HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20101116 •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: April Barker Long, Stormwater Manager, Engineering
THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: November 12, 2010
MEETING DATE: November 16, 2010 Work Session
RE: Stormwater System Development Fee
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council direction regarding potential changes to the
Stormwater System Development Fee and the impacts of those changes.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In May 2007, Council passed an ordinance that
implemented a $2.88 fee to be charged to each square foot of a site's entire impervious area, at
the time of development or redevelopment exceeding 500 square feet of impervious area.
In the fall of 2009, Council directed staff to examine the equity of the fee as it applies to
development and redevelopment, particularly how it applies to existing development at the time
of additions to or redevelopment of any portion of the site, and to analyze other applications of
the fee to improve equity. Council also directed staff to evaluate how changes to the amount and
application of the fee would change revenues for the stormwater fund.
BACKGROUND: The needs of the stormwater program were analyzed by staff', consultants,
and Citizens' Review Committee (CRC) in 2006, resulting in a Stormwater Utility Business Plan
and Supplement. This Plan was presented to Council and recommended program improvements
and capital improvement projects totaling $31 million. The group also reviewed and
recommended funding mechanisms to generate revenue for the improved stormwater program.
In May 2007, Council approved a system development fee, estimated to generate $19 million
over 15 years (or $1.27 million annually), to be assessed against development and
redevelopment. In November 2007, voters approved a mil levy of 0.65 mills that would generate
$12 million over 15 years (or $860,000 on average annually).
The approved mil rate of the tax is 0.65. However, due to recent high property valuations,
Council has limited the mil to 0.49. The mil was applied to property tax bills beginning in 2008
and has generated approximately $860,000 annually.
The stormwater system development fee (SDF) is defined and codified in the City of Aspen
Land Use Code Chapter 25.18. A fee of $2.88 per square foot of total impervious area is
assessed against all properties that develop or redevelop more than 500 square feet of impervious
Page 1 of 4
area. The purpose of the fee was to provide funding necessary to construct, maintain and
improve the City's stormwater facilities. The fee has been assessed to development and
redevelopment projects since November 2007. Revenues from the fee that have been collected
from November 2007 to August 2010 equal approximately $1.8 million or $600,000 annually.
Council has discussed the equity in applying the fee to existing and undisturbed impervious areas
at the time of an addition to the property. For example, if an existing 1000 sq ft home (footprint)
added a 500 sq ft impervious driveway, the system development fee assessed for the property
would be $2.88 x 1500 sq ft = $4,320.00. The question of concern was the appropriateness of
applying the fee to the existing impervious area (in the example above, the 1000 sq ft).
DISCUSSION:
Below is a list of fee applications that staff, with the assistance of a consultant, have studied for
application in the City of Aspen.
1. System Development Fee Modifications
There is a perception that the SDF is inequitable because it applies retroactively to
existing impervious area. Staff studied the possibilities of charging the fee to new
impervious area only. It was determined that new impervious area should not be
responsible for remedying problems caused by existing impervious area. Therefore new
impervious area should only be charged for its fair share of capital improvements in the
City.
The City, based on 2008 aerial photography, has 14,950,000 square feet of impervious
surface. The remaining capital needs are estimated to be $15,850,000. We have
determined that the cost of our capital needs per square foot of existing impervious area
is $1.06. Therefore, it is a fair assumption that new development would add to our
capital needs at a rate of $1.06 per square foot of imperviousness.
Based on the last 3 years of data, development is adding approximately 85,000 square
feet of impervious area annually. Multiplying this by $1.06 results in approximately
$90,500 annual revenue for capital improvements. As determined by the Stormwater
Business Plan, $1.2 million is needed in fees (and $860,000 in tax revenue) to fund the
program as intended.
2. Fee In Lieu of Detention
Another option that matches our current approach but is more equitable is a fee in lieu of
detention.
Currently, development is only required to detain runoff from new impervious area.
Detention to historic rates is not required because the system development fee is collected
and intended to be used to improve the stormwater system to a point that can safely
convey the flows from the City's existing impervious area. However, if the system
development fee is not collected, the City will not have the ability to convey these flows.
Therefore, development and redevelopment will have to design detention facilities that
have the ability to detain runoff until it matches the rate of runoff from a completely
undeveloped area. Realizing that this could potentially be very difficult and not desirable
for sites with limited space, the City could implement a program to accept fees in lieu of
detention.
Page 2 of 4
In the "fee in lieu of detention" (FIL) approach, a development would have the option to
handle detention on site or pay a fee to the City's stormwater program, based on the cost
of doing detention on site. The City would use these fees to provide safe conveyance of
flows from development. This is similar to providing affordable housing on site or
paying a price to the City for the City to provide affordable housing elsewhere.
Several assumptions or potential policy decisions were made to estimate the possible
results of an FIL application in the City.
• The City's detention standards, located in Chapter 5 of the Urban Runoff
Management Plan, would be changed to require detention to historic rates.
• A trigger point of 25% of addition or disturbance on the site would be set.
i. A large number of studies have all indicated that there is a strong positive
correlation between the intensity of impervious cover within a watershed
and the degree of impact to a stream. These studies show that an
impervious area beyond 25% has such strong negative impacts to the
stream that the aquatic system fails to function and a significant loss in
species and species diversity is noted.
ii. Projects that add or disturb less than 25% of the site's total impervious
area would only be required to do detention for the new or disturbed area
or pay the FIL.
iii. Projects that add or disturb more than 25 % of the site's total impervious
area would be required to meet the City's detention standard for the entire
site. Therefore, these projects would be required to do detention to the
historic rate for the entire site, or pay the FIL.
• Based on conversations with local contractors and designers, the cost of detention
in the city ranges from $2.00 to $1000.00 per cubic. For forecasting purposes, we
used $60 per cubic foot of detention provided. (If FIL is pursued, this number
will be better estimated.)
• A formula was created to quickly estimate the cubic feet of detention needed
based on the impervious cover of the site.
• Due to limitations of our permit tracking system, data is not available for
percentage of area disturbed or added, therefore a best guess was made to estimate
how many sites in the past 3 years disturbed or added more than 25% of
impervious area.
• All sites opt to pay the fee and do not provide their own detention on site.
Under these assumptions, it was determined that an FIL approach might generate
$500,000 per year in fee revenue. However, this is an extremely variable estimate
because the cost of detention is highly variable, accurate data on disturbance percentage
is not available, and the number of developments that will opt to pay the fee cannot be
predicted.
3. Water Quality Surcharge
Because revenue collected from FIL applications must be used for detention and
conveyance purposes, this revenue cannot be used for water quality improvements that do
not assist in detention. Therefore staff studied the possibility of a water quality
surcharge to generate revenue for water quality projects.
Page 3 of 4
Under the new URMP requirements, each new development or redevelopment in the City
must provide water quality improvements on site. Additionally, the City itself undertakes
significant projects to protect the Roaring Fork River at a higher standard than is
achievable on individual sites, except for a very few sites. Therefore, every site should
pay into the downstream regional water quality treatment facilities. This is comparable to
treatment at a wastewater plant — pre - treatment, secondary treatment, and tertiary
treatment are all required to reach a water quality standard acceptable for release back
into the river. The abilities of the wastewater treatment plant cannot be realistically
accomplished by an individual site due to space and financial constraints.
Using the same thought as in Item #1 of this memo, if all water quality projects planned
for the City ($4.3 million) are divided equally upon impervious square footage, each
square foot is responsible for $0.29, or $28.76 per 100 sq ft. Using the same 25%
development trigger mentioned before and the data collected for the past 3 year,
approximately $42,000 per year is expected in water quality surcharges.
It should be noted that, while the FIL and water quality surcharge approach will be viewed as
more equitable than our current system development fee approach, implementation of the FIL
and water quality surcharge is not expected generate the revenue needed to implement the
stormwater program as it was planned in 2006. It might be necessary to investigate replacement
or supplementary forms of funding for the capital program in the future.
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Implementation of a FIL is expected to generate
approximately $500,000 per year in revenue for the stormwater fund. The water quality
surcharge is expected to generate $40,000 per year in revenue for the stormwater fund. In 2010,
the current system development fee is expected to generate approximately $450,000. In order to
fully fund the stormwater program as intended in 2006, $1.2 million is needed annually in fees in
addition to $860,000 in tax revenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: If the stormwater program cannot fund capital projects
planned to upgrade the capacity of the stormwater system, development and redevelopment
projects will be required to detain stormwater runoff on their sites, releasing it at a rate that the
current stormwater system can handle without flooding downstream properties.
If the stormwater program cannot fund capital projects planned to improve the quality of runoff
discharged into the Roaring Fork River sediment loads from the City will be about 2,480 tons per
year. This is about 16.5 times the natural load of about 150 tons of sediment per year. At this
rate the Roaring Fork River will likely remain categorized as "severely degraded" and will likely
continue to experience changes in river bed, river flow, and river temperature; decreases in
riparian habitat and species; and decreases in trout populations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council allow staff, with the help of a
consultant, to continue with analysis of FIL and water quality surcharge implementation. Staff
will return to council with fee rate, structure, and policy proposals in January.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Page 4 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Board of Health
FROM: Lee Cassin, Jannette Whitcomb, CJ Oliver
Environmental Health Department/Local Public Health Agency
DATE OF MEMO: November 8, 2010
MEETING DATE: November 16, 2010
RE: Quarterly Board of Health Meeting
REQUEST OF BOARD OF HEALTH: No action is required. This is the quarterly Board of
Health update.
BACKGROUND: The Colorado Public Health Act of 2008 allows municipalities to form their own
Board of Health and Public Health Agency, which the City of Aspen did. This allows the City to
continue to hire its own staff and administer its programs in the areas of air quality, water quality,
recycling, nuisances, food service, global warming, and others, rather than ceding that authority to a
County or regional Board of Health. Dr. Morris Cohen serves as the City's Medical Officer, as he
has for many years, providing expertise and advice as needed.
Aspen and Pitkin County are somewhat unique in the state in that our "public health" services, i.e.
nursing, vaccinations, etc. are provided by the non - profit Community Health Services. That agency
is funded by the Healthy Communities Fund. The fund is managed by the County since it is a
county-wide tax, but the largest contributors to that fund are City of Aspen residents, because the
fund is a property tax based fund.
Garfield County provides vital records recording for the City of Aspen (as it has done for Pitkin
County for several years.)
DISCUSSION: Dr. Cohen will provide separate updates on some current public health issues.
PM -10 Aspen Implementation Plan: Aspen and Pitkin County became a PM -10 non - attainment area
in 1988 and experienced a handful of exceedances of the federal health standard. Several strategies
resulted in improved air quality and designation as a "maintenance" area. These included:
• Paid parking /resident permit parking that paid for -
• Increased bus service - extended hours and greater coverage
• Cross -town shuttle
• HOV lanes
• Street sweeping in winter
Page 1 of 2
• Woodburning and restaurant grill regulations
Smoking Ordinance Changes: Environmental Health staff are working with the City Attorney's
office to make changes to the smoking ordinance to allow the City to post areas of City owned
property as designated non smoking areas.
Ozone update: The primary goal for the City of Aspen's ozone monitoring program is to determine
whether ground level ozone is impacting the health of the community. Currently, the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone is an 8 -hour average of 75 ppb over a three year
period. EPA has proposed to reduce the "primary" (health- protective) standard from 75 ppb to a
value in the range of 60 ppb to 70 ppb. They have postponed this decision till the end of 2010.
Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat
irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma.
Aspen has had ten days beginning on March 6, 2010 where the 8 -hour average for ozone was at or
above 60 ppb. To date our highest 8 -hour average is 66 ppb recorded on June 22, 2010. Since July
our 8 -hour averages have been below 60 ppb. Determining the where and how for these levels
occurring in Aspen is the challenging aspect of monitoring ozone.
Radon Grant: Staff is gearing up for the 2011 radon grant project. This year in addition to giving
out free radon test kits we will be offering a "do- it- yourself" radon remediation class. With Aspen's
high cost of living plus higher costs for goods and services, the working population struggles with
the costs of radon mitigation ($2500 or greater) and has been hesitant to move forward with
mitigating their homes. The goal of this class is to give them the knowledge they need to move
forward with remediating their home for radon. Included in the project is funding to remediate one
Aspen home for the demonstration portion of the class.
Clean Diesel Grant: Staff is moving forward with retrofitting Rocky Mountain Disposal's entire
fleet with emissions and idle reduction technologies, retrofits are scheduled to be completed in the
spring of 2011. By reducing the pollution generated by these trash trucks our community, especially
neighborhoods, will have cleaner air and improved experience with the business of trash hauling.
This project is entirely funded by an EPA grant partnership with the Regional Air Quality Council.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: No changes at this time, but significant requests are likely in
the future.
Page 2 of 2