FLOOD01805

• County: Statewide
• Community: State of Colorado
• Title: A Utility Approach to Comprehensive Storm Water Management
• Date: 7/28/1983
• Prepared For: Roger E. Krempel
• Prepared By: Marc Engomen
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Project

I'

~. ::

~,

~.~: :

~~

h
.<:;
"

:'-.

#~_..
-'f.

:.,,:

~.:~-~
~:: ~.:

.:i!'i
.'

:1

"

reading and the appropriate coefficient of run-
off curve (read from the right side of the
nomograph). a vertical line downward will provide
the reduction factor.

The development of the nomograph ; tsel f
relies more on intuition and engineering judge-
ment than on practical data. Nomographs would
vary from one area or ci ty to another based on
past detention design practices. basin topography
and so forth. Certain levels of detention are
assigned specific reduction factors: for exam-
ple, detention of the 100-year developed stonn
with a 2-year historic release rate was assigned
a reduction factor of 0.25 (which reduces the
draT nage fee by 75 percent); detent; on of the
lOO-year developed storm with a laO-year historic
release rate was given a reduction factor of 0.80
(reducing the fees by 20 percent). These reduc-
tion factors are intended to roughly approximate
the basin wide "benefitsll of such detention
volumes. realizing that such benefits will vary
with pond location, site characteristics, and
other factors.

Us1ng this weighted area approach, the totJl
basin-at-large (current homeown2r) and new de-
velopment (future homeowner) capital improvement
costs were calculated for each drainage basin.
Then, as a part of the 5-Year Capital Improvement
Budget process, improvements necessary to correct
existing problems and serve the new areas ex-
pected to develop over the next five years were
programmed. The 1 evel s of fundi ng i dentifi ed in
this manner were used to determine the appropri-
ate capital improvement fees.

For developing a method of financing the
basi n- at-l arge share of the cas ts, the City
decided to mak.e use of two key elements already
in place. The first element was the City's
ability to debt-finance capital improvements.
The second element was the existing storm drain-
age utility and billing system. If debt financ-
ing could be used to make small payments over a
long period of time, the source of revenue could
be a monthly utility fee for capital improvements
in additi on to the exi sting utility fee for
operations and maintenance. Both fees are based
on the area and land use characteristics of each
individual property a But because the need
for new facilities is different from one drainage
basin to another. the monthly capital improvement
fees vary from basin to bas<~.n.*

New capital utility fees went into effect on
January 1. 1982. Within various basins, the fee
for the average single-family residence ranges
from 33 to 81 cents per month. The need for
additional capital improvements is evaluated
annually as part of the 5-Year Capital Budget
process. and additional bonds may be issued. In
five years, the capital fee for the average
single-family residence will range from $1.00 to
$2.50 per month. Careful planning and phasing of
capital improvements will allow the fees to
remain at reasonable levels. Then at some point
in time. perhaps 25 to 35 years in the future.
the basin will be fully developed, the necessary

*See Figure 1 for examples of fee calculations.

capital impro'Jements will have been constructed.
the debt retired, and the fees will no longer be
necessary_

Developing a method of financing the new
development share of the capital improvements was
another matter. Debt-financing could not be
used, so a Ilpay-as_you_go" approach was requ; red.

Plant investment fees are used by other City
programs and utilities including water, sanitary
sewer. and parks and recreation. To establish
these fees. the cost of the facilities necessary
in the future is. estimated and this cost is
divided among the number of properties to be
developed in the future. In the case of stann
drainage, these plant investment fees are called
>!basin fees>!. The fees are based on the weighted
area concept developed earlier, so that the fee
for a particular structure depends on the lot
area, the land use, the on-site detention pro-
vided. and the bas.in in which the structure is
located.

Basin fees became effective in Fort Collins
in January, 1982. The base rates for the fees~
which do not reflect the weighting factors for
runoff coefficients and detention. range from
$2900 to $4700 per acre. Taking tile weighting
factors into account, the average basin fees
range from $1200 to S2oo0 per acre~ Thi 5 means
the new homebuyer can expect to pay from $200 to
$500 for major stonn drainage facilities in the
cost of hi shouse. These basi n fees wi 11 be
reviewed and adjusted periodically to account for
changes in construction costs and the effects of
inflation.

Although the basin fees have been in eff~t
a 1 i ttl e more than a year, there have been no
major problems with implementation. The City
staff worked closely with local representatives
of the homebuilding industry while the fees "ere
being developed. Although there was considerable
initial resistance to a new plant investment fee.
it appears that the overall financing plan is
perceived to be fail. and economical in the long
run, wi th enou gh f1 ex; bil i ty to address the
homebuildersl earlier concerns.

Encouraging Community Support

The final ~ and perhaps the lIost crucial
phase in creating an effective stormwater manage-
ment program in Fort Collins has been a concer~ed
effort to increase public awareness of storm
drainage issues. Articles in the City newsletter
mailed with utility bills have attempted to keep
the public infonned of new deve10pllents in the
program, changes in the fees, and opportunities
to make use of the administrative appeal and
variance process. Brochures explaining the
stormwater utility concept have been distribtted,
and a multi-projector slide presentation has b~en
developed. This presentation is shown at service
clubs~ schools and neighborhood meetings to
encourage greater community interest and support.

Developing support for the capital improve-
ments financing plan has been the most difficult
task undertaken during the past six years~ Once
the $40 million in necessary capital improve~ents
had been identified, resistance to funding a
program of that magnitude seemed to grow. The

530