach described above to 52 feet at the Gulf and 50 feet for the inland channels; Widen the Sabine-Neches Cana! and the Neches River Channel from 400 feet to at least 500 feet; Deepen the Channel to Orange to 35 feet; Widen the Channel to Orange to 300 feet. c. Evaluation of Alternatives: The alternative analyzed is a channel 47 feet deep at the Gulf Entrance and a charnel 45 feet deep on the Sabine Pass Channel, Port Ashur Canal, Sabine-Neches Canal, and the Neches River Channel. This alternative also includes widening of the Sabine-Neches Canal from 400 feet to 500 feet. The widening of the Neches River Channel was not considered in this evaluation. The Sabine Pilots Association has stated that widening this portion of the waterway would not lift the one way traffic restriction on this potion of the waterway. Their concern is with tL-,e docks and ships that are berthed along t lis reach. The force created by two tankers Pass::-.- eac"n other could pull a vessel into the channel an(4/or dam. the docks. The benefits attributable to project improvements were estimated based on recent historical tonnage levels and the current fleet of vessels using the waterway. In addition, published, forecasts for the major commodity groups were reviewed to identify general long-term trends for deep-draft movements to the U.S. Gulf Coast ports. Crude petroleum imports currently 3 comprise about 30 percent of the deep-draft toapage total. The reconnaissance level benefits for deepening the channels to Port Arthur and Beaumont were calculated using 1996 and 2010 tonnage levels. The forecasted trade route and shipment distributions used to calculate the 1956 and 2010 crude petroleum benefit estimates reflect a larger percentage of shipments from Mexico and South A.nerica and a higher percentage of lighterir.g, lightening, and transhipping than the 1996 Port Arthur and Beaumont records did. Therefore, the benefit estirates reflect a more conservative estimation of the transportation savings than would have been obtained >;om direct application of the 1996 port specific distributions. It should be noted that tI.e deepening benefits do not reflect consideration of depth constraints at tie foreign pons of origin or destination; however, benefits were only calculated for tonnages which are cu--rend shipped in vessels with desian*drafts of 40 feet or more. The benefits for widening the Sabine-Neches Canal from 400 to 500 feet %ve-e estimated utilizing 1996 and 1997 transit re.-o-ds obtained from the Sabine Pilots Association and the 1996 annual trip statistics from cc-ear, going vessels derived from the Waterbor::e Cernmerce of the U.S. Presently, the Pilots guidelines only allow fir daylight tragic and de not permit meetings between vessels with combined beam widths in excess of 200 feet to meet in the Sabine-Neches Canal. Vessels wit:: combined beams greater t an 200 fee: are aiie•,•ed to meet during daylight hours in the pon ion s of the wa:er-�vay which a.e at least 500 fe:: wide. The Pilots said that widening of the 12-1—ile long Sabine-Neches Canal from 400 fee, to 500 feet would not result in a change in the daylight only limitations. T.-.e "with project" condition %vas, therefore, calculated based on a scenario which, a!1 things being ecual, would allow urr-estricted daylight passages from the offshore entrance channel to the moot:: of the \eches Ri•,•er. Based on 1996 traffic levels, the analysis showed that an easement of c,:r-ent meeting restrictions would result in annual savings of 5370,000. Vessel safety issues and the cost associated with minimizing potentially dance-ous conditions would be addressed during feasibility. The annual benefits for deepening and w•id--ning improvements assessed in this reconnaissance for the 50-year protect life are estimated to be in excess of S23,000.000. The costs associated with this scenario are due to the initial new work dredging of approximately 60,690,000 cubic vards of dredged material, the lowering of 65 pipelines, 2--id the raising of 14 upland placement areas. The first year cost for a.'1 new work is S250,270,000. This is equivalent to 519,160,000 average annualized cost. It is assumed that the sa-ne dredging cycle will continue over the 50-year project life. The average a-nualized cost for maintenance dredging including levee construction is $2,940,000. The annual costs for deepening and widening improvements assessed in this reconnaissance for the 50-year prefect life a-re estimated to be approximately S22,100,000. For the purpose of comparison, a deepening-only alternative considered. The alternative analyzed the same charnel dirnensions as the previous sc,-=,,c without %kidening t-e Sabine- Neches Canal. The average annualized benefits are equivalent to S22,600,000 and the average annualized costs are 519,000,000. The Sabine-Neches Waterway runs through extensive salt marsh wetlands up to the Neches River and brackish to fresh water wetlands along the Neches River. The present navigation 4 Project has impacted these wetlands by allowing higher salinity water to migrate upstream in greater volumes than was possible before the project was constructed. Sediments flowing dow,, the Neches River have been collected that would normally have been transported over the river banks to nourish the marshes during floods. Due to a lack of new sediments and land subsidence, the marshes are declining, particularly along the lower Neches River. A deepening project may have additional salinity intrusion impacts on surreundin? wetlands. These impacts and associated wave erosion impacts will have to be assessed in anv fixture studies. Widening the channel by 100 feet along the Sabine-Neches Canal may not add to wetland impacts since very little marsh remains in this reach. The National Environmental Policy Act regulations require coordination with State and'Fdderal resource agencies to minimize adverse impacts to wetlands and other resources of concern. It will also be necessary to identify potential beneficial uses for the ne%v-work material dredged from the channel. Impacts to Federal-listed threatened er endangered species are expected to be minimal. However, sea turtles may be afiecte by hopper dredge -�t•ork during offshore project deepening. Additional surveys will be required to complete the inventory of histo^c properties that may be ailected by the project. It appears that no,-.e of the sign!:Gan: Confederate-era. sites and shipwrecks in the vicinity of Sabine Pass will be affected by the project as envisioned at this time. Remote-sensing marine surveys of the Sabine-Neches Canal and the Neches River Channel must be conducted to determine if shipwrecks are present that could be impacted by the proposed new work. Terrestrial impacts to historic properties are expected to be minimal. Upland impacts should be limited to the const:,:ction of placermer:t and beneficial use areas, ar:d may require additional surveys. The navigation channel passes though a highLv urbanized area with a large concentration o: petrochemical plants and associated industries located along the banks. Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) problems exist in the area in the form of several known industrial waste sites and at least one Supe:fi,nd site near the navigation channel. Due to industrial waste sites and unauthorized waste disposal activities, the probability exists for encountering an unknown waste site during project construction.. Therefore, fixture studies of project impacts will assess current water quality condition update baseiir,e HTRW information, identify potential waste sites, and assess relative risks for HTRW problems that may be encountered in the project. The specific land requirements for this project are not yet ay.:ilable, however generally speaking the material from the proposed im--rovemen,ts to the navigation channel will be contained in existing upland placement areas, except in the offshore react wee-e the material will be removed to open water placement areas. Since many of the existing upland sites were acquired with tempora-y or revocable easements there is a high p-cbabi;it. t;;at a s:-ni cant number o: new permanent easements will be required. Given the is:dust:;a'. de��e;opfnent of the project area, real estate acquisition will represent a significant f r.ancial cc.mrn'*.!—ent an the par-, of the local sponsor. Along with the acquisition of new ease rents over the upland sites, the local sponsor will be required to provide access roar? and dredge pipeline reuses to the various sites. Although the mitigation fearures of the project are presently unknown it is highly likely that at mitigation for a project of this s::ope may require acquisition of a significant amount of land. There are approximately 65 pipelines that will constitute obstructions to the new channel template. Privately owned facilities that are obstructions to federal channels are subject to navigation servitude and to Section 10 permit restrictions. Removal of such obstructions is usually at the owner's expense. 6. FEDERAL V TEREST: This preliminary analysis shows that deepening and widening the Sabine-Neches Waterway has greater benefits than costs. Further study during the Fusibility Phase has the potential to identify additional benefits from various deepening and. \ide_ning combinations, as well as potential environmental restoration alternatives. 7. PRELL1fINARY FINANCL4L ANALYSIS: In a letter dater' _ August 199S (copy attached), the Jeft'erson County Navigation District. --- expressed an invent to, "act as (joint) local sponsor on this project." The (joint) local sponsor have reviewed and accepted this analysis as submitted. 8. RECONEL IENDATIOi ''S: Based on these findings, I recommend this analysis be cen;fied as being in accordance with current policy and that the feasibility study be conducted. 9. POTENTL;kL ISSUES EFFECTL;G ItiITL-kTIO.i OF FEASIBILITY PH.-kSE: There are no apparent issues at this time that impact on impler—nentation of the feasibility phase. 10. PROJECT AREA KA P: A project are: map is enclosed. Lt. Col. (P) Nicholas J. Buechler Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer 2 Enclosures 1. Letter of Support 2. Project Area Map (Figure 1) 6 eEAUMCNT „_.. •i�•� t...� �, ..... _.,.� NECHE:S RI JE= N= i \ C y A 1 N L row 4 0' X a p p' '''[/ l:7: . 3AaK-NECHE5 Caw. ��< CAW SEC. 8 30'X 200, ro•r `� 1a, X K�Ut.aro ,.r'•�:.�• X61'•` --�1 !` < os L SASINE-NEC-4ES CANAL PORT A,-T;-iUR ,� �' 40' X 400' PORT ART1CR "Y• / (7Q� %0*04 wa .4( i CRT- AR T rUR CAN L ' 4 O' x Soc , •'••••• AUTHORI E O CNANN£E3 O .} EXISTING DISPOSAL AREAS -HANNE: uiLE1GE Y�L�v Q V�� SAEINE PA'zS CHANNEL S '''-, 40' x 5OO' SA-1 ' ' JETTY CHANNEL F OF MEXIGO i = 4 O'X 500'- 800' • i+A,•C-WC040 WATC"W. Tt" EXISTING PROJECT _ I V 1. awrT C.o•<q OrrT1•CT. IA{VISTO� TCT.AJ ,.,k r„ CITY OF BEAUMONT PUBLIC WORKS INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM W DATE: October 29, 1999 2g��9 TO: Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager vq� 6 I FROM: Tom Warner, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Relocation of Port Rail Interchange Yard COMMENTS The preliminary findings of the Port Rail Interchange Yard Study found that the relocation of the yard was feasible.The yard would be relocated from its current location behind City Hall to the College Street Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) yard. Relocating the current interchange to the Union Pacific yard will require the construction of a new spur track.The new track would cross Franklin near the old Entex building and cross Park and Pennsylvania north of Pipkin Park. All new street crossings are proposed to be at grade crossings. The estimated cost to complete the construction of the new track is approximately $2,500,000.This cost does not include the purchase of the Union Pacific interchange yard, right-of-way acquisition for the new tracks and any grade separations. Potential obstacles to the project include acquisition of the Union Pacific yard,the at-grade street crossings and disposition of the existing interchange yard.The Port's acquisition of the Union Pacific yard and operating agreements with the railroads will require the support of the City. The viability of the Port must be stressed to all parties involved in the negotiations. The at-grade crossings on Park and Pennsylvania Streets will disrupt traffic flow into and out of the downtown area. This will be some what offset by the relocation of the interchange yard. The relocation of the yard will result in a reduction of the number of trains blocking the crossings at Main,Pearl and Neches Streets that are currently switching into the existing yard. Additionally, if Park and Pennsylvania are blocked by a train, emergency services to the Charlton Pollard Neighborhood would be affected. The number of trains per day,the length of the trains and the frequency are not known at this time. The elimination of the at-grade crossings could be accomplished with the construction of an underpass similar to the Orleans/Park Underpass.The estimated cost to construct a grade separation at Park and Pennsylvania is$8,000,000. EXHIBIT "C" To: Stephen J. Bonczek From Tom Warner Subject: Relocation of Rail Interchange Yard October 29, 1999 Page 2 of 2 If the rail interchange yard relocation takes places,the existing yard will be available for economic development purposes.The City could purchase the property with this objective in mind. The estimated value of the property is approximately$700,000. The purchase of the property could serve as the City's share of the project if the at-grade crossings were to remain. It is anticipated that additional City funds would be required if a grade separation was to be constructed at Park and Pennsylvania Streets. A meeting with the Port is scheduled for November 1,to further discuss the project. The above issues and a review of the discussions in the meeting with the Port will be presented to City Council during the November 2, workshop meeting. 1 crn. Tom Warner RELOCATION OF RAIL INTERCHANGE YARD A feasibility study was conducted to determine if the Port's rail interchange yard located behind City Hall could be relocated. The funding for the study was shared by the Port, City and a private developer on a one-third basis. The preliminary study found that the relocation of the rail interchange yard to the old College Avenue Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific)yard is feasible. This location would provide the Port the opportunity to develop a 400-car interchange yard, maintain its favorable switching operations with all servicing railroads and decrease rail traffic in the Main Street area. Potential obstacles include obtaining ownership of the yard and construction of a new track from the yard to the Port. The location of the new track would cross Franklin near the old Entex building and cross Park and Pennsylvania north of Pipkin Park. All new street crossings are proposed to be at grade crossings. The estimated cost to complete this project is $2,500,000. This cost does not include the purchase of the Union Pacific interchange yard, right-of-way acquisition for the new tracks and any grade separations. • Should the City participate financially in the relocation of the rail interchange yard? • Should the City purchase the existing rail interchange property for approximately $700,00 in lieu of other financial contributions? • Should the construction costs for grade separations at Park and Pennsylvania be included in the projects costs? • Should the City contribute toward the construction costs for the grade separations? V o • NO Masters port director .• 4 • August 2, 1999 Mr. Charles S. Leyendecker The Leyendecker Group P. O. Box 420066 Houston, Texas 77242-0066 Mr. Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager City of Beaumont P. O. Box 3827 Beaumont, Texas 77704 RE: Port of Beaumont Interchange Yard Relocation Study Dear Sirs: Unclosed for your review is the final report from TRAX Engineering Associates on the relocating of the port's interchange yard. I find the study to be a very extensive, comprehensive review on the subject and will provide all interested parties a basic starting point from which to begin their evaluations. TRAX's recommendation does state that it is feasible to relocate our interchange yard, while maintaining our current efficient rail operations and competitive switching functions. However, many factors such as property ownership, city traffic patterns, community acceptance, port operational efficiency and economic practicality will heavily influence the study's findings. All such factors must be carefully weighed before final judgement can be given. After reviewing the study closely, we all agree that the plan is for the port to acquire the UP yard at College and Forsythe. certainly, there will be a lot of pros and cons, as there will be with any plan, but it appears that there are enough pros involved to warrant a careful study of the plan. e will be reviewi g this study with the consulting engineers here at the port offices uqu3t 26, 1999 at 9:00 a.m., to answer any questions we may have on this study. I strong y suggest that all interested parties be here to participate in this meeting, and I would especially like to have a representative from the City at the highest level. Very truly yours, 6-W/ /ko Bill G. Mats les Port Director BGM/jb Attachment c: Port Commissioners Tom Flanagan Steve Kenney Ralph Crouch R O.Drawer 2297 e Beaumont,Texas, U.S.A.77704 409/835-5367 FAX 409/835-0512 www.portofbmt.com PORT OF BEAUMONT INTERCHANGE YARD RELOCATION ISTUDY i f - 1 PREPARED FOR THE PORT OF BEAUMONT BY TRAX ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. JULY 1999 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUI-LARY Part I: Introduction Definitions Part II: Methodology of Study A. Objective of Study B. Field Evaluation and Design C. Economic assumptions D. Engineering assumptions Part III: Existing Interchange Yard A. Ownership B. Present Method of Operation C. Salvage Value Part IV: Alternate Locations A. Union Pacific Yard B. Carroll St. Location C. Non-Feasible Locations D. KCS - Port Connection, E. Cost Estimates 1. Connection ?. U.P. Yard 3. Carroll St. Location Part V: Impact of Relocation A. Port Operations B. Major Carriers C. Switching Contractor D. City Part VI: Port Expansion A. Future Trackage Requirements B. Benefits of Expansion Part VII: Conclusions 2 EXECUTIVE SU`1_•LkRT Our preliminary study finds that the relocation of the Port of Beaumont's current rail interchange yard, while extremely complicated, is possible. Our review developed only four possible sites located sufficiently close to make their usage economically feac*ibfe for the port's new interchange yard. These were 1) the current Union Pacific (UP) yard at College Ave. and Forsythe, `?) Carroll Street location next to and on the port's current property, 3) the current KCS yard and 4) the old Southern Pacific (SP) yard currently bisected by Martin Luther Ding Freeway. Both the current KCS yard and the old SP yards were eliminated based on availability and/or size. The Carroll Street location, while large enough to expand the Port's interchange yard to some 400 hundred rail cars, is not recommended. This is primarily based on the negative impact it would have on the residential and commercial traffic patterns in the area and on community relations by locating an interchange yard and switching operation in the Charlton-Pollard community area. The remaining location, the College Ave., UP yard, presents an opportune-, for the port to develop a 400 car interchange yard, maintain its favorable switching operations with all servicing railroads and decrease rail traffic from the downtown Main Street area. However, this location has two major obstacles that must be overcome. The first is the ownership of the yard itself- while currently under utilized, the local UP management is not receptive to the idea of giving up this property. It is believed that only the highest level of corporate management will make such a decision. It will take a combined effort of both City and Port officials to successfully convince UP management that it's in the best interest of all to release the property for the Port's usage. The second is the fact that relocating the interchange yard will require the Port to maintain its rail access by all the servicing railroads utilizing a new right of way. The only possible new right of «-av is an old, abandoned rail line running through Blancette Street. \-hile this would sr early reduce the rail traffic using the downtown Main Street intersection, it would require routing cars through some areas zoned for light & heavy industrial, and close to several residential sites. 3 PART I - INTRODUCTIO\ The following is a Feasibility Study prepared by Trax Engineering &Associates, Inc., for the possible relocation of the existing interchange yard seeing the Port of Beaumont. This yard serves as the major interchange point between the Port and the three Class 1 Railroads that serve the City of Beaumont. In 1998, there were approximately .14,000 cars delivered to the Port via the interchange yard, which results in 28,000 cars being handled through the yard. It is projected that in the near future this figure could increase by 50 to 75°io. The existing interchange yard consist of five yard tracks owned by the Port and one lead track owned by the BN/SF This lead track connects the BN'SF to the Port with a connection to the KCS main line that the U.P. and KCS use to deliver and pick up cars. The Bti/SF serves an industry- at the north end of the interchange yard from this lead track which will require that some or all of this track remain to continue service in the event the interchange point is relocated. The level of information presented herein, should be viewed from the perspective of a conceptual level of study and is in no ,vay represented to be a comprehensive description of actual final project costs or final design of trackage. Additional analysis during the FINAL ENGINEERING & DESIGN PIi-\SE v,-ill obviously be required in order to focus more acutely on final project costs under parameters decided by detailed field surveys, funding considerations and other factors affecting the operation of the Port, the Railroads and the Citv. While a number of comnlicated issues need to be resolved the study concludes that there are two feasible sites to be considered for a relocated interchange yard in close proximity to the Port. These sites have positive and negative aspects for all concerned, but there does not appear to be any insurmountable problem if all parties cooperate in achieving the proposed goal. The City and the Railroads must mutually agree that the viability of the Port is of utmost importance and increasing their capacity for rail traffic will benefit all concerned. It is important to note that a high level of cooperation bet-,yeen all parties will be required to achieve what we believe to be a goal which will be of long term benefits to the City and the Port. This endeavor is a major chaflenge to all parties and %vill require creative and innovative solutions and execution in order to reach its objectives. We believe this study provides a foundation on which to expand to the final phase of design and provide a stimulus for discussions between all the parties involved. Given the length of time a project of this magnitude will require %ve urge the Port and the City to commence discussions with the railroads in order to obtain their input on the overall objectives as stated. This relocation is bein; considered because of the following t"vo reasons. The first being that the yard does not have the capacity or expansion room to accommodate the expected increases of traffic in and out of the Port via rail. The second reason being that the property is viewed by others to have a much higher valued use than the aforementioned interchange yard. 4 DEFINITIOti OF TERMS DEFINITIONS: «`henever in this study, the following terms or pronouns in place of them are used, the intent and meaning shall be interpreted as follows: 1. CITY The City of Beaumont, TX `?. PORT The Port of Beaumont 3. U.P. The Union Pacific Railroad 4. M.P. The Missouri Pacific Railroad now a part of the U.P. system. 5. S.P. The Southern Pacific Railroad now a part of the U.P. system. 6. B\/SF The entity° resulting from the merger of the Burlington Northern Railroad and the Santa Fe Railway. i. KCS The Kansas City Southern Railroad 8. Interchange Yard A collection of railroad tracks used by different parties to exchange railroad cars. 9. Holding Yard A collection of tracks for the temporary storage of rail cars. 10. Lead Track A track that is the primary running track to a yard or other facility. lj. Switching Yard a collection of railroad tracks used for sorting (s«-itching) cars for unloading or making up cars in an outbound train. 12. Connection A railroad track constructed to connect two separated tracks to enable travel between the two. 13. Crossing Diamond Special track work construction to allow one railroad track to cross another (commonly known as a "crossing frog"). 14. Crossing Signals Protective device to %yarn vehicular traffic of approaching trains 15. AREA Amerimn Railway Engineering association 16. FRA Federal Railroad :administration 5 PART II - 'METHODOLOGY A. Objective of Study The primary reason the study %vas performed was to find an alternate location for the present interchange yard With anticipated growth in rail car volume delivered to the Port the new location should be capable of holding four hundred (400) rail cars instead of the one-hundred and fifty (150) the existing yard is capable of. B. Study was performed by experienced railroad engineers familiar with design criteria of all the affected railroads and experienced in this these type projects. Al field survev design and computer aided drafting work was performed in compliance with AREA specifications and normal railroad engineering procedures. C. Economic Assumptions Cost of track materials and construction were estimated using prices from competitive bidding for similar projects that have been completed in this area in the past fe%v years. Values of salvaged track materials and real estate were developed through discussions with personnel familiar with these values in the Beaumont area. Contingencies were added to offset unforeseen and incidental costs not specified in the cost estimate. Estimates do not reflect allowances for future inflation or deflation of prices or unforeseen economic conditions. D. Engineering Assumptions We have assumed that using the Port's current specifications for track materials and construction would be agreeable to all of the railroad's affected. The Port has developed their specifications from the major railroads own standards and AREA regulations. The Port's standard_ meet or exceed the railroad's own standards. 6 PART III - EXISTING INTERCHANGE YARD A. The Port owns five interchange tracks in the yard and the B\/SF owns the lead track that runs through the yard to the Port. The Port owns approximately eight acres in this area. The connection to the KCS mainline is assumed to be jointly owned by the KCS and BN/SF. B. At present the U.P. and KCS deliver and pick up cars to and from the interchange yard via the connection from the KCS mainline in the southwest quadrant of the crossing of the lead track to the Port and the KCS mainline. The BN/SF pick up and deliver cars to the interchange via their Long St. track, which connects to the interchange yard and which also serves Trinity Industries at the northwest end of the interchange yard. The Port's switching contractor picks tip and delivers cars to and from the interchange yard on an as needed basis. As example, one of the disadvantages of the existing configuration is that the yard will hold only one hundred and fifty (150) cars and it requires up to 700 cars to load a outbound grain ship. With time constraints on loading time it puts undue strain on rail facilities and the delivering railroad's trying to handle that many cars with the existing facilities. With the expected growth in volume of rail cars this condition will only worsen and increase congestion in the Port and on the railroads facilities in Beaumont. 1998 TR_•kFFIC VOLUMES: RAIL CARS DELIVERED TO THE PORT BN/SF U.P. KCS Jan 125 425 625 Feb 752 161 549 Mar 437 170 447 Apr 44 18 42 May 91 ISO 38 Jun 213 105 15 Jul 1039 582 135 Aug 794 678 505 Sep 664 1020 139 Oct 1146 1013 506 Nov 270 1126 320 Dec 1019 116.5 199 TOTAL 6594 6648 3510 Total Combined - 16,752 Cars Delivered to Port Approximately 3,000 cars were delivered to the Grain Holding Yard via the KCS near the Continental Grain facility. This reduces the total number of cars delivered to the interchange yard to 13,752. In reality these numbers have to be doubled as after the cars are picked up by the snitching contractor and unloaded or loaded at the Port's facilities 7 they are taken back to the interchange vard for the railroads to pick up and put buck into their system. Actual number of cars handled through the interchange yard should be considered as approximately 2 7,504. With the completion of additional railcar unloading facilities in the Port the volume of traffic is expected to increase approximately 10,000 loaded cars annually. This traffic in addition to the 'present traffic would total some 47,504 cars handled through the interchange vard. This volume of cars will severely strain the present interchange yard and Port facilities. Also the ser-,ing railroads will have to make adjustment in their operations to accommodate this increase. It is imperative to address this situation to preserve and increase the economic growth of the City and the Port. C. Salvage Value of Interchange Yard and Property Track \o. Gross Value Removal Costs -Net Value 300 40.400.00 8, 50.00 31,850.00 301 28 250.00 6,400.00 21,850.00 302 30, 50.00 6,350.00 24,400.00 303 31,600.00 6,450.00 25,150.00 304 29. 00.00 6.000.00 23.700.00 TOTALS 5160,7 00.00 S33,750.00 S126,950.00 Approximate Real Estate Value S acres x 43,560 sf. C S2.00 = S696,960.00 In the event the five Port tracks are removed there would be a portion of the lead track that passes under the KCS main line and connects to the B\/SF owned lead track that would have to be remain as a switching lead to serve the docks at Transit Sheds 4,5,6 & i. This lead track is commonly known as the low line. The lead track that crosses the KCS main line at grade is commonly know as the high line. s PART n' ALTERNATE LOCATIONS A. KCS/Port Connection If the location of the Interchange Yard is relocated it will be necessary to have access to the Port in another location. The only feasible route found was on an old railroad right of wav that originallv served the Port along and through Blancette St. Some of the track structure is still in place so the right of way should be available. All of the route is zoned light and heavv industrial so the construction of the track %vould not adversely effect the area. The route is from the hCS main line in the vicinity of Archie St. to the Port at the junction of their holding yard and the lead track to the grain holding yard (shown in green on plan). As the plan shows the track would cross several city streets and would require sianalized crossing protection. It should be pointed out that if this route is ever constructed the number of cars stated previously would not be crossing Main St. Ln the vicinity of the municipal complexes in that area. The approcimate `8,000 cars that are handled through the existing interchange vard would have to be transported across the ne%v connection to and fi•om the Port if the vard is relocated to either one of the following locations. In the case of the L.P. vard the Port's switching contractor would pick up and deliver cars on an as needed basis. In the case of the Carroll Street location the railroads would transport the cars to and from that location via the connection. Preliminary Cost Estimate S2,500,000.00 B. union Pacific Yard The U.P. owns a yard in the vzcinity of College Avenue and Forsvthe St.. which previously was the S.P. yard. This would be a good locarion for a ne,.v interchange vard available to all three railroads and the Port's switching contractor via the above connection. Agreements between the railroads and the Port would have to be enacted to permit operations as described. We believe it would be beneficial to the City, the Port and the railroads to try and achieve this relocation. An informal discussion was held with the L.P. manager in charge of this area and he was not receptive to the idea of giving up this yard facility. We believe that the combined efforts of the City and the Port would receive a more favorable response from higher management of the U.P. in this regard. A cost for the purchase or lease of this facility was not determined because if negotiations between the U.P. and Cit,,-/Port team is begun there could be mitigating factors that might influence the cost. As stated above this location would appear to be to the U.P.'s benefit since they will be the recipient of the projected increase in traffic to the Port. These and other factors would be brought out during negotiations and should influence the final cost of the vard. A fair market value could be determined b-,• a NET SALVAGE VALL`E of the track materials and a estimate of the value of the real estate. 9 C. Carroll St. Location An interchange yard has been designed in the vicinity of Carroll and Buford Streets that would serve the intended purposes, but would require the closure of portions of Buford and Carroll Streets. This would severely impact the vehicular traffic into the Port and nearby industries and neighborhood. This location would require- that the railroads pick up and deliver cars via the above connection to the yard with their equipment and crews. This location relieves the congestion of rail cars in the downtown area, but would impact this neighborhood with the expected volume of rail traffic (shown in red on plan). The cost of this yard as proposed is approximately: S6,700,000.00 Non Feasible Locations Several other locations were evaluated and discarded as potential sites due to varying reasons. Listed below are three areas we evaluated and eliminated for the stated reasons. 1. KCS Yard - This yard is not available for sale or lease according to upper management of the KCS. They have plans to enlarge and utilize this faciLty more extensively than it is at the present. 2. The property where the old S.P. yard was located in the vicinity of Bonham and Laurel Streets is not a large enough area to construct a vard. The property is bi-sected by Martin Luther Bing Freeway, which would restrict switching operations too severe to make this practical. Also a yard in this location would complicate delivery and pick up of cars by the Port's Switching Contractor. 3. A-nother area evaluated was the area along the proposed KCS - Port connection. The area is not large enough to construct a yard and the number of street crossings makes this area unworkable. 4. Any other open land observed was too far from the Port and involved other factors which would eliminate them for consideration. Also extensive operation on the railroads by the Port's Switching Contractor would involve regulatory issues with the FRA that would have to be resolved. These could involve the creation of shortline railroad that would have to negotiate trackage rights agreements with the involved railroad. These costs and the increased time and distances involved would render the Port at a disadvantage concerning their rates, etc. 10 PRELI-NIINARY COST ESTINLATES 1. ICS - Port Connection a. Track Construction 3,200 tf. @ 5200.00 $640,000.00 b. KCS Turnout/Connection 1 ea. @ $150,000.00 150,000.00 C. Road Crossings 320 tf. @ $450.00 1-14,000.00 d. Road Crossing Protection LS @ $ 50,000.00 750,000.00 e. Est. Utility Adjustments LS @ 5250,000.00 250,000.00 f. Property/50' R/1A' 3.7 ac. @ $65,000.00 65,000.00 C, Engineering LS @ $125,000.00 125,000.00 Contingencies 200.500.00 TOTAL PRELINUNARY COST OF KCS/PORT CONNECTION S2,500.000.00 2. Union Pacific Yard A value of this yard was not estimated because of the uncertainty of the availability. Since the U.P. will supposedly be the beneficiary of the 10,000 annual car increase in business to the Part they may be willing to make substantial concessions in the sale price or long term lease cost. If negotiations proceed between the City and Port with the U.P. this point should be emphasized. If this yard is available and used as interchange yard there would no doubt be some track modifications required to allow for access to the BN!SF, the KCS and the Port's s«-itching contractor. At this preliminary stage a estimated cost is not presented because the KCS and U.P. would have a dominant role in the design and construction of any modifications. This could involve track relocation, construction and train signal work. 3. Carroll St. Yard a. Track Construction 30,000 tf@ S150.00 S4,500,000.00 11 b. Turnouts 20 ea. @ $20,000.00 400,000.00 C. Road Crossings 250 tf. @ $450.00 112,500.00 d. Est. Utility Adjustments LS @ S100,000.00 100,000.00 e. Property 10 ac. @ S65,000.00 650,000.00 f. Engineering LS @ S250,000.00 250,000.00 Continzencies LS @ S687,500.00 68 7.500.00 _ TOTAL PRELI'Vn ARY COST ESTIMATE OF CARROLL ST. I\TERCHAtiGE YARD $6,700,000.00 12 i 171 rflH '�'ri•i f i� 71 1 ► Ip M 1— 7- ;- -- - a- �• y Th ILI 1?n�SVj 11 114fl ` ► 11 I1,1 � n .; t. ' i1' n{ 11:1 1 t • � C j _r_ � u7r v < (1 •-SM MI _ — T1+►i — - ti ot • _ •ji1 tih -h' 7fTS v �>7� -- �• _ i � Iy r �` h x :Ii '• N__ ry A Itt1 T7S1 , t'� l �< I HV IN _ r 1 r ■ - n• .(fie Q1 S dti •rl 1�' '� �{a, .�. ,t'7 -- �, 1110 z p :� Z IT `� � 117.,0.1 _. rn•�t I�- ` � ,� � � � �� jA •� _ 9 I•�I'7.q� � �I r l IP ., i a �y tS � ...; <Hj 1 /�` i ` � , ^ � TV t•(�� t^ j y..� 4o n$ a?77V1S u , .• �� 1 m - •�lw) Ain •i`� �1I171t1 I ft Jul H till)7r \ I 1 N1 `+ a HY nej 1 o r do Z 8v9 31 h VNJ ' — r S F 6� � z I b„ r y 1 _ - rtl w . u P v rD la3Q b3Bt� r _ 1 L- '1 r7_ 1_ •1_ tZ_J Y -< -, y -1 Ar/Syr - J to 7C a1 ro H ro C" - -- z D -< V " ' S roronz n a o t� z a s ro to cn o n n 4� /! < ,-_NI V w w r< n n ] T Ili ON ' . N1H x 4r! w w a. rS cn Ot W , r-- )k 10. -- ..�. A. �- 0 n i7 jt f li li — O0. (n ro 0() 75- c Nr flib '� r 0 (o 0 a ro ro (D rl OQ -j M a Z I{ b (D w rY '< ID r i v �a7 g ► ° ° a p z s•.• �� I t1r3 'if. '• 1't l r _ 'n`(s rhz ra1 00 y n3 ,o _ ( L , 'Y 9 " is M o n l,p•� J of � W od to bo c o 0 ro rtew 7 1Y �. r �,»b ((DD n r :j (�D "U GI t: r 1? lHt 1 7[]1 'I^�D ollnu�oN ,• �U r , f = S rn r. ,Qt1,' .. Hrl ��1 '0,. �'' o DCAI Nt1S v PART V IMPACTS OF RELOCATION A. Port If the U.P. yard is obtained or the Carroll St. yard is constructed the impact on the Port would not be substantially different from their operation at present. - Operating to the U.P. yard would require the Port's Switching Contractor to obtain permission from the KCS to travel on their track to the interchange yard. The train Would have to travel along the KCS/Port connection back to the Port for distribution of the cars. The reverse would be required after cars are loaded or unloaded at the Port's facilities. Presentiv the Port's switching contractor is required to obtain permission from the KCS to cross their main line via the crossing diamond. B. Major Carriers 1. Union Pacific If the U.P. yard could be obtained to be used as an interchan,"e yard r the impact on the U.P. would be most favorable. They could interchange from their own track and schedule pickups and deliveries more efficiently. Since it is projected their volunie will increase to approximately 17,000 loaded cars annually it would seem to be to their ad-vantage to allow the Port use of this yard if at all possible. If the interchange yard is relocated to the Carroll St. area the U.P. would have to travel about the same distance they do now to serve the existing interchange yard. With more capacity there would be less switching of cars or doubling over in the pick up and delivery process. `?. KCS There would not be a significant impact on the KCS in their delivery of cars to the Port as the majority of these cars are interchanged at the Grain Holding Yard. The most involved change would be the construction of the connection between their main line in the vicinitV of Archie and Milan Streets, which would connect to the Port. As stated prior the Port's switching contractor would have to be able to operate on the KCS if the interchange point was at the U.P. yard. There would also have to be modifications to the crossing of the KCS and the U.P. (old S.P.) to alloy for access from the KCS to the yard. If the Carroll St. location is selected then the KCS would have to allow the U.P. and B\/SF to operate on their tracks to the connection to deliver and pick up cars at the interchange point. 13 3. Bti/SF - If the U.P. yard is obtained it would appear that the impact on the BNISF would be to their advantage. The distance to the interchange yard would be approximately the same as it is nor. Thev would not be required to take their train down the Long St. track,. which runs down the center of the street. The track appears to be in need of some rehabilitation and the maintenance is probably higher than normal. If the Carroll St. yard is selected the B\/SF would have a longer haul, but this still appears to be a better situation for their operation than the continued operation over the Long St. route. Trinity Industries will have to be served by the BN/SF if the interchange yard is relocated, but that can be accomplished as it is served now. If the BNISF lead remains through the interchange yard that would allow enough trackage for adequate service. It would appear that the Long St. track would have to remain, but the volume of traffic would be reduced to only those cars delivered to Trinity Industries. Another possible scenario would be to allow the Port's switching contractor to serve that industry from the Port, which would allow the BNISF to remove the Long St. trackage. This would require the B\/SF to interchange these cars with the Port also. C. Port's Switching Contractor If the interchange yard is relocated there would be a substantial change in the contractor's operation. At the Carroll St. location his operation would be simplified and switchin- efficiency should be increased. In addition if the Port experiences the traffic increases it expects, construction of additional trackage is imperative, which will help the switching operation be more efficient. If the U.P. yard is obtained the contractor would have to travel about the same distance as it travel now to interchange cars. The proposed route would be easier to maneuver than the existing because of lesser grades and curvature. The existing tracks were constructed vears ago with excessive cur:ature and grades which the heavier and longer equipment used today put undue strain on the track structure. This results in higher maintenance costs and the danger of derailments increases. The contractor would have to obtain permission from the KCS and U.P. to operate on their tracks if the U.P. yard was designated as the interchange point. 14 D. City If the interchange yard is relocated there would be a major reduction in rail traffic in the middle of downtown across Main St. :ill of the cars that are now delivered and picked up by the various parties would be handled at other locations. The only rail traffic still in the vicinity of the present interchange yard would be. the cars delivered to Trinity Industries and the cars that the Port would handle serving the docks at Transit Sheds 4,5,6 and T. It must be pointed out that all of the present rail traffic would be relocated to the K SlPom connection as shown on the plans. If the L.P. yard was obtained then the impact on the City would appear to be minimal. If the Carroll St. site was selected then the impact on the City would be more severe %vith the closing of parts of Carroll and Buford Street. If the acquisition of the riverfront property is most critical then the City must be willing to accommodate the Port's and Railroad's requirements to maintain efficient rail service to the Port. The relocation of the interchange yard -would be a long and protracted project involving mar.•: parties with differing opinions on how to best accomplish the end result. It would require very close cooperation from all parties and most certainly some give and take of positions. The city would have to analyze the traffic patterns of the affected streets and wort: with the Port and Railroad's to achieve the most efficient design of the track changes or construction. The signalized crossing protection systems are very expensive to install and require a heavy maintenance schedule so the least installations that are required the lower overall costs are. The flo%v of vehicular traffic is very important and the relocation of the yard would help immensely- in the area of plain St. and the ICS mainline. 15 PART VI PORT E.XPANSIO` A. Future Trackage Requirements With the increase of traffic in the near future the Port must address the need for additional trackage as soon as possible. The completion of a under track unloading facility will enable the port to begin exporting additional products in the near future. This increase is projected to be 10,000 cars annually. The existing switching and holding yard which consists of five tracks is proposed to be expanded as shown in vellow on the enclosed plan. This would enable the switching contractor to be more efficient and reduce his switching cost appropriately. A future expansion of the grain holding yard wiil become necessary in the coming years as the export grain business increases. This proposed expansion is shown in brown on the enclosed plan. These tracks can al-Qo be used for temporary storage of wood chips and aggregate cars prior to loading and/or unloading. B' Benefits of Expansion The Port of Beaumont is experiencing growth in the products handled by rail and existing facilities will not be sufficient for an efcient operation. If the expansion is not completed their competitive advantage will be reduced so that the rail business twill decline, which will have a rippling effect on the local economy. The military uses the Port as a shipping point for delivery and receipt of vehicles and equipment. This very important function of the Port becomes difficult to manage when the other parts of the Port are operating at full capacity. The expansion of the Port rail facilities would alleviate these conditions also. We believe it is imperative to the future growth of the Port and the local economy that the plans for the expansion of the Port's rail facilities be finalized, funded and scheduled. C. Cost Estimates 1. Switching Yard Track Construction 17,000 tf. C 5150.00 S2,550,000.00 Turnouts 18 ea. @ S20,000.00 360,000.00 Grading LS r S 175,000.00 175,000.00 Contingencies 41-5.000.00 TOTAL EST. COST $3,500,000.00 16 2. Grain Holding Yard (brown) Track Construction 14,000 tf. @ $150.00 - 2,100,000.00 Turnouts 14 ea. @ $20,000.00 280,000.00 Grading LS @ $150,000.00 150,000.00 Contingencies 370.000.00 TOTAL EST. COST $2,900,000.00 17 CONCLUSIONS - In line wick the objectives of the study- we have reach the following three conclusions: 1. The combined forces of the Citv and the Port should begin negotiations with the Union Pacific to obtain the use or purchase of the old Southern Pacific Yard. This would require construction of the KCS - Port connection as shown. This scenario would allow the present interchange yard to be retired and the property- be used for other purposes This appears to be the most feasible of all solutions, but would require the utmost cooperation between the City, Port and all three Railroad's. The cite would need to study the impact of the KCS - Port connection on the traffic patterns in that vicinity and make the necessary adjusts-cents. 2. The Carroll St. location for a new interchange yard is feasible from an engineering standpoint and would accommodate the Port's needs very well. The negatives of this location is the impact on the neighborhood and the necessary closure of parts of Buford and Carroll Streets. There would be substantial rail traffic in a new area, which would initiate resistance from the area residents we suspect. This solution would also require the railroad's to use the connection from the ICS to the Port instead of only the switching contractor as stated above. 3. Leave the interchange yard at its existing location and with the increase of rail traffic in and out of the Port exacerbate the rail and vehicular traffic congestion in downtown Beaumont. \Ve believe that this solution would reduce the growth of business at the Port and in turn stifle the overall economic well being of the City. «'e believe that inaction in this matter would be the worst course that all of the concerned parties could take. It is our recommendation that a combined discussion group of representatives from the Cite, the Port and the three Railroad's should be organized as soon as possible, and meetings scheduled to obtain each parties input on the proposed objectives of the study. Each party will have to be willing to have the interest of the overall viability and growth of the rail traffic to the Port as the main goal if substantial progress is to be made in the discussions. As stated the objective is an attainable goal if all parties work together for the good of the Port and the economy of the area. IS INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Beaumont,Texas Finance Date: October 27, 1999 To: Stephen J. Bonczek,City Manager j l; qq lv From: Beverly Hodges,Finance Officer g Subject: Investment Policy CONEMENTS Request that the City Council review the City of Beaumont Investment Policy as amended at the scheduled workshop on November 2, 1999. The City's current policy was adopted on September 26, 1995 with amendments on October 29, 1996,October 28, 1997 and November 3, 1998. State law mandates the City Council review and approve any modifications to the policy on an annual basis. Most of the changes to the Public Funds Investment Act that became effective September 1, 1999 did not directly affect the City of Beaumont. The only law change which applied to the City's policy related to clarification of training requirements for investment officials. The only other change to the current policy is the addition of the City Manager as an investment official. No changes were made to the investment policy regarding authorized investments for the City or maximum maturities. Attached is a copy of the City's revised investment policy. For your convenience,certain sections of the policy have been highlighted to denote recommended changes. EXHIBIT "D" City of Beaumont, Texas ...................................................................................................................... Investment Policy ...................................................................................................................... Adopted by Resolution of City Council on September 26, 1995 Amended October 29, 1996 October 28, 1997 November 3, 1998 1999 City of Beaumont - Investment Policy Table of Contents I. Introduction..........................................................................................................1 H. Scope.....................................................................................................................I III. Prudence...............................................................................................................1 N. Objectives............................................................................................................. 1 A. Safety of Principal.................................................................................... 2 B. Liquidity................................................................................................... 2 C. Yield..........................................................................................................2 V. Delegation of Authority....................................................................................... 2 VI. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest........................................................................... 3 VII. Training............................................................... ...................3 .............................. VIII. Selection of Financial Dealers, Institutions and Investment Pools.....................3 A. Broker/Dealers..........................................................................................4 B. Public Depositories................................................................................... 4 C. Investment Pools.......................................................................................5 IX. Authorized and Suitable Investments..................................................................5 X. Marking to Market...............................................................................................6 XI. Collateral ization....................................................................................................6 XII. Safekeeping and Custody.....................................................................................7 XIII. Diversification.......................................................................................................7 XIV. Investment Strategies...........................................................................................8 A. Pooled Fund Groups.................................................................................8 i Table of Contents B. Debt Service Funds...................................................................................8 C. Debt Service Reserve Funds.....................................................................8 XV. Internal Control....................................................................................................9 XVL Performance Standards........................................................................................9 XVII. Reporting..............................................................................................................9 XVIII.Investment Policy Adoption.................................................................................9 Glossary..........................................................................................................................10 Exhibits Exhibit A - Authorized Investment Officials................................................................A1 Exhibit B - Statement of Ethics and Conflicts of Interest............................................B1 Exhibit C-Approved List Broker/Dealers, Financial Institutions and Inv. Pools.....C1 Exhibit D - Certification By Business Organization....................................................D1 ii City of Beaumont Investment Policy I. Introduction It is the policy of the City of Beaumont to invest public funds in a manner which will ensure that the investments are duly authorized, properly managed, adequately protected and fully collateralized. The City shall seek the highest investment return with the maximum security while meeting daily cash needs and conforming to the City Charter, the Public Funds Investment Act (Chapter 2256, Government Code as amended) and all other state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. II. Scope This investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City as accounted for in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. These include General, Special Revenue, Debt Service, Capital Projects, Enterprise, Internal Service and Fiduciary Funds. All are pooled for investment purposes except debt service and debt service reserve funds. Interest is allocated monthly to each fund based on its individual cash balance. III. Prudence Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under prevailing circumstances, that a person of prudence, discretion, and intelligence would exercise in the management of the person's own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of capital and the probable income to be derived. The "prudent person" standard shall be applied in the context of managing the total portfolio rather than a single investment providing that the decision was consistent with this investment policy. (Section 2256.006, Government Code) Investment officials acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes provided that deviations from exceptions are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. IV. Objectives The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City's investment activities shall be preservation and safety of principal, liquidity and yield. (Section 2256.006, Government Code) I City of Beaumont - Investment Policy A. Safety of principal The City of Beaumont has as its foremost objective to ensure the safety of principal. Investments of the City shall be undertaken in a manner that seek to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. To attain this objective diversification is required in order to eliminate an over-concentration of assets in one institution, maturity or type of securities. B. Liquidity The City's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. The portfolio shall be constructed so that investment maturities are matched with forecasted cash flow requirements and limited by investments in securities with an active secondary market. C. Yield The City's investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a rate of return which is consistent with risk limitations and cash flow characteristics of the City's investments. V. Delegation of Authority Authority to manage the City's investment program is derived from the City Charter (article VII, section 1-2). The Charter designates the City Manager as Director of Finance who shall have custody of all public funds, investments, bonds and notes of the City and be responsible for their safekeeping. The City Manager shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy which include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. The City Manager shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. Each "investment official" shall be approved by resolution of City Council to invest the City of Beaumont's funds. As shown in exhibit "A", 1he City Afamiger, the Finance Officer and the City Treasurer are currently approved as investment officials of the City of Beaumont. Such approval of specific persons shall remain in effect until rescinded by the City Council or until termination of the person's employment by the City of Beaumont. Investment officials shall not deposit, withdraw, transfer or manage the funds of the City of Beaumont in a manner that is not consistent with the "prudent person" standard as described in section III of this policy. (Section 2256.005 (f)-(h), Government Code) 2 City of Beaumont - Investment Poficy VI. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Investment officials shall disclose any personal business relationships with business organizations approved to conduct investment transactions with the City of Beaumont as described in Section 2256.005 (i)(1-3) of the Government Code. They shall also disclose any specific individuals who seek to sell investments to the City and are related to the employee within the second degree by affinity or consanguinity, as determined under Chapter 573. Disclosure shall be Bled with the Texas Ethics Commission and the City Council of the City of Beaumont. An ethics statement signed by each investment official is attached as exhibit "B". VHL Training Each investment official of the City of Beaumont shall attend as least le;i (lll) hours of training sz rt relating to investment: req on ihihlics within 12 months after assuming l such duties uric!shall coiili;uie to allciul an i;n'eslinew lrali/mg ses.-;W,i ;iol le.,o- than office every iivo years lherecrfler c.•oitsisl!f1s; of al /east le;; (Ill) how-s of iii,cli uclioi;. Training shall be in accordance with the Public Funds Investment Act and include education in investment controls, security risks, strategy risks, market risks, and compliance with state statutes governing the investment of public funds. y�1�-':S`tt99tt[t—tfi'dt191i1J ;i�.ti:;iClil-i�Oi . .. .. '.iiiii% i.... .,•.t'i'• _i• . -;'l,'�i ' '[il%;i'::::: ., ,}Ht� it iiS.. i l %il ;i; i _. iiii ,ill ;k7";I'li){It�"1�5 /Ill % lraitihig shall he coiichicletl by ,; an independent source which has been approved by City Council. (Section 2256.008, Government Code) The Government Treasurers Organization of Texas, the Government Finance Officers Association of Texas, the Texas Municipal League and the University of North Texas are hereby approved as "independent sources" who may provide such training to investment officials. VIII. Selection of Financial Dealers, Institutions and Investment Pools Authorized investments shall only be purchased from those institutions included on the City's list of broker/dealers, financial institutions and investment pools as approved by the City Council. An "approved list", as shown in exhibit "C", shall be maintained by investment officials at all times and reviewed by the City Council on an annual basis. (Section 2256.025, Government Code) 3 City of Beaumont - Investment Policy Any business organization which seeks to execute investment transactions with the City of Beaumont shall provide a written instrument certifying that they have received and thoroughly reviewed the City's investment policy and have implemented reasonable procedures and controls in a effort to preclude investment transactions that are not authorized by this policy. The certification, as shown in exhibit"D", must be signed by a qualified representative of the business organization. Investment officials shall not buy any securities from a firm which has not filed this instrument. (Section 2256.005 (k)-(I), Government Code) A. Broker/Dealers The City shall select broker/dealers by creditworthiness and may include "Primary Government Securities Dealers" or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). Broker/dealers selected must be members in good standing of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) and be licensed-by the State of Texas. The minimum capital requirement is $10,000,000 and the business must have been in operation for at least five years. Firms who desire to become approved bidders for investment transactions must supply the City with audited financial statements, a trading agreement and other information regarding their capabilities, experience, general reputation, size and capitalization. Each firm will be reviewed by investment officials and a recommendation made for approval by City Council. B. Public Depositories The City Council shall select a primary depository every three years. The primary depository as authorized by the City Council shall meet all requirements of the state law concerning depositories for municipal funds. (Chapter 105, Government Code) The institution offering the most favorable terms and conditions for the handling of City funds shall be selected as the depository. The City Council may also establish agreements with financial institutions under separate contract for additional services which are necessary in the administration, collection, investment, and transfer of municipal funds. (Section 105.018, Government Code) Financial institutions who desire to become approved bidders for investment transactions shall submit information similar to that of a broker/dealer as described above (section VIII-A). No deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by State Law. The City of Beaumont shall not place deposits or investments with Saving and Loan Associations or Credit Unions. 4 City of Beaumont - Investment Policy C. Investment Pools Investment officials may invest funds of the City of Beaumont through an eligible investment pool with specific approval by resolution of City Council and execution of a written agreement. To become eligible, investment pools must first meet all requirements of State Law. They shall provide the City with an offering circular which contains specific and detailed information and provide detailed monthly transaction and performance reports. Pools shall have advisory boards composed of qualified members representing participants and non-participants who do not have a business relationship with the pool. (Section 2256.016 - 2256.019, Government Code) Before selection, pools shall be thoroughly reviewed and evaluated by investment officials. Annually, a review of the financial condition and registrations of approved bidders will be conducted by investment officials. A current audited financial statement is required to be on file for each financial institution, broker/dealer or investment pool in which the City of Beaumont invests. IX. Authorized and Suitable Investments Authorized investments for municipal governments in the state of Texas are set forth in the Public Funds Investment Act, as amended. (Section 2256.009-2256.019, Government Code) Suitable investments for the City of Beaumont are limited to the following: ♦ Direct Obligations of the United States Treasury with a maximum stated maturity date of 5 years or less. ♦ Certificates of deposit issued by approved depository banks as described above (section VIII-B) which have a maximum stated maturity date of 5 years or less and are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or their successors; or secured by obligations that are described in Section 2256.009(a) of the Government Code. ♦ Fully collateralized direct repurchase agreements with a defined termination date of 90 days or less which are secured by obligations of the United States or its agencies and instrumentalities and pledged with a third party other than an agent for the pledgor. Investment officials may invest in repurchase agreements through an approved primary government securities dealer or an approved depository bank as described above (section VIII-A, B). Each issuer of repurchase agreements shall be required to sign a master repurchase agreement. 5 City of Beaumont - Investment Polie} ♦ No load money market mutual funds registered with and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission with a dollar weighted average stated maturity of 90 days or less whose assets consist exclusively of direct obligations of the United States and whose investment objectives include the maintenance of a stable net asset value of S 1 per share. Money market mutual funds must provide the City with a prospectus and other information required by the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Section 2256.014 (a), Government Code) and be specifically approved by City Council or purchased through the City's primary depository as an overnight investment tool. ♦ Approved investment pools as described above (section VIII-C) which are continuously rated no lower than A-AA, AAA-m or an equivalent rating by at least one nationally recognized rating agency an d have a weighted average maturity no greater than 90 days. X. Marking to Market All treasury securities and certificates of deposit will be purchased or sold after at least two (2) offers or bids are taken to verify that the City is receiving a fair market value or price for the investment. The market value shall continue to be monitored at least quarterly through on-line investment software to which the City subscribes, the wall street journal or some other recognized market pricing source. The City of Beaumont shall not obtain market pricing from business organizations who may engage in investment transactions with the City. XI. Collateralization Collateralization will be required on all deposits, certificates of deposit and repurchase agreements. The collateral ization level shall be equal to at least one hundred two percent (102%) of the aggregate market value of the deposit or investment including accrued interest less an amount insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Evidence of the pledged collateral shall be documented by a tri-party custodial or a master repurchase agreement with the collateral pledged clearly listed in the agreement. Collateral shall be reviewed monthly to assure that the market value of the securities pledged equals or exceeds the related deposit or investment balance. Collateral requirements shall be in accordance with both the Public Funds Investment Act and the Public Funds Collateral Act (Chapter 2256 and 2257, Government Code). Collateral underlying repurchase agreements is limited to direct obligations of the United States or its agencies and instrumentalities. The City of Beaumont shall accept a surety bond or the following investment securities as collateral on deposits and certificates of deposit: ♦ Direct obligations of the United States or its agencies and instrumentalities. 6 City of Beaumont - Investment Policy ♦ Direct obligations of this state or its agencies and instrumentalities. ♦ Collateralized mortgage obligations directly issued by a federal agency or instrumentality of the United States and excluding those mortgage backed securities considered a high-risk mortgage security as described by Section 2257.0025 of the Government Code as well as those of the nature described by section 2256.009 (b) of the Government Code. ♦ Other obligations which are guaranteed or backed by the full faith and credit of this state or the United States or their respective agencies and instrumentalities. ♦ Obligations of states, agencies, counties, cities and other political subdivisions rated not less than A or its equivalent. XII. Safekeeping and Custody Collateral shall be placed for safekeeping in a custodial account at the Federal Reserve Bank or at an institution not affiliated with a firm pledging collateral. All safekeeping arrangements shall be in accordance with a tri-party custodial agreement which clearly defines the responsibilities of each party and outlines the steps to be taken in order for the City to gain access to the collateral in the event of a "failure". The custodial agreement shall be executed between the City, the firm pledging the collateral and the custodial institution. All safekeeping receipts shall be delivered to the City and all collateral (whether a pledge or substitution) shall be formally accepted and released by City Council. All security transactions, including collateral for repurchase agreements, entered into by the City shall be conducted on a delivery-versus-payment (DVP) basis. That is, funds shall not be wired or paid until verification has been made that the correct security was received by the safekeeping institution. Pool funds and mutual funds are excluded from this requirement. The security shall be held in the name of the City or on behalf of the City. XIII. Diversification The City of Beaumont will diversify its investments to eliminate an over-concentration of assets in any one security type or institution. ♦ Up to ninety percent (90%) par of the portfolio may be invested in direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury. ♦ No more than fifty percent (50%) par of the portfolio may be invested in certificates of deposit or repurchase agreements. 7 City of Beaumont - Investment Poliev ♦ No more than eighty percent (80%) par of the portfolio may be invested in investment pools or money market mutual funds. ♦ No more than twenty five percent (25%)par of the portfolio may be invested with any one institution in certificates of deposit and/or repurchase agreements. Additionally, these investments shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the capitalization of the financial institution. XIV. Investment Strategies The City of Beaumont shall maintain a separate investment strategy for each of the three fund types represented in the portfolio. (Section 2256.005,(d), Government Code) A. Pooled Fund Groups Investment strategies for pooled fund groups containing operating funds have as their primary objective to ensure that anticipated cash flows are matched with adequate investment liquidity. Securities purchased shall not have a final stated maturity date which exceeds two (2) years from the date of purchase without specific approval by the City Council. The dollar weighted average maturity of the portfolio shall not exceed 365 days as calculated using the stated final maturity dates of each security. B. Debt Service Funds Investment strategies for debt service funds shall have as their primary objective to ensure that investments mature as necessary to cover the debt service obligation on the required payment date. The stated final maturity date on securities purchased shall not exceed the debt service payment date unless excess funds are available. In that case, maximum maturities shall not exceed two (2) years from the date of purchase and the dollar weighted average maturity of the portfolio shall not exceed 365 days as is consistent with investment strategies for operating funds. C. Debt Service Reserve Funds Investment strategies for debt service reserve funds shall have as their primary objective to seek the highest investment return with maximum security in order to produce a dependable revenue stream to the appropriate fund. Securities shall be invested in accordance with specific bond ordinances and shall not have a stated maturity date which exceeds the final maturity date of the bonds. At no time shall maximum maturities exceed five (5) years from the date of purchase. 8 City of Beaumont - Investment Policy XV. Internal Control The City of Beaumont, in conjunction with its annual financial audit shall perform a compliance audit of management controls on investments and adherence to the City's investment policy. (Section 2256.005(m), Government Code) XVI. Performance Standards The City intends to pursue an active versus a passive portfolio management philosophy. That is, securities may be sold before they mature if market conditions present an opportunity for the City to benefit from the trade. The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of obtaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles which is consistent with risk limitations and cash flow needs of the City . Given this strategy, the basis used by investment officials to determine whether market yields are being achieved shall be the average return on 90 day U.S. Treasury Bills. XVII. Reporting Investment officials shall submit a monthly report to City Council summarizing the results of the City's investment activity. This report shall include the status of the current portfolio position, performance, trading activity, interest earnings and collateral. A quarterly report shall be submitted to the City Manager, as Chief Executive Officer, and the City Council detailing investment transactions and performance for the reporting period in accordance with state law. (Section 2256.023, Government Code) The report shall be jointly prepared and signed by all investment officials. It shall include a summary statement prepared in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles for each fund type and a detailed listing that states the beginning market value, changes to the market value, ending market value and fully accrued interest for the period. In addition, investment officials shall report on adherence to the City's investment strategies as expressed in this policy. The quarterly reports shall be formally reviewed by the City's independent auditor on an annual basis and the results of the review shall be reported to City Council. (Section 2256.023, (d), Government Code) XVIII.Investment Policy Adoption The City's investment policy is hereby adopted by resolution of the City Council on September 26, 1995. The City Council shall review and approve any modifications to the policy on an annual basis. This policy serves to satisfy the statutory requirement to define and adopt a formal investment policy as set forth in Section 2256.005 of the Government Code. 9 Glossary Accretion: Adjustment of the difference between the price of a bond bought at a discount and the par value of the bond. Accrued Interest: Interest due from the last interest payment to the present day. Amortization: The reduction of principal (of debt) at regular intervals. Basis Point: 1/100th of 1% or .O1%. Book Value: The original acquisition cost of an investment plus or minus the accrued amortization or accretion. Broker: A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission. Cash Forecasting: Longer-term (one month or longer) prediction of cash flows, typically focusing on the aggregate cash position. In contrast, cash scheduling focuses on shorter-term predictions, emphasizing cash position management. Certificate of Deposit (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate. Collateral: Assets pledged to secure deposits, investments or loans. Collateral Mortgage Obligation (CMO): Multi-class security collateralized by whole loans or regular mortgage securities whose cash flows are paid through to meet debt service on the CMO bond. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR): The official annual report for the City of Beaumont. Credit Risk: The risk that a counterparty to an investment transaction will not fulfill its obligations. Credit risk can be associated with the issuer of a security, with a financial institution holding deposits or with parties holding securities or collateral. Credit risk exposure can be affected by a concentration of deposits or investments in any one investment type or with any one counterparty. Dealer: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account. Delivery Versus Payment (DVP): There are two methods of delivery of securities: delivery versus payment and delivery versus receipt. Delivery versus payment is delivery of securities with an exchange of money for the securities. Delivery versus receipt is a delivery of securities with an exchange of a signed receipt for the securities. 10 Glossary Discount: The difference between the cost price of a security and its maturity value when quoted at lower than face value. Diversification: Dividing investment funds among a variety of securities offering independent returns. Dollar Weighted Average Maturity: Represents the average number of days remaining until the final maturity.date, appropriately weighted by the dollar amount.of each security in the portfolio. Federal Aeency Securities (agencies): Discount and coupon obligations of the federal agencies that were established by Congress to provide credit to specific sectors of the economy. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal institution that insures deposits of federally chartered banks, currently up to $100,000 per deposit. Federal Reserve Bank: The central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional banks and about 5,700 commercial banks that are members of the system. Investment Pool: An entity created to invest public funds jointly on behalf of the entities that participate in the pool. Liquidity: A liquid asset is one that can be converted easily and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. Market Risk: The risk that the market value of an investment, collateral protecting a deposit or securities underlying a repurchase agreement will decline. Market risk is affected by the length to maturity of a security, the need to liquidate a security before maturity, the extent to which collateral exceeds the amount invested and how often the amount of collateral is adjusted for changing market values. Market Value: The current face or par value of an investment multiplied by the net selling price of the security as quoted by a recognized market pricing source quoted on the valuation date. It is the price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold. Master Repurchase Agreement: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party's rights in the transactions. Maturity: The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable. Par Value: Face amount or 100% of the principal amount of a security at original issue. 11 Glossary Pooled Fund Group: An internally created fund of an investing entity in which one or more institutional accounts of the investing entity are invested. Portfolio: Collection of securities held by an investor. Premium: The difference between the price of a bond and its value at maturity when the price is higher than the maturity value. Primary Dealer:- A group of government securities dealers who submit daily reports of market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers include Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) - registered securities broker-dealers,banks, and a few unregulated firms. Principal: The amount of debt remaining on a loan. On the date a loan is originated, or issued, the total amount equals the initial principal balance. Prudent Person Rule: An investment standard. In some states the law requires that a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state - the so-called legal list. In other states the trustee may invest in a security if it is one which would be bought by a prudent person of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital. Qualified Public Depositories: A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem takes under the laws of this state, which has segregated for the benefit of the commission eligible collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been approved by the Public Deposit Protection Commission to hold public deposits. Qualified Representative: A person who holds a position with a business organization who is authorized to act on behalf of the business organization. If the business organization is regulated by or registered with a securities commission then the qualified representative must be a person who is registered under the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers. If the business organization is a banking institution then the person must be a member of the loan committee or a person authorized by corporate resolution to act on behalf of and bind the banking institution. For an investment pool, the person must be authorized by the elected official or board with authority to administer the activities of the investment pool and to sign the written instrument on behalf of the investment pool. Rate of Return: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. See yield. 12 Glossary Repurchase Agreement (RP or REPO): A holder of securities sells these securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date. The security "buyer" in effect lends the "seller" money for the period of the agreement, and the terms of the agreement are structured to compensate him for this. Dealers use RP extensively to finance their positions. Exception: When the Fed is said to be doing RP, it is lending money, that is, increasing bank reserves. Safekeeping: A-service to customers rendered by banks for a fee whereby securities and valuables of all types and descriptions are held in the bank's vaults for protection. Secondary Market: A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC): Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation. Sec Rule 15C3-1: See Uniform Net Capital Rule. Settlement Date: The date agreed upon by the parties to a transaction for the payment of funds and the delivery of securities. Stated Maturity: A predetermined final maturity date that cannot be altered by prepayments. Treasury Bills: A non-interest bearing discount security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, or one year. Treasury Notes: An interest bearing security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most notes are issued to mature in one to ten years. Interest is paid semi-annually. Treasury Securities: "Full faith and credit" obligations of the U.S. Government issued by sale at periodic auctions, delivered and cleared electronically. Uniform Net Capital Rule: Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1; also called net capital rule and net capital ratio. Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among members of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash. Yield: The rate of annual income return on an investment, expressed as a percentage. (a) INCOME YIELD is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. (b) NET YIELD or YIELD TO MATURITY is the current income yield minus any premium above par or plus any discount from par in purchase price, with the adjustment spread over the period from the date of purchase to the date of maturity of the bond. 13 EXHIBITS Exhibit A City of Beaumont Authorized Investment Officials Approved by City Council on 1999, resolution number 9-7-2-39 Beverly Hodges, Finance Officer Kandy Daniel, Treasurer Al Exhibit B City of Beaumont Statement of Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Investment officials for the City of Beaumont shall refrain from personal business relationships with business organizations that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. This would only apply to personal business relationships with business organizations which have been approved by City Council to conduct investment transactions with the City of Beaumont. An investment official is considered to have a personal business relationship with a business organization if: (1) The investment official owns 10 percent or more of the voting stock or shares of the business organization or owns $5,000 or more of the fair market value of the business. (2) Funds received by the investment official from the business organization exceed 10 percent of the investment official's gross income for the previous year. (3) The investment official has acquired from the business organization during the previous year investments with a book value of$2,500 or more for the personal account of the investment official. I do hereby certify that I do not have a personal business relationship with any business organization approved to conduct investment transactions with the City of Beaumont nor am I related within the second degree by affinity or consanguinity, as determined under Chapter 573, to an individual seeking to sell an investment to the City of Beaumont as of the date of this statement. City of Beaumont Investment Officials Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager Date Beverly Hodges, CPA, Finance Officer Date Kandy Daniel,Treasurer Date BI Exhibit C City of Beaumont Approved List Broker/Dealers, Financial Institutions and Investment Pools October 1, 19989 Business Organization Approval Date Resolution Number Broker/Dealers: Chase Securities March 19, 1996 96-64 Urrllcall-ll�illianl.c, 111c. !l'k w 11, 1999 99-1-16 1'l!'.';/ (111101] Se[:111'll1es, llle. 1 I[I1' 1 I. 19'%9 .'�'- i 46 (forwerl)) l;werell Securaie.$) Prudential Securities February 13, 1996 96-44 Public Depositories: Primary Depository Nihel-nia Nalirulal Btwk August 5, 1997 97-17 j (Ibl•nlerly Chase Bank of Texas, N.A.) (Contract Period 10/1/1997 - 9/30/2000) Other Depositories Prime Bank December 6, 1994 94-331 Investment Pools: Logic Investment Pool March 4, 1997 97-45 Texpool November 6, 1996 96-273 C1 Exhibit D City of Beaumont Certification By Business Organization This certification is executed on behalf of the City of Beaumont (the Investor) and (the Business Organization) pursuant to the Public Funds Investment Act, Chapter 2256, Texas Government Code (the Act) in connection with investment transactions conducted between the Investor and the Business Organization. The undersigned Qualified Representative of the Business Organization hereby certifies on behalf of the Business Organization that: 1. The undersigned is a Qualified Representative of the Business Organization offering to enter an investment transaction with the Investor as such terms are used in the Public Funds Investment Act, Chapter 2256, Texas Government Code and 2. The Qualified Representative of the Business Organization has received and reviewed the Investment Policy furnished by the Investor and 3. The Qualified Representative of the Business Organization has implemented reasonable procedures and controls in an effort to preclude investment transactions conducted between the Business Organization and the Investor that are not authorized by the entity's investment policy, except to the extent that this authorization is dependent on an analysis of the makeup of the entity's entire portfolio or requires and interpretation of subjective investment standards. (Firm) Qualified Representative of the Business Organization (Signature) (Name) (Title) (Date) D1 AI INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM 1 --- City of Beaumont,Texas Parks and Rocrcation Date:October 28, 1999 TO: Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager FROM: Luke Jackson, Director, Parks and Recreation Department's SUBJECT: TYRRELL PARK'S HENRY HOMBERG GOLF COURSE CONTRACT COMMENTS The contract to operate the Henry Homberg Golf Course will expire on December 31, 1999. Andy Hebert, who is the golf pro at this golf course, is wanting to continue to operate this facility and is willing to make the following improvements, if his contract is renewed for 5 years with an option to renew for an additional 5 years: • Complete reconstruction of the greens with tiff dwarf grass putting surface built to U.S.G.A. specifications. This will be a major improvement because the current greens are over forty years old. • The tee boxes will be reduced in height and every hole would have two separate tee boxes, one for championship and regular play and another for seniors and ladies. Existing tee boxes are too small for the amount of play they receive, as well as only having one set of tees on several holes. • Upgrading the present irrigation system. This includes: A). Replacing the present pipeline structure and swingAoints on each fairway with PVC. B). Upgrading old sprinklers with new more efficient ones. C). Putting in new lines for Senior's and Ladies tees. Improvements of this nature will require that nine holes of the golf course would be out of service for approximately 4 to 5 months or until improvements are completed. However, once the improvements have been made it should increase play. Renewal of this contract was placed on the September 13, 1999 Parks and Recreation Advisory agenda for their recommendation and the committee unanimously voted to recommend to Council to renew the current contract with the Henry Homberg Golf Course for five years with an option to renew for an additional five years. They also recommended that City Council approve the EXHIBIT `E' Henry Homberg Golf Course -Tyrrell Park October 28, 1999 PAGE -2 improvements to the golf course. Estimated cost to do the above mentioned improvements would be approximately $60Q,000 , paid for completely by Andy Hebert, with no cost to the City. Henry Homberg Municipal Golf Course Renovation Proposal Submitted by: Andy Hebert PGA Head Professional Henry Homberg Municipal Golf Course October 28, 1999 The following proposal is being mentioned in coordination with a 5-year contract plus a 5-year extension for the Leasing of Henry Homberg Municipal Golf Course by Andy Hebert. Renovations are to be provided and contracted by Andy Hebert dba Henry Homberg Golf Course. 1. Complete renovation of existing greens. This is the 18 greens on the golf course plus the 2 practice greens. This process includes the following procedure: a. Removing the existing sod. b. Tilling the greens to break up any layer compacting of the soil. c. Adding 4"of greensmix to greens. d. Rough shaping of greens as to Andy Hebert's directions. Fumigating greens with Methyl Bromide to kill any existing root structure. f. Final shaping greens checking all grades with laser instrument. g. Preparing putting surfaces with for planting. h. Planting surfaces with Tifdwarf Bermudagrass sprigs. 2. Enlarging of existing tee boxes along with the addition of separate Senior's and Ladies tees where needed. This process includes the following procedure: a. Strip existing sod. b. Till tees with power rotovator. c. Enlarge designated tees. d. Slope subgrades of tees away from cart paths. e. Add an average depth of 4" bank sand on tee surfaces. f. Grade tees with a '/2 % slope away from cart paths with laser controlled box blade. g. Prepare all areas for planting. h. Plant surfaces with 419 Bermudagrass Sprigs. 2. Upgrading the present irrigation system. This includes: a. Replacing the present pipeline structure and swing-joints on each fairway with PVC. b. Upgrading old sprinklers with ne%v more efficient ones. c. Putting in new lines for Senior's and Ladies tees. Henry Hoinberg Municipal Golf Course Renovation Proposal The total cost of these projects is approximately $600,000.00 and will be provided by Andy Hebert. The only way of securing funds of this type by loan is with a pending contract of 10 years. They will except a 5-year contract with a 5-year renewal extension in lieu of a 10-year contract that is more favorable. My Credit rating is excellent in the local community and should carry sufficient weight in the loan process. The time line for the projects would start in late February or early March of 2000 with the completion of the first nine greens in Mid June or Early July and the completion of the second nine in September. There would be a 9-Hole golf course open at all times during construction so as to still maintain some revenue for business operations. After completion of the whole process the green fees which are$8.00 on weekdays and $9.00 on weekends would be increased to $9.00 and $11.00 respectively and current senior memberships would increase from $200.00 tax included to $250.00 plus tax. These will still be among the lowest rates in the area and country. The above mentioned is just a proposal for your consideration. If it is not acceptable please rest assured that the golf course will continue to be run and kept up in a very professional way with normal renovations as funds permit. Thank you for taking the time to take this into consideration. PGA Head Professional Andy Hebert Beaumont City Manager, Stephen Bonczek Dear Stephen Bonczek, I would like to take this time to introduce myself and give you an informal history of Henry Homberg Municipal Golf Course located in Tyrrell Park and my afffiation with it over the past 20+ years. My passion-for golf has been with me for 32 years now and it seems to deepen with every passing day. I started playing when I was seven years old with a group of juniors I grew up with in a small town south of Houston. A company called Te;;as Gulf, which was the biggest supplier of sulfur in the world at that time, owned the town. There were only about 5,000 residents and about 1,200 worked at the plant. The unique thing was that all the employees' families were allowed to play at the 9-hole golf course that was owned and maintained by the company. This is where my journey with golf started. In 1975, after living in that little town called Newgulf for about 10 years, our faniily moved to Beaumont. The first place I wanted to see was the local public golf course. I can remember seeing Tyrrell Park for the first time after church on a Sunday afternoon. There was a tournament going on and it was a perfect fall day. I also met Mr. Henry Homberg who I would later work for and admire. He had a great love for juniors and taught great patience and values. I learned many things from him that I would carry for the rest of my life. He was the professional from almost the opening of the golf course in the late 1930's up until the early 1980's when he retired due to physical illness. I had the privilege of working for Mr. Homberg in 1978 at what was then called Tyrrell Park Golf Course. I started out washing golf carts and doing various cleaning jobs around the pro shop. In 1982, when Mr. Homberg retired, Mr. Ronald Pfleider took over Tyrrell Park Golf Course which was renamed Henry Homberg Golf Course shortly thereafter. Mr. Pfleider moved me up to his assistant and then head professional in 1994. Earlier, in 1992,Mr. Pfleider had gone in on the purchase of another golf course and left me in charge of overseeing the total golf operation inside and out. It was a great learning experience for me with hands on education. On January 1, 1998 the City of Beaumont,with Ray Rile being the City in the contract, agreed to let me take over the remaining two years of Mr. Heider's contract that expires after December 31, 1999. The biggest change I experienced was a greater feeling of responsibility towards my staff and customers. This is sort of one of those American dream stories where you work your way from the bottom and eventually to the peak of your imagination. It has been a tremendous journey and I do not regret one moment of it. In my 20+ years here at the golf course, I have seen a constant goal of improvement and progression taken on by each leaseholder. There were some major improvements made back in 1985. The irrigation system was improved, concrete cart paths were put in, a cart storage facility was built, tee boxes were renovated and the pro shop was renovated. In the years that followed, it was clear to see that these improvements definitely helped. All of these projects were funded by the city I think to the amount of about $650,000. The lease payments over the past 14 years have more than taken care of the money that was used. Let me share some of vision that I see for this golf course. There are several areas of improvements that need to be made,but we can't always do everything we wish to do. Here are the major places for improvement. 1. The greens are over forty years old, some older. They have common bermuda grass on them, which is great for fairways and tees but not true as far as a putting surface goes. The drainage is poor on them and they need a rather large facelift. 2. The tee boxes are getting too small for the amount of play they receive as well as only have one set of tees on several of the holes. Every hole should have at least two separate tee boxes. One for championship and regular play and another for seniors and ladies. 3. Even though the irrigation system was renovated in 1985,the main lines down the fairways were not updated and are showing great signs of needing replacing. 4. The drainage on several of the holes is poor where the cart paths serve as sort of a dam to hold the water in instead of it being able to drain off. 5. A new maintenance barn is much needed. The current maintenance barn is actually an old horse barn that we use for storing our machinery and supplies for the grounds such as fertilizer. It is also located quite a ways away from the pro shop. 6. The pro shop needs some major work done on the inside. The slab has shifted so much that the ceilings on the inside are cracking. The space could be used much better also. We presented these items a couple of years ago to the parks department and they were pretty much pushed aside for one reason or another. It was sort of discouraging and yet eye opening at the same tune. I would find it a great pleasure to do these projects with my own finances but would need approximately ten years to pay them back and some kind of provision in lieu of a lease payment for the time that the golf course itself is closed during renovation. The cost back in late 1997 of these projects was estimated at $800,000 to complete and approximately 5 months of down time during the peak playing time of Mid-March through July. The greens were to be completely leveled and reconstructed with tilt-dwarf grass putting surfaces built to USGA specifications. The tee boxes, which are about three feet high in elevation right now, were going to be reduced in height but increased by over 60%in area along with the building separate tee boxes for seniors and ladies. The irrigation system was to be completely redone with the option of having a manual valve system like the one now or an automated system with timers. (I think the cost was about $14,000 more with the automated system). A new maintenance facftity was going to be built right by the current cart storage facility, which is behind the pro shop. The pro shop was going to be extensively renovated with a small grill and snack area included. (The current pro shop has a tremendous amount of wasted space and a separate sandwich stand outside). These projects could be done parts at a time but my thinking was do it all at once and open up with a completely new golf course and facility. We have done things in part before with some success but not to this scale. This is pretty much my vision for the golf course on a ten year scale. I have for a long time dreamed of being involved with hands on renovation of the golf course. I would find no greater pleasure in putting my time and efforts into the place that has nurtured me over the past 20+ years. 'Q" INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM - - City of Beaumont,Texas Parks and Recreation Date: August 24, 1999 To: Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager From: Luke Jackson, Director, Parks & Recreation Department Subject: TYRRELL PARK'S HENRY KOMBERG GOLF COURSE CONTRACT COMMENTS: Per your request, I have reviewed the correspondence sent to you by Andy Hebert of the Henry Homberg Golf Course facility. Contained within this facsimile was his vision for improvements to the golf course. I went to the golf course on Monday, August 23, 1999, and had a conversation with Andy about his visions and it was agreed that it might be too much to take on all at once. I recommended to Andy that he narrow his vision and include only items #1 and #2 and possibly item #3. This would mean that a five (5) year agreement would be acceptable and he would take care of these improvements out of pocket. If this is agreeable with you, the golf course would have to be worked on nine (9) holes at a time, which would mean closing down nine(9)holes for approximately three (3) to four(4) months. However, once the improvements have been made it should increase play. My plan is to put the renewal of the Henry Homberg Golf Course contract on the September 13, 1999 agenda for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee for their recommendation. If there is anything more that I should do, please advise. INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM WRE City of Beaumont,Texas Parks and Rocmtion Date: October 14, 1999 To: Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager From: Luke Jackson, Director, Parks & Recreation Department Subject: TYRRELL PARK'S HENRY HOM13ERG GOLF COURSE CONTRACT COMMENTS On Monday, September 13, 1999, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee met, with Andy Hebert, Henry Homberg's Golf Pro, and discussed his request to consider allowing him to operate the Henry Homberg Golf Course. During his presentation to the committee, he advised that he was willing to make improvements to the Henry Homberg Golf Course at no expense to the City. These improvements would include: • The greens are over forty years old, some older. They have common bermuda grass on them, which is great for fairways and tees but not true as far as a putting surface goes. The drainage is poor on them and they need a rather large facelift. These improvements would include reconstruction with tiff dwarf grass putting surfaces built to U.S.G.A. specifications. • The tee boxes are getting too small for the amount of play they receive as well as only having one set of tees on several of the holes. Every hole should have at least two separate tee boxes. The tee boxes will be reduced in height and every hole would have two separate tee boxes, one for championship and regular play and another for seniors and ladies. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee unanimously voted to recommend that the City renew the current contract with the Henry Homberg Golf Course and include an option to renew for another five (5) years. They also recommended the City approve the improvements to the golf course. The existing contract that is in force now will expire on December 31, 1999. If there is anything more that I should do, please advise.