Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force — Portland, ME
Date: 2011-12-13

AGENDA
 Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force
 December 13, 2011
 City Hall, Room 209, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM

1. Introductions of Task Force members and meeting attendees.

2. Review and approval of the SSWFTF minutes from November 15, 2011.

3. Continued discussion of allocating combined sewer costs to the stormwater use charge versus the
 sewer use charge (20% ‐ 50%).

4. Presentation of draft Public Outreach Plan.

5. Review draft Task Force Report.

6. Confirm date for next meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2012.

7. Adjourn
 MINUTES
 Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force
 November 15, 2011
 City Hall, Room 209, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM

1. Introductions of Task Force members and meeting attendees.

All members were present except for David E. Robinson, Curtis Bohlen, and John Cannell. Staff present
included: Doug Roncarati, Katherine Earley. Also in attendance were Conrad Wensel, Rich Niles, and
Andy Reese.

2. Review and approval of the SSWFTF minutes from October 18, 2011.

Gellerson motion, Brooks seconded, all in favor for accepting minutes.

3. Continued discussion of allocating combined sewer costs to the stormwater use charge and sewer
 use charge.

Reese presented updated cost information for the allocation of combined sewer costs to stormwater
and illustrated the impacts to residential rate payers and other property types. Impacts to sewer and
stormwater fees were presented based on % CSO allocations of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%.

The Task Force was asked to think about the allocation of CSO costs based on the numbers presented, as
well as their subjective “gut” reaction when they think about what is reasonable and fair. Reese
reminded the group that the allocation of CSO costs to a stormwater fee is not always an exact science
and arguments can be made either way. The following comments and key points were discussed:

  Those most financially affected should receive some kind of rate relief. Capping the rate
 increase is one method.
  The analysis of impacted properties does not include all properties; only those with a water bill.
 Therefore, all of the greatest impacted properties may not be captured. Ian Houseal noted that
 the analysis was for approximately 15,000 parcels that matched water billing addresses to parcel
 data. Therefore, the analysis does not include properties that do not receive a water bill or
 those addresses that didn’t match between the two databases. For example, parcels may have
 multiple billing addresses for water billing purposes and may have different nomenclature for
 addresses.
  Reese noted that approximately 1/3 of the total impervious area was accounted for in the
 analysis used to develop the analysis of properties. Members questioned whether the analysis
 was representative of the total properties and whether additional data work should be
 performed to capture all impacted properties.
  Properties in the Long Creek watershed were used by Veroneau as a sample impact to the
 business community. Although comparing this program to the City’s is like comparing “apples to
 oranges,” it is helpful to consider the financial impact to commercial properties. Properties in
 the Long Creek watershed are charged $3,000/IA/year, which is roughly equivalent to
 $14.25/2500 SF IA/month. This seemed to be manageable for most properties in the Long Creek
 watershed. Based on a CSO allocation of 50% or greater, many properties will have an annual
 bill greater than $7,300, which is almost $35/2500 SF IA/month. This cost is not sustainable for
 most businesses and the CSO allocation should be closer to 25%.
  Suslovic noted that some part of the CSO cost is stormwater; therefore, some part of the
 program should be billed as stormwater.
  Brooks noted that the residential sewer bill does not change significantly under the 0‐25% CSO
 cost allocation scenario and this may be appealing to residents. Reese noted that under a 0‐25%
 scenario, sewer bills for most rate payers go up only slightly and the residential stormwater fee
 is about $8‐9 per month. From a psychological standpoint, the residential monthly cost is still in
 the single digits and may seem “ok” to most people who are already used to slight increases in
 utility fees.

A straw poll was taken to gauge what people were thinking for % CSO allocation. The question was
asked “How many people think the CSO allocation should be greater than 35%?” 3 members responded
in support and the following key points were made by various members:

  From the perspective of residents, you could argue for an allocation of 40‐50% since the cost
 goes down for residential properties as % allocation increases.
  50% of the rate payers have carried most of the current share of CSO costs, so the CSO
 allocation should stay closer to 50%. This seems more equitable.
  One resident commented that the CSO allocation should be less than 25% to help businesses. In
 the end, the impact to businesses is felt by residents since it increases the costs of local goods
 and services.
  It is difficult to isolate the cost allocations since you can provide the rationale for various
 allocations. The Task Force seems to feel that the CSO cost allocation to stormwater is
 somewhere between 20% and 50%.
  Several members felt that more detailed analysis was needed for individual property impacts to
 better determine the most appropriate CSO allocation. Members requested a revised “Dow
 Jones” analysis using real properties and fewer numbers/types to focus on the most impacted
 properties.

Preliminary Policy Recommendation #10: Portland should allocate somewhere between 20% and 50% of
the combined sewer overflow costs to the stormwater fee.

4. Continued discussion of capping credits

This item was tabled until the next meeting.

5. Review draft Task Force Recommendations

The Task Force reviewed the draft recommendations memo (dated 11/15/2011) during the meeting to
solicit comments and discuss any recommendations that required further review and consideration. In
general, the members of the Task Force agreed with the understanding and background information
provided in the memo. Additionally, the majority of the recommendations appeared to be consistent
with the information and recommendations discussed at previous meetings. However, the following
items were identified as requiring further review:
Item 14. Funding 50% of Portland’s combined sewer costs through a stormwater use charge and 50% of
Portland’s combined sewer costs through the sewer use charge.

  Based on the results of the discussion for the allocation of combined sewer costs to a
 stormwater fee, it appears that further review of the recommended allocation is needed and it
 is in the range of 20% to 50%.
  The group wants to review example properties and their impacts under various allocation
 scenarios to consider the most appropriate and fair allocation of costs.

Item 21. The Task Force examined multiple rate structures for single family residential properties
including a single tier for residential properties, two tiers, multiple tiers and a fully variable rate. The
Task Force believes that Portland should use a simplified charge for single family residential properties
consisting of two to three tiers. Commercial properties should be roughly approximate to the residential
tiers set at 2500 square feet of impervious area.

  Up to 4 units should be considered a residential property and residential properties that have
 greater than 10,000 square feet of impervious area should be treated (billed) as commercial
 properties.
  This recommendation should be revised to: “Portland should use 2‐3 tiers for residential
 properties”.

Item 24. The Task Force considered a credit system for properties to reduce their total stormwater use
charge in addition to properties being able to reduce their charge by reducing their impervious area. The
Task Force believes that credits should be tied to existing City development standards. Credits should be
capped at 50% on the grounds that the majority of stormwater costs are unavoidable and due to
maintenance and individual properties private action would not reduce the impact on the system above
that level.

  The cap of credits at 50% requires further review based on the information discussed previously.
 Some suggested that the cap be revisited during the next meeting based on the results of
 individual property impacts from the pending CSO cost allocation scenarios and the ability of
 affected property owners to seek a credit.

Item 27. The Task Force believes that to reduce the impact on those properties that are most impacted,
the total rate increase should be limited to some amount per year.

  The limit on the amount of the rate increase should be more clearly defined based on the
 pending CSO cost allocation scenarios and the most impacted properties.

6. Confirm date for next meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for December 13, 2011.

7. Adjourn
 MEMORANDUM
To: Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force

From: Ian Houseal, Sustainability Coordinator

Date: December 13, 2011

Combined Sewer Allocation Impact Analysis



The following memorandum is provided to the Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force to aid the
Task Force in determining their recommendation for allocation of combined sewer costs.

Data Summary

The following analysis was created using annual sewer use data by address provided by the Portland
Water District (PWD) matched to impervious area by parcel provided by the City of Portland.
Approximately 2,000,000 Hundred Cubic Feet (HCF) of sewer usage was matched to approximately
21,000 parcels representing all the parcels in the City of Portland. Of total sewer usage approximately
13% of total sewer usage did not match to a parcel record due to differences in naming conventions
between the City of Portland and the Portland Water District.

Assumptions

  Figure 1: projected wastewater expenses from Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 to FY 2040.
  Table 1: projected five year average for FY 2013 – FY 2017.
  Table 2: assume sewer use charge rate and the stormwater use charge rates per year.

Impact of Allocating Combine Sewer Costs

Of the approximate 21,000 total parcels, approximately 14,000 parcels have sewer usage and
approximately 18,000 parcels have impervious area. Approximately 3,500 parcels have impervious area,
but no sewer usage represents approximately 15,565 equivalent residential units (ERUs) and therefore
$2,800,000 under the 25% CSO allocation scenario or $4,300,000 under the 50% CSO allocation scenario
according to the assumptions outlined above.

  Figure 2: relative cost burden by property classification under a sewer fee only scenario.
  Figure 3: percent change in relative cost burden based for the 25% and 50% CSO allocation
 scenarios by property classification.
  Figure 4: relative impervious area by property classification.
 Figure 5: Distribution of total cost increase or decrease for all properties resulting from
 allocating combined sewer costs under 25% and 50% scenarios.
 Figure 6: Distribution of total cost increase or decrease for all properties that have sewer usage
 resulting from allocating combined sewer costs under 25% and 50% scenarios.
 Figure 7: Average cost increase or decrease for by property classification resulting from
 allocating combined sewer costs under 25% and 50% scenarios.




 2
 Figure 1: Projected Wastewater Costs
 $70



 $60



 $50

 Five Year Average



Millions of Dollars
 $40



 $30



 $20



 $10



 $‐

 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 FY 2039 FY 2040


 Total Debt Service (including Existing Debt and CSO Tier II and Tier III)
 PWD Assessment
 Total Capital Renewal and Backlog (1.5% inflation rate applied to capital renewal and 30 yr construction @ 5.5% interest with 20 yr terms applied to backlog)
 Total Operating Expenses (1.5% inflation rate)
 Table 1: Five Year Average Annualized Costs (FY 2013 ‐ FY2017)

 Capital PWD
 Operations Construction Debt Total
 Renewal Backlog Assessment
 Combined Sewer $ 3,212,855 $ 1,568,865 $ 395,200 $ 8,910,398 $ 5,625,240 CSO $ 19,712,559
 Sewer $ 1,546,036 $ 1,249,863 $ 65,157 $ 4,287,711 $ 1,988,748 Existing Debt $ 9,137,514
 Storm Water $ 1,835,572 $ 2,063,581 $ 117,476 $ 4,016,629
 Total $ 6,594,463 $ 4,882,309 $ 577,833 $ 13,198,109 $ 7,613,988 $ 32,866,702

 Notes:
 ‐ Operations ‐ 68% of sewer and combined sewer operating costs allocated to combined sewer based on total miles of sewer and
 combined sewer pipe.
 ‐ Operations ‐ 1.5% inflation rate applied
 ‐ Capital Renewal ‐ 1.5% inflation rate applied
 ‐ Backlog ‐ 30 year construction schedule @ 5.5% interest rate over 20 yr terms
 ‐ PWD Assessment ‐ 68% of Portland Water District costs allocated to combined sewer based on total miles of sewer and combined
 sewer pipe.



 Table 2: Sewer and Stormwater Rate Based on Five Year Average Annualized Costs

 Combined Sewer Allocation to Storm Water Rate
 Sewer Only
 Units 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
 Sewer Rate $/HCF/yr $ 16.39 $ 14.39 $ 11.93 $ 9.47 $ 7.02 $ 4.56
 Stormwater Rate $/ERU/yr $ 80.26 $ 178.73 $ 277.21 $ 375.68 $ 474.16

 Notes:
 ‐ units below in square feet unless otherwise noted.
 ‐ Roadways not included in impervious area calculations.
 ‐ Parcels of property less then 400 square feet no included in impervious area calculations.
 ‐ Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) equals 2,500 square feet.

 104,601,621 Impervious Area (Parcels) 2,005,314 total sewer volume (HCF)

 50,045 ERUs $ 8.11 current sewer rate




Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force Working Document 1 of 1 December 13, 2011
 Figure 2:
 Relative Cost Burden by Property Classification (Sewer Charge Only)
 LITERARY &
 SCIENTIFIC INS
 RELIGIOUS 1% SINGLE FAMILY
BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE 0%
 3% GOVERNMENTAL TWO FAMILY
 4% OTHER
 WHOLESALE 4% THREE FAMILY
 0%
 FOUR FAMILY
 WAREHOUSE & STORAGE
 1% FIVE FAMILY PLUS

 MANUFACTURING & RESIDENTIAL CONDO
  CONSTRUCTION
 7% RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE
 PARKING LOTS OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE
 0%
 HOTEL & MOTEL SINGLE FAMILY HOTEL & MOTEL
 2% 33%
 PARKING LOTS
OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE
 4% MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION

 RETAIL & PERSONAL WAREHOUSE & STORAGE
 SERVICE
 7% WHOLESALE

 BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE
 TWO FAMILY
 8% RELIGIOUS
 THREE
 FIVE FAMILY PLUS GOVERNMENTAL
 FAMILY
 12%
 RESIDENTIAL CONDO 6%
 LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS
 4%

 FOUR FAMILY OTHER
 2%
 Percent Change in Cost Burden

 ‐6.00% ‐5.00% ‐4.00% ‐3.00% ‐2.00% ‐1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00%


 SINGLE FAMILY

 TWO FAMILY

 THREE FAMILY

 FOUR FAMILY

 FIVE FAMILY PLUS

 RESIDENTIAL CONDO

 RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE

 OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE

 HOTEL & MOTEL

 PARKING LOTS

MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION Figure 3:
 WAREHOUSE & STORAGE

 WHOLESALE
 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%


 BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE

 RELIGIOUS

 GOVERNMENTAL

 LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS SEWER FEE ONLY



 OTHER
 Relative Percentage Change in Total Cost Burden by Property Classification




 25% CSO Allocation
 Relative Cost Burden by Property Classification




 50% CSO Allocation
 50% CSO Allocation 25% CSO Allocation
 Figure 4:
 Relative Impervious Area by Property Classification


 SINGLE FAMILY
 LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS
 1% TWO FAMILY

 RELIGIOUS THREE FAMILY
 1% OTHER
 FOUR FAMILY
 10%
 FIVE FAMILY PLUS
 GOVERNMENTAL
 SINGLE FAMILY
 8% RESIDENTIAL CONDO
BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE 23%
 3% RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE

 OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE
 WHOLESALE
 TWO FAMILY
 3% HOTEL & MOTEL
 4%
 PARKING LOTS
WAREHOUSE & STORAGE THREE FAMILY MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION
 7% 2%
 FOUR WAREHOUSE & STORAGE
 FAMILY
 1% WHOLESALE
 MANUFACTURING & OFFICE &
 RETAIL & PERSONAL FIVE FAMILY PLUS BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE
 CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS
 SERVICE 4%
 5% PARKING LOTS SERVICE RELIGIOUS
 12% RESIDENTIAL
 2% 7%
 CONDO GOVERNMENTAL
 HOTEL & MOTEL 3%
 1% LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS

 OTHER
 Frequency

 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000



 < $ (10,000)


$ (10,000) ‐ $ (5,001)


 $ (5,000) ‐ $ (1,001)


 $ (1,000) ‐ $ (101)


 $ (100) ‐ $ (11)


 $ (10) ‐ $ (1)
 Change in Total Annual Fees: Impact of CSO Allocation on All Properties (Sewer




 $ 0 ‐ $ 9.99
 Figure 5:
 $ 10 ‐ $ 99.99
  Change in Annual Fee




 $ 100 ‐ $ 999


 $ 1,000 ‐ $ 4,999


 $ 5,000 ‐ $ 9,999


 > $ 10,000
 and Non‐Sewer)




 50% CSO Allocation 25% CSO Allocation
 Frequency

 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000



 < $ (10,000)


$ (10,000) ‐ $ (5,001)


 $ (5,000) ‐ $ (1,001)


 $ (1,000) ‐ $ (101)


 $ (100) ‐ $ (11)


 $ (10) ‐ $ (1)
 Change in Total Annual Fees: Imapact CSO Allocation on Properties with Sewer




 $ 0 ‐ $ 9.99
 Figure 6:
 $ 10 ‐ $ 99.99
  Change in Annual Fee




 $ 100 ‐ $ 999


 $ 1,000 ‐ $ 4,999


 $ 5,000 ‐ $ 9,999


 > $ 10,000
 Usage




 50% CSO Allocation 25% CSO Allocation
 $0
 ‐$8,000 ‐$6,000 ‐$4,000 ‐$2,000 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000


 SINGLE FAMILY

 TWO FAMILY

 THREE FAMILY

 FOUR FAMILY

 FIVE FAMILY PLUS

 RESIDENTIAL CONDO

 RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE

 OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE

 HOTEL & MOTEL

 PARKING LOTS

MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION

 WAREHOUSE & STORAGE
 Figure 7:

 WHOLESALE

 BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE

 RELIGIOUS

 GOVERNMENTAL

 LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS

 OTHER
 Average Change in Annual Cost Impact by Property Classification




 TOTAL




 50% CSO Allocation 25% CSO Allocation
 ‐$30,000 ‐$20,000 ‐$10,000 $10,000 $20,000
 $0

 SINGLE FAMILY

 TWO FAMILY

 THREE FAMILY

 FOUR FAMILY

 FIVE FAMILY PLUS

 RESIDENTIAL CONDO

 RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE

 OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE

 HOTEL & MOTEL

 PARKING LOTS

MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION

 WAREHOUSE & STORAGE
 Figure 7A:
 WHOLESALE

 BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE

 RELIGIOUS

 GOVERNMENTAL

 LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS
 Average Change in Annual Cost by Property Classification




 OTHER

 TOTAL


Note: Error Bars Represent Limits of One Standard Deviation




 50% CSO Allocation 25% CSO Allocation
 DOW PROPERTIES LIST
 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE
 CURRENT  FUTURE
 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO
 ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY
SINGLE FAMILY
 Low 1 34 275 555 177 404 581 274 321 595 26 40
 Average 1 52 422 853 232 621 852 360 493 852 (0) (0)
 High 2 70 569 1,150 287 837 1,124 445 665 1,109 (26) (41)




TWO FAMILY
 Low 1 52 424 857 219 624 843 340 495 835 (14) (22)
 Average 2 80 649 1,311 272 954 1,227 422 758 1,180 (84) (131)
 High 2 108 873 1,765 326 1,285 1,610 505 1,020 1,525 (155) (240)




THREE FAMILY
 Low 1 75 606 1,226 209 892 1,101 324 708 1,033 (124) (193)
 Average 2 123 1,000 2,021 270 1,471 1,741 418 1,168 1,586 (280) (435)
 High 2 172 1,394 2,817 330 2,050 2,380 512 1,628 2,140 (436) (677)
 DOW PROPERTIES LIST
 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE
 CURRENT  FUTURE
 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO
 ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY
FOUR FAMILY
 Low 1 96 782 1,580 239 1,150 1,388 370 913 1,283 (191) (297)
 Average 2 144 1,167 2,358 307 1,716 2,023 476 1,362 1,839 (335) (519)
 High 2 191 1,551 3,135 376 2,282 2,658 582 1,812 2,394 (478) (741)




FIVE TO TEN FAMILY
 Low 2 153 1,237 2,500 270 1,820 2,090 419 1,445 1,864 (410) (637)
 Average 2 234 1,895 3,829 357 2,787 3,144 553 2,213 2,766 (686) (1,063)
 High 2 315 2,552 5,158 443 3,754 4,197 687 2,981 3,668 (961) (1,490)




ELEVEN TO TWENTY FAMILY
 Low 2 305 2,471 4,993 360 3,634 3,994 558 2,886 3,444 (999) (1,549)
 Average 3 493 4,002 8,088 517 5,887 6,404 802 4,674 5,476 (1,684) (2,612)
 High 4 682 5,533 11,183 675 8,139 8,814 1,046 6,463 7,509 (2,369) (3,674)
 DOW PROPERTIES LIST
 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE
 CURRENT  FUTURE
 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO
 ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY
TWENTY‐ONE PLUS FAMILY
 Low 7 338 2,737 5,532 1,179 4,027 5,205 1,828 3,197 5,025 (327) (507)
 Average 16 1,253 10,166 20,544 2,928 14,953 17,882 4,542 11,873 16,415 (2,663) (4,130)
 High 26 2,169 17,594 35,557 4,678 25,880 30,558 7,255 20,548 27,804 (4,999) (7,753)




RESIDENTIAL CONDO
 Low 0 29 238 481 82 350 432 128 278 405 (49) (75)
 Average 5 220 1,788 3,613 885 2,630 3,514 1,372 2,088 3,460 (98) (153)
 High 9 412 3,337 6,745 1,687 4,909 6,597 2,617 3,898 6,515 (148) (230)




GOVERNMENTAL
 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
 Average 5 94 759 1,535 827 1,117 1,944 1,283 887 2,170 410 635
 High 14 418 3,393 6,857 2,517 4,991 7,508 3,904 3,963 7,867 651 1,010
 DOW PROPERTIES LIST
 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE
 CURRENT  FUTURE
 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO
 ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY
HOTEL & MOTEL
 Low 14 187 1,520 3,072 2,582 2,236 4,818 4,004 1,775 5,780 1,746 2,707
 Average 25 2,055 16,665 33,679 4,502 24,513 29,015 6,982 19,463 26,445 (4,664) (7,234)
 High 36 3,922 31,810 64,286 6,422 46,790 53,212 9,960 37,151 47,111 (11,074) (17,175)




LITERARY & SCIENTIFIC INS
 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
 Average 7 125 1,013 2,047 1,199 1,490 2,688 1,859 1,183 3,042 642 995
 High 15 333 2,703 5,464 2,620 3,977 6,596 4,063 3,157 7,220 1,133 1,757




MANUFACTURING & CONSTRUCTION
 Low 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,647 ‐ 1,647 2,555 ‐ 2,555 1,647 2,555
 Average 32 1,797 14,570 29,445 5,758 21,431 27,189 8,930 17,016 25,946 (2,256) (3,498)
 High 55 5,213 42,275 85,436 9,868 62,184 72,052 15,305 49,374 64,679 (13,383) (20,757)
 DOW PROPERTIES LIST
 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE
 CURRENT  FUTURE
 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO
 ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY
OFFICE & BUSINESS SERVICE
 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
 Average 12 299 2,421 4,893 2,216 3,562 5,777 3,437 2,828 6,265 884 1,371
 High 29 890 7,220 14,590 5,134 10,620 15,754 7,963 8,432 16,395 1,164 1,805




PARKING LOTS
 Low 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 145 ‐ 145 224 ‐ 224 145 224
 Average 4 9 69 140 723 102 825 1,121 81 1,202 685 1,062
 High 7 41 332 670 1,302 488 1,789 2,019 387 2,406 1,119 1,736




BENEVOLENT & CHARITABLE
 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
 Average 4 167 1,358 2,744 759 1,998 2,757 1,177 1,586 2,763 12 19
 High 10 486 3,938 7,958 1,848 5,792 7,640 2,865 4,599 7,465 (318) (494)
 DOW PROPERTIES LIST
 25% CSO ALLOCATION 50% CSO ALLOCATION BILL INCREASE/DECREASE
 CURRENT  FUTURE
 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STORM SEWER TOTAL STORM SEWER TOTAL 25% CSO 50% CSO
 ERU HCF SEWER SEWER ONLY
RELIGIOUS
 Low 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 248 ‐ 248 384 ‐ 384 248 384
 Average 5 49 397 801 968 583 1,551 1,502 463 1,965 750 1,163
 High 9 101 817 1,651 1,689 1,201 2,890 2,619 954 3,573 1,239 1,922




RETAIL & PERSONAL SERVICE
 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
 Average 9 219 1,773 3,582 1,567 2,607 4,175 2,431 2,070 4,501 593 919
 High 19 467 3,789 7,656 3,319 5,573 8,891 5,147 4,425 9,572 1,235 1,915




WAREHOUSE & STORAGE
 Low 12 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,177 ‐ 2,177 3,376 ‐ 3,376 2,177 3,376
 Average 27 191 1,548 3,128 4,762 2,276 7,038 7,385 1,807 9,193 3,910 6,065
 High 41 485 3,937 7,957 7,347 5,792 13,138 11,394 4,598 15,993 5,181 8,036

MINUTES
 Sustainable Storm Water Funding Task Force
 December 13, 2011
 City Hall, Room 209, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM

1. Introductions of Task Force members and meeting attendees.

All members were in attendance except for David E. Robinson, John Cannell, and Michele Brooks. Cathy
Ramsdell came in place of Task Force member Joe Payne. Also in attendance was Jami Fitch, Ralph
Carmona, Conrad Welzel, Zach Henderson, and Andy Reese. Staff in attendance included Danielle West‐
Chuhta, Doug Roncarati, Mike Bobinsky, Katherine Early, and Ian Houseal.

2. Review and approval of the SSWFTF minutes from November 15, 2011.

Martin motion, Veroneau seconded the motion. Approved by all in attendance.

3. Continued discussion of allocating combined sewer costs to the stormwater use charge versus the
 sewer use charge (20% ‐ 50%).

Task Force members continued the discussion on how much of the combined sewer costs to allocate to
the stormwater use charge. Houseal presented a number of figures showing the impact of the fees on
property classifications.

Bennet made the point that if 25% of the combined sewer cost is allocated to the stormwater use
charge then 75% of the costs remain with the sewer charge.

Connolly stated that 50% or more of the problem (cost) was caused by stormwater.

Ramsdell stated that 50% should be the minimum.

Reese stated that some of the reasons for keeping the costs with the sewer use charge are headroom.
What Portland is doing is cutting edge. Reese stated that the City might want to consider one bill with
four items on the bill: water charge, sewer charge, runoff charge, and combined sewer charge.

Veroneau stated that the information shows that residential property is minimally impacted, but the
question is which commercial industry would be impacted to what degree.

Suslovic asked the Task Force to take a straw poll of where they stood on a spectrum of allocating
combined sewer to stormwater. Veroneau and Dominski felt that the allocation should be between 25%
and 37.5%. Gellerson felt that the allocation should be between 37.5% and 50%. All other members
present felt that the allocation should be greater than that amount. Suslovic asked if there was a
limitation on the shift between the two fees, graduating increases over time, could the Task Force stand
behind 50%?

Miller stated that the revenue would have to be absorbed on the other side of the equation; the sewer
fee and stormwater fee would have to make up the difference if there was a limit in the rise of the fee
per year.

Suslovic stated that he wanted the cap to be phased on over time.

There was a general consensus with allocating 50% of the combined sewer costs to the stormwater use
charge if there was an annual increase cap with a reasonable ramp‐up period.

4. Presentation of draft Public Outreach Plan.

Henderson presented the draft Public Outreach Plan to the Task Force.

5. Review draft Task Force Report.

This item was not reviewed.

6. Confirm date for next meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2012.

7. Adjourn