MEETING MINUTES

Subject:                 Deerfield Regional Storm Water District

                              Storm Water Advisory Committee (SWAC)

                              Meeting No. 3

Meeting Date:        September 22, 2005

Location:               Deerfield Administrative Offices          

The second meeting for the Deerfield SWAC was held on September 22, 2005.  The items discussed and relevant points are detailed below.  Action items are indicated in bold.

1.      Mr. Calpin began the meeting with an introduction of the topics to be covered, including storm water financing and selection of a level of service for the Deerfield Regional Storm Water District’s (“DRSWD” or “the District”) storm water program. 

2.      Dr. Coleman presented a re-cap of the recent field trip where attendees visited a number of storm water problem areas throughout the District.  As a follow-up to the field trip, Mr. Elliott asked what the District’s authorities are regarding private property (i.e., does the District have authority to require a private property owner to fix a storm water problem).  Mr. Reichert added to the question by asking if the District has the ability to fix the problem and charge the property owner for the work.  ACTION ITEM:  CDM will consult with the District’s legal counsel, Albers and Albers, to obtain legal guidance on these issues.

3.      Mr. Calpin then re-visited the funding options in which the group expressed the most interest at the last meeting, including special watershed basins or districts, a storm water utility/user fee, and grant funds.  The special watershed basins or districts are beneficial in that the costs for dedicated projects are spread among those receiving the direct benefit and the method also provides a stable revenue source.  Disadvantages associated with this funding method include the fact that the districts may not be able to afford the increased service fee; revenues can only be spent within the district in which they are collected though this may not  be where storm water management funds are most needed; and allocation of the benefits (or costs) of storm water improvements to each property is a lengthy and cumbersome process that must be done for each district/basin.

4.      The utility user fee has the following benefits:  This method links the service provided to the fee for service; it is the most common user fee approach; it is the simplest option to administer (other than reallocating existing general funds); and it has sound legal standing in the state.  Disadvantages associated with the utility user fee include the following:  the fact that all residential properties typically pay the same flat fee presents an equity concern; residential properties pay the same rate per square foot of impervious area as non-residential properties; and a user fee requires the establishment of a new billing system or incorporation of the fee into an existing billing system (e.g., County tax duplicate or County water and sewer bill).

5.      Mr. Calpin then revisited the equivalent residential unit (ERU) concept introduced at the last meeting.  The ERU concept as the basis for a service fee involves the digital sampling of impervious area for a subset of all types of residential properties and calculation of the average impervious area per residential unit.  He also introduced the single family unit (SFU) concept where the SFU is the average impervious area for the single family home and is used as the base unit for billing in lieu of the ERU.  In most cases the SFU is usually larger than the ERU, resulting in commercial properties paying a smaller service fee under the SFU system.  Each non-residential property must have its impervious area measured since the impervious area values are too variable for these types of properties to support using an average to characterize groups of non-residential properties.

6.      As Mr. Calpin described the ERU determination, Mr. Elliott conveyed a billing related concern for condos.  He indicated that some of the condos have only a couple of water meters for a multi-unit building, so how would the property be billed?  Mr. Calpin responded that the condo owner/association would likely receive the bill(s) and would have the option of dividing the bill among the tenants/condo association members. 

7.      Mr. Calpin then described the calculation of total billing units and went through examples of ERU calculations for individual properties.

8.      Mr. Reichert asked about the possibility of credits against the service fee for ongoing storm water management at properties.  Mr. Calpin explained that credits require that detention/retention or other measures must be implemented and function above and beyond existing requirements in order to merit a credit.

9.      Mr. Calpin then transitioned to a discussion of the level of service for the District’s program and the projected draft costs per month per ERU.  Mr. Elliott asked about the PUDs and how they will be billed.  Mr. Calpin responded that the PUDs will likely be treated as a commercial use.  Mr. Brown indicated his position that PUDs do not produce income and should not be billed.  ACTION ITEM:  CDM will re-evaluate how PUDs have been addressed in the digitizing.

10.  Mr. Calpin presented the discussion of the tentatively identified capital improvement projects (CIPs) and described the rationale for each with most focus of the presentation on the Loveland Park and Landen Lake dredging projects.  The rationale for the equity of the draft budgetary figures allotted to the CIPs was based on the general geographic distribution of the projects throughout the District service area and the similar magnitude of allotments for each of the projects. 

11.  Mr. Calpin then described the various program budget scenarios, including a “recommended” program representing relatively aggressive O&M and CIP implementation schedules for $7.21 per month per ERU.  Two versions of a “moderate” program were shown, representing less aggressive O&M and CIP implementation schedules, with the second “moderate” program budget assuming that the CIPs would be done on a 20-year bond scenario instead of pay-as-you-go.  The first moderate program budget was associated with a service fee of $4.72 per month per ERU, while a 20-year bond scenario for the moderate program budget resulted in a service fee of $3.94 per month per ERU.   

12.  Mr. Farmer asked if the ERU costs could change over time.  Mr. Calpin responded that the rate could be re-evaluated and changed, but that the commonly used method for establishing rates is to establish a fee based on a five-year budget and then re-assess it every several years just as is commonly performed by public entities for other utilities such as water and sewer.

13.  Mr. Calpin asked what the group considered as an affordable fee.  Mr. Brown responded that $4.50/month seemed to be a reasonable fee.  Mr. Elliott recommended $5 to $5.25.  Regarding the CIP program Mr. Elliott also expressed interest in the pay-as-you-go method in lieu of the bonding option. 

14.  The group discussed how this range of fees compares to other communities in the areas.  Specific mention was made regarding the City of Mason, and Mr. Calpin indicated that at the inception of Mason’s fee they were subsidizing the utiliy with general funds.  ACTION ITEM:  CDM will check with Mason regarding how much their general fund subsidizes their utility and convert this to a monthly charge for comparison purposes.

15.  Mr. Brown asked if CDM stays on to help clients through the billing implementation process.  Mr. Calpin responded that CDM can typically stay involved for a couple of weeks following the initial billing, but we try to pre-empt any billing issues with education to the community regarding an upcoming service fee.  The group suggested using the Deerfield Digest to get out the message that a service fee is coming.

16.  ACTION ITEM:  At the request of the SWAC, CDM will prepare budget scenarios for $4, $5, and $6 per month per ERU for consideration at the next SWAC meeting.

17.  Mr. Calpin asked the SWAC about the possibility of credits and adjustments, whether the group recommended that the District should have a credit policy.  Mr. Calpin explained the basics of a credit policy.  Mr. Elliott asked whether credits apply to just non-residential properties.  Mr. Calpin explained that while residential credits can be implemented as part of a policy, residential credits typically involve more effort and cost to process than the monetary benefit realized to the residential ratepayer.  Mr. Brown asked how to incentivize a business to retrofit their properties with overdetention to be eligible for credits.   ACTION ITEM:  CDM will consult on national trends for the credit policy inclusion of incentives for retrofit BMPs.  Also, CDM will bring examples of credit policies to the next meeting.  The group supported the concept of a credit policy and wanted to see one drafted for DRSWD.

18.  Mr. Calpin prefaced the next meeting with the desire for the SWAC to come to a final recommendation.  The group reviewed the schedule and commented on perhaps delaying the billing until the spring to allow time for public education and outreach regarding an upcoming service fee.  ACTION ITEM:  CDM check on the implementation time with the county utilities (time to billing).   

19.  The meeting ended at approximately 8:30 p.m.