HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-02 PACKET 08.B.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING ITEM # �
DATE 01/02/08
PREPARED BY: Enqineering Jennifer Levitt
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR
����.�������������
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST:
Receive 2007 Stormwater Annual Report and discuss annual stormwater fee increase to
$54.00 in 2009, and $60.00 in 2010 for a single-family residentiai property, with the same
percentage increase to the ofher land uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive 2007 Stormwater Annual Report and discuss annual stormwater fee increase to
$54.00 in 2009, and $60.00 in 2010 for a single-family residential property, with the same
percentage increase to the other land uses.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
� MEMO/LETTER: Brian Voeiker, December 28, 2007.
❑ RESOLUTION:
❑ ORDINANCE:
❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION:
❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION:
� OTHER: Survey of Residential Annuai Storm Water Utility Charges, 3-year Stormwater
Maintenance Fund 2005-2007 Map, 5-year Stormwater Maintenance Fund 2008-2013,
Revenue Generation Table Based Upon $48 and $0 Annual Rate Increases Per Urban
Residential Unit with 2001-2015 Actual and Forecasted Budget, Revenue Generation Table
Based Upone $48, $54, and $60 Annual Rate Increases Per Urban Residential Unit, Current
$48, $54, and $60 Increase Stormwater Revenue Generation and Revenue/Expenditures
Spreadsheet, 2001-2015 Actual and Forecasted Budget, Metropolitan Councii Financing Water
Quality Management & Stormwater Utilities Survey, and 2007 Stormwater Utility Survey by
Black & Veatch.
ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS:
City Administrator Date
k :F * * :F :F * * * �[ t * * :F * * :{ :F k k * 'k * k * * :t * k R :4 * Y: q {; ;y * •k .4 :t :F * R :F k * * k
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: �, NPPROVED ❑ DENIED '` -�THER
, �.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
MINNESOTA
io: Honorable fViayor and City Council
Ryan Schroeder, Ciiy Administrator
From: Brian Voelker, Management Analyst
Date: Friday, December 28, 2007
Re: Annual Stormwater Maintenance Fund Report
Introduction
The City of Cottage Grove is working with the PCA to be in compiiance with nondegradation,
wellhead protection and the annual Phase 2 NPDES permit. The state and federal
governments mandate that the City of Cottage Grove and all other communities its size
improve the existing stormwater infrastructure under the NPDES Phase 2 permit. As a resuit
of this unfunded federal mandate, the City of Cottage Grove is required to clean and maintain
ponds, stormwater structures, waterways, and ditches on a 5-year cycie. This includes minor
maintenance and major maintenance projects. The minor maintenance is typically completed
by internal street division employees and the major maintenance is compieted by hired
contractors.
Background
The City of Cottage Grove's stormwater infrastructure currently includes 38 skimmers, 1,557
catch basins, 28 catch basin sumps, 2,248 storm manholes, 33 control structure outfalls,
399,538 lineal feet of storm pipe, 265 flared ends, and 105 stormwater ponds. Cottage Grove
aiso has approximately 88 miles of ditches.
The Stormwater Maintenance Fund generates revenues from the following land use
categories:
• Urban Residential
• Townhomes
• 1.5+ acre Residential
• Commercial/Industrial
• Agricultural
• Golf Course/Cemeteries
The Stormwater Maintenance fund is used for the following expenditure items:
• Public Works Personnel Services, which includes 2 stormwater employees.
• Commodities, which includes operating supplies.
• Minor Maintenance, which includes engineering, professional services, printing,
advertising, and minor maintenance completed by Public Works staff.
Major Maintenance, which includes capital outlay projects and equipment.
Watershed, which inciudes watershed district fees for Lower St. Croix WMO, South
Washington County Watershed District, and Education Coordinator.
Administrative and general expenditures for utility billing.
The City adopted the Stormwater Maintenance Fund in 2001 to help fund projects and improve
water quality and sediment control issues. The initial fee was $20 per year for a residentiai
single family home; this was increased to $21 in 2003.
On January 19, 2005 a Council Workshop was held to discuss the options for addressing the
backlog of projects in the Stormwater Maintenance Fund. The discussion focused on what
accounts for the backlog of projects in regards to minor and major maintenance, history of the
fund and options to address the backlog. The City Council voted in favor of increasing the
stormwater utility fee for single family residential from $21.00 annualiy to $40.00 in the seconc
half of 2005 and increasing the fee in 2007 to $42.00 annually for a single family residential.
The following table shows the annual fees per unit of ineasurement.
Land Use
Urban Residential
Townhomes
Apartments
1.5+ Acre Residential
Commercial/Industriai
Agricu�tural
Golf Course/Cemeteries
Unit of
Measurement
Res. Unit
Res. Unit
Res. Unit
Res. Unit
Imp. Surface Area
Parcei w/Structure
Gross Acres
2005 Annual
Rate Per Unit
$40.00
$20.00
$10.00
$30.00
$160.00
$40.00
$3.35
2007 Annual
Rate Per Unit
$42.00
$21.00
$10.60
$31.40
$168.00
$42.00
$7.04
In 2006 and 2007 the expenditures for personnel service more than doubled due to hiring an
additional stormwater person to help with the minor maintenance. Minor maintenance activitie�
include: pond mowing, catch basin repair, pipe repair, flared end section maintenance and
rural ditch improvements. Expenditures for minor maintenance more than tripled from 2005 to
2006, due to the Woodridge Park pond, North Ideal and South Ideal Park ponds, and other
minor maintenance projects. During 2007, the Utility and Street Divisions spent approximately
2300 hours of time in minor maintenance activities.
2005 Completed Projects
A three-year summary of the stormwater maintenance fund 2005-2007 is attached that shows
the exact locations of projects completed from 2005 to 2007. One minor maintenance project
was completed in a rural area of Cottage Grove. Both city staff and contractors completed the
following projects that included tree and brush removal, excavating and cleaning sediment
from ponds, culverts, and structures, and installation of erosion control to eliminate sediment
runoff:
• Kimbro Circle Pond
• Woodridge Pond
• Highland Hill Pond
• Glendenning Road (Rural)
3
• Kingston Park Pond
• Arbor Meadows Pond
• Industrial Park Flume
• Hinton Dry Pond
• Jamaica Avenue Ridge Valley
• Various Rurai Ditch Work
2006 Completed Projects
Both city staff and contractors completed the following projects that included tree and brush
removal, excavating and cieaning sediment from ponds, culverts, and structures, and
installation of erosion control to eliminate sediment runoff:
• Jergen Avenue Dry Pond
• Ivystone Avenue Dry Pond
• North Ideal Park Pond
• Kingston Park Dry Pond
• Jewell and Jocelyn Dry Pond
• South Ideal Park Pond
• Highiands Park Pond
• Indian Boulevard Dry Pond
• Various Rural Ditch Work
Highlands Park Pond
Highlands Park Pond was the biggest pond maintenance project for 2006, which included tree
and brush removal and excavating and cleaning sediment from ponds and structures. The
following two pictures are the before and after pictures of the Highlands Park pond north of 7pin
Street, which was converted from a dry pond to a wet pond to improve the integrity of the pond
and the park. This is considered major maintenance, resuiting in a cost of $274,048. Major
maintenance work is completed by the contractor and funded through the Stormwater
Maintenance Fund.
�
Indian Boulevard
The following two pictures show pond improvements made in 2006. The two pictures show a
pond north of Indian Boulevard that had sediment built up around the inlet and outlet structures
of the pond clean out sections. This work is considered minor maintenance with a cost of
$40,000 which included mobilization, equipment, labor, and debris disposal. Minor
maintenance work like this is completed with the contractor doing the excavating and riprap
placement, while in-house stafF assisted in providing labor, erosion control, structure cleaning,
and debris disposal, with funding from the Stormwater Maintenance Fund.
,,�
2007 Completed Ponds
The Pinetree Valley Pond was the biggest pond maintenance project completed in 2007. The
project consisted of tree and brush removal and excavating and cleaning sediment from ponds
and structures. This was considered major maintenance, with a total cost of $400,000 which
5
included park enhancements. The Stormwater Maintenance Fund was responsible for
$274,048 of the $400,000 which included engineering design, inspection, surveying, and all
contract work.
Also during 2007, city staff and contractors completed the following projects that included tree
and brush removal, excavating and cleaning sediment from ponds, culverts, and structures,
and installation of erosion control to eliminate sediment runoff:
• Pine Coulee Culvert
• Hamlet Park
• 100 Street (Rural)
o Lehigh to TH 95
0 10619 Lehigh Ave
. 103' Street (Rural)
• Jamaica Ridge Waterway
• Highlands Pond
. Kingston Waterway
• 78� Street
• Indian Bivd
• E. Pt. Douglas/Ravine Parkway (Rural)
• Pine Summit Pond
• 10624 Kimbro (Rural)
Four of the projects completed in 2007 involved rural ditch cleaning and culvert maintenance.
Proposed Major Maintenance Projects for 2008-2013
A map is attached that shows the exact locations of pond projects that are scheduled for
completion from 2008 to 2013 in the Capital Improvements Plan. They are a combination of
stormwater pond improvements, rural ditch and structural improvements, various park
improvements, and structure improvements that will coincide with pavement management
projects.
2008
• Ideal/Immanuel District Pavement Management Area
e Hamlet Pond Phase 3 Final Rock Excavation
2009
• �ehigh/TH 95 Realignment (Rural)
• Central District Pond Improvements
2010
• River Acres Pavement Management (Rural)
2011
• Pine Coulee Pavement Management (Rural)
• Howard's Addition
• 90 Street Reconstruction
. Various Stormwater Ponds and Structure Maintenance Projects (Both Urban and Rurai)
2012
• Oakwood Park Pond
• Various Stormwater Ponds and Structure Maintenance Projects (Both Urban and Rural)
2013
�
• Woodridge Park Pond
• Various Stormwater Ponds and Structure Maintenance Projects (Both Urban and Rural)
The 2008 Pavement Management Area will include minor storm pipe maintenance and catch
basin structure reconstruction to prevent infiltration. The River Acres and Pine Coulee
Pavement Management projects will include extensive culvert and ditch maintenance. The
projects proposed for 2010-2014 will be similar to the recent projects completed in 2006 and
2007, requiring pond lining, extensive pond excavation, and pipe maintenance. These ponds
will also include various amenities such as bike trails, new landscaping, park benches,
additional trees, and possibly additional infrastructure financed through other funding sources.
2010-2015 Pipe Cleaning and Repair
In 2010-2015 of the Stormwater Maintenance Fund, City staff has projected that 399,538 lineal
feet of stormwater pipe will need to be televised and cleaned. By televising and cleaning the
stormwater pipe, the City wil� be able to analyze the condition of the existing pipe and make
spot repairs where needed. The existing condition of the 399,538 lineal feet is unknown at this
time. in addition to the stormwater pipe, there are 2,248 stormwater manholes and 265 flare
end sections that need to be inspected for repairs and maintenance.
Nondegradation
In 2007, the Minnesota Poilution Control Agency (MPCA) required the City of Cottage Grove to
complete a Nondegration Report. The Nondegradation Report findings showed that
stormwater runofF volume is the only parameter that is projected to not meet nondegradation
standards in the 2020 condition. To address volume control, staff will make changes to the
current stormwater management program and identify methods to manage increased
stormwater runoff volumes that are cost-effective to construct and maintain. These
requirements will cail for additional infrastructure and engineering expenditures.
Welihead Pratection
The City is currentiy lining ponds like Highlands Park Pond and Pinetree Pond to decrease the
amount of surface water runoff infiltration that may affect the highly vulnerable groundwater.
The pond lining also adds to the pond, park and recreation aesthetics.
Snow and Ice Controt
One of the leading reasons for stormwater pond maintenance is the build-up of sand and
sediment material in stormwater pipes, structures, and outlets. There are two sources of sand
and sediment: snow and ice control operations during the winter months and existing runoff
from construction projects that is not natural runoff from an established site with proper erosion
control.
The Public Works Department has been progressively converting to a straight salt mixture.
The table below shows the current progression of the Public Works conversion of the straight
salt mixture:
Year Area Routes
2005-2006 Season 80`" Street 0 Residential Routes
2006-2007 Season All Main Routes 1 Residential Route
2007-2008 Season All Main Routes 3 Residential Routes
7
2008-2009 Season All Main Routes 6 Residential Routes
2009-2010 Season AII Main Routes 9 Residentiai Routes
2010-2011 Season Ali Main Routes All 12 Residential Routes
* Main Routes include 80"' Street, Jamaica Avenue, 95 Street, 90 Street, 65 Street and
East Point Douglas Road.
By 2010-2011, a straight salt mixture will be used on all plow routes throughout the city.
Eliminating the use of sand will also eliminate the amount of sand that is deposited in the
stormwater pipe, structures, and ponds, which will reduce the costs of excavating material
sediment buildup in ponds.
Stormwater Utility Survey
Attached are three surveys; the first was conducted this year of 44 Minnesota cities with a
majority of them being in the Twin Cities metro area. The average annual stormwater utility
fee for 2007 was $44.87 while the median stormwater fee for 2007 was $42.04.
When comparing the City of Cottage Grove's past history of storm water fees to the other cities
surveyed, it would seem reasonable that future market fee increases will average in the 5.75%
to 6% range fairiy easily, if the future follows the recent past. Given the interest in stormwater
issues within the public, state and county, along with the non degradation requirements, the
average will continue to increase in the 6% to 7% range. That means that the City of Cottage
Grove should be effectively at the market mean for the approved 2008 rate and the suggested
2009 rate, but could potentially be a bit above the projected mean for a year or two with the
proposed 2010 rate, but if we are, the market should catch up quickly. it is also notable that
for 2007 Woodbury is at $66, which could be assumed that their rates will increase again at
least by 2010.
The two additional surveys are also attached. The first one was completed by the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services, which shows the mean rate for nondegradation cities is
$47.68 for 2007. The survey also shows that 73% of the nondegradation cities have had a
stormwater utility fee prior to Cottage Grove, with 68% of them on or before 1994. Black &
Veatch conducted the final survey illustrating how 70 cities throughout the country are
addressing their stormwater issues. This survey not only shows the rates of other cities, it also
shows the problems and issues that exist in other cities aiso exist in Cottage Grove.
Impact of Funding Starmwater Utility Activities with Property Taxes
If the storm water utility was not a separate fund with utility charges funding operations and if
these same activities were completed within the general fund, the impact to an average valued
home of $230,000 would be $43 per year for 2007. This is determined by taking the charges
and dividing by the local tax base.
The benefits of operating a storm water utility to fund storm water maintenance activities
versus funding through the general fund and property taxes, is that the charges can be
ailocated based on the estimated storm water runoff. If funded through property taxes, the
amount generated would be aliocated based on a property's tax value and the property
classification assigned for property tax purposes, regardless of the estimated runoff associated
with the property. Another benefit of funding the activities through a utility charge is that the
0
fees apply to ail properties inciuding tax-exempt parcels, which is considered fair to all property
owners since they too generate storm water runoff.
Rurai Stormwater Fees
Portions of Cottage Grove are located in the LSCWMO and other portions are located in the
South Washington Watershed District. The LSCWMO provides planning services for
properties within their boundaries, in addition to the City of Cottage Grove providing planning
and maintenance activities for the area.
The LSCWMO is a joint powers agreement water management organization that has the
general authorities specified in Minnesota Statutes Sections 1038.211 through 255 and
specific authorities agreed to through a joint powers agreement between the municipalities and
townships within the watershed area.
The South Washington Water Management District (SWWMD) is a special purpose local unit
of government established under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D. A watershed districYs
boundary follows the natural watershed or hydrologic boundary draining to a downstream
water body.
The LSCWMO does not have taxing powers so they rely on fees charged to the jurisdictions
within their territory to fund their activities. The charges for the past few years have averaged
approximately $9,100 per year. The fees charged by the LSCWMO are paid by the City's
stormwater utility. There are currently 181 properties within the LSCWMO boundaries, so the
average charge per rate payer is $50 per year. Compared with the cities' stormwater rate for
2007 of $42 per year for properties in this area a subsidy of the property exists of
approximately $1,448 per year. In addition, assuming that the whole stormwater fee generated
in this area goes toward covering the fees charged by the LSCWMO, another subsidy exists
when activities are performed in the area. In short, the city rates charged in this area are not
sufficient to cover the charges by the LSCWMO. An option that could be considered is to
increase the rates in this area to cover the LSCWMO charges as well as funding maintenance
activities in the area.
Stormwater Utility vs. Stormwater Area Fund
There are two funds that the City of Cottage Grove uses to fund new construction and
maintenance of the City's stormwater infrastructure. The Area Fund is used for new
construction, and the Stormwater Maintenance Fund is used to maintain the existing
stormwater system. The Area Fund is assessed against a developer and the fee is used oniy
for new construction of the stormwater system. If the developer cannot provide for the
adequate retention, they can purchase stormwater credits. That money is added to the Area
Fund. None of that money can be utilized for maintaining the existing stormwater
infrastructure.
The Stormwater Maintenance Fund is only used for the maintenance, improvement, and
management of stormwater facilities. The projects include expected ongoing projects and
maintenance activities as well as items identified in the Capital Improvement Program. The
rates charged for property with dwelling units are based on the number(s) of dwelling units or
level of imperious surface. The Stormwater Maintenance Fund rates are determined annually
during the budgeting process. The initial plan in 2001 for the Stormwater Maintenance Fund
�
was to have rates remain stable with the growth in revenues resulting from the conversion of
vacant land to urban andlor residential use. The other classes of properties are charged
based on the area of impervious surface on the property. The stormwater maintenance budget
includes direct expenses of the fund for maintenance and support as well as an administration
fee calculated for Stormwater Maintenance Fund.
Proposed Ratelncrease
The initial plan for the Stormwater Maintenance Fund in 2002 was to have rates remain stable
with the growth in revenues from residential development, but as housing construction has
slowed in recent years, revenue projections have come in low.
The revenue projections and growth estimates are caiculated using the properties included in
the individual property classifications and land use types are to correspond with projections
included in the comprehensive plan. The following growth assumptions were used in the initia0
revenue projections:
• Urban Residential: 100 units added in 2008, 100 in 2009, 150 in 2010, and adding an
additional 50 per year thereafter
. Townhouses: 50 units added per year
. Apartments: 190 units added in 2008, 0 units per year thereafter
. 1.5 acre residential: 10 units added per year
. Commerciai/Industrial: %2 acre of impervious area added each year, approximately 22,000
square feet per year
. Agricultural: It is anticipated that as the other property classes increase each year, the
agricuitural and vacant Iand will decrease based upon the following conversion factor: 1/3
acre for each urban residential unit, 1!6 acre for each unit, and 1 YZ acres for the 1'/2 acre
residential lots. The anticipated commercial industrial property is not currently in the
agricultural area, so conversion is not necessary.
• No additional mining, schools, churches, or cemeteries are anticipated to be added in the
near future.
Based on the 2008 stormwater rate increase to $48.00 annually we are projecting, a deficit in
2009, and 2011-2015 based upon the 2008-2013 Capitai Improvement Projects (CIP) and
minor maintenance schedule (see attached revenue generation and revenue/expenditures
spreadsheet). A stormwater rate increase to $54.00 in 2009 and $60.00 in 2010 will minimize
a deficit and give the stormwater fund a balance of $71,000 to $300,000 in 2008-2014 (see
attached revenue generation and revenue/expenditures spreadsheet). The increased annual
fee wii� aiso fund the mandated requirements of the State and Federal NPDES and
nondegradation requirements. The additional funds will also cover the cost of improving the
aesthetics of each pond, along with the cost of many of the major maintenance projects.
Public Works Commission Recommendation
At the Public Works Commission meeting on October 8, 2007 the Commission discussed the
current and future rate increase through 2010. They reviewed the past projects from 2004-
2007 and future project and thought that an increase in the stormwater fee was needed to
maintain the existing infrastructure. The Pubiic Works Commission unanimously made a
motion and approved the stormwater maintenance fund rate increase of $6.00 annually in
2009 and 2010.
i[i7
Recommendation
City staff is recommending increasing the annual stormwater fee to $54.00 in 2009, and
$60.00 in 2010 for a single-family residentiai property, with the same percentage increase to
the other land uses.
Action Requested
Recommend increasing the annual stormwater fee to $54.00 in 2009, and $60.00 in 2010 for a
single-family residential property, with the same percentage increase to the other land uses.
��i
ICity
IOakdale
Roseville
Lakeville
(BrookiVn Park
� Detroit Lakes
IAndover
ISt. Cloud
IShakopee
�Chanhassen
(SOUth St. Paui
IEaqan
IRamsey
ICoon Rapids
IFarminqton
�Circle Pines
ICrystal
IMinnetrista
(Prior Lake
(ROChester
I Richfield
I Wayzata
�COttaqe Grove
IMahtomedi
�Rosemount
IShoreview
ISt. Lows Park
�Apple Vallev
I Delano
�P�vmouth
(Minnetonka
�Mapiewood
I Duluth
�Hopkins
I Bioommpton
ISt. Paul
IEdina
INew Briqhton
�Deeohaven
IWoodburV
ISavaqe
I Bumsvilte
INew Hope
�Golden Vailev
IMinneapolis
IMedian
�Average
Survey of Residential
Annuai Storm Water Utility Charges
for Various Cities in the Metropolitan Area
200� Rates 2003 Rates 2004 Rates 2005 Rates 2006 Rates 2007 Rates
Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Si�gle-Family
Residential Residential Residentiai Residential Residential Residential
per (Ot per lot p8! IOt pef Iot pet lot pef lot
$
$
I$
I$
($
I
I$
I$
1$
I�
I�
I$
I$
I$
I$
I$
1�
I$
I$
I$
I$
� $
$
I$
I$
I
�$
1 $
$
I$
I
$
$
$
�$
� $
$
$
I$
I$
I$
��
$
$
$
17 52 $
15.00 $
- I$
18.84 � $
I
- � $
- I$
- I�
I
zo 0o I $
2520 I $
- 18
23.00 I $
23 40 1 $
2a.00 I $
22.50 ( $
- I$
30201$
9.68 ( $
zo.00 I $
32.00 ( $
19.60 $
- $
- $
36.00 I $
I
39.00 I $
30 00 I $
- I$
45.00 I $
48.00 I $
40.00 I $
52.00 I $
20.00 I $
19.40 I $
- I$
36.00 � $
52.00 I $
57.60 I $
45 00 I $
70.00 I $
I$
27.60 I $
31.82 I $
- $ 20 00 $ 20.00 $ 20 00 $
18.40 �$ 19.00 $ 19 76 I$ 19.60 �$
19.00 $ 19.00 I$ 19.00 I$ 20.00 I$
22.00 $ 22.00 I$ 22.00 $ 24.0o I$
22.56 $ 22.56 $ 24.12 I$ 24.12 �$
$ 21.76 �$ 21 76 ($ 24.76 I$
- $ 12.00 I$ 12.00 I$ 24.00 I$
- I$ 24.06 I$ 24 06 ($ 25 55 I$
20 00 ($ 20.00 $ 20.00 I$ 30.00 i$
I$ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 �$
27 O8 I$ 27.96 $ 29 36 ($ 29.68 �$
25 20 I$ 25 20 I$ 28 80 I$ 30 24 $
26.00 I$ 26.00 �$ 28 60 I$ 31 40 $
31.00 I$ 31.00 $ 34.00 I$ 34.00 $
I $ 36.00 I $ 36.00 $
24.12 �$ 26.52 $ 29 16 I$ 32.08 $
24.00 I$ 36 00 I$ 36.00 ($ 36 00 $
29.25 �$ 36.00 I$ 36.00 I$ 36.00 I$
-'$ 36.00 I$ 36.60 I$ 36.00 �$
36 24 I$ 37.32 I$ 38.44 I$ 3S 44 I$
33.72 �$ 34 56 I$ 3629 �$ 38 10 �$
zo.00 I 8 z�.00, $ ao.00 i$ ao.00 I S
3528 �$ 37.04 I$ 37.04 I$ 39.87 I$
34.60 $ 34.60 I$ 34.60 �$ 40.84 I$
37 92 I$ 37.92 �$ 38 88 ($ 41.12 I$
24.00 $ 28_80 I$ 28 80 I$ 38.00 I$
47.76 I$ 47.76 I$ 47 76 I$ 47.76 I$
I I I$ 48.00 I$
39 00 �$ 39.00 I$ 44.52 $ 47.93 I$
30 00 I$ 42.00 I$ 42.00 $ 47.40 I$
- I$ 21.00�$ 41.16 3 41.161$
45.00 I$ 45.00 I$ 45 00 I$ 47 40 I$
48.00 I$ 48.00 I$ 48 00 I$ 54.00 �$
43.74 I$ 45.84 I�w 48.13 I$ 50.85 $
52.00 I$ 54.60 �$ 55.42 I$ 56.67 $
25 44 �$ 25.44 I$ 26.97 I$ 42.96 $
29 12 I$ 40 76 1$ 50.96 I$ 58.60 I$
12.00 ($ 12.00 I$ 24.00 �$ 60.00 �$
40.00 $ 61.00 I$ 61.00 I$ 66.00 I$
57.00 $ 6276 �$ 6276 I$ 67.92 I$
62.60 $ 68.00 �$ 68.00 I$ 69.00 I$
48 60 I$ 66.84 I$ 68.88 ($ 70 92 �$
72.00 I$ 75.96 $ 84.00 $ 84.00' $
- I $ - � $ 99 24 I $ 110.04' $
30.50 I$ 34.56 �$ 36.00 I$ 39.16 �$
3410 I$ 35.18 ($ 38.15 I$ 42.96 �$
20.00 f
20.20 �
21 00 �
24.00 (
24.12 I
24.76 �
25.20 �
26.31 I
30.00 I
30.00 I
30.56 �
31.16 �
31.40 (
34 00 I
36.00 I
36.00 I
36.00 �
36 00 �
36.00 I
38.44 �
40.01 �
a2,ao I
42.OS �
42.88 I
43.60 �
as.00 I
47761
48.00 I
51.96 (
48.60 I
49.44 �
51.44 �
54.00 (
54.36 I
57.80 (
58 60 I
58.60 �
60 00 I
66.00 I
70.56 �
70.80 �
73.32 �
88.00 I
117.24 �
42.04 �
44.87 I
ssm sr.
8
s
�om s*.
�
� � n
„
� � '
� s� �
� gi �
' _ s �
' i
., � - � . ao� sr.
� �
�
� r
� � w
ap
a�
r$
� v
a .�
85n{ ST.
� �
o —
�
y .-
' � y 9Y'_
B�
�
�
Q
r
s�
�
�
�
�
e
�
3—YEAR SUMMARY
STORMWATER
MAINTENANCE FUND
2005-2007
LEGEND
2005
2006
2007
2007 UNFlNISHED
h
�'�
0 20D0 4000
Swle In ta�l
November 2007
m��
,� n
c-gyea
_ . � ��. EtrPBIt
C-Pi31
�P..:�
$P�VHt _ B �(M119�
- C-PA�.t L�Y2] e CiMt EAP62l
vn-o�>.e A
EtrP]9l
� ��r
$P�V4A1 f YMC313 �
v➢ ���
i a �m n
C-PTJ0.
VR��8.1 ��•�
�� '�
[areu+'
ro�
< g
� CO-P961 x i
tas� �
� � Pa>.
,, `
,�-P<
iE-P5B �TG,�PSA.t
§f
°'*,:z �` �-osn'
��
POND
i 5-YEAR SUMMARY
STORMWATER UTILITY
ENTERPRISE
2007-2012
LEGEND
� xoo> (on
zore (a)
RC�i (M)
O zo+, nn
2pf3 (t�
O wn aoiz (P+z)
�J
o z� �
�
Saak in feM
Oecember 2001
L-%�.1
�
jr �. � � i�/ a�
�,. ,� ,- � M ��..ag<_� Grove �tBOnesUroo
Reveni�e Gcneration'Pable Based �'pon �d8+�0 Annual Rate Increases Yer Orban Residentix� L1nit
x�,.�re,vorzons s���„ee,irz�ros ro�aix�s
Am�iil Ra�e .9emuai Na4
Umta( Pro�ecmG kof pv Rnrn�e Pio�MCG not ptt Revenuc
_a�dllu \tcasuromm G:oeU�(ICP� Omt Ilnrt G:ncrx.cd �,rc x Gmm},Il/'}rl �w¢ Wvt Gmcrated
LrbanResideNal rex uml Xtl NS%) !IUU o11,21M1 4 ' 'l0°e N% 8G80 dU110 UiGUU
Tmwix�mvs a n�irt g il2U IOM1U ]5?G 5uy i IJ;S 2110p W,A50
ApamnrnU r..�umt � 50.5 520 I$'J ��:°i.. U SAS 10(I(1 +Y25
1(raa'reres�df�l�dl un�[ 5 �t60 I/�Illi JfiRl1 tl8':'o S ;65 tllllll fiY)C
Cnmmttual/IndusNal fmpSntfa<ca<re OS 5A1 8J0(1 `b,up� nu"o OS GVI 15000 SI;80
ngnauhmal emcd w/swcwro x3 �t uu a52 qp°e p a3 au ou al.0
�ui(CoorrelCemeter¢s Gmss Ane 3A8 1]G JOe �U"a 3�18 ? 35 sx3
TdalAMUalRCVrntw g IIt�4n� � >�qGJi 5 JSI-JS
I a�A Cse
l�banRevda�eal
Tau�l�lnt
AP��e itr
I 5 o�dcneol
ConurtrcinlRnJusmal
Ay'm:m�al
GadfCawxUCememne9
TutalArmuall4vvnuc
LnndUse
UrFanRas�drnbal
raxnhnm
,1pan�nents
1 5-azrc rts�Ce�eai
Con uaVlndusmai
.4E culwral
CroICCmuse/(eme4ns
Taml dmuai Ncvrnuc
Lm�d Use
Crban Rc�den0al
TnNMunxx
.lpsuncets
IS+acre ms�dcnliel
(mm� uaVl�dus�nal
A&���ulNral
GolfCows4Caucivncs
TomlAnnwlRwenuc
t InM1 of
A1ea weme��l
u inn
iev �mt
t unil
bnp Surfa.caua
BaaelmhWCWra
Gmss Acm
Lmlo(
m��s �E���
o �mrt
ms unrt
umt
imp Swfawsre
ParRI w/slryclutc
Goss Acm
Omto(
Mca,c : rnl
mx umt�
ns mm
umt
Imp Surfawaw
rareei m�swuuer
Gmss An.
Lmto(
nma��a,�<::e
�nil
r.s n���t
Lnp Sur(amacrc
Para1 xlewcmre
G�s,s nc�c
I
I°�,. no Prc�vc�ai
x (irnulh
ca
0°F
U"'..
0°0
U"n
U",u
f°a
2W8 I
a�mu.�iRnlc
Pro�m�ed dni' per Racmv Pm�ecmd
.�� eare Grmmh L'nrts Omt Gene�a¢d ..mcra¢ GooW
��1crIJ 3°'0 100 4p%5 1%I111 .436,OR11 o e U11",6
50 I�YS ?.40f1 3X,2N0
I��u ]]5 IL12 •�3Y3
t�l �95 �l��lll I] N2�
f15 r�;?5 I920f1 I?33G�
U .p ;2 U11 � %UR
3.4tl N0; }]9ft
b e2�531
2010 I
dnnuA Ram
Pro�mted U uC per Rev uv Pro�ec�ed
o����a.� cNN�i� w��� o�n cR��.n� a�� .,- c�.�an
` UO°o ISU 0335 lR00 .4VR,pftO �•� ac� ^
51) IG4$ j11n) JI�GNO
U ])S L' IL O1M
In 515 la no Ift.S]1
us oa3s io,on ¢s<sz
0 ;3 ;BOU ;Un3
348 %US 190R
2006
AMUaI Retc
vn( per R<w a
Cnrts Onn Gumuc.i �nre
225 SyUS d000 356,.00 0 ,sc 5"e
50 IA•�s ±UOp 2��UU S°-e
o sss tnnu s,xsu �
IU })5 30(Itl IJ.2511 5:6
US olis ��ppp IiCGAU t^-„
U i3 Ni�IU I.9�0 5^6
3Atl v)u 2,332 . e
S 512,RO2
E001 j
dnvnnlRe�e I
Pra�enN anf per Rax�c
Gnw�b 6'm[s Omt CencnatN
Ap tluy5 .L'n0 3P.3]n
?o isas ��nn 3_�as
II Cy5 1UfiU (i)II�
la JN5 31�u IS.R�
�5 e!2 IGNO�) ]UI,NSb
�� i3 J1aU IxUt�
3iB 'l0; 2.15u
8 �i3,?5]
Land Uae
Gbm�Hcsidantml
I'ouvhame
APanm.mte
1 C=anc ie�idrnbal
Commcroalil�iEUSVial
AgncWlnrd
wltC.manCcmncrrea
lmal dimual Rnrnuc
$ 6J5,16��
zmz
Mnual R�re
PmIttIN p ot pvr Rerenu�
.v, asv GmuM Cmts �m� Gv:mramd ..n m�e
rc 0 0°. 250 9JR5 ;tl W J5'IGSU e `` OU^�
SU ll�)5 210n 43,(1A0
4 )IS IOb(1 5215
❑i 535 311U In ]���
J G G}y 5 1�2 (�fl 12] ]1J
0 ai JR 00 =11�4
II ;.iN �ill :.lSU
5 064.IN+
2009 �
dnnna�Rnm I
U of per Rrvrnue
Um�s Omi Grnemtcd
�oo viet asnn �an,sen
so mu �eim 3•�aao
U ]]S L IG �J>A
111 $U< i(�I)(� IA.`I11
1)5 M1{3 IO20(1 1]3 45G
U ;l JNUO 211GA
3{y ftI1V ;]O%
fi o3q312
E011 �
AnnnnlRaca �
� u[ ptt Ra�
tivts Cmt Gartrnnd
20�i v515 lSOU VSIRtln
SG ll45 3311U +1 RAO
U )]$ lU FU %,215
lu 52 tI40 Ie.;xS
ns na.t io.on iz3nyR
Il !i }yp0 _pGi
3ax x ua t �ox
S LS•I>0
2013 �
Aru�ual Race I
P�olcmcd aof �r Hn�n
Gmoih Cmta Pm[ Grnerasd
3�1U In�AS JN(N1 1ttA�%U
511 I845 N OU JJ ]Ap
11 ]l$ �flfi0 tl,2�$
10 5;5 3IaU U.IIi
ll$ G45 I')?INI 1�3 ftill
0 13 aAW =OGa
11 id0. ]1J.{ _ {<p
5 6tl2�{�
fIT1 OP COI"I'Af.F, f,RO\'E, \itNNF.Sp"C,1
SI ORM N'ATER AIAIFT�N4NCF
Acwxl xnA i�mcav�tvl ItnAEN
]O(11 m 2UI5
q���� f orcvesred / Iiudg.+
)lnll ?011_ _ 2U113 2U�J ]IIUS ?00G 211UJ �UIIR 20p9 2010 2011 ?Ol? 2f113 _�OIA ?I115
Rc�
ftimgofn�=enia.-��ae�frm $At,iOf 8_3M1]?I E?SiG')4 y2SY,�Lt b45b,35(� 5£IGfi3J b5A33 Sb2'!53] 5(d4?I2 SGAS,IG9 fit1,)]0 646,U32 fiR2.fiR bYR,IB2 ']IJ,�6]
inrca�tmenlammw,c i.�19 .f,wl� 2.3Ui ?119( i,iU2 B.[90 9.II3 ?ft6� �_!nl 1fiJ.1
Sp_]Z] 2.iliil }5y000 2(.i?Sp J60,o5a 4�_�i0 S�iy)0 (3],dafi (w.]D oAS.ifi� b5�4,iH nfifi.U32 68?�Jl _ fi9tl.05^_ ]IA.Ob±
r�rm.he�re��
or�,n�F .,��n �„�mw�n.r
�P:ic v�cc
On+mMme�
'ALnor mninlennme
'MaJnrm.+mknancr
1vm�nne.i
na�n��no-m�.� ���n s��e�ai
9'crv��nni wmce.
�Cnmm�,Anre�
�C.mlin.e�al :emie:
° Olher iLarE.eo- aAmmr.vae�e oha�pc
r�m� c.prnmn�re�
:11.�9I J2.USY 5.1?p2 YG.JS]
<�i3 4214 6551 _ vl l
22 M1S,J23 11031n 159d'R 108.:Ji
i�<:x t3»?
Id8A6] t5n,500
31,4iV SG p0U
i81 J(1� IP.Stifl
n,.zaa ��omro
I3,420 1,311U
iBJ.00f1 Ui.3!(1 199.013
63,SUn nn,f110 4R,6Rt
fiN."101) t331'U li%;i<
i3L�00 303329 105,069
IS,SpO IG,120 iG,A�$
2(16.9]5 21525J 2?3ftfik 1i_>,%14 dq.131
'i1d29 �.1.2ft6 '1).)5] ft0.3JR 8i5fi2
IJ3 983 14U.1J2 ISS.l32 161 9fi1 14U..119
?14E51 JSP314 JIIJINO J4J.5113 10�592
1].435 18.131 IR.85R i'tfiL 2U39]
Ne[ muea�� ideirenv'ei m fiind F.Ixnce
FoW baluncc-lanuu� I
Rec�dn,d <qnm. tran.�er
PunA Aalanae- Pe.emM1rr 31
- fi.lU. fi]l4 Sbti S,6ll i>011 R.Ul10 fi.IUll fil{{ G.59% fi.86) J.13M1 ]A1 ].]iq N.112]
- SA00 - - - ?OU �00 300 iQ 32i 33) 351 3GS ift0 39�
1,911 i,%lfi :9n6 4L(1 56 IISSU Ifi,95U 1]}50 IR.OJJ IR,)o4 W,51G 20,2v9 21Jn9 21,953 23,63i
IA,900 2SIUU :X,G00 ?N,GUO 26,600 :N .:S.fi00 2K,(rll(I 28,600 1$fi00 28,fi00 ]S,bUO ?%nlll) 2%,FUO
_$1,=65 SIIJ�_00] 82v3}Y1 5?A3 I8G b'_55,T�0 8693.ft@ b55N,2511 8]18,]5p gp!_269 5582,263 5869,]68 FI.OU1,115 58V4,J8"I SRi],89J E6811,955
!8.]SR 12].3i1 1a Qi.829) 20},110 IIfiASR) t5,)%Ip 181,3Jd1 P23,.49G1 42.�ID4 Rt5,3]5) 13360R31 (162,'1<) (119,ftA21 3t.ID�
11 IOO.N>a 228.Iftft I8R.)4J 1ofi9fi5 391.0]< 211'_.SOi 1`)6."id3 I15}]Y Itl.il]) SV]R4 liM10.B51 (A9q40R1 1fi58,9iii IRUB]S5�
9l,lle u n n u u o u u n n a a u a
$�UO,%]J F21% bIX�,]9A Rl(fi4fi? 53]I,0'15 5+_p�GU3 519�.]23 fi115,3)Y (58��]1 $$J,]$Y 1$IM1O,SR$) 6J_{ �M1,�48 $fi5�_41iL 8R1 U8,]55) 18)�SGV6;
Publu No�i.t xnA Pm eet ivnemea
� Per=ona�S=rvuec.�m.ni.ofPm�acwcmnpli�niiu-houae�hnimmiaofrepmru aplecemem�dpnndMnore�iletcmmor 9T�rc.pondmw,�in�,imalJnJ�vnpmvemenw.slru�lswrepm&r��dsm�macv�rpqw<lemm�p
P,nnn�iihr� ma tM1e nprntmE cnpphes meJ fer PnFb< W mla simmxa�er mam¢nunce, wh�eM1 mrnnus A percrn� caoL rear (ar f rti�re nvo�mp0ons
C�.nvnw�ai Smnev aie tlu np.nce� �M1at are conuacmd ��n� f r maJnr�Miment rcm�naL C^nd and �trnem�ai impm�emums, smem xwer pq+c and emue�re repe�n. aionp w�iF all Ne V PD[S a..�wia�ed mas mcF av engme nnF. ��roultan�. invpm4on, cmmi maCD���e and drmnaF�' d�+Nn memFen ent
° Ifie cFarFea hn I m�er S� Cmn A1ana�emm� Orgmm>afinn INMO) mereavM 4 per..�m pn y�ar ( r f mne w�vn�npb��nc
� lLeiFnrpesforSoolhNashmgh�nlCnicrChedU�cvictd�arges(SWWI)hncrea�idJpereenlper>'cmfmlum�enssm�pM1On.
4dm nimrnlnP and Yvnerei
Prtw�nniaeniacar apnitinnof�FivftlityF�ILngcittk's.nlarvpLniperenteachY�T�lo�fnw�enccamphn�.
CmnmMioc= e�pu� v. �oi�va of iLe.nicc ta� on all �rem.. �n.reatevi nerun� encF �ear lor h�nne nv.umph�m�
('�nincmn�.en mev umae� nLi p��mon oi the e�peme. of�Le ne�iN FJbnp nnd th�� e�pimv'e nmreaece J pvient varh �ear foi hnnre n.annpnon� lhe SmnmwinMmnienance Ivnd ��i0 he eFa�eJ �rth Ill peimnt nf lAa mu. ot the nrvh�Y h�pmg pro�ece, mcinJn�p �he ueLh M1�ilmg derk eine
Uthvr aharpes- aAmm�qrab�e <ervnec n�il bc al a Gved rn¢ hom �em ?(N111u 10lli. Por adniimvtrafn�>ninnv, anA M1enelirc
e�rs�xavotzaos
AMmI Ram
Ummf Pro�eated nu( per Rcunuc Pro�mtcd :nf
Lm�d Use M1teasmemrnl 4rmmhil2�n t�mis Lnn Generated ma xe (i�nw�p�IR�xI On�ts
UrFan Readeneai a nmt AA RSO� �� pp JU,2Ib F9 ap:, 0.H
"lOWnFOmcS e[ milt 25 IJ211 1U h0 ],G?!. µ9"m 2$
Apanvrems ms mn[ n Stl5 5 2U 1,521 @^'0 0
lu¢�rtresWeneal mrt i !Gn lopn 3.bYU BA"'e 5
PmmvaaalMdusmal Imp tiurfamncm n5 t>Vl 51C0 ]fia01 vP'�a u:
AyncuSmai Pamclw/sWCmrc 43 ZI no 1P_ vn°a 0
GolfCuundCcmemn�s Gioas 4cre 3Atl i]6 3pG ��0°F
TomlAnnoalfteienue $ i?q60:
I.md Use
li�l»nRCSiJ.v(ial
1'axmhomes
Apetlmrnls
� £+yrcrcei�knuvl
Can mal�Liduemnl
AgnNUllnral
GolfCwrs✓Ca,nctrnex
TutsiAmnaiRevenue
I and Ose
U�AxnRC�„lrnt�al
towvihnm s
APanine�tc
I � Fnaucadmieal
Can� uxl/indusmal
Agn �inua�
cmra,�.suc�ae�es
Potal Aim�al Racwe
LordCSe
Urbao Res�drntml
TmanMmu
Apvenev�
1 4acrereside.nwl
com.�n�«� �m :a�so-�.,i
Ag�cYltwal
GolfConselCeineaxas
rmd,e��m� rz;vcnue
Lu,dUSc
❑rba� Rcsdrnliei
r��no���s
Apuur mu
1 Srxw¢sWCmini
CoinmeremVlnd�sUial
Agrmmwra�
GolfComcCGmenrrn
t'ntoi Anvuai Rurnue
land Usc
l��ban ftcsWmm�l
Tm�Thomes
Apanmau
15-a�re res�drntinl
Cmmncroal/I�d anal
A6ncuifurai
GolfCowse/CCnrcfcn:s
Tot�l Amml Rn�.iwc
Um[of Prolc<�eJ
Mmeurement ,a mm se Gmx�h
m unil rc �Or.
res wrt I)"5
I)°n
unrt �No
Imp 5urpceacrc IY'n
Paulw/smmwie n°4
Gin�s Acrc U°.
u�m �r
nm�s��,�E��
r v unil
res w�t
m5 imt
p saina�a�rc
PormlukW¢mrc
Gmas.4m
t m[uf
Me�swem;r.t
e wtn
ic. unn
we
m�n s�rt�« ��.�
P.vahvtsmmnvc
Gm�e A.re
Liataf
Mcazvr,mant
ie uvrt
«7 �m�l
I�np Siu(amaae
Paal w/51mcWre
G ocs Acrc
M1icu rcmrnt
� uut
ms wrt
wnt
Imp Soef cc ane
V.u<ciw�Ftnul�vc
Gmss Acre
:006
nM��i k�m
d of per Rm �c Prp�cclW
l�ons Pmt Gmmamd ,� nm c Gmu�h
]25 A905 JO UO 15n,2n0 tl � Se,�
C11 IAJ$ :11111j �y,9Ql1 .o
a <es iuon sesa �„e
IU ;95 9pU0 IA±Sn $"a
�15 hJIS 16111111 ��jh.�l) 5".0
a a3 aaaa i>m s�-�
?¢A G JIl 2i32 5°.
R 512 nv2
2110fl
Amnal Ram
c,��>ia nor �,« ne.<���<
e �c Gmvih Umtc II�¢ Grnammd
inct lJ ' '+°� l00 OOY$ qy � yJ(�OKIt
?0 1595 2lOU 3XZAU
IJO lJ5 L'I: 9,3)3
IO ;Vi Ih00 1)8?U
u£ 6�F25 IolOU L`�3[+0
�l d; :200 I %OG
?Atl %UJ L,)��N
$ L29,53]
S.mod Ha1R005
Amnal Ra¢
per ftc�rnun
C�nt Gn�erakd
8�+80 411fp
was ±a no
585 lU 00
V+5 30110
hq Ib00�
as aaou
3J8 335
'Iata12U05
l
]03,GU0
IS.d41
2 925
G,41C
9.�HI1
b611
Sfl3
25(IGT. S ?%12)5
zaa� �
AmualRate (
saf per Rme�ue
Um(e Ilm� 4enomtcd
80 %9%5 12 n0 �)) )]n
m t<as z� nn 3z,aas
a 5x5 men 6,mi
IU dA5 31 AO 1510
OS 6a'_ IG%0�I 10)0.5fi
0 i3 4]a0 ItlUb
3V0. >�lJ ',{5U
4 iA335>
3UU9 �
an,�si xm� �
Pio�<eted Rof per Revenue
�i uu GroxtL Wuts Li�rt Gvnanied
nvc ''S°.. IUU aIRS 4W lVSpan
Sp Ib45 ).)UI1 J;,JIS
(1 ]JS I3GR i(1,6@
IO spc yU$b 21I,i83
11� 6{3 ?IaiNl liAft%fl
0 V3 SJOU _3'2
aax �ros 3 us
A 115.%4a
zmn
a���m exrc
Pro�`a�ed d ot pvr Rmenav Prn�ated
.�� ma e Gi��ib p���ts t n�t Generatcd .mimzs Gox 4
���ut°u iso �3as ennu sw.�ou nn^o
<0 Ifi'1� 3011U S11X5(1
n ]"IS IS �0 l I ]Au
I(1 515 $(p ]321I
US n;35 2i00u )51.JJU
II ;3 M1IIIIII �SftU
318 IOab 3501
S xnn.aez
zmz
AnnmlRme
Ym�mcd kaf per Ra�rnue
oi na Gmuih timts Cmt Gmmxtcd i c
nac ,.^ )511 I]NS 601N SN9.IIIU � n Rn
50 I]95 3UU0 53,%50
U PS I�GU H,215
tu 535 11 JO Io.IYo
0< aJ15 2d0o0 l596%0
U ¢3 bUVU ],SAU
II 31b ]M :.AGi
5 x).5,�.]a
xnu �
.1Mml Ra(e I
?of per Rcvcnnc
tn�es Cnn ceneramd
,ou o.3s cnua in_mu
iu I]}5 3UUU 5?;su
u ]>5 Iobu A 3I5
�U 5±$ 3I111 IG,ANS
us oaa zauau isueu
ll ;a M1lll)U � SAtI
?18 IJno 3,SUl
5 so n.yn�
za�n �
Annual Ram �
&o�mcd bof per Rarnuu
Grux9� Cmts Lmt C;noami
?un muas onno nas.mo
sn �xas 3non issso
p ]y5 In 60 x L5
IO AS IIJU D,113
ns oas zdonn is�eou
U Ji aUOU 'SBU
II 3i8 91µ 2.;50
$ Y15 m10
:OIJ
Anr.uzl Rare
Pra�ceLLd u o( per Rev ue Pro�nud
,oi �asv Gmxah Umu Umt Gcnnmcd ,oin tt GmeiM1
n"` OG°� 9UI� IU3Y5 G�IIN) fi2i�I0U e`t �OU o
5u is4s ;uuu sqam
U I95 I0G0 81�5
�n sss iiin na_�
Il5 GJ$ $ +qll (p 151,Y20
U 1? nnUU 258n
0 31tl 9(IV ±;)50
8 Yfi55;�
2015 '
A�nunlRam I
d o! pc� Rcvmue
Omis Pmt Gorn'm[cd
31N1 ]OG85 GOOII 6;I.Ipu
5(1 IuyS 30 W 56,350
U ]]5 1116U bj15
1� Sn5 ?IJU 1]]41
I15 oVfi 2q0U0 ISS.uIU
0 +3 nn�W :�Xa
(I ?itl ](IA 2,i5U
S tle5.11G
f1Tl ON COT fA(;B f.ROI'F., �11\C! COTA
StORhi \PAi131iMA�MPNANCH
Me�xl anJ F�mn n.�rA Nndf�'
2U�I t� 201 �
AcWai Fnrecaaul; Nndeei
'_UI11 '_0(rz 2003 _'O(If 2005 20�6 ?00) ]Oflft 10114 ?010 1(I11_ 2111� 2013 _ 20H _'V15
Hc�
Chmgevfm:u�ic«.-usuG�..e 6!>�0! S23n.a11 8251.GVY b?�o.11 SJ5p.3<! SAqt�i.4 §£{}.359 3fi2ag) 8115R49 SRII6Afi2 R0��9i ffi5.6�4 RlSGO% ftts5 BSC.{]6
Im•evimenlemnmY" i�19 J,59p ].301 2.09fi i]03 8,5Y4 9.113 ).869 iJEI ?.113 S.4i3 ].J01 .:}ip =i3') i.0i2
Sqv�3 ?11.321 ]5_OOU '6115) i6f1.U5� 25._3U 552,!)0 q].illfi 919310 fit1R.405 fti8.)N %33,n'IS A�t938 Ru),961 RHB.<i8
i��ind�inrec
(��.rnl�nt..�itAniain�enin�a•�
�PVi^,nnalve ire�
° P mmMiue
'1linormnin�ennnc.�
'Afaiormmnln�ance
Rar�d�eA
4CmimceaLVe m�dE.neiA.
"Pcn�n�alccnvc�
m�wlie�.
^ a.� .,�e„�.�.���rr
"O�Ler�hmfe, ndminrvrtatne.Lmee
Iomlr�peiwLin�es
Nct.mreare Iderzeasel ��� fimA halanec
r��,n n.,i;,�« - imm��. i
r.:�n�mi.�r�n: w��e�.
1 wd Aalnme � i�ecemher 31
?U.?v3 J29<9 Sd}02
fiA 4,114 %,551
.. 65.tP 210339 159.3]2
- q122 o.t4f
s nnn
lyJ3 1 filfi 5,946
IdJllll ]5.100
FIg45 RII1no� F=v}.;nt
48.15R II].:i1 139}9A1
1053%
9n.]9 IAft:46] 15q50U IR.1.000 I91ip0 I9V11�1 ?u6.9]5 ?I5,25A 2?lftR4 2i2.NI9 2.I.Ji1
.911 31,a3A ;S��U 63,SOp o6,M0 fift,M182 )1,129 9J,3Nfi >l,_`5] 8q1AH R�,562
IU8.43 �A1;10] V3.%00 RY]VO 133.1?0 IiR:IlS 64i9ft3 ii9]A2 155.9i2 161 9M1l 16%J39
- 3]],�N IOLLOiIII ix.).]IN 30?32V IOSPfiY 3A.4 a%N.3i6 311AR11 i4i.503 111M1.592
I3.9AJ 13.6'_0 "l,3fro iS50p �6.120 ih.]65 1),I35 18.11i IN.85% 19.n12 2a39]
seli 54.1� 5,t00 Ennn b.100 (.3iJ fi54N 4562 J.i36 p,A!2 ],JIR
. - 30U 3f10 1(10 lII 32 33> 3£1 )OS 36�
fi2ID SI II�50 Ifi9�l1 I],3�p IR.Oii IR,]fifi IJSi6 '_(1,>9I )1.104 21?Si
?$n0f1 2H,M1U0 2N,fi(Ifl )_000 2860� 25.400 2R,60 !ft,n00 28.00ft ?RW�1 28,fi1�p
R283,ifin ,%2559y9 S691X(12 gsgg _fi E]IB"150 b1G.l,'!n b5g'_263 SNGO,�RH SLO��'_.115 ABA,?A1 FBA],AYA
121k?41 20.1.110 (168,$)1) (5,�H IAIl94) Win5Y) 2Ifi1.0 l$I,O4J) UEY,OAO) 3b51 20.0%)
R.pJ.]
��s
]>.R31
)H,G00
SM1AU,955
?OJ <63
U IIIqR�1 338.1%8 IA% )YJ ILfiVp� 3)IU]5 )f1_S03 I9fi.i23 I(f3)Y ]IAZO t9),>o2 2!(�fi0) P.M1SI %1.3�Y ilii39fi
sz,us u u o a o u u o a o a o o n
SIOO.ft]d F118.18ft 9RH,)9J $Ififi965 b301,i1)5 F20�50? 5196,)d3 SIIS}p9 5]I�A211 b29].]G� fi2in,GP] fi]�b5) b%I?n8 _bi013�4 F106.959
PnM1M1� \\'n�ke end P� niec� l:menvea
PeunualSernrviomnne[p+�ned<<.mFleiedm-Ivw.et6n�e�m.i�iotrepmre ieplaremenlofpimdinleior��uticKmmnrrcp+vcp�nidm��a�u�.mmidrtcAlmpm�emcm
C�.nirt��+diee• nrz tM1e �pemtm� aq�piiea n�ed for PnM1hr Rbr4s mmmwxtennain¢nanm, u.hmh merewces A pvani a<h>exr fm fitlam a<eumpbnn�
(� o.pm� zarhatarc comra.ieA mnfm mxl��r:oLmcnfrem�rvnl.pnnA and rencUnaiimpm�e�no�t �rormsvmerpiPe a�d .Imqnrermmre el��ng��nL allth�NPDGS esmc�ated u.a� mcF acenE.m�.nnE.e nvtluntinapeceon.amm mappmF nnd drninnFe��:�ne�manuemenl.
� IFr.Faeeclnrlmve�RCrnrcNAerM,mapement0�6.��������nnlN'A101mnen�eJJpercentpe�YCmfnrlulureaw�nnpUnn�
- TM1��hmgeslor<mnFKavhmelnn0'flnrShed➢nN�td�m6ealSN\\'UlnnmreeAlpmmwntl`e�)eer(mNprz�aa.nmpuonc
Admini.�ntive xnd eeneul
Pucnnnl <.m�e. me a pornrn ofthe ohl�n Fdimp dcrk'<<alap' PW� 1 I•e�cen� m<M1 )'wr foe faimm �s�nmpeon�
fnmm�dnie= ecpenmv m�c�q uf10e mies tm un nil ileme merem« J pumM1 enah �eu f� Mrt�rc assumpbm�v
( omn��inalvenme•.��n•isintn p� �fih:e�pem<v'niihe unlih Fillmk.endth�. e�pense mnea�e.J pvum rarh�eutnr bnme acsnmpbnnv TM1e S4.rtnoarer NaiWmanaa �unA vnllM1e<hargedn.nh i(Ipe�centuf�heu�q. nf�he nt�Ln M1JL�R���+�ce miln.LngtM1r obLm FilLng did ��m=
O@n chergu- adminniram� cm�ca. w�ll he at e ti�ed rate Irmn year 10n4 m'_Olil, im admunqraM1re �nlane. and 1<nciit.
� .�� .
., .:
Financing Water Quaiity Management
& 9tormwater Utilities
��� �� ���
F inancing storniwater facilities became a little easier and a great
deal more predictable in 1983 when the Minnesota Legislature
authorized local goveinments to create "stormwater utilities"
(Minnesota Statutes section 44d.075). This legislation authorizes
communities and counties to levy user charges for the use and the
availabiliry of stormwater facilities and for connections to them.
One metropolitan area watershed district also has used this provision
of the (aw to create a stormwater utility. Funds obtained through a
stormwater utility fee must be dedicated to the purpose for which
they were obtained. This allows a community to look ahead several
years, plan for facilities and programs necessary to meet local needs
and federal and state requirements for stormwater management, and
build a fimd with the fees that will allow it to meet the needs in an
orderly fashion.
.'�s requirements for stormwater management have grown over the
last 20 years, so has the number of canmunities that have created a
stormwater utility. A 2007 survey by the Vletropolitan Council
shows that 83 communities now have a utility (see Map 1). This is a
significant increase since the 1997 survey that reported �45 utilities.
Map 1. 2007 Stormwater Utility Fees
(in dollars)
�� � �
Figure 1, which depicts the formation of
utilities since 1983, shows two periods with a
large increase in the formation of stormwater
utilities. 7'he first increase, in 1990 to 1994, is
related to the Minnesota f3oard of Water and
Soi) Resources' adoption of rules for
watershed plans and local stormwater
management plans. For the first time the
preparation of local stormwater management
plans was mandated by statutes and state
rules; communities reacted by creating a
dedicated source of revenue that would allow
them to meet the mandate.
Fig. 1. Formation of
Stormwater Utilities
35' _ ______--_
30
30 — �
E r�
g -'s - 2s
c;
� op _. �.,
�
`0 15 12
<
E IO ` 9 8
o k
7 ..
5
' . � �
1iN.
p _�F� '�'.'. ;? `,t�
C C C P d
'T Q J J
P P T C� O O
^ ^' ^ ^ (`I fl
PCYIOf�S
The second sharp increase in utilities came
during the 2000-2004 period. I'his period saw
the O.S. F.nvironmeutal Protection Agency
impose new rules for municipal stormwater
management for every urban area with 10,000
or more inhabi[ants or a population density of
1,000 or more persons per square mile. These
new rules implemented best management
practices, monitored runoff discharges and
met various other requirements spelled out in
a permit issued to a community under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program. In the
metropolitan area, 120 out of I SS
communities must have an NPDES pennit for
stormwater management (see T�ble 1).
Nole Ihe srortnwal�r vhlitles for 6laive aid St Panl Park �vhde ilwwn on th�s map,
vnll na be �n effe t unHl tan I'_OOR
u
�+igure 2 depicis tire range iu ntility fees for 2007. The mean
annual fee charged by communities is nearly $41 with a low of $8
and a high oC about $ I 17.
Fi9. 2. Distribution of Stormwater
Utility Fees
I 26
� +
,Q I
� 17
u I
� IS F
°' 12
w 11
IO I 9
�
5 � 1 Z 1
= r.
o "�` B+
I l�l ?`f'. � O N"t �O W'�
'^ N M T iD h cO O� O N
Fces (in dollars)
t�s reported by 78 utitities, in 2006, this fee-based revemie ranged
from $30 million in Minneapolis to $8,000 in WateRown (7'able 1
and hlap Z). Totai revenues for 2006 reported by these 78 utilities
exceeded $81 million, while expenses for stormwater were $79
million.
Map 2. 2006 Stormwater Utility Revenues
(in dollars)
I
�� �I� ��I��III'I
II I
�� � i '�II� , �i �I � III � I
$r �i!,
I
(
�
'�' I
�' l �,. I
�
Q
i i i
Some communities :ad a sarpl��s, which they
banked for the future when more expensive
projects may be implemented. This practice
allows communities to steadily maintain the
utility charge.
The stormwater utility charge is generally
used for operation and maintenance of
stormwater facilities, construction and
improvements, as well as costs associated
witli activities required of communities under
the federal NPDES permit process. Seventy-
two percent of the communities use the fees
for permit activities or water quality
management. Eighty-nine percent of them
provide exemptions from the fee for such land
use as public streets and highways, public
parks and undeveloped land. Fifry percent of
the communities with a stormwater utility
provided credits for stormwater facilities
constructed and maintained by property
owners.
7'he 1983 law that enables communities to
create stormwater utilities is an invaluable
tool for meeting increasing stormwater
management requirements. The required
dedication of t(ie revenues provides
transparency in the finances of the stormwater
utiliTy—a plus with local resideuts.
For more information about the
Metropolitan Council's Stormwater Utility
Survey, please contact:
Marcel Jouseau, 651-602-1145;
marce I.j ous eau(�,metc state.mn. u s.
� .�, u
� . .. r,. .,. ,.�,
I__ ..�. i �
*
I Anoka
� AppieVallev
� Arden Hilis
( Belle Plaine
� BirchwoodVi�laqe
8laine
Bloominpton
� Brooklyn Center
� Brooklyn Park
� Bums Twp.
� Bumsvilie
� Carver
� Cenferviile
� Champlin
� Chanhassen
� Chaska
( Circle Pines
� Colum6ia Heiqh�s
� Coon Rapids
� Corcoran
� Cottage Grove
( CreditRiverTwp.
� Crysta�
� Dayton
� Deephaven
� Deliwood
� Eagan
( East Bethel
� Eden Prairie
� Eiko New Market
� EmpireTwp.
� Excelsiw
� Falcon Heiqhts
� Farminaton
( Porest lake
� Fridley
� Gem Lake
( Golden Vailev
� Grant
� Greenwood
� Nam Lake
I Has6nqs
I Hdltop
� Hopkins
I Huqo
� Independence
� InverGroveHeiqhls
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
2003 21 12 Yes Jordan
1988 47.76 Yes Yes Lake Elmo
7993 34.60 Yes Laketown Two.
1999 33.00 Lakeville
Yes Landiall
2007 21.00 Yes Yes Lauderdale
1988 54 36 Yes Yes Lexinaton
1991 51.44 Yes Uivdale
2002 96.00 Yes Yes ,� Lino Lakes
Yes liMe Canada
1992 I0.80 Yes Yes Lonq Lake
2004 39.96 Yes Loretto
1997 2000 Yes �omsvilleTwp.
Yes � Mahtomedi
1994 3120 Yes Yes � Maple Grove
Yes Yes Mapie Plam
2005 36.00 Yes Maolewood
7999 29 52 Yes Mayer
2002 3420 Yes Yes H Medicine Lake
Yes ppp I� Medina
2001 42.00 Yes Yes � Mendota
Yes Mendota He�ohts
1991 3Z20 Yes Minneapoiis
Yes � Mmnelonka
1994 &0.00 Yes ii Minnetonka Beach
Yes Minnehista
1990 30 56 Yes Yes Mound
Yes Mounds View
1994 12.00 Yes Yes � New Bnqhton
19 57 .56 Ye Yes I� New Hooe
2000 54.00 New Praoue
Yes Newport
1999 31.92 Yes � North Oaks
1986 39.00 Yes �� North St. Paul
1989 34.00 Yes Yes � Nwthfieid
Yes Noiwood Youno Amenc
7985 1320 Yes Oak Grove
Yes Oak Park Hewhts
1992 8800 Yes Oakdale
Yes Orono
Yes Osseo
Yes Pine Sprinos
Yes Plvmouth
Yes PnorLake
1989 54.00 Yes Ramsev
Yes Richfield
Yes Robbinsdale
Yes Yes Roqers
Yes 199:
Yes 200E
No
Yes 1994
Na
Yes 1994
No
No
No
No
Yes 1995
Yes 2003
No
Yes 2001
No
Yes 2005
Yes 2003
Yes 20�5
No
No
No
Ves 1993
Yes 2005
Yes 2003
No
Yes 1992
Yes 2661
Yes 1993
Yes 1994
Yes 1991
Yes 1992
No
No
Yes 1990
Yes 1986
a Yes 2003
No
Yes 1999
Yes 2002
Yes 2001
Yes 2067
No
Yes 2001
Yes 1993
Yes 2000
Yes 7985
Yes 1985
Ves 2002
37.08
30 00 Yes
Yes
63 0� Yes
Yes
30.00 Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
43.20 Yes
66.00 Yes
_ Yes
42 OS Yes
Yes
35 64 Yes
Yes
49.44 Ves Yes (
8.00 �
___ Ves _ __ �
Yes (
Yes I
20.00 Yes �
11724 Yes �
4860 Yes Yes �
Y� I
36 �0 Yes �
25.92 Yes �
30 00 Yes �
58.&0 Yes �
73,32 Yes _ J
3168 �
Yes �
Yes �
64 20 Yes I
25.27 Yes (
1200 �
Yes �
7200 �
20.00 Yes �
39 i6 Yes �
36.00 Yes �
Yes I
51.96 Yes Yes �
36,00 Yes Yes I
37.16 Yes �
39.60 Yes �
47.40 Yes �
3600 (
Tabie 1. Twin Cities Metro�oolitan Area - Stormwater Utility Pees
Communities beginning A-R (continued on back) i ( i i i i i
Table 1. TWin Cities Metropoiitan Area — Stormwater Utility Fees
Communities beginning R-Z (continued)
I Rosemowt
� Rosevilie
� Savaqe
� Shakopee
� Shoreview
( Shorewood
� South St Paul
� Spnnq take Park
( SpnnqLakeTwp.
� Sprinq Park
I St Anthony
� St. Bonifacius
St Lows Park
St Paul
� St Paul Park
'�' Utility
2007 Fee
M54
NONDEG
�
Yes 1992 42.88 Yes Yes II S611water Yes 1996 18.00 Yes �
Yes 1984 60.60 Yes � Sunfish Lake No Yes �
Yes 1994 70 56 Yes Yes Tonka Bav Yes 1993 13.60 Yes �
Yes 1985 3373 Yes Yes Vadnais Heiahts Yes 1992 36.00 Yes �
Yes 1997 43.60 Yes , Uctoria Yes 7997 40.00 Yes �
Yes 1993 60.48 Yes Waconia Yes ��, 1992 6� 24 Yes �
Yes 2003 30.00 Yes Watertown Yes 2003 18.00 �
No Yes Wavzata Yes 1991 39 96 Yes �
No Yes WestLakeland Twp No Yes �
No Yes WestSt Paul Yes 2006 37.00 Yes �
Yes 1992 52.00 Ves White Bear Lake No Yes �
Yes 2004 200D Yes WhiteBearTwp. Yes 1992 24.00 Yes �
Yes 2000 46.00 Yes Yes � Willemie No Yes �
Yes 1986 57 80 Yes Woodburv Yes 1992 66,00 Yes Yes
Yes 2�07 32.00 Yes Woodland No Yes �
An ordlnance that authorizes the wmmunity to charge a fee on each propedy for stormwater management.
The yearly dollar amount charged an average residential property for stormwater management.
A community with a separate storm sewer system which is required to meet federel reqwrements for stormwater management.
A community ihat is nol allowed to increase its stormwater pollutanl loads to streams or lakes above that of year 1988 level.
Metropolitan Council
�reasarosarrcental Se �es
390 ROb67� $�. �OI'tB7
St. Paul, 6wN 55101-1805
*
�
' E.-„
._ � ��,`QN
* , Y A .
, �.� r
F ,
., . .. . !me . ...
� � `_
��
, :� :
,_,
�:��
_ �
���:�_
,� �:
����:
. r_ � �
f ( � ., .
.
�:��11 i�.�•I . 1. .1 �"�•1 1 ' i � . ,f�.' ����:1 1�.��.
� . . , I. ' • i� ��. � � � ' �.. .'� � �� �� Y. � .��. / �.
�LACIC !/EATCFi
_ Buiiding a ����� of tlifference:
To help those involved with s4ormwater utilities stay well-informed regarding how others in their industry are
addressing important issues, Black & Veatch has contlucted its seventh national Stormwater Utility Survey. The survey
results pravide insight inta the following topics:
Organization/Adm inistrati on
Plauning
Operations
Finance/Accounting
' Stormwater User Fees and Bil]ing
, .,
Responses were received from 71 utilities in 22 states.
All of these utilities are fimded in whole or in part
through user fees.
Approximately 82 percent of'the respoudents serve a
city, rather than a county or region.
° The populatiou served by the respondents ranges from
13,000 �Auburndale, FL) to 39 tnillion people (Los
Angeles. CA) and the area served varies from 2 to 3,675
square miles.
Qualiry Issues — Best Management Practices
Public Information/Education
Major Challenges Recently Faced
Signiiicsmt Events Affecting Utilities
' For those utilities that base charges on gross property
area, equivalent resideutial units ranged from 1,225
square feet total area to 20,000 square feet, with a mean
of 6,254 square feet. For ttiose utilities that base charges
on impervious area, impervious areas per equivalent
residential unit ranged from 40 square feet to 4,000
square feet, with a mean of 2,477 square f'eet.
C�, �, t <',t , : '`.
Onr previous question regardin� quality based user fee 61 percent of the credits are both quality and qnantity J
credits �vas expanded to include quantity based user fee based. Of the 11 percent of respondents that provide
credits and incentives other than user fee credits. Of the inceutives other thau user fee credits, 22 percent of the
39 percent of respondents that provide user fee credits, incentives are both quality and yuantity based.
Black & Ueatch conducted similar stormwater utility
surveysin 1991-92,1993-94,1995-96, 2001-02, uid
2004-2005. Comparisons of cunent and prior suroey
results provide an insight into possible industry changes.
Look I'or comparisons of responses to selected questions
in the following survey results. Please note, however,
that these comparisons are not necessarily indicative of
�
trends, because ihe respondents may be different.
It is our hope that the information provided in this
report will be a valuable resource to those involved
in the stormwater indushy. To leam more about
Black & Veatch services, please refer to the back
cover for contact information.
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions
How is your operation organized?
49% Separate u[ility
37% Combined with Departmcnt of Public Works
8% Combined with wastewater utility
6% Other
What area tloes your utility serve?
82% Within city limits
1� COUllty
1% Region
Does your state have specific statutes that govern the
formation of stormwater utility and user fee financing?
61% Yes
39% No
What is the status of your NPDES permit?
a� Oe�
Sep y.���t` .
zom I `" '
Survey , , � - ,
2005
Survey
I= . � � �
o� zo% nw� so% ao�
Region
County
Phase 1 Phase 2
? ]00,000 Population < 100,000 Population
82"/0 . . . . . . . . . .Application submitted and approved . . . . . . . . .46% -
12% .. .. . .. . . .Application submitted and pending .. . . . .. . ..46°/o
6% . . . . . . . . . .Application has not been submitted . . . . . . . . . .8"/0 ����
When was your most recent stormwater plan or stormwater fecilities plan?
zs�% zoo�
Prior to t ss7
21% 2005-2006 2007
17% 2003-2004 iss�-2oo0
I1% 2001-2002 ,�;'
11% 1997-2000 2001-2002 _ 2005-200s
IS% Prior to t997 2003-2004 ��� �`
What stormwater computer models do you use for planning studies?
32%
32%
30°,�0
�8%
24"/0
17%
I1%
11%
se`
0
,00�
PEBCENT Oi PESPONUENTS
HEG_ . .. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... ,,._ , �: �,,..�.
........... ................ . _�..T �
XP-SWMM .. ....... . ..... ...... ....... ....... .... t �.� ---.=��,� Re�pnndents
EPA SWMM .... _........ ......... trera,q�rvn Hie
.. . ..... ... .. ..... ... °PPoriunilv tn
HF.C-1 ...... ...... .......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . szlert nrore [hart
TR -55 .. ....... ........ .............. ....... .�_- _ onerespunse.so
HF.C-RAS ........... ...... ....... ..... ...... ....... i � mrl,'sK,:mge
HEGHMS ... .. . Uzari /O�irater
te rrct
..... . ..... . .... ....... ........ . ,perceirt.
Other.............. . ..... ........................ ..... '��
0 10 20 30 40 50 fi� 10 � 90 1�
Z BLACK & UEATCH Enterprise Management Salutians
Whai return periods �� you use ?� design yo�; major stormwater stru;,,ares?
Residential Commercial Major Streets
2-year 13% 10% 7%
ea� r
5-}�car 13% 8 7% Zy 5-Y% 10-V
�;:
10-ycar 34% 38% 31°/u Residential F' `- �-
15-yeaC 2% 3°0 2 �� �� ' �-
25-year ZO"/o 23 17°� Commercial -
o ,.::. ,
50-year 2% 2 5% "
Ma�or Sneets �J�S" �
100-year 16°/o t7% 31"/� � � . , -
o� zo� no%
Sercral respa:<lenis provided u rmzge ol rrnn�ri per�ode�.
The yerrentages uGove iaprese�¢lGr.emnllesf renvri period prorided.
,� �
so� so� ino%
Which performance indicators do you consider most important in measuring improvement in
stormwater management success? PEBCENTOFBESPONOENTS
42°�o Flood control . ..... ..... ............. . .... ..... . , � �
35% Monitoring pollutants ...... ...... ..... . ..... . .'...,
18% Customer complaints/satisfaction . .. . .. . . . ... .. ... . '� '
11% Maintenancc ..... . ..... . ..... . ..... ....... ...... ' , , ,
10 Grosion control ..... . ... . ..... ....... ....... ........ �
3% Cust-control measures .... . ..... ..... .... ........ '
I% Habitat ..... ..... ......
0 10 81 30 40 50 60 70 �
What is your utility responsi6le for?
Combined sewer 8oth
80% Stormwatcr facilitics only
facilities
2% Combined sewer (sanitary/stormwater) facilities
11% Both
7°io Othcr
Who provides the majority of your 0&M services?
91% Own Staff
6% Other Govemmental Staff
3°io Private wntractors/agencies
Other
Smrmwater oNy
Prrvate
Other contrectorslagencies
govemmentai staff
Own staft
Resbandenta� were
givrn (/re
op�iorlunrfi m
selcetmm'e Nuen
one�,resporxse,�m
rGe'percenmge
totalisgreater
lhau 100 perce�it
9D iW
BLAGK & VEATCH EnYerprise Management Solutions 3
� V , T,.0 V',;,..4 \.'T.
� r „ �'. ,��'�`^`�\r � �. `., `-�-� �.* �`s, `�a.",. � ��,�, � „} ."�' a s�:,, ��.`. "�`��m`� r�, ` ,+��*�..�`�rw �....,.� .-��� �`.:�o..
'—�i...;,� �.. �y``�.� �1
LNhat are your major (at least 90 peresnt of total income)
revenue saurces? Multiple revenue
sources
/E'xcluJes 3 u[ilities Oru! rnported no single ma�or en�mce)
80% Stormwater user fee
19% Multiple revenue sources
1% Other
How adequate is available funding?
8% Adequate to meet all nceds
3005 = 13°0 •?003 = R°u • 1999 = I6°o
39% Adequatc to meet most nceds
2005 "= 32% • 3002 —53°0 • 1999 = 4din
40% Adequate to meet most urgent needs
2005 = 43% •'002 = 30% • 7999 = 3d°o
13% Nut adequate to meet urgent nceds
2005— 1'°', • 200?= 9% • 1999= 6%
StormWaiet
user fee
other
e e� e et e et o
pa m p SY m Pa ���o a a� 9
a�� m° m° ma
2007 ''
2005
2002 ,
19ss
. � . . i
0% 2U% 0� fi�% 80% 100%
How is the majority of capital improvement neetls financed?
76% Cash financed
64% From user fees
2°4, P'rom ad valorem taxes
10% Othcr GO bonds Other
Siormwaterrevenue bonds
24% Debt financed Combmed bonds
] 0°U Stomiwater revenuc bonds e���°
A% General Obligation (GO) bonds Ad vamrem ta Other
d% Combined bonds
Z% Other
Does your accounting system permit cost tracking 6y operating activity
(e.g., inlet cleaning►?
57% Ycs
43"/o No
Does your accounting system identify user-fee revenues by customer class
(�.g., residential)?
79% Yes
21% No
User fees
4 BLACR & VEATCH Enterprise ManagemenY Solutions
�. , _ _ �r'-� .� , - . �.
� ,q �. � . „ `" .axf,�:c��`.. -�-�. �"�"t"'..s�-�`v�'a..\.�:3-�. xa : �N �. '; `';>. �.,� �
Y �,��, �m��"�.�.... ...,'i,�^�ti'.'...��"\ ti'�--�;, �'^�-��'"```:'�"'.-,.-�v'r�' �'",��":
•
1 1 1 '1
77% With water or other ntility bills
16% With tax bitls
7% OtheT
What types of properties are exempt from user fees?
61%
52%
41%
23%
19%
13%
]%
7%
3%
3%
19%
19
Streets/highways ...... . ........ �
...... . ....... . .......
Undeveloped land ..... .. ..............
. ...... ...
Rail rights-of-way .. . .. .. . ... .. ... ... .. ... ... . ... ... ': , °
Public parks .... ...... . ........ ......... ........ ......
Government .. . ....... ......... ...... . ..... .. ......
School districts ...... .. ........ ........ ........ ...... ..
Colleges/universities ... ........ ........ .................'�
Water front .... ..... . ........ ....... ...... . ..... r
Airports .........................................
Churches .........................................��
Other .... .. ...... . ....... �,
. ........ ...... ...... �
�OI1C ............................................
0
What customer classifications are recognized in your
stormwater fee structure?
With waterlutility 6ilis
PEPCENT OF NESPONOENTS
Re.rpo�ident+ irere give�i
tfie opporhmnr (o select
rnm'e thrm arre respotave.
.m Nie percenlage �afal �,e
gmaler tpan 700 perce�it
1� 211 �i 411 �� 7U W� 1�
..... .. .... . ....... ........ ...... PEBCENTOF SPOIYDENTS
A9% Rcsidential....... , , �,
$� ContmerCial .. ......... ........ ........ ....... ..... . Reepondentsu�eregn�en
�� Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a,e �pporn���tq� m s��
26°io Combined commercial/industrial ......... ......... ....''�, _ �>�ore Nr�» o,re.e.,P���s��.
Z3 �tldust[i2� .. .. . so fke percentagr tntal is
� ........ ........ ....... ..... . ..... � � - Kreaterthnn IUOpercent
10 /o No designation .... ........ ....... ..... ............ . ,
Are rates the same for all seruice areas or wafersheds?
9���o Y�5
a�io rra
0 70 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9U iW
Are your user-fees for single family dwellings the same as for individual multiple
residential units, such as apartments and condominiums?
60% No
40% Ycs
BLACK & VEATCR Enterprise Management Salu4vons 5
Were your rates revised in the last 12 months?
54% Yes
46% No
L:cre2ses rrmged fronr
1 percent rninaumtt to
300 perce�tt marimuiri
What are your user fees designed to pay for?
7% Operation and maintenance (08M) expenses only
3% Capital improvements only
87% Both O&M expenses and capital improvemenis
3% Other
What is the basis for your user fees?
65% Impervious arca
6% Gross area with intensity of development factor
9°/o Both impervious and gross amas
14% Other (e.g., number of rooms, water use, flat fee)
6% Gross arca wi[h runoff factor
Other 0&M only
f , Gapital improvements oniy
�„
, eom
Gross area � intens�ty
Both .
Othere � � � � - � Impervious area
Gross area-mnoff
If user fees are area based, what principal resources were employed to create antl maintain
the customer database used to compute charges?
PEACENT OF PESPON9ENTS
46% Properry tax assessor records .... ..... ....... ...... .. � - ��� � � �� �
52°� Aerial ortho photographs .. .. '' 6a pe,���e„r o/'
...... ..... ....... ...... .
� ' respw�dmg utilities
42% On-sitc property measurement .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. ... . un6_e rx�o or more o!
55% Geographic Information System (G1S) .... .. ... . . ... ..... - _ _ a�e.s�,�eso«m�: ro
25% PlanlnletriC map take-Offs . .. . . . ... ... .. .. . .. .. ... . .. . . t crente and maiuta6i
16% Other (e.g., building permits, site plans) .. ..... ....... then� bi/Ln� dwaha.�e
.. 0 10 ZO �I � 5p 6p 70 80 90 iQ0
� i � � ' �
e
� 9
� `° ° "' ° ° ° g o 0
m m v � o o � o ° o ° o m O1 � �
<o a o o . . . � � �o �o �6 �n a; a < d:
. . . " . " . . . . . . . a . '
. . . . . Q . ' . .
V
. o : a . . . . a o� _ c . . .
a o u Q : a o a : ' � : o � a ` s ' : � : . : � .
� � - 3 � � 3 - - " > � � x � � " q V o z Y � z � c�
_ E r � m ¢ - _ � � �;°- ~ � - `� � � m ; F � � _ Y � o < £
a s � a' (n a' w n v� � z i� en a a' � e� p u e ' ' q w � 'e �`o - A a y o £
!- N O Q p O V�i p V � O � y
I- 0 �
� N M d u� a0 h OJ O� � .- �- r �O W O t t�V
� •- ^ � N N ry N N N ry c> M cJ M t��J M
6 BLACK & VEATCN Enterprise ManagemenY Solutions
Are your stormwater charges based on individual or class average characteristics?
Residential Non-Residential
39°'o Individuai parcel 89"/� Individual parcel
61°'„ Class average as: q-tier 5-tier I I°io Class average
45% Single tier 3-tier, � ' Individual � � Class
4% 2-tier rate 2-cier�, .Q�,
6 3-tieC rate Individual
2% 4-tieT 1'ate Single
2% 5-tier rate
2'�0 �-ti01' CatC 3 percent o(re.rpo�«lentv �eGo onsirera�d c(o,ss averuge
did rmt p�nrrde the numher ofrate ners
Who is responsihle for the payment of user fees? othe�
67% Propercy owner ' ,
ZO% Resident Resident
13% Other (c.g., watcr or other utility bill recipient) propercy owner
How frequenfly do you bill?
62% MOflthly PEBCENTOFAESPONOENTS
........................ „�: _ .,� .
25°/o Annually .................................... „
6% Bimonthfy . ...... ...... ........ ........ ......
4% Quarterly ....................................
3% Other .......................... ............
D 10 7A 3(1 qp 5p 6p 70 80 90 t00
What system do you ase to maintain and process customer parcel information?
33Yio StoCmwatcT utility billing system . . . . , , , , , , PEBCENT UF BESPONUENPS
28°�o Watcr or wastewater utility billing system .. .. . . .. . . .. �
1(>% Ueographic lnCormation System (GIS) ....... ....... . .
13% Property tax assessment system .. .... .. ... .. ... . '
9% Stand-alone stm�mwater database .... ...... ..........�
I% Other ...... ..... ....... ..... ............. ...... ..�'
0 10 ZO 30 GO 50 60 70 80 911 t�
� ` � � z: �: � ,. � �.
r
� o ° o o ° o ° o M o o c ° o ° o ° ° � ° ° o, o S m N o 0 0
c e v a, c M �, o �
. . ' . ' . ' . ' . . . •- •- •- •- •- °
�' Y . � � ' a � `"" � � z s . � . Y c� o c a . N . � � .
� �' � o _ �" a o F , d � � N z c� ' c> a A x o z
- � o ' z .n _ � w " — 3 � - � � ° x � _ � � � ~ < � _ _
m m 3 = > � : y °— a E E T'�' � u , W � o ` r °� 3 m a � x c v� > E �
o_ a g � ¢ in � c� a c� u v'� o � c� � m c� v", 0 3 x� .., > � �n m � a` F = i� a
�m m � ° er c v < � e a a v a � � v� .o � �n � �n .� in � �o �o m � m e m m � ° r
BLACK & VEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions �
Are credits provided for private
detentionlretention facilities?
dG^/o
54"/n
Yes
?005 = -16Po = 20(1.? = Si°� � 1999 = SO°;,
No
Have your user fees faced a legal challenge?
76°i� No
24% Yes
._ ., i' �,�,�;uui.�!
,. . . � � � i ' l�.'el,p,-
t",� �_„F;t.-;, �e,��i�,'
, .� ..i,t[l�:i .li`�rin^�
PfNCENT UF BESPONOENTS
zoo�
xos �;
2002 �
1999
0 10 20 3p � 5p � 70 BO 90 1�
Setelement reached� Challenge sustained
Fees sustamed�.,,, „.,�..;�
:.:�, . ,
'::.
Outcome Pending--- ., �
On what basis is payment of your user fees enforcetl? ome�
47% Shut off water
33°U Licn
20% Other
Property 6en
Shut otf water
Is a significant share of your utility costs attributa6le to stormwater run off from
outside your service area?
97% No
3% Ycs
Which programs and practices are being usetl to protect
or improve water quality? PERCENTOf flESPONDEPlTS
97°io Publiceducation ..... ..... . .... ....... ........mui�,uuwu�uu�u�uuunwuuumm��iwumouuumomuumuuu�mllwnmum�inimvw!m�uwuwiuumm�wi
9l% Hrosion/sediment controls .. . ... .... .... ..... .
9�%
Streetsweeping ....... �i�„ �
.... ....... .... ...... .., i i�� � ������� �i� ��� ei ���������n�����r
. . . . . . . . . F+�'�"�.'�a..�a.zv�.�2.isYti���'"";.:.rat.i��: �i�:
9i% Detention/retention basins .... ...... .................... ` �'""""" ry
87% I(legal discharge detection .. ..... ...... ..... .... �
36% Inletstenciling ....... ...��.:.-�__:�.:n�...—:
... ....... ___...:. , ,,,,,;,;, ,
......................_ - __ �: �„__..n.�
7R% Stonnwatcrqualitymonitoring ..... ........; ���
67% Residential toxins collection ... .. .. . ... .. .. . .. .. .......'��. �. .-'-' :t;::, _ , ,, - ,., � -- - '
64% CommerciaVindustrial regulation . . . . . . , , , , , , � - _ � 2esp�„de„r,� „��re �t,�e,r
..... ..... - -
61 ° �a ��OttSY[UCTCd WBY18RdS ..... , , , _ _ ; ' - - �kP aPP°rhurtty tn,select
.................. ..... . ,
32% Lawn herbicide/pesticide control »�m�e t1,2�, �,m ���:p�,nse.
............
3� o . . . . . . . . . . . . . so !!ze percenNge''�tofnl rs
/u Tt'B8tm2nt .. ..... . ............ ..... ...... ..... ..... � - grearerlhanlOUpereent
9% OtItB[ ........ ..... .......................... .......
..... 0 10 20 30 90 50 60 7q 80 9D 100
$ BLACK & VEATCH EnYerprise Management Solutions
Have you ins�alied any stormwaier treatment systems
in your stormwater conueyance system?
ss°io ves
42% No
Devices installed:
PEACENT OF AESPON�ENTS
.56°4, Stormceptor _ .. .. ...
"" .. ..... ..... . ................ ..��w��i,iu i ,��ewum ni�iiaun�,
33"io CDS Separator ..... .... ..... ..... .... ...... ... �§��.,.,.�.«��r
21 "/o Stonn Filter . ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ... .. .. . .. .. .. ... .. .. p. _ ;,, � ..
13% Downstream Dcfend .............. ............ ...........�, _, �,, �,
10"/o Uortechnics ....... .... ...... ...... ..... .......
5% Bay Saver ... ...... ... ..... .......... ...... ....
5 ° �u CI'YSYd�.Sf7Ed[C1 ............. ..... .......... ........ .
3% Abtech .... ..... ....... ..... ..... ..... ..... . ...:
0 10 20 30 40 50 6p
Have these devices met your expectations?
31% Yes
Yes
18%, No „ - .,
Undecided�� �� ��
51% Undecidcd
No
What contaminants are your greatest concern?
81 °% Scdiments
72% Nutrients
53%, Oil and greasc
46% Heavy metals
37% Pesticides
��%i Ot�iC1' . .
Respomdents irer�e given
tlie opportuu�tv ro,select
morz than one ��esponso.
so tkc perenrtaga total rs
girutervhan IOOpnmen[.
70 80 9U ilqi
PEflCENT OF BESPONOENTS
�: ,�,_ ..... .. .... .. ..�_,
Rrsponde��ts u�err giren
U�e op�w�nm�tr �o e�eleet
mr re th<m one rzspon.ce,
�- �-'-� sn the yerce+ztagz iota! is
i , greater lhun 700 perrent.
0 70 20 30 4p 5p %I 70 � 90 11W
Is your utility providing end•of-pipe treatment at outfalls into waters of the states or U.S.?
30% Yes
70"/o No
Are quality�6ased user-fee credits, or other incentives, provided to encourage customers to
control or reduce stormwater pollution?
22% Yes
78% No
Are user-fee credits pravitled to encourage customers to conirol or retluce stormwater
pollution?
quannty
6$ No quality both
3_'% Yes 4. ?..•..,
I',, �.,��n;i �.,.,!;�
;1'„ +^ _o��i�„ �i
�p���� I;� d� ;i-�tl't�, .,:il ;w'ni� ,
BLACK & YEATCH Enterprise Management Solutions g
Are incentives other than user•fee cretlits provided to customers to control or
reduce stormwater pollution?
89°/ No
11"/u Yes
. , a }u.�i;,� .,�.,i. Quality
both
. , ,�i� . , .qi,� '
� �� ..,:L ti..'ii'�. :.�,i,.r��„v�l�, __
How important is an organized public informationleducation effort to the continuing
success of a user-fee funded stormwater utility?
o Helpful
74/o Essential
26% Helptul
0% Not necessary essentiai
What means have you found to be the most effective in educating the public about
utility services, program needs and financing, and citizen responsibilities?
PERCENT OF PESPONOENTS
46% Bill inscrts .... ........ ..... .... ..... . ..... ...'k _ . .. . _ _.. �
28% Speakers bureau ....... ..... ....... ..... ..... .....��
27°io Internet . ..... ........ ..... ..... ..... ....g,:'�^_'.�3i
23% Public schools . ...... .... ..... ..... . .... ....I' -^; _:. ,'=='-.
20% Television ... ........ ...... ....... ..... ..... ......i��,^-;'
���/o �pER }1011505 .. .. ... . ..... . .. . .. . .... ...... .. ... . Respondents irere gn•en
1$ /u N2W SpapECS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [Gr opportrnzitr to se[ect
13% PIlk/�iC hBaT07bS�})TfSCIlfal10tl5 ....... ..... ..... .....�. � nmre than orie re,sparse,
I 1 % F3rochures/Ilyers/ne�vsletters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �, .+��, Ure pr,-cenmAe t�,tal is
8% DiT<Ct triai� .. ,� g�'euferlhmi 100 percen(.
....... ..... ...... .... ..... .
8% Neighborhood associations .. ..... ............. .....�
7% Newsletters .......... ............. .... ...... ......�:.�7
4% Storm drain markers . ..... ...... ..... ...... .....:.r
0 10 �7 � 40 50 60 10 � 9� 7IX1
10 BLACK & VEATCH En4erprise Management Solu4ions
Financia(, rate and billing related issues ..... ... ............ ..... ............. .....9 utitities
(e.g., financing growth, capitat replacements, NPDES and other environmental mandates;
rate incrcases, rate equitability, rate challenges, and billing database updating or
conversion to GIS)
Regulatory and quality contro( compliance ...................... ..... ....... ..... . ... 9 utilities
(e.g., illicit discharges, quality monitoring and difficulties of comptying with more
stringent state aod federal quality mandates related to Endangered Species Act,
TMDLs, ct a1.)
Woather and flooding issues . ... .. ... . .. .. . .. . .. .. . ... ...... .. .. ... .. .. ... ... .7 utilities
(e.g., high amounts of rainfall, standing water, West Nite concems and localized flooding)
Infrastructurc planning issucs .... ..... ............ .......... . ..... .........5 utilities
(e.g., need for integratcd flood, quality and environmental planning; remedy of speciYic
infiltration/inflow or local flooding problems; and system-wide flood conhol master planning)
Jurisdictionalissues .......... .................. ....... .... ............. ...... ..... . .d utilities
(e.g., incorporation of added cities into service area and co-permittee coordination)
Public education ... . ... . ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... .... ..... 2 utrlities
..... ............ .
(e.g., need for increased education regarding new programs or rate increa�es)
Erosiun control ............. ..... .................... .... ...... ........... ...1 utility
(e.g., run-uff and erosiun problems)
NYDES compliance ..... .... ..... ........... ....... .... ..... ... ]4 utilities
CIP related (hmding, projects started/completed) . .. ....... .... ..... il utilitics
L'ser fec related (increases, lack of increases) .... .... ..... ..... .... 6 utitities
Weather related (hcavy rains, stonns, drought) . . ... .. . .. .. ... ... ... .. _ G utilities
Urban growth/decline in service area . .. . .... . ..... . .. ... . ... . 5 utilitics
Public education/a�vareness .. .... ........... ............ .... ....4 utilities
Organization/administration/staffing changes . ... . . . . . . . . ... .. ... .. . 3 utilities
Lega( challenges ........................... ..... ........... . ..... ....� utilitics
BLACK & VEATCN Enterprise Management Solutions
Sonre re,spwrdents
LsteJ Uze sume ere++ts
�rs posnre. negutive or
hnU� (e.g.. hemy �anrs
or Jlao�ling br�ouglrl
Gotly dan�age ond
rncre<ised pr�blic�
mramne.rs of needsl.
19
; iJ r��: � r . ..:1:�
B(ack & Veatch is a leading global engineering, consutting
and construction company specializing in infrastructure
development in energy, water, telecommunications,
management consulting, federal and environmental markets.
Pounded in 1915, Black & Veatch develops tailored
infrastructure solutions that meet clients' needs and provide
sustainab(e benefits. Solutions are provided from the broad
line of service expertise available within Black & Veatch,
including conceptual and pretiminary cngineering services,
engineering design, procurement, cons[ruction, financial
management, asset management, program management,
construction management, environmental, security design
and consulting, management consulting and infcastmcture
planning.
With more than $2 billion i� revenue, the employee-owned
company has more than I00 o�ces worldwide and has
completed projects in mom than 100 coimtries on six
continents.
Black & Veatch's Water Division f'ocuses on the best and
most advanced ways to clean, move, control and conserve
water. B&V Water tinds innovative solutions to protect
�vater at its source, treat it to the highest standards, deliver it
to homes and businesses, then coliect and treat wastewater
before mintroducing it safely back into the environment.
Additional information on Black & Veatch and Black &
Veatch Water can be Cound at the company's web site
www.bv.com.
Enteeprise Management Solutions (EMS) is the management
consu(tin� division of Black & Veatch. Focused exclusively
on ihe Water and Energy markets, GMS provides [ailored
strategia process and technology solutions to deliver
improved operations, cost savings, new revenue streams and
greater customer loyalty. More information on EMS is
availablc at www.bv.comlconsult, by emailing
stormwater(�bv.com, or by calling (913) 458-3440.
LE(UAL NOTICE: Please be advised, th�s Survey was complied
primuity based on informution II& V received from third-parties
and B&V was �oi requested to independently verity a�ry of th�s
information. Thus, H&V's reports' accuracy soiciy depends upon
the accuracy of the information prwided to us and is subject to
change at any time. As such, it is merely provided as an additional
reference tool, m combination with other due diligence inquines
and resources of usec B&V assumes no Iegalliability or
responsibiliry for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
informntian, or process disclosed, nor does 6&V represent that its
use would not infringe on any privately owned rights. This Survey
may mclude facts, views, opinions and recommendations of
ind�viduals and organizations deemed of interest and assumes the
reader is sophisticated in tl�is industry. User waives any rights it
might have in respect of this Survey under any doctrine of third-
party benef3c�ary, mcluding the Contracts (Rights of Third Part�es)
Act 1999. L`se of this Survey is at users sole risk and no rehance
shonld bc placed upon any other orat or writtcn agreement,
representation or wattanTy relating ro[he inforniation herein.
TAiS REPORT [S PROVIDED ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. S&V
D(SCLA[MS ALL WARRANTIES OP ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR [MPLIED, INCLUDING, WI7'HOUT LIMlTATION, ANY
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTARILITY, FITNESS FOR A
PARTiCULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. B&V,
NOR ITS PARENT COMPANY, MEM6ERS, SUBSIDIAR[ES,
AFFILIAI'ES, SERVICE PROVIDE,RS, LICENSORS, OFFiCERS,
DIREC'1�ORS OR EMPLOYEES SHALL BE I.IABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, [NC(DENTA[., SPEC[AL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR
RBLATING TO THIS REPORT OR RESULT[NG FROM TEIE
USE OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING 13UT NOT LIMITED TO
DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROF[TS, USE, DATA OR OTHER
InTANGIBLE DAMAGES, EVEN [F SOCH PARTY HAS BEF,N
ADV[SEI) OF TIIE POSSIUILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
In addrtion, user should place no reliance on the summaries
contained in the Surveys, mhich are not intended to be exliaustive
of the material provisioi�s of any document or circumstances. If any
point is of pamcular sigmticance, reference shou(d be made to the
underlying documentation and not to this Survey.
This Survey (and the content and information included therein) is
copynghted and �s owned on c�ensed by B&V. B&V may ms[rict
your across ro this Survey, or any portion thereof, at any time without
cause. User shall abide by all copyright �otices, inforznahon, or
restrictions mntamed in any content or information accessed through
th�s Survey. User sl�all not reproduce, retransmit, disseminate, scll,
disttibute, perform, display, publish, broadcast, circulate, create new
works from, or commercialty exploit this Survey (including the
content and information made available tl�rough this Survey), in
whole or in part, in any manner, without the wiitten consent of I?&V,
nor use the conte��t or inforniation made available through th�s
Survey for any unlawful or unintended puxpose.