ESTES VALLEY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Phase I. Stormwater - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ESTES VALLEY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Phase I. Stormwater Master Plan Phase II. Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study Board of Realtors Meeting May 3, 2018 • Stormwater Master Plan – Summary • Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study – Draft Fee Summary 5/3/2018 1

Presentation Outline • Purpose and Need • Phase I. Stormwater Master Plan • Phase II. Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study • Next Steps • Input and Questions 5/3/2018 2

Why is Public Works Pursuing a Stormwater Utility? 1. After the 2013 flood, the Federal Emergency Management Agency launched the standard flood disaster response effort to update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Estes Valley. The existing maps were based on floodplain hydrology and mapping from 1977, 1985, and 2013. Example: the adopted peak 1% Probability annual discharge in Fall River was 680 cubic feet per second (cfs). 2. Updated hydrology was completed for the Town by Wright Water Engineers in 2016. Example: the modeled peak 1% Probability discharge in Fall River is 1860 cfs (nearly 3x the previous value). The 2013 flood discharge in Fall River was estimated to be about 2000 cfs. 3. The proposed new FEMA floodplains will be much larger, causing new challenges for redevelopment and increased flood insurance premiums for many parcel owners. The size of these expanded floodplains (and the associated negative impacts) can be reduced by building the proposed new stormwater infrastructure. 5/3/2018 3

Why is Public Works Pursuing a Stormwater Utility? 4. In 2016 the Town Board established the following infrastructure objective : Explore the need for a stormwater master plan and the feasibility of a stormwater utility (including floodplain considerations). 5. In 2017 the Town Board identified the following infrastructure objective: Consider implementation of the Stormwater Master Plan and formation of a stormwater utility. 6. The Board of Trustees included the following three objectives in the 2018 Strategic Plan: • Pursue funding for flood mitigation projects. • Implement recommendations of the Stormwater Master Plan. • Prioritize and pursue projects and funding to reduce flood risk and flood insurance costs for the property owners and businesses of the Estes Valley. 5/3/2018 4

Guiding Principle for the Proposed Stormwater Utility Past and future floods damage transportation and utility infrastructure that is essential for community safety and well- being. Substantial private property damage also occurs. These repetitive risks of adverse economic impacts are a community problem which should be addressed by all community members. Our local elected officials and staff (Town of Estes Park and Larimer County) should lead the effort to mitigate these flood damage risks. 5/3/2018 5

Purpose of a Stormwater Master Plan 1. Identify Stormwater Infrastructure Problems 2. Develop Conceptual Solutions to Improve Drainage Issues 3. Develop Concept Level Costs for the Potential Improvements 4. Provide an Implementation Plan based on a Prioritization of Identified Improvements 5. Provide the Basis for Funding Capital Improvements Program (solicit grants/loans/etc. & form the basis for fees/assessments/tax/etc.) 6. Provide a Flexible Document to Guide Program Implementation and Integrate New Development within the Watersheds and the Community 5/3/2018 6

PHASE I. STORMWATER MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN 5/3/2018 7

Focus of the EV SMP • Five Major Drainage Basins • Dry Gulch Basin • Black Canyon Basin • Fall River Basin • Big Thompson River Basin • Fish Creek Basin • Development Code Boundary • 8471 parcels (5191 in Town of Estes Park and 3280 in unincorporated Larimer County) 5/3/2018 8

Facility Evaluations – Results • PUBLIC FACILITIES over MAJOR DRAINAGEWAYS • 57 Total Road and Pedestrian Bridges and Culverts • ~23 Capacity Deficient (Mostly over Fall River and Big Thompson Rivers) • ~6 Additional Facilities in Poor Condition (Half over Dry Gulch) • STREAM AND CHANNEL CAPACITY • The lower reaches of Black Canyon, Fall River, & Big Thompson River generally have insufficient capacity to carry the 1% annual probability flood flow. 5/3/2018 9

Facility Evaluations – Results • PUBLIC FACILITIES ON SECONDARY DRAINAGEWAYS & LOCAL DRAINAGE ISSUES • Flooding Issues Generally: Small, Localized, and Impact Few Properties • Lack of Defined Conveyance Path • Limited Capacity in Streets and/or Roadside Swales • Conflicts with Existing Buildings and/or Property 5/3/2018 10

Facility Evaluations – Results • LOCAL DRAINAGE ISSUES Based on the Known Local Flooding Issues • a GIS Screening Tool was Developed to Estimate Number of Potential Local Flooding Issues Screening Estimated the Potential for • Approximately 600 Similar Small/Localized Drainage Issues within the EVDC Boundary 5/3/2018 11

Potential Improvements – Primary Focus • Life/Health Safety • On Major Drainageways • Dry Gulch, Black Canyon, Fall River, Upper Big Thompson, Fish Creek • On Arterials • US 34, US 36, SH 7, SH 66, Devils Gulch Rd, Marys Lake Rd, Fish Ck. Rd., etc. • On Critical Facilities & Access • Hospital Routes and Police/Town Hall 5/3/2018 12

Potential Improvements – Secondary Focus • On Local Roads • On Property Damage along Major Drainageways • On Secondary Drainageways • Known and Repetitive Problem Areas Potential Improvements – Minor Focus • On Property Damage along Secondary/Tertiary Drainageways • On Tertiary Drainageways • Minimal Focus on Private: Roads/Driveways, Culverts, Bridges, etc. 5/3/2018 13

Conceptual Improvement Maps (Appendix D) 5/3/2018 14

Improvement Plan - Updated 5/3/2018 15

PHASE II. STORMWATER UTILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 5/3/2018 16

Feasibility of a Stormwater Utility Separate but related issues • Financing and financial impacts • Time frame for implementation • Organizational structure

Financing and Financial Impacts • Total Estimated Cost of Master Plan Capital Improvements: $79.0 million (2017 dollars—increases to $128 million for 30 year implementation)  Priority 1 Projects: $44.2 million  Priority 2 Projects: $23.2 million  Priority 3 Projects: $11.6 million

Time Frame for Implementation • The time frame can be flexible. 30 years is proposed to keep user fees low.  Driven by the community’s desire to increase public safety by reducing flood risks; not regulatory driven  The ability to pay for capital costs will play a major role in project completion Figure: One possible expenditure pattern based on the Master Plan

Financing Implementation • Who pays and how?  Owners of all parcels in the Development Code Boundary (Town and County), with fee consideration for the different types of land use  Charges are proposed to be in the form of monthly bills, like water and sewer  For new development, an impact fee is proposed to buy-in to the existing system • Impervious area, such as the areas covered by roofs and concrete, is the basis for assessing charges. • Downtown businesses tend to have relatively more impervious area than residences, and are expected to receive the greatest direct benefit from the proposed improvements.

Financing Implementation • Assumed impervious area percentages of parcel for cost modeling and fee estimating are:  0% vacant parcel  5% Rural Estate zoning  10% Accommodations, Low Density  20% Estate zoning  30% Single Family zoning  45% Multi-family zoning  50% Accommodations, Highway  60% Industrial zoning  90% Downtown Commercial zoning • Monthly user fee consists of three parts: monthly service fee ($2/mo), operation & maintenance fee (formula), and facility expansion fee (formula) • Formula = Parcel area (sf) x impervious factor x (O&M rate of $0.0002 + CEF rate of $0.0016) • A calculation limit of 10 acres is proposed for any single parcel to keep fees reasonable.

Cost of the Master Plan to Property Owners • A detailed, pay-as-you-go financial model for a stormwater entity over the 30 year planning period 2018-2047 was developed to assess impacts • Operation & Maintenance and inflation costs are included in the model • Implementing the SMP within a 10-20 year time frame will require debt financing or major grants, and high user fees • Avoiding debt requires additional years to fund and build projects, and requires discipline in establishing and managing capital reserves

Estimated O&M Costs  Costs are uncertain due to nature of the assets and how future capital R&R costs are recovered  The preliminary analysis assumes $430,000 per year, increasing with inflation  Approx. $200k for O&M and initial capital replacement, $50k for Admin, $180k for personnel  Other Stormwater utilities  Town of Windsor: $350,000 range without capital R&R; personnel costs are relatively low  Lafayette: $750,000 range, without capital R&R; personnel costs approx. $190,000  Box Elder Stormwater Authority: $450,000/year, mostly contracted

Potential Fee Structure • Based on a Range of Possible Stormwater Financing Plan Implementation Scenarios • Varying implementation periods, primarily 20-30 years  Varying financing sources: user charges, sales tax revenues, grants, loans  User charges were adjusted to meet desired implementation period and availability of other funds  9 scenarios were analyzed