City plugs proposed storm water upgrades: Pipeline for public utility projects clogged already, costs of new storm water ordinance uncertain

City Manager Bill Watkins and his staff plan to wait awhile before asking voters to approve a substantial increase in storm water rates to pay for what a consultant has concluded are overdue improvements in the storm water system.

The rates haven’t been increased since the storm water utility was established in 1993, but the pipeline of public funding requests for other utility improvements is already clogged. In addition, neither the city government officials nor developers are certain about the costs of the new storm water ordinance, which would be passed along to property buyers and renters.

The city also may have to deal with stronger restrictions by the state on development in the Hinkson Creek watershed and more stringent federal regulations when the population exceeds 100,000 in a few years.

“We can go to the voters in a year or two on rates,” Watkins said. “I want the city to have a clear, concise plan and a list of things we’re going to do that are the highest priority. We aren’t there yet.”

The monthly rates currently added to water bills for the storm water utility now range from 65 cents to $1.35 for residences and $4 or 4 cents per 100 square feet of impervious area for non-residential uses.

The city’s consultant, CH2M Hill of Englewood, Colo., proposed what appeared to be a gargantuan increase, but the change would be relatively modest in dollar amounts.

The consultant had proposed a 105 percent increase in rates this year and another 156 percent in two years, largely to fund more staff, more equipment and a multimillion- dollar capital program that would have lasted 25 years.

For now, though, Watkins will settle for a short-term, “two-pronged” approach:
1.) upgrading and tweaking the manual that guides private engineering of the city system and 2.) using existing staff to assess the system of pipes, catch basins, culverts and other facilities that channel and detain runoff during large rain events.

In evaluating the storm water regulations and system in the city, the consultant also proposed:

• A major program just to maintain current storm water controls. The consultant recommended hiring seven more staff to the 13 now in storm water operations and nine more in the near future.

• Completing a citywide storm water master plan. The city has a list of known problem areas, based mainly on citizen complaints. But the consultant said that in two years the city should complete a master plan that models all channels draining areas greater than 150 acres, identi- fies flooding and erosion problems citywide and establishes a capital improvement plan that includes the rate schedule needed to support the system.

• A major effort to replace aging city storm water facilities. Much of older Columbia is drained by a system in place for more than 100 years, but the city has been able to fund larger improvements—inadequately—at no more than $600,000 a year. Much of the corrugated-pipe system under most of the city is expected to last only about 40 years, and the consultant recommended replacing 75 percent within 10 years at $5.8 million a year and the remainder within 25 years at $2.7 million annually.

• Beginning a program to buy flood-prone property.

• In 10 to 20 years, having the city take over maintenance of drainage channels and assess stream conditions that, under private responsibility, often just transfer problems to new locations and tend to create severe erosion.

Voters tend to be selective when facing numerous tax or fee proposals, and Columbia’s plate is already filling. The city confronts a $77 million bond issue for sewers in April and, likely this fall, more than $40 million to replace water system features. Next year, the city could face another vote on replacing two units of the city electric power plant.

After looking over the report, Dave Griggs— chairman of the 6-year-old Columbia/Boone County storm water task force—and Don Stamper, who heads the Central Missouri Development Council, focused on the potential impact on new housing costs, not just from an increase in storm water utility fees.

Columbians are still trying to comprehend the practical application of the storm water ordinance, which was passed by the city in March 2007 and took effect in September.

With the advent of last summer’s credit crunch and its dramatic slowdown on housing, developers and engineers still haven’t had enough experience with the regulation and related stream buffer ordinance to have experience with the cost of these storm water changes.

“There is still fear of the unknown. A developer used to know what to expect,” said Griggs. “This report doesn’t look at a cost-benefit analysis” of steps the city is taking.

Griggs said the situation regarding storm water “is in flux everywhere,” not just in Columbia. “The ordinances [locally] are horrifically complicated,” he added.

Columbia also anticipates potential changes in storm water rules set by the state to limit runoff into the Hinkson Creek watershed, which covers most of the city. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources was expected last fall to make its recommendations for the watersheds but put off the decision.

Columbia also is nearing the 100,000-person population mark, at which point it will move into a higher grade of regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The city first was affected by EPA regulation of its storm water in 2003.

“Yes, it’s a legitimate concern—what with the piling on of the regulations and the increases in labor and materials,” said Bob Walters, a local Realtor and storm water task force member.

Stamper is insistent about major housing cost increases from the storm water ordinance and, at one time, said the requirements could increase actual values of developed lots by $6,000.

“They have significantly limited the number of acres available to use,” he said generally, citing $230,000 in extra costs for one unidentified site and $700,000 for a major one. “And very few people in City Hall can even interpret the ordinance.”

As Stamper sees it, the city has transferred most storm water costs from the developed part of Columbia to land undergoing development and redevelopment. “There is no standard except that the existing community is not affected by the ordinance. A really small percentage of the land is bearing all the costs.”

Stamper said he was surprised to find out that the consultant’s report did not contain the costbenefit analysis on the storm water ordinance passed by the city last March. “They promised me it would be included,” he said.

Stamper was scheduled to meet Watkins to discuss the issue.

Watkins, however, said the final report included an analysis of the stream buffer ordinance and storm water regulation that addressed the concerns of Griggs and Stamper.

In particular, he mentioned the savings of about one-third of an acre now devoted to extra detention facilities to hold rainwater after 100-year events on 25-acre subdivisions and other developments. The report recommended that the city stop requiring larger detention facilities to slow extra runoff when storms produced 7 inches of rain from the century storm.

Jeff Barrow, head of the city’s planning commission and Missouri River Relief coordinator, surveys a rock wall the city built in the Hinkson Creek to try to control storm water runoff.

Jeff Barrow, a land use consultant who heads the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission, said arguments about the negative impact of the storm water ordinance on “affordable housing … are bogus. It’s one thing if they’re talking about truly affordable housing … for low-income people under federal guidelines. It’s another about whether you can sell that $250,000 house” that no low-income people can afford.