HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2017-10-24
Tuesday, October 24, 2017 TOWN BOARD 4:45 p.m. – 6:40 p.m.
STUDY SESSION Rooms 202/203
4:45 p.m. Draft Stormwater Master Plan - Financial Plan.
(Director Muhonen & Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc.)
5:30 p.m. Dinner.
5:45 p.m. Proposed 2018 Budget.
(Board Discussion)
6:20 p.m. Sunset Review – Parks Advisory Board & Transportation
Advisory Board. (Town Administrator Lancaster)
6:30 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions.
6:35 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items.
(Board Discussion)
6:40 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting.
Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1
2
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
George Oamek, PhD, Headwaters Corporation
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: Estes Valley Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study Update
Objective:
This report introduces the draft Estes Valley Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study (SUFS)
which is Phase II of the Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) prepared by Anderson
Consulting Engineers.
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park and the surrounding unincorporated Estes Valley suffer from
the lack of adequate drainage facilities to capture and safely discharge stormwater
runoff from storm events ranging from intense afternoon summer cloudbursts to
sustained rainfall as experienced in the 2013 flood. Prior to this study, no inventory of
existing stormwater infrastructure existed. While the Town has hired consultants to
create two subbasin stormwater improvement plans, no comprehensive master plan
exists to define the magnitude of the system-wide deficiencies and the associated
projects to remedy them. Maintenance staff, equipment, and funding are insufficient to
respond to the stormwater damage complaints received each year by the Public Works
Department.
In 2016, the Town received a $300,000 grant to fund a SMP within the Estes Valley
development code boundary area. Additionally, the Town Board appropriated $30,000
for this companion study to explore the potential of creating a Stormwater Utility to fund
the masterplanned improvements and the requisite operation and maintenance.
Possession of a relevant SWP is a common prerequisite for stormwater project grant
funding eligibility.
A public meeting introducing these two studies was held on May 11, 2017. It was
sparsely attended. Progress reports were presented to the Town Board at study
sessions on August 8, 2017 and October 10, 2017. This is the final scheduled study
session with the Board of Trustees to discuss the potential revenue, setup, and
operational issues associated with implementing the improvement recommendations
contained in the SWP.
3
Proposal:
The consultant will present an overview and key findings contained in the draft SUFS.
The final SUFS will be completed before the SMP grant funding expires in December
2017. Public Works staff continues to collaborate with the Larimer County Engineer to
formulate a staff recommendation to be forwarded to both the Estes Park Town Board
and Larimer Board of Commissioners for consideration. A future Intergovernmental
Agreement regarding imposition and collection of fees from County residents should be
expected.
Advantages:
The SMP tabulates and maps the existing stormwater infrastructure.
The need for potential improvements is quantified in terms of prioritized scope
and cost.
A potential funding strategy is recommended in the feasibility study.
Implementation and sustained maintenance of the stormwater infrastructure will
reduce risk and recurrence of repeated property damage for both County and
Town residents.
Action on the final report will complete the 2017 Town Board Infrastructure
Objective to “Consider implementation of the Stormwater Master Plan and
formation of a stormwater utility.”
Disadvantages:
The disadvantages for the Town to assume this maintenance responsibility include:
The Town is not staffed or equipped to take on this maintenance effort. The
estimated cost of maintenance equipment and personnel is described in the
SUFS.
A new Stormwater Utility adds additional administrative effort to Public Works
staff.
A new utility fee, and potential sales tax, will be needed to fund this effort. Some
residents will object.
Action Recommended:
Review comments regarding the preferred funding option and organizational structure of
a future Stormwater Utility are encouraged. Responses will be incorporated into the
final SUFS before staff brings the document back to the Town Board and the Larimer
County Commissioners for adoption at a future public meeting.
Budget:
This report presents options to generate revenue to cover the new project costs.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest on this proposal will move from low to high if a new utility fee or sales tax
is proposed.
Attachments:
Presentation Slides (19 pages)
4
ESTES VALLEY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Phase II. Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study
Meeting No. 4 - Town Board Work Session, October 24, 2017
* Stormwater Financing
* Organizational Structure
George Oamek, Ph.D.
FEASIBILITY OF A STORMWATER UTILITY
Separate but related issues
f Financing and financial impacts
f Time frame for implementation
f Organizational structure
5
FINANCING AND FINANCIAL IMPACTS
f Total Estimated Cost of Master Plan Capital Improvements: $75.1 million
Priority 1 Projects: $44.2 million
Priority 2 Projects: $19.3 million
Priority 3 Projects: $11.6 million
FINANCING AND FINANCIAL IMPACTS
f Relatively low future growth to help pay
f The drainage area extends to developed areas beyond the Town limits
f Beneficiaries also extend beyond the Town
6
TIME FRAME FOR IMPLEMENTATION
f The time frame can be flexible
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
Figure: One possible expenditure pattern based on the Master Plan
FINANCING EFFECTS IMPLEMENTATION
f Who pays and how?
Owners of parcels in the Town and Development Area, with consideration of
types of land use
For current owners, charges may be in the form of monthly bills, like water
and sewer
For new development, an impact fee may be charged to buy-in to the
system
f Impervious area, such as the areas covered by roofs and concrete, is the
basis for assessing charges
f Businesses tend to have relatively more impervious area than residences
7
MORE FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION
f Sources of financing for the stormwater improvements:
Pay-as-you-go: building a capital reserve fund using customer charge revenues
and, possibly, some increment of sales tax revenue
Long implementation period
Grants and federal assistance
Less desirable sources of financing for Town
Debt, such as CWCB loans and bonded
indebtedness
Property tax assessments
f Monthly customer charges and potential dedicated sales tax are the
primary revenue sources for capital and O&M
GRANTS AND LOANS
Grants
f FEMA, administered through the Colorado Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management
•Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
o FMA has $160 million available nationally in 2017, $10 million cap per community for
flood mitigation projects
o 75% federal share with 25% local match, with exceptions
o Local match can come in various forms
•Hazard Mitigation Grants (HMG)
o Requires Presidential Major Disaster Declaration
8
GRANTS AND LOANS
Grants (Continued)
f Corps of Engineers Process
•Section 22, Reconnaissance Study (50-50 cost share), leads to …
•Section 205 Program; 100% federally funded feasibility study, 65-35 cost share on
construction; projects must be economically justifiable; up to $10 million for construction
without local match
•Write the Corps a letter to get things started
f Lengthy lead time
Loans
f CWCB Water Project Loans
•3% interest over 20-30 years
•Total of approx. $50 million available in most years, multiple loans are possible
•Flood control projects are low priority
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS
f Impacts expressed on $/month/parcel basis for all types of customers
More detailed cost allocation will be conducted to differentiate customer classes
New monthly charges would likely be phased-in over time
A detailed financial model for a stormwater entity over the period 2018-2047 was
developed to assess impacts
f Assumed that all developed parcels in the Town and Development Area can be
charged, as well as new development
f For illustration, an Enterprise is assumed
f Capital costs are as estimated in the Master Plan, increasing with inflation over time
f Stormwater O&M costs are estimated
9
COST OF THE MASTER PLAN TO PROPERTY OWNERS
f Implementing the Plan within a 10-20 year time frame will require debt
financing or a major grant, and high user fees
f Avoiding debt will require
additional phasing or delaying
of projects, plus establishing and
managing capital reserves
FINANCIAL IMPACTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS
f Stormwater charges for other Larimer County communities vary from about
$5/month to $15/month
These comparable communities have strong growth components and have
significant impact fee revenues
f Monthly charges in Estes Park could
vary depending on length of
implementation and willingness to
use other revenue sources, primarily
sales tax
10
FINANCIAL IMPACTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS
IF PLAN IS PHASED-IN OVER 30 YEARS AND NO DEBT IS USED
Potential User Charge and Sales Tax Trade-offs
(Funding $75 million CIP)
Potential Monthly User
Charges Local Sales Tax Option
$30/month/parcel,
Decreasing to $25 over time NA
$25/month/parcel,
Decreasing to $20 0.25%
$15/month/parcel,
Decreasing to $10 0.50%
$5/month/parcel,
Decreasing to $0 1.00%
FINANCIAL IMPACTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS
IF PLAN IS PHASED-IN OVER 30 YEARS AND NO DEBT IS USED
Potential Monthly User
Charges Local Sales Tax Option
$20/month/parcel NA
$10/month/parcel 0.25%
$5/month/parcel 0.50%
$0 1.00%
Potential User Charge and Sales Tax Trade-off
Assuming $40 million in grant funds
11
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
f What sort of entity is required to finance and implement the Plan?
f A range is considered:
The Town, through the General Fund
The Town, through a new Stormwater
Enterprise Fund
Regional Stormwater Authority
New Regional Entity (District?) Encompassing
Wastewater and Stormwater
TOWN MANAGES STORMWATER THROUGH THE
GENERAL FUND
f How stormwater has traditionally been managed
f Stormwater expenditures incorporated into existing departments, competing
with other departments and services for limited General Fund revenues
f A process for including unincorporated parcels would be needed
Cooperation with Larimer County
f Could become a significant portion of General Fund expenditures, resulting
in reduced levels of service for other activities
f Least desirable option for implementing Stormwater Master Plan in a timely
manner
12
STORMWATER ENTERPRISE FUND
f Would also require working with Larimer County to include areas outside Town
Advantages
Puts stormwater on par with other Town Enterprise Funds, a common approach for
municipalities
Allows for cost-of-service based rates and fees
Town Board has rate-setting authority
A range of funding sources may be available, with limitations
Town could operate entity or it could be operated through contract
Disadvantages
Could stretch Town’s financial capabilities
REGIONAL STORMWATER AUTHORITY
f Purpose would be to implement the Estes Valley Stormwater Management
Program
Would need IGA between jurisdictions, taxing and bonding authority
e.g. Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority, Box Elder Stormwater Authority
Governed by its own Board, with representatives from each jurisdiction
Could either have staff and perform operations or contract O&M
Disadvantages
Potentially less responsive to
Town’s desires
Lack of operating history
Revenue sources may not
include sales tax increment
Advantages
Takes a regional approach to a
regional issue
Shifts financing responsibilities
to the new Authority
13
NEW REGIONAL ENTITY FOR WASTEWATER AND
STORMWATER
f Merge the wastewater providers, with additional responsibility for stormwater
Advantages
Potential economies of scale for future capital projects, addressing future regulations, and financing
Reduced Administrative costs
Ability to take on regional, multi-purpose projects
Avoids the Town providing financing
Disadvantages
Cost savings for treatment and distribution activities is uncertain
Uncertain demand for merging wastewater providers
Potentially less responsive to Town
Revenue sources may not include sales tax
14
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: October 24th, 2017
RE: Sunset Review of Transportation Advisory Board and Parks Advisory
Board
Objective:
Determine next steps, if any, in the sunset review of the Parks Advisory Board and the
Transportation Advisory Board
Present Situation:
Board Policy 102, Town Committees, section 4w, sets a sunset review schedule for all
non-statutorily required Town Committees. This sunset review is required every five
years. The Parks Advisory Board and the Transportation Advisory Board are
scheduled for a sunset review in October of this year.
In the opinion of staff, both boards are functioning well and are providing additional
value to Town operations and to the Strategic Objectives of the Town Board.
Proposal:
Staff recommends the continuation of both of these boards. The purpose of this agenda
item at the study session is to get direction from the board on next steps. The options
are:
1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution, continuing both boards for another 5 years, to
be considered at the first Board meeting in November.
2. Direct staff to schedule an upcoming study session to have a more in-depth
discussion about the need for continuing one or both of these boards.
Advantages:
Both boards provide a forum for public input into Town operations
Both boards have members with specific expertise that is shared with the Town
Input from these board improve the quality of the recommendations from staff regarding
Town operations in these areas.
Disadvantages:
Managing and maintaining citizen board requires staff time
15
Action Recommended:
No recommendation – discussion only
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
High
Note – Any item requiring a change to the Municipal Code, Development Code or any
other action requiring an Ordinance to be passed by the Town Board is required to have
the Ordinance included.
16
November 14, 2017
Update on Development
Code Changes.
December 12, 2017
Final Review of 2017 Strategic Plan.
Downtown Plan final draft discussion.
Items Approved – Unscheduled:
Building Code Changes to Facilitate
Redevelopment.
3rd Party Building Inspections.
Items for Town Board Consideration
Licensed UTV on Town Streets
Discussion of Proceeds and Savings
from Parking Structure Financing.
Cyber Security
Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items
October 24, 2017
17