On the agenda

1. 1Call to Order - Roll Call▶ 0:00
2. 2

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “Florida Stormwater Association” — transcript expanded below

   Stormwater & Street Lighting Assessments Rate Studies

   discussed

   Ayers Associates presented updated five-year rate studies for the city's stormwater and street lighting non-ad valorem assessments. The consultants reviewed methodology, costs, and proposed billing units, including a new approach charging undeveloped parcels at 35% of one ERU based on hydrologic runoff analysis. Council discussed the history of the assessments, fairness of the impervious-area methodology, and prior decisions to remove these utilities as a drag on the ad valorem tax base.

   🏢Ayers Associates🏢Florida Stormwater Association🏢Pasco County👤Crystal Fierce👤Janice Ash👤Michael Stoffel👤Mr. Rivera👤Ms. Manz👤Rob#35% ERU charge for undeveloped parcels#Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)#Impervious area methodology#MS-4 permit#Stormwater Utility Assessment Rate Study#Street Lighting Assessment Rate Study

   ▶ Jump to 0:22 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:22] Our discussion item tonight is the stormwater and streetlight assessment rate [00:00:26] studies. Ms. Manz? [00:00:27] Yes sir, Mr. Mayor. [00:00:30] The first item before you [00:00:32] is the stormwater utility assessment [00:00:37] and as you know the city relies on a non-ad valorem assessment [00:00:43] to determine a method of [00:00:47] providing the funding necessary to support the utility. [00:00:52] The rate studies used to support [00:00:56] our current assessment, which was done for a [00:01:01] five-year period, ended in 2017. [00:01:05] As a result, the city has [00:01:09] contracted with Ayers Associates to perform an [00:01:13] updated rate study and [00:01:17] in order to continue the support of the stormwater [00:01:21] management program as part of that, [00:01:26] they have reviewed our methodology, identified costs, [00:01:30] and calculated a schedule. Mr. Rivera [00:01:34] and Mrs. Fierce worked with them [00:01:37] in that respect and I believe Mr. Rivera has a presentation for you this evening. [00:01:42] Am I right or am I wrong, Mr. Rivera? [00:01:46] Okay, that would be Crystal instead. They're taking turns [00:01:50] and tonight is apparently Mrs. Fierce's turn. [00:01:53] Thank you. Good evening. [00:01:58] The city manager has already explained the purpose [00:02:02] or objective of tonight, so at this time I want to [00:02:05] go ahead and introduce Janice Ash and Michael Stoffel of Ayers Associates [00:02:10] who performed the updated rate studies for us. They're here to present the [00:02:14] results of those [00:02:15] rate studies. [00:02:23] Thank you very much, city council members, and [00:02:26] appreciate the opportunity to do this work for you. Can you lower the mic just a little bit so everybody can hear you? [00:02:32] Is that better? I feel short. [00:02:37] I want to thank you very much for allowing us to be here. [00:02:40] What I'm going to do is just give you a little information about Ayers Associates [00:02:44] and then I'm going to turn it over to Mike [00:02:46] for all of the information. [00:02:49] Now I click with this? [00:03:06] Very good. Okay, so I'm Janice Ash and [00:03:09] Ayers Associates and Mike Stoffel is our [00:03:12] project manager for this. I've been [00:03:16] an engineer for 30 years and Ayers [00:03:19] brings on all the experience that comes with that, [00:03:23] doing water, wastewater. We've got [00:03:26] 13 offices in five states. We're a top 500 ENR company, [00:03:31] 290 employees, so we have a lot of resources for [00:03:35] the city of New Port Richey to use. [00:03:38] In fact, we are the city engineer. Ayers is [00:03:42] the city engineer. We do all the DRC reviews with Lease Affairs. [00:03:46] Our core services run from all different types of engineering [00:03:50] and particularly water, wastewater and utility engineering. [00:03:55] We have two offices in Tampa. We have Jacksonville and Titusville. That's our [00:03:59] Florida area, [00:04:01] southeast. Again, our utility design goes [00:04:04] all the way across, water, gas, sewer. [00:04:08] We represent many of the utilities in the Tampa Bay area. [00:04:13] So we do this type of work. [00:04:25] I'm going to turn it over to Mike. Thank you. [00:04:28] Thank you. As Jan mentioned, I'm Mike Stoffel, [00:04:31] an engineer out of the Eau Claire, Wisconsin office, [00:04:35] which is corporate headquarters. Glad to be here this evening and [00:04:40] actually enjoying the nice warm weather, as our forecast when I get back is a high of 50. [00:04:45] So I brought my wife down and she's [00:04:49] parked on a beach somewhere. I get to sit here and speak with you this evening. [00:04:54] As Jan mentioned, [00:04:57] we were hired to do the stormwater [00:05:02] and lighting rate assessment studies. [00:05:06] We reviewed the existing methodology [00:05:10] and looked at the costs and how the costs are allocated amongst the various [00:05:15] user groups. We tried to look at [00:05:19] identifying all the costs associated with the utility. [00:05:22] Not just what you have been assessing for to date, but [00:05:25] what is the total cost of the utility and are you recovering [00:05:30] through the assessment all of the costs of the utility or [00:05:35] are other funds subsidizing that utility. [00:05:39] To look at, in the next five years, what can you expect [00:05:43] those costs to be so that you can have a [00:05:46] set a rate that will hopefully recover those costs [00:05:51] and be able to not necessarily put it on the [00:05:54] general tax roll for the community. [00:05:58] Special assessments are [00:06:01] charges imposed against real property for essential services. [00:06:06] They're authorized by the home rule powers of the state. [00:06:09] You've got the authority to do that. [00:06:13] The things that you need to do in order for them to be upheld [00:06:17] is make sure that they convey a benefit to the property. [00:06:21] You don't have to prove what that benefit is, you just have to show that [00:06:25] there is a benefit for the service that you're providing. [00:06:28] You have to allocate that back to the property owners on a fair and [00:06:32] equitable basis. [00:06:34] You just can't say, okay, we think these guys should pay this much, [00:06:37] these guys should pay this much. [00:06:39] It has to be fair and equitable so that you can defend it. [00:06:45] The methodology, so the benefit area, the entire corporate limits of the city [00:06:50] benefit from these two utilities, both the storm water and the lighting. [00:06:55] We'll go through the revenue requirements and [00:06:57] then we'll also get into the billing units. [00:07:00] Residential in general, we worked with the existing assessment role in place for [00:07:07] the two utilities, and then for the undeveloped portion of the city, [00:07:11] we looked to Pasco County and analyzed their tax roll data [00:07:17] in order to define how many undeveloped properties there are and [00:07:22] the size and value of those properties. [00:07:25] So getting into the storm water, and feel free to interrupt me anytime. [00:07:31] No, no. [00:07:33] This is a working session, so if you have a question, [00:07:38] now is, or at the time we're going through it, pardon me? [00:07:42] Get in deeper. [00:07:43] Okay, so kind of a brief overview of storm water in Florida. [00:07:50] There's about 165 utilities within the state now. [00:07:55] Back in 2011, when you looked at this before, there was about 124. [00:08:00] So in the last five years, there's been an increase of about 40 in the state. [00:08:05] The Supreme Court consistently upholds that it is constitutional, [00:08:11] and so there are more and more people are utilizing them. [00:08:16] The public generally supports a user tax versus a general tax. [00:08:23] If you're paying for your share of the use of the utility, [00:08:28] people receive that better than if it's just a blanket tax, and [00:08:32] there's one person maybe benefiting more from the use of the utility than another. [00:08:38] If you pay based on the benefit that you receive, [00:08:42] the public is much more apt to accept that. [00:08:45] Unfunded mandates continue to increase as the EPA, the federal government, [00:08:51] the state government keeps passing down more and more regulations, [00:08:56] and freezes tax levies, as much of them do, [00:09:00] looking for other sources of revenue to fund the things that you're faced with as a city. [00:09:07] Today, there's roughly 70% of the utilities are utilizing the impervious area method. [00:09:14] That's down a little bit from 83% in 2011. [00:09:19] Other people are looking at gross areas versus just impervious areas, [00:09:24] so there's been a little shift in the way people are assessing, [00:09:28] but 70% of the people are still doing the impervious area method, [00:09:33] which is what you're utilizing for that. [00:09:36] The average ERU is just over... [00:09:38] Is that a fair methodology at 70% these days? [00:09:43] Is that a fair process? [00:09:46] I'm sure you're going to touch upon it in your calculations, [00:09:49] but you make a point of 70% method, and it was 83 back in 2011, [00:09:55] and then it all usually comes back to the question of fair and equitable. [00:10:00] Obviously, you see it from across the country, [00:10:03] some of the utilities you work with, all those kind of things. [00:10:07] Just trying to, I guess, get behind the curtain a little bit and... [00:10:13] Is it still a fair method? Yes. [00:10:15] Okay. [00:10:16] Seven out of 10 communities are still using that method [00:10:20] or adopting it as they adopt new utilities. [00:10:23] Impervious area means more runoff. [00:10:27] Higher density development means more runoff, [00:10:30] more pollution, more water to deal with. [00:10:32] Basically, impervious, meaning concrete, asphalt... [00:10:36] Buildings. [00:10:37] Buildings, those kind of things. [00:10:39] Because if you can describe it as impervious, [00:10:42] and people sometimes understand that, [00:10:45] or depending on the utility or how they want to use it. [00:10:48] Basically, it's the runoff that somebody creates from their property [00:10:52] into our area or to an adjacent property situation, correct? [00:10:58] Because Rob and I were on council back in 11 and 12 [00:11:03] when we actually took the bull by the horns with these two funds [00:11:08] because they hadn't been increased in over 10 years [00:11:11] and they were a drag on the ad valorem tax base. [00:11:14] And so, I believe, Mr. Mayor, [00:11:17] our first step collectively as a body back then [00:11:21] was to identify that we needed to get these two straightened out [00:11:26] to take them off a drain on the ad valorem side. [00:11:30] And that was one of the first elements or positive elements [00:11:33] that we thought would start to move the city from where it was [00:11:38] because we literally had to increase it by $30 or $35, [00:11:42] what people thought was highway robbery at the time. [00:11:45] Just another tax. [00:11:46] But it was a user fee on storm water, [00:11:51] which has become a big political football these days, [00:11:54] and the lighting. [00:11:55] But over and above that was we needed to take them [00:11:59] from being a hit on our ad valorem tax base [00:12:03] that we couldn't judge [00:12:05] and had to make some projections to balance that, [00:12:08] in my mind, to balance the playing field. [00:12:10] Is that correct? [00:12:10] Councilman, I believe you are substantially correct. [00:12:14] It was not a fun decision. [00:12:18] I think all of us at the time pretty much swore [00:12:20] that we would try to keep these things pretty close [00:12:23] to covering their own weight from that point forward. [00:12:27] And from the public perception, any time you can look at that [00:12:32] and say, you know, instead of just a blanket tax, [00:12:35] because there's many non-taxable properties that are out there, [00:12:38] you know, governmental, institutional, [00:12:41] religious organizations that aren't taxed, [00:12:44] but yet they're still contributing [00:12:46] to the storm water system. [00:12:48] They're still using the street lighting system, [00:12:50] benefiting from that. [00:12:52] And so when you can look at that and say, you know what, [00:12:55] instead of placing it all on the backs of our residents [00:12:58] or our businesses, we're going to spread this [00:13:01] out over everybody that's using it. [00:13:03] That by far is best or received the best. [00:13:09] Now, as long as you also show them that, okay, [00:13:13] we were able to take it off of this other area [00:13:16] so that you're not paying it here. [00:13:17] You're only paying it here now. [00:13:19] And that kind of part of the public education [00:13:22] and outreach as well. [00:13:23] Well, and then being able to show them [00:13:24] where the money was reinvested over those five years [00:13:27] on actual projects that whether they seem above ground [00:13:30] or below, continue to address an inherent problem [00:13:36] since we are at sea level or below. [00:13:38] And if we run into a full moon, high tide, [00:13:41] and hurricane and wind, we're not going to satisfy at all, [00:13:45] but we are at least have the elements to deal [00:13:48] with those runoff issues and water quality [00:13:51] when it runs off into those areas, [00:13:54] especially if it has negative impact nutrient criteria [00:13:57] or whatever for our river. [00:13:59] So there's a whole series of things that comes [00:14:01] into that play, I would believe. [00:14:03] And 20 years ago, cities weren't faced [00:14:05] with these requirements. [00:14:08] You know, they just, okay, let the water go [00:14:10] with where it will and mother nature controls it. [00:14:13] Now you're forced to deal with it. [00:14:18] So a couple other interesting things, [00:14:21] and all of this data at this point is coming [00:14:23] out of the Florida Stormwater Association. [00:14:27] They do a survey and in 2016, [00:14:29] these are the results of that survey. [00:14:32] The items in parentheses are from the survey in 2011, [00:14:36] which was in your last report. [00:14:39] So the average impervious area, [00:14:41] just over 2,800 square feet amongst all the people [00:14:44] that answered the survey that have utilities. [00:14:50] 2011, that average was just under 2,600 square feet. [00:14:54] Your average within the city is just over 2,600 square feet. [00:15:00] you're right in the middle with your average impervious area for residential. [00:15:04] Average revenue, now this is a little skewed because you're comparing million [00:15:11] dollar or million people communities versus 5,000 person communities. So [00:15:18] there's some utilities that are receiving tens of millions of [00:15:23] dollars in revenue, but the average is 3.66 which is down from 3.81 [00:15:29] in 2011. Yours last year was budgeted at just over a million. Are your numbers all [00:15:38] figured off of Florida as a marketplace or a national? This is just Florida. [00:15:43] Just Florida, okay. Thank you. This is coming out of the Florida Stormwater [00:15:46] Association survey. The annual average rate, and this is kind of a better [00:15:52] indicator as to how much an individual resident would expect to pay in your [00:15:58] city versus any other city in the state, 78.84 is the average around the [00:16:05] state of the people that answered the survey. That's up from 62.64 in 2011 and [00:16:13] your rates back in 2011 were 77.36. So at the time you were on the leading edge of [00:16:20] that average, now you're kind of falling right back to within the middle of that [00:16:24] average. But also remember that for 10 years we were at 30 or 40 dollars, so [00:16:30] those 10 years that we weren't, we were charging it, but the rest of the fee [00:16:37] that was being paid or the money out was coming out of the ad valorem channel [00:16:41] which you could not judge or could not direct in any fashion. It was kind of [00:16:47] whatever it was or whatever you were responding to. And real taxes were [00:16:52] supporting the things that you were doing. And then around the state [00:16:58] there's some communities that are only nine dollars a year and there's others [00:17:03] that are seven hundred and twenty dollars a year. So what we've seen is [00:17:10] what we've seen are some of the beach towns are higher and depending on the [00:17:16] size of the community as well. The smaller the community you may have just [00:17:20] as many costs but you have fewer people to spread that over. So your average goes [00:17:24] way up. So the city stormwater implemented back in 2001 and it was [00:17:34] developed with the impervious area measurements. The city has maintained [00:17:37] that database since that time. As properties develop or are undeveloped [00:17:46] the city maintains that assessment role. It's collected as part of the tax bill. [00:17:51] As you mentioned the rate for the first 11 years was $40 a year. Last time [00:17:59] it was set at $77.36. Previously and historically undeveloped parcels have [00:18:05] not been charged. And I'll go through, I'll touch on that going forward here. [00:18:10] We had a couple of us back in 11-12 engaged in that conversation but the consultant [00:18:21] hadn't taken it into consideration and instead of delaying trying to move [00:18:26] things forward we chose. But we were trying to reference that whether the [00:18:32] property was undeveloped or not it still had certain imperviousness to it or off [00:18:38] drainage and that they ought to be in the pool. It didn't get a lot of legs [00:18:45] back then because it would have taken a whole nother series of analysis but it [00:18:51] was something that we because we thought it would be a little more fair and [00:18:55] equitable because the people that were undeveloped were getting a net benefit [00:19:00] because of what was happening around them to solve stormwater especially. A [00:19:08] little bit on the lighting but mainly stormwater that was actually allowing [00:19:12] their undeveloped piece of property even though the economy was coming out was [00:19:16] showing them a net increase because of the things that were happening around [00:19:19] them. In your assessment role currently so an undeveloped property that doesn't [00:19:26] have any impervious area no concrete or asphalt is not charged but an undeveloped [00:19:32] property that let's say has an old parking lot or the building was blown [00:19:36] down or burnt down or tore down is now classified as undeveloped that is being [00:19:42] charged because of the undeveloped or impervious area on that. So the staff is [00:19:47] maintaining that database adequately for that. Based on the percentage of the [00:19:52] impervious area or just you know qualified you have a parking lot on a [00:19:56] vacant piece? Correct it's based on so the average residential in the city is [00:20:01] just over 2,600 square feet so if a general property or an undeveloped [00:20:07] property if they have 5,000 square feet of impervious area on it they're charged [00:20:13] two because it's twice as much as a residential. If they have half that much [00:20:18] they're charged a half. So because they have asphalt or because they have [00:20:23] impervious surface they are charged because of the increased runoff. All [00:20:28] individually? Individually correct. So the revenue requirements operation and [00:20:37] maintenance expenditures that's primarily what is funded through this [00:20:42] there is some capital cost to factor it into the rates. Historically it's been [00:20:49] 200,000 a year to put toward capital projects. By no means does that fund all [00:20:55] of your capital projects. You have always utilized external funding sources to [00:21:00] augment that and to reduce the burden on the assessment. So whether that's grants [00:21:07] or matching funds from other agencies so you may only end up spending 50% of [00:21:14] the capital cost out of the utility the other 50% has maybe come from external [00:21:20] sources. So that's that's really been a boon to be able to make your assessment [00:21:25] dollars go further and to lower the burden on on the rate payers. And then [00:21:30] an additional cost to comply with your MS-4 permit your water quality concerns [00:21:35] nutrient removal. So based on all of that there's a lot of little numbers. They're [00:21:42] all in your report as well but let's see do I have a laser on this? At the end the [00:21:54] five-year average is about 1.25 million in the very far lower right-hand corner [00:22:01] and what that is is your personnel services and that's budgeted at an [00:22:07] increase each year of two and a half percent I believe. Your capital 300,000 a [00:22:13] year that's an increase of a hundred thousand a year at this point. And then [00:22:18] your indirect costs of 300,000 a year. My eyeglasses aren't working very good [00:22:27] anymore. One of these years I'm going to need a pair. So those are kind of the [00:22:32] primary costs you can see that's almost 1.16 million just in your fixed [00:22:37] everyday costs. And then there's at the bottom there's costs of collection what [00:22:42] you pay people to collect the fee and administer the the database and as well [00:22:48] as the statutorily if they pay it on time they get a break in their rate [00:22:55] versus if they don't pay it on time. So as I mentioned each residential parcel [00:23:03] is charged one ERU. So this is the proposed methodology going forward. That's [00:23:10] single-family condominiums, mobile homes, RV parks. If it's a residential parcel or [00:23:17] residential facility each residence or capacity for a residence is charged one [00:23:23] ERU. General parcels like we talked are based on that 2,629 square feet of [00:23:30] impervious area. So that's your average for your residential. So you take the [00:23:36] impervious area on the large non-residential parcel divided by 2,600 [00:23:41] and that's how many ERUs that that property is charged. Now the different [00:23:47] methodology in this is the undeveloped parcels. What we're proposing and I'll go [00:23:53] through that in a little bit here is charging 35% of one ERU for an [00:23:58] equivalent residential parcel size. So the average residential parcel in [00:24:05] the city is just over 7,200 square feet. So what is that 60 by 120 is about the [00:24:13] average lot size. And undeveloped parcels contribute roughly 35% of a [00:24:21] developed residential parcel. And I'll go through that here. So undeveloped [00:24:28] property contributes to the stormwater system as you mentioned, but not to the [00:24:33] degree that a developed property does. And so I went through and did a hydrocat [00:24:39] analysis and looked at all the different rainfall events that are kind of common [00:24:45] in the modeling and regulatory history of the one-year, the two-year, the [00:24:52] five-year, the ten-year, all the way up to the hundred-year storm and compared [00:24:56] what a average residential parcel would discharge for volume of water versus [00:25:01] what an average undeveloped parcel would discharge. And the average between all of [00:25:07] those is 35%. So a residential lot that has a house and a garage and a carport [00:25:14] and a driveway on it will contribute 65%, well, will contribute more water than an [00:25:21] undeveloped parcel, which is about 35% of that. So that's why back here I was [00:25:28] proposing the 35% of one ERU. So if there's a vacant residential lot out [00:25:35] there, they will pay 0.35 of an ERU times whatever the rate ends up being. [00:25:42] Is that something that you're aware of in Florida that stood the test, that has [00:25:46] stood the test of challenge? I am not aware of that. Because obviously you [00:25:54] indicated earlier in the report that the methodology has stood up against people [00:26:01] saying it was unjust or however they want to do it, but this particular [00:26:06] methodology here doesn't have that kind of either track record or evaluation [00:26:16] through the challenges or court system or however it was adjudicated, I guess, [00:26:22] is the question. There are other utilities that are charging undeveloped [00:26:26] property as well. And in the annual survey, there's some statistics to that. I [00:26:34] don't remember exactly what the total of those were. So based on all of that, the [00:26:42] number of ERUs by rate class, you've got your single-family residential and [00:26:48] that's right out of your assessment roll, 6,355. So there's 5,479 parcels, but [00:26:57] there's some parcels that either have duplexes on them, mobile home parks where [00:27:02] the density is greater, multiple part or multiple ERUs per parcel. General [00:27:09] parcels, there's 13, just over 1,300 general parcels which contribute 7,000 [00:27:14] ERUs. So the number of, even though there's a fifth of the number of parcels, [00:27:20] they contribute more toward the runoff than the residential property does. And [00:27:28] then the proposed assessment for the undeveloped parcels would be just over [00:27:34] 2,800 ERUs, which brings the total up to 16,000 ERUs. So taking that then and [00:27:43] putting it into the the annual budget, the 1.25 million, and dividing that by [00:27:52] the 16,000 ERUs, you come up with a five-year average rate of 77.25. And that [00:28:01] compared to your current rate of $77.36, you're within 11 cents of your [00:28:08] current rate. And you can see based on annual, with a five-year average, you end [00:28:16] up pretty close. But annually, initially, if you set it at your, leave it at that [00:28:21] rate, you're going to over collect in the front end, but in the last few years [00:28:26] you'll start under collecting. So over time, it averages out. And you'll see on [00:28:33] the lighting one where this is a bigger difference, but you're awful close to [00:28:40] where you're at now. I was looking at it, it seemed like it was almost a rounding [00:28:44] error between what you computed and what we were already doing. [00:28:52] And so the recommendation is that there's no rate increase as it relates [00:29:01] to the stormwater scenario. Is that correct? From the stormwater, you [00:29:07] could leave your rates the way they are for the next five years and be able to [00:29:10] fund not everything that you wanted to do, because you're capping your [00:29:16] capital investment at roughly $300,000 a year, but augmenting that with the [00:29:20] various grants and outside funding sources, you'll be able to do a majority [00:29:28] of the projects that you're planning to do. But in year four and five, you [00:29:36] would be under collecting. Correct. So, and or, if you were proactive and you [00:29:44] rounded up, I don't know how you justify, I'm just, I'm just talking out [00:29:50] loud. Working session. Well, you know, it's a work session. So I, because we know the [00:29:58] challenges that our areas have had. [00:30:00] had. Not as severe as our big brother, not our grandfather the state, but our big brother [00:30:09] the county who's having to work overtime to finally catch up. But my question is if you [00:30:17] round up and use a flat number, let's call it $80, that you could identify additional [00:30:26] problem areas to go and address in conjunction with your grant funding to go with your years [00:30:36] and literally identify three key projects that if you collected early on you could go [00:30:42] address them today in some fashion and maybe take them off of your problem areas and know [00:30:49] that at the end of five years your rate is going to be equal to what it's going to be [00:30:55] at the end of that five year period. So once again, it's like I used the FRAM oil filter [00:31:00] analogy, pay me now or pay me later. And what is proactive when it comes to making sure [00:31:10] that storm water doesn't damage somebody else's property or that you can take a problem area [00:31:18] out of the way in year one and two as opposed to having to address it in year four or five. [00:31:26] That's a mindset that you have to be able to either defend or be able to identify that [00:31:32] these dollars are coming in and they're directly impacting that problem zone or that problem [00:31:38] area, which I have found the people in Pasco County to be more adequate if you identify [00:31:45] the problem and map it and try to solve it as opposed to saying, well, wait until I collect [00:31:52] the money and I finally get there. I don't know if that's the case. [00:31:55] The point's well taken. As recently as today, I got an email from somebody who was complaining [00:31:59] about a flooding issue when we had the flash storm on Saturday that I'm sure is not on [00:32:07] Mr. Rivera's radar for being a problematic storm area. And if we did round up, as Councilman [00:32:16] Phillips had suggested, to $80 of ERU, that would give us an opportunity to try to address [00:32:24] some of those and not be in the $100 million hole that the county's in right now because [00:32:31] they have not addressed the things practically. It's worth at least considering. [00:32:38] Can you all hear me? [00:32:41] Sure. Come on down. [00:32:43] Go ahead. [00:32:44] Okay, yes, I'm sorry. I can't see you, so I'm going a little blind here, but I just [00:32:52] have a quick storm water assessment. So assuming that we are tackling and identifying and we've [00:33:02] been working on storm water issues for the last so many years, we have been moving in [00:33:09] the right direction in so far as we've been improving with each project that we have completed. [00:33:17] So theoretically, will there be a point in time when we are on top of the storm water [00:33:25] issues and we are moving in the right direction and there may be an opportunity for us? Obviously, [00:33:32] we're looking at a five-year plan. So what projects are in the hopper that, assuming [00:33:38] that we've tackled the most extensive or the most expensive or the priorities that we have [00:33:44] prioritized on storm water issues? And we may come to a point where it could even kill [00:33:51] itself. I mean, it's not like street lights, which will always be on, but am I missing [00:33:56] a point here or moving in the right direction? [00:33:59] Mr. Rivera, could you address that for us? [00:34:01] Yes, sir. I don't believe that the storm water utility will ever go away. The Clean [00:34:07] Water Act and the federal government mandate several requirements for us. Each five years [00:34:14] we have to apply for a new NPDES permit and you can see where it's shifted more and more [00:34:19] from flood control to water quality issues, like when we did the river study to find out [00:34:26] what pollutant loads were coming in. Those are directly related to future projects on [00:34:31] how we can eliminate or reduce those types of pollutants that are going into the waterways. [00:34:37] So you might be able to get a hold of your flood programs, but I believe the water quality [00:34:43] programs will continue and then because our system was built back in, I think it started [00:34:49] back in 1924, we will start to go to, and again, it's a water quality issue, we will [00:34:55] start to have to go to pipelining just like we do with the sanitary sewer to be able to [00:35:01] keep those pipes from deteriorating. [00:35:06] So I think what I hear you saying is there will always be something that we have to be [00:35:11] on top of, but we are completing some projects, correct? [00:35:17] Correct. We're taking a proactive approach. We're doing projects every year. We're trying [00:35:23] to identify those areas that are in need and we're tackling them a little bit at a time. [00:35:29] We redid our master plan back in 2013 to where we were able to divide a lot of those [00:35:35] large projects that were identified into several smaller phases, and so we have been able to [00:35:42] continue with that. We've been able to use SWFMUD cooperative funding grants to be able [00:35:48] to help double our money, so to speak. So we are better than a lot of the utilities, [00:35:54] especially since we're a coastal community, but the NPDES permit will always require us [00:36:00] to do more and more. [00:36:03] Okay, thank you. And part of the conversation that a gentleman that is speaking, there's [00:36:11] some sound qualities that take place, so I just want to go back to something that you [00:36:18] mentioned. Back 11 years ago, you said that we were on the leading edge of the monies [00:36:24] that we were charging. Now we've kind of reached a point where we're about midway in the issue [00:36:30] because at $80, we would be about doubling what we were looking at about 11 years ago. [00:36:35] Is that correct? [00:36:37] Up until fiscal year 2011, you were at $40. In fiscal year 2012 or 13, you went to $77.36. [00:36:51] So the average at that time was $62, so you were just above the average. Now you're just [00:37:03] below the average of $78 with your current rate. If you were to increase that rate to, [00:37:10] say, $80 as a round number, you would again be just on the upper end of the average, but [00:37:17] nowhere near the most expensive or least expensive. [00:37:25] Okay, thank you. And I think that that would be a good place for us to be, actually, because [00:37:30] as I said, I know that we have tackled and we're being proactive in our issues with stormwater. [00:37:36] And I also appreciate your schooling our community. I know that we, who were here five years ago [00:37:47] and were tackling this issue then, and it's appreciative with people watching and listening [00:37:54] that you gave us all of that background. And I am pleased to say, and I think that [00:37:59] we are a pretty proactive council on this. I remember five years ago when we brought [00:38:05] this forward that people in the community appreciate and understand where we're coming [00:38:10] from with this. This is nothing that's frivolous. It's something that must be, has to be, and [00:38:15] as is evidenced by the weather issues that we had during the last couple of years. [00:38:19] So thank you for that. [00:38:21] Any other questions on the stormwater before we hit streetlights? [00:38:25] No. [00:38:26] Let's go ahead. [00:38:27] Just to give you a, if you did look at $80, you can see that in fiscal 21-22, $79.61 [00:38:37] would generate just under $1.3 million in revenue. So if you were at an even $80, you [00:38:43] would be close to that $1.3 million in annual revenue. [00:38:47] I understand. [00:38:50] So streetlighting. Similar situation. Implemented in 2003. Streetlighting is based on the building [00:39:01] square footage, not the impervious area square footage. It is also collected on the tax bill. [00:39:09] In 2000, or in fiscal 13, you raised the rate from $26.07 to $36.24. And again, historically [00:39:21] undeveloped parcels have not been charged. [00:39:24] Revenue requirements, again, you're collecting for operation maintenance reasons. [00:39:29] Streetlighting services are provided by Duke Energy. Revenues, though, and you do have [00:39:35] revenues in the streetlighting utility compared to your stormwater utility because the lighting [00:39:41] along Highway 19 is funded by Florida DOT. So that counts as a negative number so you [00:39:48] don't have to assess. So there's credit given for that revenue that you receive. [00:39:52] Again, based on the capital improvements, the personnel operating expenses, the five-year [00:40:01] pro forma was developed. And again, the five-year average is just over $477,000 in revenue needs [00:40:10] from assessment rates. [00:40:14] So residential, the same, not being changed. One ERU per residential unit. General, as [00:40:22] mentioned, is divided by 1,860 square feet of building area. So if you have a 10,000 [00:40:29] square foot facility, divide that out and that's the number of ERUs that a general parcel. [00:40:35] Now, undeveloped parcels, they have not been charged, although there is an argument that [00:40:43] is made that they also benefit from the streetlighting. Security, the land values, people aren't doing [00:40:55] things on their property that they shouldn't be. Dumping on the property, correct. So it [00:41:02] does receive, but at a lesser value. And so the average residential parcel size, again, [00:41:09] is 7,204. And I'll go through the calculation as to why we're proposing 26%. But that is [00:41:18] generally the portion of the tax bill, roughly 25% of that is the land value on a single [00:41:26] family residential. Three quarters of it is the improvements, and a quarter of it is the [00:41:32] land value. [00:41:35] So what we're proposing to do is on an undeveloped parcel, take the square footage, divide it [00:41:41] by the average residential, and then since the land value is 26% of the total value, reduce that [00:41:49] to 26% of what a developed residential parcel would pay. [00:41:56] So the number of ERUs generated by rate class, again the residential, the general parcels are [00:42:03] 4,400 ERUs, and the undeveloped parcels would add just over 2,000 ERUs for a total of 12,878 [00:42:12] equivalent residential units. Factoring that into the budget, you can see by year, and then at the [00:42:20] end is the five-year average. 3,708 would be the rate if you averaged it over five years. [00:42:29] And underneath that you can see what the annual collections are. At the current rate, you will [00:42:35] over-collect for the first couple of years, but then in the third year, you start under-collecting, [00:42:41] and at the end of five years, you've under-collected the utility by almost $54,000. [00:42:48] If you were to set it at that average, the 3,708, you'd be within $305 of even in that five years. [00:43:01] But that's not, does that calculate in, and Robert this might be a question for you, but calculating [00:43:10] those dollars in, does that address additional lighting in areas now that we continue to be criticized [00:43:21] for that are dark, or don't have it, or the light's out, or somebody's home but the light isn't on, or [00:43:28] whatever the deal might be, because I know that, I don't know if you put it in your calculations, but [00:43:33] when we did the increase back in 11 and 12, we had a different kind of light fixture. And then we changed [00:43:40] it in 13 or 14. Duke was, obviously came to us with the new LED lighting, which obviously has improved [00:43:49] things greatly, but there still are minimum light levels in different places in the city that still we get [00:43:56] criticized for because we don't have enough light, or it's not in the right place, or whatever it might be. [00:44:02] And I don't know that the program now institutes where we could go either establish a minimum light level, [00:44:09] or we identify the top 25 non-lit areas on an annual basis and go knock them out, or 20%, so that in five years [00:44:20] we've addressed all, I think that's too long personally. But the question is, we deal with what we have today [00:44:26] on present standard, how do we make it bigger, better, and brighter, I guess is the only way to put it. [00:44:33] Sure, what we included in this report that we did in the last one was we took into account those capital projects, [00:44:40] we took an average of the last five years, basically with how many new regular street lights in the neighborhoods [00:44:48] that we installed, added that in, we took our capital projects that we've been doing, similar to like Sims Park, [00:44:55] that we added the decorative lighting, we put that cost in there. [00:45:00] there. We just completed the dark spot project with Duke Energy, where they went out and [00:45:06] did an assessment of where those areas are that are dark in between the LED lighting [00:45:11] that we've done. [00:45:12] Can we see that report? Because people keep telling us that we're not proactive on that [00:45:16] front. I'd really like to say that we have been taking steps. We don't tell everybody [00:45:22] everything we do. We can't trumpet our horn all the time like that. I'd like to be able [00:45:28] to say, and then if somebody else finds a dark spot that we weren't able to identify, [00:45:33] I'd love to be able to put it on the list or whatever, so they feel involved in the [00:45:38] process. [00:45:39] Sure. We identified, I think it was like around 81 lights that need immediate attention. And [00:45:46] then, of course, our construction management right now is working on those set of standards [00:45:50] so that we can incorporate those. We just updated the total inventory of the lighting [00:45:55] system with the GPS coordinates, so we'll be able to enter those and be able to tell [00:46:00] exactly what we have. And so, a lot of those capital in items have been included, as well [00:46:07] as the administrative costs that were taken into account, where we have to go out and [00:46:13] take a look at lights that are reported out, enter those types of things in, do billing, [00:46:18] the grant process, those types of things. So we try to include all of those items that [00:46:23] are directly associated with street lights only. [00:46:28] Thank you. [00:46:33] Any other questions on the lighting? [00:46:40] So then the, I guess the schedule this evening presented the methodology updates and the [00:46:47] rate updates. I believe you're going to take some time and provide some comments on that [00:46:54] and on the draft report, which has much more detail than what I presented on the slideshow [00:47:00] this evening. But the schedule, I believe, is June 20th meeting to finalize those reports. [00:47:08] So comments that we receive back from staff, council, we will incorporate those into the [00:47:15] final report wherever possible. And then in September, in October, implement the final [00:47:23] decision for your budgeting for next year. [00:47:26] Mr. Rivera, is there a possibility to take the Duke study and blend it in with theirs? [00:47:33] Because obviously they're looking at status quo today, and you're talking about 81 additional [00:47:39] plus whatever improvements we're talking about on Madison Street, and maybe before [00:47:45] my lifetime, between Delaware and Gulf Drive with the decorative and the stuff. And make [00:47:53] sure that they dovetail together so that it comes out with dollars and cents, so that [00:47:59] we can make that assessment in June. And then obviously when we go to assessment, we can [00:48:06] identify all of the things that we're addressing now and over the next five years. [00:48:10] Sure, that information was supplied to Michael, and it should be incorporated in this study. [00:48:15] We did incorporate, both for the stormwater and the lighting, their capital improvements [00:48:20] for the next five years. So what we can maybe better do is break that line item out so that [00:48:26] you can see it more clearly. [00:48:28] That would be phenomenal. That would be really great. [00:48:32] Infrastructure updates or something to that. [00:48:34] Any other questions or comments? [00:48:36] I think it would also be important to the community to see the report that we just talked [00:48:43] about, Robert, 81 lights or whatever, because if there's areas in the city that are not [00:48:52] on that list, it would be very helpful for our community to step forward at this time [00:48:56] so that we're able to tackle it all at once. That would be good. [00:49:03] Yes, ma'am. [00:49:04] Okay. If there's nothing else, entertain a motion to adjourn the workshop. [00:49:08] Move to adjourn. [00:49:09] We'll reconvene at 7 o'clock. [00:49:12] Thank you.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 3Adjournment