1 / 16

Stormwater in the Fountain Creek watershed

Stormwater in the Fountain Creek watershed. Current stormwater system - ASCE 2012 report card. Capacity D- Operations & Maintenance D+ Condition F Drainage Basin Planning F Program & Funding Public Safety D- Resilience D Overall D-. The price of deferral (capital only).

louie
Download Presentation

Stormwater in the Fountain Creek watershed

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stormwater in the Fountain Creek watershed

  2. Current stormwater system - ASCE 2012 report card Capacity D- Operations & MaintenanceD+ Condition F Drainage Basin Planning F Program & Funding Public Safety D- ResilienceD Overall D-

  3. The price of deferral (capital only) Current estimate of necessary capital improvements: $706.679 Million An equivalent annuity over 25 years at 4.5 % $15.85 million per year for 25 years -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Years from today $47.66 million per year for 25 years An equivalent annuity over 25 years at 4.5 % Zwirlein & Crowley, 2014

  4. High Medium Low TOTAL • $186,955,000 • $372,912,000 • $63,565,000 • $623,432,000 Funding needs (2013 dollars) $13.9M/year CH2MHill, 2014 Capital - El Paso County within Fountain Creek Watershed, does not include post-fire or flooding needs: Non-Capital - annual drainage operations and maintenance, permit (MS4), water quality, planning studies and corrugated metal pipe replacement needs:

  5. How we got here • Decades of neglect • 2009: Stormwater Enterprise dissolved • 2011-2012: Summit Economics study • 2012 – present: Pikes Peak Regional Stormwater Task Force

  6. Stormwater Task Force • Formed in 2012 by Co. Springs City Council, El Paso County Commissioners, Springs Utilities • Comprised of engineers, business people, citizens • Goal: assess the community’s stormwater needs and propose a solution • Methodical approach • Professional engineering firm study of project list • Statistically-valid, scientific public opinion polls

  7. Research results: Economic impact of a solution • Increase in jobs, income, GMP, output and sales taxes • 360 new, well-paying local jobs per year • $50 million increase in gross metropolitan product • Lower insurance rates • Improved critical community infrastructure • Stable funding and well-maintained infrastructure to attract new businesses Zwirlein & Crowley, 2014

  8. Research results: best practices • Colorado Springs is the only major Front Range city without a stormwater management program • Most communities use an authority structure that charges a fee based on impervious surface • Fee for average residence ranges from $2-14 per month • Many programs in place for decades • Two highly-successful regional collaborations studied: • Denver Urban Drainage • Southeast Metropolitan Stormwater Authority Zwirlein & Crowley, 2014

  9. Community benefits • Public safety • Protection of public and private property • Protection of water quality • Enhanced neighborhoods • Waterways as community amenities • Economic development • Higher property values • Lower insurance rates Zwirlein & Crowley, 2014

  10. Draft proposal Structure: • Regional authority • Governed by a board of elected representatives from each participant • Colorado Springs majority • Super-majority vote required for budget decisions • Intergovernmental agreements will form the authority and guide its operations • Funds to be spent within area collected based on a 5-year rolling average • Exceptions: Regional projects and emergency allocations

  11. Draft proposal Funding: • Fee based on impervious surface • Taxable and non-taxable organizations included • Commercial, nonprofit and government caps • Funds dedicated to stormwater capital, O&M, emergency, planning and administration • Funds collected on county property tax bill • Continue authority members’ current stormwater funding • CH2M Hill rate study to be completed end of June • City’s Stormwater Enterprise rate schedule serves as estimate • Governments a new rate category • Fee for average single-family residence: less than $10/month

  12. Draft proposal Scope: • Fountain Creek Watershed within El Paso County • Project list will include high-priority projects; criteria for determining future projects • Master planning process • Minimal staff and overhead; admin capped at 1% • Use private, local contractors to maximize economic impacts • Hybrid governance structure (see graphic)

  13. V o t e r s Co. Springs El Paso County Manitou Springs Fountain Green Mtn. Falls Monument Palmer Lake Technical committee Board Citizens committee Administrator • Billing • Administration (1%) • Planning/studies • Contract services Funding Emergency O&M Admin (1%) Capital projects Planning COS Manitou GrnMtn Falls Monument EPC Ftn P.Lake City County

  14. Next steps • Negotiate intergovernmental agreement • Ballot language • Project list • Continue to engage public • Formalize business community support • Measure on November ballot

  15. Questions and commentsPikesPeakStormwater.orgPikesPeakStormwater@gmail.com

More Related