Case Studies of Stormwater Program Financing

Abbott, W. H. Jr.  (1985).  Ann Arbor Stormwater Utility First in State. Unpublished work submitted to the Michigan Municipal League.

This is a brief paper concerning the creation of the Ann Arbor, Michigan stormwater utility and it’s first year of operation.  The paper covers the reasons that the utility was formed, how the rate structure was set, and the budget for the utility in its first year.

Apogee Research.  (1994).  Benefits of Storm Water Management:  Case Studies of Selected Communities.  Prepared for the U.S. EPA Water Policy Branch, Office of Policy Analysis, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, D.C.

This paper provides case studies of five stormwater management programs:  Ann Arbor, Michigan; Austin, Texas; Bellevue, Washington; Boulder, Colorado; and Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts.  It contains a discussion of the benefits of stormwater management, summarizes each program and its funding mechanisms, and provides an overview of existing federal programs for urban stormwater management.  A discussion of the most common components of stormwater utility programs is also included using a similar format to the Apogee Research manual that was completed in 1992.  An annotated bibliography of resources concerning storm water utility pricing strategies is included at the end of the paper that could guide readers to other useful papers on the topic.

Atherton, T. &  Kutz, T.  (1995, January).  Utility Solves Stormwater Problems, American City and County, pp. 38-39.  (14 KB)

This article discusses the establishment of the Fort Wayne, Indiana stormwater utility.  The Fort Wayne Stormwater Utility Task Force was formed to examine issues concerning the development of a billing system, the data to be used in creating the billing system, and credits for the implementation of on-site stormwater control practices. 

Brown, D. (1997, October).  Using GIS Technology in the Development and Maintenance of a Stormwater Utility.  Presented at the 1997 Annual GIS/LIS Conference.  (88 KB)

This presentation outlines how the city of Columbus, Ohio created a stormwater utility using GIS technology.  The author discusses why Columbus chose to create a stormwater utility, how they utility was designed, and how the utility is currently operated and maintained.  

Brown, D. (2002, January/February).  User Fee-Based Financing in the 2000s.  Stormwater.  pp. 50-54.  [Online].  Available: http://www.forester.net/sw_0201_user.html.

A case study of the Columbus, Ohio stormwater utility.  This article discusses the cost-of-service analysis done by the City of Columbus and the revenue generated by the utility.

Call, C. H.  (1992). A Storm Water Utility Case Study, Salt Lake City, Utah.  Water Resources Planning and Management:  Saving a Threatened Resource- In Search of Solutions.  Proceedings of the Water Resources Sessions at Water Forum ’92.  New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 792-797.

This presentation discusses the stormwater utility that was established in Salt Lake City in 1991.  It includes information about the stormwater utility’s budget and rate structure and provides a sample site plan with the corresponding drainage calculations.  This presentation deals mainly with the planning of the utility and its first six months of service so it would be helpful to a community in the beginning stages of developing a stormwater management plan.

Cameron, J., C. Cincar, M. Trudeau, J. Marsalek, and K. Schaefer.  (1999).  User Pay Financing of Stormwater Management:  A Case-Study in Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario.  Journal of Environmental Management 57: 253-265. 

This article examines the feasibility of implementing a user pay financing system for stormwater management in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario (RMOC).  The authors review the results of the 1996 Black and Veatch survey of stormwater utilities in the United States and discuss the experiences of Regina, Saskatchewan- the only Canadian city to implement a stormwater user charge to-date.  The authors created a spreadsheet model to see how revenue from a stormwater user charge in the RMOC would change under several different land use assumptions and concluded that charges would be comparable to those in United States cities.    

City of Austin, Regional Stormwater Management Program and Urban Watersheds Structural Control Fund Fee Study (June 28, 2002). City of Austin, Watershed Protection and Development, Review Department.

 This article examines the history, land cost data, construction cost data, and some finalized recommendations for the  city of Austin's Regional Stormwater Management Program (RSMP). The article gives detailed assessment of the avoided cost for development participating in fee-in-lieu programs, and compares costs of RSMP's with other counties in Texas, Virginia, and Illinois.

Collins, P.S. (1996, March).  Financing the Future of Storm Water.  Civil Engineering, pp. 64-66.

This article discusses the circumstances surrounding the establishment of a stormwater utility in Sarasota County, Florida and two interlocal agreements between the county stormwater utility and several cities within Sarasota County.  

Collins, P.S.,  Marchand, J. P., & Daughters, D.  (1993, June).  Consolidating Stormwater Management:  An Efficient Approach.  Public Works,  pp. 52-53, 112. 

The NPDES project manager, stormwater utility manager, and city engineer of Sarasota County, Florida wrote this article about the organization of the Sarasota County stormwater utility and the county’s joint NPDES permit application with the Florida Department of Transportation and the cities of Sarasota, Venice, North Port, and Longboat Key.  The joint NPDES application and stormwater utility allow for consistent stormwater policies to be applied to the entire region and reduce the costs of compliance with the NPDES permit requirements by consolidating the region’s stormwater management efforts into one agency. 

Developers Pay up in Pearland. (1999).  American City and County 114(5) p. 22. (8 KB)

This is a short article about the stormwater in-lieu-of fee that was recently implemented by Pearland, Texas.  Previously, developers building in flood hazard areas were required to build on-site stormwater detention ponds but developers building elsewhere were not. The new program requires all developers to choose between building their own detention facilities or purchasing space in existing city detention facilities.

Diessner, D.  (1993). Storm Water Utility Experience in Bellevue, Washington.  Water Management in the 90’s- A Time for Innovation.  Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division of the ASCE, New York, pp. 817-820. 

This presentation outlines the formation of the first stormwater utility in the United States in Bellevue, Washington.  The presentation discusses the reasons that Bellevue chose to form a utility, the stormwater problems the community was facing at the time, and the steps that the community took to implement the utility project.  The utility is responsible for water quality, flood control, and the operation and maintenance of the storm sewer system.  In addition, the utility enforces codes related to stormwater and manages the storm sewer capital improvement program.  The presentation concludes with a brief discussion of the difficulties that communities could face in the utility planning process and some of the advantages of a utility program.

Engemoen, M., P.E. & Krempel, R.E., P.E.  (1983). A Utility Approach to Comprehensive Storm Water Management. Presented at the 1983 International Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Sediment Control. 

This paper is a detailed case study of the stormwater utility creation experiences of Fort Collins, Colorado that includes a discussion of every phase of the development of the stormwater utility.    

England, Gordon, P.E. (2001).  Success Stories of Brevard County, Florida Stormwater Utility.  Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 127(3)  180-185.  

This article discusses several retrofitting projects that were funded by Brevard County, Florida's stormwater utility and the lessons that were learned by the utility staff from the time the utility was implemented in 1990 to the present.  

Ferrari, L.  (1987, August). Surface Water Fees Used to Reduce Urban Flooding. Public Works, pp.  66-67.  (14 KB)

Ferrari describes the creation of a stormwater utility in King County, Washington.  This paper contains a good description of the award-winning public education programs that King County used to ensure the success of its’ program and provides an overview of the utility’s organization, rate structure, and goals. 

Godfrey, K.A. Jr.  (1985, December). Tampa Does it with Mirrors.  Civil Engineering, pp. 40-43. 

This article is a general discussion of the Tampa, Florida storm drainage and transportation utilities that were in the planning stages at the time that this article was published.

Hargett, C. W. Jr., P.E.  (1992, September). Creating a Stormwater Utility. Public Works, pp. 65-68, 82. (34 KB)

This article describes the St. Petersburg, Florida utility creation process.  The article includes information about the reasons the city decided to create a utility and the utility’s billing system, user fees, and public education programs.

Honchell, C. V.  (1986, January). Creating a Storm Drainage Utility. APWA Reporter, pp. 10-11. (34 KB)

This article discusses how Roseville Minnesota created a stormwater utility and provides recommendations for other communities on how to plan and gather support for utility projects.

Keller, B.  (1999, October). Georgia City Pioneers Stormwater Utility Fee.  Coastlines: Information About Estuaries and Near Coastal Waters, [Online] Available:  http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/estuaries/coastlines/oct99/gapioneers.html

Griffin Georgia was the first city in the state to establish a stormwater utility.  This article outlines their pioneer program, its budget, and the phases of development the city used to make the program a success. 

Keller, B. (2001).  Public Involvement and Education:  The Critical Elements to the Success of Stormwater Utilities.  Doctoral Dissertation.  Kennedy-Western University School of Engineering. 

This doctoral dissertation examines the importance of public involvement and education in the success of a stormwater utility program.  The author reviewed the current literature concerning stormwater utilities and conducted a descriptive study with four hypotheses related to staff involvement, elected official support, general public support, and program champions. 

Keller, B. &. Reese, A.J.  (1999, February).  Town Finds Answer to Drainage Problems by Forming a Stormwater Utility.  APWA Reporter, pp. 22-23. (14 KB)

This article discusses the establishment of a stormwater utility in Griffin, Georgia.  Keller and Reese discuss the advantages of stormwater utilities, some of the reasons that Griffin chose to implement a utility, and why the Griffin program has been successful.

Keller, B. (2001). Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association Outstanding Stormwater Management Program of the Year. Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association. Integrated Science and Engineering.

This article is an overview of the Griffin, Georgia stormwater management program, including the program's goals, objectives, and priorities. It also covers in detail the work put into developing/implementing the Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) for the city of Griffin, which was very comprehensive and included such tasks as GIS Mapping, various assessments, and intense evaluation. 

Lindsey, G., Rubeleske, J., & Rummel, R.  (1996). Issues and Problems in Implementing Stormwater Charges:  A Watershed Approach in Vincennes, Indiana.  Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Watershed Development on Aquatic Ecosystems and Water Quality. Proceedings of a National Symposium March 19-21, 1996, Chicago, Illinois.   (834 KB)

This paper is a discussion of the problems encountered by planners in Vincennes, Indiana when trying to establish stormwater charges for the city and surrounding watershed.  It would be very instructional for planners interested in creating utilities in rural areas as it discusses several problems that are unique to small communities including limited budgets and outdated local record-keeping. 

Maniatis, M.  (1990).  Stormwater Management. MIS Report 22(11),  Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association.

This outlines the necessary elements of a city stormwater management program and provides case studies of Bellevue, Washington; Cincinnati, Ohio; Asheville, North Carolina; and Port Orange, Florida.  The report focuses on stormwater utility programs and provides useful information on how each of the four case study cities chose to design their rate structures and organize their departments.   

Nazarenus, D., & Kimsey, J.  Financing the Floodplain. City of Fort Collins, Colorado.  

The authors provide three examples of fee structures that are used for basins in Fort Collins, Colorado and compare the planned budget to the actual expenses for the years 1983 to 1987 for the most heavily developed basin.  The authors identify costs which deviated from the original budget and provide recommendations for other cities that are interested in utilities and attempting to create their own fee structures and master plans.

Niermeyer, J.,  P.E.  (1993). NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit:  A Utility Approach.   Water Management in the 90’s- A Time for Innovation.   Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference, Water Resources Planning and Management Division, ASCE, New York, pp. 805-808. 

This presentation is a brief discussion of the stormwater utility that was established in Salt Lake City, Utah to fund the city’s NPDES stormwater permit application.  The presentation contains information about why the city chose to form a stormwater utility and why the city organized the utility under the city’s department of public utilities rather than make the program independent. 

Null, R.  (1995, August). User Fees- The Key to Managing Stormwater Costs. Public Works, pp. 42-43. (21 KB)

This article discusses the reasons that Santa Cruz, California chose to create a stormwater utility, the legal authority under which the utility was created, and how user charges were calculated.

Rice, N.B.,  Juanitas, C., & Kleeburg, C. (1997)  1997-1998 Drainage and Wastewater Financial Plan.  Presentation concerning an increase in drainage rates, Seattle, Washington. 

This presentation contains information about three possible options for the increase of Seattle, Washington’s drainage rate, historical information about Seattle’s utility budget, and information about the drainage rates charged by other Washington communities.  The report also contains information about what types of properties are included in the rate structure, the contribution of each property class to the utility’s budget, and the customer base of the drainage utility.   

Spray, Kenneth & Grant Hoag, (Dec. 2003/Jan. 2004). Stormwater Program Funding in California. APWA Reporter, pp. 25-27.

This article describes how a community in California is increasing their stormwater fees in order to meet an increase in funding needs. Divided into three parts, the article first offers an evaluation of California's stringent laws regarding stormwater-fee based funding. Second, the authors give a description of how the new fees will be implemented. And last, a summary of issues is given that are important for communities to address when developing their own stormwater fees.

    Stitt, T. A.  (1986). Stormwater Management Utility:  An Innovative Approach to Drainage Problems of a Mature City. Presented at the APWA International Public Works Congress and Equipment Show. (11 KB)

This presentation discusses the experiences of Cincinnati, Ohio.  Stitt reviews why Cincinnati decided to create a stormwater utility, some of the keys to the success of their utility program, and the city’s maintenance master plan. 

Thurston, Hale W., Haynes C. Goddard, David Szlag, & Beth Lemberg.  (July/August 2002).  Trading Stormwater Abatement Credits in Cincinnati's Shepherd Creek.  Stormwater: [Online]. Available: http://www.forester.net/sw_0207_trading.html

This article primarily is a proposal on ways to spread the responsibility for stormwater control cost- effectively and equitably for Shepherd Creek, a 500-ac. subwatershed located in the northeast corner of Cincinnati. 

Veal, Steve & Allen Mullens. (March/April 2003). Learning From Phase I Cities: The Dallas Stormwater Utility. Stormwater  [Online] Available: http://www.forester.net/sw_0303_learning.html

This article discusses how smaller communities look for ways to pay for their stormwater utility programs when faced with NPDES Phase II deadlines. Many of these communities learn lessons from larger cities that have already had to comply with Phase I of this program. This particular article looks specifically at the city of Dallas and how smaller communities can learn from the Dallas experience in regards to how to properly set up and manage a stormwater utility.

 

                                    Previous        Home