BOARD00961

• Board Meeting Date: 9/22/2003
• Description: Flood Section - Probable Maximum Precipitation Site-Specific Study for the Cherry Creek Reservoir-Study Findings and Recommendations
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

SECTI811SEVEN

funding Alternatives

proportional to the contribution of runoff from each property. Revenues are also dependable
from year to year and can be used for CIP, maintenance, NPDES, planning, and administration
of stormwater programs.

Stormwater management fees are typically monthly "utility" fees (fees for service), which are
added to water or sewer bills, and cover all developed properties. The advantages of utility fees
are that they are a consistent revenue source, they are equitably applied to all properties, and the
monies may be used for capital projects as well as day-to-day operations and administration.
The only major drawback of utility fees is that they generally aren't set high enough to fully fund
capital improvement programs. Examples of enterprise funds in the Grand Valley include Ute
Water Conservancy District, Grand Junction Water Utility, City of Grand Junction Wastewater
Utility, and City of Fruit a Sewer Utility.

Stormwater fees are based on the amount of impervious area on each property. Impervious area
includes hard surfaces such as rooftops, driveways, and parking lots, which prevent precipitation
from infiltrating into the ground. The generated funds should be used primarily for projects that
are necessary because of runoff from areas of existing development and/or projects that benefit
existing property owners.

Stormwater utility fee levels in Colorado and across the United States are presented in Figures 14
and 15. The graphs show that the average monthly single family residential fees are in the $3.00
to $4.00 range in Colorado and across the United States.

Monthly Stormwater Utility Fees
for Colorado Municlpaiities
Olsson Associates 2-03

$14.00
~ $12.00
~
...
~ $10.00
0
~
"
.~ $8.00
~
'"
..
'" $6.00
0
0
:&
~ $4.00
'"
~
~
~ $2.00
$-

.~.
GO~\\'"
~o~

. .
, d'

,: ~f1!:\" '?;....:. " ,'. .; :.~." .
~o>J'..9a.~. 'o~\
:~ \-o",-..~. 101..~~\~~>~~.<~~l;9. . . ...."'. '. ........ .... .'
)J-.::r:::.~. ~.-\lo.'\'l~-o-et>'-l.~...-i;\~:::-Go'"o~~-~'(\oVf--:...O.'-c..'" ~.~\ ,"
~. ~ '" /~e"-."\"'~ ,,"0..' 0"..0 t.
.' "; '..~-,' ..--.v ~':'-,'", ~\e/ \o~ c\?J.'\\-"~oQ.,-.f'."'\~' 6
".- . . 0?J.~-.~\~~?~\.?J.~~~~'f'\ \~~o9
..... ....,..~<C."'..

AveraQe = $4.01 I .

-.".'i,

Figure 14

URS

T:\PROJECTS\22236022_GRAND_ VALLEY\SUB_OO\6.0_PROJ_DELIVIFINAL REPORT\FINAL REPT REV 4.00C\9-JUL-03\\ 7 ~ 2