HomeMy Public PortalAbout2003 - Stormwater Master Plan Phases 1 & 2Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Appendix A
Funding Options and
Detailed Rate Analysis Report
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Appendix A - Analysis of Funding Options and Rate Structure Concepts .................................A-1
A.1 - Purpose of this Analysis ..................................................................................................A-1
A.2 - Background Information .................................................................................................A-1
A.2.1 - Supportive Work and Documentation........................................................................A-1
A.2.2 - Analytical Process ......................................................................................................A-1
A.2.3 - The Changing Nature and Status of Stormwater Management ..................................A-2
A.2.4 - Learning from Others’ Experiences ...........................................................................A-4
A.2.5 - Key Considerations ....................................................................................................A-5
A.3 - Summary of Conclusions and Recommended Approach................................................A-7
A.3.1 - Basic Conclusions ......................................................................................................A-7
A.3.2 - Key Recommendation................................................................................................A-7
A.3.3 - Additional Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................A-8
A.4 - Local Government Funding Generally ..........................................................................A-10
A.4.1 - Distinctions Among Forms of Local Government Funding.....................................A-10
A.4.2 - The Functions of Local Governments ......................................................................A-11
A.4.3 - Municipal Government Authority and Powers ........................................................A-11
A.5 - Constitutional, Legislative, and Case Law Considerations ...........................................A-14
A.6 - Stormwater Management as a Utility Service ...............................................................A-19
A.6.1 - Stormwater Management Compared to Other Utility Purposes...............................A-19
A.6.2 - Judicial Deference ....................................................................................................A-21
A.6.3 - Definition of “Service”.............................................................................................A-21
A.6.4 - Compliance with Fundamental Tests .......................................................................A-22
A.7 - Analysis of Funding Methods .......................................................................................A-24
A.7.1 - Summary of Funding Methods.................................................................................A-24
A.7.2 - General Fund Appropriations ...................................................................................A-24
A.7.3 - Stormwater Service Fees ..........................................................................................A-25
A.7.4 - Special Assessments.................................................................................................A-27
A.7.5 - Bonding for Capital Improvements ..........................................................................A-29
A.7.6 - In-lieu of Construction Fees .....................................................................................A-30
A.7.7 - Credits and Offsets against Service Fees .................................................................A-32
A.7.8 - System Development Charges .................................................................................A-33
A.7.9 - Plan Review, Development Inspection, and Special Inspection Fees ......................A-34
A.7.10 - Impact Fees ............................................................................................................A-35
A.7.11 - Developer Extension/Latecomer Fees....................................................................A-36
A.7.12 - Federal and State Funding......................................................................................A-37
A.8 - The Rate Structure Analysis Concept............................................................................A-37
A.8.1 - Overview ..................................................................................................................A-37
A.8.2 - Analytical Format.....................................................................................................A-38
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
ii September 29, 2003
A.8.3 - Local Considerations ................................................................................................A-38
A.8.4 - General Considerations ............................................................................................A-39
A.8.5 - Long-term Perspective .............................................................................................A-39
A.8.6 - Rate Structure Concepts Considered ........................................................................A-40
A.8.7 - Basic Rate Methodologies........................................................................................A-40
A.8.8 - Modifying Factors....................................................................................................A-40
A.8.9 - Secondary Funding Methods....................................................................................A-40
A.9 - Evaluation of Stormwater Service Fee Rate Methodologies.........................................A-41
A.9.1 - Evaluation Approach................................................................................................A-41
A.9.2 - Impervious Area Rate Methodology........................................................................A-42
A.9.3 - Impervious Area and Gross Area .............................................................................A-45
A.9.4 - Impervious Area and Percentage of Impervious Coverage ......................................A-49
A.9.5 - Gross Area and Intensity of Development ...............................................................A-52
A.9.6 - Gross Area (or Impervious Area) and Modifying Factors .......................................A-55
A.10 - Evaluation of Modifying Factors.................................................................................A-58
A.10.1 - Overview ................................................................................................................A-58
A.10.2 - Simplified Single -family Residential Service Fees ...............................................A-58
A.10.3 - Base Rate for Certain Uniform Fixed Costs...........................................................A-60
A.10.4 - Localized Surcharge for Capital Improvements.....................................................A-62
A.10.5 - Floodplain Surcharge .............................................................................................A-64
A.10.6 - On-site Detention and Other Service Fee Credits ..................................................A-65
A.10.7 - Water Quality Factor ..............................................................................................A-67
A.10.8 - Development and Land Use Factor ........................................................................A-71
A.10.9 - Level of Service Factor ..........................................................................................A-72
A.11 - Evaluation of Other Funding Methods ........................................................................A-74
A.11.1 - General Fund Allocations .......................................................................................A-74
A.11.2 - Plan Review, Inspection, and Other Special Service Fees .....................................A-75
A.11.3 - System Development Charges ...............................................................................A-76
A.11.4 - Revenue and General Obligation Bonding.............................................................A-78
A.11.5 - In-lieu of Construction Fees...................................................................................A-81
A.11.6 - Impact Fees ............................................................................................................A-83
A.11.7 - Developer Extension/Latecomer Fees....................................................................A-84
A.11.8 - Federal and State Funding......................................................................................A-85
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-1 September 29, 2003
Section A - Analysis of Funding Options and Rate Structure
Concepts
A.1 - Purpose of this Analysis
Funding is one of the key issues being addressed as the Stormwater Management Master Plan
Update (referred to in this section as the Master Plan Update) is being assembled. Hydrologic
and hydraulic engineering analyses have been completed to update the City’s stormwater
management master plan. The analysis of management and funding options complements the
technical engineering studies and focuses on the feasibility of various strategies.
This section examines the full range of funding options available to Jefferson City to pay for all
components of its stormwater management program. It also describes alternative stormwater
service fee rate structure design concepts that might be used in Jefferson City should the City
decide to use that mechanism as part of its stormwater funding strategy.
A.2 - Background Information
A.2.1 - Supportive Work and Documentation
To this point the following work has been completed to support development of a long-range
strategy for the City’s stormwater management program.
· The stormwater management problems and needs in Jefferson City have been evaluated and
administrative, engineering, operational, regulatory, and capital investment implications have
been identified.
· General policies to guide the mission and program priorities have been drafted for
consideration by an advisory group, staff, administration, and City Council.
· A preliminary program scenario has been developed that depicts a strategy for meeting the
community’s stormwater capital investment and operating needs over the next decade. The
costs and revenue stream needs for the scenario have been projected, with an emphasis on the
first five years.
A.2.2 - Analytical Process
The analysis of funding options focuses on the practical feasibility of the various funding
methods in the context of the local program needs. The City’s consultant team identified a full
range of funding methods, which are evaluated and described in this section. The options
considered include various taxes, service fees, and other funding mechanisms. Legal
considerations that may influence the selection of a funding methods and design of service fee
rates were identified. The steps needed to adopt and implement the various funding methods
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-2 September 29, 2003
were examined, including possible requirements for ballot approval. The political and
management implications of the legal and procedural considerations that influence development
and implementation of funding were examined. Municipal funding is a more complex issue than
is generally understood, so this section contains a substantial amount of background information,
including a description of the philosophical foundations that underlie the various funding
mechanisms commonly used to pay for municipal services and facilities.
The examination of rate structure concepts in this section identifies various ways that service
fees might be designed to apportion the cost of stormwater management across the community
by using different parameters and/or formulas for calculating service fees. It examines how
modifications might be made to basic rate methodologies to alter the cost allocation or reduce
implementation and administrative upkeep costs. It also describes how supplementary funding
from other sources might be integrated with a service fee in a cohesive funding strategy.
The consultant team must also estimate the rate base that is available to bear the stormwater
program costs through service fees, and project the likely ranges of service fees that might result.
That work will be done as part of a more detailed Cost of Service Analysis/Rate Study. Data to
populate a master account file would have to be assembled to activate a service fee and/or some
of the other potential funding options. It is likely that additional conceptual, technical and
governance policy issues that need to be resolved will be identified as the work progresses.
A.2.3 - The Changing Nature and Status of Stormwater Management
Stormwater management has historically been relegated to a secondary status by local
governments all over the United States, except perhaps immediately following damaging floods
or tragic deaths associated with specific storm events. Many communities have endured a cycle
of intermittent, severely damaging stormwater flooding incidents that elicit short-term reactive
measures but few true solutions. Unfortunately, such reactive measures usually address
symptoms rather than causes. Commitment to solutions tends to wane almost as quickly as
floodwaters recede. One observer, obviously familiar with the endlessly repeating natural
phenomenon referred to as the “hydrologic cycle”, wryly termed the flood - panic - plan -
procrastination syndrome evident in many communities as the “hydro-illogical cycle”. Breaking
the hydro-illogical at the critical point of procrastination requires that adequate funding be
identified to accomplish the plans that would correct the causes of the problems rather than
merely treat the symptoms.
It is important to recognize that the practice of municipal stormwater management is highly
dynamic at this time, and the Master Plan Update for Jefferson City is much more than an
engineering reassessment. The manner in which cities and counties manage stormwater runoff is
changing rapidly as environmental laws become stricter, new technologies emerge, and citizen’s
expectations increase. Jefferson City’s future stormwater management program is likely to bear
little resemblance to its past practices.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-3 September 29, 2003
Today, more and more cities and counties are coming to grips with the myriad of problems
presented by inadequate stormwater drainage systems, programs, and funding. The most visible
stormwater problems are flooding, channel erosion, and sedimentation. These result in highly
visible damaging impacts. Pollution of receiving waters due to stormwater runoff is usually
more subtle. In any case, individual instances of all these problems are generally symptomatic of
more fundamental inadequacies, such as a lack of strategic vision, political support, and
consistent funding. Several hundred cities and counties have established comprehensive
programs in the past twenty years that address these limitations. Many more are working to
attain similar objectives and results. A long-range, strategic approach that addresses these needs
is clearly an essential element of successful, comprehensive programs that offer real long-term
solutions.
The basic nature of the practice of stormwater management has also changed enormously in
recent years, and influences Jefferson City’s future program needs. Few communities or
individual citizens were concerned about the impact of stormwater runoff on water quality in
receiving waters twenty-five years ago. Flooding and, in a few cases, erosion and sedimentation
were typically viewed as the only significant “drainage” problems. In the past fifteen years,
however, stormwater quality management gained much greater visibility and a higher priority.
In part this is because of federal mandates contained in the 1972 Clean Water Act, amendments
in the 1987 Water Quality Act, and subsequent amendments and administrative rules.8 The law
requires that discharges of pollutants conveyed in stormwater must be eliminated to the
maximum extent practicable. Jefferson City is required to apply for, obtain, and comply with a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge permit.
Failure to do so could lead to substantial fines against the City and other penalties. In any case,
environmental protection, quality of life, and the livability of communities have become high
priorities.
The severe back-water flooding incidents in Jefferson City in 1996 were highly visible, damaged
numerous properties, and disrupted normal life. More frequent but less spectacular flooding has
occurred in several neighborhoods in Jefferson City in recent years. Erosion, sedimentation,
pollution, and loss of riparian habitat are especially evident along many local ditches, channels
and creeks.
The City has decided that correcting the most severe of these problems is an immediate priority,
and thus initiated the comprehensive engineering analysis in the Master Plan Update. In
addition, stormwater projects are prominently identified in the sales tax extension approved by
Jefferson City voters in November, 2001. Other work is underway on projects along the
Missouri River to protect some especially flood-prone areas in cooperation with the United
States Army Corps of Engineers. Highway improvements will include additional stormwater
system improvements.
8 Public Law 92-500, as amended.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-4 September 29, 2003
As the process of refining the program mission, priorities and potential strategies moves forward,
it is clear that the community’s stormwater management needs will become more diverse in the
future. They will range from capital improvements, to routine maintenance and remedial repair
and replacement of aging systems, to water quality education programs, to code enforcement and
other regulatory programs to protect the City’s drainage systems and the quality of receiving
waters ranging from local creeks to major rivers such as the Missouri.
The City’s consultant team is also evaluating the City’s operational and regulatory programs to
determine what changes might be made. These programs range from routine maintenance and
remedial repairs, to City Code text amendments and enforcement challenges, to water quality
monitoring and educational activities in the community. The City’s organizational and
administrative structure is also being evaluated to determine if more effective approaches are
practical, especially in the context of recently adopted organizational adjustments.
A.2.4 - Learning from Others’ Experiences
The experiences of successful stormwater programs elsewhere offer some valuable insights and
examples that the consultant team has used to guide its efforts. Even as the engineering
component of the Master Plan Update was being contemplated, the City recognized that
appropriate funding would be critically important if real solutions are to be accomplished. Thus,
the engineering and planning study includes a detailed analysis of funding needs, options, and
impacts on the community, a major portion of which is contained in this section.
Identifying and implementing adequate, stable, and equitable funding has been one of the
common attributes of successful local stormwater management programs around the country.
However, the diversity of physical, economic, governance, and political circumstances that exist
in the United States have led to a variety of funding solutions. This section investigates the
funding methods available to Jefferson City and their feasibility in the context of local needs.
The common thread among the most successful communities has been an earmarked revenue
source or combination of sources dedicated solely and specifically to stormwater management
needs. Such funding has provided the capability to define, implement, and sustain long-term
programs, as opposed to applying short-term Band-Aid ® solutions in reaction to given storm
events.
Based on the experiences of other communities, a mix of funding methods may offer the best
opportunity for a successful long-term program. Some mechanisms may be better suited to
certain components of the program than others. Regardless, the program strategy should drive
the funding plan. Beyond the basic objective of tailoring the funding to fit the program, other
key criteria applicable to the selection of a preferred funding method (or methods) include
equity, revenue sufficiency to meet the needs, stability, and efficiency.
This analysis examines the general topic of local government funding philosophy. Experience
demonstrates that it is vitally important that the community and, especially, local elected officials
understand the philosophical as well as technical distinctions between funding mechanisms such
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-5 September 29, 2003
as taxes, service fees, exactions, and assessments. If a funding strategy or mechanism is
challenged in court, the decision-making and thought processes whereby the City Council opted
to use one form of funding or another may be as significant as adhering to procedural
requirements such as public notices of meetings.
For example, one of the funding mechanisms examined in this section is the “stormwater utility
service fee” concept. Stormwater utilities typically rely on service fees to support all or a large
proportion of their total funding need, in a manner similar to water supply and wastewater
treatment utilities. The utility concept has been adopted by more than four hundred communities
nationwide in the past twenty-five years, including Kansas City, Missouri. However, nearly
thirty (30) percent of all stormwater utilities have been challenged in court, usually by parties
who would not participate in funding stormwater management programs under traditional tax
mechanisms but are included in the cost apportionment of a utility.9 These include churches and
school districts. The philosophy of funding stormwater or any other municipal function as a
utility differs from the philosophy that underlies taxes, special assessments, or exactions. This
section clarifies the distinctions among these various types of local government funding to
ensure that the City Council has that information in support of its deliberations.
A pattern has emerged in recent years as more cities and counties establish stormwater
management programs and adopt funding to meet the diverse needs those programs entail.
Funding strategies have become more complex, often involving several revenue sources instead
of a single method. A city or county may rely on one funding mechanism to provide the bulk of
the needed revenue, but in many cases special-purpose funding has been selectively used to pay
for certain capital improvement, operating, or regulatory functions. This has resulted in a
blending of funding methods and funding philosophies.
A.2.5 - Key Considerations
The legality and procedural requirements of various funding options are fundamental
considerations that greatly influence the efficiency of each approach. For example, a funding
method that fits the City’s program, is highly equitable, capable of generating all the revenue
needed, and offers long-term stability would not be an efficient short-term approach if the City
had to obtain state authorizing legislation to permit it. Likewise, a lengthy or difficult
implementation process would cause an option to be less attractive than other approaches.
This analysis identifies a range of funding mechanisms available to Jefferson City, and evaluates
each one in detail. They encompass a broad spectrum of local government funding philosophies.
The appropriateness of each funding method must be examined in the context of the program
mission and priorities identified by a Stormwater Advisory Committee. The strategy formulated
by the consultant team is geared specifically to accomplishing the mission and priorities
identified by the committee, City Council, and staff.
9 Based on a 1999 survey conducted by the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies
(NAFSMA)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-6 September 29, 2003
The cost of stormwater management is a vitally important consideration. To provide sufficient
detail for Jefferson City to understand how the stormwater utility concept might work in local
application, a preliminary cost analysis will be prepared that examines different program growth
scenarios. The Rate Structure Analysis in this section examines the various service fee
methodologies that might be adopted, modifying factors that might be applied to the basic rate
methodologies to fine tune them to the local situation, and other funding methods that could be
used in concert with service fees. These options constitute a “menu” of choices available to the
City. Once preferences have been identified from among the options, a more detailed Cost of
Service Analysis/Rate Study will be prepared to determine the cost of the program components
to be supported by service fees and the level of service fee rates needed to meet that revenue
requirement. The results of this Cost of Service Analysis/Rate Study will be discussed later in
this section
Needs often change, and the ability of the funding method(s) to adjust in concert with changing
needs is critically important. A service fee rate methodology can be periodically adjusted along
with major transitions in programs and priorities, especially in terms of system improvements.
Bonding could also allow the City to use revenue bonding for major capital investments, thereby
expediting major improvements to the stormwater and flood protection systems without limiting
its general obligation bonding capacity for other purposes.
A stormwater service fee has sufficient revenue potential to assure consistent funding at a level
which would support an aggressive program. The City’s General Fund also has sufficient total
revenue capacity to meet the objectives identified in the mission and priorities identified for the
stormwater program. However, it must also support numerous other municipal services that do
not lend themselves to service fee funding (such as police services, libraries, public health
programs, and social services). Reallocating General Fund resources to increase stormwater
funding would negatively impact other community priorities. A stormwater service fee could
relieve, partially or wholly, the demands that stormwater management now places on the City’s
General Fund. The option of increasing taxes that accrue to the General Fund may also be
politically impractical in Jefferson City, making a service fee the only viable means of
adequately funding the proposed program. Rates can be designed to achieve a cost allocation
deemed by the City Council to be appropriate in Jefferson City. The adequacy of service fee
funding is typically also better than other options.
The experiences of other cities and counties indicate that a service fee dedicated specifically to
stormwater management provides a more stable revenue stream than annual appropriations from
general revenues. The fact that service fee revenues can be spent only for stormwater
management purposes enhances accountability. A utility can serve as the focal point for
combining service fees with other funding sources to accomplish a broad range of purposes. For
example, the revenue derived from the City’s capital improvement bonds could be mated with
funding from service fees and other sources to expand the City’s capability to improve the
systems. The City might also issue additional revenue bonding based on service fee revenues.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-7 September 29, 2003
A utility service fee is not without disadvantages, however. The cost of fully implementing a
service fee is expected to be $75,000 to $200,000, depending on many decisions yet to be made
by the City. This cost could initially be paid from an interfund loan and repaid from future
service fee revenues, but it is a cost nonetheless. Depending on how it is structured, a
stormwater utility service fee may or may not be subject to voter approval pursuant to the
Hancock Amendment to the Missouri Constitution. Political acceptance is difficult to forecast.
Public reaction to stormwater service fees elsewhere has ranged from very positive to very
negative. A program and funding strategy that offers a realistic prospect of solutions will have to
be convincingly explained to gain public support for a utility and its associated service fee.
Given the extent of local drainage problems, one might conclude that the community would be
receptive to a workable long-term solution.
An independent stormwater utility is the preferred approach in most cities. However, service fee
funding does not necessarily dictate that a separate stormwater utility be established. Stormwater
service fees could be appended to the City’s existing wastewater utility fee structure under a
separate cost and accounting center to maintain segregation of the funds.
A.3 - Summary of Conclusions and Recommended Approach
A.3.1 - Basic Conclusions
Given the rudimentary status of Jefferson City’s current stormwater management program, the
City clearly faces a steep “program development curve” in the next few years as administrative,
operational, capital investment, and regulatory elements of the Master Plan Update are
formulated and carried out. It will take five to ten years before a comprehensive program can be
fully attained, and perhaps twenty years or more to plan, design, and build major capital
improvements. Funding should be expected to evolve along with the program. The community
should expect that effective stormwater solutions will cost between $64,000 and $96,000 per
square mile per year for operational programs and as much as $50,000,000 for capitalization of
the infrastructure. Based on the analysis described in this section, the consultant team concludes
that General Fund appropriations cannot support an effective program over time, and that
alternative funding sources will be needed. Full implementation of various funding mechanisms
associated with the city’s stormwater program may require ten years or more.
A.3.2 - Key Recommendation
The consultant team recommends that the City carefully consider the establishment a utility and
adoption a schedule of service fees (charges) in support of the stormwater management program.
This will require careful and thorough analysis, extensive community involvement and public
education, and an on-going commitment to the program for a generation or more.
Service fees offer several advantages over other funding options. Rate methodologies are highly
flexible and service charges can be blended with other revenues. Some funding methods differ
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-8 September 29, 2003
in their suitability for capital, operating, regulatory, and other types of costs. The revenue stream
created by a stormwater service fee is suitable for virtually any aspect of a program. Utility
service charge funding offers the prospect of stable funding over time. It also allows restrictive
dedication of the revenues to stormwater management only, and enables elected officials to craft
an equitable apportionment of costs through a service fee rate design. A service fee rate
structure can allocate costs based on the demands placed on the systems instead of property
value or other factors unrelated to stormwater service needs.
Stormwater service fees could also be applied (through an interlocal agreement) in the
unincorporated areas of the County, enabling more effective management of the many drainage
systems that transfer stormwater into and out of the city. This would help resolve one of the
City’s most critical stormwater management obstacles, its inability to manage, improve, operate,
regulate, and maintain all of the components of the drainage systems serving the community
based on a cohesive strategy. However, it would also imply that any ballot issue pursuant to
Hancock Amendment requirements might be subject to county-wide voter approval. Such an
issue might have to be approved in both the City and the unincorporated area or only by a simple
majority of those voting.
A.3.3 - Additional Conclusions and Recommendations
If the City Council chooses to establish a stormwater service fee it will have to address both
institutional and legal funding issues. These include whether to establish a separate stormwater
utility or integrate a stormwater management service fee with the wastewater enterprise fee using
separate cost centers to preserve the segregation of the revenues. The City Council will also
have to decide how to structure service fees. One or more ordinances would have to be drafted
and adopted. The experiences of other cities and counties suggest that an intensive public
information effort should be conducted to explain the stormwater utility/service fee concept to
the community, even if it is integrated with the wastewater fee.
Most stormwater utilities are accounted for as an enterprise or special revenue fund, which
provides dedication of the revenues strictly for stormwater management, thus improving
accountability. This creates an “arm’s length” relationship with other municipal funds and
encourages good stewardship of the financial resources intended for stormwater management.
Money not spent in one fiscal year carries over into the following year and cannot be diverted to
other uses.
It is recommended that the City Council consider expediting the implementation of the proposed
program, even though some risk would be involved. Based on the due diligence represented by
the Master Plan Update project and this section, a dedicated stormwater enterprise or special
revenue fund could be adopted (as an accounting entity) as early as January 1, 2004. Such a fund
could be established either as a separate cost center under the wastewater enterprise fund or as an
independent enterprise or special revenue stormwater fund.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-9 September 29, 2003
The work required to design a suitable service fee rate methodology, prepare a master account
file, and adjust the existing billing systems or develop a new system would require at least
another six months and perhaps longer. The actual schedule would depend on many decisions
yet to be made, such as the service fee rate design, and the need for a ballot approval. It if
wishes to expedite implementation of the program, the City Council could opt to initially fund an
independent stormwater accounting unit through an interfund loan until the service fee revenue
stream is activated. The City would have to specify a source for such a loan, and the repayment
terms. Possible sources include the General Fund and reserves of other utilities. If the Hancock
Amendment requires voter approval, and voters fail to approve a stormwater service fee, the loan
might have to be written off and the enterprise or special revenue fund rescinded.
Assuming that the City will decide to adopt service fees as the principal source of stormwater
management funding, the consultant team also concludes that the most suitable rate methodology
for Jefferson City would likely be based on either impervious area or a combination of
impervious and gross area. The impervious area methodology is recommended unless the City
wishes to bill undeveloped as well as developed properties. In that case a rate based on both
impervious area and gross area would be best. The latter might be a more practical approach if
an inter-governmental agreement is signed with the County extending the utility service area into
the unincorporated areas adjacent to Jefferson City.
Regardless of the rate methodology selected, a simplified residential rate is recommended to
reduce implementation and upkeep expense. This could take the form of one flat rate fee for all
single-family residential properties or two or more tiers of residential charges as deemed
appropriate. A flat-rate for all single-family residential properties is recommended. An
“equivalent unit” value can be defined based on an average value of the rate parameter as it
applies to residential properties. The equivalent unit would enable easy comparison of the
stormwater fees applicable to dissimilar properties. In most other communities such equivalent
units have been used as the single-family residential rate, and service fees to non-residential
properties have been based on multiples of the single-family residential unit value.
It is recommended that service fee credits be an integral part of the service fee rate methodology.
Credits are generally intended to account for anomalous conditions that create dissimilarities
between otherwise comparable properties. For example, the mitigative effects of private on-site
systems and other actions that reduce off-site drainage impacts of certain properties can be
recognized through credits. A basic crediting system could consider mitigative measures that
directly reduce the impact of peak runoff rates, total volume discharged, and pollutant loadings
in stormwater discharged to public systems or receiving waters. It is recommended that the
initial crediting concept be limited to on-site stormwater detention systems.
A credit mechanism might also be used to equitably account for cost of service reductions
realized by the City as a result of capital investments and operating expenditures made by other
public agencies, such as the State of Missouri’s highway construction and maintenance
programs. Credits might also be considered for actions that reduce the City’s cost of providing
other elements of a comprehensive stormwater management program, including public water
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-10 September 29, 2003
quality education programs, applied research and monitoring of conditions in local streams and
the Missouri and Moreau Rivers, and maintenance of public stormwater facilities by others.
Although it is not specifically recommended, a base rate might also be incorporated into the
service fee rate structure to isolate certain costs that are relatively similar per account. Costs
associated with master account file maintenance and billing are the most obvious candidates for
base rate treatment. Such expenses represent only a minor portion of the total cost of service.
A.4 - Local Government Funding Generally
Funding of Jefferson City’s stormwater management program needs to be considered in the
general context of municipal funding, which is fundamentally a legal issue. The body of case law
in Missouri and elsewhere is briefly described in this section. The brief summary is written from
a management perspective and for background only, and does not constitute legal advice or
counsel. Although the following analysis was prepared with the assistance of the consultant
team’s special legal counsel, it does not constitute formal legal advice to the City. The City
should look to legal counsel for a full consideration of this aspect of its stormwater funding
decisions.
A.4.1 - Distinctions Among Forms of Local Government Funding
Although the general public tends to view any form of governmental funding as a “tax”, in fact
the constitutional and legislative authorizations providing for various types of funding in the
states and commonwealths of the United States create distinctions among them. In addition, case
law in state courts throughout the country has further differentiated fees from taxes and other
types of local government funding, although not always in a consistent manner from state to
state.
The four primary stormwater management funding mechanisms used by municipal governments
in the United States are general taxes (e.g., property, income, and retail sales taxes), ad valorem
and non-ad valorem special assessments, exactions, and service fees (sometimes also termed user
fees or user charges). Taxes, special assessments, exactions, and service fees are all different .
Each has a different underlying philosophy that guides the establishment, structure, application
and use of funding.
The courts have assigned key characteristics to the various forms of funding available to local
governments. These characteristics are used to determine whether a given funding mechanism is
a tax, fee, exaction, or assessment in various applications, regardless of what it may be titled.
The constitutional, legislative, and case law distinctions are founded in large part on differences
in philosophy underlying the various funding concepts.
From a legal standpoint, the distinctions between the various funding methods drawn by the
courts and the standards reflective of those distinctions are extremely important. From a
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-11 September 29, 2003
practical perspective, the laws of Missouri impose standards and requirements that may influence
or dictate the feasibility of the various funding methods in a given application. A key issue in
Missouri is whether a given funding method or methods is subject to a ballot issue.
Federal constitutional and legislative factors also apply. For example, federal civil rights laws
prohibit discrimination based on persons’ race, religion, gender and other specified factors. This
extends to the application of local government funding through taxes and other mechanisms.
Utility service fee rates must also adhere to such federal as well as state standards.
A.4.2 - The Functions of Local Governments
Traditionally, the majority of municipal government functions are divided into “general
governmental” functions and “proprietary” functions. Cities’ and counties’ general
governmental functions are usually funded primarily through “taxes” of various sorts (property,
income, sales, excise, etc). Proprietary functions are normally funded wholly or primarily
through service or user “fees” or “charges”.
Exactions” and “assessments” are additional categories of local government funding. They are
not uniquely applicable to general governmental or proprietary functions. Exactions are most
commonly associated with franchise rights, privileges, and development-related fees. Some
exactions are limited in their application, while others are not and may be used for general
governmental purposes. Assessments are most commonly used to pay for capital projects
serving limited geographical areas or clientele groups, and may be based on property value (ad-
valorem) or other considerations like front footage along an improvement.
As a result of constitutional and legislative structures and case law decisions, limitations exist
which influence the applicability of various types of local government funding to certain
purposes in the fifty states and commonwealths. It is extremely important that Jefferson City
explore and fully understand the differences among the various types of funding that might be
used for the stormwater management program. In selecting a preferred approach, the basic
funding philosophy adopted by the City should be consistent with the planned stormwater
management program and with Missouri law on municipal funding.
A.4.3 - Municipal Government Authority and Powers
Municipal governments are given basic powers under their state constitutions, including the
power to raise revenue by various means and for various purposes. The specific powers of any
municipal government are primarily based on the constitutional, legislative, and case law setting
in each state or commonwealth, which ranges from narrowly restrictive to broadly authorizing.
Jefferson City has a relatively broad general authorization through its home rule charter to
perform municipal functions and to fund them in various ways. However, over-riding
constitutional limitations exist that require ballot approval for any imposition or increase in the
amount of some funding mechanisms. There is a substantial amount of case law applicable to
municipal funding in Missouri, but it is still relatively dynamic.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-12 September 29, 2003
The judicial branch of government has interpreted, defined, and clarified local governments’
stormwater management funding powers in numerous case law decisions across the country.10 In
general, stormwater management has been widely recognized as a valid purpose of municipal
governments, and that is the case in Missouri. However, authorizing legislation does not dictate
how local stormwater management programs should be funded.
Courts in several states have defined and characterized the various municipal funding
mechanisms in order to distinguish among them. It must be emphasized that taxes differ from
utility service fees. Taxes are considered by the courts primarily to be a revenue generating
mechanism that is: 1) supportive of general governmental functions; and 2) unrelated to specific
applications or purposes. Such distinctions make it very important to tie any utility service fee
rate methodology, regardless of the function is supports, very closely to the purposes of the
program that is being funded and to the cost of providing its services and facilities.
In determining whether a municipality has properly structured, adopted, and applied a given
funding mechanism within the constraints and/or authority that pertain in a given setting, the
courts have carefully considered the intent of the local legislative authority in determining the
status of the funding mechanism at issue. The courts have also indicated that the nature of the
municipal function associated with a given funding mechanism is also important.
Municipal utilities commonly include water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater
management, and solid waste disposal. Other enterprises such as public electric and gas service
and parking garages have also been managed and funded as utilities in some states. The utility
approach to managing and funding stormwater control has been sustained in several state courts.
In some of the cases footnoted above the courts considered the type of physical systems typically
involved, the functions commonly performed, and the relationship between service fee rates and
the conditions on individual properties that place demands on the stormwater systems and
programs.
Utilities typically use service fees to generate the majority of the revenue for their specified
purposes. The courts have generally held that service fees must be directly related to the purpose
of the utility program (e.g., water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater management, solid
waste disposal), and must apportion the costs in a fair and reasonable manner. The service fees
must bear a substantial relationship to the cost of providing the specified services and facilities.
Utility functions have historically been viewed as a proprietary function, operating much like a
business venture in which a local government involves itself. More recently, however, there has
been a recognition that most utility functions also serve the general governmental purpose of
10 Notable cases include: Zelinger, et al v. City and County of Denver 724 P.2d 1356; Teter, et al v. Clark County
and the City of Vancouver; 104 Wash. 2d 227; 704 P.2d 1171; Roseburg School District, et al v. City of Roseburg
OTC 3242; SC S39874; and Long Run Baptist Association, Inc. et al., v. Louisville and Jefferson County
Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD), et al., Case No. 87-CI-8061.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-13 September 29, 2003
protecting public health, safety, and welfare. In part as a result of federal legislation, the basic
nature of traditional proprietary functions has been changing and most are now largely regulatory
in their application. Utilities now operate regulatory programs within proprietary functions. The
degree of latitude given to local elected officials to make decisions on funding mechanisms
incidental to the regulatory functions of government is generally greater than funding of
proprietary (business) functions that are not regulatory in nature.
The federal Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500) and subsequent amendments require that local
governments (including Jefferson City) apply for, obtain, and comply with stormwater discharge
permits intended to limit the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters such as streams and
rivers. This parallels the impact on local governments of the Clean Water Act on wastewater
treatment programs, the federal Safe Drinking Water Act on water supply programs, and the
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act on solid waste management. The activities
that local governments perform in each case are now dictated to a large degree by the regulatory
role mandated by the various federal and associated state laws, as opposed to the “business”
perspective of a strictly proprietary function.
This has altered the funding philosophy of municipal utilities. Increasingly, the funding of
municipal utilities is being viewed as being incidental to the regulatory functions the utilities
perform pursuant to federal and state mandates, not purely in terms of the business nature of the
venture. Thus, water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater management, and solid waste
fees are no longer associated purely with a proprietary governmental activity and have become
vehicles for regulatory activities.
In addition, courts in several states have broadened the responsibilities of local governments to
encompass greater involvement in solving the various problems resulting from their ministerial
actions. For example, municipal governments approved subdivision and commercial
development proposals for many years without incurring any specific responsibility or liability
for service deficiencies that might result. In recent years, however, the courts have begun to
make local governments responsible for considering the potential for problems through impact
assessments. Some have even been required to correct or mitigate the impacts that occur, giving
rise to environmental impact assessments and impact fees. Several states have even adopted
growth management laws that dictate that local governments adopt infrastructure plans that
consider development impacts and have demonstrated the ability to capitalize the systems that
growth will demand before development approvals are issued.
All of this has had an impact on stormwater management programs. Some cities and counties
have been required to improve downstream drainage systems subjected to increased runoff and
resulting flooding and erosion due to subdivision and commercial development approvals. There
are parallels in which local governments have been required to provide adequate water supply,
wastewater treatment, and solid waste management for developments they have approved.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-14 September 29, 2003
A.5 - Constitutional, Legislative, and Case Law Considerations
As Jefferson City evaluates the funding options available to it, legal issues are at the forefront.
The legal environment associated with local government finance has a political corollary that
must also be acknowledged. The legality of some funding methods may be tied to formalized
political acceptance in the form of voter approval of a ballot issue authorizing a tax, service fee,
or other mechanism. Of special importance in Missouri, the Hancock Amendment to the
Missouri State Constitution imposes certain requirements and standards on the process for
implementing some forms of local government funding that may affect the City’s stormwater
management program and funding strategy.
The possibility of adopting stormwater management service fees raises the issue of whether such
fees would be subject to the Hancock Amendment. This issue is not clear-cut, and recent case
law suggests rate design concepts and procedural steps that may obviate the requirement that a
fee be subjected to a ballot approval. However, it may be desirable in a political sense to seek
the public’s acceptance through a vote. Thus, the City Council must weigh both the legal and
political aspects of the issue.
Amendment No. 5 to the Missouri Constitution was approved by Missouri voters on November
4, 1980. It is commonly referred to as the Hancock Amendment, and was codified at Article X,
Sections 16 through 24. The Amendment’s purpose is to control both governmental revenue and
expenditure increases. The restrictions on local government authority imposed by the
Amendment are contained in Section 22, which provides, in part:
(a) Counties and other political subdivisions are hereby prohibited from levying
any tax, license or fees, not authorized by law, charter or self-enforcing provisions
of the constitution when this section is adopted or from increasing the current levy
of an existing tax, license or fees, above that current levy authorized by law or
charter when this section is adopted without the approval of the required majority
of the qualified voters of that county or other political subdivision voting thereon.
The Missouri Legislature enacted a statute that defines the term “increasing” as it is used in
Article X, Section 22. The Statute provides:
The term “increasing” as used in section 22 of article X of the Constitution of the
State of Missouri when referring to any license or fee of any county or other
political subdivision does not mean adjustments in the level of any license or fee
necessary to maintain funding of a service, program or activity which was in
existence on November 4, 1980, or which was approved by a vote of the people
subsequent to November 4, 1980. A statement of the costs necessary to maintain
the funding of such service, program or activity shall be prepared and shall
indicate the service, program or activity supported by the license or fee. The
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-15 September 29, 2003
statement and work papers related thereto shall be a public record and subject to
examination pursuant to Chapter 610, RSMo.
In 1982, the Missouri Supreme Court gave a broad reading of the phrase “tax, license or fees” as
contained in the Hancock Amendment.11 In the subject case, St. Louis County increased its fees
“for numerous county services, such as parks and building inspection[s].”12 A taxpayer
challenged this increase and argued that no increase can occur without voter approval. The
County argued that user fees were outside the scope of the phrase “tax, license, or fees” and
therefore the Hancock Amendment did not apply. The Court relied on definitions contained in
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary and stated:
“Reading the words examined here for their ordinary and customary meanings,
they present a sweeping list of the types of pecuniary charges the government
makes. Quite simply, this exhibits an intent to control any such charges to the
extent that the voters must approve any increase in them.”13
This broad interpretation included virtually all fees imposed or increased by a local government.
The issue was not closed, however. Between 1982 and 1991, the appellate courts struggled to
develop a coherent interpretation of the Hancock Amendment. In Beatty v. Metropolitan St.
Louis Sewer District , the Court wrote:
“In this case we return to our continuing struggle to define the parameters of the
Hancock Amendment and particularly of Article X, Section 22(a) of the Missouri
Constitution”.14
Some decisions held that a particular charge was subject to the Hancock Amendment, while
other fees were not. In one case the Court held that “fees” did not include special assessments
charged for street improvements to abutting landowners because those owners were not provided
with a “privilege” or a “service”.15 In another it was held that voluntary payments by a city
utility board into the city general revenue fund, a fee in lieu of a franchise tax, was not a tax,
license or fee.16 In other cases, however, courts held that the Hancock Amendment applied to
fees charged by private companies for using publicly-owned facilities 17 and to an inspection and
permit fee for the removal and demolition of buildings.18
11 Roberts v. McNary, 636, S. W. 2d 332 (Mo. banc 1982)
12 Id. at 334
13 Id. at 336
14 See generally Beatty v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 867 S. W. 2d 217, 218 (Mo. banc 1993)
15 Zahner v. City of Perryville, 813 S. W.2d 855, 858 (Mo. banc 1991)
16 Pace v. City of Hannibal, 680 S. W.2d 944 (Mo. banc 1984)
17 Loving v. City of St. Joseph, 753 S.W.2d 49 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988)
18 State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Lutz, 653 S.W.2d 703 (Mo. App E.D. 1983)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-16 September 29, 2003
In 1991, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed itself in deciding Keller v. Marion County
Ambulance District 19, ruling that the District’s policy of collecting fees rather than imposing a
subscriber charge to all consumers in the service area without a voted approval was allowed by
the Constitution as amended by the Hancock provisions. A group of taxpayers challenged the
fees in a class action, alleging that the service charge increases constituted a tax and should have
been submitted to the voters for approval.
The Keller case is especially notable because the Supreme Court established some standards for
the courts future reference in Hancock Amendment cases. The Court began by reviewing
previous Hancock Amendment decisions and then stated that “there are two types of local
revenue increases: those subject to the Hancock Amendment and those not subject to the
Amendment.”20 The Court noted that a majority of the Ambulance District’s new service
charges “were increases over the previous charges, and none were submitted to the voters for
approval.” In Keller the Court overturned Roberts v. McNary, reasoning:
If the people of Missouri intended to prohibit localities from increasing any
source of revenue without voter approval, a general term like “revenue” or
“revenue increase” could have been used. Instead, the people of Missouri
characterized “fees” in section 22(a) as an alternative to a “tax.” This
characterization suggests that what is prohibited are fee increases that are taxes in
everything but name. What is allowed are fee increases which are “general and
special revenues” but not a “tax.”
The Court held that “increases in the specific charges for services actually provided … are not
subject to the Hancock Amendment.”21 The Court instructed that future courts should “examine
the substance of a charge, in accordance with this opinion, to determine if it is a tax without
regard to the label of the charge.” The Court established five criteria as “helpful” guidance in
determining whether a charge constituted a tax or a fee. These criteria are commonly known as
the “Keller factors.”
1. When is the fee paid? Fees subject to the Hancock Amendment are likely due to be paid
on a periodic basis while fees not subject to the Hancock Amendment are likely due to be
paid only on or after provision of a good or service to the individual paying the fee.
2. Who pays the fee? A fee subject to the Hancock Amendment is likely to be blanket-
billed to all or almost all of the residents of the political subdivisions, while a fee not
subject to the Hancock Amendment is likely to be charged only to those who actually use
the good or service for which the fee is charged.
19 Keller v. Marion County Ambulance District, 820 S.W.2d 301 (Mo. banc 1991)
20 Id. at 303
21 Id. at 305
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-17 September 29, 2003
3. Is the amount of the fee to be paid affected by the level of the goods or services provided
to the fee payer? Fees subject to the Hancock Amendment are less likely to be dependent
on the level of goods or services provided to the fee payer while fees not subject to the
Hancock Amendment are likely to be dependent on the level of goods or services
provided to the fee payer.
4. Is the government providing a service or good? If the government is providing a good or
a service, or permission to use government property, the fee is less likely to be subject to
the Hancock Amendment. If there is no good or service being provided, or someone
unconnected with the government is providing the good or service, then any charge
required by and paid to a local government is probably subject to the Hancock
Amendment.
5. Has the activity historically and exclusively been provided by the government? If the
government has historically and exclusively provided the good, service, permission or
activity, the fee is likely subject to the Hancock Amendment. If the government has not
historically and exclusively provided the good, service, permission or activity, then any
charge is probably not subject to the Hancock Amendment.
The Court supported its analysis contained in the Keller decision that Roberts was decided too
broadly by recognizing that the “traditional distinction between ‘true’ user fees and taxes
denominated as fees…”. It explained that “fees or charges prescribed by law to be paid by
certain individuals to public officers for services rendered in connection with a specific purpose
ordinarily are not taxes … unless the object of the requirement is to raise revenue to be paid into
the general fund of the government to defray customary governmental expenditures … rather
than compensation of public officers for particular services rendered ….” In applying this
guidance, the Court stated that: “No specific criterion is independently controlling; but, rather,
the criterion together determine whether the charge is closer to being a ‘true’ user fee or a tax
denominated as a fee.”22
In a later opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court cast some doubt on how long the Keller factors
would remain viable by stating, in response to an argument that Keller should be overruled:
“While the Court will continue to assess the wisdom and viability of Keller’s holding in
appropriate cases, we need not decide Keller’s ultimate fate in this case.”23 Three recent cases
suggest that the application of the Keller factors typically result in a “split decision” on the issue
of tax versus fee status.24 Rarely do all criteria indicate that a given charge is one or the other.
22 Id. at 304-05 n.1023 Beatty v. Metropolitan Sewer Dist., 867 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Mo. banc 1993)24 Beatty v. Metropolitan Sewer Dist., 867 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Mo. banc 1993); Feese v. City of Lake Ozark ,
893 S.W.2d 810 (Mo. banc 1995); and Missouri Growth Association v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist.,
941 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-18 September 29, 2003
The following general law and specific case law references may also lend clarification to several
issues associated with stormwater management funding in Jefferson City.
· McQuillen, Municipal Corporations Section 31.10, states a general rule that the
establishment and maintenance of a sewer system is usually regarded as an exercise of the
municipality's police powers, i.e. that it is essentially regulatory in nature.
· The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed a finding by the trial court that the City and County of
Denver's ordinance establishing a stormwater utility and adopted storm water service charges
was "... rationally related to a legitimate state purpose of financing the maintenance and
construction of new storm sewers." In the same decision the Court affirmed the trial court's
decision that the Ordinance created a service charge and not an unconstitutional tax.
Zelinger, et al v. City and County of Denver 724 P.2d 1356
· In Craig v. City of Macon, 543 S.W.2d 772 which dealt with a solid waste service charge, the
Missouri Supreme Court wrote: "Generally the function of the police power has been held to
promote the health, welfare, and safety of the people by regulating all threats either to the
comfort, safety, and welfare of the populace or harmful to the public interest. . . . appellants
contend that because they do not have their garbage removed, they do not use the service for
which they are billed, and therefore, the ordinances are unreasonable. Appellants, however,
erroneously assume that the only benefit conferred by the statute is the removal of one's own
garbage. The legislative intent and the purpose of the city's ordinances are not primarily to
remove waste from the community for the convenience of residents, but rather to protect the
public health by regulating the collection and disposal of garbage, and thereby minimizing or
eliminating a source of disease from the community. Although the appellants may not have
waste to be collected, the regulatory scheme protects the entire public, not just those who
have waste for disposal.”
· In Washington State, the Supreme Court has written that "The actions of a city,... in creating
a storm and surface water utility are exercises of the police power, and charges to property
owners are not "special assessments" for which a special benefit is required..." Teter, et al v.
Clark County and the City of Vancouver; 104 Wash. 2d 227; 704 P.2d 1171. The
Washington Court also cited Craig v. Macon, writing: "Notably, courts in other states have
also held such charges to be valid when imposed as part of a general police power measure. .
. . As a police power measure, the statute enabled the city to take whatever measures were
reasonably required to meet the public health needs. The charges were only incidental to the
regulatory scheme; the payments went only toward the costs of that program; none of the
money went into the general revenue. Thus, because the money was collected for a specific
purpose (to pay the cost of a stormwater management program that was directed at protection
of the public health) the charge was deemed valid.”
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-19 September 29, 2003
A.6 - Stormwater Management as a Utility Service
The basic issue of whether stormwater management is a utility service is often challenged. Cities
and counties commonly cite three reasons to justify managing and funding stormwater
management as a utility.
· In terms of the service responsibilities and functional activities associated with other
municipal government programs, stormwater management most closely resembles water
supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management. All have been subject to federal
mandates in recent decades that impose increasing regulatory roles upon local governments
coincidental to the provision of such services, and all are commonly managed and funded as
municipal utilities.
· The funding demands of a stormwater program are also more similar to municipal water
supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management programs than to other functions.
All of these functions require capital investment in infrastructure and continuous routine
maintenance and remedial repair of the systems. Stormwater management shares the
regulatory nature of other municipal utility functions. Stormwater systems collect and
dispose of stormwater in the same sense that a wastewater treatment program collects and
disposes of sewage and a solid waste program collects and disposes of refuse.
· Stormwater service demands are met by a combination of physical facilities and operational
programs. The cost of the facilities and programs are related to the development
characteristics of individual parcels of property and activities taking place on those properties
rather than the economic value of the properties. The economic value of a property does not
necessarily determine its service demands on the stormwater system. Again, this corresponds
most closely to water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management.
A.6.1 - Stormwater Management Compared to Other Utility Purposes
The nature of stormwater management creates a parallel with water supply, wastewater
treatment, and solid waste management. All of these municipal functions involve the
construction, operation, and regulation of an extensive system of infrastructure that requires a
substantial capital investment. All are subject to federal mandates. As the infrastructure is being
developed, the level of capital expense for large projects may vastly exceed the financial
resources available in any given year. This may necessitate bonding to fund the major projects,
which in turn requires a reliable source of funding for the bond debt service. The physical
systems deteriorate over time, necessitating periodic repair and replacement, which may also
require infrequent but substantial expenditures. Stormwater systems must also be cleaned and
otherwise routinely maintained to ensure their functionality, resulting in on-going operating
expenses that require the adequate and stable funding that a utility typically accomplishes
through service fees.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-20 September 29, 2003
Utilities are uniquely well suited to the funding requirements of such functions. For example,
virtually every local stormwater management program must build capital improvements to
augment, alter, or replace natural drainage systems. Many of these capital improvements are
very costly. Once a revenue stream is adequately demonstrated, a utility can utilize revenue
bonding to pay for the most costly of capital improvements in the same way that water and sewer
utilities have for decades. Revenue bonding spreads the cost of facilities over a period of time
more closely approximating their useful life than is possible through some other funding
methods. Through the design of a utility service fee rate methodology, revenue bonding can tie
the cost distribution to the demands placed on the systems by individual properties over time.
Service fees can also be structured to recover the cost of both operations and associated non-
operating expenses like operating and emergency reserves. These attributes are as applicable to
stormwater management as they are to water, wastewater, and solid waste programs.
The forms of funding available to utilities, most notably service (user) fees, allow greater
flexibility in structuring funding to attain a desired distribution of costs than other funding
methods such as property taxes. The general legal tenet is that utility funding must be consistent
with the service and facility demands created by the users. Most other local government
functions (e.g., police, health and social services, and libraries) are funded by various taxes,
exactions, and assessments that have little or no relationship to demands placed on systems or
programs by the users of these services.
Distinct philosophies of local government funding have evolved to support general governmental
functions and proprietary functions. Taxes, special assessments, exactions, and service fees must
satisfy what the courts have said are their philosophical foundations as well as more specific
characteristics, standards and tests in individual applications (e.g., the Keller factors in
Missouri). The various state and commonwealth courts have not been uniform or consistent ,
however, in the degree of compliance they demand with the philosophical foundation for each
funding mechanism.
The philosophical foundation of stormwater management funding decisions in Jefferson City
must recognize the standards and norms that have evolved for various local government
functions over many years, as reflected in the Missouri Constitution and legislation and in a body
of judicial decisions, definitions, and tests that are applied. Regarding “service fees or charges”
for various municipal government purposes managed as “utilities”, the philosophy that guides
rate design is fairly well refined. A fundamental test applied by the courts to service fees or
charges is that utility rate structures be “fair and reasonable” and that the resulting fees or
charges must “bear a substantial relationship to the cost of providing services and facilities”.
By “fair” the courts have deemed that service fees to similarly situated properties or customers
should be similar, and that charges to dissimilar properties or customers should be relative to the
differences in demands placed on the systems and the services required. “Reasonable” means
that a rate structure should be proportional to the service provided. The “substantial
relationship” between service fees and the cost of services and facilities requires that a logical
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-21 September 29, 2003
linkage or “rational nexus” must be apparent. It must be reasonable, but mathematical precision
is not usually required to satisfy any of these standards.
A.6.2 - Judicial Deference
The courts have allowed municipalities (and special-purpose agencies such as sewer districts) a
high degree of flexibility and latitude in legislative acts, such as adopting utility service fee rates
that reflect local needs and practices, under a general practice of “judicial deference.” The courts
have consistently recognized the authority of local legislative bodies (city, county, and regional
councils, commissions, and boards, etc.) to determine how service fee rates should be structured
to achieve overall community objectives in providing water, sewer, stormwater, solid waste,
electrical, gas, and other such services and facilities.
Under judicial deference, the courts commonly hold that a utility service fee rate structure
adopted by local elected officials or boards is presumptively appropriate in their community
unless a plaintiff can conclusively demonstrate that the local officials acted in an arbitrary and
capricious manner in adopting the rates, or that the results are illegally discriminatory or
confiscatory. Therefore, a plaintiff challenging a utility service fee rate structure bears a very
large burden of proof. This allows a broader philosophy to be applied to service fees than to
other municipal funding methods, yielding a variety of utility rate structures for water supply,
wastewater treatment, solid waste management, stormwater management, and even electricity
and gas services. As a result, utility rate structures tend to be generally consistent but rarely
identical from place to place. None of this, however, diminishes the need to assess the impact of
the Hancock Amendment and other Missouri legislative and case law restraints on any
prospective service fee in Missouri, since the design of rates is independent of the procedural
issue.
A.6.3 - Definition of “Service”
In most cases involving stormwater utility service fees the term “stormwater service” has been
broadly interpreted. For example, stormwater service has been generally accepted to include, but
not be limited to, the following:
• improvement, operation, and regulation of systems to provide collection, conveyance, and
treatment of stormwater;
• protection of properties from stormwater runoff;
• pollution control; and,
• support of vehicular and pedestrian transportation, mobility, and access to properties.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-22 September 29, 2003
A.6.4 - Compliance with Fundamental Tests
The underlying philosophy evident in the design of stormwater service fee rate structures in other
cities and counties reflects the fundamental tests that the courts have commonly applied to other
types of municipal utility service fees. Stormwater service fees or charges are usually based one
or more factors that influence the peak rate of runoff from properties, the total volume
discharged, and (in some cases) the pollutant loads carried in the stormwater. These impacts
translate more or less directly into system and program demands and thus costs.
Benefit is not a characteristic of service fees and charges and is not usually quantified in the
calculation of stormwater service fees and charges. “Benefit” has a relative specific and limited
legal definition in terms of local government funding methods. Benefit has been the foundation
of non-ad valorem special assessments, which must reflect the “direct and special benefit”
peculiar to each individual property resulting from the subject project or, in some instances,
program. Benefit is technically contained in the form of increased utilization of the property
assessed, not simply an increase in the economic value of the land. Some assessment concepts
do, however, dictate that special assessments not exceed the value of a property after the
beneficial improvement is realized. The standards, tests, and specific methods allowed for
quantifying benefit differ from state to state.
It is possible to consider some of the “benefits” of stormwater management in the design of a
“service fee” rate structure if the local legislative body perceives a given benefit to be of service
to a property in a broad sense. However, this does not require that “benefit” be specifically
quantified in service fee calculations for individual properties in the same manner that would be
required for non-ad valorem special assessments.
For example, while stormwater quality management may provide a “general benefit” to the entire
community, it would be extremely difficult to quantify the “special benefit” derived from
stormwater quality management accruing to individual properties. It can be fairly stated that
providing improved water quality is a “service” to the community at large that realizes a “general
benefit” of better public health. However, the service of stormwater quality management does
not create benefits peculiar or special to individual properties.
In this context, the “benefits” to the community in general resulting from a stormwater quality
management program can justify recovering the cost through a broadly-distributed service fee
even though specific water quality “services” are not performed for individual properties.
Likewise, provision of adequate drainage service along roadways is generally beneficial to the
community in the form of safer driving conditions, but a special benefit would be difficult to
assign to specific drivers or pedestrians. A comparable logic has been applied to justification of
universal wastewater treatment and solid waste fees to all properties. Even though an individual
property owner or manager may choose to dispose of its own wastewater or refuse
independently, the existence of a public disposal system is a “service” to that property as a result
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-23 September 29, 2003
of the overall enhancement of public safety it creates. This is generally consistent with the
Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Craig v. City of Macon.25
“Demand on the systems” is considered in the design of most utility rates, especially when
variations in demand may have meaningful impacts on the cost of services and facilities.
Practically speaking, demand on the systems is one way of quantifying the cost of facilities and
activities associated with their long-term operation as a representation of the “cost of service”.
For example, some electric utilities structure rates so peak-hour demand costs more than off-
hours demand. Peak hour generation and transmission demands often translate directly into
higher system requirements and costs. Increased peak hour electricity rates thus reflect the cost
impact of peak hour demand on capacity provisions in the system. Similarly, stormwater rate
structures based on impervious area might also be interpreted to be highly reflective of peak
demand, since impervious coverage greatly increases peak rates of runoff and requires large
capacity increases in stormwater conveyance and detention systems if flooding, erosion and
other problems are to be avoided.
As reflected in the program mission and priorities identified by the advisory committee 26, the
short-term cost of stormwater services and facilities in Jefferson City will primarily be a function
of peak demand (system capacity), associated engineering, system maintenance needs, and
compliance with water quality mandates. Stormwater quality control is not likely to be a
dominant factor in the cost of services and facilities in the immediate future, but is clearly a high
priority. In light of the courts’ broad perspective of the philosophy supporting service fees in
general and the latitude allowed to local elected officials, Jefferson City would be justified in
adopting a philosophy of stormwater management funding that reflects the cost of providing
services and facilities to meet capacity demands and maintenance needs. Benefit could be a
secondary consideration. However, it is an appropriate consideration only to the degree that a
service fee rate methodology and/or other funding methods are used to fund services in the form
of systems and activities that are of general benefit to the community, e.g., stormwater quality
management and public education to promote personal safety during flood events.
The design of a stormwater service fee rate methodology translates the funding philosophy into
“real life” by determining the distribution of the cost of services and facilities across the
community. The critical issue is “how” stormwater service fee rates are structured to ensure that
the philosophical objective is attained. As suggested above, a philosophy of funding stormwater
management that primarily reflects the cost of providing services and facilities is consistent with
a “utility” approach, as contrasted to the benefit philosophy of “special assessments” and other
municipal funding philosophies underlying taxes, exactions, etc.
25 Craig v. City of Macon, 543 S.W.2d 77226 Policy Papers # 1 and # 2
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-24 September 29, 2003
A.7 - Analysis of Funding Methods
A.7.1 - Summary of Funding Methods
The following revenue sources and funding mechanisms may be appropriate for some or all of
the costs of stormwater management in Jefferson City.
· General Fund appropriations
· Stormwater service fees
· Special assessments
· Bonding for capital improvements
· In-lieu of construction fees
· Credits and offsets against stormwater service fees
· System development charges
· Plan review, development inspection, and special inspection fees
· Impact fees
· Developer extension/latecomer fees
· Federal and state funding opportunities
A.7.2 - General Fund Appropriations
The stormwater management program in Jefferson City has been funded from City’s General
Fund revenues for many years. Although it is difficult to identify all expenditures related to
stormwater management, total spending, including direct capital outlays, over the past ten years
has probably amounted to less than $500,000 annually. The General Fund clearly has sufficient
revenue to support an increase in stormwater management funding either through a reallocation
of current resources or tax increases, though it is questionable if either option would be
politically popular.
The greatest inequity in using General Fund appropriations for stormwater management in
Jefferson City is that many properties that place demands on the stormwater systems are exempt
from general taxes. For example, as the state capital, Jefferson City has many state government
buildings. In addition, there are numerous schools, churches, and other properties that do not
generate property tax revenue. Such properties do not currently participate in funding
stormwater management through the City’s General Fund, yet they discharge a large proportion
of the total stormwater runoff in Jefferson City.
Under a stormwater utility service fee such properties might pay as much as twenty (20) percent
of the total revenue stream. Even some private properties, for example discount retail stores,
parking lots and warehouses that have large expanses of impervious coverage, do not pay
General Fund taxes commensurate with the demands they impose on the stormwater systems.
Conversely, other properties have little impact on stormwater runoff but pay substantial property
taxes. They are paying more for stormwater management through the General Fund than they
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-25 September 29, 2003
would through a service fee based on the demands placed on the stormwater program and
systems. A stormwater utility service fee would result in a substantial reallocation of the cost of
stormwater management.
Jefferson City’s General Fund revenues are relatively stable from year to year but appropriations
for any specific purpose are uncertain. Revenues within the General Fund are not dedicated to
any specific purpose, and allocations shift with perceived priorities. Stormwater management
needs are likely to receive better treatment in the budget in a year following severe storms and
drainage problems than in a year following a drought. This makes it difficult to plan and
consistently carry out a long-term program plan that depends on reliable funding year after year.
A.7.3 - Stormwater Service Fees
Under Missouri law cities are generally enabled to conduct stormwater management. This
general authority is supplemented by federal and state laws that confer a water quality regulatory
role upon local governments through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Specific methods of funding stormwater management are not mandated by state or
federal law. Stormwater service fees appear to be within Missouri home rule cities’ scope of
authority, and could distribute the cost of stormwater management across the community as
deemed appropriate by a City Council. The potential impact of the Hancock Amendment to the
Missouri Constitution is addressed earlier in this section.
The structure of Jefferson City’s municipal stormwater program and the method of funding are
not dictated by Missouri law. Several communities in other states have integrated their
stormwater service fee with other water resource management fees, most commonly wastewater
service fees. Independent cost centers and rate methodologies are typically employed for
stormwater and other functions in these cases. Most of these communities have extensive
“combined” sewers that collect and transport both stormwater runoff and sanitary sewage. That
is not the case in Jefferson City.
Under judicial deference the courts grant city councils broad discretion to adopt institutional
arrangements related to a stormwater service fee as they see fit. It would appear that a service
fee could be established in Jefferson City either as an independent line item under a stormwater
utility or incorporated within the City’s existing wastewater utility service. In either case the fee
might be subject to the Hancock Amendment. If a stormwater fee was incorporated into the
wastewater service fee it would be appropriate to have a separate stormwater rate methodology
supporting a separate cost center within the existing wastewater enterprise fund or an
independent enterprise fund. It is almost certain that any covenants associated with wastewater
bonds presently in force would dictate that an “arm’s length relationship” be established and
maintained between stormwater and wastewater. A variety of rate methodologies could be
applied in either case. The primary consideration would be to established an adequate linkage
between the cost of providing services and facilities and the apportionment of those costs
through the rate structure.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-26 September 29, 2003
It must be emphasized that the system demands that result in the costs of service that the
wastewater and stormwater programs incur do not have the same origin and therefore the same
rate methodology should not be used for both. Wastewater treatment costs are associated
primarily with the quantity and strength of domestic and industrial sewage, while stormwater
costs are related principally to peak flow surface runoff influenced by land development
practices and patterns. Different types of rate methodologies should therefore be used for
wastewater and stormwater management service fees in the event that a consolidated fee is
adopted. Simply increasing the current wastewater rates to recover stormwater management
costs is not technically supportable. The other Missouri cities that have established stormwater
utilities have kept them separate from their wastewater entities and have used independent
service fees.
In most other communities stormwater service fee rates have been based on conditions on
properties that affect the peak rate of runoff, total volume discharged, and pollutant loadings on
receiving waters. Most stormwater service fee rate structures in Missouri and nationally are
based on the amount of impervious area (roofs, paved areas, etc.). Impervious coverage
increases the proportion of rainfall that runs off the land during and following rain storms.
Stormwater rates have also been based on the gross area of properties and a factor that reflects
the intensity of development.27 A few cities and counties have incorporated both gross area and
impervious area or the percentage of imperviousness into their rate calculation.28
Simplified residential rates are common, with many stormwater service fee methodologies
having a flat-rate charge for all single-family residential properties. Service fee charges to non-
residential properties are normally higher than residential charges, reflecting the large areas of
impervious surface and thus the greater runoff they typically generate. An "equivalent unit"
approach is often used to equate service fees on non-residential properties to the rate applied to
residences. Monthly residential rates typically range between $2.50 and $4.50, although a few
very advanced programs charge as much as $13.00.
The revenue generated by a stormwater service fee is a function of the design of the rate
structure and the make up of the community. Based on the experiences of comparable
communities, a typical rate structure might be expected to generate between $20 and $50 per
gross acre annually for each $1 per month billed to residential properties. Thus, a $3 per month
service fee might generate $60 to $150 per acre each year, although the higher figures are typical
of densely developed urban areas like Cincinnati, Ohio and Seattle, Washington.
A stormwater service fee, whether established under a stormwater utility or a wastewater utility,
could be coordinated with other funding methods. Revenue from service fees and other types of
fees examined in this section (and even allocations of General Fund resources) can be blended to
tailor the apportionment of stormwater management costs as the City Council sees fit.
27 The most notable examples are in Bellevue, WA Cincinnati, OH, and Atlanta, GA.
28 (Denver, CO and Philadelphia, PA)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-27 September 29, 2003
Equity of funding can be enhanced through the service fee rate design process. For example,
stormwater service fees may be applied to non-taxable (public) as well as privately owned
properties. In comparison to tax-based funding strategies, taxable (private) properties are
relieved of a portion of the cost of stormwater management under a stormwater utility/service fee
approach. Service fees also offer the opportunity to incorporate incentives such as credits to
reward responsible stormwater management such as on-site detention of runoff, and to
compensate for activities performed by the property owners which are beneficial to the
stormwater management program. Griffin, Georgia offered a credit to the local school district to
incorporate a “water-wise” curriculum in the district’s science program that would help satisfy
one element of the City’s NPDES permit.
The stability of revenue from a stormwater service fee ensures that long-range scheduling of
capital improvements and operations can be done with reasonable assurance that funding will be
available. This would overcome one major obstacle that currently exists in Jefferson City. The
City is essentially unable to construct costly capital improvements unless special funding like the
recent extention of sales tax is approved by the voters. Dedicated funding that cannot be
diverted to other uses also encourages stewardship of the resources.
Another advantage of a stormwater service fee would be to free up General Fund resources for
other purposes. Shifting financial responsibility for stormwater management to a stormwater
utility (or to the wastewater utility under a separate cost center) and instituting a stormwater
service fee to fund all or a portion of the stormwater management costs would make more
General Fund resources available for other needs.
The biggest potential disadvantages of a stormwater service fee are its high visibility and the cost
of development and implementation. Regardless of technical distinctions between "taxes",
"exactions", "assessments", and "service charges", any form of government funding will be
viewed by a majority of citizens and property owners as a "tax" and will thus be potentially
unpopular. The Hancock Amendment (and/or local politics) may require that any service fee
proposal be submitted to the voters for approval.
The visibility of a stormwater service fee is greatest when it is independent from other fees.
Visibility would be reduced by incorporating a stormwater service fee into a consolidated
wastewater/stormwater service fee (with proper separation of the rates and revenues for each
purpose). The higher degree of visibility associated with a separate fee might actually be a plus
if it convinced the community that the City’s stormwater program is a serious effort to fix long-
standing flooding problems and reduce stormwater pollution. The cost of utility implementation
is estimated to be $50,000 to $150,000 depending on the rate methodology selected. This figure
assumes that the preferred rate methodology is similar to those in use elsewhere.
A.7.4 - Special Assessments
For many decades capital improvements to stormwater drainage systems in many states were
commonly funded through special assessments upon benefited properties or special taxes (e.g.,
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-28 September 29, 2003
sales taxes, gasoline taxes). The special assessment concepts in the United States evolved from
historic English ditch law concepts originally conceived to pay for drainage of farmlands. The
assessment concept was predicated on allocating drainage costs to the farmers in proportion to
the direct and special benefits they individually derived in the form of increased crop yields and
grazing use. This led to methodologies that were associated with the value of the enhanced use
of the land rather than the demands placed on the drainage systems. The ditch law assessment
concept was transferred to the United States from England along with many other local
government funding practices. In time it was translated into “special assessment district”
funding, and was eventually applied to many other capital improvement needs in addition to
drainage.
The inherent shortcomings of special assessment funding as applied to stormwater drainage
systems in an urban setting have become increasing evident in recent years. The chief drawback
of the traditional special assessment methodology is that the distribution of costs must be
proportionate with the direct and special benefit accruing to each property being assessed. The
benefit must be definable, measurable in some economic manner, and available to the property
being assessed within a practical timeframe. General benefits accruing to all properties as a result
of a stormwater improvement cannot be used to justify a special assessment, for example better
traffic movement along roads that are not frequently flooded or improved water quality.
The courts have established substantially different standards for special assessments versus
service fees. Broad latitude is given to local elected officials in setting service fee rates. Special
assessments must comply with more restrictive technical standards based on individual benefit.
Fully complying with the standards the courts have set for special assessments requires more
precise and costly data than is needed to support a service fee, which must simply be fair and
reasonable in its general application.
As a result, special assessments for drainage are most workable in a very localized application.
For example, improving a ditch or channel that directly serves a few properties or a relatively
small area is an appropriate project for special assessment funding. A special assessment is less
suitable for capital projects that serve a broad area such as an entire city, and wholly unsuited to
facilities providing a general service (or benefit) to the community at large as compared to
specific individual properties. Because so much of what must be done to effectively manage
stormwater quantity and quality in Jefferson City is not directly and specially beneficial to
individual properties, assessments are not workable as the prime source of funding for the
stormwater management program priorities projected for the foreseeable future.
Nationally, the pressure to identify new funding methods has increased as assessments have
become less and less suitable for stormwater management programs and projects in recent years.
The emerging “watershed” orientation of stormwater master planning and improvements
accentuates the standards and limitations associated with special assessments. A single
watershed might be a valid assessment area for capital infrastructure funding. Combining
several discrete watersheds that have significantly different capital investment needs into an
assessment area would be more questionable. Advent of an increasing local government role in
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-29 September 29, 2003
stormwater quality management has further eroded the usefulness of special assessment funding,
since it is particularly difficult to demonstrate the direct and special benefit of stormwater quality
management to individual properties.
A stormwater utility special service fee can be used instead of a special assessment to isolate
certain costs to a limited number of properties or persons served by a specific capital
improvement or program activity. A special service fee is much more flexible than an
assessment, can be applied to large areas as well as small, and does not have to meet the more
rigorous benefit tests applicable to apportionment of direct and special benefits. Instead, a
special service fee adopted under the umbrella of general ratemaking practices must adhere to the
standards generally applied to service fees. The rate methodology for a special service fee must
be fair and reasonable, and the resulting fees to individual persons or properties must bear a
substantial relationship to the cost of the facilities or services, but it need not consider direct and
special benefit.
When employing special service fees in situations where special assessments might have been
used in the past, it is vitally important that a consistent approach be applied. A level of service
provided to one portion of the service area and funded through the normal service fee should not
be subject to a special service fee in another portion of the service area unless the long-term cost
for that comparable level of service is clearly so different that a special fee can be justified. Just
as wastewater utilities do not charge customers located farther from a wastewater treatment plant
a premium over those located nearby, special service fees are not appropriate except in cases
when significant differences in the cost of providing a comparable level of service exist.
The other circumstance in which special fees are sometimes used is when a capital improvement
is expedited apart from normal priorities or is designed and built to a higher level of service than
normal. The departure from normal priorities or service level can be translated into a special
service fee. The drawback to such practices is that the public may perceive it as an elitist policy
enabling more affluent customers to “buy their way up” a priority list or obtain more service
regardless of what objective program priorities may be.
A.7.5 - Bonding for Capital Improvements
The Missouri Constitution and Revised Statutes authorize the use of bonding for capital
improvements to local infrastructure, including stormwater systems. Bonds are not a revenue
source, but simply a method of borrowing dependent for debt service on other revenue sources.
For example, the sales tax extension issue approved by the voters on the November, 2001 ballot
provides revenue that could be used to pay the debt service on bonds. Bonding is most
commonly used to pay for major capital improvements and acquisition of other costly capital
assets such as land and major equipment. Capital improvements can also be funded through
annual budget appropriations, but annual revenues are sometimes insufficient to pay for major
capital investments.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-30 September 29, 2003
The chief advantage of bonding is that it allows construction of major improvements to be
expedited in advance of what could be funded from annual budget resources. This is
accomplished by spreading the costs over time, much like home mortgage or automobile loan
enables a buyer to acquire assets they could not buy for cash. In the case of stormwater
management, expediting a capital project by several years through bonding may result in
significant public and private savings if flooding, other damaging impacts, and inflation of land
acquisition and construction costs are avoided. The major disadvantage of bonding is that it is
essentially a loan that incurs an interest expense, which increases the total cost of capital
projects, land acquisition, etc.
Two types of bonding are available to cities and counties in Missouri, revenue bonding and
general obligation bonding. General obligation bonding creates a debt that has first standing
with regard to public assets and is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the issuing agency. All
revenues, including various taxes, may be used to service a general obligation debt. Revenue
bonding is supported and ensured only by particular revenues specified in the bond covenants,
such as service fees. Creation of a separate source of revenue that is earmarked specifically for
stormwater management (e.g., a stormwater service fee) would allow the City to sell revenue
bonds to pay for stormwater capital improvements if market acceptance was attained. However,
revenue bonding issued by Jefferson City would not likely be backed by the full faith and credit
of the City, and would likely incur a slightly higher interest rate in the bond market. Recent
history suggests that the bond market has recognized the stability of stormwater service fee
income, and has priced stormwater revenue bonds favorably.
It is also possible to issue general obligation debt that is backed by the full faith and credit of the
issuer but has debt service funded from a designated revenue source like service fees. This is
commonly referred to as “double-barreling” of bonds. It typically attains the same bond rating
and interest rate as general obligation debt without requiring a general tax increase, although the
fall-back position for the bond holders is a covenant by the issuer that its full faith and credit is
ultimately behind the bond. Jefferson City has historically made sparing use of bonding.
Bonds are not intended to be a funding mechanism for day-to-day operations, but some costs can
be viewed either as a capital or operating expense. The lack of a clear distinction between
remedial repairs and new construction results in bonding sometimes being used for major repairs
that might also be considered an operating expense. Given the stormwater priorities facing
Jefferson City, the most appropriate use of revenue bonding would be for capital construction of
regional detention facilities and acquisition of land and easements for maintenance access to
creeks and ditches. The deteriorated condition of many local creeks, ditches, storm sewers and
structures suggests bonding also might be justified for stopgap remedial work, even if it
technically is not a capital improvement to the system.
A.7.6 - In-lieu of Construction Fees
In-lieu of construction fees are not specifically authorized by Missouri enabling statutes, but
could conceivably be adopted as one element of a comprehensive stormwater service fee rate
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-31 September 29, 2003
methodology through a city’s home rule powers. In-lieu of construction fees are sometimes
confused with impact fees. However, in-lieu of construction fees are usually a substitute for
viable, those less efficient, on-site solutions. In contrast, impact fees are generally used to pay for
off-site measures to compensate for the service-demand effects of development that are not
solvable on-site. For example, the impact of a shopping center on stormwater runoff might be
resolved either by requiring an on-site detention system or by building a regional facility off-site
that is paid for in part through in-lieu of construction fees. Shopping center traffic that clogs
nearby roads cannot be solved on-site, but an impact fee might be used to pay for additional
traffic lanes and/or signalization to mitigate the impact of the additional traffic on roadways for
some distance away from the shopping center.
The need for in-lieu of construction fees stems from problems associated with requiring on-site
detention systems on numerous residential subdivisions and commercial properties. Detention
systems store stormwater runoff during the peak of a storm event and slowly release it afterward,
and have been shown to reduce the discharge of pollutants by allowing some settling to take
place. However, on-site detention requirements result in small and relatively inefficient systems
on private properties, which often are not properly maintained. They tend to deteriorate rather
quickly, and can be easily modified or even eliminated entirely without the City’s knowledge. A
proliferation of small detention facilities quickly creates an inspection and enforcement problem
for local government. Fewer large systems serving many properties would be more reliable and
efficient, but on-site detention involves a private developer paying for the facility whereas the
general public usually pays for regional systems.
An in-lieu of construction fee offers a practical option that may be preferable to both developers
and the City if widespread use of on-site detention systems becomes a strategic element of the
long-term stormwater management plan. Developers would simply pay a fee in-lieu of building
an on-site system, assuming that the off-site impacts on properties immediately downstream of
the development could be avoided.
The major advantage of in-lieu of construction fees is that the City (and thus the taxpayers or
ratepayers) would not solely bear the capital expense for regional detention and other systems to
mitigate the runoff impact created by private development projects. Developers would be
required to financially participate in solutions to the impact of their projects, and the long-term
regulatory problems of numerous on-site detention systems would be avoided.
The most important disadvantage of in-lieu of construction fees is that they rarely generate
sufficient revenue to fund construction of regional detention facilities or to enlarge conveyance
systems, especially in communities that are mostly developed when the fees are adopted.
Regional facilities typically must be designed to meet the stormwater service demands of
previously developed properties as well as a tract that is proposed for new development or
redevelopment. This dictates that other revenues must be available to initially build regional
facilities, so the taxpayers or ratepayers are burdened with the up-front cost. In-lieu of
construction fees can be a meaningful component of total long-term revenues, however, and
regional facilities could be built using bond proceeds with the bond debt service provided largely
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-32 September 29, 2003
or wholly by future in-lieu of construction fees. Well-refined capital improvement plans should
be available from which the cost of the necessary regional improvements can be determined as
the basis for setting in-lieu of construction fees. The City is several years away from having
complete and adopted master plans.
Immediate implementation of an in-lieu of construction fee is probably not practical. Further
consideration of an in-lieu of construction fee should be deferred until the City’s capital
improvement strategy has been adopted based on Master Plan Update that will identify
opportunities for using regional facilities in place of or in combination with on-site detention
system requirements.
A.7.7 - Credits and Offsets against Service Fees
There is no specific legislative authority for credits and offsets as an element of a stormwater
service fee rate methodology. The authority to adopt credits and offsets is generally
encompassed by the basic ratemaking powers provided to locally elected officials. That
authority includes the latitude to establish a variety of stormwater utility service fees and
appurtenant rate modifiers such as credits and offsets to achieve what they believe is an equitable
apportionment of costs.
Credits are frequently included as part of a stormwater service fee rate methodology. Offsets are
not. As noted previously, the courts have generally deferred to locally elected officials in
deciding what is appropriate for their communities, especially in terms of service fee rate design.
Courts in several states have also cited the existence of credits as a characteristic of service
charges (as distinguished from property taxes) in cases where a stormwater service fee has been
challenged.
Credits against stormwater service charges are most commonly used to account for the mitigative
effect of on-site controls. Credits may also be given for activities or functions performed by
individual property owners that reduce the demands borne by the public entity. They are usually
“conditional”, i.e. they are predicated on a property owner's continuing compliance with an
approved design and operating standards established by the stormwater management agency or
on continuing provision of an activity subject to a credit. Credits usually continue as long as the
applicable standards are met or the activities are provided.
In comparison, offsets are one-time, dollar-for-dollar allowances for extraordinary expenses that
produce a public benefit. For example, if a developer has installed a regional stormwater
detention system that provides storage capacity in excess of that normally required for such a
development, the cost of upstream regional detention or downstream public stormwater
conveyance systems may be reduced. In such cases, a one-time offset against a service fee might
be granted for the additional incremental capital expense of providing the excess capacity.
Another, perhaps simpler way to accomplish the same objective might be for the local
government to buy excess detention capacity from developers by the cubic foot. Once on-site
detention is required and a given amount of detention must be built for a given site, the
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-33 September 29, 2003
incremental cost of each additional cubic foot of capacity is often relatively low. Offsets should
be a matter of consistent policy and not special case. They are not normally conditional or based
on continuing compliance with operating standards. As stated above, stormwater service fee rate
methodologies rarely provide for offsets.
Credits are commonly provided in stormwater service fee rate methodologies to appropriately
recognize on-site measures that reduce peak stormwater runoff, total volume, and pollutant
loadings. In that sense, they are like industrial pre-treatment credits for industrial wastewater
dischargers. There are relatively few on-site control systems presently in place in Jefferson City,
and retroactive installations of on-site detention rarely make sense. With the exception of some
water quality best management practices, small properties and previously developed sites do not
readily lend themselves to the installation of on-site control systems or other activities that
mitigate stormwater impacts. On the other hand, credits can provide an incentive by reducing
the service fees for properties where stormwater impacts are mitigated in some manner. The
courts also view credits as evidence that a stormwater service fee is a properly designed service
fee and not a tax in disguise, making them a good policy even when their practical use is
minimal.
A.7.8 - System Development Charges
System development charges are also known as capital recovery charges, capital facilities fees,
utility expansion charges, and by other titles. Such capitalization charges differ from impact
fees, although impact fees may be structured in a similar manner. Instead of being based on
impact mitigation through additional improvements or systems, they are usually designed to
recover a fair share of the prior public investment in excess infrastructure capacity from a
developer who makes use of that additional capacity. In most cases, the excess capacity has been
provided in anticipation of development projects. It is usually a more economical and prudent
long-term policy to anticipate growth-related stormwater service demands than to attempt to
increase service capacity to meet the demands of growth incrementally as it occurs.
There are several ways of structuring and calculating capitalization charges, including the
growth-related cost allocation method, the system buy-in approach, the marginal incremental
cost approach, and the value of service methodology. They differ from in-lieu of construction
fees and impact fees primarily in terms of: 1) the fundamental purpose of the charges; 2) their
relationship to the point in time when improvements are made versus when the charges are
collected; and 3) their relationship to specific facilities which are funded through service charges.
In most cases, system development charges are related solely to capital costs, as opposed to
operating expenses. However, some justification may exist in certain circumstances for
incorporating long-term operating expense associated with system capacity into a capitalization
charge.
System development charges basically provide a mechanism whereby developers participate in
paying for excess capacity that was previously built into a public system in anticipation of their
needs. In effect, a system development charge allows a deferral of participation in the capital
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-34 September 29, 2003
cost of a facility until a property is developed and makes use of the provisional capacity. The
use of such fees for stormwater management capital costs is clearly appropriate since most
drainage systems are consciously designed to provide excess capacity to accommodate future
development in an economical manner.
Whether a stormwater capitalization charge is needed may be related to basic rate methodology
employed. Most stormwater service fees are based on impervious area. The obvious result is
that only developed properties are charged a service fee. Undeveloped properties do have
impervious area and therefore are not charged. However, capital facilities being funded by the
service fee will usually be designed with future conditions in mind, including the impact of
growth. This results in excess capacity being incorporated into the system and being paid for
solely by currently developed properties under an impervious area methodology. A
capitalization charge may therefore be adopted as a recapture mechanism to ensure a fair and
reasonable allocation of the capital costs among all properties using the facilities over time. The
calculation of a capitalization charge may also include a system depreciation factor so that a
development built near the end of the useful life of a facility pays only for that portion of the life
cycle during which it is using the capacity provided.
Some communities have adopted service fee rate methodologies which bill undeveloped as well
as developed properties, e.g., some benefit assessments in California. This is most common
when extensive major capital improvements to the systems are being funded and built and it is
desirable to spread the cost as widely as possible to keep rates low. If designed to properly
allocate capital costs this type of rate methodology can obviate the need for a capitalization
charge to recapture deferred financial participation. However, this approach also poses a
potential inequity. It is based on speculation that all undeveloped properties will be developed to
the design condition within the life cycle of the facilities and make use of the capacity provided,
which may or may not be a reasonable assumption in different settings.
A.7.9 - Plan Review, Development Inspection, and Special Inspection Fees
Jefferson City has been reviewing stormwater plans in conjunction with development approvals
for many years. Although there is no specific statutory authority for special service fees for
stormwater management plan review and inspections, they are certainly within the City’s home
rule authority and could reasonably be included under the scope of a stormwater service fee rate
methodology since they are clearly fees for special services.
The rationale for including such fees in a rate methodology is based on the “origin of demand for
service” concept, in which costs are apportioned only among those whose needs require a
specific service. The full range of “services and facilities” provided by a stormwater
management program is not uniformly required throughout a community. Some services, such
as plan reviews and inspections, are provided only to a specific clientele. Instead of distributing
the cost of such services among all service fee ratepayers, special service fees can be adopted
which apply only to the parties who are served.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-35 September 29, 2003
Fees of this type are often incidental to the performance of specific regulatory activities that are
intended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Some of the regulatory activities may
be mandated by federal and/or state requirements or as conditions of NPDES stormwater
discharge or other permits. In other cases special purpose fees are simply intended as a cost
recovery mechanism that assigns the expense to a specific clientele that is served.
Special fees may have applications beyond plan review and inspection services. For example,
experience has demonstrated that on-site detention systems tend to deteriorate rapidly after about
five years. Maintenance is sometimes deferred, or alterations may be intentionally or
unintentionally made to facilities, compromising their functionality. Annual or biannual
inspections may be required to ensure that on-site systems are properly cared for and not altered
from their approved design. It would seem appropriate that the cost of such inspections be
assigned to the specific property owners through special fees, thus relieving the general service
fee ratepayers of that cost of service.
In the case of Jefferson City, separate fees for stormwater system plan review and inspection
would provide only a small additional amount of revenue, but would enhance the equity of the
cost distribution by removing the costs from service charge ratepayers and isolating them to
those who require these services. Adoption of special fees to recover the costs of such functions
would also require that other City fees associated with the same reviews or inspections be
evaluated to ensure that the developer is not being charged twice for the same services. The City
should also ensure that the fees charged do not exceed the actual cost of the service to avoid a
Hancock Amendment election requirement. This might require adjustments in other fee
schedules, and accounting changes to ensure that the special fees for stormwater plan review,
inspections, etc. are allocated to a stormwater enterprise or special revenue fund.
A.7.10 - Impact Fees
Impact fees have been associated with a variety of public infrastructure components across the
United States. They are often popular with existing residents who wish to see developers pay the
entire cost of new capital facilities. Naturally, they are just as often highly unpopular with
developers. Specific applications of this type of funding method have been the subject of a great
deal of litigation nationally. An unusual aspect of impact fees is that state courts around the
country have been notably inconsistent in their definition of them and decisions on their
application. Case law in Missouri on impact fees is virtually non-existent.
Standards have evolved for adopting and applying such fees and have been institutionalized in
legislation in more than twenty states. Development sector interests, particularly home builders
associations, have taken the offensive and gained adoption of impact fee laws in several states
that impose so many administrative burdens and limitations on use of impact fees that they are
essentially impractical as a funding source for stormwater system improvements.
Impact fees are typically limited to situations in which the impact of new development on
existing infrastructure systems is: 1) measurable and certain; 2) of definable geographic or
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-36 September 29, 2003
systemic extent; and 3) quantifiable in terms of the incremental capital investment that will be
required to maintain (not attain) an adequate service level. The final point is critically important
in terms of stormwater management systems. Impact fees cannot be used to bring an inadequate
existing system up to an adequate service level, and thus are not useful in correcting the many
problems that currently exist in the stormwater systems in Jefferson City. Impact fee revenues
must also be earmarked for specific projects or uses, must be expended relatively quickly (5 to
10 years), and, if not spent for the stated purpose, must be returned to the developer, often with
interest.
All of this makes impact fees impractical for stormwater management in most situations and
almost certainly so in Jefferson City. The crux of the problem is that few of the local stormwater
systems that have problems could be described as providing an adequate level of service at the
present time. It is likely that the City would have to bring a system up to an adequate level of
service before applying an impact fee to a development or spending impact fee revenues on a
project that would maintain adequacy in the face of growth.
Even though there is a some new development and redevelopment taking place in Jefferson City,
most of it cannot be reliably shown to demand additional service capacity exceeding what would
be provided by an adequate system (if one was in place). Impact fee revenues cannot be used to
correct existing service deficiencies. However, they can be used to provide service to new
customers. The goal would be to provide it at the set level of service, but they could be used to
provide any level of service to new customers up to the set level of service. The City simply
does not have the engineering analyses and master plans to support such a position. An impact
fee would therefore generate little revenue and place burdensome administrative demands on
Jefferson City to manage and track the use of the funds. A system development charge adopted
as part of a stormwater service fee rate structure is a better mechanism to ensure that new
development participates fairly in the cost of facilities. They differ from impact fees in several
important ways (see System Development Charges, above).
A.7.11 - Developer Extension/Latecomer Fees
Developer extension/latecomer fees are not specifically provided for funding extensions of
stormwater systems, but would be within the authority of home rule local governments in
Missouri unless limited by the charter. They might also be allowed in other instances if adopted
as part of a comprehensive stormwater service fee rate structure. They are not a revenue
mechanism, but rather a means of properly distributing capital investment costs among several
properties when a facility is built by one developer with excess capacity to accommodate
adjacent or nearby properties that are to be developed subsequently. The most common use of
this type of fee around the country is for water and sanitary sewer system extensions.
A developer extension/latecomer fee works in the following way. Developer "A" proposes a
project that requires a stormwater (or water, or sewer) system with "x" capacity. Practical design
considerations indicate that a larger system should be installed to properly serve other nearby
properties that are currently undeveloped but would be likely to use the system when they are
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-37 September 29, 2003
developed in the future. In order to ensure adequate public facilities, Developer "A" agrees to
build a larger system than what would be needed simply to serve his or her property, and incurs
an additional cost. Property owners subsequently tapping into the improved system when their
development occurs are charged a one-time fee by the administering agency for connecting to it,
and the fee is then transferred to Developer "A".
This type of fee is supposed to be structured so that Developer "A" and all other property owners
ultimately bear a fair proportion of the additional capital cost associated with excess capacity.
The administering agency typically receives no revenue from the fee, although some do charge
administrative expenses on top of the capital cost that is being distributed by this funding
mechanism. The City could also pay the developer to provide extra capacity in the regional
system and recover the cost from future developers served by it.
This type of fee may be practical and feasible for Jefferson City in the future when the capital
improvement needs have been fully defined for local areas and development standards are
adopted requiring provision of excess service capacity as a condition of development approvals.
A.7.12 - Federal and State Funding
Jefferson City has all necessary authority to make use of Federal and State government grants
and loans that might be available to help support its stormwater management program. The only
action needed is for the City Council to apply for and accept various grants and loans. However,
with the exception of the funding that might possibly be available in the future from the United
States Army Corps of Engineers or the State of Missouri’s revolving loan fund for water quality
management, there are few federal and state funding mechanisms for local stormwater
management programs. Federal involvement in stormwater management (other than regulatory
programs) has historically been limited to advisory assistance, cooperative programs like those
provided by the United States Geological Survey and the Corps of Engineers, and emergency
response following devastating floods. In recent years more grant and loan funding has become
available for stormwater management purposes. Nonpoint-Source Implementation Grants 29 are
available for implementation of best management practices (BMP), and some federal highway
funds (TEA-21) can be used to alleviate impacts of highway construction on drainage systems.
Some states have also approved funding of stormwater quality projects from Clean Water Act
State Revolving Loan Funds.
A.8 - The Rate Structure Analysis Concept
A.8.1 - Overview
A utility rate structure analysis examines different ways of calculating stormwater service fees
and integrating other funding methods with a service fee to achieve the best overall mix in local
29 Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act (PL92-500).
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-38 September 29, 2003
circumstances. An analysis of stormwater service fee rate structures involves an iterative,
multi-step proces s of refining the cost of service and rate options to achieve a desirable “fit” in
the distribution of the costs among ratepayers. The first step in selecting a rate methodology is to
evaluate alternative approaches at a conceptual level. This allows a preferred approach to be
identified efficiently. The initial objective is to identify one or more approaches that can provide
adequate, stable and equitable funding for the stormwater management program for the
foreseeable future. Then the preferred concepts are subjected to a more detailed Cost of Service
Analysis/Rate Study, addressing the details of funding the stormwater program using the selected
methodology or methodologies, perhaps in concert with other funding methods.
A.8.2 - Analytical Format
The stormwater rate methodologies, rate modifiers, and other funding methods examined in this
section are presented as a menu of options. Basic rate structure concepts are considered first.
Modifying factors (such as flat-rate charges for single-family residences and base rates for fixed
costs per account) are then examined. Finally, other funding methods that could be used in
coordination with the basic rate methodologies are explored. The preferred approach should be
geared specifically to the City’s stormwater program strategy and identified priorities so that a
demonstrated relationship exists between the selected funding strategy and the cost of providing
services and facilities.
A.8.3 - Local Considerations
The consultant team’s experiences implementing a variety of stormwater funding methods
elsewhere suggest that the most important factors in selecting a practical approach are the local
circumstances, practices, politics, and legal environment. Every community has unique
circumstances that must be considered, ranging from the jurisdictional and political
environments to the economy. The most important circumstances influencing stormwater
service fee design in Jefferson City at this time are:
· the possible need to include unincorporated areas outside the city limits in the stormwater
service area through an interagency agreement with the County;
· the limited information on stormwater systems and easements; and
· geographic and systemic gaps in the “extent of service” currently practiced.
Stormwater often flows into and out of the incorporated Jefferson City area. A substantial
program development phase will have to be undertaken before complete and detailed priorities
can be defined, and policies for a transitional increase in the “extent of service” will have to be
adopted. These circumstances suggest that the level of service may vary substantially across
Jefferson City and into less urban areas of the County over the next few years, and that the City
might need to consider the degree to which a service fee rate structure should or must reflect
varying short-term service costs versus more consistent long-term costs.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-39 September 29, 2003
A.8.4 - General Considerations
Several general considerations applicable to any assessment of service fee rate structures and
other funding mechanisms are also accounted for in this analysis. Beyond the circumstances
unique to Jefferson City, the following criteria are appropriate measures of stormwater funding
options in general and service fee rate structures in particular. None of the service fee rate
structures or other funding methods examined in this analysis is likely to be judged "perfect"
under this broad range of criteria. This analysis considers the following:
· legal authority
· equity in the allocation of costs;
· balance of rates to individual properties with the cost of providing services and facilities;
· data requirements;
· cost of implementation and upkeep;
· compatibility with existing data processing systems;
· consistency with other local financing and service fee rate policies;
· financial sufficiency;
· revenue stability and sensitivity; and
· flexibility.
The order in which the criteria are listed does not imply a priority, and no single consideration
should overweigh the others to the extent that a rate methodology or funding method is selected
or rejected for any one reason.
A.8.5 - Long-term Perspective
This analysis, and even the completion of this project, will not provide an ultimate answer to
Jefferson City’s stormwater management funding needs. A long-term perspective is vitally
important. The rate methodology and mix of funding methods preferred initially will have to be
adjusted as needs change over time. Currently known capital needs do not fully account for the
full scope of likely investment in new stormwater systems. Master planning presently underway
could identify several millions of dollars in additional capital improvement needs. More
remedial repairs and capital improvement needs are likely to be identified as the existing systems
continue to age. Continuing annexation of areas adjacent to the City will increase the proportion
of the drainage systems that must be actively managed, improved, and maintained, even if the
City and County cooperatively implement the master plan update. Stormwater quality
management could become a more demanding part of the program. Fortunately, a stormwater
service fee offers sufficient flexibility to adjust as the needs evolve, both in terms of changes in
the program and changes in the amount of funding required. The flexibility of a service fee also
allows adjustments in the allocation of costs as the program evolves.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-40 September 29, 2003
A.8.6 - Rate Structure Concepts Considered
Five rate structure options are examined in this section that appear to be generally suitable for
Jefferson City. Seven modification factors and seven secondary funding methods are also
evaluated. Similar concepts are used in more than three hundred other communities that have
established stormwater utilities. As a general rule, most stormwater rate methodologies
emphasize impervious coverage. This tends to place much of the cost burden on non-residential
properties that have extensive impervious coverage. Methods that emphasize the gross area of
properties and other parameters tend to shift the cost toward the residential sector and other
lightly developed properties. The highlights of rate methodologies, modifications, and secondary
funding methods used in several other cities and counties are offered as reference points, but
must be viewed in the specific context of the needs, priorities, and local circumstances in
Jefferson City.
A.8.7 - Basic Rate Methodologies
The basic rate methodologies examined in this section would base stormwater fees on:
1. impervious area;
2. a combination of impervious area and gross area;
3. impervious area and the percentage of imperviousness;
4. gross property area and the intensity of development; and,
5. gross area and several modifying factors.
A.8.8 - Modifying Factors
The modifying factors examined in this section would directly alter the basic rate methodologies
that are listed above. They include the following:
1. a simplified single-family residential rate;
2. a base rate for certain fixed costs of service;
3. localized surcharges for capital improvement costs;
4. on-site detention and other service fee credits;
5. a water quality impact factor;
6. a development and land use factor; and,
7. a level of service factor.
A.8.9 - Secondary Funding Methods
Seven other funding methods or sources of funding are summarized previously in this section.
They are distinct from the major sources of general tax revenue for the City. Most secondary
funding methods would be used only in special situations or applied to limited clientele groups.
For example, the City might wish to institute special service fees for stormwater services not
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-41 September 29, 2003
normally provided to all properties or for higher than standard levels of service. The secondary
funding methods or sources examined in this section include:
1. plan review, inspection and other special service fees;
2. system development charges applied to new development to equalize financial participation
in capital costs over time;
3. revenue and general obligation bonding of major capital improvements;
4. in-lieu of construction fees that would allow developers to participate in the cost of regional
stormwater facilities rather than requiring that each development include on-site stormwater
detention systems;
5. impact fees on new development;
6. developer extension/latecomer fees; and,
7. Federal and State funding.
These supplementary funding methods would generate only a minor portion of the total funding
needed. The primary purpose of most would be to enhance equity, improve public acceptance of
the stormwater program, or expedite certain priorities. Some could be incorporated directly into
a service fee rate structure rather than established separately.
A.9 - Evaluation of Stormwater Service Fee Rate Methodologies
A.9.1 - Evaluation Approach
Five basic rate structure options were determined to be appropriate for consideration in Jefferson
City. All would reflect properties' contribution to the peak discharge and total volume of
stormwater runoff. To a varying degree, each also has a relationship to the water quality impacts
of stormwater runoff. They all thus reflect the “demand” that is placed on the drainage system
and associated programs and services that the City provides.
In general, the options examined in this Rate Structure Analysis are technically comparable.
However, their potential suitability for use in Jefferson City is not simply a function of technical
considerations. Local practices, and likely future changes in the City’s stormwater management
program need to be considered in evaluating the rate options.
Revenue sufficiency is of paramount concern given the known capital project needs, operations
and maintenance enhancements that are desired, and the costs associated with stormwater quality
and hazard mitigation mandates. Although the level of service fees would be the primary
determinant of revenue capacity, some of the rate methodologies identified would broaden the
funding base by allowing service charges on undeveloped as well as developed lands.
Because the priorities of Jefferson City’s stormwater management program are expected to
gradually shift, the selected rate methodology should be highly flexible and capable of blending
with other funding methods. The ease of incorporating other funding methods with each basic
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-42 September 29, 2003
rate structure needs to be examined carefully, recognizing that selective use of other funding
methods is a means of increasing total revenue and enhancing equity at the same time.
Examples of service fees for different types of properties resulting from the various rate
methodologies are provided in this section. They are only illustrative. The actual charges to
residential and non-residential properties might differ from the example values depending on the
revenue requirement of the program and the design of the rate methodology. The fees are only
generally representative and typical of what has occurred elsewhere when the different rate
methodologies have been applied, but are valuable at this stage of the process for comparative
purposes. They demonstrate how the calculations are usually done, and reveal the allocation that
usually results among various types of the properties. However, the figures cited in the examples
should not be viewed as specific values that would result in Jefferson City from the selection of
any of the rate options.
A.9.2 - Impervious Area Rate Methodology
Stormwater rate methodologies based solely on impervious area have been widely used.30 They
are simple, easily understood by the general public, and impervious area data is relatively
inexpensive to measure or obtain in order to assemble a master account file for billing purposes.
The perceived equity of an impervious area rate methodology is high. Most people understand
the hydrologic impact of covering natural ground with paving and rooftops. Large expanses of
roofs and paving in shopping centers and other commercial and industrial business areas are
highly visible.
Numerous technical studies, references, and citations in engineering literature technically
validate the general perception of the equity of an impervious area rate methodology. The
coefficient of runoff decimal value in hydrologic engineering tables closely approximates the
percentage of impervious cover. Empirical evidence gathered in the field by monitoring changes
in peak runoff before and after development verifies that impervious coverage is the key factor
influencing peak stormwater runoff. Stormwater quality data gathered during the National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and subsequent research also indicate that impervious area is the
single most dominant factor in pollutant loadings in stormwater.
Most impervious area rate structures include simplified single-family residential service fees,
often as flat-rate charges applied to all such properties. Charges to non-residential properties
may be structured in a variety of ways under an impervious area methodology. In some cases the
average amount of impervious area on single-family residential properties is used as an
“equivalent unit” value for determining service charges to non-residential properties. In other
instances 100, 500, or 1,000 square foot ranges of impervious area are used. These are
commonly referred to as “range” values.
30 Fifty-one (51) percent of the agencies responding to a 1999 survey conducted by the National Association of
Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) that use service fee funding employ rate methodologies
based solely on impervious area.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-43 September 29, 2003
Service fees are usually calculated by dividing the amount of impervious area on each parcel by
the equivalent unit value or the range value and multiplying the product times a charge per unit.
Very few stormwater service fee rate algorithms use the exact amount of impervious area on
each property because the accuracy of the impervious area data typically available does not
support such a precise calculation.
The following example illustrates how service fees based on impervious area might be
calculated. Assume that a typical single-family residential property is determined to have 2,000
square feet of impervious area. If a monthly charge of $.001 (i.e., one-tenth of a cent) per square
foot of impervious coverage is used, the typical residence would be charged $2 per month, or
$24 per year. If a flat-rate fee is applied to all single-family residences, a range value equal to
the impervious area of the typical single-family residence might be used. Terms like
“equivalent residential unit” or “equivalent service unit” are commonly used. Other cities and
counties have opted to use various equivalent unit values as part of impervious area rate
methodologies, ranging from less than 1,500 square feet to more than 3,000.
Comparing charges to dissimilar properties is easy when an equivalent unit value is used. For
example, under the above assumptions a commercial or other non-residential property with
20,000 square feet of impervious coverage (about one-half acre) might be charged $240/year
($20.00/month). A very large WalMart® type development or a shopping center with twenty
acres of impervious area (approximately 870,000 square feet) might be billed about $10,440/year
($870.00/month). However, as these figures suggest, each of the example properties cited would
be charged the same rate per square foot of impervious coverage.
The distribution of costs that results from an impervious area rate structure differs from gross
area rate methodologies, especially in cases when service fee rates are applied to undeveloped as
well as developed areas. The potential revenue capacity of impervious and gross area
methodologies at a given level of residential fee also differs, but cannot be accurately determined
for Jefferson City at this time because detailed data is not yet available and many key decisions
are yet to be made.
It should be noted that some communities that use a gross area rate methodology have chosen not
to apply their stormwater fee to undeveloped parcels of land. If undeveloped land were not
charged under a gross area rate methodology in Jefferson City, the difference in the amount of
revenue achievable through impervious and gross area methods would be negligible. The
distribution of costs would shift slightly toward non-residential properties under an impervious
area rate methodology because they represent a more intense concentration of impervious
coverage.
An impervious area service fee rate methodology introduces a potential “timing” problem in the
allocation of the cost of capital improvements because the service fees would be applicable only
to developed properties. Stormwater capital improvements are typically designed to
accommodate future growth by oversizing systems relative to current conditions and needs.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-44 September 29, 2003
Other funding mechanisms, such as system development charges, can be used in concert with an
impervious area rate methodology to ensure that undeveloped properties ultimately participate
equitably in the cost of capital improvements designed to serve them. The timing of financial
participation would be different, however, and additional administrative systems would be
needed to support a system development charge.
In Jefferson City, the correlation between stormwater fees and the type and level of service
provided would not be influenced to a great degree by the rate methodology used. Only limited
data is currently available on the cost of different levels of service that might be provided in the
urban and rural areas, especially if service is extended into unincorporated areas of the County.
Lacking more data, it is difficult to consciously balance the initial stormwater service fees with
the level of service provided to certain areas or individual properties. An impervious area rate
methodology is suitable for incorporating the level of service into a rate methodology through a
modification factor if and when such data becomes available.
The data requirements associated with implementing and maintaining a stormwater service fee
depend more on the subtleties of the rate methodology and the use of modifying factors than on
the basic parameters selected. For example, if an impervious area method were to be applied to
all properties individually, the City would have to generate impervious area information for
residential as well as non-residential parcels. However, if a simplified residential service fee is
utilized, data requirements and costs might be reduced by as much as 70 percent regardless of the
type of rate methodology employed. A two -tier or three-tier simplified rate structure for
residences similar to those used in Cincinnati, Ohio, Charlotte, North Carolina, Boulder,
Colorado, and Tacoma, Washington would require some additional analysis of the residential
housing stock. If information available from other City databases could be used to determine the
proper assignment of individual residential properties to different tiers, the impervious area of
individual residential properties would not have to be carefully measured using aerial
photographs or other methods. However, experience elsewhere has shown that grouping
residential properties is only slightly less demanding than precisely measuring the impervious
area on each property, and implementation costs would be higher than for a single residential
rate.
The cost of implementing an impervious area rate structure is a function of the number of
properties that must be measured, the accuracy standards adopted for data, and the measurement
technique employed. Accuracy standards influence the cost of both initial implementation and
subsequent data maintenance. Regardless of the rate methodology that is preferred, Jefferson
City should consider using an equivalent unit value or ranges for grouping properties that have,
for example, similar impervious or gross areas. This would allow less exacting data standards to
be used without diminishing the percentage of properties that are correctly charged. The
techniques available for determining the impervious area on individual properties range from
very time-consuming and expensive on-site measurements to photo-interpretive methods using
scaled aerial photographs. The cost of developing impervious area data in other cities and
counties has ranged from less than $ 1 to nearly $ 6 per unit.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-45 September 29, 2003
The compatibility of an impervious area rate methodology with existing data processing systems
would appear to present few problems. The issue of how to bill for stormwater management is
yet to be fully resolved, but it is expected that the City’s utility billing system may provide a
practical vehicle. Options include the County's tax billing system or a separate, stand-alone
billing system based on either an existing database or one created strictly for stormwater
management. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages.
The impervious area rate methodology reflects a philosophy of allocating costs based on each
property’s contribution of runoff to the systems. It would be generally consistent with the City’s
rate practice for wastewater services, wherein fees are based on the amount of water used and
strength of effluent discharged to the public treatment works.
An impervious area rate methodology is highly stable and insensitive to property alterations by
ratepayers for the purpose of reducing service fees. Reductions in impervious coverage are
rarely justified merely to reduce stormwater fees. Alterations to properties that would reduce
stormwater fees are essentially infeasible under all the rate structure options examined in this
study.
The rate of revenue growth using an impervious area methodology would more or less
correspond to the pace of development. Economic downturns would tend to diminish the
addition of new impervious area to the rate base and thus the stormwater revenue growth under
this methodology, while rapid growth would add to it.
An impervious area rate methodology is not as flexible as some other options. It is based on a
single parameter that can be accurately measured. The primary means of introducing flexibility
into an impervious area methodology is through modifying factors and by allocating certain costs
to other rate mechanisms or funding methods. Approaches based on subjective parameters like
intensity of development (which is often coupled with gross area) allow substantially more
engineering judgment to be applied, both in the design of the rate methodology and in its
application to specific properties. An impervious area rate structure can accommodate other
funding methods based on the same parameter, such as system development charges applied to
new developments to recover capital investment costs in oversized stormwater systems or
regional detention systems.
A.9.3 - Impervious Area and Gross Area
Both the total property area (gross area) and impervious coverage of properties influence the
amount, peak rate, and make up of stormwater discharged to the public drainage systems. A
combined impervious area and gross area rate methodology can be a relatively simple and
effective means of accounting for the two primary parameters that influence stormwater runoff.
However, most stormwater rate methodologies utilize one or the other parameter in the
calculation of fees rather than both. A few use both parameters to derive percentages, ratios, or
other figures, which are then used in rate calculations.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-46 September 29, 2003
This type of rate methodology requires that the mix of impervious and gross area in the service
fee calculation be “tuned” to properly reflect the significance accorded to each parameter. This
is achieved by applying weighting factors to gross and impervious area or by allocating certain
costs of service to each parameter. The relative weights assigned to gross and impervious area
should be consistent with the local hydrologic conditions, patterns of development, program
requirements (e.g., operating versus capital needs), the balance of stormwater quantity and
stormwater quality in the program costs, and the community's perceptions. Based only on the
coefficients of runoff used in hydrologic engineering, gross to impervious area ratios in a service
fee calculation ranging from as low as 1:4 to as high as 1:40 might be defensible in a given
situation. When costs are allocated to the two parameters, practices elsewhere have tended to
assign seventy-five (75) percent or more of the costs to the impervious area component of the
rate.
The concept underlying this type of rate methodology is relatively easy to explain and grasp. It
is consistent with the public's general understanding of hydrology and the impact that gross area
and impervious coverage have on stormwater runoff. This type of rate methodology tends to
allocate more of the cost burden to lightly developed and undeveloped properties than
methodologies that are based strictly on impervious area. Depending on the weighting factors
used and/or the cost allocations, however, smaller properties that are almost entirely covered
with impervious surfaces could conceivably be charged more than larger properties that are
undeveloped or very lightly developed with little impervious coverage. A gross area/intensity of
development methodology (see below) does not directly incorporated impervious area in the
calculation, and is even more likely to shift costs toward lightly developed and undeveloped
properties.
Rates could be structured in a variety of ways under this approach to reflect the importance
assigned to each parameter in the local setting. For example, units of gross area might be
charged a basic rate, with a surcharge applied to units of impervious coverage. Alternatively, the
cost of service might be apportioned between impervious area and gross area instead of assigning
specific costs to each parameter. This approach was selected by the Philadelphia Water
Department, where eighty (80) percentage of the total stormwater cost of service was allocated to
impervious area and twenty (20) percent was allocated to gross area.
Solely for the purpose of illustrating how fees might be calculated, assume that each 100 square
feet of gross area might be charged $.05 (five cents) per year. A surcharge of $1.00 per year for
each 100 square feet that is covered by impervious area might be applied. This would yield an
effective ratio of 1:21 between areas that are pervious and those that are impervious. That is,
areas covered by impervious surfaces would be charged twenty-one times as much as areas that
are not. Applying the example values cited above to an eight thousand (8,000) square foot
property with 2,000 square feet of impervious coverage would result in a total service fee of $24
per year or $2 per month. The charge for the gross area of the property (8,000/100*$.05 =
$4/year) would be added the charge for the impervious coverage (2,000/100*$1 = $20/year).
This type of property might be considered typical for small to medium size single-family
residences in Jefferson City.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-47 September 29, 2003
Applying the same values to a small commercial property of 30,000 square feet (about .7 acres)
having 20,000 square feet impervious (67 %), the annual service fee would be $215/year
($15/year for the gross area and $200/year for the impervious coverage), or $17.92/month. Thus,
the stormwater service fee would be approximately nine (9) times as much as that for the
example 8,000 square foot residential property even though the commercial property is only
three and three quarters (3.75) times larger in gross area. The proportionately greater increase
reflects the more intense development of the larger parcel in this example (67 % impervious
coverage versus 25 % for the residential example). If it is assumed that an 870,000 square foot
shopping center is completely covered with impervious rooftops and paving, the annual service
fee would be $9,135 ($435 for the gross area plus $8700 for the impervious coverage), or
$761.25 per month. In both commercial examples, the gross area/impervious area rate
methodology results in lower fees for the non-residential properties than does the impervious
area methodology examined previously. This suggests that the revenue stream generated by this
methodology would be less than an impervious area concept, assuming comparable residential
charges.
A gross area/impervious area rate methodology would allow undeveloped properties to be
charged. Charging undeveloped properties would broaden the rate base, especially if portions of
the more rural County were included in the utility service area. It would also enable the City to
distribute operating and capital expense among all properties as the program takes place rather
than using system development charges or other funding methods to recapture financial
participation at some later time. Using the above example values, an undeveloped 8,000 square
foot property would be charged $ 4 per year, and an undeveloped 43,560 square foot (one acre)
property would be charged $ 21.78 per year.
A residential flat-rate charge could also be used with this methodology, using a sample of
residences to determine how much gross and impervious area is typical in Jefferson City. The
residential rate could constitute equivalent unit values for both parameters. Obviously, different
rates for gross area and impervious area might have to be applied in all of the above examples to
meet the cost of services and facilities.
The balance of charges to the level of service would be reasonably good under this approach
once the costs of service are defined and properly reflected in the weighting of the two
parameters or allocation of the costs. However, as cited previously in the assessment of the
impervious area methodology, the limited amount of data currently available on the cost of
service and the disparate levels of service presently provided in different parts of the city make it
difficult at the outset to create a high degree of specific correlation between the fees and the
costs. This would improve significantly as the program is refined in the next few years. The
details of this type of rate structure would almost certainly have to be adjusted as the stormwater
management program matures.
Both gross area and impervious area data are needed for this methodology, adding to the cost of
developing a master account file. As illustrated in the examples above, the rate algorithm could
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-48 September 29, 2003
be relatively simple. The gross area on each property might be divided by a billing unit
increment (100 square feet in the example above) and multiplied times a charge per unit. The
same could be done for impervious area, with the two sub -totals added together to generate the
service fee amount. Adjustments and credits might be applied to either or both of the parameters.
The cost of implementation and upkeep of this type of rate methodology would be influenced by
the unit cost of assembling data for the master account file and the computer programming
associated with the billing/collection and billing inquiry response processes. Cost of the master
account file might range from $ 2 to $ 6 per unit. Using a flat-rate charge for one or more classes
of properties would substantially reduce costs. Maintenance of the information might also be
simplified by requiring data from developers' engineers and/or architects when plans are
submitted.
This approach would not present any insurmountable data processing problems. Both rate
parameters are specific and measurable. The rate algorithm can be relatively simple. Data
storage requirements would be greater than for methodologies that employ only a single
parameter. The consistency between this rate concept and the City's existing general funding,
financial management, and wastewater rate policies appears to be good.
The potential revenue capacity of this type of rate structure is excellent because it could
conceivably charge both undeveloped and developed properties. For a given level of residential
fee, the revenue stream would probably be equal to or greater than other methods examined in
this study, especially if unincorporated County areas were included in the service area. This
would be due to the amount of undeveloped and lightly developed land in the County. Revenue
capacity would be dependent on the weighting factors and rates assigned to gross and impervious
areas and/or the allocation of costs.
This approach is comparable to the other options in its stability and insensitivity to external
influences. Being based on gross area and impervious area, there is little that can be done by a
property owner to reduce the parameters that drive the service fee. This creates a relatively more
stable revenue stream than the City’s wastewater service charges, which can be altered by water
conservation in response to rate increases, drought, or other emergencies and by industrial pre-
treatment practices. Credits applied to the service fees could reduce the revenue stream slightly.
Applying weighting factors or allocating costs to gross area and impervious area makes this
approach especially flexible. A broad range of relative weights could be assigned to gross area
and impervious area, and might even be varied to account for unusual conditions in certain areas
or the presence of modifying considerations like on-site detention, the existence of combined
sewers, or water quality impacts. System development charges and other secondary funding
methods could be based directly on one or more of the parameters used in this type of rate
structure.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-49 September 29, 2003
A.9.4 - Impervious Area and Percentage of Impervious Coverage
Under this methodology the amount of impervious area and the impervious percentage would
both be used in the calculation of service fees, dictating that data on both impervious and gross
area be assembled. Typically, under this type of methodology the impervious area of each
property is charged at varying rates depending on the percentage of imperviousness of the
property. In effect, each square foot of impervious area is charged more as the percentage of
imperviousness increases. Gross area is not relevant to the service fee calculation, except that it
is needed to determine the percentage of imperviousness. Because this rate methodology would
be based on impervious area, undeveloped lands would not be charged.
Some anomalies may occur in service fees that result from this type of rate methodology.
Because the percentage of imperviousness is higher, smaller properties might be charged more
than larger properties that have the same amount of impervious area. The key determinant of
charges to individual properties (and of overall revenue capacity) under this rate concept is the
schedule of charges per unit of impervious coverage. The typical approach divides properties
into several classes based on their percentage of imperviousness (referred to as “ratio groups” or
“imperviousness classes”) and applies a varying rate per impervious area unit to each class. For
example, properties having ten (10) percent imperviousness or less might be charged $.50 per
year for each 100 square feet of impervious coverage, while properties with eleven to twenty
percent imperviousness might be charged $.80 per year for each 100 square feet. Proportionately
higher values are usually applied as the percentage of impervious coverage increases.
Being based on two parameters which are accurately measurable (impervious area and gross
area, from which the percentage of imperviousness is calculated), this approach gives an
impression of greater accuracy than some other options. Engineering judgment is introduced to
the service fee calculation in the form of different charges for various imperviousness classes. It
is questionable, however, whether this method actually generates service fees that are more
accurate in relation to actual runoff discharged from individual properties and/or to the cost of
services and facilities.
The community’s perception of equity resulting from this rate methodology may be mixed, and
may depend on the number of classes or ranges used for percentage imperviousness and the
schedule of rates assigned to them. To the extent that a shift in the distribution of costs toward
heavily developed properties benefits single-family residences, homeowners would likely see a
lower bill than under other rate structures. They might view the balance of services and charges
favorably. As originally applied in Denver, Colorado, this methodology resulted in much higher
charges for intensely developed properties than would be the case under other stormwater rate
structures. While that approach benefits residential properties, intensely developed commercial
properties bear a much higher proportion of the cost of service. The following schedule is
typical of what might be applied under this approach.
A typical residential property in Jefferson City probably has between twenty and thirty percent
impervious coverage (say, 8,000 square feet gross area and 2,000 square feet of impervious
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-50 September 29, 2003
coverage). Some are undoubtedly larger and some are smaller, and the percentage of
imperviousness varies. Applying the assumption above to Table 1, the annual service fee for a
typical residence would be $24 (2,000/100*$1.20). The example commercial property of 30,000
square foot property with 20,000 square feet of impervious coverage cited previously would
receive an annual bill of $412 under this methodology and example rate schedule. The 870,000
square foot commercial shopping center example property (100 % impervious) would be charged
$21,054 annually.
This illustrates the variation in service fees that can occur under this approach depending on the
schedule of rates for different percentages of impervious coverage. Given the same residential
service fee as in the previous rate methodology examples ($24/year), the service fee for the small
commercial property would be slightly more under this approach than under the impervious area
and gross area/impervious area methodologies, but the charge to the large shopping center would
be vastly greater. Obviously, care must be taken in designing the schedule of rates to ensure that
appropriate allocations of the cost of service result.
It must also be recognized that this methodology can create anomalies relative to the service fees
that result from other rate methodologies. For example, a smaller property (gross area) with the
same amount of impervious coverage as a larger property would pay more under this
methodology. Comparing a half-acre property (21,780 square feet) with a 30,000 square foot
property when both have 20,000 square feet impervious coverage, the example schedule of rates
would yield service fees of $484 per year for the smaller property and $412 for the larger one.
The smaller property would be charged approximately seventeen (17) percent more than the
larger property. Clearly, these calculations are a function of the specific schedule of rates used in
this example and could be changed by simply adjusting the schedule. However, the potential
weakness of this approach in terms of equity problems is evident. The general problem of rate
and service level balance cited for other rate structures applies more or less equally to this
approach.
TABLE 13-1 – EXAMPLE SCHEDULE OF RATES
(per 100 square feet of Impervious Coverage)
Impervious Percentage Annual Rate/100 Square feet of Impervious Area
1 to 10 %$.52
11 to 20 %$.80
21 to 30 %$1.20
31 to 40 %$1.50
41 to 50 %$1.72
51 to 60 %$1.90
61 to 70 %$2.06
71 to 80 %$2.20
81 to 90 %$2.32
91 to 100 %$2.42
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-51 September 29, 2003
This rate concept would require that both gross area and impervious area data be gathered.
Generating data for two parameters rather than a single parameter would cost an estimated $2 to
$6 per account. Incorporating a simplified charge for single-family residences could
significantly reduce the number of properties requiring specific data. In Jefferson City this could
reduce implementation costs by as much as seventy (70) percent under this option. Future
maintenance of the data for developing properties could be accomplished by requiring that gross
area and impervious area data be supplied to the City by each developer's engineer or architect as
part of the project plans.
This approach would require that the file record format be larger than for some other options in
order to accommodate the use of two parameters. A rate algorithm could be written to calculate
the percentage of imperviousness and assign a property to a classification (or ratio group) based
on the data. Some specialized programming might be required for this rate structure and rate
algorithm, but the programming expense would not be significantly greater than for other
options.
The basic concept of this rate methodology is generally consistent with existing wastewater rate
method which considers the volume of water used, the concentration of waste loads, and any
pre-treatment that may be provided. However, a highly progressive rate schedule would not be
in tune with Jefferson City' policies and practices in wastewater rate design. Use of different
rates for the classes of impervious percentage might create a better fit with the local wastewater
cost allocation, and the resulting service fees could be more consistent with those generated by
other stormwater rate methodologies.
The revenue capacity of this type of rate structure is greater than most of the other options
examined in this section, especially if a highly progressive schedule is used. In its application in
Denver, Colorado this methodology generates perhaps twice as much revenue per square mile as
some of the other rate methodologies examined in this section would because of the very heavy
weighting given to the percentage of imperviousness. Although Jefferson City is not nearly as
urbanized as Denver, a similar impact is possible depending on the rate schedule.
The stability and sensitivity of this rate methodology is consistent with the other options
considered in this section. Even using a highly progressive schedule of rates, the level of service
fees would probably not induce property owners to remove impervious area from their
properties. It simply is not cost-effective for most property owners to reduce the impervious area
(and thus impervious percentage) just to reduce a stormwater service charge.
Despite being based on two parameters that can be accurately measured, this rate concept retains
a high degree of flexibility. In this approach flexibility is directly related to how the classes of
imperviousness are defined and the schedule of rates assigned to each. By tailoring the number
and size of the classes and the schedule of rates, flexibility comparable to or greater than that of
the other rate structures is achievable. This is also a potential point of criticism if the flexibility
is not employed with engineering justification. Modifying factors and secondary funding
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-52 September 29, 2003
methods such as system development charges can also be used with this methodology, providing
an additional means of tuning the overall financing concept and improving equity.
A.9.5 - Gross Area and Intensity of Development
A rate structure based on the gross area of each property and its intensity of development would
be very similar to the rate structures currently used by several cities and counties.31 In most
cases, the term "intensity of development factors" is used rather than a "coefficient of runoff",
primarily because the engineering terminology is often confusing to lay persons while the
relationship of intensity of development to stormwater runoff is easily grasped.
If applied to every parcel, this type of rate methodology would require that the gross area be
determined for and an intensity of development rating be assigned to all residential as well as
non-residential properties. Most communities have opted to apply a simplified service fee or
schedule of fees to one or more categories of single-family residential parcels, but there is no
uniform practice. Non-residential properties are usually categorized into groups ranging from
“undeveloped” to “very heavily developed”. If a flat-rate residential charge is not used, all
residential properties are typically assigned to one or two of the intensity of development
categories.
From five to eight classes or groups are typically used for classifying the intensity of
development. An intensity of development factor is usually very close to the coefficient of runoff
that would be assigned to a parcel if its hydrologic performance were individually determined,
but discrete intensities of development have not been applied to each individual property in any
cases where this approach has been used. Typically, the intensity of development values range
from a low figure such as .02 to .20 for undeveloped or lightly developed properties up to .85 or
even .95 for industrial and commercial uses. This approach groups similar properties and applies
average values to all within a given classification. For example, all apartments might be
classified as multi-family residential with an intensity of development factor equal to .60 instead
of assigning individual ratings ranging from .50 to .75 to individual apartment developments.
The gross area parameter is the controlling element of the rate calculation for all parcels in a
given classification. Thus, an apartment building on 40,000 square feet of gross lot area would
be billed one -half the amount charged to an apartment building on an 80,000 square foot
property.
The calculation of service fees can be structured in several ways under a gross area/intensity of
development methodology. When a simplified residential charge is used, the service fee
algorithm usually compares the conditions on non-residential properties to a defined average
specified for the residential properties. For example, if a typical residence in Jefferson City is
assumed to have a gross lot area of 8,000 square feet and an intensity of development of .25 is
appropriate, then a commercial property of 30,000 square feet with an intensity of development
31 Horry and Beaufort counties in South Carolina, and the cities of Bellevue and Tacoma, Washington and
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-53 September 29, 2003
factor of .6 would be charged three and three quarters (3.75) times as much for its gross area at
an intensity that is two and four tenths (2.4) times that of the average residential property. The
example commercial property's stormwater charge would therefore be nine (9) times that of the
charge to a typical single-family residence.
Using the example properties previously cited in this section, if this methodology resulted in a
$2/month residential service fee ($24/year), the 30,000 square foot commercial property would
be charged $18/month or $216 per year. The example of an 870,000 square foot shopping center
property assigned an intensity of development factor of .90 would be charged $783/month, or
$9,396/year.
This approach could allow service charges to undeveloped as well developed properties. For
example, Bellevue, Washington assigns a very low intensity of development factor to
undeveloped lands. It results in service fees that are about one -ninth (11 percent) of the charges
for comparably size residential properties and even a lower percentage when compared with
more intensely developed commercial or industrial parcels. Applying an intensity of
development factor of .025 to undeveloped properties in Jefferson City would result in a service
fee of $1.09/month, or $13.69/year for each acre of undeveloped land. If applied to both the City
and County, this could generate a substantial amount of additional revenue compared to the
impervious area rate methodology.
The additional revenue derived from undeveloped properties by using a similar approach in
Jefferson City may justify the expense of including them in the rate base if this approach is
selected, especially if the service fee might eventually be applied countywide through an
interlocal agreement. However, sufficient information is not presently available to estimate the
amount of added revenue potential accurately. Also, the stormwater fee on large tracts of
undeveloped land under the above assumptions might well exceed the annual property tax
billing, which would be highly unpopular. A declining block rate might be appropriate for large
tracts, reducing the charge per acre as the size of the undeveloped properties increases. This
would be consistent with the hydrologic response of such properties, wherein the travel time of
runoff across the property is a key factor in the peak rate of discharge.
The perceived equity of this type of rate structure is normally equal to or greater than that of
other approaches, but (like the others) the methodology requires a careful explanation to the
community. Simplifying the terminology associated with the rate methodology is desirable.
That is why many of the jurisdictions use a phrase like "intensity of development factor" rather
than the engineering term "coefficient of runoff".
Adjustments to individual bills or even entire classes of properties can be achieved in this type of
rate structure by simply reducing or increasing the intensity of development factor for an
individual parcel or for a class or other grouping. It is common for jurisdictions using this
approach to adopt a policy of assigning an "effective" intensity of development to individual
properties in response to service fee appeals, leaving the door open for adjustments that achieve a
fair and reasonable rate when anomalous conditions exist on individual properties.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-54 September 29, 2003
The same issues relate under this methodology to the balance of service charges and the level of
service required or provided. Insufficient data on the relationships between the service level, the
cost of service, and property conditions make it very difficult to project an accurate estimate of
this balance in Jefferson City at this time. A gross area/intensity of development rate structure
would result in a distribution of costs relatively comparable to that of other rate structures unless
a significant departure was made from the intensity of development factors normally used. The
ability to charge undeveloped as well as developed properties through an intensity of
development methodology could potentially broaden the rate base and increase the revenue
potential. It would not alter imbalances in the level of services that may exist in different areas
of the city as the stormwater management program evolves and capital improvements are built
over a decade or more, but neither would it justify differential charges by area.
Data requirements associated with this type of rate methodology would be less than for other
options. Gross area information could be generated from current databases and/or maps. The
assignment of an intensity of development factor would require that engineering judgment be
used in reviewing the conditions on each parcel, possibly using aerial photographs. Some
additional work would be needed in the event that undeveloped properties were to be charged.
The cost of implementing this type of rate structure might be less than approaches involving
impervious area. At least some portion of the work could be done through automated data
processing of information contained in the current geographical information system database.
Between $.50 and $ 2.00 per account would probably be required to create the gross area
measure, depending on the technique that is used. Another $ .10 to $ .25 per account might be
required for assigning an intensity of development factor. If a simplified single-family rate were
used, the implementation cost would be at least 70 percent less than if residential parcels were
assigned to more than one classification. The City of Bellevue, Washington uses discrete gross
area measures for each property, which has increased data management costs. Long-term
maintenance of the account files for an intensity of development rate structure would be slightly
less than what is required for options based in some manner on impervious area. Compatibility
with the data processing systems should not pose a problem if an intensity of development
approach is selected.
This type of rate methodology tends to push a greater proportion of the cost of service onto
residential and other lightly developed properties than methodologies based on impervious area.
Overall revenue capacity could be increased by charging undeveloped properties as well as
developed. Like the other stormwater rate structures examined in this study, the revenue
capacity of the gross area/intensity of development approach is relatively stable and insensitive
to external influences. Alterations to properties that would diminish revenue would rarely be
economically feasible.
The flexibility of an intensity of development rate structure is equal to or somewhat better than
other methods simply because of the latitude available in defining the categories and assigning
intensity of development factors. A great deal of engineering judgment is involved in
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-55 September 29, 2003
determining the intensity of development (coefficient of runoff) of a parcel in a given situation,
and the engineering literature offers rather broad ranges of development intensity values. For
example, values from .25 to .45 are not unusual for single-family residential parcels.
Single-family residential properties may fall anywhere within this range depending on lot size,
the amount of impervious area, soil conditions, slope, property shape, vegetation, and even the
location of the impervious areas on the property.
Local development patterns may influence how residential properties are treated. Only one
residential intensity of development category might be needed in a community that has highly
uniform residential zoning and development. Two, three or more intensity of development
categories might be appropriate in another community that has residential lots ranging from
3,000 square feet to several acres.
A.9.6 - Gross Area (or Impervious Area) and Modifying Factors
A rate methodology could be based on either gross area or impervious area with two or more
modifying factors. The purpose of the modifiers would be to refine how the rate structure treats
certain conditions on individual sites that are secondary influences on the quantity and quality of
stormwater runoff. The option of using impervious area as the basis of the methodology rather
than gross area would implicitly exclude undeveloped properties, so this evaluation focuses on
the gross area/modifying factor approach. It would allow charges to undeveloped properties if
desired.
This type of methodology may be the direction of the future as a second generation of
stormwater rates is developed to better accommodate the changing nature of stormwater
management programs. However, it relies heavily on multiple data parameters, relatively precise
measures, and fine-tuning of the rate algorithm. It may be too demanding a nd costly at this time.
A service fee calculation under this type of rate methodology might begin with a base charge of
$.10 per month for every 8,000 square feet of gross area on a property, regardless of whether it is
developed or undeveloped. Various modifying factors might then be applied to increase or
decrease the service charge. This approach offers tremendous flexibility. For example, a peak
runoff impact factor could be used to quantify the impact of development conditions and land
use. The numerical factor for peak runoff might range from 1.0 to 20.0 or higher. Additional
factors for such considerations as water quality impacts and level of service demands would also
be multiplied times the basic charge per 8,000 square feet of gross area.
Some factors, such as on-site detention, might result in a reduction of the service fee rather than
an increase. This could be accomplished by using a value less than unity (1.0) in the formula.
The exact design of an algorithm and range of the various rate factors would have to be
determined through a detailed analysis of service costs and the degree to which each factor
influences them. This could result in a very complex rate algorithm that would be difficult to
explain to the general public. For example, a single-family residential property in the core of the
city might be subject to a basic charge of $.10/month, plus a runoff factor of 9.0 ($.90/month),
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-56 September 29, 2003
plus a water quality factor of 5.0 ($.50/month), plus a level of service factor of 5.0 ($.50/month)
reflecting the cost of a highly structural stormwater system (as opposed to open ditches),
resulting in a total fee of $2/month. A similar property in an outlying area might be subject to
the same basic charge, runoff factor, and water quality factor, but have a lower level of service
factor (say, $.10) and thus have a total service fee of $1.60/month instead of $2.00/month.
The calculation of fees for non-residential properties might be even more complex if factors such
as the handling and use of potentially polluting materials on the site and off-site vehicle traffic
generation demands were considered. Because of the complexities it is not possible to offer a
clear comparison of the service fees that might result for example non-residential properties as
projected for the other rate methodology options. However, the general trend of cost allocation
has been that any stormwater rate methodology other than impervious area tends to shift costs
toward residential and other lightly developed properties.
The equity attainable through this type of rate structure clearly holds the potential for a
substantial improvement over the conventional stormwater rate methodologies employed to date.
The difficulty lies in calibrating the influence that several modifying factors have on the cost of
service demands posed by various properties. The enhanced equity would have to be apparent to
the general public, even if the technical relationships can in fact be verified. The data now
available and the "black box" nature of calculations involving two or more modifying factors
might generate more distrust than confidence. Considering that it takes some powerful evidence
just to convince many people that impervious area increases runoff, this type of methodology
could face a credibility challenge.
The balance of rates with the level of service provided to individual properties might be
improved by using this type of methodology, but again the issue of calibration arises. Only
limited data is available on the actual cost of operations and capital facilities needs. The cost of
specific capital projects to achieve given levels of service in Jefferson City is generally not
known. At this time there is virtually no data that would tie service levels to stormwater
discharge and/or pollutant loadings from individual properties. Until such information is
available, well documented, and thoroughly analyzed to establish the relationships that exist, the
potential of a highly refined rate methodology cannot be tapped.
The data management requirements of this type of rate structure also pose a major obstacle.
First, the factors to be used in a rate algorithm would have to be determined and validated.
Present engineering practices reflect general agreement on the impact that some factors have on
runoff quantity and quality, but (as the variations in hydrologic models reveal) the state of the art
certainly does not suggest that a consensus exists. Even if a consensus was available and
calibration values were generally accepted, it would be an onerous task to assemble a complete
and accurate database for this type of methodology. Parameters might include soil conditions,
the average water quality impacts and/or pollutant loadings of various land uses, and the
mitigative influence of on-site detention, grass swales, or porous pavement.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-57 September 29, 2003
The cost of initial production and maintenance of such data would be very high for each parcel
when compared to the cost of other methods. It would be difficult to justify given the rather
moderate service charges that are typical of stormwater management programs. Furthermore,
this approach would be so refined as to present a substantial case for a differential rather than
simplified fee structure for single-family residences. This might create pressures to assemble
discrete data for each residential property, greatly increasing implementation and upkeep costs.
Depending on the number of factors used in the rate algorithm, the accuracy requirements
imposed on the data, and whether a simplified residential rate would be appropriate, the cost of
initial data gathering could easily exceed $20 per account. When compared with the expense of
the other options (roughly $ 1 to $ 6 per account), this cost would be difficult to justify on the
basis of marginal increases in equity or a slightly better balance between charges and the cost of
service.
This approach could have far greater data processing requirements and thus impact data systems
more than other options. Depending on the number of parameters used, the nature of the data,
and the design of the rate algorithm, this type of rate structure might demand two to three times
as much file storage capacity as other options. It might also require more complicated
programming. Additional costs related to processing requirements, on-going management needs,
and data storage impacts would be incurred. Since many of the conditions used in rate
calculations would be subject to alteration, updating the data could dictate that a separate master
file be created even if the charges were delivered on an existing billing.
The consistency of this type of rate structure with wastewater rates and the City's general funding
philosophy is relatively low. No other aspect of municipal service charge financing attempts to
generate a comparably precise relationship between the cost of service and the charges to
individual properties. Nor would such precision be required by the tests commonly applied by
the courts when utility rates are challenged.
The revenue sufficiency of this type of rate structure would probably be equal to the other
options examined in this section, especially if undeveloped as well developed properties were
charged. It is likely that this methodology could create slightly more revenue than some other
approaches because charges to intensely developed properties might be higher. However, this
would only be true if the data indicated that such properties have a greater impact on runoff and
water quality than the more conventional stormwater rate structures account for.
The stability of revenue generated through this approach would be comparable to that of other
options, since the level of the charges would probably make it uneconomical for property owners
to institute physical changes which would take advantage of the values in a complex rate
algorithm. Gross area clearly could not be altered in terms of the total rate base (loss from one
account would always be equaled by an offsetting gain to another), and the influence of
individual factors would likely be relatively minor.
One of most evident advantages of this approach would be greater flexibility in the design of the
rate algorithm and its application to individual properties or classes of customers. The formula
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-58 September 29, 2003
would be more complicated than under other rate structures, with more opportunities to make
minor adjustments and incorporate a variety of credit and added-charge mechanisms. However,
the type of flexibility enhancements most feasible for this type of rate concept would introduce
even greater costs for data gathering and long-term maintenance, with only minor improvements
in overall flexibility compared to other rate options. All things considered, this type of rate
structure appears too complicated, costly, and difficult to calibrate and verify to be feasible for
Jefferson City at this time. While the concept is a desirable extension of the current state of the
art, it is neither realistic nor justifiable presently.
A.10 - Evaluation of Modifying Factors
A.10.1 - Overview
A total of seven modifying factors are considered in this analysis. Five are presently used by one
or more cities and/or counties. The others are not yet used elsewhere (to the consultants'
knowledge), but make sense in terms of the circumstances often associated with stormwater
management conditions and programs. This analysis focuses on the validity of the various
modifying factors in supporting the proposed stormwater management program strategy.
The reasons for using modifying factors to adjust a basic stormwater service charge rate structure
include the following:
· improve the overall equity of the financing mix;
· fund special operational and regulatory programs;
· reduce implementation and upkeep costs.
Since the modification factors examined in this study would effect only a portion of the total
properties, they have relatively minor impact on total revenue capacity. They are not intended to
simply generate additional revenue. Rather, their primary purpose is to improve overall funding
equity. In the case of a service fee credit for on-site detention, the modification would reduce
rather than increase total revenue capacity. The advantages gained using these factors must be
weighed against the disadvantages they entail in terms of gathering and maintaining data.
A.10.2 - Simplified Single -family Residential Service Fees
The vast majority of cities and counties that have stormwater service fees employ a simplified
charge for single-family residences. Some use a single flat-rate charge while others have two or
more flat-rate categories or classes of residential properties (usually based on the amount of
gross or impervious area). Communities presently using simplified residential flat rates include:
Kansas City, Missouri; Griffin, Georgia; Wichita, Lenexa, and Topeka, Kansas;
Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, Kentucky; Seattle, Tacoma, Everett,
Vancouver, Redmond, Clark County, King County, and Snohomish County, Washington;
Denver, Aurora, and Boulder, Colorado; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Cincinnati, Ohio; Portland and
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-59 September 29, 2003
Corvallis, Oregon; and more than fifty cities and counties in Florida. A few of these cities and
counties use two or more tiers of flat-rate charges, segregating mobile homes, small-lot
residential, large -lot residential, etc. Only a few communit ies use purely discrete charges for
each residential property based on the same parameter applied to non-residential properties.
The principal reason for using a simplified rate for single-family residential properties is to
reduce the expense of developing and maintaining a master account file and billing system. A
simplified residential rate may reduce by up to eighty (80) percent the number of properties for
which data must be assembled on one or more parameters such as gross area, impervious area,
etc. The cost of developing a file (typically anywhere from $ 2 to $ 6 per account) can be cut by
50 % or more simply by grouping residential properties in a single class. The cost reduction
attainable through a simplified residential charge is greatest when a multi-parameter rate
methodology is used.
The details of simplified residential rates vary from community to community. Most use just one
rate for all developed single-family residential properties, but several other approaches have been
adopted.
· Boulder, Colorado has used three tiers of charges for single-family residential properties for
many years. Residences on 15,000 square foot or smaller lots are charged at one rate.
Single-family residential properties between 15,001 and 30,000 square feet of gross area are
charged one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of the rate applied to smaller parcels, and
those over 30,000 square feet are charged one hundred fifty (150) percent of the basic rate.
· Tacoma, Washington has a gross area/intensity of development methodology, and charges all
residences for the first 15,000 square feet of gross area at one rate. Land area in excess
15,000 square feet is charged at the undeveloped intensity of development rate.
· Cincinnati, Ohio has a dual flat-rate residential charge. Residential properties of 10,000
square feet or smaller pay the basic rate, while those on larger lots pay forty (40) percent
more.
Given the residential development pattern in Jefferson City, a simplified service fee rate would
probably be based on a lesser common unit than in the communities cited. An initial, qualitative
examination suggests that a typical residential property in the core area of Jefferson City has
about 8,000 square feet of gross property area and perhaps 2,000 square feet of impervious
coverage. Both the lot size and impervious coverage of residential properties in more recent
subdivisions are larger. Further analysis would need to be conducted to determine the actual
values that would be applicable in Jefferson City. Depending on the type of rate methodology
selected, one or more of the values could be incorporated into the definition of an equivalent
unit.
Although the principal motivation for using a simplified residential rate is usually to reduce
costs, equity does not necessarily suffer. Cost of service analyses conducted in Cincinnati,
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-60 September 29, 2003
Tulsa, and Louisville all indicate that the cost of stormwater management services and facilities
actually declines as the gross area of residential property increases. The analyses suggest that an
inverted residential rate structure might even be warranted. This is primarily due to the type and
size of drainage facilities required for intense, small lot residential development in the core of the
city versus large lot suburban and rural styles of subdivision. Small lot neighborhoods typically
require underground structural stormwater systems, whereas large lot residential areas often have
less expensive open ditches and natural drainage courses.
Preliminary field investigations of the stormwater systems in Jefferson City suggest a single
flat-rate charge for residences would not diminish the overall level of equity of a service fee.
Given the aging state of the drainage infrastructure in many neighborhoods, the actual cost of
service in the small lot areas having structural stormwater systems may even be higher than in
the more recently developed areas with larger lots and more open drainage channels.
Implementation of a simplified residential rate would only require that single-family residences
be "tagged" in the master account file. This could probably be done from tax or wastewater
service records. File maintenance would involve minimal upkeep costs to track the addition of
new single-family residential development. Compatibility with existing or additional data
processing systems should be easily assured. No problems of compatibility are foreseen even if
two or more tiers of flat-rate charges are used for single-family residences.
A simplified single-family residential rate usually reduces total revenue capacity slightly. Very
large residential properties would not be billed as much as they might be under a rate structure
that would generate individually calculated bills for each parcel. The additional revenue that
might be gained through discrete charges to every property residential must be weighed against
the extra cost of developing and maintaining a more detailed database for residential properties.
The potential of a delay associated with initially generating this data also imposes a possible loss
of revenue.
This type of rate modifier does not impact the stability and sensitivity of a basic rate structure,
nor is it sensitive to measures that residential ratepayers might undertake to reduce service
charges. The flexibility of a simplified residential rate is dependent primarily on the structure of
the basic rate concept, not the modifiers.
A.10.3 - Base Rate for Certain Uniform Fixed Costs
Jefferson City's stormwater management program will incur certain fixed expenses that are not
related to the amount of runoff generated by individual properties or the level of service that is
provided. Expenses such as administrative overhead, risk management (insurance), general
system master planning, maintenance of a system inventory, weather monitoring, and water
quality education are difficult to allocate specifically to individual properties or classes of
properties. For example, it costs the same to send a bill to a residence as to a shopping center.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-61 September 29, 2003
In distributing fixed costs among ratepayers, a common "base rate" charged to every account is
often more equitable than generating the funding for those same costs of service through a rate
structure which creates differential distributions based on parameters like impervious area.
Municipal utility rates often include two elements, a "service” charge and a "quantity” or “usage”
charge. For example, the service portion of a water or electric utility fee usually covers meter
reading, meter maintenance, and some administrative and overhead costs. The quantity portion
of the charge normally covers generation, treatment, distribution, collection expenses, and capital
costs. A stormwater base rate modification for stormwater service fees is simply an extension of
the same concept to stormwater management rate design.
Relatively few stormwater service fees include base rates. Those that do tend to use base rates
averaging between $.25 and $1.00 per month. Citizens and businesses alike usually view this
type of modification as an equitable refinement of a rate structure. The impact on service
charges is minimal, usually creating a slight increase in residential charges and a very minor
reduction in charges to larger, non-residential properties. The net increase in residential charges
is typically between seventy (70) percent and ninety (90) percent of the amount of the base rate
component of the total service charge, not one hundred (100) percent. Thus, if the expense of
billing, administration, overhead and other fixed costs per account are $60,000 per year and are
distributed among 10,000 accounts, each account would pay a base charge of $6.00 per year
($.50/month).
The net increase for single-family residences resulting from a base rate is usually only a few
cents per month. In the hypothetical case involving fixed costs of $60,000 recovered by a base
rate, that amount would be deducted from the total revenue requirement that would have to be
met by the differential service fees based on whatever rate parameter(s) might be used. If it is
assumed that Jefferson City might be spending approximately $2 million annually for stormwater
management over the next three to five years, the revenue requirement to be met by other
sources of revenue (including the usage portion of the service fee) would be reduced by three (3)
percent. Assuming further that a residential rate of $3 per month would be needed to generate $2
million annually in Jefferson City, a three percent reduction in revenue required from the usage
portion of the service fee would amount to just $.09 per month per residence or equivalent
residential unit. Thus, in a typical situation, a single-family residence might incur an additional
$.50 base rate that is in turn offset somewhat by the $.09 per month lower usage portion of the
service fee, resulting in a total increase of $.41/month, or about seven (7) percent.
This type of modifier is more advantageous for a large commercial property that has many
equivalent units than it is detrimental for a single residence. Non-residential accounts would
tend to receive a larger reduction in their differential service fee because they usually have more
than one equivalent residential unit. Since they would pay the same additional charge for base
rate costs, but less on each equivalent unit, their net change would be an overall decrease in fees.
The amount of the decrease would vary with the size and/or impervious area of each property
and the rate methodology used.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-62 September 29, 2003
This type of modification can create an improved balance between the actual costs of services
and the amount that is billed to each property, but it does not alter the level of service provided.
It would have no effect on the larger problem related to the overall balance between the differing
levels of service throughout Jefferson City and the consistent level of charges that would result if
a uniform rate structure is applied to the entire service area.
This type of rate modification requires minimal additional work. The costs of service
appropriate to a base rate would need to be determined each year or whenever a rate study is
done. The costs would be divided by the number of accounts to determine the fixed base rate
charge that would apply equally to all accounts. The rate algorithm would be adjusted to add the
base rate charge to each account, and the differential service fee rate structure would be adjusted
to account for the costs transferred to the base rate portion of the total service charge. It does not
appear that there would be any problem incorporating this type of adjustment into a calculation
and billing system.
The impact on total revenue resulting from a base rate should be negligible, but a minor
redistribution of the costs of the program would result from this modification. Residential rates
would increase slightly, and the charges to very large and/or heavily developed properties would
decline more significantly (depending on the rate parameters employed). The impact of such a
shift needs to be carefully considered if the residential service fee is near the top of the
community’s willingness-to-pay envelope.
A.10.4 - Localized Surcharge for Capital Improvements
One of the more significant modifications that might be made in the City’s approach to
stormwater funding would be to shift from area-wide funding of major stormwater system capital
improvements to a localized surcharge. The most common approach to this is a basin-by-basin
(or watershed) allocation of capital costs. At the highest level, this might differentiate areas
draining to the various creeks that flow into the Missouri and Moreau Rivers.
While localizing capital costs appears on the surface to be both proper and practical, potential
flaws must be carefully considered. The costs of certain stormwater capital improvements built
in the past have been distributed throughout the community, while others have been localized.
The City has just approved an extension of the local sales tax that will pay for some stormwater
capital improvements without regard to any correlation between the origin of the revenue stream
and project location. Shifting the allocation of capital costs to a local surcharge at this time
could have undesirable long-term consequences.
The experience with localizing capital improvement costs through differential service fees has
been limited. Most communities simply allocate capital costs consistently throughout the service
area from which fees are generated. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado incorporated
basin-specific capital improvement charges into its sto rmwater rate structure in the early 1980’s.
This resulted varying rates for similar properties located in different drainage basins in that city
as capital improvement plans were completed and activated. The City shifted to area-wide
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-63 September 29, 2003
capital funding in 1997 following a devastating flood that killed six citizens and energized the
City Council to expedite the construction of capital improvements. Bellevue, Washington has
localized some capital costs associated with water quality mitigation to specific development
projects through special service fees and/or assessments, but not through general modifications
to the rate methodology based on watershed boundaries.
On the surface basin-specific capital improvement charges appear to be highly equitable.
Property owners pay for the stormwater management systems necessary to serve their area only,
and do not bear the cost of facilities elsewhere in the community. However, a potential equity
problem exists in using this methodology in Jefferson City. The vast majority of the
community's prior investment in stormwater management facilities has been made with citywide
financial support. Stormwater improvements have been made on a priority basis in the past
without necessarily considering which watershed was involved. The distribution of capital
investment among the various watersheds in the city has not been equal. The distribution of
costs has also not been equal from area to area because the tax generating capability of areas
differs and is not related to the costs of stormwater management projects.
Although in the abstract it is generally more equitable for those who create greater demand on
the systems to pay there greater of capital costs, shifting to a localized allocation of capital costs
at this time could mean that those properties now in need of system improvements would have to
bear the entire cost after having shared in the previous investment that was made in other
neighborhoods. It may be that bases other than watershed location are more practical in the
Jefferson City setting if the City wishes to localize some costs of service.
The capital investment cost of comparable levels of service can vary significantly from one area
of Jefferson City to another. The downtown core generates large amounts of runoff and is
therefore served mostly by large diameter underground storm sewers. In contrast, many outlying
residential areas drain through small diameter pipes, open ditches, and natural channels or
streams and much less capital investment has been required.
The best guide for a decision on this type of modification may be found in the local practices
related to funding of wastewater system improvements. Similar differences in the cost of
comparable service also exist in the wastewater system and capital costs are not allocated area by
area. For example, substantially more investment has been needed to serve areas remote from
the treatment facilities than those that are nearby. Jefferson City does not charge sanitary sewer
users on the basis of their distance from the treatment facilities. This presents a valid rationale
why the City may not want to bill stormwater ratepayers on the basis of differential capital costs
from one part of the community to another.
The data requirements for this type of rate modification would be somewhat complicated but not
a major burden. Each property would have to be located in its proper major drainage basin
and/or sub -basin using topographic maps. The GIS system now being developed might enable
this to be done relatively easily. This information would be coded in the stormwater master
account file. The service fees would be adjusted basin-by-basin (or in some other rational
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-64 September 29, 2003
manner) to generate the revenue required to meet capital improvement needs for each watershed.
Impact on the data processing systems would include modifications to the file structure and the
rate algorithm.
This type of modifying factor would probably cost between $ 1 and $ 3 per account to implement
over and above the normal expense of developing a master account file. Depending on the rate
methodology selected by the City, that expense could amount to a fifty (50) to one hundred (100)
percent increase in the cost of preparing the master account file. Maintenance of the data would
be limited to updating the basin specific charges so they are consistent with changes in the cost
of capital improvements.
The compatibility of this concept with existing capital funding policies in Jefferson City is rather
low. As noted, the wastewater utility does not distribute capital (or operating) costs differentially
based on the location of each property relative to facilities. The long-term impact of this rate
structure modification may be to restrict revenue capacity of a service fee methodology well
below the overall potential. As localized capital costs are applied to bills in a given drainage
basin, the willingness-to-pay of ratepayers in that area could be exhausted. Experience in other
communities, including Louisville, Kentucky and Tulsa, Oklahoma suggests that funding
stormwater capital needs on a basin approach might ultimately hinder the full build-out of the
needed capital projects. The cost of stormwater improvements in many areas is simply more
than can be borne by local property owners alone, yet the projects may have citywide
significance.
A.10.5 - Floodplain Surcharge
A few communities have enacted stormwater service fee surcharges for properties located in
their floodplains, based on the rationale that those properties are receiving a greater degree of
service than less floodprone areas in the form of reduced risk exposure. Boulder, Colorado, for
example, employs a modifying factor in its stormwater service fee rate structure by applying a
forty (40) percent surcharge to its normal service fees for properties located in its floodplains.
The justification, originally expressed in the City's Ordinance No. 3928, is that stormwater and
flood management facilities "above and beyond those needed to protect other parcels of land
within the City will need to be constructed by the City" in the floodplain. Boulder has
determined that a differential of forty (40) percent is supported by engineering estimates of the
difference in cost between lowering flood levels to the historic level versus lowering them below
the historic level to protect properties within the historic floodplains. Boulder's Ordinance No.
4946 simplifies the justification, simply citing the need to compensate for additional facilities to
protect and serve floodplain properties by adding the floodprone property surcharge to the
stormwater bill.
The equity of Boulder's surcharge is generally defensible, but the justification of the forty (40)
percent surcharge is something less than technically rigorous. Clearly, that Colorado community
has invested a substantial portion of its stormwater utility revenue in flood management over the
years. The projects built in Boulder verify that resolving problems in floodprone areas is a
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-65 September 29, 2003
priority for its utility and create costs which would not exist were it not for the presence of
structures and other improvements in the floodplains that require protection. The amount of the
surcharge is debatable, however. Jefferson City not only fronts on the Missouri River, but also
has several designated floodplain areas along creeks which pose risks to adjacent properties.The
potential for flooding is probably greater than in Boulder.
A floodplain surcharge would generate additional stormwater management revenue, but more
refined data on the amount of additional revenue that would be created would have to be
assembled to quantify the effect. The amount of additional revenue cannot be accurately
projected at this time because of the limited data that is available on the cost of service
attributable only to service requirements of properties located in floodplains.
A floodplain surcharge is not sensitive to external influences, and does not diminish the revenue
stability of a basic rate structure, regardless of whether it is based on impervious area, gross area,
or some combination of parameters. There is virtually nothing that a property owner could do to
remove a property from the floodplain, although floodproofing may be a practical option for
some structures. This type of surcharge is relatively flexible, and the amount and its application
to individual properties could be easily adjusted based on new technical information.
A.10.6 - On-site Detention and Other Service Fee Credits
Perhaps the most widely practiced modification to basic stormwater management rate structures
is the application of a credit adjustment. Typically, credits are provided for properties that have
on-site detention or retention facilities to control the peak rate of stormwater runoff and safely
store the excess stormwater temporarily or for an extended period. Such controls reduce the
capacity requirements (and cost) of downstream systems to attain a given service level and may,
if properly designed and maintained, enhance water quality.
In most cases detention or retention systems are designed to approximate pre-development
conditions or the capacity of downstream facilities. Detained stormwater is released at a
controlled rate after the peak runoff has receded. Retained stormwater is infiltrated into the soil
or allowed to evaporate, so retention is usually practiced only in areas with excessively drained
sandy soils and high temperatures such as Florida and some portions of the western United
States.
Credits have also been adopted in some jurisdictions for properties subject to and in compliance
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and for public and
private schools providing approved water quality education programs. The rationale for the
latter credit is that education is a minimum control measure in NPDES stormwater discharge
permits. If not provided by the local schools it would have to be performed by the stormwater
management entity at additional cost to the ratepayers.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-66 September 29, 2003
Various means are employed to provide service fee credits to properties having on-site detention.
· Boulder, Colorado's rate ordinance directs that stormwater service fees be reduced for
properties providing on-site detention, but the amount of reduction is not specified. That
City's administratively adopted practice is to reduce the normal service fee twenty (20)
percent for an on-site detention system that meets its standards for a 5-year storm event
detention facility. Systems that meet the 100-year storm event detention requirements are
eligible for an eighty (80) percent reduction in the service fee.
· Bellevue, Washington changes the intensity of development classification of properties with
detention systems to that of very lightly developed land, resulting in a variety of percentage
reductions, depending on the intensity of development classification normally applied to the
subject property.
· Charlotte, North Carolina allows up to fifty (50) percent credit for peak runoff attenuation
and up to twenty-five (25) percent credit for total flow volume reductions. Practices
elsewhere are to reduce service fees between thirty-three (33) percent and seventy-five (75)
percent in recognition of on-site control that reduces runoff rates.
The primary intent of credits for on-site detention or retention is to recognize reductio ns in the
cost of public stormwater services and facilities that can be attributed to private systems or
activities. Credits usually only partially compensate developers who install and properly
maintain facilities that mitigate the normal increase in runoff that results from development.
Typical detention/retention credits against monthly service fees provide a relatively modest
economic incentive to developers. Rarely do they offset the loss of space such facilities occupy
or the degree to which on-site systems disrupt the layout of commercial properties and
subdivisions. Nor do most credits consider the water quality impacts of on-site systems, or their
influence on the cost of stormwater quality management. However, they do marginally improve
the equity of service fee cost allocations.
Credits may change over time with shifting program priorities, authority, and legal limitations.
For example, Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina initially adopted a service fee
credit system that recognized measures to reduce the peak rate of runoff and total volume of
stormwater discharged to the public systems as well as pollution controls as well as peak flow
attenuation. The credits apply only to non-residential properties in Charlotte and Mecklenburg
County. They originally allowed up to one hundred (100) percent credit against the service fee,
but a North Carolina Supreme Court decision has caused the City and County to reconfigure
their credit approach. Originally, a fifty (50) percent reduction was allowed for peak flow
attenuation, a twenty-five (25) percent credit was allowed for pollution control, and an additional
twenty-five (25) percent was available for reductions in total volume discharged. The water
quality credit was rescinded because the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that stormwater
service fees could not be used for water quality management. The North Carolina legislature
recently authorized the use of stormwater service fees for water quality as well quantity
programs, overcoming the impact of the Supreme Court decision.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-67 September 29, 2003
The balance of fees with the level of service required and provided is, at least in theory,
improved by the use of credits. On-site control of the peak flow of stormwater runoff means that
a property requires less service (in terms of downstream capacity) from the stormwater
management system. Downstream reductions in peak runoff allow a higher level of service from
a given size of facility or enable a community to build smaller systems in the future to attain a
given level of service objective. A detention credit would be valid in Jefferson City in terms of
stormwater quantity management, but some uncertainties presently exist regarding stormwater
quality management considerations and the impact that on-site systems have on costs of service.
A reduction in pollutant discharges into the public systems should translate into lower NPDES
permit compliance costs, but it is unclear what elements of the City program might possibly be
reduced or eliminated by virtue of the private properties’ compliance with their permits.
Developers’ engineers can provide the information required to incorporate a credit for on-site
detention and other mitigative measures on properties that are developed in the future. An
allowable runoff release rate based on pre-development conditions and required on-site storage
capacity can be used to determine the effectiveness of each on-site facility for crediting purposes.
If the City wishes to allow a credit for water quality enhancement activities, the simplest
approach would be to base it on NPDES compliance.
No substantial data processing capability would be required to enter a credit into a property's
stormwater service fee billing file. The adjustment could be made to the data in the billing file
addressed by the rate algorithm rather than by adjusting the parameters used in the basic service
fee calculation. This would allow the credit for any specific property to be rescinded easily if an
on-site detention facility is altered or is not maintained in proper operating condition or if an
NPDES permit is not adhered to. This type of adjustment is consistent with Jefferson City's
overall policy position on wastewater service fees, which includes recognition of industrial
pre-treatment measures for wastewater pollution control in the sanitary sewer charges.
In most other situations the long-term impact on revenue resulting from this type of adjustment
factor is minor compared to the basic revenue capacity of a stormwater service fee. Credits
elsewhere have not diminished long-term revenue capacity more than five (5) percent.
Ratepayers who do not have on-site systems (or NPDES permits if a water quality credit is
adopted) would have to pay slightly more to cover the minor deficit resulting from the credits.
Such credits provide an appropriate adjustment based on the philosophy that contribution to
runoff and pollutant loadings translate to service demands and costs. Over the long-term future,
they should result in reduced public system and service costs and problems. Typically, such
credits are extremely flexible, but the lack of solid data on some costs may make this modifier
impractical during the first few years of Jefferson City’s stormwater program.
A.10.7 - Water Quality Factor
The water quality impacts of stormwater discharges are becoming a much greater concern than in
the past. Historically, municipalities have focused on flooding, erosion, and sedimentation
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-68 September 29, 2003
problems resulting from stormwater runoff because of their direct and visible impact on people
and property. Those concerns remain at the forefront in Jefferson City at this time. As the
general public's concern for the environment and interest in water quality have grown in recent
years, the attention given to stormwater quality has also. As noted above, stormwater service fee
credits for water quality control are now being adopted in some jurisdictions. In the same spirit,
a water quality “factor” might also be applied within the rate methodology to allocate increased
City costs associated with water quality impacts to those properties having the greatest influence
on the demand for pollutant control services and systems.
The Water Quality Act of 1987, amending the Clean Water Act on 1972, requires that NPDES
stormwater discharge permits be issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(or state agencies that are delegated the responsibility) to regulate pollutant discharges to
receiving waters from stormwater outfalls. Jefferson City has been required to apply for a
stormwater discharge permit. Thus, the City has not yet felt the full cost of stormwater quality
management pursuant to the permit. Planning for the cost of compliance is prudent, and
incorporating some mechanism for allocating those costs within stormwater rates must be
considered.
With this mandated addition of water quality to traditional stormwater control functions in mind,
several cities and counties have adopted or are considering modifications to their stormwater
service fee rate methodologies to better account for water quality impacts. In the converse to the
stormwater quality credit mechanism, a water quality factor might be adopted that increases the
service fees applicable to properties that either discharge greater amounts of pollution in
stormwater runoff or have the potential of doing so if certain controls are not instituted and
maintained.
The difficulty in administering this type of fee factor is that the attributes, characteristics, or
conditions of properties which degrade water quality are hard (and costly) to conclusively
identify. Quantifying their impacts on the cost of public services and facilities at an acceptable
level of accuracy for cost allocation purposes is virtually impossible at this time because of the
limited data available. In addition, much of the cost of stormwater quality management is
preventive or speculative, i.e. local governments must attempt to identify potential sources of
pollution and regulate them in various ways to prevent impacts from occurring. Many of the
necessary components of an effective program are generally applied (for example, education)
rather than isolated to specific properties. It is difficult to assign such costs specifically to
individual properties on the basis that their on-site conditions or actions might cause water
pollution.
Analyses conducted during the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) suggest that the single
most significant factor influencing pollutant loadings in stormwater is the percentage of
impervious coverage. This is logical, considering the typical development patterns and runoff
characteristics of intense industrial, commercial, and transportation-related land uses. Such
properties are frequently covered almost totally with roofs and pavement. They are also subject
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-69 September 29, 2003
to truck and heavy equipment traffic, and potential pollutants are commonly used, created, or
transported on such sites.
Thus, imperviousness (the percentage of impervious coverage) may be a common factor that
could be used to introduce a water quality component into service charge rates, even if that
parameter was not used in the basic rate methodology. The actual use of the land, or the
presence or use of pollutants on individual sites might be another consideration. However, these
can vary from time to time and would require a great deal of monitoring and data management.
Other mitigative conditions are equally hard to track, such as the presence of a grass buffer
between paved areas and storm drainage ditches or streams. In order to minimize the initial
expense and data management demands of a water quality factor, most communities seeking to
incorporate water quality costs into a stormwater rate methodology are expected to opt for
imperviousness as the most suitable single measure. Some will simply increase their basic
stormwater service fee rates to meet the additional cost of service without changing their rate
methodology.
Equity is one of the major reasons leading toward specific consideration of water quality impacts
in stormwater rates. There is little specific data available on stormwater quality control costs
because the management practices have been used only in a few applications (usually
experimental). However, it is conceivable that the expense of water quality functions may
eventually be twenty (20) to thirty (30) percent of total stormwater management costs in
Jefferson City. As the expense of stormwater quality management increases in response to the
NPDES permit program, it is expected that public pressure will increase to make those properties
that contribute more pollutants to the system bear a greater proportion of the costs of regulation,
control, and corrective actions. This is consistent with public attitudes that have led to
stormwater service charges based on contribution to runoff. Water quality will merely have a
greater emphasis.
Recognizing the basic difficulty that exists in defining the measurable attributes of properties
that influence stormwater quality, it clearly will be even more difficult to formulate a rate
modification that balances water quality charges with a specific level of service. For example,
the level of "stormwater quality service" provided to a given property might be primarily in
terms of monitoring and regulatory actions which ensure that it complies with federal restrictions
on pollutant discharges. This balance between the level of "service" provided and the level of
charges in the form of a modifier to a basic rate methodology will at best be very imprecise for
many years because of limited data and understanding of stormwater quality impacts on costs. It
is expected that the monitoring requirements of the NPDES rules will provide data that allows
rate design to become more sophisticated in accounting for water quality impacts and costs
within ten years.
The data requirements of a water quality factor in a rate methodology could become burdensome
if numerous or exacting attributes were employed. Part of the problem in creating a water
quality element in a stormwater rate algorithm is isolating just one or two factors that are easy
and inexpensive to measure or estimate but also fair in their impact on the fees charged to
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-70 September 29, 2003
various properties. The most efficient yet fair attribute at the present time is imperviousness, and
the cost of generating and maintaining the data would be minimal in instances when impervious
area is already used in a rate methodology.
The long-term expense of developing additional data and modifying systems should be carefully
considered when deciding whether and/or when it is reasonable to include water quality in a
stormwater rate methodology. If the change in an average bill is only a few cents per account
but the expense of implementation is several dollars per account, it may be advisable to defer this
type of modification. Other options might be to use a different funding mechanism for water
quality costs, such as an annual local permit for certain properties that are potential major
stormwater pollutant generators or to allocate General Fund revenues specifically for that
purpose. The latter approach was used by some cities and counties in North Carolina following
that State’s Supreme Court ruling that service fee revenues could not be used for stormwater
quality management. However, recent legislation re-established cities’ and counties’ ability to
use stormwater fees for water quality purposes, so adjustments may not be needed in North
Carolina.
It is difficult to estimate the compatibility of this type of modification with Jefferson City's
current and projected data processing capabilities because the method of calculating a water
quality factor is so speculative at the present time. Assuming that a single data parameter could
be used and that a simple rate modification could be employed in the calculation formula, this
type of adjustment would not appear to place unreasonable demands on types of systems that
would support stormwater service fees.
A water quality modifier would be consistent with Jefferson City's current approach to charging
for wastewater services, in which dischargers of wastewater having an atypical loading or
concentration of pollutants are assessed a surcharge to reflect the additional management and
treatment requirements while those with on-site controls are charged less. Although active
stormwater quality treatment is not contemplated to be a requirement of the NPDES permitting
system at the present time, it does clearly imply that administrative and regulatory additions will
be needed and these will increase the City’s program costs.
The financial sufficiency of this type of rate modifier is purely conjectural at this time, because
the costs associated with water quality and the attributes to be used in a rate modification for
water quality purposes are not yet known. It must be assumed that the objective of this type of
modifier would be to generate sufficient funding to cover the extra increment of expense created
by the additional emphasis on the water quality component of the stormwater management
program.
Revenue stability for this type of rate modification would probably be comparable to an
underlying rate structure, especially if imperviousness was used as the attribute. There is little
that a property owner can do to alter imperviousness that would be cost-effective in the context
of the minor increase in service fees likely to result from a water quality modifier.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-71 September 29, 2003
The flexibility associated with a stormwater quality rate modifier is a function of how it is
integrated with the rate formula and the engineering judgment that is used in applying it. If a
modifying attribute is precisely measurable and engineering judgment in its application is limited
because the data are generated directly from other known information (for example, impervious
area divided by gross area), relatively little flexibility would be available except by manually
intervening with the rate methodology or system.
A.10.8 - Development and Land Use Factor
Another rate modifier that might be used in Jefferson City in conjunction with one or more of the
basic rate structure concepts is a “development and land use” factor. Such a factor would reflect
the temporary impact of development and changing land use on the quantity and quality of
stormwater discharged to the public systems. Because many stormwater impacts are transitory, a
development and land use factor would be most appropriate when used with a single attribute
rate methodology, such as one based solely on impervious area. The impervious area approach
does not fully consider the differing impacts of various types of development over time. A
development and land use factor might better account for the temporary impacts of development
activities and the long-term effect of large areas of intense development configurations and the
type of land uses and activities that commonly occur on such properties.
A major objective of this type of modifier would be to improve the equity of the distribution of
the cost of services and facilities. It is a fine-tuning mechanism that can be composed of one or
more factors applied to a basic rate methodology to create adjustments reflective of site
conditions not considered by the underlying methodology, especially conditions which impact
stormwater quality or quantity only temporarily. The challenge posed by this type of modifier is
to define such adjustments with reasonable accuracy. The balance between charges and the level
of service provided is not precisely definable at the present time, and efforts to refine basic rate
structures by introducing this type of factor should recognize the limitations that exist.
Data requirements for a development and land use factor should be minimized to the greatest
extent practicable if one is employed. The most obvious option is to group various development
activities and land use categories, and assign a modification value to each group that would be
entered into the rate calculation formula. Ostensibly, these could include consideration of water
quality as well as runoff quantity impacts that result from development and land use.
The cost of this type of modifier is primarily associated with the expense of assembling data and
maintaining it. The expense could be minimized by using qualitative rather than quantitative
attributes and by grouping properties in similar categories. For example, development activities
could be assigned to groups by degree of impact on stormwater systems and water quality. Land
use, which is an on-going condition, could be broken down into groups of similar intensity using
coefficients of runoff and/or activity characteristics as a guide. Data from planning files, tax
appraisal roles, hazardous and toxic materials inventories, and other existing sources might be
sufficiently detailed to define groupings of land uses for which a development and land use
factor could be determined.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-72 September 29, 2003
Compatibility with existing systems cannot be projected without knowing exactly what types of
attributes might be used to account for development and land use impacts. However, virtually
any approach would be compatible with the service fee calculation and billing options being
considered. Even if a secondary formula or reference to the another file was required to generate
this type of modifying factor, the billing system could be designed to handle it.
A modifying factor designed to incorporate development and land use impacts into stormwater
service charges would be generally consistent with the City's current wastewater service charge
practices. The key relationship to be reflected in the case of stormwater management is that of
the impact of development and land use conditions and activities on the cost of services and
facilities. This is consistent with Jefferson City’s current industrial pre-treatment requirements
for wastewater and “strength” surcharges used in the sanitary sewer rates.
Financial sufficiency is not as critical a consideration in modifying factors as in the case of basic
rate concepts. A development and land use modification to the basic rate concept would create
only minor changes to the service fees in most cases, and would generate a limited amount of
additional revenue.
The revenue stability of this type of modifying factor is only moderately good. A modifier
reflective of temporary development activities would generate only an interim addition to the
revenue stream. One related to land use conditions or activities would generate a permanent
addition that would reflect the overall impact of general transitions in land use in the community
on stormwater management costs.
The flexibility associated with a development and land use factor is relatively good, since
engineering judgment would normally be used in assigning modifying factors to individual
properties or dividing similar properties into groups and assigning factors to the various groups.
This type of modifier also is very adaptable to changing conditions as local areas in the
community mature. It could create a minor shift in the distribution of stormwater costs of
service as development and annexations spread toward the peripheral sectors from the
urban/suburban center of Jefferson City.
A.10.9 - Level of Service Factor
The level of stormwater service varies considerably within Jefferson City. Although the
long-term objective may be to provide a consistent level of stormwa ter services and facilities to
similar areas and similar properties throughout the city and county, it is likely that actual service
levels will continue to vary for the foreseeable future. In the interim, it may be advisable to
consider a level of service factor to reflect the degree of deficiency in services and facilities in
certain areas relative to the stormwater management service objectives in general.
The greatest obstacles to implementing a level of service modifying factor are that Jefferson City
has not yet formally defined its service level objectives and does not have the data necessary to
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-73 September 29, 2003
determine if specific areas are deficient, meet service objectives, or exceed them. It would be
difficult to assign an economic value to incremental shortfalls in service level across the county.
For example, if a property is exposed to minor damage due to flooding during a two -year storm
event when the service objective is a twenty five-year event, how might that be reflected in a
modification factor which reduces the service charge? The difference in the cost of service is not
easy to discern.
The primary objective of a level of service modifier is to improve the equity of charges when a
broad range of service levels are being provided. In general, Jefferson City is not yet providing
an adequate level of day-to-day service in most of the urban area, with deficiencies exhibiting
themselves in the form of localized flooding during moderate storm events. The City has not
consciously decided to provide different levels of service at the present time, although
reasonably that might evolve out of future capital improvement planning and maintenance
practices.
The equity of a service fee could be improved by achieving a better balance between the charges
and the level of service actually provided to individual properties. However, the cost of doing so
at this time through a modification factor may be higher than the additional degree of equity
would warrant.
A great deal of preparatory work would have to be done to institute a level of service factor.
First, detailed information about all the stormwater management systems would have to be
gathered so that present conditions could be verified and a realistic service level objective could
be defined. In Jefferson City varying levels of service may be justifiable for some areas and/or
for individual reaches in a watershed in terms of benefit/cost relationships and efficiency.
Service level objectives might reasonably range from a two -year level to a one hundred-year
level. Second, the level actually provided to individual properties would have to be quantified in
some way. Third, the value of a diminished level of service below the objective would have to
be quantified. The data requirements would be expensive to meet at the present time, given the
limited amount of information that is presently available about the drainage systems and equally
limited knowledge regarding levels of service.
Compatibility with existing databases and billing systems would not be a problem if a subfile
method was used for generating a modification factor based on service level information. This
would allow creation of a single calculated modification factor to be used for service level
adjustments in generating service fee billings. In theory, the level of service approach would be
consistent with the current rate practices for the wastewater program, which consider loadings
and pre-treatment as level of service attributes.
This type of modifying factor would not significantly alter the financial sufficiency of a basic
stormwater rate concept unless service fees were dramatically reduced because of service level
deficiencies. Depending on the type of formula used to quantify service levels in a rate
algorithm, reductions in individual charges could be large enough to impact program capability
and require a general rate increase. Underlying rates might have to be increased to generate
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-74 September 29, 2003
adequate revenue to meet the service level objectives. In that case, the relatively few properties
receiving a fully adequate level of service might be charged substantially more in order to meet
the overall stormwater revenue objective. Thus, overall revenue sufficiency and stability could
be decreased by introducing a level of service factor into the rate structure as a modifier. It
would give ratepayers another basis on which to appeal service charges, citing deficiencies in
service level or differences in level of service relative to other comparable properties.
The flexibility added to a rate concept by introducing a service level factor could be substantial.
Engineering judgment would have to be employed to define the various levels of service
achieved in the current systems, the desired full levels of service which serve as objectives, the
value of incremental deficiencies that exist, and how they should be incorporated into rates.
A.11 - Evaluation of Other Funding Methods
Several secondary funding methods are described earlier in this section. Some could be
implemented independent of the service fee rate methodology, while others might be blended
with service fees. The potential Hancock Amendment limitations and requirements associated
with municipal funding generally and these mechanisms specifically should be carefully
examined before any of adopted as key components of the City’s stormwater funding strategy.
The following funding methods are judged most appropriate in the context of Jefferson City's
short-term program needs and the rate structures being considered for stormwater service fees.
· General Fund allocations
· Plan review, development inspection, and special inspection fees
· System development charges
· Revenue and General Obligation Bonding
· In-lieu of construction fees
· Impact fees
· Developer extension/latecomer fees
· Federal and state funding opportunities
A.11.1 - General Fund Allocations
The City has allocated General Fund revenues to stormwater management for many years, but
the amount appropriated in the City budget each year has been insufficient to address the needs
in the past. The increasing program demands of the future suggest that relying on General Fund
allocations is not prudent. Regardless, the City’s funding strategy could incorporate General
Fund revenues along with service fees to expedite attainment of the program strategy and reduce
the level of service fees that would be required.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-75 September 29, 2003
A.11.2 - Plan Review, Inspection, and Other Special Service Fees
A variety of special fees can be integrated with periodic general service fees in a stormwater rate
methodology. The most common are plan review and inspection fees associated with new
development projects. Fees are currently charged for plan review and inspection services, but the
revenues are assigned to the General Fund. The City could adjust its plan review and inspection
fees using general funding authority incidental to its police powers. Alternatively, special fees
might be established within a stormwater utility rate methodology on the basis of the cost of
services.
The revenue capacity and stability of plan review and inspection fees within utility rate
methodologies is directly related to the pace of development, and is therefore more volatile than
other service fee concepts examined in this section. If the pace of development slows the need
for plan review and inspection services also slows. This could create a staffing challenge for the
City, although personnel could be cross-trained to also perform other inspections such as annual
on-site detention and NPDES compliance checks.
Inspection requirements will change over the next few years. On-site stormwater detention
systems will probably have to be inspected periodically to verify that they are being properly
maintained and have not been altered from the original design. Water quality management will
substantially increase the field inspection workload. As the NPDES stormwater discharge permit
system is fully implemented, the monitoring requirements imposed on the staff are likely to
include periodic inspections of private discharges to the municipal systems. Both of these
examples represent special inspection services provided to a limited clientele that could be billed
to the customers rather than imposed on the general public through general taxes, utility service
fees, or other funding methods.
There are many ways to structure and collect development-related plan review and inspection
fees. A set schedule of fees is easiest to administer, but does not usually result in full cost
recovery or an equitable distribution of costs among applicants. The most flexible and equitable
concept for a full-cost recovery plan review and inspection fee is a draw account method. Using
this approach, each project is treated individually, and an account is established for it. The
developer makes a "deposit" in the account, against which plan reviewers and inspectors charge
their time, "drawing" against the balance in the account. If the account is drawn down to a set
minimum, the developer is required to make another deposit. Any residual in the account at the
time of final project acceptance is returned to the developer.
This approach requires careful oversight and accounting by the plan review and inspection
managers to ensure that staff members are properly assigning their time. It is highly unlikely
that one hundred percent of any plan reviewers' or inspectors' time can be assigned to
development projects. Most plan reviewers and inspectors need time for general administrative
activities, training, and other work that is not billable to the draw accounts of individual jobs.
Inspections not related to specific sites may have to be done in response to public complaints,
and probably should not be charged to a project draw account unless deficiencies are found.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-76 September 29, 2003
Special inspection fees over and above standard plan review and inspection fees may be
appropriate in some of these cases. In other instances the expense should simply be covered
through other funding methods such as the General Fund or stormwater utility service fees.
Special inspection fees involve implementation steps similar to plan review and inspection fees,
including City action. They could be adopted separately as an incidental element of a regulatory
program or as part of a stormwater service charge rate structure. A schedule of fees for periodic
compliance inspections of on-site detention system, stormwater quality discharge monitoring,
and other special inspections could be developed based on the average cost of each service
activity. The revenue capacity of the various special inspection fees should be geared solely to
recovering the cost of conducting them, rather than with the purpose of generating additional
revenue. If desired, such fees can be earmarked to specific accounts used only to fund special
inspections.
A.11.3 - System Development Charges
The basic purpose of a system development charge is to equalize the financial participation in
capital investments among ratepayers served by systems at different points in time. Similar but
more complex funding methods known as plant investment fees, connection fees, and capital
recovery fees are widely used by other municipalities for water and wastewater and by private
utilities. The potential exists for substantial capital expense in the next few decades to rectify the
system deficiencies that currently exist. Normal design practice is to anticipate the future
hydrologic conditions that a stormwater system must accommodate. This results in over-sizing
of the systems to allow for future growth, especially in the peripheral areas outside the
downtown core.
The need for this type of one-time charge is dictated by the fact that most capital improvements
to urban infrastructure have substantially longer physical lives than the period during which they
are funded or even the longevity of people. In addition, modern urban America is a highly
mobile society, which makes it difficult to equitably distribute the capital cost of infrastructure
among those who use the systems over time.
The system development charge concept differs somewhat from approaches typically used for
municipal water and wastewater utilities. Water and wastewater rate structures are much more
refined than most stormwater service fee rates. They have a long evolutionary history and are
widely used by municipal agencies and private utilities. The methodology used in water and
wastewater applications has been tailored to the capital plant investments typical of water and
sewerage systems. These include major collection systems, treatment plants, sources of supply,
and major transmission systems.
Two pricing methods commonly used for more complex water and wastewater plant investment
fees are the "system buy-in" approach and the "marginal incremental" approach. They each
demand a substantial amount of information and each is best suited to a specific application. The
system buy-in approach requires a current valuation of the utility plant investment, ideally on a
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-77 September 29, 2003
Replacement Cost Net Less Depreciation (RCNLD). This approach is generally used where
existing customers have previously invested in the capital facilities needed to serve new growth
and excess capacity therefore exists in the current system. The present economic value of the
physical plant that a newcomer is buying into through a plant investment fee reflects the system's
service value to its users now and in the future (represented by what they are willing to pay for
the service) as well as the market value of the physical assets.
The "marginal incremental" approach is based on the philosophy that new customers entering the
system should pay for capital costs associated with new growth. This approach is generally used
where adequate systems exist for current conditions, but a significant amount of additional
investment in capital facilities is needed to serve new customers. Typically, this methodology is
appropriate for a community experiencing rapid growth that has not previously invested in
oversizing the capital facilities.
Jefferson City's needs for similar capitalization charges for stormwater systems fit somewhere
between the system buy-in and marginal incremental pricing methods. There are several
problems with applying either of the above methods to the formulation of stormwater system
development charges. First, the current inventory of stormwater capital assets is incomplete.
Second, there are several key policy decisions that would have to be made before using a true
system buy-in approach. These include determining what stormwater management systems
should be included as assets, whether contributions by private developers should be incorporated
in setting the charges, and how natural elements of the system should be treated. The present
"owners equity" that citizens have in the stormwater management system is relatively low
compared to the capital improvements needed in the future. In terms of service value, the
present system is hardly adequate. Before a marginal incremental approach could be used, the
City would need to determine how much of the additional investment required in the stormwater
systems might be assigned to growth versus the need to bring existing systems up to an adequate
level of service for presently developed properties.
In light of these issues, Jefferson City might consider an interim step in which a system
development charge would be directly associated with the financing of capital improvements
through a stormwater service fee. The system development charge would be less refined than the
conventional plant investment fee for wastewater systems. It would be designed to simply
recover, at the time development occurs, the financial participation in stormwater management
capital projects that a property owner would have paid through service charges had the parcel
been developed when the stormwater project was built. A one -time charge could be integrated
with other components of a service fee rate structure to ensure that developing properties share
appropriately in the cost of capital improvements built with service fee revenues prior to their
development. This approach would not recover any of the expense of improvements built prior
to the initiation of a stormwater service fee, but would equalize the financial participation in
capital projects from the point in time when stormwater service fees and system development
charges were implemented.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-78 September 29, 2003
Regardless of the specifics of how a system development charge is applied, the formula for
calculating it should also take into consideration the depreciation of the physical assets over
time. For example, if a property is developed twenty years after a stormwater management
system with a useful life of fifty years is built and paid for from service fee revenues or bonds,
that property should pay for only thirty years of system use. In this example, the system
development charge would recover sixty (60) percent of the Original Cost New rather than the
Replacement Cost Net less Depreciation.
The perceived equity of a system development charge is fairly good. The general public tends to
view a system development charge as mechanism to ensure that new growth pays a fair share of
the cost of capital improvements. Many potential disputes with developers can be avoided
because of the relatively simply calculation basis involved in determining system development
charges. This removes some of the uncertainty associated with other types of plant investment
charges. Developers generally favor this simplified approach over those that consider owners’
equity in a system valuation, as is often the case in plant investment fees based on the system
buy-in method. System development charges would introduce an additional element of balance
between the level of service and financial participation that will be especially important when
Jefferson City implements a major capital improvement program.
The revenue capacity of a system development charge varies from year to year with the pace of
development, the total cost of capital improvements it is applied to, and the assumed life cycle of
the systems included in the rate calculation. Because this type of revenue is relatively unstable,
bond debt service should not be wholly dependent on system development charges. However,
they may be applied to debt service to accelerate bond retirement if covenants allow. The
sensitivity of a system development charge to external factors such as general economic
conditions make these charges primarily a mechanism for improving equity in the long-term
distribution of costs rather than a major revenue mechanism. They are fairly flexible in terms of
how they are applied and collected, providing the City with a high degree of control over their
general impact.
A.11.4 - Revenue and General Obligation Bonding
Any use of revenue and/or general obligation (GO) bonding for stormwater improvements
should be consistent with other funding decisions, such as whether to use general taxes or a
service fee as the funding base for the program. Bonding creates a debt and incurs additional
costs for issuance and interest on the debt, and imposes a long-term commitment of funds to debt
service that reduces flexibility in the future. In addition, many bonds require voter approval.
The proposed program strategy calls for capital improvements to be built within the next few
years. It is generally recognized that major capital improvements are needed in many of the
stormwater systems in Jefferson City, but the total magnitude of the need and the cost of specific
projects are not yet known. The Master Plan Update addresses the need for more specific
information on future capital costs. The recent extension of the sales tax approved by the voters
includes some stormwater projects and will jump-start the implementation of the capital
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-79 September 29, 2003
improvements program. However, some of the projects likely to be identified in the Master Plan
Update process will be more expensive than the City can fund in any single year, and thus
bonding may be necessary.
Revenue bonding is paid for from specified funding sources such as service fees. General
obligation bonding can be serviced from any revenues and assets available to the general
government that are not otherwise restricted. A third option, "double -barrel" bonding might also
be used. A double-barrel bond is like a general obligation bond in that principal and interest
payments would be secured by the full faith and credit of the City, and it enjoys favorably bond
ratings and interest expense. However, the debt service payments are made from other sources,
such as stormwater service fees or system development charges to the extent money is available
from such sources.
The increased cost of bonds compared to pay-as-you-go funding of capital improvements
(issuance costs and interest must be paid) is offset by other advantages. Bonding capital
improvements enhances long-term equity. The "financial life" of an improvement is extended
over the repayment period of the bond. Those paying taxes or service fees during the debt
service period are sharing in the cost of a facility, property, or piece of equipment while they use
it. Pay-as-you-go forms of capital funding tend to concentrate the expense of an improvement
during a single year or a few years, without regard to the lengthy life cycle of most stormwater
capital improvements. Capital projects can also be expedited by bonding, eliminating
stormwater problems that have a risk exposure cost associated with them. The steady erosion of
purchasing power due to inflation is also avoided, and debt service in future years is paid for
with "cheaper" dollars.
Revenue or double-barreled bonding also tends to result in a better balance of service fee rates
with the level of service provided by the systems. The cost of capital projects is distributed over
time, effectively broadening the rate base to a greater proportion of the people being served by a
facility over its life cycle. Expediting the construction of improvements by bonding to build
them also shortens the time period during which significant differences in service level exist.
Implementing revenue or general obligation bonding does not directly impose additional data
requirements or pose any data processing compatibility problems. In the case of revenue
bonding, the debt service is normally drawn from service fee receipts from the standard rate
methodology. If a system development charge is established it may also be used to fund debt
service. The debt service of general obligation bonds is guaranteed by the City's taxing
authority, which does not have to be modified with additional information. The only additional
data that is needed is that required for a bond prospectus, most of which is readily available and
merely needs to be assembled.
The total cost of implementing a bond issue is typically between two (2) and five (5) percent of
the value of the issue. The amount of bonds sold in any given issue is normally tied to specific
objectives, and it is therefore assumed that the funds would be sufficient for the intended
purpose. The revenue is obtained through the bond and long-term sensitivity to external
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-80 September 29, 2003
economic influences is very low. The source of debt service for paying off the bonds is more
secure in the case of general obligation bond issues than revenue bonds, but the nature of
stormwater service fees protects against shortfalls in revenue due to conservation and other
consumer decisions.
Bonding is less flexible than other funding methods are. It may be used only for capital
improvements, although remedial repairs to systems are often classified as a capital expenditure.
The amount of a bond cannot be changed once it is authorized and placed. If a project or parcel
of land turns out to cost more than the bond issue provided for, an alternative means of funding
the additional cost must be found or some projects may have to be canceled or delayed. Cost
overruns are more often covered using general tax revenues or service fees rather than issuing
another bond.
Funding for small local projects serving individual neighborhoods will be critically important in
meeting the expectations that will be created if the City adopts a stormwater service fee. A
special program emphasizing small, local improvements projects may be needed to administer
responses to service requests once service fee billings commence. Several ways exist to fund
minor capital improvements and remedial repairs. Because of their size, many can be funding on
a "pay-as-you-go" basis as part of the annual budget process.
Some communities have relied heavily on special assessments for small local improvement
projects. However, special assessments are not generally a workable funding method for
stormwater projects. Under the special assessment approach the direct and special benefits
accruing to individual properties as a result of a project must be demonstrable. This is possible
for some but not all stormwater projects. The direct and special benefits to individual properties
resulting from stormwater quality management projects are particularly difficult to validate and
allocate, and special assessments are not generally an effective funding mechanism in Missouri.
Using service fees for pay-as-you-go funding and bond debt service provides the flexibility to
create a highly equitable mix of funding for minor and major capital improvements and for
remedial repairs. The mix of funding would also allow balancing of costs to individual
properties and the level of service that is provided. Citywide participation in project costs could
be gained when it is appropriate, or the expense could be localized.
The data and processing requirements associated with the various funding methods used for
minor capital improvements are inconsequential. The cost of implementing and maintaining the
various funding methods that might be used for minor capital improvements varies depending on
the type of project and the funding mechanism. Allocating funds from the General Fund or from
a stormwater utility annual budget for pay-as-you-go funding of minor improvements does not
have a direct expense associated with it. Revenue or general obligation bonding of a package of
small projects would incur costs ranging from two (2) to five (5) percent of the bond issue.
Special assessments would be more difficult to administer. An assessment roll would have to be
formulated that includes all properties directly and specially benefited by each project.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-81 September 29, 2003
The flexibility offered by the mix of pay-as-you-go allocations in the budget process and
bonding allows planning and construction of small capital projects and remedial repairs to
proceed on a solid footing. The only difficulty that should be anticipated is that many citizen
requests for remedial projects to correct long-standing problems will probably erupt immediately
after a service fee commences. Other cities and counties have found that the initial demands for
small projects overwhelmed their ability to fund, design, and administer them.
A.11.5 - In-lieu of Construction Fees
Jefferson City has required new commercial developments and some residential subdivisions to
provide on-site detention of stormwater runoff to limit the peak stormwater runoff after
development. Although controlled release of runoff tends to reduce peak flows, the proliferation
of on-site systems will soon create operational and regulatory problems for the City. As
stormwater quality becomes more important, the design and maintenance needs of on-site
detention systems will also have to change. Other types of stormwater quantity and quality
control facilities may become more cost-effective than on-site systems in the future, most
notably regional facilities.
The future prospect is that continuing reliance on-site systems will create a stormwater
management system that will become increasingly difficult and costly to maintain. Lack of
on-site system maintenance by private property owners causes many such systems to fail to
function properly within a few years. The performance of public conveyance and detention
systems becomes less assured when private detention facilities deteriorate. A system of regional
facilities would consist of fewer but larger systems (conveyance or detention) that could be
maintained more efficiently by the City than are the on-site facilities by private parties, but
Jefferson City has not had sufficient resources to build or upgrade system-wide regional
improvements in the past.
A service fee would provide more funding for larger regional stormwater improvements and
reduce reliance on on-site detention, but a parallel issue exists. One of the reasons for requiring
on-site detention is to place an equitable portion of the cost of growth impacts on developers.
The in-lieu of construction fee approach is a realistic approach to eliminating or at least reducing
the number of on-site detention systems on new developments while still preserving developers'
participation in mitigating their project impacts. However, an in-lieu of construction fee can
only work if the City's stormwater program has sufficient resources to fund the construction of
the regional facilities without relying solely on service fee receipts. In-lieu fees do not generate
enough revenue to "front-end" the cost of building regional detention and conveyance facilities.
The cost of setting up an in-lieu of construction fee is minimal, but a substantial amount of
information gathering and system planning must occur first. Master planning must be completed
to determine where regional facilities can be effective in the local watersheds. They may not
work in some locations, and on-site systems may be the only workable approach. Many areas of
Jefferson City are virtually built-out and have few remaining opportunities for regiona l
stormwater facilities. Other areas have a few sites that are suitable for regional systems but not
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-82 September 29, 2003
sufficient to fully control runoff quantity and quality impacts. A combination of both on-site and
regional improvements will most likely be needed.
Equity is one of the major reasons for considering an in-lieu of construction fee. This funding
method would enable the City to eliminate a regulatory requirement (on-site detention) that will
create future operational problems, yet at the same time preserve developers' financial
involvement in mitigating their own impacts on runoff. The direct effect of in-lieu of
construction fees on the general public is very limited because the fees are charged to developers.
However, the implication of using in- lieu fees is that regional systems will be built which
eliminate or reduce the need for on-site detention. The regional systems will have to initially be
funded by other sources, most likely stormwater service fees or bonds supported by general
revenues, sales taxes, or service fees that the public will have to pay through their taxes or utility
rates.
The potential revenue capacity of in-lieu fees is difficult to estimate. They have been used by
other communities for a variety of public system improvements ranging from parking spaces to
stormwater management. Many different methods have been used for calculating them. The
precise approach that might be most suitable in Jefferson City is unclear at this time. One
method might be to base the fee on the cost of producing a comparable amount of stormwater
control through on-site detention on the subject development site. However, this approach does
not account for all of the benefits accruing to a property owner as a result of eliminating on-site
system requirements. Benefits include unrestricted use of the property, reduced engineering and
construction costs, and long-term reductions in maintenance expense and liability exposure, all
of which have a measurable economic value to property owners.
Another approach might be to base an in-lieu of construction fee on a proportional distribution of
the cost of regional alternatives. For example, if a development would have to provide 10,000
cubic feet of on-site stormwater detention storage, and the cost of providing detention in a
regional facility is $ 1 per cubic foot, the developer might be charged $ 10,000 to buy
comparable capacity in the regional system instead of building an on-site facility.
In-lieu of construction fees are generally consistent with the lo ng-term needs in Jefferson City,
which include stormwater system improvements that work effectively and can be efficiently
maintained. Such fees would also be consistent with other funding policies, including industrial
pre-treatment requirements for sanitary sewage that are complemented by the treatment capacity
and processes of the centralized public plants.
The City has the authority to set such fees within a stormwater service fee rate structure or
simply by City action under its general police powers. The fees would be directly associated
with and coincidental to a regulatory function, and therefore might not be construed as a tax. If
properly structured such fees would not require a ballot approval pursuant to the Hancock
Amendment to the Missouri Constitution.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-83 September 29, 2003
An analysis would have to be conducted to determine how the in-lieu fees would be calculated
and administered, ordinances would have to be adopted, and the systems would then have to be
implemented. It would take approximately six months to institute in-lieu of construction fees
once the City decided to proceed.
A.11.6 - Impact Fees
The term "impact fee" has many interpretations depending on various state laws and local
circumstances. The various interpretations of impact fees illustrate the problems associated with
merely defining this funding method. It is characteristic of the confusion surrounding this
funding method that impact fees are considered a tax in California, while in Texas and Florida
they are a development exaction. In Washington State, the term has been associated with an
application that was deemed an unconstitutional tax because of the way it was formulated and
administered. However, impact fees have been judicially sustained in other areas, including
Texas, California, Kansas, and Florida.
Several steps must be taken to ensure that an impact fee is not technically a tax. The fee must be
based on specific impacts that the City must mitigate. The method of quantifying impacts in a
fee schedule must be spelled out. An account must be established for each project to facilitate
audit control. An "impact period" must be defined for each project. In some states the
authorizing legislation for impacts fees even requires that any residual remaining in the fee
account after a given period or time or after the specified projects are completed must be turned
back to the developer.
There are limitations of the potential usefulness of an impact fee. Impact fees may be charged to
a development only for additional capital improvements or system capacity requirements
necessitated by that development, not to correct existing deficiencies in systems. Bringing the
stormwater management systems in Jefferson City up to an adequate level of service from which
additional improvements can be made to meet the needs of new development would be a major
cost at the present time.
The impact fee concept might be incorporated as one element of a stormwater service fee rate
structure, but the developer exaction approach has predominated in other states and a pattern
may have been created that sets a precedent. In stormwater applications an impact fee would be
more easily defended as a fee rather than a tax or exaction if it was based on the cost of service
and incorporated in a rate methodology. It that context it could be viewed as a financial element
incidental to a regulatory program rather than as a revenue generator. Such an impact fee within
a stormwater service fee rate methodology should be strictly associated with the cost of
regulatory mitigation and abatement of the impacts of specific developments through
infrastructure improvements.
The additional cost of setting up an impact fee as part of the overall stormwater rate concept
would be minimal. The most demanding task would be to define the impacts to be mitigated and
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-84 September 29, 2003
how they would be quantified in the fee calculation. Some additional administrative costs would
be incurred to track the use of each fee and ensure that any residual is returned to the developer.
The financial effect of an impact fee on the community at large is positive because taxpayers and
ratepayers do not have to bear all of the spin-off impact costs of new development. Placing the
financial burden onto the developer causing the impacts creates a redistribution of the cost of
mitigation. An impact fee would be consistent with the present regulatory role, and would
provide an additional source of funds to regulate and respond to impacts that are tied directly to
the pace of growth.
An impact fee carries other negative baggage. The time limitation usually associated with
impact fees may begin to dictate capital improvement priorities as the "sunset point" on a
specific fee approaches. Six to ten years after impact fees were collected, the City might find
itself setting priorities for capital projects on the basis of which impact fees would have to be
returned to the developers if improvements were not built, rather than on the basis of which
projects were most needed or cost-effective. Because of this and other potential problems,
Jefferson City should avoid using an impact fee for stormwater management.
A.11.7 - Developer Extension/Latecomer Fees
In recent years developers have proposed to build urban scale projects in areas that do not yet
have adequate urban services such as sanitary sewers, arterial streets, and stormwater systems.
The City has tried to establish development standards and reviews to minimize the infrastructure
planning and construction problems this introduces. Developers are often required to extend
sewers, roads, and stormwater systems, and to over-size the improvements to accommodate
future growth. In a sense, the first developers into an area may be subsidizing later developers
who connect to or are served by improvements they build.
Developer extension/latecomer fees would not be used to generate revenue for the stormwater
program, but rather to offer an incentive for private developers to install adequate, often
over-sized, stormwater systems as growth occurs. This funding method provides a mechanism
whereby private developers in outlying areas can be reimbursed (at least partially) by future
developers for improving regional stormwater systems.
In most cases, the City can require that a developer extend facilities to adequately serve a project
or refuse to approve the development. In most cases the economics of installing a fully adequate
system at the outset are clear, but it is often a heavy burden for a single project to bear. By
charging a latecomer fee to future developers that hook up to a facility, controversies related to
over-sizing requirements may be avoided.
Developer extension/latecomer agreements are relatively easy to implement and administer.
They would essentially be contracts between the City and developers. A service zone for the
each system extended or improved by a developer would need to be defined, and future
developments in the area which are served by the facility would be charged a fee at the time
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
A-85 September 29, 2003
development permits are issued. The fee would be turned back to the original developer, less an
administrative charge by the City for processing.
The public perception of this type of funding method is usually very good, especially among
developers. The system extensions and improvements that allow for future growth alleviate one
of the key obstacles for economic development, and the equity they represent is often
appreciated by the development community.
A.11.8 - Federal and State Funding
Federal and state involvement in urban stormwater management generally has been very limited.
A few categorical programs exist, such as those of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Soil Conservation Service, and the U. S.
Geological Survey. However, most federal and state programs are oriented to major flood
control and disaster assistance rather than local stormwater management. Exceptions include the
cooperative programs of the USGS for monitoring of stream flows.
Opportunities for similar agreements for water quality sampling may exist. In general, however,
federal and state sources of funding are not a feasible alternative to adequate local support. Few
opportunities exist, and those that do are not suited to Jefferson City's current stormwater
management and flood protection needs. However, several states have recently adopted changes
in policy that allow state revolving loan funds to be used for stormwater quality management as
well as sanitary sewer facility improvements.
The cost of federal and state funding is usually limited to the expense of applying for grants or
loans and administering the funds according to agency requirements. The process is relatively
simple in most categorical programs, except in cases when a complicated or detailed proposal
must be prepared. The issue of revenue capacity is not really pertinent, but the combination of
the federal deficit in general and the low priority of urban stormwater management among
federal and state agencies makes this funding option an impractical one to rely upon.
9400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, Missouri 64116-3319
Tel: 816 333-9400
Fax: 816-333-3690
www.burnsmcd.com
September 29, 2003
Mr. Pat Sullivan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
Community Development
City Hall
320 East McCarty Street
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
City of Jefferson, Missouri
Comprehensive Stormwater Master Plan Update Phases 1&2
FINAL SUBMITTAL
Burns & McDonnell Project No. 27496
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
The Burns & McDonnell Project Team is pleased to present this final submittal of the
City of Jefferson’s Comprehensive Stormwater Master Plan Update. This document
will act as a road map for the City as it begins to form an integrated and dynamic
stormwater management program. This document is the result of many hours of hard
work by the Project Team, City staff, the Stormwater Advisory Council and the citizens
of the City of Jefferson. It is the feeling of the project team that these multiple layers of
involvement have helped to deliver a plan that will serve the City of Jefferson well.
It has been a pleasure working with you and your staff on this project, and the Project
Team looks forward to continued work with you and your staff on Phases III and IV of
this project.
If we can be of further assistance to your and your staff, please do not hesitate to call.
Best Regards,
Matthew J. Koch, P.E.
Project Manager
Jeff Brizendine, P.E.
Project Engineer
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Comprehensive
Stormwater
Master Plan
Update
Phases 1 & 2
for the
City of Jefferson, Missouri
Prepared by:
Burns & McDonnell
Project Number 27496
October, 2003
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI
COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE PHASES 1&2
B&McD Project No. 27496
INDEX AND CERTIFICATION PAGE
REPORT INDEX
Section Description
Number
of Pages
Preface Preface 3
1 Executive Summary 9
2 Introduction 6
3 Watershed Description 4
4 Public Involvement and Input 26
5 Data Collection 6
6 Geographic Information System (GIS)4
7 Hydrologic Modeling 14
8 Hydraulic Modeling 21
9 Drainage System Evaluation 6
10 Recommended Improvements 30
11 Cost Opinions 13
12 Project Prioritization 22
13 Preliminary Cost and Rate Analysis 50
14 Legal Review 20
15 Drainage Design Criteria 3
16 Erosion and Sediment Control 3
17 NPDES Phase II Compliance 3
18 Glossary of Terms 5
Appendix A Funding Options and Detailed Rate Analysis Report 88
I hereby certify, as a Professional Engineer in the State of Missouri, that the information in this document was
assembled under my direct responsible charge, and is based on information and data that was available and obtained
from the sources described herein. The Engineer cannot be held responsible for added or deleted information once
distributed.
CERTIFICATION
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Preface
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
1 September 29, 2003
Preface
Prior to beginning a master planning effort, it is important to understand the limitations of such
an effort. Due to the usually large scale (such as area, complexity, number of facilities,
population, etc.) of such a project, extreme levels of detail are left for more project specific
studies (often called preliminary engineering studies) so that a reasonably accurate view of the
entire system can be obtained. It is important to note the use of the word “system” in the
previous sentence, especially when relating to stormwater master planning. Because stormwater
travels through a system of overland flow, shallow rills and channels, streams, creeks, pipes and
eventually rivers, changes in one part of the system could have significant impacts on other areas
of the system, possibly several miles downstream. In order to properly manage stormwater for
the benefit of all citizens, both upstream and downstream, it is important to model this
interconnectivity between different areas of the system. To model a stormwater system as
complex as Jefferson City’s to a “ready to build” project level would take millions of dollars and
several years. Because of the changing landscape, due to natural and man-made processes, by
the time the study was finished, it would already be out of date. Therefore, this study was done
at a level of detail that would offer a reasonably accurate view of the stormwater system so that
educated decisions could be made with regards to how stormwater should be managed in
Jefferson City. These decisions include what/where/how many stormwater projects are needed,
how should they be funded and what the impacts on other projects are.
Below are a list of some of the important assumptions and decisions made that impacted this
study:
• Where applicable, reasonable assumptions were made based on past experiences of the
consultant team. Having completed numerous studies of this type in the past, certain trends
and patterns begin to emerge. Based on these, the consultant team made assumptions it felt
would hold true in Jefferson City. However, if other factors indicated a special circumstance,
additional investigations were done.
• Due to the many different ways a stormwater problem can be solved, it was not financially
viable to optimize every project situation. It is possible that some of the proposed
improvement projects may be found to have additional solutions beyond those recommended
when more detailed analyses are completed at a later date. However, the consultant team
recommended conservative approaches to the projects so that they would be accounted for in
the overall needs assessment.
• In order to make the best use of future funds the City may generate for stormwater
management, the consultant team assumed “ultimate development” conditions. This assumes
that the watersheds are completely built-out (no additional development possible) at the
development patterns established by City staff. While this allows for a worst-case scenario
with regards to stormwater needs, it also has some consequences:
• Flooding may be shown in locations that might not currently flood because it is the future
development causing the increased water levels;
• Recommended projects may be oversized for current flows;
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
2 September 29, 2003
• Recommended projects may be impacted by changes in upstream development patterns
or regulations; and
• Recommended projects may not be necessary for many years, or not at all if complete
build-out does not occur.
However, with the computer models constructed as part of this report, City staff can account
for these changes that will impact the amount of runoff entering the system.
• The impacts from the Missouri River were not included as part of this scope of work.
Because flooding in the watercourses around Jefferson City are impacted by local
precipitation and water levels on the Missouri River are impacted by an area a multiple of
magnitudes larger, it was decided to model only the local system. (Previous studies have
been completed on the impacts of the Missouri River with regards to flooding in Jefferson
City.)
• Structures with contributing drainage areas less than 160 acres were not modeled as part of
this project unless special circumstances were noted or observed. The impact of this is that
there may be projects inside this 160 acre limit (such as localized detention) that may impact,
or even eliminate, the need for some smaller projects. These are the types of decisions made
during the more detailed project studies mentioned earlier. It is also important to understand
that this 160 acre limit is common for master planning efforts of this magnitude.
• All modeling was completed based on reasonable maintenance of the existing stormwater
system. Since the condition of the system will change from year to year, and even season to
season, reasonable maintenance of the system had to be assumed in order to properly and
efficiently model the system.
Once these assumptions are understood, their necessity becomes apparent when balancing them
against the costs associated with such a project. However, once the purpose of a master planning
effort is understood, their use makes sense when compared to the goal of the effort.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 1
Executive Summary
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 1 - Executive Summary...................................................................................................1-1
1.1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 - Study Area .........................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 - Public Involvement and Input ...........................................................................................1-2
1.4 - Data Collection and Geographic Information System (GIS)............................................1-3
1.5 - Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses .................................................................................1-3
1.6 - Recommended Improvements ...........................................................................................1-3
1.7 - Prioritizations ....................................................................................................................1-5
1.8 - Funding Options and Rate Structure Analysis ..................................................................1-5
1.9 - Program Review ................................................................................................................1-6
1.10 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II
permit application......................................................................................................................1-6
List of Tables
Table 1-1 – Project Summary by Watershed ...............................................................................1-4
Table 1-2 – project Cost Summary ..............................................................................................1-4
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 – Weighted Priority Stormwater Issues ......................................................................1-2
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
1-1 September 29, 2003
Section 1 - Executive Summary
1.1 - Introduction
The City of Jefferson contracted with the Burns & McDonnell project team in February of 2001
to complete a stormwater master plan update. Previous master plans and other stormwater
related studies had been completed, but their implementation had been hindered by a number of
factors. In order to assure the success of this study, a comprehensive look at the entire
stormwater management program was undertaken by the City of Jefferson and the Burns &
McDonnell project team. The scope of services determined for this project included the
following elements:
Public Participation
Information Review
Stormwater Structure Inventory
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
Capital Improvement Program
Funding Options Analysis
Legal Review
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit application
Review and Revision of the Stormwater Design Standards Manual
Review and Revision of the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
The project included all areas of the City’s stormwater operations and was performed with the
goal of developing a master plan that will serve as the City’s road map for managing its
stormwater program.
This executive summary highlights some of the findings and results of this project.
1.2 - Study Area
In order to grasp the financial impacts on stormwater management in the City of Jefferson, the
project involved many areas of the City, both organizationally and geographically. Multiple
departments were involved in this project, either as a participant in the project meetings, being
interviewed for stormwater related tasks, or supplying other information of relevance to
stormwater management. The hydraulic and hydrologic analyses covered 4 watersheds; Boggs
Creek, East Wears Creek, Wears Creek and North Wears Creek. Additional areas of the city, in
the Grays Creek and the Moreau River watersheds, will be studied in additional phases of the
project and results presented in separate reports.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
1-2 September 29, 2003
1.3 - Public Involvement and Input
Several efforts were undertaken to involve the public in the formation of the stormwater
management program and to get their input as to the issues of importance to them. First, a
questionnaire was mailed to all parcel owners within the study area to solicit input on stormwater
problem areas within the City and what their opinions were on the issues of funding, regulating
and enforcing stormwater management. As shown in Figure 1-1, the issue of highest
importance, using weighted responses, was protection of water quality, followed closely by
limiting damage to structures.
Figure 1-1 – Weighted Priority Stormwater Issues
As can be seen by the weighted priorities, of the top 4 issues, two are environmentally related
and two are related to preservation of property. This shows an understanding of the citizens of
Jefferson City of the relationship between the two subjects when speaking of stormwater
management.
Weighted Priority
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Li
m
i
t
D
a
m
a
g
e
to
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
St
r
e
e
t
Fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
Li
m
i
t
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
Da
m
a
g
e
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
Er
o
s
i
o
n
Da
m
a
g
e
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
te
m
p
.
po
n
d
i
n
g
on
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ot
h
e
r
Priority
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
*
*
**Weighted priority is determined by the following formula: (# of 1st priority votes x 3) +
(# 2nd priority votes x 2) + (# 3 rd priority votes x 1).
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
1-3 September 29, 2003
Another part of the public involvement process was the holding of several public input or “ward”
meetings. Citizens from each of the City’s voting wards were invited to attend an open house
meeting to discuss their stormwater problems or ask questions they may have. These meetings
were well attended and timely information was gathered.
The final piece of the public involvement process was the formation of the Stormwater Advisory
Committee (SWAC). The purpose of the SWAC was to guide the project team so that
stormwater management decisions were made in line with the way the City of Jefferson
delivered services to its citizens. The SWAC also made sure that the City’s needs were kept at
the forefront of the decision making process so that the end product would fit the needs of the
citizens. This was exemplified by the formation of a mission statement and program priorities
list.
1.4 - Data Collection and Geographic Information System (GIS)
One of the goals of this project was to produce tools that the City could use to help manage its
stormwater program. One such tool was the creation of a stormwater structures inventory.
Using data collected during the project, through field surveys, research of past studies and other
sources, the project team was able to form a database of the stormwater “information” associated
with Jefferson City’s program. This database can now be used by the City’s current ArcView
based GIS to manage the many aspects of the program. Information, such as size, capacity, flow,
proposed improvements, costs, etc, can be linked to visual images on a computer. The relational
database format makes the possibilities for using the system limited only by the user. This
aspect of the project will allow it to continue to pay great dividends well into the future.
1.5 - Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
Using the data collected and GIS, the project team modeled 4 of the major watersheds within the
City. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Riverine Analysis
System (HEC-RAS) and a proprietary version of the Environmental Management Agency’s
(EPA) Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) called XP-SWMM was used to model the City
of Jefferson’s stormwater management system. These models were used to predict the current
conditions in the City, the impacts of future development, and the projects needed to properly
manage the stormwater system in Jefferson City.
1.6 - Recommended Improvements
Based on the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, six different classifications of projects have
been proposed to help manage stormwater in Jefferson City; numerous projects were identified
in each watershed. The classifications and numbers of projects that have been identified are
summarized in Table 1-1:
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
1-4 September 29, 2003
TABLE 1-1 – PROJECT SUMMARY BY CLASSIFICATION AND WATERSHED
Boggs
Creek
East Wears
Creek.
Wears Creek North Wears
Creek
TOTAL
Regional Multi-use
Facilities 0 1 1 0 2
Detention/Retention
Facilities 1 0 0 1 2
Large Culvert/Bridge
Modifications 10 16 12 5 43
Levees 0 0 2 0 2
Bank Stabilization 3 1 5 0 9
Local Benefit
Drainage Projects 6 9 8 8 31
The engineer’s opinion of probable cost on these projects are summarized as follows:
TABLE 1-2 – PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Watershed and Project Categories Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost
Boggs Creek
Regional Multi-Use Facilities $0
Detention / Retention Facilities $500,000
Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications $1,690,000
Levees $0
Bank Stabilization $910,000
Local Benefit Drainage Projects $755,000
Boggs Creek Total $3,855,000
East Wears Creek
Regional Multi-Use Facilities $750,000
Detention / Retention Facilities $0
Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications $10,720,000
Levees $0
Bank Stabilization $150,000
Local Benefit Drainage Projects $1,936,000
East Wears Creek Total $13,556,000
Wears Creek
Regional Multi-Use Facilities $1,250,000
Detention / Retention Facilities $0
Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications $6,060,000
Levees $1,250,000
Bank Stabilization $1,285,000
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
1-5 September 29, 2003
TABLE 1-2 – PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Local Benefit Drainage Projects $1,183,000
Wears Creek Total $11,028,000
North Wears Creek
Regional Multi-Use Facilities $0
Detention / Retention Facilities $500,000
Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications/Replacements $435,000
Levees $0
Bank Stabilization (* see description in Sect. 10)$0*
Local Benefit Drainage Projects $2,306,000
North Wears Creek Total $3,241,000
Total – Boggs, East Wears, Wears, North Wears $31,680,000
Remedial Repairs $9,200,000
Total Capital Improvements $40,088,000
1.7 - Prioritizations
The identified projects have been prioritized according to the criteria discussed in this Section
12. The projects within each watershed have been prioritized, but an overall prioritization was
not made, due to factors that are not known as part of this study, such as political considerations,
social conditions, economic benefits/impacts, etc. However, three high priority project groups
were identified, one each in Boggs Creek, East Wears Creek, and Wears Creek basins. These
were labeled high priority for their potential to relieve existing major flooding problems.
1.8 - Funding Options and Rate Structure Analysis
The funding options and rate structure analysis examined the many issues involved with funding
a stormwater program. It looks not only at what needs to be funded, but also the mechanism by
which the funding can be collected. It includes a great deal of discussion on the history and legal
aspects of stormwater utility funding, the different methods of funding, the appropriateness of
each and recommendations of the project team. These are all items of importance from a due
diligence standpoint.
The rate structure analysis presented herein took into account the funding needs of the program
over the first five years and, based on an estimate of the potential fee base, forecasts a range of
fees needed to meet the identified program needs. The fee base is the number of equivalent
residential units (ERU’s) within the city limit. Under the proposed program, the typical
residential property will be assigned one ERU. However, non-residential properties will be
charged based on the amount of impervious surface on the property. For each ERU on the non-
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
1-6 September 29, 2003
residential property (which is equivalent to the impervious surface on an “average” residential
property), the service fee will be equal to the service fee that the residential homeowner would
be charged. For example, if the average impervious surface on a residential property was 2,500
square feet, a non-residential property with 5,000 square feet of impervious area would pay for
two ERU’s.
Based on the information collected as part of this study, three scenarios have been generated to
address the stormwater funding needs of Jefferson City. Each scenario varies in the way it
accomplishes the multiple projects proposed as part of this study. The range of suggested fees is
between $3.00 and $4.00 for each ERU per month, with a recommended fee of $3.43 per month
per ERU. In other words, assuming a flat fee for residential customers, each residential property
would pay $3.43 per month for stormwater management in Jefferson City, with each non-
residential property paying a multiple of $3.43 per month, depending on the amount of
impervious surface. The reader is directed to Section 13 of this report for the detailed discussion.
1.9 - Program Review
Various elements of the program were reviewed in-depth as part of this project. Those elements
included:
Legal Review – A review of the legal authority of the City to manage stormwater as well as
its regulations were reviewed and showed nothing inordinate that would prevent the City
from properly managing its stormwater. To that end, items the City may want to consider for
ordinances have been suggested as part of this report in Section 14-4. These items would
allow the City to take advantage of advances in the emerging thoughts and processes in the
subject of stormwater management. Additionally, a specific analysis has been completed
with regards to the ability of the City to legislate a funding source for the program.
Drainage Design Criteria – A review of the City’s current Drainage Design Manual was
completed and revisions suggested. These revisions are based on the Kansas City Chapter of
the American Public Works Association’s (APWA) Design Specifications Manual – Section
5600. This document is seen as a regional standard for stormwater management. The
specific changes have been integrated into the current manual’s format to ease the transition
to the new standards. In concert with the legal review, these changes will allow the City to
take advantage of recent advances in stormwater management techniques while relying on a
widely accepted standard of practice.
1.10 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II
permit application
As part of the Clean Water Act (CWA) legislated by Congress, the City of Jefferson, along with
other cities across the nation, was required to submit a NPDES Phase II permit application. The
goal of this program is to minimize the amount of pollutants entering the country’s waterways
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
1-7 September 29, 2003
through non-point source pollution. The application outlined how the City would implement the
six minimum control measures:
1. Public Information
2. Public Involvement
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
4. Construction Run-off Control
5. Post Construction Run-off Control
6. Municipal Good Housekeeping and Pollution Prevention
The City’s application was successfully submitted to the state’s enforcement agency, the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) prior to the March 10, 2003 deadline. The
City now has until March, 2008 to implement the strategies outlined in the permit application.
To follow is an in-depth discussion of each area associated with this project. Each section
describes a specific element of the project and contains a table of contents, list of tables and list
of figures at the front for easy reference.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 2
Introduction
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003i
Table of Contents
Section 2 - Introduction................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 - Project Team......................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 - Purpose ..............................................................................................................................2-1
2.3 - Scope of Services ..............................................................................................................2-2
2.3.1 - Project Study Area .......................................................................................................2-2
2.3.2 - Public Participation......................................................................................................2-2
2.3.3 - Information Review .....................................................................................................2-2
2.3.4 - Stormwater Structure Inventory...................................................................................2-2
2.3.5 - Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses ............................................................................2-3
2.3.6 - Capital Improvement Program.....................................................................................2-3
2.3.7 - Funding Options Analysis ............................................................................................2-4
2.3.8 - Legal Review ...............................................................................................................2-4
2.3.9 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II
permit application....................................................................................................................2-4
2.3.10 - Review and Revise the Stormwater Design Standards Manual.................................2-4
2.3.11 - Review and Revision of the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan...................2-4
List of Tables
No tables used in this section
List of Figures
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
2-1 September 29, 2003
Section 2 - Introduction
In February 2001, the City of Jefferson, MO (Jefferson City or the City) Public Works
Department contracted with Burns & McDonnell to complete a Stormwater Master Plan Update
(Master Plan Update). The Master Plan Update was to include all of the area within the city
limits of Jefferson City, located in mid-Missouri along the banks of the Missouri River as well as
some additional area just outside the city limits known as Frog Hollow.
2.1 - Project Team
Burns & McDonnell Engineering was the prime contractor for study. Topographic survey and
some model development was provided by Central Missouri Professional Services (CMPS).
Public participation and public relations were administered by Shockey Consulting Services
(SCS). Financial and programmatic analysis was provided by Water Resources Associates
(WRA). Legal analysis was provided by Stinson Morrison Hecker (SMH).
Burns & McDonnell Engineering
9400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, Missouri 64114
Phone: (816) 333-9400
Project Manager: Matt Koch, PE
Central Missouri Professional Services, Inc
2500 East McCarty St.
Jefferson City, Missouri
Phone: (573) 634-3455
Contact: Keith Brickey, PLS
Shockey Consulting Services, LLC
7611 Park Street
Lenexa, Kansas 66216
Phone: (913) 248-9585
Contact: Sheila Shockey
Water Resource Associates
P.O. Box 3326
Kirkland, Washington
Phone: (360) 317-8743
Contact: Hector Cyre
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP
1201 Walnut Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Phone: (816) 842-8600
Contact: Steve Chinn
2.2 - Purpose
Jefferson City’s last stormwater management plan was completed in the mid-1980’s. Due to
continued development within the City and changes in the philosophies governing stormwater,
the City decided to perform a comprehensive update of the existing stormwater management
plan. This update would include public participation and education, a limited stormwater
structure inventory, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, a prioritized capital improvement
program (CIP) with costs, stormwater funding options analyses, legal review and
recommendations, production of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Phase II permit application, review and revision of the City’s Stormwater Design Manual, and
revisions to the City’s current erosion and sediment control plan. The purpose of this study was
to complete these tasks and deliver a comprehensive plan to Jefferson City.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
2-2 September 29, 2003
2.3 - Scope of Services
2.3.1 - Project Study Area
The project study area included the majority of that land area located within the city limits and
south of the Missouri River. An additional area draining into the city limits, Frog Hollow, was
also included. The area of the City north of the Missouri River was not included in the study nor
were those areas south of the Missouri River deemed as draining directly to the Missouri River.
The area noted as the Missouri River area referenced later in this report is an area of downtown
Jefferson City which drains via enclosed systems to Coon Creek and the Missouri River. Due to
budget constraints this area was removed during the study. However, this area was included in
the public information and education task, as discussed later in this report. A detailed discussion
of the study area is included in Section 3.
2.3.2 - Public Participation
A key element of the Stormwater Master Plan process, and a key to the ultimate success of the
City’s stormwater program, was to be a robust and active public information and education
program. This was accomplished in several ways. First, a Stormwater Advisory Committee
(SWAC) was formed to guide the project team. The SWAC’s purpose would be to serve as a
sounding board for the project team, to ensure the project team’s suggestions were in accordance
with the way the City provided services to its citizens, and to ultimately present the study to the
City Council for acceptance. Secondly, the project included a stormwater questionnaire that was
mailed to most residents and businesses within the city limits. This questionnaire asked for
information on areas of known stormwater problems (such as structure or road flooding and
erosion), program priorities, and how the program should be funded. Third, a project website
was established where citizens could access information generated during the study.
2.3.3 - Information Review
A comprehensive review of the existing information and studies provided an understanding of
existing conditions and the capital improvement plans previously proposed and/or implemented.
This task involved the assemblage, review and organization of existing mapping, records,
reports, ordinances, criteria and floodplain studies available from the City and other sources.
Additional detail is provided in Section 4 of this report.
2.3.4 - Stormwater Structure Inventory
As part of the data gathering process, and to obtain information necessary to populate the
hydrologic and hydraulic models, a limited structure inventory of significant stormwater
structures was completed. This included street crossing (bridges and culvert structures) and
enclosed systems. The criterion by which a structure was judged as “significant” was the
drainage area served by the structure. Structures serving a drainage area of 160 acres and greater
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
2-3 September 29, 2003
were field surveyed for location, dimensional data, and structural data. Several structures
serving less than 160 acres were also surveyed due to their proximity to other surveyed
structures, their position in the watershed, and other factors. Additional criteria for enclosed
systems included having a diameter (or equivalent diameter for non-circular conduits) of greater
than 24 inches.
As the data collection for this study was being completed, a parallel effort was being completed
by City staff to collect data on all stormwater structures within the city limits. This effort was
coordinated with the data gathering for this study so that the two efforts would be collecting the
same data in the same format. This would allow the data to be merged at a later date with little
or no discrepancies if so desired by the City.
2.3.5 - Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
Specific hydrologic and hydraulic models (See Sections 7 and 8) were developed for those
drainage system components described above.
.
The storm water system was evaluated under the following three (3) conditions:
· Existing land use conditions with the existing storm sewer system – This plan represents
conditions as currently observed within the watershed.
· Ultimate land use conditions with the existing storm sewer system – This plan represents
conditions that could occur as the watershed develops without making improvements to the
existing sewer system.
· Ultimate land use conditions with an improved storm drainage system – This plan predicts
conditions assuming a fully developed watershed with the capital improvements
recommended in this report.
Existing land use conditions were based on data taken from aerial photos. Ultimate land use
conditions were based on data taken from aerial photos as well as the most current land use maps
and redevelopment areas designated by the City.
2.3.6 - Capital Improvement Program
Based on the findings of the Hydrologic and Hydraulic analyses, a Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) was formulated. This included costing of all recommended projects and an
allowance for those problems not modeled as part of this study. Also included was a
prioritization of the recommended projects.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
2-4 September 29, 2003
2.3.7 - Funding Options Analysis
In order to the determine the feasibility of funding these improvements and a revised stormwater
program, a Funding Options Analysis was completed. This included a study into the options
available for funding the program and a rate structure analysis based on a stormwater utility
concept. Additionally, preliminary estimates of programs costs were developed and suggested
rates developed.
2.3.8 - Legal Review
The legal aspects of the stormwater program were also reviewed. The current stormwater
program and related ordinances, regulations, etc. were reviewed to get an idea of its enforcement
power. Future legal impacts of a new stormwater management program were also examined,
specifically the implementation of a stormwater utility with a user fee.
2.3.9 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit
application
As part of the Clean Water Act, most cities with populations less than 100,000 are required to
develop and submit a NPDES Phase II permit application. This permit outlines the specific steps
a city will take to comply with the six minimum control measures outlined in the enabling
legislation. The intent of these permits is to reduce the amount of non-point source (NPS)
pollution entering the country’s waterways. This permit was submitted to MDNR who is the
state permitting authority.
2.3.10 - Review and Revise the Stormwater Design Standards Manual
The City’s Stormwater Design Standards Manual was reviewed and revisions made to bring the
manual into compliance with recent advances in the stormwater field. While the general format
of the current manual was retained, numerous additions of new information and deletion of
outdated practices and information was completed.
2.3.11 - Review and Revision of the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
The City’s erosion and sediment control plan was reviewed and revisions were suggested. The
bulk of the changes came in the form of suggested revisions to the City’s sediment and erosion
control ordinance. These changes were focused mainly on implementation of new standards,
enforcement and penalties associated with non-compliance. The new ordinance will reference in
the adoption of APWA’s Stormwater Design Specifications with revisions specific to Jefferson
City.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 3
Watershed Description
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003i
Table of Contents
Section 3 - Watershed Description...............................................................................................3-1
3.1 - Watershed Descriptions.....................................................................................................3-1
List of Tables
No tables used in this section
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 – Major watersheds.....................................................................................................3-2
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
3-1 September 29, 2003
Section 3 - Watershed Description
3.1 - Watershed Descriptions
Jefferson City was divided into seven separate and distinct major watersheds for the purpose of
this study. They are as follows:
1. Boggs Creek – This watershed is located on the eastern edge of the City. It is relatively
undeveloped, but development is occurring in this watershed. Currently, the majority of the
development is residential, with pockets of more intense development for commercial and
industrial uses.
2. East Wears Creek – This watershed is the eastern branch of the Wears Creek system that
drains the central and western portions of the City south of the Missouri River. This eastern
branch is nearly fully developed, with low to high intensity residential development
throughout a majority of the watershed, but a significant portion of the watershed has
commercial and industrial developments. The Lincoln University campus is also located in
this watershed.
3. Wears Creek – This watershed is the central and most significant contributor to the Wears
Creek system and includes the Frog Hollow area. While areas of the Frog Hollow area
remain relatively undeveloped, a majority of the Wears Creek Basin is completely, or nearly
so, developed. The Wears Creek basin contains the largest amount of commercial and
industrial development in gross area, with these areas making up more than 50% of the
watershed area.
4. North Wears Creek – This watershed is the smallest of the three watersheds in the Wears
Creek system and drains a much smaller portion of the system than the other two portions.
This watershed contains a residential element in the upper reaches with most of the
development in the lower reaches being commercial and industrial.
5. Missouri River area – This watershed contains a significant portion of the downtown area of
Jefferson City. This watershed can be considered completely developed with high intensity
development of all types in the watershed. This watershed was involved in the early stages
of the project, but was excluded from the field survey, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling,
and CIP development due to budgetary constraints.
6. Gray’s Creek Tributary #1 – This watershed is the very lowest reaches of the Gray’s Creek
watershed. This is the most downstream tributary to Gray’s Creek and is the only area of
Gray’s Creek located within the city limits. Its development to date has been mostly
residential and would appear that future development will continue to be residential with
limited availability for commercial and industrial development. While this area was included
in the data gathering efforts of this study, it was later determined that this area would be
combined with the proposed western annexation area covering most of Gray’s Creek and
would be part of the detailed study of this area in a proposed Phase 3 of the Stormwater
Management Plan.
7. Moreau River – This watershed includes only the upper most reaches of several tributaries to
the Moreau River whose area is located within the City. The area of the Moreau River within
this study is relatively undeveloped with mostly low density residential housing units and a
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
3-2 September 29, 2003
limited amount of commercial and industrial development. As with the Gray’s Creek
Tributary #1 watershed, data was collected on this watershed as part of this report. However,
the detailed study will be completed as part of a proposed Phase 3 of this study covering the
proposed annexation area south of the City in the Moreau River basin.
Figure 3-1 shows a map of the watersheds examined as part of this study.
Figure 3-1 – Major watersheds
Legend:
Watershed Boundary
Corporate Boundary
Moreau
River
Wears Creek
North Wears Creek
Grays Creek
Boggs Creek
East Wears
Creek
Grays Creek
Tributary #1
Missouri
River
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 4
Public Involvement and Input
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 4 - Public Involvement and Input ....................................................................................4-1
4.1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 - Stormwater Advisory Committee......................................................................................4-1
4.3 - Stormwater Questionnaire Summary ................................................................................4-5
4.3.1 - Introduction..................................................................................................................4-5
4.3.2 - Distribution ..................................................................................................................4-6
4.3.3 - Questionnaire Responses .............................................................................................4-6
4.3.4 - Flooding Problems .......................................................................................................4-7
4.3.4.1 - Types of Stormwater Problems ..............................................................................4-7
4.3.4.2 - Severity of Damage ................................................................................................4-8
4.3.4.3 - Amount of Rainfall .................................................................................................4-8
4.3.4.4 - Frequency of Flooding............................................................................................4-9
4.3.5 - Importance of Activities...............................................................................................4-9
4.3.5.1 - Ranking of Importance ...........................................................................................4-9
4.3.6 - Program Goal Priorities..............................................................................................4-11
4.3.7 - Finances......................................................................................................................4-12
4.3.7.1 - Additional Fees .....................................................................................................4-12
4.3.8 - Funding.......................................................................................................................4-14
4.3.9 - Additional Comments ................................................................................................4-16
4.4 - Ward Meetings ................................................................................................................4-22
4.5 - Internet Web Site .............................................................................................................4-22
List of Tables
Table 4-1 – Stormwater Questionnaire Distribution & Responses..............................................4-6
Table 4-2 – Types of Stormwater Problems .................................................................................4-8
Table 4-3 – Severity of Damage ..................................................................................................4-8
Table 4-4 – Amount of Rain that Causes the Stormwater Problems ...........................................4-9
Table 4-5 – Frequency of Flooding in the Last 10 Years.............................................................4-9
Table 4-6 – Importance of Activities .........................................................................................4-10
Table 4-7 – Program Goal Priorities ..........................................................................................4-11
Table 4-8 – Questionnaire Responses – Residential Fee ...........................................................4-13
Table 4-9 – Questionnaire Responses - Small Business Fees ....................................................4-14
Table 4-10 – Questionnaire Responses - Large Business Fees ..................................................4-14
Table 4-11 – Funding of Operations and Maintenance..............................................................4-15
Table 4-12 – Funding of CIP (Large Stormwater Projects).......................................................4-16
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
ii September 29, 2003
List of Figures
Figure 4-1 – Stormwater Advisory Committee Road Map ..........................................................4-1
Figure 4-2 – Policy Resolution Process .......................................................................................4-3
Figure 4-3 – Flooding Complaint Responses by Type.................................................................4-7
Figure 4-4 – Importance of Stormwater Activities ....................................................................4-10
Figure 4-5 – Program Goal Priorities .........................................................................................4-12
Figure 4-6 – Questionnaire Responses - Stormwater Fees for Residential Customers..............4-13
Figure 4-7 – Questionnaire Responses - Stormwater Fees for Small Business Customers .......4-13
Figure 4-8 – Questionnaire Responses - Stormwater Fees for Large Business Customers .......4-14
Figure 4-9 – Questionnaire Responses - Funding Options for Operations and Maintenance....4-15
Figure 4-10 – Questionnaire Responses – Funding of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)....4-16
List of Attachments
Attachment 4-1 – Access database of Questionnaire Responses ...............................................4-23
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-1 September 29, 2003
Section 4 - Public Involvement and Input
4.1 - Introduction
It was determined early in the project that a useful and contributory public information campaign
be undertaken as part of this project. Public works issues had faired well in past elections, and
with the possibility of an election for stormwater funding, public involvement and input was seen
as a very integral part of the success of the project. The public involvement and input would
involve four major efforts; formation of a stormwater advisory committee, mailing of a
stormwater questionnaire to all residents in the city, conducting a series of ward, or public,
meetings, and establishment of an internet website.
4.2 - Stormwater Advisory Committee
The Stormwater Advisory Committee (SWAC) consisted of a group of volunteers from various
areas of the city and professions that acted as a guide for the project team. The SWAC efforts
concentrated on policy type issues so that decisions made by the project team were in accordance
with City values and ways of doing business. Issues included stormwater program financing and
priorities, ordinance impacts and prioritization of identified projects.
One of the first topics to be covered by the SWAC was to establish a “road-map” of the process it
would undertake in its advisory role. Figure 4-1 depicts the road map of eight different areas
undertaken by the SWAC. Each of these areas were addressed in a single or series of meetings.
Figure 4-1 – Stormwater Advisory Committee Road Map
Description of
Stormwater
Management
Stormwater
Problems and
Needs
Program
Mission and
Priorities
Funding
Philosophy
and Options
Program and
Funding
Strategy
Cost of Service
and Rate
Analysis
Service Fee
Rate Structure
Concepts
Recommendations
to the Community and
Implementation
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-2 September 29, 2003
The flow of the topics addressed by the SWAC were based on the project team’s experiences
elsewhere, but the approach also considered how the City had traditionally made major decisions.
Stormwater management concepts were introduced to the committee in a general “primer”, and
several detailed presentations by the consultant team provided background information on the
various topics. Policy issue discussions focused first on defining the local situation, problems,
existing program, future needs, opportunities and priorities. Capital project alternatives were
identified and evaluated by the SWAC. The capital investment and operational costs of various
stormwater management scenarios were projected, and funding options available to the City were
evaluated. The City was particularly interested in evaluating the feasibility of the stormwater
“utility” funding method that has gained wide acceptance in recent years. A range of rate
structure concepts were considered, a preferred approach identified, and a detailed preliminary
rate analysis of that methodology was prepared. A detailed discussion of that analysis is
contained in Section 13.
Several of the issues identified in the roadmap were subject to technical analysis by members of
the consultant team. The technical analyses and the SWAC’s discussions of the key issues
described in the roadmap ensured appropriate due diligence for City Council decisions if the City
decides to implement an improved stormwater management program. In addition, the community
was provided with a clear vision of what the City proposes to do and how the recommended
approach would allocate the costs across the community. This information is critically important
if a ballot issue (or issues) is to be presented to the community on one or more aspects of the
program and funding strategy.
One key element of the SWAC involvement was the formation of the program mission statement
and program priorities statement. However, generating these guiding documents was not as easy
as sitting down around a table and writing a concise, representative document. These documents
are the end result of a well-orchestrated policy resolution process. The graphic in Figure 4-2
illustrates the process. This approach provides a focus on key policy issues, generated thorough
documentation as discussions occurred and decisions were made, and provided a ready-made
report to elected officials and the community-at-large upon completion. The first step was to
identify the policy issues that the committee would address. Since the later policies are often
driven by earlier decisions, some policy issues were redefined as the process moved forward. The
process allowed for this. It also allowed for a final review of the entire body of policy
recommendations at the conclusion of the process, a sort of “sanity check” to ensure that the
recommendations made sense cumulatively as well as individually.
(This space intentionally left blank)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-3 September 29, 2003
Figure 4-2 – Policy Resolution Process
As a result of this process the following policy statement was adopted by the SWAC and will be
recommended to the City Council as the guiding philosophy of the City’s stormwater
management program:
“The mission of the City of Jefferson’s stormwater management program shall be to
protect the community from flooding, erosion, and sedimentation, and to reduce
stormwater pollution of receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable in compliance
with forthcoming federal and state mandates.
This mission will be accomplished by:
1. Acquiring, designing, constructing, improving, operating, maintaining, and regulating
the use of stormwater drainage systems;
2. Improving the level of protection from Missouri River flooding; and
3. Performing various activities that help control the quantity and improve the quality of
stormwater discharged to and conveyed within the stormwater systems of the City.
A comprehensive strategy should guide the program. The master plan for stormwater
capital improvements prepared as part of this project should be formally adopted by the
City to guide future investment in the systems. Adequate, stable, and equitable funding
that is efficiently generated should be instituted that is tied to the program strategy.”
Draft Policy
Paper
Discuss Policy
Paper Draft Policy
Statement
Discuss Policy
Statement
Agree on Policy
Statement
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-4 September 29, 2003
Additionally, the following list of program priorities was established by the SWAC:
Administration, Financial Management, and Program Development
· Complete the Stormwater Master Plan Update which defines the stormwater problems,
system requirements, operational and construction needs, regulatory activities, and
funding requirements.
· Adopt a clear, long-term, comprehensive program and funding strategy as part of the
Stormwater Master Plan Update.
· Establish equitable, adequate, stable, and dedicated funding for the various
components of the stormwater program as they are implemented.
· Plan and execute organizational changes necessary to consolidate overall
responsibility for the stormwater program in one organization as part of the City’s
organizational realignment.
· Conduct public information activities to gain and maintain support for the program.
· Improve program management, record keeping, and other support systems.
Master Planning, Engineering, and Design
· Complete the limited stormwater system inventory being assembled as part of the
Stormwater Master Plan Update, incorporate the inventory into the City’s geographical
information system, and initiate measures to use the inventory in support of
operational, regulatory, and capital improvement programs.
· Complete and adopt the Stormwater Master Plan Update, ensuring that it addresses
both stormwater quantity and quality control, and that it prioritizes capital investment
in specific terms.
· Expedite the design of high-priority construction projects to be funded through the
recently approved bond issue.
Capital Improvements
· Expedite acquisition of land, easements, and rights-of-entry for both capital
improvement and operating needs.
· Expedite construction capital improvements funded by recently approved bonds
· Implement structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
stormwater quality improvement following issuance of the City’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Operations and Maintenance
· Identify routine and remedial maintenance priorities.
· Develop a routine and remedial maintenance strategy that translates the maintenance
priorities into specific operational objectives and service levels.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-5 September 29, 2003
· Define the extent, scope, and level of routine and remedial maintenance services to be
performed to accomplish the operational objectives and service levels and adjust the
existing routine maintenance program as necessary.
· Evaluate cooperative maintenance opportunities with the County and other local and
state government agencies.
· Evaluate privatization of various maintenance activities, develop standard maintenance
contracts, and advertise, select, and utilize vendors of maintenance services.
Regulation and Enforcement
· Review all regulations, codes, and standards related to stormwater management and
stormwater systems and recommend changes.
· Institute an inspection program to verify maintenance of private stormwater systems.
· Review the City’s various regulatory activities associated with the anticipated National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and determine
necessary changes.
Stormwater Quality Management
· Define an overall stormwater quality management strategy to augment the Stormwater
Master Plan Update.
· Estimate the City’s NPDES stormwater quality permit requirements, investigate what
other communities are doing, and prepare a strategy for the City’s permit proposal and
negotiations with the State of Missouri to improve the efficiency and effectiveness as
it is formulated and implemented.
· Identify locally practical BMPs and begin planning for site-specific installations
pursuant to the City’s forthcoming NPDES permit.
· Identify opportunities for retrofitting stormwater quality structural BMPs to existing
systems, identify non-structural BMPs, and develop cooperative programs for working
with private property owners to obtain installation of the BMPs pursuant to the City’s
forthcoming NPDES permit.
4.3 - Stormwater Questionnaire Summary
4.3.1 - Introduction
This section provides a summary of the responses to a stormwater questionnaire that was
developed by BMcD and the City of Jefferson Public Works Department. The questionnaires
were sent to property owners within all watersheds of the city; North Wears Creek, East Wears
Creek, Wears Creek, Boggs Creek, Grays Creek, Missouri River, and Moreau River. The
questionnaire and cover letter provided a brief overview of the project and requested comments
from the property owners regarding stormwater, flooding, and erosion problems within the
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-6 September 29, 2003
watershed. The cover letter and stormwater questionnaire are included in Figure 4-11 (page 4-17)
and Figure 4-12 (page 4-18), respectively.
4.3.2 - Distribution
For the Jefferson City watersheds, the stream network considered by the master plan study
includes those channels having a tributary drainage area equal to or exceeding 160 acres (1/4
square mile). To obtain feedback from the landowners that are prone to stormwater problems,
questionnaires were mailed to property owners within the city. Using the parcel data provided by
the City of Jefferson Public Works Department, a Geographic Information System (GIS) was
used to develop the targeted mailing list to properties within the city. To reduce duplicate
mailings, the list was reviewed to identify instances in which a single owner owned multiple
parcels. In those instances, the owner received one questionnaire on which comments could be
consolidated.
4.3.3 - Questionnaire Responses
This section addresses the responses to specific questions contained in the questionnaire and
summarizes common comments provided by responders.
Approximately 12,800 Stormwater Questionnaires were distributed to the property owners in the
city. Table 4-1 illustrates the distribution of the questionnaires by watershed along with the
response rate for each entity.
Of the 12,800 questionnaires mailed, 2325 responses were received, which represents a return rate
of 18.2 percent. 2239 of the 2325 questionnaires returned can be linked to one of the watersheds
listed below. The abbreviations, (XX), listed next to the watershed name are used in the tables in
the remainder of this section.
TABLE 4-1 – STORMWATER QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION & RESPONSES
Affected Watershed Total Mailed Total Returned % Return
Missouri River (MZ)1079 186 17.2
North Wears Creek (NW)1225 210 17.1
East Wears Creek (EW)1955 313 6.2
Boggs Creek (BG)2199 370 16.8
Grays Creek (GR)741 134 18.1
Grays Creek Trib 1 (GC)1258 235 18.7
Wears Creek (WC)3157 568 18.0
Moreau River (MR)1193 223 18.7
Total 12807 2239
The responses to some of the key points of the questionnaire are summarized in the figures and
tables in the following sections. Where applicable, responses are categorized by watershed.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-7 September 29, 2003
4.3.4 - Flooding Problems
4.3.4.1 - Types of Stormwater Problems
The questionnaire began by inquiring about stormwater problems and asked what types of
stormwater problems have been experienced at the location listed on the questionnaire. 14.0
percent of the respondents stated that they experienced flooding of their home or primary
structure. 2.0 percent stated that they experienced flooding of some type of out-building. 27.7
percent stated that they experienced temporary flooding of their yard. 16.3 percent stated that
they experienced streambank or ditch erosion. 9.7 percent stated they experience street flooding.
48.7 percent stated that they have not experienced any flooding problems. The respondents were
instructed to circle all answers that apply. Figure 4-3 shows the total number of respondents to
each type of flooding problem and Table 4-2 lists the types of flooding by watershed.
Figure 4-3 – Flooding Complaint Responses by Type
Flooding Complaints by Type
326
46
643
380
255
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Primary
Structure
Out
Building
Temp.
Yard
Erosion Street
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-8 September 29, 2003
TABLE 4-2 – TYPES OF STORMWATER PROBLEMS
Types of Flooding MZ NW EW BG GR GC WC MR Total
a. Flooding of home or primary
structure 32 30 44 38 17 41 89 35 326
b. Flooding of out-building 4 6 4 11 3 5 11 2 46
c. Temporary flooding of yard 50 56 84 101 42 75 173 62 643
d. Streambank or ditch erosion 24 33 44 64 28 45 102 40 380
e. Street flooding 25 27 40 33 9 38 57 26 255
f. No stormwater problems 94 106 169 195 61 106 288 113 1132
Total 229 258 385 442 160 310 720 278
4.3.4.2 - Severity of Damage
The next section of the questionnaire inquired about the severity of damage. 11.3 percent of the
respondents experienced no damage or only nuisance flooding problems. 13.6 percent
experienced little damage or mostly cosmetic damage. 15.5 percent experienced moderate
damage or some repairs needed. 3.5 percent experienced severe damage or temporary loss of use.
0.0 percent experienced personal injury or loss of life. The respondents were requested to answer
only one. Table 4-3 lists the severity of damage by watershed.
TABLE 4-3 – SEVERITY OF DAMAGE
Severity MZ NW EW BG GR GC WC MR Total
a. No damage, nuisance flooding 25 21 31 42 21 32 63 28 263
b. Little damage, mostly cosmetic 27 23 41 39 21 38 69 29 287
c. Moderate, some repairs needed 32 36 41 62 15 43 97 34 360
d. Severe, temporary loss of use 5 11 11 10 6 11 22 6 82
e. Extreme, permanent loss of use 0 2 1 1 2 2 7 5 20
f. Personal injury or loss of life 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total 89 93 125 154 65 127 258 102
4.3.4.3 - Amount of Rainfall
The third question in the flooding problem information section inquired about the amount of rain
that causes the stormwater problems. 0.4 percent stated none, it occurs during dry weather. 0.3
percent stated that everyday flow of the stream or creek causes their stormwater problems. 1.9
percent stated that light rains of less than ½” cause their stormwater problems. 10.8 percent stated
that moderate rains between ½” to 1” cause their stormwater problems. 25.2 percent stated that
heavy rains between 1” to 3” cause their stormwater problems. 44.1 percent stated that severe
rain greater than 3” cause their stormwater problems. The respondents were requested to answer
only one. Table 4-4 lists the amount of rain that causes stormwater problems by watershed.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-9 September 29, 2003
TABLE 4-4 – AMOUNT OF RAIN THAT CAUSES THE STORMWATER PROBLEMS
Amount MZ NW EW BG GR GC WC MR Total
a. None, occurs during dry weather 0 1 2 1 0 1 3 1 9
b. Everyday flow of stream 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 8
c. Light rains (less than ½”)6 3 2 8 4 1 13 8 45
d. Moderate rains (½” to 1”)26 21 32 34 15 33 65 25 251
e. Heavy rains (1” to 3”)49 59 80 101 36 70 142 50 587
f. Severe rains (greater than 3”)9 15 17 11 10 18 36 18 134
Total 90 99 134 158 65 124 262 102
4.3.4.4 - Frequency of Flooding
The fourth question in the flooding problem information section asked about the frequency of the
problems occurring over the last 10 years. 6.3 percent of the respondents stated that the
frequency of their flooding is 1 to 2 times in the last 10 years. 9.0 percent of the respondents
stated that the frequency of their flooding is 3 to 5 times in the last 10 years. 8.9 percent stated
that the frequency of flooding is 5 to 10 times in the last 10 years. 19.6 percent stated that the
frequency of flooding is more than 10 times in the last 10 years. Table 4-5 lists the frequency of
flooding by watershed.
TABLE 4-5 – FREQUENCY OF FLOODING IN THE LAST 10 YEARS
Frequency MZ NW EW BG GR GC WC MR Total
a. 1 to 2 instances of flooding 10 15 18 16 13 17 40 17 146
b. 3 to 5 instances of flooding 16 23 31 26 18 25 51 20 210
c. 5 to 10 instances of flooding 21 28 23 30 11 30 41 22 206
d. 10+ instances of flooding 42 32 61 86 21 48 123 43 456
Total 89 98 133 158 63 120 255 102
4.3.5 - Importance of Activities
4.3.5.1 - Ranking of Importance
Section 3 of the questionnaire asked the respondent their opinion on what Jefferson City should
do about stormwater issues. They were asked to rank the activities listed as; very important,
somewhat important, not important, or not sure. Figure 4-4 shows the information in graphical
form and Table 4-6 lists the same activities in table form.
(This space intentionally left blank)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-10 September 29, 2003
Figure 4-4 – Importance of Stormwater Activities
TABLE 4-6 – IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES
Activities Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important Not Sure Total
Minimize erosion during
construction 1100 616 92 91 1899
Invest in routine
maintenance of existing
facilities
1085 608 80 125 1898
Restrict new development in
the floodplain 1282 376 110 136 1904
435
327
539
551
642
764
1092
1282
1085
1100
515
712
654
659
763
655
536
376
608
616
343
384
445
247
227
207
103
80
92
110
260
228
226
575
127
136
125
91
421
334
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Structure Buyout
Grassy Channels
Detention/Retention
Restore Streams
Minimize Paved
Areas
Restrict Develop’t
on Steep Slopes
Setback Ordinance
Restrict Develop’t
in the Floodplain
Routine Maint.
Min. Erosion
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
4
-
6
)
Number of Respondents
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Not Sure
Importance of Stormwater Activities
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-11 September 29, 2003
TABLE 4-6 – IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES
Activities Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important Not Sure Total
Require new development to
be set back from
streambanks
1092 563 103 127 1885
Restrict development on
steep slopes 764 655 260 207 1886
Minimize paved areas,
maximize green space 642 763 226 227 1858
Restore urban streams &
wetlands 551 659 384 247 1841
Use detention/retention
facilities for storage of
stormwater
539 654 228 421 1842
Encourage use of grassy
channels (ditches) rather than
pipes to carry stormwater
327 712 343 445 1827
Buyout structures that have
repeatedly flooded 435 515 575 334 1859
Total 7817 6121 2400 2360
4.3.6 - Program Goal Priorities
The second question of Section 3 of the questionnaire asked the respondent to prioritize the list of
program goals into the respondent’s top 3 priorities. Table 4-7 lists the program goals and their
priority rankings and Figure 4-5 shows the same information graphically.
TABLE 4-7 – PROGRAM GOAL PRIORITIES
Program Goals #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority
Protect water quality 678 292 317
Limit damage to homes and other building 529 497 334
Minimize street flooding 259 379 354
Limit environmental damage to natural systems
such as creeks, streams and wetland areas 191 365 353
Minimize damage to yards from erosion 153 220 260
Minimize temporary ponding on property 57 61 103
Other 47 13 26
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-12 September 29, 2003
Figure 4-5 – Program Goal Priorities
4.3.7 - Finances
4.3.7.1 - Additional Fees
Question 15 on the questionnaire asked the respondent how much a resident, small business, or
large business should be willing to pay per month to achieve the program priorities from the
previous section. Table 4-8 includes the monthly stormwater fees the respondents felt the
residential customer should pay and Figure 4-6 shows the percentages of responses to each fee
range. Table 4-9 includes the monthly stormwater fees the respondents felt a small business
should pay and Figure 4-7 shows the percentages for the fee ranges. Table 4-10 includes the
monthly stormwater fees the respondents felt a large business should pay followed by Figure 4-8
showing the percentage of responses for each fee range.
Program Goal Priorities
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Other
Minimize temp.
ponding on property
Minimize Erosion
Damage
Limit Damage to
Environment
Minimize Street
Flooding
Limit Damage to
Structures
Protect Water
Quality
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Number of Responses
1st
Priority
2nd
Priority
3rd
Priority
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-13 September 29, 2003
Figure 4-6 – Questionnaire Responses - Stormwater Fees for Residential Customers
TABLE 4-8 – QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES – RESIDENTIAL FEE
Amount Ranking
a. $1 to $4 1258
b. $4 to $7 297
c. $7 to $10 72
Figure 4-7 – Questionnaire Responses - Stormwater Fees for Small Business Customers
Stormwater Fee Responses-Residential
78%
18%
4%
$1-$4/mnth
$4-$7/mnth
$7-$10/mnth
Stormwater Fee Responses –Small Business
50%
34%
12%
4%
$1-$10/mnth
$10-$25/mnth
$25-$50/mnth
$50-$100/mnth
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-14 September 29, 2003
TABLE 4-9 – QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES - SMALL BUSINESS FEES
Amount Ranking
a. $1 to $10 669
b. $10 to $25 454
c. $25 to $50 153
d. $50 to $100 52
Figure 4-8 – Questionnaire Responses - Stormwater Fees for Large Business Customers
TABLE 4-10 – QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES - LARGE BUSINESS FEES
Amount Ranking
a. $1 to $25 423
b. $25 to $100 323
c. $100 to $250 338
d. $250 to $500 241
4.3.8 - Funding
The respondents were asked to choose a funding option to help fund stormwater activities for
operations and maintenance of the stormwater system and for funding of large stormwater
projects (Capital Improvements). Table 4-11 gives the ranking of the 4 funding options for the
operations and maintenance of the stormwater system and shown by percentages of each response
category in Figure 4-9. Table 4-12 lists the funding options for the funding of large stormwater
STORMWATER FEE RESPONSES –
LARGE BUSINESS
32%
24%
26%
18%
$1-$25/mnth
$25-$100/mnth
$100-$250/mnth
$250-$500/mnth
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-15 September 29, 2003
projects and their ranking and Figure 4-10 shows the responses as percentages of the total
received.
Figure 4-9 – Questionnaire Responses - Funding Options for Operations and Maintenance
TABLE 4-11 – FUNDING OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Funding Option Ranking
a. Sales tax 498
b. Property tax 196
c. User fee/ Utility based on amount of stormwater runoff generated,
similar to a monthly water/sewer bill 598
d. Fees for new development 478
(This space intentionally left blank)
FUNDING OPTIONS - O&M
28%
11%
34%
27%
Sales Tax
Property Tax
Utility Fee
New Devl’t
Fees
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-16 September 29, 2003
Figure 4-10 – Questionnaire Responses – Funding of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
TABLE 4-12 – FUNDING OF CIP (LARGE STORMWATER PROJECTS)
Funding Option Ranking
e. Sales tax 518
f. Property tax 132
g. User fee/Utility based on amount of stormwater runoff generated,
similar to a monthly water/sewer bill 477
h. Fees for new development 595
4.3.9 - Additional Comments
A complete list of the questionnaire results and additional comments along with other areas of
concern regarding stormwater are available in Attachment 4-1 at the end of this section.
FUNDING OPTIONS - CIP
30%
7%
28%
35%Sales Tax
Property Tax
Utility Fee
New Devel't
Fees
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
July 9, 2001
JEFFERSON CITY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Jefferson invites you to participate in improving stormwater conditions throughout the
City and surrounding area. By answering a few questions on the enclosed questionnaire, you
can help us to identify areas of the community that experience flooding and/or erosion problems.
The questionnaire also asks for your opinions regarding stormwater policies and funding. So
even if your property doesn’t experience stormwater problems, please fill out and return the
postage-paid questionnaire within the next two (2) weeks.
In addition to the questionnaire, several public meetings will be held to gather more information
about stormwater issues. Three meetings will be held to discuss stormwater problems in various
areas of the City and surrounding community. Please plan to attend one of the meetings to
discuss your concerns.
Thursday, July 26, 2001 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. at City Hall (City Council Representatives from Wards
1 & 5 will be present to answer your questions.)
Thursday, August 30, 2001 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. at City Hall (City Council Representatives from
Ward 3 will be present to answer your questions.)
Thursday, September 27, 2001 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. at City Hall (City Council Representatives from
Wards 2 & 4 will be present to answer your questions.)
The format is “open house” so citizens can come and go anytime between 6:30 and 8:30 p.m. on
the designated dates. The meetings will all be similar in content, so you need not come to all
three scheduled meetings. Information from the meetings and questionnaire will be used along
with data from field investigations by a Stormwater Management Advisory Committee, city staff
and engineering consultants to develop a new Stormwater Management Plan.
The City has hired the engineering firms of Burns & McDonnell (BMcD) and Central Missouri
Professional Services (CMPS) to assist in the project. Members of the project team, including
City staff and BMcD and CMPS personnel, will soon be in your area, measuring and gathering
information on streets, yards and drainage areas. Please allow them to access your property.
The information provided on the questionnaire you return will help with the field investigation and
development of this long-range plan.
Should you have any questions, please contact Marty Brose, Public Works Director at 573-634-
6440 or MBrose@jeffcitymo.org. Thank you in advance for your participation in this important
planning process.
Sincerely,
Tom Rackers
Mayor
Figure 4-11 - Questionnaire Cover Letter
Project Website:
http :techsolutions.burnsmcd.com/jeffcity Return this sheet in the pre-paid postage envelope
Jefferson City, Missouri
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRORAM
CITIZEN QUESTIONNAIRE
The City of Jefferson is preparing a Stormwater Management Program. We need your help in identifying stormwater
problems and developing future policies. Please complete the following questionnaire and return both blue sheets within
2 weeks using the pre-paid postage envelope provided.
Section 1 – Property Information
Your name: Your Phone Number:
(optional)(optional)
Property Address:
1. Which of the following best describes the property at this address? (circle one)
a. single-family residential
b. multi-family residential
c. commercial
d. industrial
e. undeveloped
f. water pollution
g. Other: _____________________
2. How long have you been at this location?
a. Less than a year
b. 1-5 years
c. 6-8 years
d. 9-10 years
e. more than 10 years
Section 2 – Information about your flooding problem(s)
3. What types of stormwater problems have you experienced at this location? (circle all that apply)
a. flooding of home or primary structure
b. flooding of out-building
c. temporary flooding of yard
d. streambank or ditch erosion
e. street flooding
f. no stormwater problems (go to question 10.)
4. How severe was the damage? (circle one)
a. no damage, nuisance flooding
b. little damage, mostly cosmetic
c. moderate, some repairs needed
d. severe, temporary loss of use
e. extreme, permanent loss of use
f. personal injury or loss of life
5.How much rain does it take to cause the stormwater problems? (circle only one )
a. none, it occurs during dry weather
b. everyday flow of stream or creek
c. light rains (less than ½”)
d. moderate rains (½” – 1”)
e. heavy rains (1”-3”)
f. severe rains (greater than 3”)
6. How many times have the problems occurred over the last 10 years (or time you have owned the property if less than
10 years)? (circle only one )
a. 1-2
b. 3-5
c. 5-10
d. more than 10 times
Figure 4-12 - Questionnaire
Project Website:
http :techsolutions.burnsmcd.com/jeffcity Return this sheet in the pre-paid postage envelope
7. If home or primary structure was flooded, where did the water come from? (circle all that apply)
a. no structure was flooded
b. flow across the yard
c. flow from the neighbor’s yard
d. an overflowing ditch/creek/stream
(too much water)
e. an overflowing ditch/creek/stream
(debris blocking ditch/creek/stream)
f. overflow from the street
g. water ponding in a low spot in the yard
h. water below the surface of the yard
i. other:
8. If home or primary structure was flooded, how did the water enter the structure? (circle all that apply)
a. primary structure was not flooded
b. basement window
c. walk-in basement door
d. dug-in stairway and door
e. floor drain
f. between basement slab and walls
g. other:
9. If yard or outbuilding was flooded, where did the water come from? (circle all that apply)
a. no yard or outbuilding was flooded
b. flow across the yard
c. flow from the neighbor’s yard
d. an overflowing ditch/creek/stream
(too much water)
e. an overflowing ditch/creek/stream
(debris blocking ditch/creek/stream)
f. overflow from the street
g. water ponding in a low spot in the yard
h. water below the surface of the yard
i. other:
10. If there are locations other than the property described above that flood, please give the approximate location(s) (If
none, go to question 13):
1. 2. 3.
11. What type of flooding occurs at these locations?
a. Not aware of flooding at other locations
b. yard flooding
c. street flooding
d. structure flooding
12. Where does the water come from to flood the other locations described in Question 10?
a. Not aware of flooding at other locations
b. flow across the yard
c. flow from the neighbor’s yard
d. an overflowing ditch/creek/stream
(too much water)
e. an overflowing ditch/creek/stream
(debris blocking ditch/creek/stream)
f. overflow from the street
g. water ponding in a low spot in the yard
h. water below the surface of the yard
i. other:
13. Please list any projects you know of where the City has repaired/corrected a storm drainage related problem.
Address/Location: Describe repair:
Project Website:
http :techsolutions.burnsmcd.com/jeffcity Return this sheet in the pre-paid postage envelope
Section 3 – Your opinions on what Jefferson City should do about stormwater issues.
14. How important is it for the City to undertake the following activities? (circle only one number for each activity)
Very Somewhat Not Not
Important Important Important Sure
a. Encourage use of grassy channels (ditches)
rather than pipes to carry stormwater .................................1 2 3 9
b. Minimize paved areas, maximize green space .....................1 2 3 9
c. Restrict new development in the floodplain ..........................1 2 3 9
d. Restrict development on steep slopes .................................1 2 3 9
e. Restore urban streams & wetlands ......................................1 2 3 9
f. Require new development to be set back from streambanks.1 2 3 9
g. Use detention/retention facilities for storage of stormwater....1 2 3 9
h. Invest in routine maintenance of existing facilities ................1 2 3 9
i. Buyout structures that have repeatedly flooded 1 2 3 9
j. Minimize erosion during construction ..................................1 2 3 9
15. What do you think should be the top 3 priorities of the program? (Write in the letters below for your priorities)
a. Minimize temporary ponding on property
b. Minimize street flooding
c. Minimize damage to yards from erosion
d. Limit damage to homes and other buildings
e. Limit environmental damage to natural systems
such as creeks, streams and wetland areas
f. Protect water quality
g. Other:
_____ 1st Priority _____2nd Priority ______ 3rd Priority
16. How much additional should a resident, small business and large business pay per month to achieve these
stormwater program priorities? (Circle only one for each category)
Residential Home
a. $1-$4 per month
b. $4-$7 per month
c. $7-$10 per month
Small Business
a. $1-$10 per month
b. $10-$25 per month
c. $25-$50 per month
d. $50-$100 per month
Large Business
e. $1-$25 per month
f. $25-$100 per month
g. $100-$250 per month
h. $250-$500 per month
Project Website:
http :techsolutions.burnsmcd.com/jeffcity Return this sheet in the pre-paid postage envelope
17. To help fund stormwater activities, there are several potential funding options. Please circle one (1) under each
category that you would most prefer to see used in Jefferson City
For Operations and Maintenance
of the Stormwater System:
a. Sales tax
b. Property tax
c. User fee/Utility based on amount of stormwater
runoff generated, similar to a monthly water/sewer
bill
d. Fees for new development
For funding of large Stormwater Projects
(Capital Improvement Projects):
e. Sales tax
f. Property tax
g. User fee/Utility based on amount of stormwater
runoff generated, similar to a monthly water/sewer
bill
h. Fees for new development
18. Additional comments or other areas of concern regarding stormwater management. (Attach additional sheets to
Pages 2 and 3 if necessary. Please reference the question number when adding additional comments, if applicable.)
This concludes the questionnaire. Thank you for your time.
Please return your completed questionnaire in the next two (2) weeks
To mail questionnaire, simply enclose both blue pages of the questionnaire in the pre-paid postage envelope
and drop into the mail.
Or, bring it with you to one of the informational meetings mentioned in the cover letter.
Or just drop it by City Hall, 325 East McCarty Street during normal business hours.
Please return both blue pages of the questionnaire in the pre-paid postage envelope.
You may keep the cover letter as a reminder of the upcoming meetings and other contact information.
If the pre-paid postage envelope is lost, please mail to:
Burns & McDonnell
Attn: Jeff Brizendine
9400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64114
Thanks for helping make the City of Jefferson a great place to live.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-22 September 29, 2003
4.4 - Ward Meetings
The next element of the public involvement and input was a series of ward meetings. The city is
divided into five wards, or districts, each represented by two council members. The ward
meetings were held and council representatives from each ward were invited to attend a specific
meeting. In order to accommodate all interested parties, the meetings were open to citizens from
all wards. Encouraging council member participation served not only to help draw interest, but
also to get the council members involved in the project. The ward meetings were set-up to allow
citizens to meet with project staff, discuss their local problems, and identify those problems on a
map of their ward. This input will be used to verify results of the modeling efforts later in the
project.
4.5 - Internet Web Site
The public involvement and input effort also include the formation of a project website. This
website (http://gis.burnsmcd.com/jeffcity) was hosted on the Burns & McDonnell server, but was
accessible by the general public. The website contains, or has contained, the following
information regarding the project:
· Project Overview – gave a brief description of the project elements
· Key Contacts – a list of project personnel that could be contacted regarding the project
· Stormwater Questionnaire – a copy of the stormwater questionnaire was available
for download and completion; a summary of the results was also posted
· Stormwater Advisory Committee – a list of SWAC meeting agendas and minutes
were posted on the website as were significant documents produced by the SWAC
· Public Meetings – public meeting announcements were posted here
· FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions with regards to the project were answered
· Other Documents – project significant documents were posted here
· Meeting Information – agendas, maps, and meeting minutes were posted here
· Status Reports – project status reports were posted here
This website allowed the general public and project team members to access various data about
the project, to stay updated on its progress, and stay informed about stormwater management in
Jefferson City.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
4-23 September 29, 2003
Attachment 4-1 – Access database of Questionnaire Responses
(This attachment can be found in a separate file on the Compact Disc being viewed.)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 5
Data Collection
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 5 - Data Collection ..........................................................................................................5-1
5.1 - Field Surveys .....................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 - Bridges .........................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 - Culverts ........................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3 - Manholes/Catch Basins/Inlets ......................................................................................5-2
5.1.4 - Cross-Sections ..............................................................................................................5-2
5.2 - Project Photographs...........................................................................................................5-2
5.3 - Previous Studies ................................................................................................................5-2
5.4 - Additional Data .................................................................................................................5-3
List of Tables
No tables used in this section
List of Figures
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
5-1 September 29, 2003
Section 5 - Data Collection
5.1 - Field Surveys
Field surveys of the stormwater drainage system were conducted by Central Missouri
Professional Services (CMPS). Surveys collected the necessary hydraulic data for each
significant drainage structure and manhole/catch basin/inlet identified within the study area.
Significant drainage structures were identified by the following criteria:
· 24” diameter (or equivalent capacity);
· structures draining significant areas of undeveloped property;
· structures within proximity of buildings or other significant land objects.
Manhole/catch basin/inlet criteria were as follows:
· 24” diameter (or equivalent capacity) conduit entering or leaving the structure;
· structures draining significant areas of undeveloped property;
· structures within proximity of buildings or other significant land objects.
As can be noted above, engineering judgement was used to determine those structures that did
not meet the numbers criteria, but were seen necessary to accurately model the stormwater
system.
A brief description of the field survey is provided below.
CMPS used a combination of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and total station technology to
obtain the required elevations for each drainage structure. Elevation information for each
structure was collected in the field via the data collector. Additional non-elevation information,
such as shape, material, condition, type, etc. was collected on paper data collection sheets. The
data collected at the various types of drainage structures is listed below.
5.1.1 - Bridges
· Upstream and downstream channel cross-section elevations
· Upstream cross-section of bridge
· Coordinates for recorded elevations
· Profile of bridge decking
· Pier width and shape
· Other pertinent structure info as necessary
· Digital photographs consisting of upstream face, looking upstream, looking at the
downstream face, looking downstream
5.1.2 - Culverts
· Upstream and downstream stream cross-sections
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
5-2 September 29, 2003
· Opening and length dimensions
· Culvert shape and material
· Type of headwall
· Roadway centerline profile
· Coordinates for recorded elevation
· Other pertinent structure info as necessary
· Digital photographs consisting of upstream face, looking upstream, looking at the
downstream face, looking downstream.
5.1.3 - Manholes/Catch Basins/Inlets
· Physical structure attributes (type, shape, size, material, condition)
· Invert condition
· Inlet deflectors
· Throat size
· Connecting pipe physical attributes (position, size, material, shape, condition, invert depth,
upstream structure)
· End pipe physical attributes (type, condition, shape, material, size, upstream structure)
· Connecting channel (bed material, floor material, bottom width, top width, depth, upstream
structure
· Maintenance needs
· Other pertinent structure info as necessary
· Digital photographs looking at the structure and looking into the structure.
5.1.4 - Cross-Sections
Stream cross-sections at selected locations located throughout the watershed were used to verify
the accuracy of the contour data and where more detailed information was needed.
5.2 - Project Photographs
As part of the scope of the project, digital photographs were taken of each hydrologic structure
(i.e. bridges, culverts, manholes, catch basins, inlets) studied during the project. The specific
types of photographs are described above in the breakdown of structures.
5.3 - Previous Studies
Several studies and investigations had been completed prior to the commencement of this
project. Historical data was referenced from the following studies:
· Information to House Subcommittee on Water Resources Public Works and Transportation
Committee, Regarding Corps of Engineers Flood Control Program for Wears Creek Area,
Jefferson City, MO.; Housing Authority of Jefferson City, Missouri; no date.
· City of Jefferson, Missouri, Storm Drainage Improvements, Report 3; Horner & Shifrin
Consulting Engineers; April 1963.
· Flood Plain Information, Wears Creek, Jefferson City, Missouri; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Prepared for the State of Missouri Water Resources Board); April 1969.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
5-3 September 29, 2003
· Master Plan, Flood Protection of the Lower Reaches of Wears Creek, Jefferson City,
Missouri; R.W. Booker & Associates, Inc (for the Housing Authority of the City of Jefferson,
Missouri); May 1970.
· Flood Insurance Study, City of Jefferson Missouri, Cole and Callaway Counties; Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Administration; October 1979.
· Flood Insurance Study, City of Jefferson Missouri, County of Cole; Missouri, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Administration; June 1981.
· Comprehensive Plan Update, City of Jefferson, Missouri; Landform Urban Plan Services;
March 1996.
· Wears Creek, Jefferson City, Missouri, General Design Memorandum, Phase 1; U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers; June 1986.
· City of Jefferson, Missouri, Stormwater Management Plan, Black & Veatch Engineers-
Architects (Prepared for Department of Public Works); 1986.
· Report on Frog Hollow Dam and Detention Pond (DRAFT); Black & Veatch Engineers-
Architects (for City of Jefferson , Missouri Department of Public Works, January 1988.
· City of Jefferson, Missouri, Bald Hill Road Storm Drainage Study; Miller Associates,
Engineers, Planners, Architects, Inc.; November 1993.
· Storm Water Modeling of East Tributary of Grays and West Branch of Boggs Creek
Drainage Basins for City of Jefferson Missouri; S&V Consultants, Inc.; May 1996.
· Wears Creek Basin, Jefferson City, Missouri, Flood Control and Ecosystem Restoration
Reconnaissance Study, Section 905(B) Report (DRAFT); U. S. Army Corps of Engineers;
October 2002.
· Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, Plans for Proposed State Highway, (date
unknown)
5.4 - Additional Data
The following additional data sources were provided by City staff and consulted during
completion of the project:
· Floodplain Management / Development Information and Application
· Stormwater Complaint List
· City of Jefferson Participation Policy in Residential Stormwater Improvements
· Stormwater Project Selection Policy
· Storm Water Modeling Presentation, East Gray’s Creek and West Boggs Creek
· City of Independence Retention Volume Method
· City of Jefferson, Missouri Storm Drainage Design Manual
· City of Jefferson, Missouri Stormwater Ordinance
· Thoroughfare Plan, Executive Summary, Larkin Associates (data unknown)
· Floodway Maps, Jefferson City and Cole County
· Firm Maps, Jefferson City and Cole County
· Floodway and Firm Maps for Jefferson City, in Callaway County
· Preliminary Floodplain Maps, Corps of Engineers Flood Insurance (New Study)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
5-4 September 29, 2003
· Wastewater Collection System, Master Plan, Sverdrup Civil, Inc., May 2000
· General Reevaluation Report & Environmental Assessment, Missouri River Levee System,
Unit L142, Jefferson City, Missouri, US Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District,
April 2001
· 1992 Airport Master Plan Update, Jefferson City Memorial Airport, Bucher Willis & Ratliff,
March 1995
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 6
Geographic Information System
(GIS)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 6 - Geographic Information System................................................................................6-1
6.1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................................6-1
6.2 - Data Sources ......................................................................................................................6-1
6.2.1 - City Supplied................................................................................................................6-1
6.2.2 - Engineer Supplied ........................................................................................................6-1
6.3 - TIN Generation..................................................................................................................6-1
6.4 - Database ............................................................................................................................6-2
List of Tables
No tables used in this section
List of Figures
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
6-1 September 29, 2003
Section 6 - Geographic Information System
6.1 - Introduction
The use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) was a key to the overall outcome of the
project. The amount of data gathered for and generated as a result of the study and the
importance of the spatial relationships of each of those pieces of data to each other made data
management vitally important. The GIS used during this study allowed the data to be managed,
used and presented in an organized fashion.
The GIS software used during this project was ESRI’s ArcView 3.2® and ArcGIS 8.2®. Both of
these packages would produce data compatible with the City’s ESRI 3.2 Automated Information
System (AIS). The AIS is a customized interface used by the City of Jefferson in its GIS
environment. It does not adversely impact the exchange of data between the programs; it is a
tool used for retrieving and manipulating the data.
This section describes several phases of the GIS usage in the project. It is also used in other
areas of the project. Those uses specific to other areas of the project will be discussed in the
appropriate sections.
6.2 - Data Sources
6.2.1 - City Supplied
The City furnished the following data sources to the project team for inclusion in the GIS:
1. Aerial photography
2. 2-foot contour mapping
3. Parcel data (supplied by Cole County)
4. Land use / land planning data
6.2.2 - Engineer Supplied
The project team supplied the following data for inclusion in the GIS:
1. Major hydraulic structure (bridges and culverts) data: location, elevations, physical attribute
data
2. Minor hydraulic structure (manholes, curb inlets, system inlets/outlets, pipes): location,
elevations, physical attribute data
3. Soil type mapping
4. Hydrologic/hydraulic modeling parameters and results
6.3 - TIN Generation
The first step in the data processing was to generate a triangulated irregular network (TIN). The
TIN was created from the 2-foot contour data provided by the City. The TIN was created by
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
6-2 September 29, 2003
using the 2-foot contour data and ESRI’s 3D Analyst® extension. The TIN was then used as a
digital terrain model (DTM) for each watershed studied. A DTM is a three dimensional
representation of the watershed’s topography. The purpose of the DTM was to allow computer
software to perform the intricate tasks previously done by hand. The information contained in
the DTM allowed watershed boundaries, stream networks, watershed slopes, etc., to be
determined digitally. Upon generation, each TIN was reviewed for accuracy, incorrect
parameters and missing data. Any discrepancies were corrected prior to using the DTM for
further modeling.
6.4 - Database
The advantage of a GIS is the ability to attach data to an object on the screen. In the past,
computer aided drafting and drawing (CADD) was used to create computerized versions of
engineering drawings (maps, layouts, parts, schematics, etc.). However, the lines representing
these objects were just that, lines on a computer screen. Any needed information associated with
that line, such as material, location, type, etc., had to either be listed in a note on the drawing or
in a separate document. This made it cumbersome to find information on a specific element.
With the GIS, this necessary information can be “attached” to the object on the screen. This
data, called an attribute, is actually stored in a database. This information now makes our
element on the screen “intelligent”, being able to give us the information we need right from the
element itself. Additionally, the “geographic” in GIS allows us to put these intelligent objects
into spatial relationships to one another. Assuming reference planes are correct, we can then lay
multiple sheets of information, called “themes” in ESRI language, over each other. One example
would be combing an aerial photograph with a stormwater system layout.
Since the intelligence of the object on the computer screen is dependent on the database that is
supporting it, the population of the database becomes an important part of the overall project.
The following data was entered into the GIS in the manner described:
1. Contour data and aerial photography: imported directly from Jefferson City staff supplied
files
2. Major hydraulic structure data: location and elevation data imported directly from CMPS
field survey data; physical attribute data imported as an ESRI Arc shapefile generated by
CMPS
3. Minor hydraulic structure data: location and elevation data imported directly from CMPS
field survey data; physical attribute data recorded in hard copy format by CMPS field crews
inputted by BMcD staff.
4. Modeling results data: selected attributes from modeling results imported by BMcD staff.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 7
Hydrologic Modeling
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 7 - Hydrologic Modeling.................................................................................................7-1
7.1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................................7-1
7.2 - Model Development ..........................................................................................................7-1
7.3 - Numbering Scheme ...........................................................................................................7-2
7.3.1 - Sub-watersheds ............................................................................................................7-2
7.3.2 - System Elements ..........................................................................................................7-2
7.4 - Rainfall and Runoff Modeling...........................................................................................7-2
7.4.1 - General.........................................................................................................................7-2
7.4.2 - Precipitation Data .........................................................................................................7-3
7.4.2.1 - Design Storm ..........................................................................................................7-3
7.4.3 - Runoff Factors..............................................................................................................7-6
7.4.3.1 - Soils ........................................................................................................................7-6
7.4.3.2 - Land Use .................................................................................................................7-6
7.4.3.3 - Existing Conditions ................................................................................................7-6
7.4.3.4 - Future Conditions ...................................................................................................7-6
7.4.3.5 - Curve Numbers .......................................................................................................7-6
7.4.4 - Time of Concentration .................................................................................................7-8
7.4.5 - Conveyance Routing ....................................................................................................7-8
7.4.6 - Model Calibration ........................................................................................................7-9
List of Tables
Table 7-1 – Jefferson City TP-40 Rainfall ...................................................................................7-3
Table 7-2 – Parameters Used in Runoff Calculations for Jefferson City, Missouri.....................7-7
Table 7-3 – Manning’s “n” Values ..............................................................................................7-9
Table 7-4 – Study Flow Comparisons........................................................................................7-10
List of Figures
Figure 7-1 – SCS Type II, 6-hr. storm data..................................................................................7-5
Figure 7-2 – Graph of Unit Acre Discharges for Wears Creek System.....................................7-11
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-1 September 29, 2003
Section 7 - Hydrologic Modeling
7.1 - Introduction
Hydrologic modeling for this study was accomplished using a commercial version of the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). The
commercial version used was XP-SWMM version 8.52. The XP-SWMM package’s basic
engine is the EPA SWMM model; however it has numerous improvements. The main
improvement is an extensive graphical user interface (GUI). This GUI simply facilitates and
greatly eases the effort needed to input and manipulate data within the EPA SWMM model. XP-
SWMM contains an abundance of graphical representations of the various inputs needed for the
model and allows the user to view the input data in the graphical environment. This allows the
user a more “visual” way of building the model, giving the modeler the opportunity to “see”
what is being “built” within the computer model. The complicated nature of EPA-SWMM
modeling is also aided by this GUI.
XP-SWMM components are contained in modules called “blocks”. The XP-SWMM’s Runoff
Block was used to generate the hydrology for this project. The Runoff block generates stream
flow or runoff hydrographs at desired locations for specific storm events. The model simulates
surface runoff within an area and associates the resulting hydrograph with a “node”. A node is
SWMM’s definition of a place of interest within the system (a manhole, inlet, junction box)
where flow can enter the system. Runoff is simulated based on the specific input parameters for
each component of the process.
For this study, the Runoff Block was used to generate hydrographs to determine the peak flows
at each of the drainage system components for various return periods, depending on the structure
and the flow it was required to pass. The Extran (now called “Hydraulic”) block was used to
route the individual hydrographs through the system.
It should be noted here that the hydrology, as with the rest of the modeling related efforts in this
study, were performed for a planning level analysis of the stormwater system. Planning level
studies are to be used for that very purpose; planning the needs of the stormwater system.
Specific design calculations should not be drawn from these results. In order to keep the study
economical and useful, generalizations had to be made due to lack of data or in order to facilitate
mass operations. While most of these situations have valid, real data, collection of such would
drive the cost up a considerable percentage.
7.2 - Model Development
The study area for this project was divided into seven major watersheds:
· Boggs Creek
· East Wears Creek
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-2 September 29, 2003
· Wears Creek
· North Wears Creek
· Grays Creek Tributary #1
· Moreau River
· Missouri River Area
Boggs, East Wears, Wears and North Wears Creeks were studied in their entirety as part of this
study. Hydraulic structure data was collected in the areas of the Moreau River and Grays Creek
Tributary #1 watersheds within the city limits, but will be hydrologically and hydraulically
modeled during Phase 3. No data was collected in the Missouri River area. Due to a lack of
substantial stormwater systems, this area was removed from the project.
7.3 - Numbering Scheme
7.3.1 - Sub-watersheds
Sub-watersheds were numbered based on the element they were connected to. The element the
sub-watershed is connected to is often referred to as a “pour point”, or a point at which a
particular sub-watershed discharges, or pours, into the system. These points are the nodes
referred to in the XP-SWMM discussions.
7.3.2 - System Elements
With regards to the numbering used within the XP-SWMM model, no intelligent numbering was
used. In other words, a number would offer no information to the user as to location of the
element. With the use of a GIS on the project, it was deemed unnecessary to use an intelligent
numbering system. Using GIS allows modeling elements to be located by multiple attributes as
well as visually and spatially using a map.
Consecutive numbering was used when delineating system components, but no effort was made
to coordinate number series with locations within the watershed.
The only differentiator within the numbering system was the use of “P” for pipe conduit and “C”
for channel conduit.
7.4 - Rainfall and Runoff Modeling
7.4.1 - General
The NRCS rainfall-runoff relationship (the curve-number model) was used to compute the
incremental runoff from each subarea. A five-minute time interval was used for all runoff and
streamflow computations. In the NRCS model, the cumulative runoff at any given time during
the storm depends on the cumulative rainfall at that time and the runoff curve number for the
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-3 September 29, 2003
subarea. The runoff curve number depends on the amount of impervious area, land use, the
hydrologic classification of the soil (Hydrologic Group A, B, C or D) and the antecedent soil-
moisture condition. The NRCS recognizes three standard antecedent moisture conditions: AMC
I, AMC II and AMC III. AMC I is an abnormally dry condition, AMC II is an average moisture
condition, and AMC III is an abnormally wet condition.
7.4.2 - Precipitation Data
7.4.2.1 - Design Storm
Because actual rain events can vary in intensity, speed, duration and rain depth, even within the
same rain event, accepted practice is to use a “design” storm. The design storm used in the
modeling for this project was the 6-hour storm for all events modeled in this study. The 6-hour
storm was used due to its approximate equality to the time of concentration for the Wears Creek
watershed, the longest time of concentration, approximately 4 hours. While other times of
concentration exist for the other watersheds, it is common practice to use a single storm duration
event for a planning study of this type.
Several different inputs are used to form the design storm in XP-SWMM. They are listed below:
7.4.2.1.1 - TP-40
Technical Paper No. 40 Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States (TP-40) was used to
determine the rainfall depths for various storm recurrence periods and various time periods. The
TP-40 chart is shown below:
TABLE 7-1 – JEFFERSON CITY TP-40 RAINFALL
Depth (in.)
Minutes Hours 1-yr 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr
5 0.083 0.450 0.537 0.600 0.694 0.767 0.840
10 0.167 0.710 0.866 0.978 1.141 1.268 1.395
15 0.25 0.890 1.095 1.241 1.452 1.616 1.780
30 0.50 1.189 1.496 1.712 2.021 2.261 2.500
60 1 1.500 1.915 2.203 2.614 2.933 3.250
120 2 1.700 2.000 2.500 2.900 3.300 3.750 4.200
180 3 1.850 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 4.150 4.650
360 6 2.250 2.650 3.300 3.850 4.450 4.900 5.550
720 12 2.600 3.250 3.850 4.550 5.200 5.800 6.550
1440 24 3.000 3.500 4.5500 5.350 6.100 6.700 7.500
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-4 September 29, 2003
7.4.2.1.2 - 6-hr. SCS Type II Design Storm
A 6-hr. SCS Type II design storm distribution at 7.5 minute intervals was used. Data is shown in
Figure 7-1. The 6-hr. storm was used due to its approximation of the time of concentration of the
Wears Creek system (approx. 4 hrs.)
Intensity
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 2 4 6 8
Time (hrs)
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Intensity
Incremental depth
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0 2 4 6 8
Time (hrs)
De
p
t
h
(
i
n
)
incremental depth
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-5 September 29, 2003
Time
(hrs.)
Intensity
(in./hr.)
Incremental
Depth (in.)
Cumulative
Depth (in.)
Time
(hrs.)
Intensity
(in./hr.)
Incremental
Depth (in.)
Cumulative
Depth (in.)
0.125 0.04 0.005 0.005 3.125 0.576 0.072 0.735
0.25 0.048 0.006 0.011 3.25 0.296 0.037 0.772
0.375 0.04 0.005 0.016 3.375 0.216 0.027 0.799
0.5 0.048 0.006 0.022 3.5 0.168 0.021 0.82
0.625 0.048 0.006 0.028 3.625 0.144 0.018 0.838
0.75 0.048 0.006 0.034 3.75 0.128 0.016 0.854
0.875 0.056 0.007 0.041 3.875 0.112 0.014 0.868
1 0.056 0.007 0.048 4 0.096 0.012 0.88
1.125 0.056 0.007 0.055 4.125 0.096 0.012 0.892
1.25 0.064 0.008 0.063 4.25 0.088 0.011 0.903
1.375 0.064 0.008 0.071 4.375 0.08 0.01 0.913
1.5 0.072 0.009 0.08 4.5 0.072 0.009 0.922
1.625 0.072 0.009 0.089 4.625 0.064 0.008 0.93
1.75 0.072 0.009 0.098 4.75 0.064 0.008 0.938
1.875 0.088 0.011 0.109 4.875 0.056 0.007 0.945
2 0.088 0.011 0.12 5 0.056 0.007 0.952
2.125 0.104 0.013 0.133 5.125 0.048 0.006 0.958
2.25 0.112 0.014 0.147 5.25 0.048 0.006 0.964
2.375 0.128 0.016 0.163 5.375 0.048 0.006 0.97
2.5 0.144 0.018 0.181 5.5 0.048 0.006 0.976
2.625 0.184 0.023 0.204 5.625 0.048 0.006 0.982
2.75 0.248 0.031 0.235 5.75 0.048 0.006 0.988
2.875 0.384 0.048 0.283 5.875 0.048 0.006 0.994
3 3.04 0.38 0.663 6 0.048 0.006 1
Figure 7-1 – SCS Type II, 6-hr. storm data
Cumulative Depth
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (hrs)
De
p
t
h
(
i
n
)
Series1
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-6 September 29, 2003
7.4.3 - Runoff Factors
Several physical attributes of the ground cover and underlying soil were used in the Runoff
Block. They are as follows:
7.4.3.1 - Soils
The soil survey map used to delineate the various hydrologic soil groups was obtained from the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The map was not available on-line, so a hard
copy map was obtained and the hydrologic soil groups were then transferred to an aerial
photograph. The delineation lines were then digitized into electronic format. This map will be
included as part of the GIS deliverables.
7.4.3.2 - Land Use
A zoning map was obtained from City staff that was a result of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan
developed for the City. This map was refined and used as a guide for determining land uses in
the City. Two types of maps had to be produced, one indicating present land-usage (existing
conditions) and one predicting future land use (future conditions). These maps will be included
as part of the GIS deliverables.
7.4.3.3 - Existing Conditions
The existing conditions map was produced by overlaying the 1996 zoning plan on the aerial
photos. Large areas of undeveloped land were then sub-divided from their 1996 zoning plan
designations and given an open space or forested land designation. A cursory review of the
remaining zoning areas was performed to see if the actual land use matched the zoning
designation. Substantial areas where there was disagreement between the actual land use and the
zoning designation were modified to depict the actual land usage. All other areas were assumed
to have a land use equivalent to its zoning designation.
7.4.3.4 - Future Conditions
The future land use conditions assumed full development of a zoned area per its 1996
designation. Several areas were noted by staff that have been designated key redevelopment
areas and those areas have been assigned land uses equivalent to their proposed zoning
designation.
7.4.3.5 - Curve Numbers
Curves numbers were calculated in accordance with SCS methods, specifically those detailed in
the SCS National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 41. Curve numbers were calculated in two
1 Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1985.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-7 September 29, 2003
different instances. One was for each combination of soil type and land use within a sub-
watershed. The other was for the combination of all the soil type/land use combinations within
the sub-watershed.
The first curve numbers calculated, those for each combination of land use and soil type within
each sub-watershed, are considered “composite curve runoff numbers” (CNc) for that portion of
the sub-watershed. (The term “composite curve runoff number” is used in the SCS procedure for
calculating the curve number. In order to facilitate future reference by the reader to the SCS
method, this terminology will be used.). The equation used to calculate CNc was:
CNc =
where:CNc = composite curve runoff number
CNp = pervious runoff curve number, and
Pimp = percent imperviousness.
The CNc’s are based on average conditions and are equivalent to those often found in pre-printed
tables where this method is used. However, in order to facilitate the use of GIS, the equation
form was used. Below is a table of values used for the various land use designations within
Jefferson City.
TABLE 7-2 – PARAMETERS USED IN RUNOFF CALCULATIONS FOR
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI
Composite Curve Runoff Number (CN c)
for Hydrologic Soil GroupLand Use Designation %
Imperviousness A B C D E
Agriculture 0 60 72 80 84 98
Brush 0 30 48 65 73 98
Commercial 85 89 92 94 95 98
High-density Residential 65 77 85 90 92 98
Medium-density Residential 38 61 75 83 87 98
Low-density Residential 25 54 70 80 85 98
Impervious 100 98 98 98 98 98
Industrial 72 81 88 91 93 98
Meadow and Pasture 0 39 61 74 80 98
Parks and Open Space 0 39 61 74 80 98
Public and Semi-Public 65 77 85 90 92 98
Wooded 0 30 55 70 77 98
(98 – CNp) * Pimp
100 + CNp
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-8 September 29, 2003
Once a CNc was found for each combination of land use and soil type within a sub-watershed,
these combinations were then combined into a weighted CNc via the equation:
weighted CNc =
where: CNc n = the composite curve runoff number for a single combination of land use / soil
type within a sub-watershed
This weighted CNc then became the curve number used as input for the SCS method within XP-
SWMM to calculate the runoff for that sub-watershed into its associated pour point. All of the
data used for curve number generation will be included in the GIS deliverables.
7.4.4 - Time of Concentration
The formula for time of concentration used in this study is the SCS lag method:
tc =
where:tc = time of concentration (hrs.)
L = hydraulic length of the longest flow path.(ft)
S = maximum potential retention = -10
Y = average slope (in %) of the channel = slope of a channel segment starting 10% of the
entire channel length upstream from the outlet to a point 85% of the entire channel length
upstream of the outlet (total distance = 75% of total channel length)
7.4.5 - Conveyance Routing
Conveyance routing accounts for the travel time and storage attenuation of the flow through a
channel reach. XP-SWMM performs flow routing by an explicit finite difference solution of the
complete St. Venant equations. Solving of the complete St. Venant equations allows for
dynamic modeling of the system, instead of the “lumped” procedures most other methods use to
compute a flow rate at a downstream location at a given time. Dynamic modeling allows flow
rates and water surface elevations to be a function of time and space. The reader is directed to
other sources for a complete description of the SWMM engine and its solution of the St. Venant
equations.
In addition to other factors, conduit conveyance elements (channels, pipes, etc.) are given a value
for the Manning’s “n” coefficient. Since detailed field investigations are not practical or
economic for a study of this type, generalizations of the Manning’s “n” coefficients are made to
facilitate population of the model. Based on the modeled conveyance network, first order
streams were assigned a value of n = 0.050, second order streams n = 0.040 and third order
streams n = 0.030. Overbank areas on the upper reach channels were assigned a value of n =
S (CNc n * the area covered CNc n ) within a sub-watershed
Total sub-watershed area
L0.8 * (S+1)0.7
1140 * Y0.5
1000
CNc
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-9 September 29, 2003
.055 and lower reach channels n = .050 value. Additionally, channels were idealized and
modeled based on 8-point cross-sections. It was decided, based on early work in the project, that
multi-point cross-sections would not be used due to the amount of resources that would be
expended to model field cut cross-sections.
Other Manning’s “n” values used are as follows:
TABLE 7-3 – MANNING’S “n” VALUES
Material “n”
Concrete Pipe 0.013
Corrugated Metal 0.023
High Density Poly-
Ethylene (HDPE)0.011
Clay 0.013
Asphalt 0.013
Other 0.012
After an in-depth review and discussion of the original hydrologic model, it was determined that
allowing water to pond at nodes (an option within XP-SWMM) was underestimating the flows at
the downstream ends. In order to eliminate this problem, multi-links (multiple links (conduits)
connecting nodes within XP-SWMM) were used to simulate flow that could not be carried by the
underground pipe. An assumption was made that all overland flow would be assigned a value
equal to gutter flow, n = .013. While it is recognized that some overland flow would travel in
areas other than a street gutter, this methodology would give a conservative estimate of the total
flow.
In addition to the above assumptions, it was determined that, due to XP-SWMM’s instability
with short runs of conduit, all main channel crossings would be removed. Again, it is recognized
that these structures will cause some attenuation of the flow, but the opinion of the project team
was that these few structures would not add appreciable time to the peak flow. Several of these
structures were also inundated during the 100-year event, further dissipating their ability to
attenuate the flow and impact the timing and magnitude of the peak flow.
7.4.6 - Model Calibration
Due to the lack of any gage data within the studied watersheds, true calibration of the model was
not possible. However, as discussed earlier in this report, several previous studies had been
completed within the study area. These studies would be used for comparative purposes to
support the results obtained in the hydrologic investigation during this project.
On the following page is a chart depicting the various studies completed on the Wears Creek
basin with the pertinent information gleaned from each.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-10 September 29, 2003
TABLE 7-4 – STUDY FLOW COMPARISONS
Location and 100-year Flow Calculations (Wears Creek system) in cubic feet per second (cfs)
Study
creator
Hydrology
method
used
Mouth at
MO River
Whitton
Expwy
Southwest
Boulevard
1981 City
Limits
East Wears
at
confluence
East Wears
at Dunklin
North
Wears at
confluence
N. Wears
3000’ above
Dix Rd.
BMcD
(2003)SCS1 11,133 6,463 6,242 5,944 4,353 3,940 3,431 2,928
BMcD
(2003)
USGS
Regress’n
(2-param.)2
14,300 8,730 7,810 6,770 3,910 2,990 3,950 3,940
BMcD
(2003)
USGS
Regress’n
(7-param.)3
9,556 6,475 5,730 4,992 3,538 3,070 3,840 3,019
FEMA
(1979)a
USGS
Regress’n
(2-param.) 2*
14,200 9,360 8,465 7,400 3,430 2,850 3,510 2,690
FEMA
(1981)b
unknown 7,400
Black &
Veatch
(1988)c
HEC-14
12,900 8,530 7,680
R.W.
Booker
(1970)d
Comparative
analysis 5 10,000 6,270A 2,200 2,200
1 Soil Conservation Service Rainfall-Runoff Depth method
2 United States Geological Survey Regional Regression Equation for Missouri (1993), 2 parameter (Area and Impervious %) equation
2* United States Geological Survey Regional Regression Equation for Missouri (1974)
3 United States Geological Survey Regional National Flood Frequency Program for Missouri (2003), 7 parameter equation
4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Flood Hydrograph Package (HEC-1) (version unknown)
5 A comparative analysis was conducted on multiple methods, some from previous studies. The reader is directed to the Booker study for more information
a Flood Insurance Study, City of Jefferson Missouri, Cole and Callaway Counties, Federal Emergency Management Agency, October 1979
b Flood Insurance Study, County of Cole, Unincorporated Areas, Federal Emergency Management Agency, June 1981
c Report on Frog Hollow Dam and Detention Pond (DRAFT), Black & Veatch Engineers-Architects, January 1988
d Master Plan, Flood Protection of the Lower Reaches of Wears Creek, Jefferson City, Missouri, R.W. Booker & Associates, Inc., May 1970
A This location listed at “Frog Hollow” and is assumed to be the main branch of Wears Creek at its confluence with the North and East Branches. This is
just downstream from the Whitton Expressway, but was included for comparative purposes
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-11 September 29, 2003
As can be seen by the chart, a wide range of flows exists at several locations within the Wears
Creek system. A discussion on why these differences exist is not germane to this report.
However, significant work did go into investigating these differences in an attempt to determine
the reasonableness of the results obtained as part of this study. One such effort was to graph a
unit discharge per acre for several of the studies to get a comparison of unit acre discharges
throughout the watershed. That graph is shown below.
Figure 7-2 – Graph of Unit Acre Discharges for Wears Creek System
As can be seen in the graph, the values calculated as part of this study tend to group up with the
results from prior studies, falling between the maximum and minimum results of previous
studies. The exception to this is in the East Wears Creek basin. At both locations within this
basin, the flows calculated by the SCS method within XP-SWMM are the maximum values
obtained for the studies listed in the graph. This may be due to additional development within
the watershed since the last study was completed (the 1979 FIS) and due to the modeling
approach of including the overland street flow in the hydrology model. Additionally, the values
seen in the above graph correlate with results of similar studies performed by the project team in
other cities with the region.
WEARS CREEK: 100-YEAR FLOWS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
Q1
0
0
(
cf
s
p
e
r
a
c
r
e
)
BMcD, SCS/XP-SWMM (2003)
BMcD, USGS 7-param. (2003)
FEMA, USGS 2-param. (1979)
Black & Veatch, HEC-1 (1988)
RW Booker, comp. anal. (1970)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
7-12 September 29, 2003
Without any gage data and storms of record by which to calibrate the model, it would be
impossible to directly determine which one of the models was “correct”. But at the same time, it
is necessary to gain a level of confidence in the results obtained. Through comparative analyses,
investigations into previous studies and multiple versions of the hydrologic model, the project
team is confident the results obtained within this hydrologic study will yield results that are
commensurate with this level of study.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 8
Hydraulic Modeling
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 8 - Hydraulic Modeling ...................................................................................................8-1
8.1 - Open Channel....................................................................................................................8-1
8.1.1 - Introduction..................................................................................................................8-1
8.1.2 - Model Development .....................................................................................................8-2
8.1.2.1 - Summary.................................................................................................................8-2
8.1.3 - Data Sources.................................................................................................................8-4
8.1.3.1 - City Provided Data .................................................................................................8-4
8.1.3.2 - Topographic Surveys ..............................................................................................8-4
8.1.3.3 - Other Data Sources.................................................................................................8-4
8.1.4 - GeoRAS Input Parameters ...........................................................................................8-5
8.1.4.1 - Digital Terrain Model.............................................................................................8-5
8.1.4.2 - Stream Network ......................................................................................................8-5
8.1.4.3 - Cross-Section Cut-Lines .........................................................................................8-5
8.1.4.4 - Overbank Locations................................................................................................8-6
8.1.4.5 - Flow Paths ..............................................................................................................8-6
8.1.4.6 - Manning’s “n” Values ............................................................................................8-6
8.1.5 - HEC-RAS Input Parameters ........................................................................................8-7
8.1.5.1 - Bridges ....................................................................................................................8-7
8.1.5.2 - Culverts...................................................................................................................8-8
8.1.5.3 - Inline Weirs ..........................................................................................................8-10
8.1.5.4 - Junctions ...............................................................................................................8-10
8.1.5.5 - Ineffective Flow Areas .........................................................................................8-10
8.1.5.6 - Levees...................................................................................................................8-11
8.1.5.7 - Expansion and Contraction Coefficients ..............................................................8-11
8.1.5.8 - Steady Flow Data..................................................................................................8-11
8.1.5.9 - Flow Change Locations ........................................................................................8-11
8.1.5.10 - Boundary Conditions ..........................................................................................8-12
8.1.5.11 - Flow Conditions .................................................................................................8-12
8.1.5.12 - Storage ................................................................................................................8-12
8.1.5.13 - Calibration ..........................................................................................................8-13
8.2 - Enclosed System..............................................................................................................8-14
8.2.1 - Introduction................................................................................................................8-14
8.2.2 - Model Development ...................................................................................................8-14
8.2.2.1 - Summary...............................................................................................................8-14
8.2.3 - Data Sources...............................................................................................................8-15
8.2.3.1 - Field Data..............................................................................................................8-15
8.2.3.2 - City Provided Data ...............................................................................................8-16
8.2.4 - XP-SWMM Model Input Parameters.........................................................................8-16
8.2.4.1 - Nodes....................................................................................................................8-16
8.2.4.2 - Links .....................................................................................................................8-16
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
ii September 29, 2003
8.3 - Modeling Methodology...................................................................................................8-18
List of Tables
Table 8-1 – Summary of Jefferson City HEC-RAS Model..........................................................8-1
Table 8-2 – Data Development ....................................................................................................8-2
Table 8-3 – Manning’s “n” Values ..............................................................................................8-7
Table 8-4 – Expansion and Contraction Coefficients ................................................................8-11
Table 8-5 – Summary of Jefferson City XP-SWMM Model.....................................................8-14
List of Figures
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-1 September 29, 2003
Section 8 - Hydraulic Modeling
8.1 - Open Channel
8.1.1 - Introduction
The HEC-RAS (v. 3.1 – November 2002) program was used to calculate water surface profiles
for steady, gradually varied flow in natural and improved open channels. The model was also
used to evaluate the effects of various obstructions such as bridges, culverts, weirs and structures
within the floodplain of the modeled stream. HEC-RAS estimates water surface elevations in a
river reach based on flows from the hydrologic model (XP-SWMM). This section discusses the
procedures used for the Jefferson City project and guidelines developed during previous studies
for developing HEC-RAS models. This section describes in detail data development, model
development, model-input parameters, data format, naming conventions, and calibration.
The HEC-RAS model was developed to achieve the highest accuracy possible within limitations
of the study. Table 8-1 summarizes some of the watershed characteristics incorporated into the
HEC-RAS model.
TABLE 8-1 – SUMMARY OF JEFFERSON CITY
HEC-RAS MODEL
Number of Major Watersheds Modeled 4
Number of Reaches Modeled 50
Total Miles of Stream Network Modeled 29.6
Miles of Main Channel 16.2
Miles of Tributary Channel 13.4
Total Number of Junctions Modeled 24
Total Number of Cross-Sections 747
Average Cross-Section Spacing 210’
Total Number of Hydraulic Structures Modeled 111
Number of Bridges Modeled 22
Number of Culverts Modeled 89
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-2 September 29, 2003
8.1.2 - Model Development
8.1.2.1 - Summary
As will be discussed in greater detail within this section, the process of creating a HEC-RAS
involves many steps. To provide an overview of this section, a summary of input parameters is
presented in Table 8-2 and developed as follows:
Base Data Collection
First, all relevant, available information was collected. Sources of data included aerial
photographs, topographic mapping, surveys and construction record drawings.
Incorporate Data into GIS
The mapping provided by the City was provided in a GIS format. Some sources of information
(such as survey) had to be incorporated into GIS before they could be utilized. Once all the
information was assembled in a GIS format, it constituted the base mapping for the project.
Develop Basic Geometry
With the base mapping complete, the modelers could develop the data sources needed for HEC-
RAS via the HEC-Geo-RAS extension. This step involved laying out cross sections as required,
delineating overbank locations, delineating flow paths and defining areas for horizontal
variations in Manning’s n values. All of this data development was completed digitally in
ESRI’s ArcView and ArcGIS.
TABLE 8-2 – DATA DEVELOPMENT
Model Parameter
Data Development
Method Requirements
Stream Network ArcView/GIS and
HEC-GeoRAS
Stream network coverage with stream
reach IDs
Cross-Sections ArcView/GIS and
HEC-GeoRAS TIN, cross-section cut-line coverage
Flow Lengths ArcView/GIS and
HEC-GeoRAS
Channel and overbank (left and right) flow
path coverage
Channel Manning’s n
Values
ArcView/GIS /
Manually
Assigned by stream order verified with
field observation and/or aerial photos.
Overbank Manning n
Values
Manually /
ArcView/GIS
Land surface coverage created from aerial
photos and verified with field observation.
Roadway Crossings Field survey /
ArcView/GIS
Roadway profile and bridge or culvert
opening
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-3 September 29, 2003
TABLE 8-2 – DATA DEVELOPMENT
Model Parameter
Data Development
Method Requirements
Dams Field survey /
ArcView/GIS
Control structure dimensions and
embankment profile
Expansion and
Contraction
Coefficients
Manually Contour and cross-section coverages
Boundary conditions Manually Normal depth calculations.
Ineffective flow areas Manually Contour and cross-section coverages
Channel bank stations ArcView/GIS /
Manually Cross-section coverages
Extract Information from GIS
Once the basic model geometry was completed, HEC-GeoRAS was used to extract the
information from GIS and to create an import file suitable for HEC-RAS. This is referred to as
“pre-processing” in HEC-GeoRAS.
Develop the Basic HEC-RAS Model
The next step was to import the text file from HEC-GeoRAS into HEC-RAS. Once the file was
imported, a basic geometry existed in the HEC-RAS model.
Input Bridge and Culvert Data
Bridge and culvert data could not be extracted from GIS, so this information had to be input
manually. Most of the information pertinent to bridges and culverts were collected by survey.
Flow Data
The HEC-RAS model also requires flow data. Peak flow rates at specific points in the watershed
were determined by the hydrologic modeling discussed in Section 7 of this report.
Calibrate Model
Once all of the bridge, culvert, inline weir, flow data and other features were encoded into HEC-
RAS, the model was executed. Preliminary floodplains and profiles were generated and
compared against collected data. Where modeling results disagreed with expected results,
parameters were adjusted until more reasonable results were obtained.
Export Results to GIS
Results from the final HEC-RAS model were exported to GIS, and the floodplains were
delineated on the mapping.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-4 September 29, 2003
8.1.3 - Data Sources
Input parameters for the HEC-RAS model were developed using several data sources. Those
data generally include GIS mapping, topographic surveying at structures, sketches of structures,
pictures of structures, and construction record drawings. ArcView and ArcGIS were used
throughout the duration of project to view, manipulate and edit the mapping information
provided by the City and developed specific to this study. While the HEC-RAS incorporates
many parameters, the basic geometry was first extracted from the base mapping using an
extension to ArcView called HEC-GeoRAS (discussed in further detail below).
8.1.3.1 - City Provided Data
The City provided the base mapping for the project in the form of coverages. The component of
the mapping that was used for model development was the two-foot contour data. While this
information was provided by the City, some manipulation of the data was required to remove
erroneous information. This information was then used to create the triangulated irregular
network (TIN), which was used to form the digital terrain model (DTM).
8.1.3.2 - Topographic Surveys
Ground surveys were conducted on bridges, culverts and dams. Generally, a cross section was
taken at the upstream face of the structure to more accurately define the structure opening. In
addition to a dimensioned sketch of the structure, the survey identified the following structure
attributes, depending on type of structure:
· Road Profile Grade
· Low Top of Road Elevation
· Culvert Size
· Culvert Material
· Culvert Shape
· Headwall Description
· Length
· Pier Locations
· Pier Shapes
· Abutment Locations
· Guardrails Dimensions
8.1.3.3 - Other Data Sources
Where approaches to preparing model data and/or parameters described above could not be
applied, a more traditional approach was used. Development of many model parameters, such as
channel Manning’s “n” values, expansion and contraction coefficients, boundary conditions, and
ineffective flow areas relied on use of textbook values, model user manuals, other master
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-5 September 29, 2003
planning studies and engineering judgement. As a result, many of these parameters were adjusted
during the model-calibration phase.
8.1.4 - GeoRAS Input Parameters
HEC-GeoRAS is a public domain software program developed by the USACE Hydrologic
Engineering Center (HEC). Used as an extension of ArcView/GIS, the software uses
ArcView/GIS shape files to prepare an ASCII text file that can be directly imported as a
geometry file into HEC-RAS. Six ArcView/GIS shape files were required by HEC-GeoRAS to
prepare the HEC-RAS import file. Each data source is discussed in the following paragraphs.
8.1.4.1 - Digital Terrain Model
The DTM used to determine cross-section information was provided by the City (via the 2-foot
contour data). A digital terrain model is a three dimensional, mathematical representation of the
watershed’s topography. The DTM’s purpose for this study was to allow computer software to
perform the intricate tasks previously done by hand. The information contained in the DTM
allowed watershed boundaries, stream networks, watershed slopes, etc., to be digitally
determined.
To create the DTM, several TINs were created. The TIN files were created from two-foot
contour data files provided by the City.
8.1.4.2 - Stream Network
The stream network was derived from the hydrography information contained in the City data.
In effect, the stream network represents the channel centerline of the streams modeled in HEC-
RAS.
8.1.4.3 - Cross-Section Cut-Lines
Placement and alignment of cross sections were determined by engineering judgement. In
general, cross sections were placed at a maximum spacing of 500 feet. Where appropriate, cross
sections were placed at closer intervals.
Additional cross sections were added at bridges and culverts. As prescribed in the HEC-RAS
Hydraulic Reference Manual2, four cross sections are associated with each hydraulic structure as
follows:
2 HEC-RAS River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual, United States Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center, Version 3.1, November 2002
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-6 September 29, 2003
· Cross Section 1 is placed approximately 4 times the opening width downstream of the
structure.
· Cross Section 2 is placed at the downstream face of the structure, just outside of the roadway
embankment.
· Cross Section 3 is placed at the upstream face of the structure, just outside of the roadway
embankment.
· Cross Section 4 is placed approximately 1 times the width of the opening upstream of
structure.
· Cross sections were cut from left to right looking in the downstream direction.
· Cross sections were cut so that each end was projected past the maximum extent of the 500-
year floodplain.
HEC-GeoRAS produces cross sections stationed in feet from confluence.
8.1.4.4 - Overbank Locations
In HEC-RAS, the floodplain is divided into three areas of flow: the left overbank, the channel
and the right overbank. Therefore, HEC-GeoRAS requires a shape file delineating the channel
overbank locations. Using the contour information, the overbank locations were digitized into
shape file. Estimating overbank locations in the plan view often proved to be inaccurate, so each
cross-section was reviewed and the overbank locations were revised in the HEC-RAS model
where necessary.
8.1.4.5 - Flow Paths
HEC-RAS calculates friction losses for the left overbank, channel and right overbank as part of
its computational methodology. Friction losses are a function of the distance between cross
sections. Because streams meander, cross sections are seldom perpendicular. Thus flow path
lengths for the different regions of the channel cross section are typically different.
Three flow paths were estimated for each reach: the right and left overbank locations were
estimated from the topography and the channel centerline was used for the channel flow path.
8.1.4.6 - Manning’s “n” Values
The final piece of information required by Geo-RAS is a coverage of Manning’s “n” values.
Manning’s “n” value is an empirical coefficient used to relate surface conditions to friction
losses in the HEC-RAS model.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-7 September 29, 2003
A polygon shape file was developed to assign regions of Manning’s “n” values. These regions
were assessed from aerial photography, field observations, and methodologies taken from other
studies. Table 8-3 shows the relationship between land cover and Manning’s “n” value.
TABLE 8-3 – MANNING’S “n” VALUES
Land Cover Manning's “n” Value
Urban, residential 0.015
Urban, commercial 0.250
Pavement 0.020
Floodplain; no brush 0.035
Floodplain; light brush, trees 0.045
Floodplain; brush, trees 0.090
First Order Channel 0.050
Second Order Channel 0.040
Third Channel 0.030
Most of the Manning’s “n” values used for this study were taken from the HEC-RAS Reference
Manual. It should be noted that some values were changed in the HEC-RAS model at the
discretion of the modelers. Therefore, the Manning’s “n” shape files may not exactly match the
values found in each HEC-RAS cross-section.
8.1.5 - HEC-RAS Input Parameters
8.1.5.1 - Bridges
For the hydraulic models, 22 bridges were modeled in HEC-RAS. Recommended procedures
outlined in the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual were followed for each bridge.
8.1.5.1.1 - Cross Sections
Cross-sections 1 and 4 were located sufficiently upstream and downstream from the structure to
represent undisturbed flow in the channel. Cross-section 2 was located just downstream of the
bridge face outside of the roadway embankment. And finally, Cross-section 3 was located just
upstream of the bridge face beyond the limits of the roadway embankment.
Cross sections 2 and 3 were modified to reflect the more accurate channel information obtained
from the topographic survey.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-8 September 29, 2003
8.1.5.1.2 - Bridge Deck / Roadway
Bridge Deck /Roadway information was acquired from the topographic survey. Where survey
data proved to be insufficient, the data was supplemented with information from the base
mapping.
8.1.5.1.3 - Bridge Geometry
Bridge pier dimensions, embankment dimensions, decking width, and low chord elevation data
were all input manually in the bridge editor from survey notes. The bridge decking survey data
was also required for each bridge structure. Flow lengths between bridge cross-sections and
upstream and downstream stream valley cross-sections were determined using ArcView/GIS.
Any additional information required for each bridge structure was estimated from photographs.
8.1.5.1.4 - Modeling Approach
During bridge analysis, the highest energy answer between Energy (Standard Step) and
Momentum method was selected for low flow calculations. For high flow calculations, the
Pressure and/or Weir method was used. It should be noted that this approach to bridge modeling
was a general philosophy, but not a hard fast rule. The results from each bridge were evaluated,
and modelers were allowed to change the modeling approach to obtain reasonable results.
Also as a general exception, analysis of perched bridges yielded better results when only the
Energy (Standard Step) method was used.
8.1.5.1.5 - Internal Bridge Cross Sections
As general rule, internal bridge cross sections were not modified. However, some revisions to
internal cross sections were necessary. Specifically, when Cross Sections 2 and 3 were not cut
perpendicular to the bridge face, the deck / roadway would be obscured by the cross sections.
With weir area (roadway) obscured, HEC-RAS uses the cross section points as the weir. As a
result, the calculated head on the weir is often overestimated. Where this conservatism was of
particular concern, the internal bridge cross section was modified so that the all of the roadway
points were used for weir flow.
8.1.5.2 - Culverts
For the hydraulic models, 101 culverts were modeled in HEC-RAS. These structures were
modeled in much the same way as bridges with four user-defined cross-sections near the culvert
structure. Recommended procedures outlined in the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual
were followed for each bridge.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-9 September 29, 2003
8.1.5.2.1 - Cross Sections
Similar to bridge models, each culvert has four associated cross-sections. Cross sections 1 and 4
were located sufficiently upstream and downstream from the structure to represent undisturbed
flow in the channel. Cross-section 2 was located just downstream of the culvert face beyond the
limits of the headwall and/or roadway embankment. And finally, Cross-section 3 was located
just upstream of the culvert face beyond the limits of the headwall and/or roadway embankment.
Cross sections 2 and 3 were modified to reflect the more accurate channel information obtained
from the topographic survey.
8.1.5.2.2 - Bridge Deck / Roadway
Bridge Deck /Roadway information was acquired from the topographic survey. Where survey
data proved to be insufficient, the data was supplemented with information from the base
mapping.
8.1.5.2.3 - Culvert Shape
The shape of the culvert was observed and recorded during the topographic survey.
8.1.5.2.4 - Loss Coefficients.
Entrance loss coefficients were assigned from Tables 6-3 and 6-4 of the HEC-RAS Hydraulic
Reference Manual based on type of inlet structure. Exit-loss coefficient was assumed to be 1.0
for all culverts. The culvert Manning’s “n” values were taken from tables 6-1 and 6-2 of the
HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual that list “n” values for various culvert materials and
sizes.
8.1.5.2.5 - Internal Bridge Cross Sections
As general rule, internal bridge cross sections were not modified. However, some revisions to
internal cross sections were necessary. Specifically, when Cross Sections 2 and 3 were not cut
perpendicular to the culvert face, the deck / roadway would be obscured by the cross sections.
With weir area (roadway) obscured, HEC-RAS uses the cross section points as the weir. As a
result, the calculated head on the weir is often overestimated. Where this conservativism was of
particular concern, the internal bridge cross section was modified so that the all of the roadway
points were used for weir flow.
8.1.5.2.6 - Invert Elevations
Invert elevations for each culvert were collected during the topographic survey and incorporated
manually into the HEC-RAS model.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-10 September 29, 2003
8.1.5.3 - Inline Weirs
An inline weir was used to model dams and pond embankments. It is similar to both the bridge
and culvert calculations, except that it does not provide an opening for low flow. These were
used in the improvements modeling.
8.1.5.3.1 - Cross Sections
Similar to bridge and culvert models, each inline weir utilized four cross sections. Cross sections
1 and 4 were located sufficiently upstream and downstream from the structure to represent
undisturbed flow in the channel. Cross-section 2 was located just downstream and beyond the
limits of the embankment. Cross-section 3 was located just upstream and beyond the limits of the
embankment.
Typically, the cross sections upstream of each weir had to be adjusted. Cross section
information was obtained from the aerial survey. The elevation data from the aerial survey could
not distinguish between land and water bodies. So the cross sections cut within ponds and lakes
reflected the water surface, not the underlying topography. By interpolating the natural slope of
the channel, the cross sections cut within water bodies were modified to estimate the bottom of
the pond or lake.
8.1.5.3.2 - Weir Embankment
Weir embankment information was acquired from the topographic survey. Where survey data
proved to be insufficient, the data was supplemented with information from the base mapping.
8.1.5.4 - Junctions
Junctions were used to model stream confluences. Proper simulation of water surface elevations
across the junction required a junction name, optional description, and a length across the
junction for each reach. The distance across a junction was measured from the cross-section
immediately upstream to the cross-section immediately downstream of the junction along the
stream network. Hydraulic junctions were modeled in HEC-RAS using the energy equation,
which uses standard step backwater calculations through the junction and does not account for
angle of joining reaches.
8.1.5.5 - Ineffective Flow Areas
Ineffective flow areas were determined using cross-section plots and contour information.
Ineffective flow area examples include:
· Floodplain areas significantly below the top of the channel bank not hydraulically connected
to the channel downstream
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-11 September 29, 2003
· Floodplain areas within hydraulic shadow of roadway encroachments caused by contraction
and expansion of flow through bridge or culvert openings
· Floodplain areas within hydraulic shadow of other obstructions or irregularities in the stream
valley floodplain
8.1.5.6 - Levees
For this study, the levee option was used on some cross-sections to model complex flow
situations in the overbank areas. The use of the levee option is not intended to represent a NFIP
levee.
8.1.5.7 - Expansion and Contraction Coefficients
Expansion and contraction coefficients were estimated based on the ratio of effective flow area
in the floodplain occurring at stream valley cross-sections, roadway crossings, and dams. Table
8-4 lists typical coefficients used in the model. For roadway crossings, expansion and
contraction coefficients were applied to the first two cross-sections upstream and one cross-
section downstream of the structure.
TABLE 8-4 – EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION COEFFICIENTS
Transition Type Expansion Coefficient Contraction Coefficient
Gradual 0.3 .01
Roadway Crossing 0.5 0.3
Abrupt 0.8 0.6
Data from HEC-RAS Hydraulic Manual
8.1.5.8 - Steady Flow Data
For this study, a one-dimensional, steady state model was used as a basis for modeling. Simply
put, the HEC-RAS model analyzes a single instance in time. This model only reflects the crest
stages of a 100-year storm event, and does not consider the relationship between rainfall and
runoff with respect to time.
Peak flow rates at points of interest in the watershed were estimated using the SCS method in
XP-SWMM. This information was incorporated into HEC-RAS manually.
8.1.5.9 - Flow Change Locations
At a minimum, HEC-RAS requires a flow rate to be established at the top of each reach.
Theoretically, flow rates increase continuously along a reach because of lateral inflow of runoff.
While it would be impossible to account for continuous increases in flow rate, it is appropriate to
increase the flows at particular cross section locations. These locations in the hydraulic model
are reflective of hydrograph calculations in the hydrologic model.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-12 September 29, 2003
8.1.5.10 - Boundary Conditions
Since all of the streams modeled, Boggs Creek and the Wears Creek system (North Wears,
Wears(Frog Hollow), and East Wears) are controlled by the Missouri River, boundary conditions
were set with a known water surface elevation at each streams junction with the Missouri River.
Due to the heavy influence of backwater from the Missouri River and the spatial remoteness of
the Jefferson City watersheds to the entire Missouri River watershed, several different recurrence
intervals were used for Missouri River flows. The impacts were then evaluated. Eventually, the
project team decided to model the improvements based on the Missouri River at base flow.
Once these improvements were modeled, some additional improvements were modeled with the
Missouri River at the 100-year flow. These additional improvements supplemented some of the
originally modeled improvements. This will be discussed in greater detail later in the report.
8.1.5.11 - Flow Conditions
Flow rates were calculated for two types of land uses: existing conditions and ultimate
development. Existing conditions represents the amount of development and infrastructure
existing during the time of study. For each land use scenario, peak flow rates were determine for
the 10, 50, and 100-year, 6-hour design storms.
8.1.5.12 - Storage
Because HEC-RAS is a steady state model, it cannot inherently model attenuation created by
ponds, lakes, and some highway embankments. Attenuate locations were modeled in XP-
SWMM, and the results were incorporated into HEC-RAS.
As an example, several dams have been proposed to create detention storage during large rain
events. Using HEC-RAS, a discharge-headwater rating curve was developed. Using GIS, a
stage-surface area rating curve was developed. The two rating curves are combined to establish
a stage-discharge-surface area relationship that can be incorporated in XP-SWMM and a storage
location. The XP-SWMM model provides results showing the effects of storage while the HEC-
RAS model provides entrance and exit impacts of the culvert. The two models would be run for
the proposed outlet condition until a common water surface elevation in the storage area was
obtained in both models. Once that was reached, the proper outlet configuration had been found.
What this generated was a flow coming out of the storage area that what lower than the entering
rate, thus modeling the attenuation of the storage area.
To account for the attenuation effects in HEC-RAS, a flow change location is added at Section 3
of the culvert routine. The flow change represents the lower, attenuated flows. Thus, the flow
through the culvert is less, and the associated headwater is decreased. In summary, non-
attenuated flows were used in the upstream channel, attenuated flows were used through the
culvert, and attenuated flows were used in the downstream channel.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-13 September 29, 2003
8.1.5.13 - Calibration
Due to lack of any physical data (such as gage records) indicating high water marks for a
determined flow recurrence interval, true calibration (as defined in the scientific community)
could not be performed. Therefore, a comparative analysis was completed using several
available sources of information.
8.1.5.13.1 - Previous Studies
Several previous hydrologic and hydraulic studies have been performed in and around Jefferson
City. These studies were reviewed and pertinent information used.
8.1.5.13.2 - Previous Complaint Files
The City’s file of previous complaints was obtained and, to the extent possible, these locations
were added to the GIS database.
8.1.5.13.3 - Stormwater Questionnaire
The stormwater questionnaire distributed for this study proved to be helpful as well. Using GIS,
the results of the questionnaires could be plotted on the mapping with the preliminary floodplain.
Results of the model generally corroborated the problem areas revealed by the questionnaire.
Clusters of reported flooding indicated major areas of concern caused by obstructions or
undersized channels. Scattered areas of reported flooding were more indicative of localized
problems such as downspouts and clogged drainage systems.
When evaluating the reported flooding problems, several other factors had to be taken into
account:
Duration of Residence – A homeowner only has a period of record of their time of residence. A
person having resided in a home for fifty years with no reports of flooding likely has no problem.
However, a person having resided in a home for two years without reported flooding may have
an unrealized problem.
Type of Flooding – The questionnaire made an attempt to distinguish between the type of
flooding (structure, out building, yard, street) and the source of the water (street, creek,
neighbors yard, sub-surface water). This was used to determine what instances of flooding could
be used for the analysis.
Frequency of Flooding – The frequency of reported flooding was also important in the
calibration process. Properties that flooded frequently are subject to inundation by small return
period storms.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-14 September 29, 2003
Non-Response – While no real conclusions could be drawn from owners that did not respond to
the questionnaires, it is the general consensus that people with problems tend to voice their
concerns. Similarly, people without problems do not bother to respond to questionnaires. To the
extent it was practical, it was assumed that a non-response implied no problem.
8.1.5.13.4 - City Staff
The City staff members were provided preliminary floodplains for review and comments. City
staff tends to be the most knowledgeable of problems within their respective cities, and know
where the problem areas are even before modeling is started.
8.2 - Enclosed System
8.2.1 - Introduction
The Hydraulic Block, formerly known as the Extran Block, of XP-SWMM was used to model
the enclosed system and uses the dynamic wave method in its analysis. XP-SWMM uses nodes
(connection points such as manholes, catch basins, inlets, etc.) and links (conduits such as pipes
and channels) to represent the hydraulic system. By solving the complete St. Venant equations,
XP-SWMM is able to route the flow through the drainage network, modeling effects of
backwater, flow reversal, surcharging, looped connections, pressure flow and interconnected
ponds. XP-SWMM also has an extensive array of graphical input and output screens, easing
data entry and making result interpretation more intuitive.
The XP-SWMM model was developed to achieve the highest accuracy possible within
limitations of the study. Table 8-5 summarizes some of the statistics involved with the XP-
SWMM modeling effort.
TABLE 8-5 – SUMMARY OF JEFFERSON CITY XP-
SWMM MODEL
Number of Major Watersheds Modeled 4
Feet of System Modeled as part of this Project 534,740
Number of Nodes Modeled during the Project 1839
Number of Links Modeled during the Project 1837
8.2.2 - Model Development
8.2.2.1 - Summary
The formation of the XP-SWMM model consisted of the following general steps:
Base Data Collection
All relevant data was collected through field investigations and surveys.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-15 September 29, 2003
Incorporate Data into GIS
Field data was then imported into the GIS. Importing the data forms a database off which the
ArcView draws its information.
Import Data into XP-SWMM
This step was accomplished through two separate pathways during the project. Initially, data
from the database was exported into Microsoft Excel where XP-SWMM code was written in
table form and then imported into XP-SWMM. Bringing in data in this batch fashion saves
having to enter each piece of information individually. During the course of this project, XP-
SWMM was upgraded to allow full linking between the ArcView database and the XP-SWMM
tables. In other words, data could be directly imported into the XP-SWMM model, skipping the
step of going into Microsoft Excel.
Develop Model
The imported data would essentially form the preliminary model. By importing the data in
specific fashion (associating database fields with the required information for XP-SWMM), the
preliminary base model was formed upon import of the database information. Once this first cut
model was established, the model could be de-bugged and fine-tuned. Additional XP-SWMM
code was written via an Excel import when batch operations were beneficial, i.e. adding multi-
links to account for overland flow.
Flow Data
Since the hydrology was also completed in XP-SWMM (as discussed in Section 7), it was linked
through the XP-SWMM program and available for use.
Export Data to GIS
Once the model was completed, data was then exported from XP-SWMM back into the ArcView
database. This allows the generated data, and any corrections or changes that were made, to be
available in the ArcView data base.
8.2.3 - Data Sources
8.2.3.1 - Field Data
Data for the enclosed system modeling was acquired through field surveys and investigation of
the stormwater system. Location data was collected electronically and physical data (such as
condition, entering/exiting conduits, flowlines, etc.) were collected via hardcopy data sheets that
were then entered into the GIS. Data collected included:
X and Y coordinates
Elevations (Z coordinate)
Structure Type
Entering/Exiting Conduits
Flowlines
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-16 September 29, 2003
Invert Elevations
Structure Condition
Maintenance Needs
Other Physical Attributes of the Structure
8.2.3.2 - City Provided Data
Where necessary, either due to a lack of available data or as a check of field data accuracy, the
DTM discussed earlier in this section was used for ground elevation information.
8.2.4 - XP-SWMM Model Input Parameters
The ability to solve the complete St. Venant equations, discussed earlier, requires an elaborate
and detailed description of the hydraulic system to accurately depict the processes occurring in
the system. Below is a description of the information used in the modeling.
8.2.4.1 - Nodes
Within the XP-SWMM model, nodes serve two purposes ; 1) to bring flow into the model and, 2)
serve as a connection point for links. For the modeling done in this project, flow enters the
system through the nodes due to hydrology. As this has already been discussed in Section 7, it
will not be repeated here.
The connection function of the node is driven by the information gathered in the field, in the case
of a structure such as a manhole, catch basin, field inlet or junction box, or generated during
construction of the model, as in the case of a transition between open and closed channels or a
drastic change in channel characteristics. Nodes were generated in batch fashion via XP code
imported from a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This was possible due to the specific data
collection scheme used in collecting the field data, discussed in Section 5.
8.2.4.2 - Links
Links are the physical conduits (pipes, channels, etc.) that carry water through the system. Links
are connected, via the nodes, to represent the stormwater conveyance system. The field data
collected, discussed in Chapter 5, was used to construct the links, which in turn, along with the
nodes, form the modeled system. Several different types of links were modeled in the system
and they are described below.
8.2.4.2.1 - Open Channels
Open channels were modeled as an 8-point cross-section (one of the shape options available for
conduit flow in XP-SWMM. Three different sizes of channels were used in the upper, middle
and lower reaches of the watersheds. This approximation was used due to the following factors:
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-17 September 29, 2003
1. Within the enclosed system modeling, any reaches of open channel (such as reaches
that connected two enclosed systems) were relatively short. Any calculated
difference between flow magnitudes would be negligible.
2. Approximation of the open channel cross-section allowed for expedited model
construction. With the lack of significant differences between the calculated results
using the 8-point cross-section and a cut cross-section (as imported from HEC-RAS),
resources were conserved and directed towards other modeling efforts.
3. The desired end result of the XP-SWMM modeling in the longer reaches of channel
was flow rates to be input into HEC-RAS. It was the opinion of the project team that
a reasonable approximation by the 8-point channel would yield commensurate results,
given the planning purpose of this document. The open channels simply served as a
pathway to convey the flow through the system and to account for attenuation of the
flows through the system. Detailed water surface elevations were calculated using
HEC-RAS.
The spill crest of the open channels were set to contain the flow in the channel while inverts were
based on field data and contour information.
8.2.4.2.2 - Enclosed System
Enclosed systems were modeled based on field collected data, as discussed in Section 5. Where
necessary, modifications were made to field data where oversights had been made in field data
collection or the system attributes were not compatible with the modeling. Any changes that
were made were exported back to the GIS and those databases updated. Modeling parameters
not directly collected in the field, such as Manning’s “n” values, were taken from the same
references discussed in prior sections.
Where necessary, multi-links were used to represent overland flow, especially in the case of
street flow. Multi-links allow more than one flow path between two nodes. In the case of street
flow, the underground conduit was modeled based on field collected and revised data. The street
flow was modeled:
1. using the ground elevation of the node as the invert for the street flow;
2. assuming a trapezoidal channel with 30:1 side slopes; and
3. setting the spill crest sufficiently high to contain the overflow.
Again, this approximation was judged to reasonably represent the physical process occurring.
The process of getting the water from point A to point B, finding areas of over-capacity in the
enclosed system and accounting for the flow time through the system were the goals for this
effort.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
8-18 September 29, 2003
8.3 - Modeling Methodology
In order to properly predict the behavior of the stormwater system, HEC-RAS and XP-SWMM
were both used during the modeling process. Each model was used in situations where its
primary strength could be utilized; HEC-RAS in open channels and XP-SWMM in enclosed
systems.
Flows were generated using the Runoff Block in XP-SWMM and routed through the system.
Routing through the system in XP-SWMM accounts for attenuation of the flow. HEC-RAS can
only accept non-varied flows therefore removing the impacts of peak flows traveling through the
system. As stated earlier, the flow rates calculated in XP-SWMM were then inserted into the
proper location in the HEC-RAS model.
Most of the enclosed systems encountered during the modeling were subject to requirements of
passing the 10-year flow. Therefore, the results of the enclosed system indicating a system
segment was under capacity, are based on XP-SWMM modeling results. Where necessary, XP-
SWMM was also used to model the impacts of the 100-year storm.
The hydraulically significant open channel segments were modeled using HEC-RAS, with XP-
SWMM generated flows, so that accurate water surface elevations could be predicted for the
required storm event, primarily the 100-year event. However, 10- and 50-year water surface
elevations were also generated using HEC-RAS. HEC-RAS is more adept at handling short pipe
runs (such as culverts) and bridges, accounting for entrance and exit impacts better than XP-
SWMM.
As discussed earlier in this section, HEC-RAS and XP-SWMM were used together to determine
the effects of storage in detention areas.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 9
Drainage System Evaluation
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 9 - Drainage System Evaluation......................................................................................9-1
9.1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................................9-1
9.2 - Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................9-1
9.2.1 - Existing Criteria ...........................................................................................................9-1
9.2.2 - Proposed Criteria..........................................................................................................9-2
9.3 - Drainage System Performance Evaluation........................................................................9-2
9.3.1 - Enclosed System Evaluation........................................................................................9-3
9.3.2 - Open Channel System Evaluation................................................................................9-3
9.3.3 - FEMA Floodplain Evaluation......................................................................................9-3
List of Tables
Table 9-1 – Existing Design Criteria for Enclosed Systems and Culverts...................................9-1
Table 9-2 – Existing Design Criteria for Open Channels ............................................................9-1
Table 9-3 – Proposed Design Criteria for Stormwater System Components...............................9-2
List of Figures
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
9-1 September 29, 2003
Section 9 - Drainage System Evaluation
9.1 - Introduction
This section will discuss the methods used to evaluate the existing drainage systems and
rationales used in determining the need for improvements.
9.2 - Evaluation Criteria
9.2.1 - Existing Criteria
The criteria for evaluating system performance currently observed by the City of Jefferson is
based on land use or zoning. Those criteria have been taken from the Storm Drainage Design
Manual 3 and are as follows:
TABLE 9-1 – EXISTING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ENCLOSED SYSTEMS AND
CULVERTS
Land Use / Zoning Designation Return Frequency the System Must
Accommodate
Residential 10 yr
Commercial 25 yr
Industrial 25 yr
Government and Institutional 25 yr
Floodway in 100-yr Floodplain 100 yr
TABLE 9-2 – EXISTING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR OPEN CHANNELS
Land Use / Zoning Designation Return Frequency the System Must
Accommodate
Residential 25 yr
Commercial 25 yr
Industrial 25 yr
Government and Institutional 25 yr
All Others 10 yr
Floodway in 100-yr Floodplain 100 yr
It should be noted here that while the above referenced tables describe the design standards
found in the current stormwater design manual, Chapter 31 of the City Code, Stormwater
Management, requires open channels to “provide a fifty-year floodplain”. Additionally, for side
line drainage, “a surface swale shall be provided ver the drainage system to contain at least a
fifty-year storm. These two items would appear to be in disagreement.
3 Storm Drainage Design Manual, Public Works Department, City of Jefferson, Missouri, 1985.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
9-2 September 29, 2003
9.2.2 - Proposed Criteria
As part of this project, recommended revisions have been proposed to the Storm Drainage
Design Manual. (The reader is directed to Section 16 of this report for additional discussions on
this revision process.) These revisions are based on Section 5600 of the American Public Works
Association (APWA) - Kansas City Chapter’s Design Specifications Manual. Concerning
performance criteria of stormwater systems, Section 5600 looks at standards unrelated to land
use; instead looking at the traveled way. Section 5600 criteria also do not differentiate between
enclosed systems, culverts and open channels. Those criteria are as follows:
TABLE 9-3 – PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STORMWATER SYSTEM
COMPONENTS
System Element Return Frequency the System Must
Accommodate
Floodway in 100-year Flood Plain 100 yr
Bridges, Pipes and Culverts
Crossing Arterial Streets 50 yr
All other System Components 10-yr
Overflow Channels The combined capacity of the overflow
channel and in-system conveyance element
shall be sufficient to convey the 100-year
storm at all locations; except that an overflow
depth not exceeding seven (7) inches at the
lowest point of the travelled way will be
permitted where culverts cross streets.
Section 5600 also stipulates that these design criteria will “…convey the peak discharge
generated by a 100-year return period storm without damage to land or buildings…”. As these
are the proposed criteria for the City of Jefferson and were part of this project, they were the
criteria used in evaluating system performance.
9.3 - Drainage System Performance Evaluation
The drainage system was evaluated as two separate parts: enclosed system and open channels.
An enclosed system was defined as multiple, connected pipes. As such, all of the elements
considered as enclosed systems were in the upper reaches of the watersheds studied. These
enclosed systems then discharged into the open channels. Culverts, single or multiple barrel,
were evaluated as part of the open channel system. This convention was driven by the proposed
design criteria and the models used and discussed earlier in this report. XP-SWMM models
enclosed systems better than HEC-RAS, with HEC-RAS better representing extended open
channel systems than XP-SWMM. Discussion of the reasons behind the benefits of each model
were not part of this project and the reader is encouraged to explore this topic in other sources.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
9-3 September 29, 2003
9.3.1 - Enclosed System Evaluation
The enclosed system, as stated earlier, was modeled in XP-SWMM. In order to better represent
the physical conditions in the field, most enclosed systems were modeled as a system of multi-
links. One link represented the surveyed structure, the other represented overland flow. In most
cases, this overland flow was modeled as a shallow trapezoidal channel, representing street flow.
(The reader is encouraged to keep the intent of the report in mind, that of a planning document.
Detailed modeling of each element of the drainage system is not economically feasible in a study
of this magnitude. This is a generalization that has been made in order to facilitate obtaining
reliable data for the purposes of identifying problem areas and accounting for their solutions in a
CIP. This document is not intended to be, and must not be, used as a substitute for or in-lieu of
detailed design procedures.) Modeling was completed for existing development and anticipated
future development. Any conduit found with excess flow in the overland flow link under future
conditions exceeding 5 cfs was determined to be under capacity and recommended for
replacement.
9.3.2 - Open Channel System Evaluation
The open channel system was modeled in HEC-RAS. HEC-RAS produced water surface
elevations at cross-sections which were delineated via GIS and data populated into the model.
These water surface elevations were then transferred back to the GIS and a map generated
showing the limits of the calculated flood plain. This was done for existing development
conditions and future anticipated development. Existing conditions were used to generate
floodplains for comparison with current effective Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) floodplains. Future conditions were used to generate floodplains showing areas of
flooding with anticipated development. Structures (building, roads, etc.) shown as being
adversely impacted by the limits of the calculated floodplain were identified and solutions were
modeled in an attempt to remove the structure from flooded area.
9.3.3 - FEMA Floodplain Evaluation
Comparison of the existing FIS floodplains with the results of the existing conditions modeling
found reasonably good results and correlation between the two. While not an exact match in
most locations, a cursory view of the comparison shows most boundaries to be adequately
equivalent. Discrepancies will occur due to differing levels of data accuracy, the change in the
landscape since the current FIS was completed (October, 1979) and the ability to gain agreement
in the geo-referencing. However, overall, it was the opinion of the project team that the FIS
floodplains and those predicted by the modeling compared at a level commensurate for this type
of study.
Comparison of the existing FIS floodplains with those predicted by the future conditions
modeling found some areas with little impact and some with major impacts. Those areas where
structures and/or infrastructure were not being adversely impacted were not subject to
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
9-4 September 29, 2003
improvements simply to lower the existing 100-year water surface elevation. Where an isolated
instance of road overtopping was noted, improvements were suggested, but the impact over the
surrounding area may be negligible. This is true of the upper reaches of Wears Creek and North
Wears Creek and the majority of Boggs Creek. However, significant reductions in the floodplain
boundaries were affected in the following areas:
• The lower reaches of North Wears Creek.
• The lower reaches of Wears Creek (below the proposed regional multi-use facility at
Washington Park).
• The majority of East Wears Creek (especially below the proposed regional multi-use facility
on the Lincoln University property).
The above reductions combined to have a significant impact in the area of the US Hwy 54 and
US Hwy 50 junction.
A graphical representation of the floodplain comparisons can be found on Figures 10-1 (Boggs
Creek) and 10-2 (Wears Creek system) in Section 10.
It should also be noted that a number of proposed improvements will have significant local
impacts and were above the limits of the FIS floodplain boundaries.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 10
Recommended Improvements
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 10 - Recommended Improvements ...............................................................................10-1
10.1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................10-1
10.2 - Discussion .....................................................................................................................10-2
10.2.1 - Regional multi-use facilities ....................................................................................10-2
10.2.2 - Detention/Retention facilities...................................................................................10-3
10.2.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements ....................................................10-3
10.2.4 - Levees ......................................................................................................................10-3
10.2.5 - Bank stabilization.....................................................................................................10-4
10.2.6 - Local projects (identified in the modeling)..............................................................10-4
10.2.7 - Local projects (estimated based on complaint files and questionnaires).................10-4
10.2.8 - Non-structural improvements...................................................................................10-4
10.3 - Improvements by Watershed .........................................................................................10-5
10.3.1 - Boggs Creek .............................................................................................................10-5
10.3.1.1 - Regional multi-use facilities ...............................................................................10-5
10.3.1.2 - Detention / Retention facilities ...........................................................................10-5
10.3.1.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements ..............................................10-6
10.3.1.4 - Levees.................................................................................................................10-8
10.3.1.5 - Bank stabilization ...............................................................................................10-8
10.3.1.6 - Local projects (identified in the modeling)........................................................10-8
10.3.2 - East Wears Creek .....................................................................................................10-9
10.3.2.1 - Regional multi-use facilities ...............................................................................10-9
10.3.2.2 - Detention/Retention facilities ...........................................................................10-10
10.3.2.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements ............................................10-10
10.3.2.4 - Levees...............................................................................................................10-14
10.3.2.5 - Bank stabilization .............................................................................................10-14
10.3.2.6 - Local projects (identified in the modeling)......................................................10-15
10.3.3 - Wears Creek ...........................................................................................................10-16
10.3.3.1 - Regional multi-use facilities .............................................................................10-16
10.3.3.2 - Detention/Retention facilities ...........................................................................10-17
10.3.3.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements ............................................10-17
10.3.3.4 - Levees...............................................................................................................10-19
10.3.3.5 - Bank stabilization .............................................................................................10-20
10.3.3.6 - Local projects (identified in the modeling)......................................................10-20
10.3.4 - North Wears Creek.................................................................................................10-21
10.3.4.1 - Regional multi-use facilities .............................................................................10-21
10.3.4.2 - Detention/Retention facilities ...........................................................................10-21
10.3.4.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements ............................................10-22
10.3.4.4 - Levees...............................................................................................................10-23
10.3.4.5 - Bank stabilization .............................................................................................10-23
10.3.4.6 - Local projects (identified in the modeling)......................................................10-24
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
ii September 29, 2003
List of Tables
Table 10-1 – Bald Hill Road / Calvin Lane Detention Facility (BC03P-001)...........................10-6
Table 10-2 – East Wears Creek Regional Multi-Use Facility - (EW03P-001)..........................10-9
Table 10-3 – Wears Creek Regional Multi-Use Facility – (WC03P-001)...............................10-16
Table 10-4 – Dix Road Detention Facility - (NW03P-001)....................................................10-22
List of Figures
Figure 10-1 – Boggs Creek Recommended Projects-Location Map..........................................10-1
Figure 10-2 – East Wears, Wears and North Wears Creeks Recommended Projects- Location
Map ....................................................................................................................................10-2
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-1 September 29, 2003
Section 10 - Recommended Improvements
10.1 - Introduction
Sections 10 through 12 of this report present the results of the detailed hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses for the four (4) watersheds studied as part of this project. The analyses results
discussed in this section were derived from the computer models and techniques discussed in
Sections 7, 8, and 9 of this report. The analysis is based on the storm drainage systems and land
use parameters as observed between Summer 2001 and Summer 2002. The performance of the
existing system was reviewed based on the criterion proposed in the revised Storm Drainage
Design Manual submitted as part of this project.
The proposed revisions to the City’s Storm Drainage Design Manual have been essentially
borrowed from the American Public Works Association-Kansas City Chapter’s standards. As
discussed earlier in this report, drainage system components have previously been designed
based on upstream land uses. The proposed revisions to the Storm Drainage Manual require
designs based on road/street classification and/or location relative to the floodway.
It is important to remember that an existing system element identified as failing to meet either
current or proposed criteria, does not indicate deficiencies in design or construction at the time
the element was originally constructed. The principle determinants of hydraulic demand on the
drainage system are land use and rainfall. Neither of these parameters has remained constant
throughout the period for which the system has developed. Major impacts on the capacity rating
of the system include updated information on the predicted intensity of rainfall based on ongoing
Weather Bureau statistical analysis of precipitation records; changes in land use not anticipated
at the time of the original design and construction; and the development of computer modeling
techniques and other analytical methods that permit a more refined analysis of the system than
previously practical.
It should be noted at the beginning of this section that the recommendations to follow are one
solution to the problem areas identified as part of this project. Other solutions may exist for each
project. However, it is important to remember that in addition to each project addressing a single
problem, all of the projects have been studied as a system and their interconnectivity studied as
well. While different scenarios of solutions exist, it will be vitally important to suggest and
model any additional scenarios as part of the overall system, and not just as a stand-alone
solution to a local problem.
It should further be noted that all improvements have been modeled assuming the Missouri River
at base flow. Elevated levels of the Missouri River will impact the flooding situation in
Jefferson City in two ways. The first is the backwater generated by any local rain events during
an elevated Missouri River stage. The elevated river stage will impede the flow of water in the
lower reaches of the studied creeks, causing backwater impacts to those reaches. Secondly,
tailwater from an elevated Missouri River will impact the very lowest reaches of the studied
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-2 September 29, 2003
creeks. Prior studies have been conducted on the feasibility of protection from the Missouri
River and were not part of this project. Impacts of the Missouri River were considered during
this project, but only as it pertains to the studied creeks.
As with all projects, it will be key to look for opportunities for cooperative efforts with other
agencies completing projects. City departments and State agencies, such as MoDOT, will no
doubt be completing projects in areas common to some of the projects recommended in this
report. The ability to cooperate and leverage resources will be a “win-win” situation for all
parties involved.
10.2 - Discussion
In order to better understand and grasp the magnitude of the projects being recommended as part
of this study, the identified improvement projects have been divided into groups. This division
will facilitate a better discussion of the types of projects being recommended and their relation to
each other.
In this section, the following division of projects will be used within each of the watersheds:
• Large Capital Improvement Projects (>$150,000):
• Regional multi-use facilities
• Detention/retention facilities
• Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements
• Levees
• Bank stabilization
• Small Capital Improvement Projects (<$150,000):
• Local projects (identified in the modeling)
• Local projects (estimated based on complaint files and questionnaires)
10.2.1 - Regional multi-use facilities
These types of projects are located as to benefit a significant area of downstream properties and
are capable of handling run-off from a large watershed area, or region. Typically, these types of
projects require a large land area due to the volume of run-off they must detain (hold back and
release at a lower rate) or retain (hold and not release downstream). They are also typically
located in a watershed that is highly developed or has a potential for large degrees of future
development in the upper reaches of the watershed but is largely developed with severe
encroachment of the channel in the downstream reaches.
If the facilities are designed as a dry detention facility, they can often be used for more than just
stormwater control. Other uses requiring large land areas, such as parks and athletic fields, can
use the detention area until a large rain event occurs that necessitates the run-off storage capacity
of the facility. Since people will be using this area and could conceivably be using the area
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-3 September 29, 2003
immediately prior to a large rain event, it will be important that as part of the overall stormwater
management program an early warning system be implemented. This would allow evacuation of
the run-off storage area(s) and time for facility users to find a safer area.
The regional multi-use facilities recommended as part of this project have been used due to the
extreme degree of encroachment on the lower reaches of the stream networks and the relatively
flat slopes of the lower reaches. Without the regional detention facilities, extensive structure
buy-outs and channel modifications would need to be completed in order to abate the currently
modeled flooding of structures. These proposed locations for these facilities have been sited
based on location within the stormwater system, current topography and/or ability to modify, and
the current land use of the proposed site and its compatibility with regional multi-use facilties.
As with any facility whose function, either dedicated or as part of a multi-use facility, it is to
detain/retain stormwater runoff, regular and periodic maintenance will be required.
10.2.2 - Detention/Retention facilities
These facilities are usually sited to offer only local benefits. They can also be used in series to
benefit a large area or a specific downstream area. Due to their size, they are usually a dedicated
facility, i.e. for detention or retention of stormwater only. They are usually considerably smaller
than a regional multi-use facility and sited in the upper reaches of the watershed.
10.2.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements
These types of projects are usually found at the middle to lower reaches of the main stem, but
could be found on a large tributary. These types of projects are most often due to encroachment
on the stream channel, lack of capacity from under design and/or upstream development.
However, as discussed earlier, this does not indicate a lack of compliance with standards in force
at the time of the design.
10.2.4 - Levees
Levees are a traditional flood protection project employed along rivers of all sizes across the
country and can be in the form of an earthen levee or a structural “wall” of various materials.
While levees are often an effective flood protection project, they are also an expensive and
maintenance intensive option. For a levee’s protection results to be accepted by FEMA, the
levee must be constructed to Corps of Engineers standards. This involves a very calculated and
deliberate construction of the levee, using only select materials for certain elements of the levee.
Also to be considered is the fact that if the levee keeps floodwaters from exiting the flow-way, it
also can impede the flow of stormwater to the flow-way. Therefore, drainage systems with
backflow prevention provisions must be designed. Often times, pump systems must be installed
to carry the stormwater that accumulates behind the levee over it and into the flow-way. If
transportation routes such as streets and railroads can not be rerouted to accommodate the
installation of a levee, pass through structures, such as stop-log or sandbag gaps must be
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-4 September 29, 2003
constructed within the levee. Additionally, once the levee is constructed, it must be maintained
properly to ensure its structural integrity and ability to perform its prescribed duties.
10.2.5 - Bank stabilization
Bank stabilization projects are usually a result of upstream development. As development
increases, so does the amount of run-off leaving the property. With little or no consideration for
the impacts of that run-off at the parcel level, an increase in the amount of water entering the
stream channel occurs. This increase in volume causes an increase in velocity. Since the stream
is a natural system, it attempts to assimilate the new velocity by increasing its flow area, most
often by erosion. (It should be noted that a channels shape is determined by the 1-2 year flow vs.
the large flow events. This is due to the lower flows cutting into the bank and the bank
sloughing into the streambed.) Bank stabilization projects are centered on stabilizing the toe of
the embankment and vegetating the embankment. This vegetation then slows the velocity at the
embankment face, reducing the energy available to dislodge the embankment material, and gives
structure to the material, further strengthening the embankment.
10.2.6 - Local projects (identified in the modeling)
These are projects that have been identified in the modeling as a system component that does not
handle its required flow. As an arbitrary cut-off point, any project whose estimated cost was less
than $150,000 has been classified as this type of project.
Again, it should be clarified that these projects were identified in the modeling completed as part
of this project.
10.2.7 - Local projects (estimated based on complaint files and questionnaires)
It became apparent that many of the problems identified in the questionnaire and by previous
complaint files were located in areas of the watersheds that would not be modeled due to their
contributory area. However, these projects are no less important to those impacted residents than
the larger projects identified in the modeling. Therefore, an estimate will be made based on the
number of reported problems and deficiencies noted by these sources so that they can be
accounted for as part of the overall need of the stormwater program.
In contrast to the local projects discussed prior, these projects are not based on any specific
modeling results, and as such are only an estimate based on available data at the time of this
project.
10.2.8 - Non-structural improvements
Not all stormwater solutions require structural projects. Non-structural improvements, such as
better stormwater management practices at the parcel level, better regulations, modified
development patterns, etc. can all have a positive impact on the stormwater system. These are
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-5 September 29, 2003
usually significantly less expensive than structural solutions and are a better investment of
resources as they often avoid creating problems, as opposed to structural solutions which treat
active problems.
10.3 - Improvements by Watershed
All improvement costs are discussed in Section 11.
The number scheme used for the projects is meant to be somewhat intelligent. The project
numbers are made up of eight digits of significance:
XXYYZ-###
XX is the abbreviation for the watershed (BC-Boggs Creek, EW-East Wears Creek, WC-Wears
Creek, and NW-North Wears Creek)
YY is the last two digits of the year that Z was initiated
Z is an indicator of the progress of the projects (i.e. P = proposed, S = scheduled, D = Design, C
= Construction, etc.)
### is the 3 digit project number (001, 015, 100, etc.)
This scheme was used so that a reader could get some general information on the project, but not
so much that the process becomes cumbersome. This scheme was also used to try and avoid
confusion between the project number and other numbers (structure number, pipe number, etc.)
used in the modeling and elsewhere.
10.3.1 - Boggs Creek
10.3.1.1 - Regional multi-use facilities
No regional multi-use facilities were proposed in Boggs Creek. The watershed is relatively
undeveloped throughout and it was the opinion of the consultant that other measures could be
taken in lieu of this type of facility, given the current degree and pattern of development in
Boggs Creek.
10.3.1.2 - Detention / Retention facilities
The following detention/retention facilities were identified with proposed improvements:
BC03P-001 – A detention facility is proposed at the intersection of Bald Hill Road and
Calvin Lane. This is in response to prior complaints of road flooding at this location. The
detention facility would be located just upstream of the intersection. Specifics of the facility
are found in Table 10-1.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-6 September 29, 2003
TABLE 10-1 – BALD HILL ROAD / CALVIN LANE
DETENTION FACILITY (BC03P-001)
Flow reduction at detention pond 556 cfs to 246 cfs
Storage volume below emergency spillway 10.3 acre-ft
Top of dam 616 feet*
Principle spillway elevation 602 feet*
Emergency spillway elevation 614 feet*
Principle spillway structure 18” CMP
* All references to elevation are above mean sea level
10.3.1.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements
The following large culvert replacements were identified with proposed improvements:
BC03P-002 – Grant Street at Hough (Structure No. BG013, BGTrib10 Rch40, RS 2173,
length = 80’, in the floodway). The current configuration is a double barrel culvert with a
9x9 and a 9x7.8 RCB. The combination of insufficient capacity and tailwater from the
railroad culvert shows flooding to a depth of about 5.5 feet during the 100-year event, and
1.25 feet during the 50-year event. The addition of another 9x9 RCB (or hydraulic
equivalent) and opening up the railroad culvert allows all design storms to pass in the
channel.
Reason for Improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
BC03P-003 – East McCarty at High Street (Structure No. BG014, BGTrib10 Rch40, RS
3818, length = 78’, in the floodway). There is substantial flooding south of the stream
crossing with the existing 10x10 RCB. The addition of another 10x10 RCB (or hydraulic
equivalent) would bring all flows under the street.
Reason for Improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
BC03P-004 – Miller Street (Structure No. BG019, BGTrib20 Rch60, RS 480, length = 61’)
floods to a depth of about 1.5 feet west of the stream crossing with the 100-year storm.
Replacing the 3x5.2 foot arch culvert with a 20x5 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent) would bring
the 10-year flow out of the street. This area is problematic because of a lack of topographic
relief. A detailed local survey would be required to determine the exact nature of the
required improvement.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 years storm completely).
BC03P-005 – US 50 (Structure No. BG020, BGTrib20 Rch60, RS 764, length = 184’)
creates approximately 8 feet of tailwater depth with the 100-year event. This backs up 200
lineal feet along Elm Street and prevents the upstream private access culvert from passing the
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-7 September 29, 2003
flow at that point. The existing culvert is a 7x6 RCB. The addition of another 7x6 RCB will
solve this problem.
Reason for Improvement : flooding above US 50 in Elm Street, to a depth greater than 7” in
the 100 year storm.
BC03P-006 – Private access (Structure No. BG021, BGTrib20 Rch60, RS 1247, length =
50’) to a commercial property off of Elm Street. About 1.5 feet of overtopping here floods
Elm Street. The existing pair of 4.5 foot CMP’s need to be enlarged to three 5.5x4.5 RCB’s
(or hydraulic equivalent) to get the 100-year overtopping into specifications. The
improvement at US 50, listed above, must occur prior to, or in concert with this project in
order for this project to be effective.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 years storm completely).
BC03P-007 – Hutton Lane (Structure No. BG005, BGTrib50 Rch100, RS 186, length = 83’)
just south of Louis Drive threatens the two houses on either side of the stream on the west
side of Hutton. The single 4.5 foot CMP should have a second 4.5 CMP (or hydraulic
equivalent) added.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 years storm completely).
BC03P-008 – The Union Pacific Railroad (Structure No. BG001, Boggs MC10, RS 78,
length = 84’, in the floodway) culvert at the mouth of Boggs Creek needs to be enlarged from
a single 14x14 to a 24x20. The railroad tracks are only about ½ foot under water in the 100-
year event, but the water backed up behind the railroad embankment is almost 20 feet over
the top of the culvert inlet, and at the elevation of 559 feet extends its influence over 5,000
lineal feet upstream. This floods about 800’ of Grant Street and affects approximately 12
houses.
Reason for Improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping and raises the flood profile by more than one foot.
BC03P-009 – East McCarty Street at St. Louis (Structure No. BG002, Boggs MC30, RS
3447, length =60’, in the floodway) floods east of the culvert for about 200-feet to a depth of
approximately 2.5 feet. In order to pass the 100-year flow through the culvert, the current
double 10x10 would need to have another 10x10 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent) added.
Reason for Improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
BC03P-010 – Eastland Drive (Structure No. BG003, Boggs MC30, RS 4578, length = 73’, in
the floodway) flooding occurs for 500-feet downstream of the culvert and stream crossing to
a maximum depth of 4.7 feet, because the road itself runs through a swale. The current
double 11x9 RCB, if expanded with one additional 11x9 (or hydraulic equivalent) will
handle the flow.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-8 September 29, 2003
Reason for Improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
BC03P-011 – Landwehr Hills Road (Structure No. BG009, Boggs MC40, RS 7710, length =
70’) flows over the road for about 160 feet on the north side of the stream crossing to a depth
of about 1.4 feet. The current 8x8 RCB needs to be supplemented with a 4.5 circular CMP
(or hydraulic equivalent).
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches.
10.3.1.4 - Levees
No levee projects have been recommended for the Boggs Creek basin.
10.3.1.5 - Bank stabilization
The following bank stabilization projects have been identified through staff and citizen input
with proposed improvements:
BC03P-012 – Between McCarty and U.S. Highway 50. This project includes 330’ of 8’ high
bank and 1280’ of 4’ high bank. This project is linked to the McCarty Street Project
(BC03P-003) in that it increases the conveyance through this area and feeds the additional
cell recommended in the McCarty Street Project.
BC03P-013 – Along Theresa to Landwehr Road. This project addresses a stretch of bank
erosion approximately 400’ long.
BC03P-014 – Along Scenic Drive. This project addresses approximately 600’ feet of
eroding bank along both sides of Scenic Drive
10.3.1.6 - Local projects (identified in the modeling)
The following local projects were identified in the modeling with proposed improvements.
BC03P-015 – South of Moreland Ave, west of Landsdowne Ln. (Link ID: 241P; 210 feet of
24 inch pipe to be replaced by 48 inch pipe.)
BC03P-016 – Off Elm St. west of Nelson Dr. This culvert under a private road is undersized.
(Link ID: 315P, 78 feet of 30 inch pipe to be replaced by 42 inch.)
BC03P-017 – Between McCarty and Miller St from Church St to east of Christopher Pl.
There are eight reports of primary structure flooding in the vicinity, and one report of street
flooding. Hoever, it’s not apparent that these undersized culverts contribute to this flooding.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-9 September 29, 2003
(Link ID’s: 317P through 323P, 1342 feet of 18, 24 and 30 inch pipe, to be replaced by 36
inch pipe.)
BC03P-018 – Crossing Taylor St between Karen Dr. and Hough St. There is yard flooding
associated with these culverts. (Link ID’s : 291P through 293P; 207 feet of 24 inch pipe,
should be 48 inch pipe.)
BC03P-019 – Chickadee Rd cul de sac. There is yard and street flooding reported at this
location. (Link ID: 190P; 175 feet of 30 inch pipe, to be replaced by 48 inch pipe.)
BC03P-020 – Jennifer Dr, near Amy Ct. There is yard flooding reported in the vicinity, and
there may be unreported street flooding at this location. (Link ID’s : 211P, 212P, 209P; 611
feet of 24, 36 and 48 inch pipe to be replaced by 36, 42 and 54 inch pipe.)
10.3.2 - East Wears Creek
10.3.2.1 - Regional multi-use facilities
One regional multi-use facility is being proposed in the East Wears Creek basin.
EW03P-001 – The facility’s proposed site is located on the Lincoln University athletic field
complex downstream of the intersection of Stadium Drive and Leslie Boulevard. The reason
for this facility is to drastically reduce the flow along East Wears Creek and relieve some of
the flooding seen downstream, especially along Lafayette Street and East Miller Street. Due
to the large amount of flow entering East Wears Creek below the proposed facility and the
backwater impacts from conveyance geometry downstream, this facility alone can not reduce
all of the flooding along East Wears Creek. However, in concert with another project listed
later, the East Wears Creek By-pass, the two will significantly reduce the impacts of flooding
along East Wears Creek. Specifics on the facility are listed in Table 10-2.
TABLE 10-2 – EAST WEARS CREEK REGIONAL MULTI-USE FACILITY -
(EW03P-001)
Flow reduction at detention pond 2015 cfs to 1141 cfs
Storage volume below emergency spillway 75 acre-ft
Top of dam 588 feet*
Principle spillway elevation 572 feet*
Emergency spillway elevation 586 feet*
Principle spillway structure 8’x6’ RCB
* All references to elevation are above mean sea level
The reason for siting this proposed project here is multiple-fold. First, its location in the
watershed allows it to serve a large portion of the watershed. Second, its topography would
allow for the construction of the facility with a relatively minor amount of site work; most of
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-10 September 29, 2003
the construction work would be in the dam and outlet structure. Third, as discussed prior, the
current land use lends itself well to a regional multi-use facility. Fourth, current conditions
modeling shows a large percentage of this area to be inundated during the 100-year flow
event. When viewing the current conditions floodplain vs. the floodplain created by this
facility, the largest land area impact is in the lower half of this proposed facility. Most of this
additional area is currently a practice track and open space. Additionally, if nothing is done
from a project standpoint, the area claimed by flows caused by future development is nearly
identical to that caused by this proposed project, without the down stream benefits.
It is acknowledged that this project will take a great deal of cooperation and coordination
between the City and the property owners, Lincoln University. However, during the writing
of this report, it was discovered that the University was in the process of doing a large master
plan for the University, including the property on which the proposed facility is currently
sited. Intelligent and forward-looking planning by both the City and the University could
make such a facility an excellent candidate for multiple funding assistance options. This
would be an excellent opportunity to open dialogue with the University and begin educating
one of the City’s more prominent residents on the importance of a holistic view of
stormwater management and how they might contribute.
In the early stages of the project, an additional regional multi-use facility was proposed on
property owned by the Jefferson City School district, currently used as the driver’s education
training area and the practice football fields for the high school. However, the ability of the
proposed Lincoln University facility to detain the modeled flows rendered this Jefferson City
High School site ineffective.
10.3.2.2 - Detention/Retention facilities
No detention/retention facilities have been proposed in East Wears Creek. Several of these
structures already exist or are currently in the planning phases on the part of the City.
10.3.2.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements
The following large culvert replacements were identified with proposed improvements:
EW03P-002 – East Wears By-pass. As discussed earlier in this section, a significant amount
of the peak flow calculated at the mouth of East Wears Creek is generated by the watershed
area below the proposed Lincoln University regional multi-use facility. Future conditions
modeling, including the Lincoln University regional multi-use facility, show a peak flow at
the mouth of East Wears Creek of approximately 3,950 cfs. In order to gage the magnitude
of flows from the lower reaches of East Wears Creek, all flow above where a major enclosed
system tributary enters East Wears Creek, near E. Miller Street, was removed and the XP-
SWMM model re-run. The result was a peak flow of approximately 3,600 cfs ., which is
almost 90% of the future conditions peak flow seen at the mouth. In addition to the flow
generated below the Lincoln University facility, the topography below the bend at E. Miller
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-11 September 29, 2003
and E. McCarty Streets offers little relief to clear accumulating flow. The current channel
geometry and the structures under U.S. Highway 50, both the structure at Monroe Street and
the long structure under Miler Street, along U.S. Highway 50, at the discharge into Wears
Creek, are inadequate to handle the calculated flows. All of these factors combine to create a
significant backwater impact to overcome. With no practical areas for detention/retention in
these lower reaches of the watershed, a 20’ x 8.5’ RCB by-pass is being proposed along the
north side of U.S. Highway 50. The proposed by-pass would begin at Monroe Street and
parallel the highway to its terminus at the flowline of Wears Creek. The proposed by-pass
would be constructed in what appears from aerial photos to be the highway right of way.
The reasons for proposal of this project are:
1) The current topography along the north side of the highway is currently depressed for
most of the length of the project (approximately 4000’), reducing the amount of excavation
necessary;
2) The position of the current channel offers little opportunity for widening without
significant excavation, bank stabilization, structure buy-out/protection/relocation and
enlargement/parallel of the conveyance under U.S. Highway 50;
3) Traffic disruption and re-routing, while problematic in the downtown area, was seen as
minimized by this solution versus attempting to shut down and re-route traffic on U.S.
Highway 50.
4) With the modeled future flows, buy-out of impacted properties around the E. Miller and
E. McCarty St. bend has no impact on the predicted inundation of U.S. Highway 50; flows
will still place the highway under water.
While it is acknowledged that this will be a major project, it will reap some major benefits;
relieving flooding along East Wears Creek and limiting the impact to travel along U.S.
Highway 50.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the entire 100-year flow as a structure in the
floodway.
EW03P-003 – Miller Street Parallel System. Even with the above mentioned by-pass, the
lowest reach of East Wears Creek (below Monroe Street) will not handle the predicted flows
for the contributing watershed area. Therefore, a parallel 10x10 culvert is being proposed
along side the existing system under Miller Street. This allows the entire 100-year flow to
remain within the system along the lower reaches of East Wears Creek. The proximity of
multiple structures along this lower reach of East Wears Creek and the topographically
depressed area along the north side of U.S. Highway 50 make it necessary to contain the
entire 100-year flow within the system.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the entire 100-year flow as a structure in the
floodway.
EW03P-004 – Leslie Street culvert (Structure No. EW016 at MC20, RS 10492, length = 64’)
is overtopped by 100-yr., 50-yr., and 10-yr. future flows. The existing double 11x5 culvert
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-12 September 29, 2003
needs to be replaced by two 30x6 culverts (or hydraulic equivalent) accompanied by channel
widening and cleanup both upstream and downstream. Flooding at this crossing includes
substantial flooding on Stadium Blvd during just the ten-year storm.
Reason for Improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
EW03P-005 – Mesa Avenue (Structure No. EW017 at MC20, RS 10846, length = 100’) is
undersized for the 10-yr flows and needs to be enlarged from a double 11.7x6.5 arch to a pair
of 30x6 RCB’s (or hydraulic equivalent) with channel enlargement both upstream and
downstream. This matches the improvement required to pass the 100 yr. flow under Leslie
Ave, just downstream of the Mesa culvert. Flooding at this crossing includes substantial
flooding on Stadium Blvd with only the 10-year storm.
Reason for Improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
EW03P-006 – At Jackson Street (Structure No. EW019 at MC30, RS 11842, length = 52’) is
a private crossing into a light industrial complex south of Stadium Blvd. This 22x8 arch
culvert is undersized for 100-yr., 50 -yr ., and 10-yr. flows. A single 30x10 RCB (or
hydraulic equivalent) will pass the 100-year flow, with appropriate channel enlargements
both upstream and downstream. Overtopping at this crossing includes substantial flooding on
Stadium Blvd even with only the ten-year storm.
Reason for Improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
EW03P-007 – Monroe Street (Structure No. EW020 at MC40, RS 13008, length = 36’)
crosses East Wears just downstream of US54. None of the examined flows will pass the
existing culvert, with overtopping from 1.4 to 2 feet in depth. The existing 12x5 RCB is
changed to a 22x7 RCB with the channel enlarged both upstream and downstream of the
crossing, and the road raised.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year flow without overtopping by more than
seven inches (and fails to pass the ten year flow). Note that the first reason drives this
improvement--a 16x5 RCB would pass the ten year flow.
EW03P-008 – US 54 (Structure No. EW021 at MC40, RS 13551, length = 550’, major
arterial) crosses East Wears in an upper reach. The culvert structure fails to pass the 100-
year flow even with exaggerated tailwater that the overtopping in the model implies.
Essentially, the model suggests that the undersized culvert pushes water out into upstream
businesses almost up to Stadium Boulevard before it passes through the existing culvert. If
the 11x6 RCB is replaced with a 20x6 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent), the upstream flooding
is eliminated.
Reason for Improvement : this structure serves a major arterial and fails to pass the 50 year
flow.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-13 September 29, 2003
EW03P-009 – Duane Swift Parkway (Structure No. EW023, MC40, RS15644, length = 68’)
is overtopped and pushes water out onto Stadium Blvd for 800’ during the 100-year storm. If
the 10x7 RCB is replaced by a 22x7 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent) and accompanying
channel widening and cleanup is done, then the 10-year storm will pass under Swift, but the
50- and 100-year storms will not. However, the flooding will be less than 7 inches deep in
the worst modeled storm.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 years storm completely).
EW03P-010 – Chestnut Street (Structure No. EW025, EWTrib10 Rch50, RS 825, length =
80’) crosses Leslie Blvd just south of Stadium Blvd. There exists a substantial sag in
Chestnut about 160’ north of the existing culvert, and the model predicts depths of 1 to 4.5
feet in the area. If the present 6x5.1 RCB is replaced with a 10x8 (or hydraulic equivalent)
with appropriate channel modifications, then the 100-year flow overtops the roadway at the
sag by less than 7”, and the 10-year and 50-year flows will pass.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year flow with less than 7 inches overtopping
(and fails to pass the 10 year storm).
EW03P-011 – Holiday Drive (Structure No. EW030, EWTrib20 Rch60, RS 2058, length =
64’) is overtopped by approximately 4 inches with the 10-year storm. The existing 6.3x4.4
culvert is replaced with a 7x6 to get the 10-year storm under the road, but the 100-year storm
will still overtop the street.
Reason for Improvement : 10-year storm overtops and 100-year storm overtops by more than
7 inches.
EW03P-012 – Private, Monroe south of John (Structure No. EW032, EWTrib30 Rch70, RS
18.54, length = 15’) access to a light industrial site. The overtopping at this location floods
Monroe Street just south of John Street. If the current 8.7x6.3 ellipse is replaced by a 20x7.5
RCB (or hydraulic equivalent), the 10- and 50- year flows are handled, but the 100-year flow
will still flood Monroe, as well as access to the business site.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 year storm).
EW03P-013 – Tanner Bridge Road (Structure No. EW034, EWTrib30 Rch70, RS 633, length
= 57’) goes through a 50’ long sag just south of where this tributary goes underneath the
street. If the 5x8 RCB is replaced with a 12x8 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent), and the sag in
the road is raised by approximately 3 feet to accommodate the new culvert, then all flows
will stay out of the street. This fix also accommodates the light industrial sites on the west
side of Tanner, which also need to be replaced (see next item).
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 year storm).
EW03P-014 – Private, off Tanner Bridge Rd south of Monroe (Structure No. EW035,
EWTrib30 Rch70, RS 779, length = 9’) access to light industrial, this driveway is 2 feet
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-14 September 29, 2003
under the 10-year flow and approximately 3 feet under the 100-year storm flow. If the
existing 8x3.5 RCB is replaced with a 16x4 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent), the driveway
itself is raised, and the above improvement to Tanner Bridge Road completed, the 10-year
flow will pass through without overtopping.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 year storm).
EW03P-015 – Aaron Court (Structure No. EW036, EWTrib30 Rch70, RS 850, length = 38’)
provides access to several small commercial buildings on the west side of this East Wears
tributary off of Tanner Bridge Road. The 10-year flow is 2 feet over, and the 100-year flow
is approximately 3 feet over the street. This trouble area is part of the whole Tanner Bridge
Road sag problem, and with the above improvements and replacing the pair of 5.5x4.3 foot
elliptical culverts at this location with a double 10x5 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent), all flows
can pass freely. The creek will still leave its banks upstream of the crossing, but it will no
longer threaten the businesses on the west side of Aaron Court.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 year storm).
EW03P-016 – Oscar Drive (Structure No. EW037, EWTrib30 Rch70, RS 1646, length = 31’)
connects US 54 frontage road to Aaron Court. It is overtopped by 2 to 2.5 feet by the model
flows, and the backwater threatens two upstream businesses. The existing 8.8x5.9 foot
elliptical culvert should be replaced with a 16x8 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent) to get the 10-
year flow completely under the road. The 50- and 100-year flows will still overtop the road
at this point, but by less than 7 inches.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 year storm).
EW03P-017 – Flora Drive (Structure No. EW038, EWTrib30 Rch70, RS 2623, length = 70’)
connects the US 54 frontage road to Aurora Avenue. Unimproved, it is approximately 1.5 to
2 feet under water for model flows. If a 10x6 RCB replaces the 6-foot circular culvert, all
flows will pass, after the downstream improvements are made.
Reason for Improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 year storm).
10.3.2.4 - Levees
No levee projects have been recommended for the East Wears Creek basin.
10.3.2.5 - Bank stabilization
The following bank stabilization projects have been identified through staff and citizen input
with proposed improvements
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-15 September 29, 2003
EW03P-018 – Southwest of John between Monroe and Cristy. Approximately 235’ of bank
stabilization on both sides of the channel
10.3.2.6 - Local projects (identified in the modeling)
The following local projects were identified in the modeling with proposed improvements.
EW03P-019 – Between SW Blvd and Debra Ave, South of Thompson Court. These conduits
link light industrial development on Southwest Blvd to the upper reach of East Wears. There
is yard or outbuilding flooding or erosion reported in the area, a couple of homes and
commercial structures are at risk. (Link ID’s: 2083P and 2084P; 121 feet of 30 inch pipe to
be replaced by 36 inch pipe.)
EW03P-020 – From Stadium Dr. south to East Wears at Monroe St. There are two reports of
primary structure flooding and several reports of yard or outbuilding flooding in along this
run in a residential area. (Link ID’s: 2214P through 2220P; 681 feet of 24, 30 and 36 inch
pipe to be replaced with 36, 42 and 48 inch pipe.)
EW03P-021 – From Union St. south and west following Adams St to the East Wears main
channel. There is yard or outbuilding flooding reported in this residential area. (Link ID’s:
2221P through 2225P, 911 feet of 24 and 27 inch pipe, to be replaced by 36 inch pipe.)
EW03P-022 – Under Union St east of Jackson St. This conduit is slightly undersized, but
only risks street flooding near the school. (Link ID: 2235P, 47 feet of 24 inch pipe, to be
replaced by 30 inch pipe.)
EW03P-023 – Crossing Elm St between Locust St and Clark Ave. This portion of an upland
run shows reports of yard flooding and/or erosion around an old natural gulley. (Link ID’s:
2117P through 2123P: 407 feet of 30, 36 and 42 inch pipe, should be 48 and 60 inch pipe.)
EW03P-024 – Dunklin St. from Chestnut St. to Lafayette St. There is probably unreported
street flooding along Dunklin St. in this area. The severity should be validated by local
residents or the University. (Link ID’s: 2099P through 2102 P; 1060 feet of 24, 30 and 42
inch pipe to be replaced by 36, 42 and 48 inch pipe.)
EW03P-025 – McCarty St. from Cherry St. to Marshall St. There is some street flooding
reported in this area. The pipes appear to be seriously undercapacity. (Link ID’s: 2253P,
2263P, 2254P through 2258P; 945 feet of 15, 30 and 36 inch pipe should be 42 and 48 inch
pipe.)
EW03P-026 – Along Poplar St and Atchison St. There are reports of primary structure
flooding and yard flooding in this mixed use neighborhood. (Link ID’s 2175P through
2180P, 2271P through 2273P, and 2234P; 1431 feet of 24, 36 and 48 inch pipe, to be
replaced with 30, 48 and 54 inch pipe.)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-16 September 29, 2003
EW03P-027 – Interior to Atchison St., Jefferson St., Madison St. and Ashley St. There two
reports of primary structure flooding at the top of this run of pipe. (Link ID’s: 2189P through
2197P, 471 feet of 15, 24, 30 and 36 inch pipe, to be replaced by 36 and 42 inch pipe.)
10.3.3 - Wears Creek
10.3.3.1 - Regional multi-use facilities
One regional multi-use facility has been proposed in the Wears Creek basin.
WC03P-001 – It is sited on the current Kiwanis baseball field complex in Washington Park.
The reason for this facility is a drastic reduction in the peak flow below the facility and a
drastic reduction in the peak flow at the mouth of Wears Creek. The location of this facility
allows it to have a significant influence on the overall impact that Wears Creek flooding has
on the downtown area. The flow downstream of the facility is reduced enough to eliminate
the need for any significant modifications of downstream structures.
The proposed site was chosen for its location relative to the watershed and its current land-
use, which is compatible with a multi-use facility.
Alternatives to the multi-use facility would involve extensive structure (building) buy-
out/relocation, channel widening and downstream hydraulic structure (bridge/culvert)
modification/enlargement.
Specifics on the Wears Creek regional multi-use facility are found in table 10-3.
TABLE 10-3 – WEARS CREEK REGIONAL MULTI-USE FACILITY –
(WC03P-001)
Flow reduction at detention pond 6,926 cfs to 1,655 cfs
Flow reduction at the mouth 10,452 cfs to 5,482 cfs
Storage volume below emergency spillway 120 acre-ft
Top of dam 562 feet*
Principle spillway elevation 544 feet*
Emergency spillway elevation 560 feet*
Principle spillway structure 10’x12’ RCB
* All references to elevation are above mean sea level
One additional multi-use facility was initially proposed in the Wears Creek basin; however,
further analysis showed its benefits to be minimal due to severe encroachment of the stream
channel in the area of the proposed facility. This proposed facility was removed and channel
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-17 September 29, 2003
modifications have been substituted. Modeling showed that the channel improvements
eliminated the backwater impacts that were responsible for inundating several structures.
10.3.3.2 - Detention/Retention facilities
No detention retention facilities are being recommended in the Wears Creek basin as part of this
study. However, the City has identified several proposed sites for such facilities within the
Wears Creek basin
10.3.3.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements
The following large culvert replacements were identified with proposed improvements
WC03P-002 – Satinwood Drive (Structure WC023, WCTrib10 Rch110, RS 4004, length =
53’) crosses a tributary of Wears at its intersection with Stadium Drive. This intersection is a
low point, and overtopping flow pushes water all the way up to Brandy Lane. The only
structure threatened is upstream on a different tributary (a single family dwelling), but the
intersection is completely blocked. The current culvert consists of a double 9x3.4 RCB that
causes over 2 feet of overflow on Stadium Blvd. If the channel is improved and Stadium
Blvd is raised, then the current culvert passes the 10-year flow, but the 100-year flow
overtops by approximately 0.87 feet. Without raising the road it will require replacing the
existing culverts with a pair of 20x5 RCB’s (or hydraulic equivalent). The culverts required
to pass the 100-year flow with less than 7” overtopping are a pair of 10x5 RCB’s (or
hydraulic equivalent), along with channel widening both up and downstream of Satinwood.
Reason for improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 years storm completely).
WC03P-003 – Cedar Hill Road (Structure No. WC024, WCTrib10 Rch110, RS 7612, length
= 63’) is overtopped north of where this tributary to Wears Creek crosses. In order to get the
10-year flow under the road (without roadwork), the pair of existing 3-foot CMP’s would be
replaced by a pair of 10x3 RCB’s (or hydraulic equivalent). No houses are threatened in this
location; road overtopping is the only concern.
Reason for improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 years storm completely).
WC03P-004 – West Edgewood, 0.25 miles west of Missouri Highway 179 (Structure No.
WC027, WCTrib50 Rch150, RS 273, length = 166’, in the floodway) is overtopped by over
1.6 feet in the 50- and 100-year events. If the current 14x7 RCB is replaced with a 17x9
RCB (or hydraulic equivalent), all flows will pass under West Edgewood.
Reason for improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-18 September 29, 2003
WC03P-005 – Gettysburg Place (Structure No. WC028, WCTrib70 Rch170, RS 768, length
= 100’) is overtopped by approximately 1 foot in the 10-year storm with the existing 5.7x5.7
RCB.. The 10-year storm will pass with an 8x6 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent).
Reason for improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 years storm completely).
WC03P-006 – West Dunklin Street (Structure No. WC008, Wears MC30, RS 4218, in the
floodway) is a bridge structure that cannot be modified to pass the specified flows. A stop
log gap system is recommended. This project should be included with WC03P-015.
Reason for improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
WC03P-007 – Southwest Boulevard (Structure No. WC017, Wears MC30, RS 10112, length
= 500’, in the floodway) is at the entrance to a 500-foot long tunnel under a commercial
establishment. The current structure impedes the flow enough to push the 100 year storm
event over the top with a depth of about 2.5 feet, although the 10- and 50-year storms will
pass. To get the 100 year future flow underground, the current pair of 20x15 arches would
be replaced by pair of 26x15 RCB’s (or hydraulic equivalent).
Reason for improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
WC03P-008 – West Stadium Boulevard (Structure No. WC018, Wears MC40, RS 15472,
length = 70’, in the floodway) cannot accept the 100- year flow, and floods the boulevard
north of Wears to a depth of nearly 4 feet. The solution is a combination of raising Stadium
to a minimum elevation of 582 feet and adding an additional barrel to the existing crossing.
Currently there are three 12x10 RCB’s and the addition of a fourth 12x10 (or hydraulic
equivalent) allows all flows under the street.
Reason for improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
WC03P-009 – West Edgewood Drive at Frog Hill Road (Structure No. WC019, Wears
MC40, RS 17334, length = 104’, in the floodway) floods approximately 275 feet east of
Wears Creek to a depth of nearly 5 feet with the 100-year event. If the triple 16x8 RCB is
replaced with a triple 24x9 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent), the 100-year flow will pass.
Reason for improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
WC03P-010 – Nebraska Ave (Structure No. WC012, Wears Creek MC 30, RS 5493, in the
floodway) is overtopped by all three model storms. Before detention, the 100 year storm
flow reaches a depth of 7.3 feet at the low point on the bridge deck, which is at an elevation
of 552.5 feet. After detention, the deck is still under 2.3 feet of water with the 100 year
event. Because this bridge is in the floodway (and below the top elevation of the proposed
levee, project WC-014, at 557 feet), it is recommended that it be removed. Additional road
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-19 September 29, 2003
alterations may be considered in the vicinity to reroute traffic over the Kansas Street bridge
improvement.
Reason for improvement : this structure is in the floodway and fails to pass the 100 year
storm.
WC03P-011 – Kansas Street Bridge (Structure No. WC013, Wears Creek MC30, RS 6932,
in the floodway)is overtopped by 5.6 feet by the 100 year storm, and after detention, is still
overtopped by about 1.0 feet. Since the proposed levee is 2.5 feet above the low point on the
bridge deck, it is recommended that the deck be rebuilt at the levee crest height of 557 feet.
Since this is a structure of historical value, special provisions with regards to its
modification/reconstruction may need to be considered.
Reason for improvement : this structure is in the floodway and fails to pass the 100 year
storm.
WC03P-012 – Frog Hollow Bridge (Structure No. WC020, Wears Creek, MC50, RS 19928,
in the floodway) This structure is outside the city limits and will not be included as part of
the project recommendations in this report.
WC03P-013 – West McCarty Street (Structure No. WC006, Wears Creek, MC10, RS 2475,
in the floodway) is overtopped by all three model storms. Because the low point of the
bridge deck (at 553.4’) is below the proposed levee structures (at 557’), and because even the
detained flows continue to overtop the structure at its current elevation, it is recommended
that the bridge be rebuilt at a height sufficient to pass the 100 year event.
Reason for improvement : this structure is in the floodway and fails to pass the 100 year
storm.
10.3.3.4 - Levees
The following levee projects are being proposed:
WC03P-014 – Washington Park, north side of Wears Creek from the detention dam at RS
7257 to RS 5352. This levee would be built with a crest at an elevation of 557 feet for a
distance of about 1900 feet from Virginia Street to the US 54 southbound on-ramp. It would
protect the facilities and businesses south of Missouri Boulevard from both the 100 year
Wears Creek event and the 100 year Missouri River event, which would otherwise produce
up to 8 feet of flooding in the low spots of this area.
Reason for improvement : flooding of up to eight feet in the hundred year events.
WC03P-015 – Dunklin Street, south side of Wears Creek from RS 4705 to RS 3057. This
levee would be built with a crest at 557 feet for a distance of about 1650’ from the US 54
northbound off-ramp to US 50. It would protect the businesses between the two highways
along Dunklin, Elm, Mulberry, and Walnut Streets from both the 100 year Wears Creek and
100 year Missouri River events, which would otherwise produce up to 8 feet of flooding in
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-20 September 29, 2003
the low spots of this area. Due to Dunklin’s current configuration with respect to clearances
under US 54, a stop-log structure would be required at Dunklin Street.
Reason for improvement : flooding of up to eight feet in the hundred year events.
10.3.3.5 - Bank stabilization
The following bank stabilization projects have been identified through staff and citizen input
with proposed improvements
WC03P-016 – West of Satinwood, between Brandy and Buehrle Drive. Approximately 350’
of bank erosion will need to be stabilized along the channel.
WC03P-017 – Stadium Drive between Lynnwood and Dogwood. Approximately 300’ of
bank erosion along both sides of Stadium will require stabilization
WC03P-018 – Interior to an area bordered by Buehrle, Dogwood, Edgewood, and Pondarosa.
Approximately 400’ of bank erosion through a backyard swale will require stabilization.
WC03P-019 – Interior to an area bordered by Dogwood, Buehrle, and Edgewood.
Approximately 75’ of eroding bank will need to be stabilized.
WC03P-020 – Between Main and High Streets along main channel. Approximately 900’ of
channel bank stabilization is needed.
10.3.3.6 - Local projects (identified in the modeling)
The following local projects were identified in the modeling with proposed improvements.
WC03P-021 – Culvert under Harvest Dr east of Sherwood Drive. This culvert in a fairly
new development does not appear to have the capacity required for the ten-year flows. There
is a report of yard flooding in this area. (Link ID: 1385P, 295 feet of 30 inch pipe, replace
with 42 inch pipe.)
WC03P-022 – Missouri Blvd east of Heisinger. These two lengths are undersized for the
predicted flow. They begin a run of stormwater pipes that is about 2000 feet long and takes
runoff to the main channel of Wears. Flooding on Missouri Blvd may occur in this location.
(Link ID’s: 1457P and 1458P; 180 feet of 24 inch pipe to be replaced with 30 inch pipe.)
WC03P-023 – Missouri Blvd west of Howard St. These two pipes are at the upper reach of a
run that takes stormwater from Missouri Blvd to the Wears Creek main channel. They are
both seriously undersized, but there are no database reports of structure or street flooding in
the area. (Link ID’s: 1437P and 1438P; 298 feet of 24 inch pipe, should be replaced with 48
inch pipe.)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-21 September 29, 2003
WC03P-024 – Rax Ct to Wears Creek. This is mainly a stormwater pipe run from north of
Missouri Blvd to Wears’ main channel. There is a report of structure flooding in this area,
and the model predicts street flooding on Missouri Blvd. (Link ID’s: 1459P, 1460P, 1463P
and 1464P; 763 feet of 24 and 36 inch pipe to be replaced with 36 and 48 inch pipe.)
WC03P-025 – Missouri Blvd east of Missouri Ct. This is at the beginning of a length run
that begins at Missouri Ct and parallels Missouri Blvd on the north side, crosses Missouri
Blvd west of Waverly St, and empties into a channel at the athletic field. This entire run is
undersized except for the 4 foot culvert under Missouri Blvd. There is a report of structure
flooding at the top of this run, and street or parking lot flooding probably occurs with heavy
storms. (Link ID’s: 1466P through 1470P and 1472P, 769 feet of 24, 30 and 36 inch pipe to
be replaced with 36, 42 and 48 inch culvert.)
WC03P-026 – Culvert under unnamed road south of Wears Creek main channel, and directly
south of Missouri Blvd and Missouri Ct. This culvert drains a collector ditch next to a light
industrial facility. Road flooding and erosion are the only apparent risks here. (Link ID:
1515P; 81 feet of 24 inch culvert, should be 30 inch culvert.)
WC03P-027 – McCarty St. east of Wears Creek bridge. Each side of McCarty is serviced by
a separate run. In addition to street flooding, there are two major structures at risk, if not
floodproofed. There are no reports of flooding in the database but these pipes are seriously
undersized. (Link ID’s: 1530P, 1531P, 1536P through 1540P; 1032 feet of 24 and 36 inch
pipe to be replaced with 48 inch pipe.)
WC03P-028 – South of Jefferson St and Franklin St. At the top of a run that begins east of
US 54 and drains to Wears’ main channel north and west of US 54, there is one report of
yard flooding in this area. There are several houses that could be directly affected by
ponding at the inlets to this system. (Link ID’s: 1356P, 1355P; 137 feet of 24 and 30 inch
pipe to be replaced by 36 inch pipe.)
10.3.4 - North Wears Creek
10.3.4.1 - Regional multi-use facilities
No regional multi-use facilities have been proposed in the North Wears Creek basin. Due to the
size and shape of North Wears Creek and the lack of a substantial vacant area to site a facility,
two smaller detention facilities have been recommended and are discussed in the following sub-
section.
10.3.4.2 - Detention/Retention facilities
Two detention/retention facilities were originally proposed in the North Wears Creek basin.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-22 September 29, 2003
NW03P-001 – The first basin, which is being recommended, is located upstream of the Dix
Road crossing. The main purpose of this basin is the benefits realized where North Wears
Creek passes under U.S. Highway 50. Calculated future flows overtop the highway without
this detention basin in place. The detention basin allows the flows to pass under the
highway. Some limited benefit is also gained between Dix Road and the highway; however,
some of the industrial area, specifically the steel storage yard, will continue to be impacted
due to current topography.
Specifics on the North Wears Creek detention facility are found in table 10-4.
TABLE 10-4 – DIX ROAD DETENTION FACILITY -
(NW03P-001)
Flow reduction at detention pond 3198 cfs to 1670 cfs
Flow reduction at the mouth 3383 cfs to 1855 cfs
Storage volume below emergency
spillway
57 acre-ft
Top of dam 580 feet*
Principle spillway elevation 568 feet*
Emergency spillway elevation 578 feet*
Principle spillway structure 16’x8’ RCB
* All references to elevation are above mean sea level
The second facility was to be located near the southern end of Resurrection Cemetery.
However, upon further consideration of potential property damage vs. cost of construction
and maintenance, this location was removed from consideration. This was based on the
limited downstream extent of the positive impacts this basin would have. While there were
some benefits immediately downstream, they dissipated quickly once downstream.
10.3.4.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements
The following large culvert replacements were identified with proposed improvements.
NW03P-002 – Jaycee Drive (Structure No. NW004, North Wears MC30, RS 12895 length =
50’, in the floodway) is overtopped by approximately 1.6 feet in the sag north of the stream
crossing. There are two commercial facilities whose footprints are entirely within the future
floodplain. The addition of another 10x10 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent) keeps all of the
100-year flow under the street.
Reason for improvement : this structure is in the floodway and does not pass the 100 year
flow without overtopping.
NW03P-003 – Brooks Street (Structure No. NW021, NWTrib10 Rch40, RS 866, length =
147’) is overtopped by 2 feet in the 100-yr model storm. A 7-foot circular CMP (or
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-23 September 29, 2003
hydraulic equivalent) replaces the 4x5.7 elliptical culvert with improved entrance, and the
10-year storm will pass, with minimal overtopping by the 50- and 100-year storms.
Reason for improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 years storm completely).
NW-03P-004 – Huntleigh Place (Structure No. NW010, NWTrib20 Rch50, RS 2283, length
= 45’) passes the 10-year storm, but is overtopped by 1.8 feet by the 100-year storm. In
order to bring it into compliance, the double 6x4 RCB is replaced with a double 9x5 (or
hydraulic equivalent). This also brings a house on the north side of the tributary out of the
100- year floodplain.
Reason for improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches.
NW03P-005 – Schellridge Road (Structure No. NW011, NWTrib20 Rch50, RS 4030, length
= 40’). There are two houses upstream of this culvert that are completely within the 100-year
storm flood footprint. Although the Schellridge Road culvert passes the 10-year storm, it is
overtopped by more than a foot in the 100-year storm. If the 6.5 CMP is replaced with an
8x6.5 RCB (or hydraulic equivalent), all flows will pass. Even with this improvement, the
cul-de-sac will still experience significant flooding. An attempt was made to relieve this
flooding, but adding two additional 8x6.5 RCB’s would not relieve the flooding. The
elevation of the cul-de-sac is marginally above the creek’s top of bank. Any attempt to
relieve this flooding will involve major relocation of the stream and improvement of the cul-
de-sac. Improvements of this type will be left to City staff.
Reason for improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches.
NW03P-006 – Driveway (Structure No. NW012, NWTrib20 Rch50, RS4277, length = 13’)
upstream of Schellridge Road is a bridge that doesn’t seem to have an impact on other flows,
but is overtopped by 11 feet before the Schellridge Road improvement (above), and still
overtopped by 4.7 feet after the improvement. The homeowner could raise the bridge by
about 5 feet, but the occasional overtopping may not be worth the expense. If the owner
wishes to do this, the city would have to modify the cul de sac in front of the house.
Reason for improvement : fails to pass the 100 year storm without overtopping by more than
7 inches (and fails to pass the 10 years storm completely).
10.3.4.4 - Levees
No levee projects have been recommended for the North Wears Creek basin.
10.3.4.5 - Bank stabilization
The following bank stabilization projects have been identified through staff and citizen input:
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-24 September 29, 2003
NW03P-015 – Valley View Subdivision erosion. This project was recommended by City
staff, but no limits of the project were identified. Assuming this project will be similar to
most projects of this type, it is anticipated that stabilization of the streambank toe will need to
occur as well as some upper bank stabilization. The degree of repair can not be estimated at
this time.
10.3.4.6 - Local projects (identified in the modeling)
The following local projects were identified in the modeling with proposed improvements.
NW03P-007 – Truman Blvd., from Scott Station Rd., approximately 3000 feet eastward
along Truman. There are several culverts parallel to and crossing Truman that are undersized,
and there is one report of primary structure flooding south of Truman. (Link ID’s : 3139P to
3143P, 3405P, 3406P, and 3193P; 1,552 feet of 24, 30 and 36 inch pipes that need to be
replaced with 30 to 48 inch culverts.)
NW03P-008 – Amazonas Dr. and Alemeda Dr., east of Ten Mile Dr. This is a 750 foot long
run that is undersized for the projected 10 year flow. These storm sewers service some fairly
new commercial development. (Link ID’s : 3158P to 3163P; 24, 30 and 36 inch pipes that
need to be replaced with 30 to 48 inch sizes.)
NW03P-009 – Alemeda Dr. to North Wears channel. These storm water pipes were
undersized by ½ foot, and need to be scrutinized for local flooding. (Link ID’s : 3149P,
3154P, 3155P; 370 feet of 24 and 36 inch pipe, needs to be replaced with 30 and 42 inch
pipes.)
NW03P-010 – Fox Creek Road cul de sac to North Wears channel. This pipe is under
capacity for the projected flow: street flooding probably affects the housing at the dead end
of this street. (Link ID: 3011P. 191 feet of 24 inch pipe, to be replaced with 30 inch pipe.)
NW03P-011 – Industrial Drive, east and west of Jaycee Drive. These stormwater pipes
service businesses along Industrial, and have the potential to put high value properties at risk,
but there are few complaints from the business owners in the database. There is a strong
probability that street flooding occurs along this stretch of Industrial during heavy rains, and
these events should be monitored for severity and motorist risk. The immediate consequence
is that these undersized culverts probably cause flooding on the north side of Industrial and
would place future development at risk. (Link ID’s : 3021P to 3023P, 3026P, 3027P, 3037P
to 3039P, 3104P, 3067P, 3095P, 3176P, 3177P, 3187P, 3188P; these pipes are collectively
1987 feet of 18, 24, 30 and 48 inch pipe that should be replaced with 30, 36, and 54 inch
pipe).
NW03P-012 – Von Hoffman plant at Wilson and Industrial. This run may have been
replaced already, but if these pipes have not been upsized, it places the printing plant at risk.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
10-25 September 29, 2003
(Link ID’s : 3082P to 3090P: 1,665 feet of 24, 27, and 36 inch pipe, all of which needs to be
54 inch culvert.)
NW03P-013 – US 50 culvert at St. Marys Blvd. This is one of a series of culverts that drains
the south side of US 50 into the North Wears channel. These are 2 and 2 ½ foot pipes and
it’s doubtful that ponding behind the highway at this location poses a risk to the structures at
this location, but the situation deserves to be monitored for potential problems. (Link ID:
3108P; 310 feet of 24 inch, upsized to 30 inch pipe.)
(This project was removed from the CIP at the request of City staff. However, the project
team does not concur with this recommendation as modeling shows surcharging in the
pipes.)
NW03P-014 – McCarty St. and Manilla St. This run services an older neighborhood and
represents about 650 feet of pipe. There are complaints of yard flooding above the beginning
of this series of pipes, and primary structure flooding further downstream. It’s probable that
unreported street flooding occurs in the vicinity. (Link ID’s : 3164P to 3167P, 3169P; 632
feet of 24 and 36 inch pipe, needs to be replaced with 30, 36, and 42 inch pipe.)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Figure 10-1 – Boggs Creek Recommended Projects-Location Map
(This figure can be found in a separate file on the Compact Disc being viewed.)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Figure 10-2 – East Wears, Wears and North Wears Creeks Recommended Projects-
Location Map
(This figure can be found in a separate file on the Compact Disc being viewed.)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 11
Cost Opinions
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 11 - Cost Opinions .........................................................................................................11-1
11.1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................11-1
11.2 - Methodology .................................................................................................................11-1
11.3 - Project Costs By Watershed ..........................................................................................11-2
11.3.1 - Boggs Creek .............................................................................................................11-2
11.3.1.1 - Regional multi-use facilities ...............................................................................11-2
11.3.1.2 - Detention / Retention Facilities ..........................................................................11-2
11.3.1.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements ..............................................11-2
11.3.1.4 - Levees.................................................................................................................11-2
11.3.1.5 - Bank Stabilization...............................................................................................11-3
11.3.1.6 - Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)........................................................11-3
11.3.2 - East Wears Creek .....................................................................................................11-3
11.3.2.1 - Regional multi-use facilities ...............................................................................11-3
11.3.2.2 - Detention/Retention facilities .............................................................................11-3
11.3.2.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements ..............................................11-4
11.3.2.4 - Levees.................................................................................................................11-4
11.3.2.5 - Bank Stabilization...............................................................................................11-4
11.3.2.6 - Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)........................................................11-5
11.3.3 - Wears Creek .............................................................................................................11-5
11.3.3.1 - Regional multi-use facilities ...............................................................................11-5
11.3.3.2 - Detention/Retention facilities .............................................................................11-5
11.3.3.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements ..............................................11-5
11.3.3.4 - Levees.................................................................................................................11-6
11.3.3.5 - Bank Stabilization...............................................................................................11-6
11.3.3.6 - Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)........................................................11-7
11.3.4 - North Wears Creek...................................................................................................11-7
11.3.4.1 - Regional multi-use facilities ...............................................................................11-7
11.3.4.2 - Detention/Retention facilities .............................................................................11-7
11.3.4.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements ..............................................11-7
11.3.4.4 - Levees.................................................................................................................11-8
11.3.4.5 - Bank Stabilization...............................................................................................11-8
11.3.4.6 - Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)........................................................11-8
11.3.5 - Summary..................................................................................................................11-9
List of Tables
Table 11-1 – Unit Costs Used in Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost....................................11-1
Table 11-2 – Regional Multi Use Facilities – Boggs Creek ......................................................11-2
Table 11-3 – Detention / Retention Facilities – Boggs Creek....................................................11-2
Table 11-4 – Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications/replacments – Boggs Creek .......................11-2
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
ii September 29, 2003
Table 11-5 – Levees – Boggs Creek ..........................................................................................11-2
Table 11-6 – Bank Stabilization – Boggs Creek ........................................................................11-3
Table 11-7 – Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling) – Boggs Creek .................................11-3
Table 11-8 – Regional Multi-Use Facilities – East Wears Creek ..............................................11-3
Table 11-9 – Detention/Retention Facilities – East Wears Creek..............................................11-3
Table 11-10 – Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications/replacments – East Wears Creek..............11-4
Table 11-11 – Levees – East Wears Creek ................................................................................11-4
Table 11-12 – Bank Stabilization – East Wears Creek ..............................................................11-4
Table 11-13 – Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling) – East Wears Creek .......................11-5
Table 11-14 – Regional Multi-Use Facilities –Wears Creek .....................................................11-5
Table 11-15 – Detention/Retention Facilities –Wears Creek.....................................................11-5
Table 11-16 – Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications/replacments –Wears Creek ......................11-5
Table 11-17 – Levees –Wears Creek .........................................................................................11-6
Table 11-18 – Bank Stabilization –Wears Creek .......................................................................11-6
Table 11-19 – Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling) – Wears Creek ...............................11-7
Table 11-20 – Regional Multi-Use Facilities –North Wears Creek...........................................11-7
Table 11-21 – Detention/Retention Facilities –North Wears Creek ..........................................11-7
Table 11-22 – Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications/replacments –North Wears Creek ............11-7
Table 11-23 – Levees –North Wears Creek ...............................................................................11-8
Table 11-24 – Bank Stabilization –North Wears Creek.............................................................11-8
Table 11-25 – Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling) – North Wears Creek.....................11-8
Table 11-26 – Jefferson City Project Summary Table ...............................................................11-9
List of Figures
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
11-1 September 29, 2003
Section 11 - Cost Opinions
11.1 - Introduction
This section will present the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost for each of the projects
described in Section 10.
11.2 - Methodology
The Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs presented in this section are based on two sources:
1. Means Cost Guide4 (2002 and 2003 editions)
2. Recent project experiences
The costs were given to each project based on a preliminary estimate of construction costs. The
preliminary estimates took into account only the basic elements of each project (demolition,
construction without rock removal, site closure) and account only for materials and labor. In
order to include the costs for other elements of a typical project (design, permitting, utility
relocation, right-of-way / easement acquisition, etc.) the project costs were multiplied by 150%
and then rounded to a practical place holder. Due to the variability of these costs, as well as
unforeseen costs such as rock removal, availability of labor / materials, etc., these numbers
should only be used as estimates on the order of magnitude of a project. When reviewing these
costs, it should be kept in mind that the purpose of this study was not to prepare bid document
accuracy estimates, but to put a reasonable dollar number on the system needs so that those
needs can be accounted for as part of the overall stormwater management program costs.
Where appropriate, project installed unit costs have been used to produce the engineer’s opinion
of probable cost found in the next section. The most common use of project installed unit costs
were linear projects; pipe replacements (enclosed systems). Those costs are in Table 11-1. The
other identified projects were estimated on an individual basis using the sources mentioned
above.
TABLE 11-1 – UNIT COSTS USED IN ENGINEER’S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST.
Item Unit Cost (per lin. ft. unless otherwise noted)
30” dia. Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)$125
36” dia. RCP $150
42” dia. RCP $200
48” dia. RCP $250
54” dia. RCP $290
60” dia. RCP $350
4 Site Work and Landscape Cost Data, 21st Annual Edition, 2002; Heavy Construction Cost Data, 17th Annual
Edition, 2003, RSMeans.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
11-2 September 29, 2003
11.3 - Project Costs By Watershed
These tables of project costs match the project numbers and descriptions used in Section 10 for
easy reference.
11.3.1 - Boggs Creek
11.3.1.1 - Regional multi-use facilities
TABLE 11-2 – REGIONAL MULTI USE FACILITIES – BOGGS CREEK
No facilities of this type were recommended for Boggs Creek
11.3.1.2 - Detention / Retention Facilities
TABLE 11-3 – DETENTION / RETENTION FACILITIES – BOGGS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
BC03P-001 Bald Hill Road / Calvin Lane Detention Facility $500,000
TOTAL $500,000
11.3.1.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements
TABLE 11-4 – LARGE CULVERT/BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS/REPLACMENTS –
BOGGS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
BC03P-002 Grant Street at Hough $120,000
BC03P-003 East McCarty Street at High Street $100,000
BC03P-004 Miller Street $120,000
BC03P-005 US 50 $350,000
BC03P-006 Private access (off Elm Street)$80,000
BC03P-007 Hutton Lane $80,000
BC03P-008 The Union Pacific Railroad $300,000
BC03P-009 East McCarty Street at St. Louis $230,000
BC03P-010 Eastland Drive $250,000
BC03P-011 Landwehr Hills Road $60,000
TOTAL $1,690,000
11.3.1.4 - Levees
TABLE 11-5 – LEVEES – BOGGS CREEK
No projects of this type were recommended for Boggs Creek
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
11-3 September 29, 2003
11.3.1.5 - Bank Stabilization
TABLE 11-6 – BANK STABILIZATION – BOGGS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
BC03P-012 Between McCarty and U.S. Highway 50 $490,000
BC03P-013 Along Theresa to Landwehr $250,000
BC03P-014 Along Scenic Drive $170,000
TOTAL $910,000
11.3.1.6 - Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)
TABLE 11-7 – LOCAL PROJECTS (IDENTIFIED IN THE MODELING) –
BOGGS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
BC03P-015 South of Moreland Ave, west of Landsdowne Ln.$79,000
BC03P-016 Off Elm St., west of Nelson Drive $24,000
BC03P-017 Between McCarty and Elm St. from Church St. to
East of Christopher Place.
$305,000
BC03P-018 Crossing Taylor St. between Karen Dr. and Hough St $79,000
BC03P-019 Chickadee Rd cul de sac $66,000
BC03P-020 Jennifer Dr. near Amy Ct.$202,000
TOTAL $755,000
11.3.2 - East Wears Creek
11.3.2.1 - Regional multi-use facilities
TABLE 11-8 – REGIONAL MULTI-USE FACILITIES – EAST WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
EW03P-001 East Wears Creek Regional Multi-Use Facility $750,000
TOTAL $750,000
11.3.2.2 - Detention/Retention facilities
TABLE 11-9 – DETENTION/RETENTION FACILITIES – EAST WEARS CREEK
No facilities of this type were recommended for East Wears Creek
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
11-4 September 29, 2003
11.3.2.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements
TABLE 11-10 – LARGE CULVERT/BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS/REPLACMENTS –
EAST WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
EW03P-002 East Wears By-pass $6,810,000
EW03P-003 Miller Street Parallel System $1,730,000
EW03P-004 Leslie Street culvert $130,000
EW03P-005 Mesa Avenue $440,000
EW03P-006 At Jackson Street $190,000
EW03P-007 Monroe Street $200,000
EW03P-008 US 54 $460,000
EW03P-009 Duane Swift Parkway $150,000
EW03P-010 Chestnut Street $110,000
EW03P-011 Holiday Drive $70,000
EW03P-012 Private, Monroe south of John $60,000
EW03P-013 Tanner Bridge Rd.$90,000
EW03P-014 Private, off Tanner Bridge Rd. south of Monroe $40,000
EW03P-015 Aaron Ct $80,000
EW03P-016 Oscar Drive $70,000
EW03P-017 Flora Drive $90,000
TOTAL $10,720,000
11.3.2.4 - Levees
TABLE 11-11 – LEVEES – EAST WEARS CREEK
No projects of this type were recommended for East Wears Creek
11.3.2.5 - Bank Stabilization
TABLE 11-12 – BANK STABILIZATION – EAST WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
EW03P-018 Southwest of John between Monroe and Cristy $150,000
TOTAL $150,000
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
11-5 September 29, 2003
11.3.2.6 - Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)
TABLE 11-13 – LOCAL PROJECTS (IDENTIFIED IN THE MODELING) –
EAST WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
EW03P-019 Between SW Blvd and Debra Ave, South of
Thompson Ct
$29,000
EW03P-020 From Stadium Dr. south to East Wears at Monroe St.$211,000
EW03P-021 From Union St. south and west following Adams St.
to the East Wears main channel
$208,000
EW03P-022 Under Union St. east of Jackson St.$9,000
EW03P-023 Crossing Elm St. between Locust St. and Clarke Ave.$195,000
EW03P-024 Dunklin St. from Chestnut St. to Lafayette St.$322,000
EW03P-025 McCarty St. from Cherry St. to Marshall St.$330,000
EW03P-026 Along Poplar St. and Atchison St.$516,000
EW03P-027 Interior to Atchison St., Jefferson St., Madison St.,
and Ashely St.
$116,000
TOTAL $1,936,000
11.3.3 - Wears Creek
11.3.3.1 - Regional multi-use facilities
TABLE 11-14 – REGIONAL MULTI-USE FACILITIES –WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
WC03P-001 Wears Creek Regional Multi-Use Facility $1,250,000
TOTAL $1,250,000
11.3.3.2 - Detention/Retention facilities
TABLE 11-15 – DETENTION/RETENTION FACILITIES –WEARS CREEK
No facilities of this type were recommended for Wears Creek
11.3.3.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements
TABLE 11-16 – LARGE CULVERT/BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS/REPLACMENTS –
WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
WC03P-002 Satinwood Drive $70,000
WC03P-003 Cedar Hill Road $90,000
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
11-6 September 29, 2003
TABLE 11-16 – LARGE CULVERT/BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS/REPLACMENTS –
WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
WC03P-004 West Edgewood, 0.25 mi. west of MO Hwy 179 $320,000
WC03P-005 Gettysburg Place $100,000
WC03P-006 West Dunklin Street (included in WC-015)$0
WC03P-007 Southwest Boulevard $2,490,000
WC03P-008 West Stadium Boulevard $300,000
WC03P-009 West Edgewood Drive at Frog Hill Road $330,000
WC03P-010 Nebraska Avenue Bridge $90,000
WC03P-011 Kansas Street Bridge $200,000
WC03P-012 Frog Hollow Road Bridge (not incl., see Sect. 10)$0
WC03P-013 W. McCarty St.$2,070,000
TOTAL $6,060,000
11.3.3.4 - Levees
TABLE 11-17 – LEVEES –WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
WC03P-014 Washington Park $500,000
WC03P-015 Dunklin Street $750,000
TOTAL $1,250,000
11.3.3.5 - Bank Stabilization
TABLE 11-18 – BANK STABILIZATION –WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
WC03P-016 West of Satinwood, between Brandy and Buehrle Dr.$250,000
WC03P-017 Stadium Drive between Lynnwood and Dogwood $220,000
WC03P-018 Interior to an area bordered by Buehrle, Dogwood,
Edgewood and Pondarosa
$150,000
WC03P-019 Interior to an area bordered by Dogwood, Buehrle,
and Edgewood
$35,000
WC03P-020 Between Main and High Streets along Main Channel $630,000
TOTAL $1,285,000
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
11-7 September 29, 2003
11.3.3.6 - Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)
TABLE 11-19 – LOCAL PROJECTS (IDENTIFIED IN THE MODELING) –
WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
WC03P-021 Culvert under Harvest Drive east of Sherwood Dr.$89,000
WC03P-022 Missouri Blvd. east of Heisinger $35,000
WC03P-023 Missouri Blvd. west of Howard St.$113,000
WC03P-024 Rax Ct. to Wears Creek $269,000
WC03P-025 Missouri Blvd. east of Missouri Ct.$237,000
WC03P-026 Culvert under unnamed road south of Wears Creek
main channel and directly south of Missouri Blvd.
and Missouri Ct.
$16,000
WC03P-027 McCarty St. east of Wears Creek bridge $392,000
WC03P-028 South of Jefferson St. and Franklin St.$32,000
TOTAL $1,183,000
11.3.4 - North Wears Creek
11.3.4.1 - Regional multi-use facilities
TABLE 11-20 – REGIONAL MULTI-USE FACILITIES –NORTH WEARS CREEK
No facilities of this type were recommended for North Wears Creek
11.3.4.2 - Detention/Retention facilities
TABLE 11-21 – DETENTION/RETENTION FACILITIES –NORTH WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
NW03P-001 Dix Road Detention facility $500,000
TOTAL $500,000
11.3.4.3 - Large culvert/bridge modifications/replacements
TABLE 11-22 – LARGE CULVERT/BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS/REPLACMENTS –
NORTH WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
NW03P-002 Jaycee Drive $140,000
NW03P-003 Brooks Street $120,000
NW03P-004 Huntleigh Place $90,000
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
11-8 September 29, 2003
TABLE 11-22 – LARGE CULVERT/BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS/REPLACMENTS –
NORTH WEARS CREEK
NW03P-005 Schellridge Road $70,000
NW03P-006 Driveway (structure only, street work not included)$15,000
TOTAL $435,000
11.3.4.4 - Levees
TABLE 11-23 – LEVEES –NORTH WEARS CREEK
No projects of this type were recommended for North Wears Creek
11.3.4.5 - Bank Stabilization
TABLE 11-24 – BANK STABILIZATION –NORTH WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
NW03P-015 Valley View Subdivision erosion $0**
** Project requested by City. No project limits were given, therefore no opinion of cost offered.
11.3.4.6 - Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)
TABLE 11-25 – LOCAL PROJECTS (IDENTIFIED IN THE MODELING) –
NORTH WEARS CREEK
Project Number Project Description Engineer’s Opinion
of Probable Cost
NW03P-007 Truman Blvd., from Scott Station Rd., approx. 3000’
eastward along Truman
$482,000
NW03P-008 Amazonas Dr. and Alemeda Dr., east of Ten Mile Dr.$237,000
NW03P-009 Alemeda Dr. to North Wears channel $102,000
NW03P-010 Fox Creek Road cul de sac to North Wears channel $36,000
NW03P-011 Industrial Drive, east and west of Jaycee Drive $452,000
NW03P-012 Von Hoffman plant at Wilson and Industrial $752,000
NW03P-013 US 50 culvert at St. Marys Blvd.$59,000
NW03P-014 McCarty St. and Manilla St.186,000
TOTAL $2,306,000
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
11-9 September 29, 2003
11.3.5 - Summary
Below is a summary table of the watershed project breakouts.
TABLE 11-26 – JEFFERSON CITY PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE
Watershed and Project Categories Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost
Boggs Creek
Regional Multi-Use Facilities $0
Detention / Retention Facilities $500,000
Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications/Replacements $1,690,000
Levees $0
Bank Stabilization $910,000
Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)$755,000
Boggs Creek Total $3,855,000
East Wears Creek
Regional Multi-Use Facilities $750,000
Detention / Retention Facilities $0
Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications/Replacements $10,720,000
Levees $0
Bank Stabilization $150,000
Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)$1,936,000
East Wears Creek Total $13,556,000
Wears Creek
Regional Multi-Use Facilities $1,250,000
Detention / Retention Facilities $0
Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications/Replacements $6,060,000
Levees $1,250,000
Bank Stabilization $1,285,000
Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)$1,183,000
Wears Creek Total $11,028,000
North Wears Creek
Regional Multi-Use Facilities $0
Detention / Retention Facilities $500,000
Large Culvert/Bridge Modifications/Replacements $435,000
Levees $0
Bank Stabilization $0***
Local Projects (Identified in the Modeling)$2,306,000
North Wears Creek Total $3,241,000
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
11-10 September 29, 2003
TABLE 11-26 – JEFFERSON CITY PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE
Total – Boggs, East Wears, Wears, North Wears $31,680,000
Remedial Repairs $9,200,000
Total Capital Improvements $40,088,000
*** See project description
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 12
Project Prioritization
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 12 - Project Prioritization..............................................................................................12-1
12.1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................12-1
12.2 - Prioritization Criteria.....................................................................................................12-1
12.3 - Prioritizations ................................................................................................................12-1
12.3.1 - Boggs Creek .............................................................................................................12-1
12.3.2 - East Wears Creek .....................................................................................................12-2
12.3.3 - Wears Creek .............................................................................................................12-4
12.3.4 - North Wears Creek...................................................................................................12-5
12.3.5 - All Watersheds .........................................................................................................12-5
List of Tables
No tables used in this section
List of Figures
Figure 12-1 – Examples of Prioritization Methods ....................................................................12-7
.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
12-1 September 29, 2003
Section 12 - Project Prioritization
12.1 - Introduction
This section will discuss prioritization of the previously presented projects in Sections 10 and 11.
12.2 - Prioritization Criteria
The prioritization of the projects is based on several factors. First, the impact of each project on
the system is considered. Those projects with only local benefits will be considered after those
having major impacts on the system. Second, the project’s location within the system is
considered. Those projects at the downstream end of the system will be considered prior to those
upstream. This is due the hydraulics of the system. Opening up the upper ends of the system
will only exacerbate flooding problems being experienced downstream. Therefore, downstream
elements must be designed and installed prior to opening the upper ends of the system. Finally,
costs are considered. Not necessarily from the standpoint of most costly vs. less costly, but how
projects may be combined to reduce the overall costs to the program. These combinations may
be a result of proximity or projects that work as a group. Straight cost vs. cost prioritization
rarely, if ever, accomplishes the goals of proper implementation of a stormwater system.
It should be noted here that specific “what if” scenarios have not been modeled as part of this
project. The number of permutations and combinations would be cost prohibitive. However, the
modeling provided with this project will allow the City to model these specific combinations to
assess the impacts of a given combination.
As stated earlier, working from downstream to upstream is the preferred methodology when
installing stormwater projects. Still, some scattered upstream projects could possibly be
constructed prior to downstream projects, provided the proposed project’s impacts are properly
quantified. Assuming proper location of these upstream projects, their impacts may deplete
themselves with favorable downstream conditions such as geometry, structure location and travel
times. No specific projects have been identified in this study that meet these criteria. Specific
projects will have to be modeled with proper conditions in order to quantify their impacts and the
feasibility of their construction.
12.3 - Prioritizations
12.3.1 - Boggs Creek
Based on the criteria described previously, the projects for Boggs Creek are prioritized as
follows:
1. Projects BC03P-002 (Grant St. at Hough), BC03P-003 (East McCarty at High Street) and
BC03P-012 (Bank Stabilization between McCarty and US50. The proximity of these
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
12-2 September 29, 2003
projects to one another makes them candidates for an area project. This project is a high
priority due to its potential for flood damage reduction and impacts on local travel. This
project was deemed a very low priority by City staff.
2. Projects BC03P-009 (East McCarty at St. Louis) and PC03P-010 (Eastland Drive). The
proximity of these projects to one another makes them candidates for an area project. This
project is a high priority due to its potential for flood damage reduction and local travel. This
project was deemed a very low priority by City staff.
3. Project BC03P-008 (The Union Pacific Railroad). This is a high priority project due to its
impact on the floodplain and backwater generated by the existing structure. The backwater
will impact Project Group 1 (above) moderately and Project Group 2 (above) severely. This
project was deemed the lowest priority in the watershed.
4. Project BC03P-001 (Bald Hill Road / Calvin Lane Detention Facility). This project is a
medium priority due to its local benefits of relieving structure flooding and street
overtopping. This project was deemed the highest priority project in the watershed.
5. Project BC03P-004 (Miller Street). This project is a medium priority due to its local
benefits. It will further benefit from the completion of Project Group 1 above due its
upstream location from that project.
6. Project BC03P-011 (Landwehr Hills Road). This project is a medium priority due to its local
benefits of eliminating road overtopping
7. Project BC03P-005 (US 50). This project is a low priority due to its local benefit of
eliminating road overtopping
8. Project BC03P-006 (Private access). This project is a low priority due to its private
ownership and local benefit of eliminating road overtopping.
The remaining projects, bank stabilizations and local drainage projects can be considered low
priority.
12.3.2 - East Wears Creek
Based on the criteria described previously, the projects for East Wears Creek are prioritized as
follows:
1. Projects EW03P-003 (Miller Street Parallel System), EW03P-002 (East Wears By-pass), and
EW03P-001 (East Wears Creek Regional Multi-Use Facility) could be considered as a
project group due to their proximity and their interaction to provide flood relief in the lower
reaches of East Wears Creek. However, it is also acknowledged that the cost of these
projects may prohibit their construction as a “group”. Regardless of their grouping, the
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
12-3 September 29, 2003
projects should be constructed in the following order ; EW03P-003, followed by EW03P-002,
and then EW03P-001. This follows the earlier discussed order of downstream to upstream.
These projects are a high priority due to their potential for flood damage reduction and major
road flooding.
2. Projects EW03P-004 (Leslie Street culvert) and EW-03P-005 (Mesa Avenue). These
projects are high priority due to their backwater impacts flooding Stadium Boulevard. These
should be constructed after Project Group 1 above due the change in flow characteristics
brought about by this project.
3. Project EW03P-006 (At Jackson Street). This project is considered a medium priority due to
its local benefits of relieving moderate structure flooding and road overtopping. This project
will benefit being constructed after Project Group 3 above as the current backwater impacts
from that project group will impact this project. This project was deemed a low priority by
City staff.
4. Projects EW03P-008 (US 54) and EW03P-007 (Monroe Street). This project group is
considered a medium priority: due to its proximity to higher rated projects and the need for
those projects, from a hydraulic standpoint, to be constructed first; and its potential for
damage reduction at a local car dealership and road overtopping of the access to Highway 54.
This project was deemed a low priority by City staff.
5. Project EW03P-009 (Duane Swift Parkway). This project is considered a medium priority
due to its potential for relieving major road flooding. This project was deemed a low priority
by City staff.
6. Projects EW03P-013 (Tanner Bridge Road), EW03P-014 (Private, off Tanner Bridge Road
south of Monroe), EW03P-015 (Aaron Court), EW03P-016 (Oscar Drive), EW03P-017
(Flora Drive). These projects can be considered a medium to low priority due to their service
of several businesses along a light industrial corridor. They also have the potential to relieve
moderate road flooding. This project was deemed a low priority by City staff.
7. EW03P-010 (Chestnut Street). This project can be considered a low priority due to its local
benefits of relieving moderate structure flooding and property damage.
8. EW03P-011 (Holiday Drive). This project can be considered a low priority due to its local
benefits of relieving street overtopping and moderate structure flooding.
9. EW03P-012 (Private, Monroe south of John). This project can be considered a low priority
due to its local benefits of relieving street overtopping and moderate structure flooding.
The remaining projects, bank stabilization and local drainage projects can be considered low
priority.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
12-4 September 29, 2003
12.3.3 - Wears Creek
Based on the criteria described previously, the projects for Wears Creek are prioritized as
follows:
1. Projects WC03P-001 (Wears Creek Regional Multi-Use Facility), WC03P-014 (Washington
Park Levee), WC03P-015 (Dunklin Street Levee), WC03P-006 (Dunklin Street) and
WC03P-011 (Kansas St.). These projects constitute the key projects for Wears Creek. Once
again, it is realized that the cost of this project group may be prohibitive, but these projects
all offer something in the way of flood protection in this area and would not be able to offer
the group benefits as an individual project. The order of the projects, regardless of grouping,
should be WC03P-001, WC03P-014 and WC03P-011 (together), and WC03P-015 and
WC03P-006 (together). This project group should be considered a high priority due its
potential for reducing flooding and controlling local tailwater impacts during a high Missouri
River stage.
2. Project WC03P-007 (Southwest Boulevard). This project should be considered a high
priority due to its potential for reducing flooding, property damage and street flooding
3. Project WC03P-012 (Frog Hollow Bridge). This project should be considered a medium
priority due to its overtopping of a bridge and the access that the bridge provides local
residents.
4. Project WC03P-013 (West McCarty Street). This project should be considered a medium
priority due to its potential for relieving street and bridge flooding.
5. Project WC03P-008 (Stadium Boulevard). This project should be considered a medium
priority due to its potential for relieving street flooding. This project was deemed a low
priority by City staff.
6. Project WC03P-002 (Satinwood Drive). This project should be considered a medium
priority due to its potential for relieving street flooding.
7. Project WC03P-009 (West Edgewood Drive at Frog Hollow Road). This project should be
considered a low priority due to its potential for relieving local street flooding.
8. Project WC03P-004 (West Edgewood Drive, 0.25 miles west of Missouri Highway 179).
This project should be considered a low priority due to its potential for relieving local street
flooding.
9. WC03P-005 (Gettysburg Place). This project should be considered a low priority due to its
potential for relieving local street flooding.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
12-5 September 29, 2003
10. WC03P-003 (Cedar Hill Road). This project should be considered a low priority due to its
potential for relieving local street flooding.
11. WC03P-010 (Nebraska Avenue). This project should be considered a low priority as it is
only a bridge removal project. The work done in Project Group 1, above, will allow access
to any travel currently occurring over Nebraska Avenue.
The remaining projects, bank stabilizations and local drainage projects can be considered low
priority.
12.3.4 - North Wears Creek
Based on the criteria described previously, the projects for North Wears Creek are prioritized as
follows:
1. NW03P-001 (Dix Road Detention Facility). This project should be considered a high
priority due to its potential to relieve flooding on U.S. Highway 50. Some local flooding
problems will be relieved as well. However, due to topographical problems, some flooding
will continue to occur between Dix Road and U.S. Highway 50.
2. NW03P-005 (Schellridge Road). This project should be considered a medium priority due to
its local benefits of relieving street flooding. Some structure inundation will continue.
3. NW03P-003 (Brooks Streeet). This project should be considered medium priority due to it
local benefits of relieving street flooding and moderate structure inundation. This project
was deemed a low priority by City staff.
4. NW03P-002 (Jaycee Drive). This project should be considered low priority due to its local
benefit of relieving street flooding. Some structure inundation will continue to occur.
5. NW03P-004 (Huntleigh Place). This project should be considered low priority due to its
local benefit of relieving street flooding and some moderate house flooding.
6. NW03P-006 (Driveway). This project should be considered low priority due to its private
ownership and local benefits.
The remaining large projects and local drainage projects can be considered low priority
12.3.5 - All Watersheds
When trying to combine the prioritizations for all watersheds, it becomes difficult to factor the
many other considerations (such as political, social, economic, etc.) into the prioritization
scheme. In viewing the highest priority projects in each of the watersheds, Project Group 1 in
Boggs Creek, Project Group 1 in East Wears Creek and Project Group 1 in Wears Creek would
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
12-6 September 29, 2003
all have major impacts on flooding in their respective watersheds. Other high priority projects in
all watersheds could be considered in a next tier of projects for consideration. Medium and low
priority projects would follow the same rational.
Some examples of prioritization methods used in other watershed studies have been included in
Figure 12-1 at the end of this section.
Analyses conducted in other parts of this report, specifically the financial and rate analyses, as
well as the availability of financial assistance for mitigation projects, may assist in fine tuning
the process of finalizing a priority list. However, at this time, no clear cut answers can be given
as to which project is more important than a similar project in another watershed.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
12-7 September 29, 2003
Figure 12-1 – Examples of Prioritization Methods
Johnson County, Kansas
Kansas City, Missouri
Liberty, Missouri
(Examples to follow)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Johnson County, Kansas
The form for Johnson County, Kansas is filled in by hand and calculated to determine the
priority rating.
(Form to follow)
Johnson County Stormwater Management Plan
Flood Problem Rating Table 1999
City: Basin & Watershed:
Location:
Description of Problem:
Flood Problem Rating
Factor #Factor Description Eliminates
Factor
Rating
Poings
Frequency
Multiplier
Severity
Multiplier Total Points
1 Loss of Life 40
2 Flooding of habitable building 3 40
3 Flooding of garages and outbuildings 2 20
4 Flooding of arterial street of more than 7 inches 5,6,7 30
5 Flooding of collector street of more than 7 inches 4,6,7 25
6 Flooding of residential street of more than 7 inches 4,5,7 20
7 Widespread or long-term ponding in streets 4,5,6 20
8 Erosion threatens habitable buildings, utilities, streets, bridges 9 30
9 Erosion significant in unmaintained areas 8 10
10 Erosion causes imminent drainage structure collapse 11,12 30
11 Erosion causes marginal drainage structure collapse 10,12 15
12 Erosion causes failure of drainage structure 10,11 10
13 Other cities receiving benefits 20
14 Other cities contributing to flooding problem 10
Project Total Points
Estimated Total Project Cost
Priority Rating = Total Project Cost / Total Points
Applies to #Frequency Multiplier Multiplier
Value
2-7 One time in ten years or by 10- to 100-year design storm 1
2-7 Two times in ten years or by 5- to 10-year design storm 2
2-7 Three or more times in ten years or less than 5-year design storm 3
13,14 One city receiving benefits 1
13,14 Two cities receiving benefits 2
13,14 Three or more cities receiving benefits 3
Applies to #Severity Multiplier Multiplier
Value
1 Number of known deaths *=1 for each death 8
2,3 1-5 buildings flooded historically or by 100-year design storm 1
2,3 6-9 buildings flooded historically or by 100-year design storm 2
2,3 10 or more buildings flooded historically or by 100-year design storm 3
4,5,6 Restricts emergency vehicles 1.5
8 Nuisance erosion creates maintenance problems 1
8 Moderate erosion, failure of structure or facility with next 5 years possible 2
8 Severe erosion, failure of structure or facility imminent 3
10-12 Collapse causes flooding of land by 100-year design storm 1
10-12 Collapse causes flooding of garages/outbuildings by 100-year design storm 1
10-12 Collapse causes 1-3 habitable buildings to be flooded 2
10-12 Collapse causes 4-6 habitable buildings to be flooded 3
10-12 Collapse causes more than 6 habitable buildings to be flooded 4
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Kansas City, Missouri
The form for Kansas City, Missouri is filled in by hand and calculated to determine the priority
rating.
(Forms to follow)
STORM SEWER PRIORITY RATING SHEET
Location: PIAC Req#: Year: Date:
Related: Upstream Downstream Watershed Tributary
Problem Description:
Recommended Correction:
Number Drainage Complaint PROJECT
Items below and fill in MAINTENANCE BENEFITS ROW
corresponding ratings at right FLOODING +EROSION +NEEDED +ADJACENT +=ADDITIVE
SEVERITY SEVERITY SEVERITY PROPERTIES SUBTOTAL
|||||||
Residence Item 1 |||||||
Street | | | | | | |
Business |||||||
Public Structure Item 2 |||||||
Drainage Structure | | | | | | |
Improved Channel |||||||
Natural Channel Item 3 |||||||
Miscellaneous | | | | | | |
||
SUBTOTAL ||
| |
MULTIPLIER ||
NUMBER OF MAJOR LOCATIONS EFFECTED X =||
(EX: NUMBER OF LOCAL WATERSHEDS, STREETS, ETC.) | |
||
MULTIPLIER FREQUENCY RATING (from chart)X =||
| |
MULTIPLIER DEGREE OF UNSAFETY (from chart)||
(See NOTE 1 for any comments)X =||
| |
ADDITIVE PROVIDES POSIT IVE EFFECT FOR ||
(SEE NOTE 2)DEVELOPMENT OF UPSTREAM +=||
ADD (5 TO 25) | |
||
ADDITIVE IF NORMALLY RESPONSIBILITY OF CITY X =||
(SEE NOTE 3)ADD (10 TO 50) | |
||
TOTAL RATING ||
| |
List downstream projects to be constructed prior to this project
Also place NOTES 1-3 and any other comments below.
|Estimated Cost ||
||$ |
| ‚
|||
|Total Rating | |
| =
|||
|Cost Efficiency Rating |
RELATIVE RATINGS FOR DRAINAGE PROBLEMS
VERY
FLOODING HIGH HIGH MED LOW
FLOODING:*RESIDENCE 30 20 16 12
*BUSINESS 20 16 12
PUBLIC STRUCTURE 20 16 12
**STREET: HIGH MOVING WATER 18 14 12
**STREET: IMPASSABLE TRAFFIC 16 14 12
*OUT BUILDING 16 12 8
**STREET: PASSABLE TRAFFIC 12 8 4
*DRIVEWAY 12 8 4
*YARD 10 6 2
*PROPERTY (UNIMPROVED)10 6 2
WATER ENTERING:
*RESIDENCE 12 10 8
*BUSINESS 12 10 8
PUBLIC STRUCTURE 12 10 8
PONDING:
**STREET (ICE = 16)10 6 4
*PROPERTY 6 4 2
EROSION
RESIDENCE 18 14 10
(near BUSINESS 18 14 10
or in)PU BLIC STRUCTURE 18 14 10
**RETAINING WALL 16 12 8
**DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 16 12 8
**STREET R.O.W.16 12 8
RESIDENTIAL YARD 16 12 8
SIDE DITCH 14 10 6
IMPROVED CHANNEL 14 10 6
DRAINAGE DITCH 12 8 4
UNIMPROVED CHANNEL 12 8 4
PROPERTY (UNIMPROVED)12 8 4
MAINTENANCE
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 16 12 8
IMPROVED CHANNEL 14 10 6
SIDE DITCH 14 10 6
UNIMPROVED CHANNEL 12 8 4
BENEFITS
ADJACENT
PROPERTIES
MANY (>5)30
FEW (2-4)20
ONE (1)10
NONE (0)0
HARM (1)-10
HARM (2-4)-20
HARM (>5)-30
FREQUENCY
RATING
>1 / YR 1.0
1 / YR 0.8
1 / 5 YR 0.6
1 / 10 YR 0.3
<1 / 10 YR 0.1
DEGREE OF
UNSAFETY
DANGER TO:
LIFE---------------3.0
(i.e., LOW WATER CROSSING,
PAST OCCURRENCES,
ELECTROCUTION)
LIMB---------------2.0
(i.e., ICY WALK)
STRUCTURE---------------2.0
(i.e., ICY STREET)
NONE-------------------------1.0
* - Multiply by 0.4 if located within the FEMA Regulated Flood Plain.
** - Multiply by 0.1 if maintained by the State of Missouri.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Liberty, Missouri
The priority ratings for Liberty, Missouri are completed within an Access database. Reports can
then be generated as necessary.
(Forms to follow)
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 13
Preliminary Cost and Rate Analysis
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 13 - Preliminary Cost and Rate Analysis ......................................................................13-1
13.1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................13-1
13.1.1 - Purpose of this Report ..............................................................................................13-1
13.1.2 - Contents....................................................................................................................13-1
13.1.3 - City Actions to Date .................................................................................................13-3
13.1.4 - Focus on Funding Solutions .....................................................................................13-4
13.1.5 - “Building Block” Program Development Approach................................................13-5
13.1.6 - Program Development Priorities ..............................................................................13-6
13.1.6.1 - Form a Stormwater Utility..................................................................................13-7
13.1.6.2 - Establish Adequate Funding ...............................................................................13-7
13.1.6.3 - Create a Capability to Bill, Collect, and Account for Service fees ....................13-8
13.1.6.4 - Resolve Organization and Staffing Issues ..........................................................13-8
13.1.6.5 - Conduct Public Education and Information .......................................................13-9
13.1.6.6 - Implement Increased Stormwater Engineering Capability.................................13-9
13.1.6.7 - Improve Operations and Maintenance................................................................13-9
13.1.6.8 - Prepare a Complete System Condition Inventory ............................................13-10
13.1.6.9 - Inventory and Acquire Easements and Other Access Rights ...........................13-11
13.1.6.10 - Institute Maintenance Management Planning and Work Order Tracking......13-11
13.1.6.11 - Build Short-term, Minor Capital Improvements ............................................13-11
13.1.6.12 - Implement the Master Plan Update and Build Capital Projects .....................13-12
13.1.6.13 - Address Remedial Repair Needs ....................................................................13-13
13.1.6.14 - Implement Stormwater Quality Management ................................................13-13
13.1.6.15 - Upgrade Plan Review and Inspection.............................................................13-13
13.1.6.16 - Support Special Programs ..............................................................................13-13
13.1.6.17 - Acquire Administrative, Financial, Personnel, and Legal Support Services..13-14
13.1.7 - Provision for Non-operational Costs......................................................................13-14
13.2 - Rate Structure Analysis ...............................................................................................13-14
13.2.1 - Overview ................................................................................................................13-14
13.2.2 - Summary of Conclusions and Recommended Approach.......................................13-15
13.2.3 - Key Considerations ................................................................................................13-16
13.2.4 - Analysis Format .....................................................................................................13-16
13.2.5 - Jefferson City’s Special Circumstances.................................................................13-17
13.2.6 - Summary of Service Charge Rate Options ............................................................13-18
13.2.6.1 - Basic Rate Methodologies ................................................................................13-18
13.2.6.2 - Modifying Factors ............................................................................................13-18
13.2.6.3 - Secondary Funding Methods ............................................................................13-19
13.3 - Cost of Service Analysis .............................................................................................13-19
13.3.1 - Overview ................................................................................................................13-19
13.3.2 - Cost Analysis Methodology and Format................................................................13-20
13.3.3 - Assumptions Used in Estimating Costs .................................................................13-24
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
ii September 29, 2003
13.3.4 - Uncertainties Influencing Costs .............................................................................13-25
13.3.5 - Expense by Major Cost Center ..............................................................................13-26
13.3.5.1 - Administration..................................................................................................13-26
13.3.5.2 - Engineering and Master Planning.....................................................................13-27
13.3.5.3 - Operations.........................................................................................................13-28
13.3.5.4 - Regulation.........................................................................................................13-30
13.3.5.5 - Capital Expenditures.........................................................................................13-31
Local Detention...................................................................................................................13-32
13.3.5.6 - Stormwater Quality Management.....................................................................13-34
13.3.6 - Summary of Costs..................................................................................................13-35
13.4 - Rate Study ...................................................................................................................13-36
13.4.1 - Overview of Stormwater Service Charge Funding ................................................13-36
13.4.2 - Locally Determined Rate Design Decisions ..........................................................13-36
13.4.3 - Recommended Rate Methodology.........................................................................13-37
13.4.4 - Projected Rate Base................................................................................................13-39
13.4.5 - Rate Study Cash Flow Analysis .............................................................................13-40
List of Tables
Table 13-1 – Administration Costs of Service .........................................................................13-26
Table 13-2 – Engineering Costs of Service..............................................................................13-27
Table 13-3 – Operational Costs of Service ..............................................................................13-28
Table 13-4 – Regulation Costs of Service................................................................................13-31
Table 13-5 – Master Plan Update Capital Improvements*......................................................13-32
Table 13-6 – Capital Improvement Costs of Service (Scenario #1 – Expensed Capital Projects)
..........................................................................................................................................13-33
Table 13-7 – Capital Improvement Costs of Service (Scenario #2 – $4.5 Million Bonded Capital
Projects)............................................................................................................................13-33
Table 13-8 – Capital Improvement Costs of Service (Scenario #3 – $6.8 Million Bonded Capital
Projects)............................................................................................................................13-34
Table 13-9 – Stormwater Quality Management Costs of Service............................................13-34
Table 13-10 – Total Program Costs of Service (Scenario #1 – Expensed Capital Projects)...13-35
Table 13-11 – Total Program Costs of Service (Scenario #2 – $4.5 Million Bonded Capital
Projects)............................................................................................................................13-35
Table 13-12 – Total Program Costs of Service (Scenario #3 – $6.8 Million Bonded Capital
Projects)............................................................................................................................13-35
Table 13-13 – Rate Base Summary..........................................................................................13-40
Table 13-14 – Pro Forma Cash Flow Analysis Scenario #1 – Expensed Capital Projects ......13-44
Table 13-15 – Pro Forma Cash Flow Analysis Scenario #2 – Bonded Capital Projects of $4.5
Million..............................................................................................................................13-45
Table 13-16 – Pro Forma Cash Flow Analysis Scenario #3 – Bonded Capital Projects of $6.8
Million..............................................................................................................................13-46
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
iii September 29, 2003
List of Figures
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-1 September 29, 2003
Section 13 - Preliminary Cost and Rate Analysis
13.1 - Introduction
13.1.1 - Purpose of this Report
This Preliminary Cost and Rate Analysis consolidates several products of a thorough analysis of
Jefferson City’s stormwater management needs, options, and funding opportunities. It focuses
on the cost of stormwater services and facilities, and the level of needed service fees to support
an effective stormwater management program for the foreseeable future.
The findings and recommendations represent a process of due diligence that ensures that the City
has accounted for all key considerations in formulating a program strategy and selecting a
practical and effective funding solution. The analysis supports the adoption, by the City Council,
of a stormwater utility rate methodology and service fee rates acting pursuant to the City’s
authority and powers, subject to possible limitations and requirements that may exist due to the
Hancock Amendment to the Missouri Constitution.
This analysis provides a reasonable, order-of-magnitude projection of the service charge rates
that would be needed to fund the proposed program. If the City decides to proceed with a utility,
a final refinement of the program strategy and cost analysis is necessary to formalize priorities,
properly identify costs, and determine the rate requirements with more precision. In particular,
the City’s strategy for compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phase 2 stormwater discharge permit, specific priorities for capital projects identified
in the Master Plan Update, the makeup of the available rate base, and policy positions on several
funding issues must be determined before service fee rates can be adopted. Thus, the cost and
rate projections in this analysis must be assumed to be preliminary and subject to change as
additional information is gathered and processed.
13.1.2 - Contents
An iterative process has been employed by the City’s consultants in assembling the Master Plan
Update and particularly in the analysis of funding opportunities. Several reports, memorandums,
and technical and policy papers were prepared and submitted to the City during the past two
years as the funding analysis was underway. In addition, members of the consultant team
responsible for the funding analysis met with the staff and an advisory committee to discuss
specific issues. Their guidance was incorporated into the analysis, findings, and
recommendations contained in this report.
The Rate Structure Analysis portion of this section is drawn from a previous report that is
similarly titled and included in this report as Appendix D. (While similarly titled, the report in
Appendix D will be referred to as the Detailed Rate Structure Analysis Report through the
remainder of this section.) It summarizes the alternative methods of allocating the cost of
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-2 September 29, 2003
services and facilities through a service fee and recommends a preferred rate calculation
methodology for determining the service charges applicable to various properties. An impervious
area methodology is recommended. It is consistent with industry practices. The use of other
funding mechanisms in concert with service charges to support some components of the program
is also examined in this report.
The Cost of Service Analysis portion projects the estimated operating, non-operating, and capital
expenses of the proposed program strategy. The projected cost of services and facilities
described in this report addresses the first five years of an enhanced program, but the program is
expected to extend indefinitely to ensure that the systems are maintained and operate properly.
Several capital projects identified in the Master Plan Update and significant improvements in the
operational program can be accomplished in the initial five-year period. However, other projects
and operational enhancements will likely have to be deferred to ensure that service fee rates are
acceptable to the community.
It should be stressed that the City’s long-term stormwater management needs are not fully
understood at this time and that several factors will foster changing needs. Additional capital
improvements will be identified even as the City’s newly updated stormwater master plans are
activated. Annexations of unincorporated areas could significantly alter priorities and increase
the capital and operating needs and costs. More remedial repair needs will emerge as the
drainage systems continue to age. The City’s role in stormwater management will reach into
elements of the natural drainage systems that are not presently subject to public control. Federal
and state regulatory requirements will likely increase, especially those associated with water
quality. Perhaps most importantly, the visibility of stormwater management and the
community’s service expectations are likely to increase if the City Council adopts the
recommended funding strategy based on a service charge. All of these will influence the future
cost of service and require periodic reassessments of the program strategy, needs, priorities,
costs, and funding options.
In the Preliminary Rate Study portion of this section, the recommended rate methodology is
applied to the cost of services and facilities as now projected. It provides a five-year pro forma
financial plan for the proposed program, including a cash flow analysis. The projection is based
on assumptions regarding the area and make up of the City, how much impervious area exists
(the rate base), and assumes application of the service charge to all properties with impervious
area other than highways and roads. The majority of cities and counties that have adopted
stormwater service fees have excluded roads and highways from their service fees, reasoning that
roadways are designed to function as part of the local drainage system. Furthermore, the City
and State of Missouri road and highway programs are responsible for building much of Jefferson
City’s existing stormwater infrastructure in conjunction with the original construction or major
upgrading of roadways, and the State Department of Transportation continues to maintain
drainage systems within its highways in the City.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-3 September 29, 2003
13.1.3 - City Actions to Date
Jefferson City has recognized for many years that its stormwater management capability has not
been sufficient to correct existing problems or prevent future ones. The attractive physical
setting of the community incurs significant flood risks when the Missouri River rises following
sustained heavy rains and/or snow-melt events in upstream areas. Locally severe thunderstorm
events create neighborhood flooding and erosion along streams and channels even more
frequently, though generally with less devastating impacts. Some of the localized thunderstorms
even pose personal safety hazards to citizens when roads flood and local streams surge out of
their primary channels.
The City initiated its latest search for management and funding solutions to its drainage problems
in 2001 in conjunction with an update to its Stormwater Master Plan. Several considerations
spurred the City to action. Significant flooding along the Missouri River and at the mouths of
local streams flowing to the Missouri in recent years spotlighted the risk exposures that exist in
proximity to the River. As development pressures increased during the vibrant economy of the
late 1990’s, the continuing decay of the City’s stormwater infrastructure garnered more attention.
City leaders also realized that Jefferson City was required to obtain and comply with a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 2 permit in March, 2003, and that it
(like many other small cities) was ill-prepared to address the federal stormwater quality mandate.
The process of identifying a practical, long-term means of funding stormwater management in
Jefferson City has involved several steps.
• A Storm Drainage Advisory Committee has been examining stormwater management issues
for nearly three years. They were directly involved in the development of key policies to
guide the Master Plan Update, associated funding studies, and the City Council decisions on
funding.
• The stormwater management problems and needs in Jefferson City were carefully evaluated
and a program strategy developed as the foundation for the cost and rate analyses.
Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were performed as part of the Master Plan Update to
identify capital improvement needs throughout the City, an important component of the
estimated cost of service.
• General policies were drafted to guide the program and discussed with the Advisory
Committee. The Committee has recommended several policy positions to the City Council.
• A program scenario for meeting operating and capital needs was developed, encompassing a
twenty-year timeframe. Understandably, the first few years of the proposed strategy can be
described with more confidence than later periods.
• A public education and information program was developed concurrently with the Master
Plan Update and funding analysis, and is presented separately.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-4 September 29, 2003
• The practicality of nearly a dozen funding sources currently and potentially available to
Jefferson City was examined in detail, including various taxes, service charges, and other
funding mechanisms.
• A Detailed Rate Structure Analysis Report (see Appendix D) was prepared which identified
and evaluated alternative utility service charge rate methodologies that might be adopted to
support stormwater management.
Hydrologic and hydraulic engineering studies conducted for the Master Plan Update comprise
the engineering heart of this project. They have identified the need for both major and minor
capital improvements, many of which are immediate priorities and are incorporated into the five-
year financial analysis period addressed in this report. The consultant team also investigated
operational needs ranging from maintenance and repair of systems to water quality programs
mandated by federal legislation. In sum, the various analyses conducted in the Master Plan
Update reveal that the City needs to undertake a comprehensive, long-term strategy that will
address maintenance and regulatory functions as well as capital improvement needs.
13.1.4 - Focus on Funding Solutions
Inadequate funding has been a major impediment to a solution of the City’s drainage problems in
the past. Stormwater management operations have historically been funded through allocations
from the City’s General Fund. Typically they have been contained in budgets primarily focused
on other needs, such as road maintenance. That approach historically has not provided sufficient
resources for the day-to-day stormwater management needs. Competing urban services have
made it increasingly difficult to allocate adequate funding to stormwater management operations
from General Fund appropriations in recent years. Most of the existing stormwater infrastructure
was built in conjunction with road construction and private development projects, though some
stormwater capital improvements are projected to be built using special sales taxes approved by
City voters. Generally speaking, the City has lacked a comprehensive plan for building adequate
stormwater facilities, and has not identified the funding necessary to sustain such a program on a
systemic basis. It is clear that the City must either increase revenues from current sources or
adopt others to supplement or supplant them.
The master planning and engineering studies conducted as part of this project have identified a
list of costly capital improvement needs city-wide in specific locations, but operational,
regulatory, and water quality management functions dictate a different perspective on funding.
These later needs represent a pervasive, community-wide issue that cannot be solved by one-time
measures or temporary funding mechanisms. A comprehensive program is needed that drives a
cohesive, long-term funding strategy for selectively employing several funding mechanisms that
fit the priorities.
In light of the funding dilemma, the City’s consultant team, staff, and advisory committee
focused first on defining an effective program and then on determining if one or more viable
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-5 September 29, 2003
funding methods exist to support the program. The practicality of a “utility” management
approach to better address the diverse capital improvement and operational needs was identified
as early as 2001, but any decisions regarding this approach were deferred until the Master Plan
Update neared completion and offered greater clarity on capital project priorities and costs.
The Jefferson City Council has substantial latitude in directing the City’s financial affairs,
including the authority to manage and fund its stormwater program as a financially independent
accounting entity, similar in many ways to its water supply and wastewater treatment utilities.
However, the Hancock Amendment to the Missouri Constitution poses potential limitations and
requirements that affect the City Council’s authority in financial matters by requiring ballot
issues on the levy of new or increased taxes, licenses or fees that do not qualify as “user fees”.
The City Council may have to submit a proposal for a stormwater service charge to the voters.
Even if it appears that a ballot issue is not required pursuant to Hancock, the Council may wish
to do so simply to avoid potential legal challenges that could jeopardize the viability of the
program.
While this report does contain legal opinions with regards to stormwater management in
Jefferson City, it does not constitute legal counsel, nor was it meant to replace such specific legal
interpretation and subsequent action. The City is advised to seek such assistance from the City
Attorney’s office or from special counsel versed in the details of the Hancock Amendment and
its application in this type of circumstance.
13.1.5 - “Building Block” Program Development Approach
The Cost of Service Analysis section of this report is predicated on a program development
strategy that emerged from the consultant’s investigations, with input from the City staff and the
advisory committee. Stormwater management has become a complex municipal business
involving water quality as well as quantity control, and demanding sophisticated engineering,
diverse operational functions, and a substantial investment in infrastructure. A "building block"
approach is recommended as the most practical way to upgrade the City’s current stormwater
management efforts over time.
The recommended strategy is to implement a comprehensive, long-range program in a series of
logical steps that optimize the balance of investment in capital facilities, maintenance of existing
infrastructure, and regulation of private development impacts on stormwater runoff and the
drainage systems. Establishing adequate and equitable funding is an immediate priority.
Concurrently, the City should expedite attainment of visible improvements in day-to-day service
levels so the community sees results. Improved routine maintenance and remedial repair of
aging systems are clearly needed.
A drainage system inventory has been assembled to support the master planning engineering
analysis. This is a valuable resource and has applications to maintenance and regulatory
programs as well as capital project planning and construction. For example, the City must
identify all significant stormwater discharge points to facilitate efficient compliance with its
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-6 September 29, 2003
NPDES permit. A comparable “access inventory” should be assembled to identify existing
easements, rights-of-way, rights-of-entry and associated accessibility provisions that might
enable or limit the City’s ability to build, maintain, operate, and regulate the drainage systems.
The access inventory should be integrated with the physical drainage system inventory to
provide improved command and control of maintenance activities. The City’s geographical
information system (GIS) can be a powerful tool in both assembling and applying this data to the
day-to-day program.
Additional support systems and resources will also be needed. A preventive level of routine
maintenance is a key long-range objective. Fully attaining it will require several steps, and
probably ten years or more. The inventories of the stormwater systems and access rights are
essential support systems. In addition, associated upgrades to the GIS and other data
management systems are needed. This investment will pay off for years to come in the form of
more effective, less costly maintenance and fewer problems during and following storm events.
The proposed strategy recognizes that the scope of the existing program must be substantially
broadened if the existing problems are to be addressed and future ones avoided. It also
emphasizes the importance of properly orchestrating the assembly of the program “building
blocks” into a cohesive, understandable package. The timing of various program elements is
carefully considered in projecting the costs of service. For example, a significantly higher level
of routine maintenance and remedial repairs is projected by the end of the five-year period
addressed in this analysis. During that period it is also expected that attention and resources will
be focused on drainage capital improvements identified in the Master Plan Update. However,
until system and access inventories are assembled and the Master Plan Update is formally
adopted, the City’s ability to optimize its routine maintenance, remedial repair and replacement,
water quality, and capital improvement programs will be constrained. Thus, City Council
adoption of the Master Plan Update is an immediate priority.
External influences are also accounted for in this analysis. The City’s stormwater management
responsibilities are now defined in part by the federal Clean Water Act5 and the City’s NPDES
Phase 2 permit for stormwater discharges. The City does not have an option in regard to the
NPDES permit. It must comply in a timely manner or face possible sanctions, even including the
potential loss of federal funds for transportation and other programs and substantial fines by
federal and/or state agencies for non-compliance. The program strategy and cost analysis
recognize this mandate and provide for greater emphasis on stormwater quality, including a
variety of measures to control and remediate non-point source stormwater pollution.
13.1.6 - Program Development Priorities
The City’s type and amount of stormwater management costs projected in this report are driven
by the work program priorities during the five-year funding analysis period. Several criteria
5 Public Law 92-500, as amended.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-7 September 29, 2003
were employed for ordering the possible priorities as strategic options were being crafted and
discussed with the City staff and advisory committee.
• The priorities must provide an efficient way to build the program while also addressing high-
priority needs as quickly as possible.
• The priorities must ensure at least minimal compliance with federal and state mandates.
• Program enhancements should be visible and understandable to the general public, and
within the community’s willingness to pay.
• Interim measures, especially capital and remedial repair projects, must be carefully evaluated
to ensure that they are not contrary to likely long-range solutions identified in the Master
Plan Update or likely to be superceded by a major capital project within a few months or
years.
The planned pace of evolution of the stormwater program has a direct influence on costs. Many
components of the program are closely related and will depend on each other. For example, to
properly support maintenance management the drainage system inventories must be enhanced to
include information on the material, age, and condition of the facilities, not just their location and
capacity. Accessibility issues must also be resolved, so that land and easement acquisition costs
can be incorporated into the budgets for projects and used to define remedial repair priorities.
The following strategic program development priorities emerged in the investigative analysis and
during discussions with the City staff and the advisory committee.
13.1.6.1 - Form a Stormwater Utility
Jefferson City is empowered to perform and fund stormwater management. That authority is
broad and flexible, and the City Council may adopt service charges to support its program.
However, depending on the ultimate structure of the service charges, the Hancock Amendment
to the Missouri Constitution may require a ballot issue approval of such a service charge. Even
if the consultant team’s legal advisor, in conjunction with the City’s legal counsel, determines
that a vote is not absolutely required by the Hancock Amendment in this instance, pursuant to the
“Keller tests” defined by the Missouri Supreme Court and other considerations, the City Council
may decide to subject the utility service fee rate to a vote for political reasons. Thus, decisions on
whether to form a stormwater utility and present a ballot issue to the voters are the most
immediate priorities of the recommended program strategy. Those basic decisions will drive
many steps in the process of developing the program.
13.1.6.2 - Establish Adequate Funding
If a utility is to be established, adopting legally defensible service fees that will generate an
adequate revenue stream must be the next immediate priority. Dedicated funding and a separate
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-8 September 29, 2003
accounting unit (either an enterprise or special revenue fund) should be established to provide a
high degree of visibility and accountability for the stormwater management program. It is
proposed that service fees be adopted pursuant to a Final Cost of Service Analysis/Rate Study.
The first service fee billing cycle should be initiated as quickly as possible, allowing for the
possible scheduling impacts of a ballot approval of the fees and development of a billing
capability.
13.1.6.3 - Create a Capability to Bill, Collect, and Account for Service fees
Assuming that a new service fee funding mechanism will be adopted by the City Council and
approved by the voters (if subject to a ballot issue), creating the capability to activate the funding
becomes the next highest priority. A master account file must be assembled for calculating
stormwater service fees for each customer. The City’s existing water and wastewater utility
billing and customer service systems provide a means of billing, collecting, and accounting for
stormwater service billings and payments within the boundaries of the City, and for responding
to customer inquiries. Customer service representatives currently supporting the water and
wastewater utilities could perform a similar role on behalf of the stormwater utility, but would
require additional training to respond correctly to customers’ questions about the stormwater
management service fee. The cost analysis in this report assumes that the stormwater utility will
bear an appropriate portion of the cost of billing, collection, accounting, and customer service
costs. If the City and Cole County determine that the stormwater utility should also provide
services and charge fees beyond the City’s corporate limits, an intergovernmental agreement
would have to be formulated and the City’s current utility billing system might have to be
modified or another means of billing identified.
13.1.6.4 - Resolve Organization and Staffing Issues
The workload associated with upgrading the stormwater management program will require
additional personnel resources. One benefit of a detailed program plan and funding analysis is
that the stormwater management utility’s resource requirements are better recognized. The
needs can be addressed by increasing City staff, hiring outside contractors, or a combination of
the both. Whenever possible, these costs should be assigned to the utility, either as personnel
directly employed by the utility, through an indirect cost allocation formula, and/or by direct
billing for some support services. A portion of the City’s legal, personnel, and financial
management support services should also be allocated to the utility, perhaps as an indirect cost
allocation.
Use of contract vendors is another resource that may aid the City in optimizing its stormwater
management program. Contracting with private firms is necessary for certain specialized
services like master planning and capital project design. Outside vendors may also offer a
workable stopgap solution if problems emerge in finding capable persons to fill key staff
positions. Some maintenance activities that demand specialized skills and/or equipment might
be more efficiently provided by private contractors, especially during the first few years of the
program. Reliance on outside contractors carries with it some risk, however. The City needs to
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-9 September 29, 2003
ensure that the utility staff can perform some routine activities and provide a basic in-house
emergency response capability, which may make outsourcing a less viable permanent solution
than internal staffing.
13.1.6.5 - Conduct Public Education and Information
Managing and funding stormwater services and facilities will require dissemination of
information throughout the community. Although the staff and City Council have discussed the
issue, relatively little information has been conveyed to the general public, except through the
advisory committee. This may be particularly important if the City decides to place a ballot
issue relating to service fee funding before the voters. An on-going education effort focused on
the program and funding strategy will be needed, and is provided for in the Cost of Service
Analysis section of this report. In addition, water quality education and public involvement are
key elements required by NPDES Phase 2 stormwater discharge permits.
13.1.6.6 - Implement Increased Stormwater Engineering Capability
Operational, capital improvement planning, water quality and associated regulatory programs all
require engineering support and direction. As noted above, both in-house engineering staff and
consulting engineers have worked on various aspects of Jefferson City’s stormwater
management program in the past and continue to do so. The projected work program involves a
significant increase in the level of stormwater services, which in turn suggests a comparable
increase in engineering and other technical support capabilities will be needed. Initially, the
engineering and technical components of the work program will focus on designing short-term
solutions to specific drainage problems, regulating stormwater-related aspects of the
development process, overseeing projects funded by the sales tax extension, implementing the
NPDES permit ’s mandate s, and managing professional services contracts for the system and
access inventories. In the future, engineering will be a key component of implementing the
Master Plan Update through construction of projects.
13.1.6.7 - Improve Operations and Maintenance
The "building-block" program strategy seeks to optimize the transition of the routine and
remedial maintenance programs to a preventive level of service over several years. However, a
basic change can be attained quickly by increasing staff and/or outside contract maintenance, and
introducing a preventive orientation to current operations. The immediate objective should be to
make the existing stormwater systems work as well as possible as quickly as possible. It is
hoped that this will minimize interim problems until long-term solutions can be attained through
remedial repairs, capital improvements and increased operational service levels.
Much can be done to improve system function even while system and access inventories are
being assembled and designs for capital projects identified in the Master Plan Update are being
prepared. The reliability of existing systems can be improved simply by cleaning them more
frequently and extending City maintenance into portions of the man-made and natural drainage
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-10 September 29, 2003
systems it does not currently manage, such as the open channels that typically drain from upland
roads to streams in the small valleys that typify Jefferson City. Many of these small open
channels transit residential backyards along subdivision lot lines. Some owners allow City
maintenance crews access to such channels without a provision for permanent easements, but the
City needs to formalize its rights to do such work through easements and rights-of-entry.
There will be significant changes in existing operational activities and shifts in cost allocations as
a result of the formation of the utility. Street sweeping could reasonably become a stormwater
management activity oriented to water quality objectives, and the cost therefore could be
allocated to the utility. It will need to be planned and performed at a level capable of providing
stormwater quality enhancement, rather than merely cosmetic street trash and dust removal.
Vegetative control measures within and along channels could also become a stormwater
management function. Some cities even consider leaf pickup programs to be part of their
stormwater management programs.
It is estimated that a fully preventive level of routine maintenance will require at least five to
eight years to achieve, and perhaps a decade or more. The current backlog of remedial repairs is
not fully known and, when combined with those that will emerge as the drainage systems
continue to age, could require ten years or more to resolve. It should be anticipated that the
backlog of needs may increase significantly when the systems are fully inventoried and capital
improvement master plans are finalized. Simply extrapolating from the experiences of similar
cities, it is not unrealistic to think that the backlog of remedial needs might approach $10 million
in Jefferson City.
Projected expenditures for operations and maintenance during the five-year period examined in
this report substantially exceed the current funding level for all stormwater management
functions. A service fee could enable the City to increase maintenance funding. However,
simply enacting service fee funding will not fully attain the objective of a preventive approach to
maintenance. Nor will it enable the City to correct all existing deficiencies. Support systems
such as physical and access inventories are critically important elements of an improved
maintenance capability, and they take time to prepare, implement, and learn to use effectively.
13.1.6.8 - Prepare a Complete System Condition Inventory
A partial inventory of drainage systems was assembled as part of the Master Plan Update. It
contains useful information on location and size of the major components of the systems, but
does not include all of the systems in the City or include data on the age, condition, and
accessibility of the systems. This information is important for maintenance management as well
as engineering purposes. The timing of improvements in routine and remedial maintenance,
engineering of capital projects, and other program elements is dependent on having full
information about the existing drainage systems. A complete and detailed inventory of the
stormwater systems should be assembled as quickly as possible to support the service
enhancements identified in the program strategy. The inventory should account for the material,
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-11 September 29, 2003
flow capacity, and current structural condition of the systems, not just their location. It should be
closely coordinated with an inventory of access provisions (See 13.1.6.9, below).
13.1.6.9 - Inventory and Acquire Easements and Other Access Rights
In addition to the inventory of conditions in the stormwater systems, the City needs to research
and inventory the various easements, rights-of-entry, and other access provisions that it has to
allow routine and remedial maintenance and capital improvements. One legacy of the
community’s development pattern and past practices is that many drainage systems in the City
were originally designed and built without benefit of watershed-based hydrologic analyses such
as those conducted in the Master Plan Update. Open drainage channels still exist in many areas
of the City, and most carry stormwater runoff only intermittently. Recorded easements, rights-
of-way, and rights-of-entry are not available for sections of many of the open drainage courses.
Even access rights for maintaining underground storm sewers in some areas are not completely
documented. If routine maintenance services and remedial repairs to the systems are to be
upgraded, a thorough inventory of the various access rights must be assembled and properly
catalogued. In some cases, easements and other access rights may have been recorded originally
to the benefit of the County. It is assumed that the City inherits and retains all of the County’s
rights, including easements in areas pursuant to annexed into the City, but this should be verified
by the consultant team, in conjunction with the City Counselor.
13.1.6.10 - Institute Maintenance Management Planning and Work Order Tracking
A maintenance management plan and associated support systems for work order tracking should
be instituted as part of the upgrading of the stormwater program. The plan and systems should
be closely coordinated with the physical system and access rights inventories. Opportunities
may exist to link the stormwater management data systems with other City data systems that
provide maintenance management planning and work order tracking. Proprietary systems are
available which link service fee billing customer service support systems with operational
programs to facilitate work order processing when complaints are logged by billing customer
service representatives. Many also offer detailed cost accounting capability. The City’s GIS
may be useful in coordinating such systems.
13.1.6.11 - Build Short-term, Minor Capital Improvements
Construction of capital improvements is the most visible aspect of stormwater management to
the general public. Jefferson City has extensive capital improvement needs, most of which are
now documented and prioritized in the Master Plan Update. Many additional small capital needs
may also exist, and are estimated at this time to total as much as $6 million. This estimate could
increase as more is learned about the systems and alternative solutions to localized problems.
Some of these could be addressed on a pay-as-you-go basis within the five-year period addressed
by the Cost of Service Analysis if sufficient funding is available.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-12 September 29, 2003
These projects might be termed “short-term, minor capital improvements”. Capital expenditures
may also need to be made during the five-year funding analysis period for easements and other
access rights to build system improvement projects, to acquire major operating equipment, and to
develop support systems to improve the productivity of the maintenance program during the
analysis period.
In addition, improvements to the drainage system are identified in the sales tax extension
approved by Jefferson City voters in 2001. These projects are in addition to those identified in
the Master Plan Update. The costs are not incorporated into the Cost of Service Analysis
because they will be funded from the approved sales tax extension rather than service fees.
13.1.6.12 - Implement the Master Plan Update and Build Capital Projects
Adopting and implementing the stormwater Master Plan Update is one of the key priorities
during the initial, five-year funding analysis period. A piecemeal approach has been taken in the
past, with a few relatively localized projects resulting. Several stormwater projects are to be
funded through the sales tax extension approved by the voters in 2001. The Master Plan Update
will now enable the City to proceed quickly to design and construction of major stormwater
projects if suitable funding can be established. This report recommends and assumes that the
City will adopt the Master Plan Update and initiate an aggressive effort to implement it.
A strategy is presented in this report for building most of the identified projects within the first
five years, though several very large and costly improvements would have to be deferred or
funded through other means. The sum total of capital needs identified in the Master Plan Update
significantly exceeds the community’s ability or willingness to fund improvements on a pay-as-
you-go basis from the revenue or the proposed service fee during the five-year funding analysis
period. This suggests that a bond issue is necessary to expedite construction of major
improvements in the Master Plan Update. Two scenarios for bonding are identified in this
report.
A stormwater capital projects bond could be issued as early as Year 1 of the utility, with debt
service to start in Year 2. Additional bonds might need to be issued in later years. We have
assumed that any bonds issued for stormwater management could be classed as General
Obligation bonds to expedite the process and minimize interest costs, regardless of the funding
source used to service the debt. Bond sales expense and debt service are estimated in the Rate
Study portion of this section.
Once a stormwater service charge has been in place for several years it is possible that a pure
revenue bond issue could be marketed. Revenue bonds are normally more expensive than
general obligation bonds, both in terms of interest rates and possible debt service coverage
covenants. Recently, however, the bond market has begun to recognize that the revenue stream
of a stormwater service charge is more stable than other utilities, and coverage requirements
have been diminishing.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-13 September 29, 2003
13.1.6.13 - Address Remedial Repair Needs
The City faces many remedial repair needs in the older stormwater systems. Remedial repairs
are differentiated from new capital improvements for accounting purposes. If a portion of an
older or deteriorated system is replaced in-kind without increased capacity, it is treated as a
remedial repair. It a new system is built or a repair results in increased capacity (say, a larger
pipe is installed), it is treated as a capital expense. We have assumed that remedial repairs to the
stormwater systems will be conservatively managed during the first few years to ensure that
expensive temporary work is not done in locations where a major capital improvement would
likely be built. Even then, the cost of remedial repairs in the first five years of the program is
estimated to be $1 million.
13.1.6.14 - Implement Stormwater Quality Management
The City presently is subject to a permit under Phase 2 of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). Pursuant to the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act
(1972), the Water Quality Act (1987), and subsequent amendments and regulations, primacy for
NPDES stormwater discharge permits has been granted to the State of Missouri.
The City’s stormwater quality program under NPDES Phase 2 will include a mix of operational,
structural, regulatory, and public education components, all intended to reduce pollution of
receiving waters due to stormwater runoff. Typically, Phase 2 permits require program activities
and best management practices (BMP) focused on six minimum control measures identified in
the federal regulations. This approach is radically different than other NPDES permits that
require compliance with numeric chemical standards in the receiving waters (e.g., wastewater
treatment plants and major industrial discharges). The City will be required to identify its
stormwater discharge points. Active management of stormwater quality will increase as the
systemic extent of service provided by the City extends into reaches of the drainage systems that
have not traditionally been subject to public management. More emphasis on remediation of
specific sources of pollution should also be expected in the future.
13.1.6.15 - Upgrade Plan Review and Inspection
It is assumed that the City will continue to review both on-site and off-site stormwater impacts
associated with development projects, and will identify public system improvement needs
associated with private development plans. In addition, the City needs to implement a program
of periodic inspections of existing on-site detention systems and other stormwater control
systems on private property to ensure that they are maintained in proper operating condition after
initial construction.
13.1.6.16 - Support Special Programs
Special programs, such as public information and participation in the City’s geographical
information system (GIS), are identified in the stormwater program strategy and are included in
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-14 September 29, 2003
this cost analysis. Such activities and systems directly support the operational, regulatory, and
capital improvement elements of the stormwater management program. In addition, they often
support other functions. The costs should be apportioned appropriately among the various
activities they support.
13.1.6.17 - Acquire Administrative, Financial, Personnel, and Legal Support Services
It is assumed that the stormwater management program will continue to receive administrative,
financial, personnel, and legal support services from the applicable departments of the City. As a
financially independent enterprise fund, the stormwater management utility program may be
subject to “indirect cost allocations” to recover an equitable portion of those costs. This would
validate the arm’s length financial relationship between a utility enterprise fund for stormwater
management (or a special revenue fund) and the City’s General Fund. The possibility exists that
some support services might be obtained from private vendors, but any change from in-house to
outside support service suppliers would not be expected to materially impact the costs.
13.1.7 - Provision for Non-operational Costs
Under the utility management concept, the cost analysis must include certain non-operational
costs associated with the stormwater management function. Non-operational costs include
allowances for revenue reductions that occur due to service fee delinquencies, bad debt, and
credits against the service fees. These costs are accounted for in the cash flow analysis in part
13.4 of this section.
13.2 - Rate Structure Analysis
13.2.1 - Overview
Several ways of structuring and calculating stormwater service charges (or “user fees”) are
employed by cities and counties throughout the United States. This section of the report
summarizes the rate methodology options available to Jefferson City if it wishes to implement a
stormwater service charge and presents a recommended approach. The basic parameters
employed for rate structures, plus modifying factors that can be applied to the various
methodologies, are described.
Preliminary costs of service were projected to gauge the resource requirements of the program
strategy and assess the viability of funding options. Three time frames were initially considered.
A ten-year “expedited” scenario was deemed too expensive for the community, and extremely
difficult to accomplish in any case. A thirty-year “minimal” program scenario would expose the
community to the risks of flooding, erosion, and water quality degradation for a longer period at
an annualized cost that is not significantly greater than a twenty-year, “moderate” scenario,
especially during the first five years. The twenty-year scenario was deemed both prudent and
practical, and is the basis of the cost and rate analysis in this report. After completing several
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-15 September 29, 2003
iterations of the cash flow analysis using the rate model, it appears possible that the City could
even expedite the program and fully attain the program objectives in as little as fifteen years.
13.2.2 - Summary of Conclusions and Recommended Approach
Service charges can be implemented by Jefferson City under the authority invested in cities by
Missouri laws. We believe a service fee is the most flexible and equitable means of allocating
the diverse costs of stormwater management across the community. It offers the City Council an
opportunity to design rates to fit its program strategy and achieve a cost distribution they deem to
be appropriate in Jefferson City. Based on an analysis of funding options previously submitted
to the City, the consultant team concluded that a stormwater utility service charge is the only
funding option that is capable of generating an adequate and stable revenue stream in Jefferson
City commensurate with the expenditure levels associated with a twenty-year program scenario.
Among the various rate methodologies described in this report, the impervious area methodology
is recommended unless the City Council wishes to bill undeveloped as well as developed
properties. In that case, a rate based on both gross and impervious area would be best. The most
likely scenarios, in which billing both undeveloped and developed properties might be preferable
to an impervious area approach, are: 1) if the City annexed large areas of undeveloped land
around its current periphery and aggressively pursued improvements to the stormwater systems
in those areas; or 2) if Cole County and the City entered into an intergovernmental authorizing
the City to provide stormwater management services in all or portions of the unincorporated
area.
A simplified residential rate is recommended in either case to reduce implementation and upkeep
expense. This could take the form of one flat rate fee for all single-family residential properties,
or two or more tiers of residential charges. This report assumes that a single rate would be
applied to all developed single-family residential properties. A more detailed technical analysis
would have to be performed to determine if a simplified rate of some sort is appropriate. If a
simplified residential rate is desired, an “equivalent runoff unit” or other normalized value would
need to be determined so that service charges to non-residential properties could be based on that
equivalency value.
Service charge credits should be provided for in the rate ordinance, recognizing that on-site
stormwater detention and other systems and actions can mitigate the off-site impacts and public
stormwater management costs attributable to some properties or persons. The crediting system
should consider mitigation measures that directly reduce the impact of peak runoff rates, total
volume discharged, and pollutant loadings in stormwater discharged to public systems. Other
credits should be considered for programs, activities or facilities that reduce the City’s cost of
providing its comprehensive stormwater management program, including public education
programs, applied research and monitoring of conditions in streams, and maintenance of public
stormwater facilities by others.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-16 September 29, 2003
13.2.3 - Key Considerations
Several considerations are evaluated in detail in the Detailed Rate Structure Analysis
Report(submitted separately and included in Appendix D). The consultant team’s experiences
implementing a variety of stormwater funding methods elsewhere suggest that the most
important factors in selecting a practical approach are the local circumstances, practices, and
politics. Every community is different and needs a solution that fits its specific situation. For
example, under Missouri law, local governments are restricted in adopting new or increased
taxes and fees by the Hancock Amendment to the State Constitution. Comparable limitations do
not exist in most other states. Beyond circumstances unique to Jefferson City or the State of
Missouri, the following are suggested as appropriate criteria for evaluating stormwater funding
options in general and rate structures in particular:
• attainment of equity in the allocation of costs;
• the balance of rates with level of service;
• data requirements;
• cost of implementation and upkeep;
• compatibility with existing data processing systems;
• consistency with other local financing and rate policies;
• financial sufficiency;
• revenue stability and sensitivity; and
• flexibility.
None of the service charge rate structures or secondary funding methods examined in the
Detailed Rate Structure Analysis Report (see Appendix D) is "perfect" under this broad range of
criteria. The listed order of the criteria above does not imply a priority, and no single
consideration should outweigh the others to the extent that a rate methodology or secondary
funding method might be selected or rejected for any one reason.
13.2.4 - Analysis Format
The stormwater rate methodologies, rate modifiers, and other funding methods identified in this
report provide a menu of options to the City. Basic rate structure concepts are the foundation of
a service fee. Modifying factors (such as flat-rate charges for single-family residences and base
rates for fixed costs per account) enable a basic rate methodology to be fine-tuned. Finally, other
funding methods can be used in coordination with a service fee rate methodology to optimize
funding for the entire program. The City’s use of special sales tax bonding for capital projects is
an example of how other funding methods might be blended with services fees to achieve the
program strategy. The approach should be geared specifically to the City’s stormwater program
strategy and identified priorities so that a demonstrated relationship exists between service
charge rates and the cost of providing services and facilities.
This project will not necessarily provide the final answer to Jefferson City’s stormwater
management funding needs. The initially preferred rate structure and mix of funding may have
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-17 September 29, 2003
to be adjusted as needs change over time. Information flowing from the Master Plan Update
suggests that over $40 million of capital investment is needed in the drainage systems. More
remedial repairs and capital improvement needs may be identified in the future as the master
plan is implemented and existing systems continue to age. Stormwater quality management may
become an even more demanding part of the program. Fortunately, the utility approach provides
excellent flexibility to adjust as the needs evolve, including changes in the program, funding
demands, and rate concepts.
13.2.5 - Jefferson City’s Special Circumstances
The diverse urban/suburban/rural setting in Jefferson City presents a special challenge in
designing a stormwater management program and associated funding. Needs differ significantly
across the City. A limited stormwater management program is currently provided, and most
stormwater management services are provided only in the urban/suburban portion of the City.
Undeveloped areas are generally not served except when they are pockets surrounded by
developed urban/suburban areas.
If the proposed program is implemented, more attention and money will initially be applied to
solving the most pressing drainage problems in the urban/suburban core. The geographical as
well as functional allocation of costs should be reflected in the rate structure and the resulting
service charges. However, the stormwater management needs in the more rural areas of the City
cannot simply be ignored. More efficient long-term solutions can be attained in areas that are
currently rural if preventive steps are taken before development occurs. Service charge funding
may have to be supplemented with other sources to ensure that the City can provide basic
stormwater services in the outlying areas, especially if the City and Cole County agree to a
cooperative program. It may be appropriate to establish a service area that is broader than the
City limits, perhaps even countywide.
Several other priorities exist that will create intense competition for attention and funding. Even
though the City’s General Fund is separate and apart from enterprise funds such as water and
wastewater, all local government functions must compete for a share of the public’s overall
willingness to pay for government services. Stormwater management has fared poorly in that
competition in the past, and the success of a utility approach will be determined in part by the
community’s willingness to provide adequate funding to address the capital and operational
needs.
The stormwater problems in Jefferson City are different than those in many other communities.
The core of the urban area is bisected by several streams that flow to the Missouri River. The
Missouri River itself poses a risk of massive, even life-threatening flooding in the City. The
tributary stream corridors are more prone to riparian flooding and flows of sediment and debris.
Even though the flooding problems along the smaller streams are relatively localized, many
homes and businesses are directly impacted and people’s lives are disrupted. Water quality
impacts directly resulting from stormwater runoff are not generally well recognized by the
public, but there is a general recognition that both stormwater and wastewater problems involve
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-18 September 29, 2003
important health considerations. Two or the minimum control measures mandated by the NPDES
program address public education and information efforts to overcome the present lack of public
understanding of stormwater impacts on receiving waters.
13.2.6 - Summary of Service Charge Rate Options
Along with the previously mentioned Detailed Rate Structure Analysis Report (see Appendix D),
a Funding Options Analysis was submitted to the City for review, discussion, and comment.
(The combined report of the Detailed Rate Structure Analysis Report and the Funding Options
Analysis can be found in Appendix D.) They contain detailed discussions of the various funding
methods and rate designs that might be used to allocate the cost of service and facilities through
a service fee. The various rate parameters and calculation methodologies commonly used for
designing stormwater management service fees are described in detail in those reports.
Five rate structure options are examined in the Detailed Rate Structure Analysis Report (see
Appendix D). All are generally suitable for Jefferson City. Additionally, seven modification
factors and eight secondary funding methods were also described in the previous reports.
Similar rate structures and associated funding concepts are used in more than five hundred other
communities that have established stormwater utilities, districts, and similar entities. Direct
comparisons with rate methodologies, modifications, and secondary funding methods used
elsewhere are not appropriate, however, since the approaches examined in this study must be
viewed in the specific context of the needs, priorities, and local circumstances in Jefferson City.
13.2.6.1 - Basic Rate Methodologies
The basic rate methodologies examined for Jefferson City would base stormwater fees on:
• impervious area;
• a combination of impervious area and gross area;
• impervious area and the percentage of imperviousness;
• gross property area and the intensity of development; and,
• gross area and several modifying factors.
13.2.6.2 - Modifying Factors
Modifying factors could be used to alter the basic rate methodologies, including the following:
• a simplified single-family residential rate;
• a base rate for certain fixed costs of service;
• watershed or other surcharges for localized costs;
• service charge credits;
• a water quality impact factor;
• a development and land use factor; and,
• a level of service factor.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-19 September 29, 2003
13.2.6.3 - Secondary Funding Methods
The full range of funding options available to Jefferson City were previously examined and
reported. (See Appendix D for the detailed discussion.) Eight other funding methods or sources
of funding were identified in addition to utility service charges. Most would be used only in
special situations or applied to limited clientele groups. For example, the City Council might
wish to institute special service charges for stormwater-related services not generally provided to
all properties or for higher than standard levels of service. Secondary funding methods or
sources include:
• special fees termed “system development charges” which would be applied to new
development to equalize financial participation in capital costs among properties over time;
• in-lieu of construction fees that would allow developers to participate in the cost of regional
stormwater facilities rather than requiring that they build on-site stormwater detention
systems on each and every property;
• plan review and inspection fees and other special service fees;
• revenue and general obligation bonding of major capital improvements;
• impact fees on new development;
• special assessments for localized capital improvements;
• developer extension/latecomer fees; and,
• Federal and State funding.
These supplementary funding methods would generate only a minor portion of the total funding
that is needed to support the proposed program. The primary purposes of most would be to
enhance equity, improve public acceptance of the utility concept, and expedite special
components of the stormwater management program. Although many of these could be
incorporated directly into a service charge rate structure rather than established separately, none
are included in the Rate Study component of this section (Section 13.4).
13.3 - Cost of Service Analysis
13.3.1 - Overview
This portion of the report is a product of a lengthy iterative analysis. The consultants, City staff,
and the advisory committee evaluated and discussed alternative program strategies and cost
implications. Policies derived from discussions with the committee were then used to guide the
development of a program strategy and evaluate alternative spending profiles for the program
over time. The capital improvement costs identified in the Master Plan Update were
incorporated into the program strategy and cost of service projections. This analysis addresses
labor, supplies, support services, capital projects, equipment, investment in access rights and
property, and other costs in detail.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-20 September 29, 2003
The cost analysis provides some valuable insights pertaining to the design of rates and rate
strategies. For example, the City Council has several rate planning options available to it. The
initial stormwater service fee might be held constant for the entire five-year analysis period
addressed in this report by setting the initial rates high enough to accommodate the pace of
program growth over that period, or the fee might initially be set lower and increased annually or
bi-annually to keep pace with program needs. Capital projects might be funded on a pay-as-you-
go basis, through bonding, or in both ways.
The City Council may occasionally need to revisit its basic rate design decisions. The progress
of the program and suitability of the rates and revenue stream should be evaluated each year by
the staff to determine if any change in methodology or rates appears to be warranted and
deserving of the Council’s attention. The need for adjustments to the rate methodology and/or
the level of charges would depend primarily on the pace at which enhancements in operations
and maintenance occur, the magnitude and timing of capital expenditure needs, whether bonding
is employed to pay for major projects, and future NPDES requirements.
This report presents estimated expenditures for Years 1 through 5 rather than by specific
calendar or fiscal years. The service fee does not necessarily have to be implemented at the
beginning of a fiscal year. The costs projected for the “years” shown in this report can be
adjusted if the service fee is instituted in the midst of a fiscal year accounting period. However,
such an adjustment need not alter the long-term program strategy, the order of priorities, or the
total cost of service during the five-year analysis period.
13.3.2 - Cost Analysis Methodology and Format
A “cost of service analysis” serves a different purpose, is performed for different reasons, and
must meet different standards than the City’s annual budgeting process. The City’s annual
budgets are prepared in a format that complies with State of Missouri codes and generally
accepted accounting practices, and standards for government entities. Budgeting practices are
intended to facilitate elected officials’ oversight of local government financial management, give
order to the process of preparing and adopting annual budgets, and support on-going accounting
and management control throughout the year.
The costs and other financial information in a cost of service analysis are organized differently
than comparable data in the City’s annual budget. They are intended to support rate-making
decisions rather than budgeting decisions and, perhaps, allocation of certain expenses to other
forms of funding (e.g., impact fees, local sales taxes, or special assessments). Similar
information must be considered in annual budgeting, but service fee rate-making decisions
should not be done in the budgeting process without the benefit of appropriate cost and rate
analyses. Furthermore, a cost of service analysis does not identify such items as allowances for
delinquencies and bad debt, which are normally identified in a rate study.
Another major difference between budgets and cost of service analyses is that "cost centers" are
used in a cost of service analysis rather than the departmental units commonly employed in the
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-21 September 29, 2003
budgeting process. The following major cost centers were used in this analysis to identify and
consolidate the anticipated costs of service into easily understandable categories. Sub-headings
used in the cost analysis to ensure that all costs were identified are also cited below for
clarification.
• Administration
General Stormwater Program Administration
Billing, Finance and Customer Services
Legal Support Services
Personnel Services
Administrative Support Services
Program Planning and Development
Inter-agency Coordination
Public Education Programs – General
Stormwater Advisory Committee Support
Indirect Cost Allocations
Unspecified Overhead
Cost and Rate Analysis
Emergency/Disaster Management
• Engineering and Master Planning
Stormwater Quantity Master Planning
System/Project Design Engineering
Maintenance and Field Engineering Support
GIS, Database, and Mapping
Technical Services/Public Assistance
Best Management Practice Analysis/Design
Design Criteria and Design Manual
Field Data Collection
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Code Development and Zoning Support Services
Multi-use Planning and Design
Flood Insurance and Community Rating System
Infrastructure Management Planning
• Operations
Operations and Maintenance Management
Storm Sewer and Culvert Maintenance
Remedial Repair and Replacement
Inlet, Catch Basin, and Manhole Cleaning
Erosion and Sediment Control
Detention/retention System Maintenance
Ditch and Channel Maintenance
Curb and Gutter Maintenance
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-22 September 29, 2003
Infrastructure Management Program
Public Assistance Program
Emergency Response
• Regulation/Enforcement
Code Development and Enforcement
Stormwater Permit Administration
Drainage System Inspection and Regulation
Zoning and Land Use Regulation Support
Special Inspection Programs
Dumping Regulation Program
Floodplain Management
Erosion/Sediment Control Regulation
• Capital Improvements
Capital Improvement Project Management
Major Capital Projects
Small Capital Projects
Land, Easement, and Rights Acquisition
• Stormwater Quality
Stormwater Quality Master Planning
NPDES Administration and Reporting
Watershed Assessment
Water Quality Monitoring
Best Management Practices Development
Water Quality Retrofitting Program
Installation of BMPs
Illicit Connections and Illegal Dumping Program
General Commercial/Residential Program
Pesticide, Herbicide, and Fertilizer Program
Toxic and Hazardous Materials Control Program
Spill Response and Cleanup Program
Industrial Runoff Control Program
Public Education Program
Groundwater and Drinking Water Program
Septic, Inflow, and Infiltration Program
Emergency Response
Habitat Assessment
The Cost of Service Analysis details four expense categories under each major cost center that
generally conform to the chart of accounts for expenditures used by the City in its budgeting and
accounting systems (in parentheses): Personnel (salaries and wages), Supplies (commodities),
Services (contractual), and Capital Expenses (capital). Using these categories in the Cost of
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-23 September 29, 2003
Service Analysis will make translating the cost of service information to the City’s budget format
easier.
Personnel costs assigned to the stormwater program in this analysis are limited to the direct
salaries and wages, plus the overhead costs of stormwater management staff positions. We have
assumed that the utility will directly employ five persons. The positions are titled Stormwater
Utility Manager, Business Manager, Chief Engineer, Operations Supervisor, and Water Quality
Technician. This does not presume that the City will add five new staff positions. Some or all of
these positions might be created by transferring positions from other accounting units. In any
case, they may be staffed from existing employees or through new hires.
The wage, salary, and benefit costs were estimated based on the City’s compensation schedule.
To ensure a full accounting of personnel costs, an average overhead burden was derived from
information provided by the City to cover retirement, health insurance, and other payroll related
costs associated with employment. We view the cost estimates as reflective of the level of
resource commitment that is needed in some form, but that commitment can be achieved in
various ways. The City may opt to hire outside contractors for some functions, which will alter
the expense category but not necessarily the cost.
Operating expenses include both Supplies and Services costs. Some in-house support personnel,
whose work is related in part to the stormwater program, are accounted for as indirect cost
allocations under “services” rather than in the Personnel category. Their salaries, wages, etc. are
not categorized as personnel costs in this analysis because the City could ostensibly contract for
comparable support services from private vendors. A basic tenet of the stormwater program
strategy is that the City will attempt to optimize the mix of work performed by in-house
personnel (Personnel, see above) and what can be done by other government units and private
contractors (Services). The objective is to maximize the overall productivity and cost-
effectiveness of the stormwater program. This will impact the mix of Personnel and Services
costs the utility actually incurs.
The cost of Supplies and Services was estimated by evaluating the program strategy, projecting
what will be needed to carry it out, estimating the mix of in-house and outside services, and
referencing current costs as indicated in the budget and related to us by the staff in interviews.
The cost of completing the system and access inventories was projected using experiences in
other similar situations, making allowances for economies of scale and improved productivity
due to technological advances. It is assumed that private vendors will provide a large portion of
that work and the cost will be a service expense. The City’s GIS staff will be directly involved,
but it is assumed that the cost will be treated either as part of the indirect cost allocation or as
directly billed internal services. In either case, we assume that the utility will pay the City for
that assistance.
The Capital Expenditures cost category is limited to capital costs that will be incurred directly by
the utility. The projected capital costs include construction of improvements to the systems,
acquisition of major pieces of rolling stock and other equipment used solely for stormwater
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-24 September 29, 2003
management, land, easements, computer hardware and software, plus the annualized debt service
of any capital improvement bonds issued used to pay for such assets. State DOT projects that
include stormwater facilities, contributed capital assets built by developers in the form of
drainage infrastructure improvements, and stormwater projects to be funded from the sales tax
extension are not included in this cost analysis. It is assumed that the cost of capital
improvements to the systems will include the directly associated expenses related to construction
like condemnation processes, project engineering and design, drafting, survey control, and legal
services. It is also assumed that the cost of equipment used for a variety of city functions will be
shared equitably with the other accounting units that make use of it.
13.3.3 - Assumptions Used in Estimating Costs
The following assumptions have been used in projecting the cost of service.
• In addition to annual operating and capital costs, it is assumed that non-operating costs like
allowances for delinquencies and unspecified operating and capital expenses to provide for
emergency situations will be recovered through the stormwater service fee. However, these
additional revenue requirements are not identified as costs in the Cost of Service Analysis.
They are accounted for in Section 4 of this report, the Rate Study component (Section 13.4).
• All costs are stated in constant 2003 dollars. A conservative annual inflation factor of three
and one-half (3.5) percent is incorporated into the rate model in Section 13.4. The inflation
factor is applied only to annual operating expenses.
• The costs are based on a stormwater service area covering only the City. It does not include
any surrounding unincorporated areas. If the City and Cole County agree on extension of the
stormwater utility into some or all of the unincorporated areas, the additional costs of those
services will need to be determined. The City (and County) may also have to consider
whether the impervious area rate methodology recommended to the City is appropriate in the
more rural unincorporated areas.
• The program strategy sets forth an increased level of effort that will solve drainage problems.
It does not call for simply maintaining the status quo under a new funding source. Growth in
the form of improved service levels is a keynote of the program strategy, which adds to the
cost of service each year.
• We anticipate that the extent of the City’s system responsibilities will initially be limited by
accessibility to the systems pursuant to currently available easements, rights-of-way, and
rights-of-entry and those that can be acquired during the analysis period. This may result in
lower than projected operational and capital costs for a period of time while access issues are
resolved.
• Very limited growth is anticipated in the rate base available to bear the cost of service. New
development is estimated to increase the rate base one (1) percent annually. This
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-25 September 29, 2003
conservative estimate may slightly understate the actual growth rate of service fee revenues
that will occur due to new development within the City. The rate methodology, extent of the
service area, and pace of economic development will all influence the growth of the rate
base. Extending the utility into unincorporated areas by an inter-governmental agreement
with the County could have a major impact on the rate base, depending on the rate
methodology employed.
• It is assumed that the stormwater management program will be accomplished by using a mix
of in-house resources and outside contracted services. The balance between in-house
personnel and contracted services will vary as the program matures and experience is gained,
but we do not expect it will significantly alter the cost of service during the initial five years.
• It is assumed that the physical stormwater system assets and some rolling stock and other
equipment owned by the City will be transferred to the stormwater enterprise fund account
without cost to the utility. Therefore, it is also assumed that the cost and rate analyses need
not account for the capitalization or any previous depreciation of the transferred assets,
especially the drainage system infrastructure. Due to the age of many of the assets and the
assumption that their transfer would be without cost to the enterprise, we believe that the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 34 may not be applicable to
such assets and thus depreciation is not included in the cost and rate analyses. The City may
wish to refer this issue to its accounting staff, attorneys, and outside counsel for their
opinions and to ensure consistency with the City’s practices.
13.3.4 - Uncertainties Influencing Costs
Several uncertainties may influence the actual costs of service that the City will experience as the
stormwater program strategy is implemented. Most of these uncertainties can be controlled to
some degree, and will simply pose decision choices to the City Council. Those decisions may
have cost implications. In a few cases, the City’s choices will be relatively limited. For
example, the City cannot unilaterally decide that federal and state NPDES water quality program
requirements are too costly or not needed, and therefore simply forego compliance with the
permit requirements without considering the exposure to fines and other sanctions that are
attached to non-compliance. In practical terms, compliance with the NPDES mandate is not
optional, but alternatives exist for achieving compliance that have different associated costs.
This cost analysis assumes that the City will do the minimum necessary to fully comply with
NPDES Phase 2 requirements, but the expectations of the State of Missouri in that regard have
not yet been clearly articulated so some uncertainty remains.
It is assumed that the City’s current utility billing practices will prove to be a viable system for
distributing stormwater service fee bills, collecting payments, and accounting for the money.
Many of the stormwater bills will go to the same parties who are billed for water and sewer
service. However, the stormwater bills for some properties will go to different parties, so
numerous “stormwater only accounts” may have to be merged with the existing billing system. A
reasonable percentage of the cost of billing, collecting, and accounting for payments through the
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-26 September 29, 2003
utility billing system, plus part of the expense of long-term customer service, is assigned to the
stormwater utility in this cost and rate analysis. The projected cost of service includes an
estimate the consultants deem “reasonable” compensation for such services. However, the City
and/or other billing entities may decide to charge more or less than the figure used in this
analysis.
The initial stormwater billing will generate many customer service contacts. This implies an
implementation expense of uncertain magnitude at this time. This cost analysis assumes that the
City will not employ any special efforts to address customer service when the stormwater bills
are initially mailed. It is assumed that the existing utility billing customer service staff will be
responsible for fielding inquiries regarding the stormwater service fee bills. Alternatively, a
temporary telephone bank of trained specialists could be established specifically to deal with
questions about the stormwater service fee immediately following the initial billing. They could
also be trained to route service inquiries to the appropriate persons.
13.3.5 - Expense by Major Cost Center
13.3.5.1 - Administration
Table 1 summarizes the estimated cost of stormwater management administration for the five-
year analysis period. As suggested by the functions listed previously, it encompasses a variety of
administrative activities and support costs. Only the direct administrative costs of the
stormwater program that are not assignable to other cost centers are allocated to the
administration cost center. Administrative and overhead costs, including personnel, supplies,
and contracted services that could be directly assigned to the engineering, operations, regulatory,
capital improvement, and water quality cost centers, were so allocated in this cost analysis.
A substantial portion of two personnel positions, the Stormwater Utility Manager and the
Business Manager, is allocated to the administration cost center. A total of 1.32 full time
equivalents (FTE) is allocated to the administration cost center annually. The cost estimate
assumes that a portion of other City staff positions that are involved in the administration of
stormwater management but assigned to other accounting funds (e.g., City Manager, Finance
Director, City Attorney, and City Engineer) will be allocated to the stormwater utility fund
through an indirect cost allocation. They are categorized as “services” rather than as “personnel”,
which increases the Services costs in Table 13-1.
TABLE 13-1 – ADMINISTRATION COSTS OF SERVICE
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 89,245 $ 92,369 $ 95,602 $ 98,948 $ 102,410
Supplies $ 19,100 $ 14,880 $ 14,480 $ 14,480 $ 10,420
Services $ 171,900 $ 171,120 $ 166,520 $ 166,520 $ 245,760
Capital Expenditures $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total $ 280,245 $ 278,369 $ 276,602 $ 279,948 $ 358,411
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-27 September 29, 2003
Supplies and Services costs related to the administration of the program include office
mobilization, copying, telephone, office supplies, postage, radio and communications, and other
support items. The administration cost center includes outside services such as special legal
counsel, personnel recruitment and advertising, and general public education costs such as audio-
visual presentations, brochures, displays, and opinion and customer service surveys. It is
assumed that an outside cost of service analysis and rate study will be required in Year 5. No
capital expenditures are allocated to administration.
13.3.5.2 - Engineering and Master Planning
Much more emphasis will be placed on stormwater engineering and other technical functions as
the City shifts from a largely reactive approach to stormwater management to one that identifies
existing and future needs and plans timely preventive measures and solutions on a system-wide
basis. The estimate of engineering costs summarized in Table 13-2 is based on a projected
schedule of engineering activities consistent with the capital projects identified in the Master
Plan Update and enhancements proposed in the program strategy.
TABLE 13-2 – ENGINEERING COSTS OF SERVICE
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 66,330 $ 68,652 $ 71,054 $ 72,541 $ 76,115
Supplies $ 6,800 $ 5,700 $ 5,500 $ 6,900 $ 3,900
Services $ 163,200 $ 136,800 $ 132,000 $ 165,600 $ 93,600
Capital Expenditures $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total $ 236,330 $ 211,152 $ 208,554 $ 246,041 $ 173,615
Engineering functions support operational programs as well as construction of capital
improvements. This will be especially important during the first few years as maintenance is
upgraded and master plans are translated into project designs. For example, in Year 1
engineering activities will focus on support of immediate improvements in operations and design
of high-priority projects. Over time the engineering functions will gravitate more toward
technical support of maintenance and water quality functions. Engineering information
management systems will need to be created to support operational and regulatory activities.
The City’s stormwater system records are very limited and in many cases are out of date.
Because many of the other enhancements to the stormwater program are dependent on this
information and related engineering analyses, preparing such inventories has been expedited in
the strategic approach recommended for the program strategy.
The engineering costs estimated in this analysis for personal services and operating expense
(primarily City engineering resources and private consultants) are predicated on: 1) providing an
internal engineering management capability within the utility staff; 2) relying heavily on the
City’s engineering group and private consultants to meet engineering needs that vary
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-28 September 29, 2003
significantly during the course of the year or change from year to year; and 3) deferring any
decision on whether to increase the in-house engineering, technical support, and construction
management capability until after a major capital improvement program is decided upon and
initiated. It may be that private firms can provide all of the additional engineering services the
program demands more efficiently than the City could by hiring additional engineering
personnel.
A portion of all of the personnel positions identified for the utility are partially assigned to the
Engineering cost center, totaling approximately 1 FTE per year. The stormwater utility staff will
primarily be engineering managers and technical specialists, with primary responsibilities
including project management, development regulation, and water quality programs. It is
assumed that the Stormwater Utility Manager will administer the program and the direct
professional and technical services provided by the Utility staff and others.
The Supplies costs cover basic materials used in the engineering function. Most Services costs
are related to contracted outside professional engineering services. It is assumed that
engineering services will be obtained from both the City’s engineering staff and contracted
vendors. These costs are treated as Services in the Cost of Service Analysis regardless of
whether they are provided by the City’s engineering group or outside contractors. No capital
costs are assigned to the engineering cost center.
13.3.5.3 - Operations
The estimated operational costs of the program summarized in Table 13-3 are intended to: 1)
make substantial progress toward attaining a preventive level of routine maintenance; and 2)
reduce the backlog of remedial repair needs that has been growing each year as older stormwater
systems continue to age and deteriorate.
TABLE 13-3 – OPERATIONAL COSTS OF SERVICE
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 49,112 $ 50,727 $ 52,502 $ 54,340 $ 56,242
Supplies $ 20,440 $ 23,240 $ 23,400 $ 23,400 $ 27,400
Services $ 235,060 $ 267,260 $ 269,100 $ 269,100 $ 315,100
Capital Expenditures $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total $ 304,512 $ 341,227 $ 345,002 $ 346,840 $ 398,742
The projected operational costs are based on an estimate of system conditions drawn from brief
field investigations and discussions with staff. A detailed system inventory or condition profile
was not available. Routine cleaning, repair, and replacement needs that presently exist were
estimated based on the urban area of the City. An estimate was also made of the rate of system
deterioration due to aging. These circumstances combine to influence remedial maintenance
demands. Productivity assumptions , based on the City’s experiences and those of comparable
programs elsewhere, were used in projecting the resource requirement. We must stress that these
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-29 September 29, 2003
estimates may not fully account for the cost of meeting the stated objective of attaining a
preventive level of service.
The total estimated routine and remedial maintenance resource requirement was initially applied
to a ten-year time frame to test the operational implications. The time frame was then adjusted
according to assumptions of how quickly the necessary support systems (for example, system
and access inventories) could be developed and processes instituted to efficiently upgrade both
routine and remedial maintenance operations. Estimated annual expenditure curves were
developed for the routine and remedial maintenance functions. An iterative analysis was
performed to weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of various schedules for
increasing the routine maintenance and attacking the estimated backlog of remedial needs. It
was determined that substantially achieving a preventive level of routine maintenance service in
ten years is potentially attainable, but only if the City commits to significantly increasing the
resources applied to that purpose.
One advantage offered by the five-year timeframe used in this report is that the operating
strategy can be easily adjusted to fit evolving needs once experience is gained in the field and
suitable support systems are in place.
We believe that the backlog of remedial maintenance can also be efficiently eliminated in ten
years or so, assuming that adequate access can be gained to the systems requiring attention and
that the additional staffing and/or private vendor services are obtained. Additional system
deterioration will no doubt continue to emerge during that period. Some remedial needs may be
satisfied by capital improvement projects rather than repair of existing systems, and it may
desirable to defer some remedial repairs. The amount of remedial repair work that will be
undertaken will depend on the City’s policies regarding the extent of service to be provided, and
the pace at which easements, right-of-way ownership, and other access rights can be acquired.
The projected expenditures arrived at through this process assume that the growth of the
operational programs in the first two years of the program will be relatively conservative. A
more aggressive expansion of routine and remedial maintenance could occur once system and
access inventories are completed, a maintenance management plan is adopted, and additional
operating equipment has been acquired.
This analysis assumes that the City’s street maintenance crews will perform most of the routine
maintenance and some of the remedial repairs. The option exists to solicit outside services, but
the level of effort and cost should be relatively comparable under either scenario or a
combination of the two. It may be more cost effective to contract with private vendors to
perform some operational functions that are seasonal in nature, for example vegetative control
along channels. Regardless, the utility staff will have to ensure that contract management and
oversight of the maintenance and repair work is diligently performed. The actual mix of in-
house and contracted services may shift with experience, but the estimated total level of
spending contained in this report is a resource commitment consistent with the projected
schedules for increasing routine and remedial maintenance activities.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-30 September 29, 2003
Personnel costs are limited to the utility management group. The stormwater utility staff will
identify priorities, administer the allocation of work between in-house and outside groups, and
provide specialized technical support to ensure that operations and maintenance are consistent
with desired standards. It is estimated that this will require approximately .76 FTE annually,
most of which is assigned to the Operations Supervisor position.
The Supplies category of costs is for materials used in routine maintenance and remedial repairs
to the systems performed by in-house resources. It is assumed that the utility will either
purchase those supplies directly or be billed for them by other city departments. It is assumed
that supplies costs associated with work done by outside vendors will be folder into contract
charges, and those costs are treated as Services in this analysis.
Both in-house labor and outside contracted maintenance are treated as a Services expenses in this
analysis. Most day-to-day stormwater operations will be provided by the City’s street
maintenance field crews and, to a lesser extent, the City’s sewer utility. In both cases, the costs
should be tracked and billed to the utility by maintaining detailed records of crew assignments to
stormwater management. The City may also hire outside contractors to provide some
maintenance and remedial repairs. Implementation of the program requirements of the City’s
NPDES permit will require enhanced operations and maintenance for water quality purposes,
some of which may involve additional staffing and some that can be more efficiently
accomplished by outside contractors.
No capital costs are projected for the operational cost center in the analysis. During the initial
rate analysis period, it is assumed that equipment used for stormwater management maintenance,
such as street sweepers and a new vacuum truck, will be shared with the City’s road maintenance
or other functions and will be billed to the utility on an hourly basis. Such equipment may be
used for a variety of purposes, and this analysis assumes that the costs will be apportioned
among the user departments. We estimate the costs applicable to stormwater management as
part of the Services charges associated with the work crews. Eventually, the City may wish to
acquire equipment specifically for stormwater management purposes and assign the capital costs
to the utility cost of service.
13.3.5.4 - Regulation
The estimated cost of regulation is summarized in Table 13-4, below. For the purposes of this
analysis, the regulation cost center was used to isolate the expense of development plan review
and inspection activities associated with stormwater systems and erosion and sediment control.
Most of that is performed by the City at the present time, and it is assumed that current practices
will continue. However, the City’s NPDES permit specifically requires additional regulation of
development practices to minimize pollution of receiving waters. Personnel costs in this cost
center are limited to utility staff oversight of plan review and inspection functions that will be
performed by other City work groups. It is estimated to total about .4 FTE per year. No
Supplies costs are assigned to this cost center. Estimated Services costs are for plan review,
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-31 September 29, 2003
inspection, and other regulatory services provided by other City work groups. No capital costs
are assigned to this cost center.
TABLE 13-4 – REGULATION COSTS OF SERVICE
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 27,456 $ 28,417 $ 29,412 $ 30,441 $ 31,506
Supplies $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Services $ 32,000 $ 34,500 $ 36,500 $ 39,500 $ 42,500
Capital Expenditures $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total $ 59,456 $ 62,917 $ 65,912 $ 69,940 $ 74,006
13.3.5.5 - Capital Expenditures
Capital expenses include facility improvements, land and easement acquisition. In addition to
the actual cost of construction or acquisition, this cost center includes personnel and other
expenses directly associated with capital expenditures. Capital Expenditures in the first five
years are not expected to include the capitalization of equipment or depreciation of vehicles and
other equipment assets transferred to the utility fund. Personnel costs in this cost center are
limited to utility staff responsible for capital program management, and projected to be
approximately .5 FTE per year. This assumes that project construction management will be
outsourced to private vendors. Supplies are related to small capital projects that will be
expensed. Services costs include engineering associated with pay-as-you-go and bonded
projects. Capital costs are those related to the infrastructure assets themselves, whether they are
expensed or bonded.
Most stormwater capital improvements have historically been provided by a combination of asset
contributions associated with private development projects, highway projects, appropriations in
the City’s annual budget (pay-as-you-go funding), and bonding to pay for major improvements.
The estimated capital expenses for the five years shown in Table 13-5 represent only a portion of
the overall stormwater capital investment need that exists in Jefferson City. We assume that
other agencies and private parties will continue to be responsible for some infrastructure
investment. For example, the core stormwater components of State of Missouri Department of
Transportation highway projects in Jefferson City will continue to be funded by the DOT. Some
ancillary stormwater improvements along the State highway corridors will likely be the City’s
responsibility. Private developers are expected to continue to fund stormwater system
improvements in their residential and commercial projects. Flood protection and stormwater
system improvements in and around the airport are expected to be paid for from airport funds,
sales tax bonds, or other sources.
Data on capital needs incorporated in this analysis is limited to specific projects and general
needs identified in the Master Plan Update, as listed in Table 13-5. The identified needs total
more than $41 million. Our preliminary analysis indicated that a twenty-year timeframe for fully
implementing the Master Plan Update would be both prudent and within the community’s
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-32 September 29, 2003
willingness-to-pay. We now believe that most of the projects can be completed within five years
if bonding is used for infrastructure capitalization. We also believe there is good reason to
consider funding the Culvert/Bridge Rehab item from other funding sources.
TABLE 13-5 – MASTER PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS*
Project Name Watershed Project Cost
Regional Multi-Use Facilities
Washington Park Wears Creek $ 1,250,000
Lincoln University East Wears Creek $ 750,000
Local Detention
Dix Road North Wears Creek $ 500,000
Bald Hill Road Boggs Creek $ 500,000
Large Culvert Replacements
Culvert/Bridge Rehab Not specified $ 18,905,000
Levees
Washington Park Wears Creek $ 500,000
Dunklin Street Wears Creek $ 750,000
Bank Stabilization
McCarty/US 50 Boggs Creek $ 490,000
Theresa Road Boggs Creek $ 150,000
Theresa Road Boggs Creek $ 100,000
Scenic Drive Boggs Creek $ 170,000
Satinwood Drive Wears Creek $ 250,000
Stadium Drive Wears Creek $ 220,000
Buehrle to Ponderosa Wears Creek $ 150,000
Buehrle to Edgewood Wears Creek $ 35,000
John Street East Wears Creek $ 150,000
Main to High Streets Wears Creek $ 630,000
Small, Local Projects
City-wide N/A $ 6,180,000
Remedial Repairs
City-wide N/A $ 9,200,000
Total Estimated Costs $ 40,880,000
The Rate Study analysis in Section 13.4 of this section examines three scenarios for addressing
the capital investment needs, two of which include bonding in the initial five-year funding
analysis period, to assess the impact of expensing capital projects versus bonding for them. The
first scenario, summarized in Table 13-6, assumes pay-as-you-go funding of projects during the
initial five-year funding analysis period, and that all projects identified in the Master Plan
Update, other than the Washington Park detention pond, the McCarty/US 50 and Main to High
Street bank stabilization projects, and the major Culvert/Bridge Rehab projects, would be funded
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-33 September 29, 2003
in the five-year analysis period. Those projects would be deferred until after the five-year
analysis period or funded through other sources.
This scenario would provide $685,000 for major capital projects in Year 1. In addition, we
assume that $80,000 would be expensed for small capital projects and $150,000 for remedial
repairs. The capital costs would increase to approximately $1 million per year for major capital
projects, plus $490,000 for small capital projects and remedial repairs by Year 5 of the funding
analysis period. During the five-year analysis period, total expenditures would be $4,475,000 for
major capital projects, $800,000 for small capital projects, and $1,000,000 for remedial repairs,
all of which would be expensed. The Rate Study analysis (Section 13.4 of this report) estimates
the residential service charge for this scenario at $3.85/month if a single flat-rate charge is
applied to all residents. (The analysis assumes that the City will not bill itself or the State of
Missouri for the impervious coverage of roadways for the reasons stated earlier.)
TABLE 13-6 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS OF SERVICE
(SCENARIO #1 – EXPENSED CAPITAL PROJECTS)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 34,861 $ 36,081 $ 37,344 $ 38,651 $ 40,004
Supplies $ 40,500 $ 10,600 $ 22,250 $ 12,350 $ 13,550
Services $ 81,000 $ 106,000 $ 112,500 $ 123,500 $ 135,500
Capital Expenditures $ 688,500 $ 943,400 $ 1,001,250 $ 1,099,150 $ 1,205,950
Total $ 844,861 $ 1,096,081 $ 1,162,344 $ 1,273,651 $ 1,395,004
The second scenario, shown in Table 13-7, assumes that a $4.5 million bond issue would be sold
in Year 1 to fund the same list of major capital projects that would have been funded over five
years on a pay-as-you-go basis under the first scenario. The small capital projects and remedial
repairs would continue to be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. We assumed that debt service
would commence in Year 2, and conservatively applied a five (5) percent interest rate to a twelve
(12) year payment period for the bond. The Rate Study analysis indicates that spreading the cost
of the capital projects over twelve years through bonding rather than expensing them would
reduce the residential service charge from $3.85/month to $3.08/month using comparable
assumptions to those applied in the first scenario.
TABLE 13-7 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS OF SERVICE
(SCENARIO #2 – $4.5 MILLION BONDED CAPITAL PROJECTS)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 34,861 $ 36,081 $ 37,344 $ 38,651 $ 40,004
Supplies $ 9,625 $ 7,180 $ 7,330 $ 7,730 $ 7,930
Services $ 19,250 $ 71,800 $ 73,300 $ 77,300 $ 79,300
Capital Expenditures $ 163,625 $ 639,020 $ 652,370 $ 687,970 $ 705,770
Total $ 227,361 $ 754,081 $ 770,344 $ 811,651 $ 833,004
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-34 September 29, 2003
The third scenario shown in Table 13-8 is similar to the second, except that the Washington Park
detention pond and the McCarty/US 50 and Main to High Street bank stabilization projects
would be completed within the five-year analysis period. This would increase the bond
requirement to $6.8 million, and the debt service would be $260,000 more per year under the
assumptions we employed. The Rate Study analysis indicates that this scenario would increase
the service charge per ERU to $3.43/month. However, all projects other than the Culvert/Bridge
Rehab projects would be completed within the five-year analysis period. In all cases we
assumed that the Culvert/Bridge Rehab projects identified in the Master Plan Update might
reasonably be funded from other sources, perhaps transportation related funds.
TABLE 13-8 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS OF SERVICE
(SCENARIO #3 – $6.8 MILLION BONDED CAPITAL PROJECTS)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 34,861 $ 36,081 $ 37,344 $ 38,651 $ 40,004
Supplies $ 11,350 $ 9,870 $ 9,930 $ 10,330 $ 10,530
Services $ 22,700 $ 97,800 $ 99,300 $ 103,300 $ 105,300
Capital Expenditures $ 192,950 $ 870,420 $ 883,770 $ 919,370 $ 937,170
Total $ 261,861 $ 1,014,081 $ 1,030,344 $ 1,071,651 $ 1,093,004
13.3.5.6 - Stormwater Quality Management
Table 13-9 summarizes the estimated cost of stormwater quality management for the five-year
analysis period. It is assumed that the City’s stormwater quality management program will
initially be the minimum necessary to fully comply with the conditions of its NPDES Phase 2
permit. An element of uncertainty exists regarding the State of Missouri’s expectations for the
Phase 2 permit communities. The projected costs represent our current best estimate of
compliance with the permit requirements.
The estimated Personnel cost for the water quality program reflects approximately 1 FTE
annually. Supplies costs are minimal. The projected expense of Services costs includes several
studies and projects that will be needed to ensure compliance. We assume that they can be more
efficiently outsourced than conducted by in-house staff. No capital expense is estimated for the
stormwater quality program.
TABLE 13-9 – STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT COSTS OF SERVICE
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 64,416 $ 66,671 $ 69,004 $ 71,419 $ 73,919
Supplies $ 2,560 $ 4,000 $ 7,440 $ 8,000 $ 9,800
Services $ 29,440 $ 46,000 $ 85,560 $ 92,000 $ 112,700
Capital Expenditures $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total $ 96,416 $ 116,671 $ 162,004 $ 171,419 $ 196,419
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-35 September 29, 2003
13.3.6 - Summary of Costs
Tables 13-10, 13-11, and 13-12 present summaries of the projected costs of service based on the
three scenarios for capital project funding. In the first scenario, the cost of service that must be
met from revenues is estimated to increase from $1,821,820 in Year 1 to $2,596,197 in Year 5.
In the second, the cost of service increases from $1,204,320 in Year 1 to $2,034,197 in Year 5.
In the third it increases from $1,238,820 in Year 1 to $2,294,197 in Year 5. However, the figures
for the latter two scenarios do not fully account for all expenditures that would be made due to
expedited construction of major capital projects under the bonded capital options. In addition, in
all cases there are several revenue adjustments that must be considered to generate excess
revenue to cover delinquencies, bad debt and inflation which do not show up in the Cost of
Service Analysis. Such non-operating costs are addressed in the Rate Study, Section 13.4.
TABLE 13-10 – TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS OF SERVICE
(SCENARIO #1 – EXPENSED CAPITAL PROJECTS)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 331,320 $ 342,916 $ 354,918 $ 367,340 $ 380,197
Supplies $ 89,400 $ 58,420 $ 62,070 $ 65,130 $ 64,890
Services $ 712,600 $ 761,680 $ 802,180 $ 856,220 $ 945,160
Capital Expenditures $ 688,500 $ 943,400 $ 1,001,250 $ 1,099,150 $ 1,205,950
Total $ 1,821,820 $ 2,106,416 $ 2,220,418 $ 2,387,840 $ 2,596,197
TABLE 13-11 – TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS OF SERVICE
(SCENARIO #2 – $4.5 MILLION BONDED CAPITAL PROJECTS)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 331,320 $ 342,916 $ 354,918 $ 367,340 $ 380,197
Supplies $ 58,525 $ 55,000 $ 58,150 $ 60,510 $ 59,270
Services $ 650,850 $ 727,480 $ 762,980 $ 810,020 $ 888,960
Capital Expenditures $ 163,625 $ 639,020 $ 652,370 $ 687,970 $ 705,770
Total $ 1,204,320 $ 1,764,416 $ 1,828,418 $ 1,925,840 $ 2,034,197
TABLE 13-12 – TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS OF SERVICE
(SCENARIO #3 – $6.8 MILLION BONDED CAPITAL PROJECTS)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Personnel $ 331,320 $ 342,916 $ 354,918 $ 367,340 $ 380,197
Supplies $ 60,250 $ 57,600 $ 60,750 $ 63,110 $ 61,870
Services $ 644,100 $ 753,480 $ 788,980 $ 836,020 $ 914,960
Capital Expenditures $ 192,950 $ 870,420 $ 883,770 $ 919,370 $ 937,170
Total $ 1,238,820 $ 2,024,416 $ 2,088,418 $ 2,185,840 $ 2,294,197
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-36 September 29, 2003
13.4 - Rate Study
13.4.1 - Overview of Stormwater Service Charge Funding
Missouri law enables the City to perform certain functions including, but certainly not limited to,
stormwater management. It also provides the City Council with substantial latitude in its funding
decisions, including the ability to fund operational programs and capital investment in infrastructure
through service fees, rates, tolls, charges, and special assessments. By using a blend of these
funding mechanisms and accounting instruments such as enterprises and special revenue funds, an
independent revenue stream can be created and dedicated to a specific purpose like stormwater
management. However, the Hancock Amendment to the Missouri Constitution may require voter
approval of some of the funding mechanisms identified in this report. The issue of whether the
Hancock amendment applies to service fees has been litigated in Missouri, but remains somewhat
clouded and subject to several qualifications and assumptions. The limits of City Council authority
in this regard and the processes required to comply with standards defined by the Missouri Supreme
Court must be carefully defined in conjunction with the City Counselor.
Service fee funding under a stormwater utility is now widely practiced. More than four hundred
stormwater utilities have been established across the United States since 1974, providing general
industry standards for service fee rate structure design. Stormwater utility service fee rate-making
practices elsewhere are a practical and valid reference in designing a service fee for the program in
Jefferson City. However, we must stress that the most important consideration in the design of
service fee rates must be the program strategy adopted by each local government. What works well
in one community may not fit the program priorities of another.
Several service fee rate methodologies were examined in the course of this study that might be used
in Jefferson City. They are described in detail in the Detailed Rate Structure Analysis Report (see
Appendix D). The rate methodologies are listed in Section 13.2 and include approaches based on
impervious area and gross (total) property area and the intensity of development of individual
properties or classes of properties. Rate modifiers are also cited that might be applied to the basic
rate parameters to attain refinements that enhance equity or reduce the cost of implementation.
Secondary funding methods that could be blended with service fees are also noted in Section 13.2.
13.4.2 - Locally Determined Rate Design Decisions
A key attribute of stormwater service fee funding is that the City Council has broad authority to
design its rate methodology to fit local circumstances and practices and achieve an allocation of the
cost of services and facilities that it deems desirable and appropriate in Jefferson City. There are no
absolute rules or proscriptions. When local service fee rates are challenged in court, judges
generally defer to the judgment of a locally-elected legislative authority in rate-making issues, as
long the process is rational, proper and complete and the resulting fees are reasonably derived and
not illegally discriminatory or confiscatory.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-37 September 29, 2003
The principle requirement the courts have applied to City Councils’ broad authority is that a utility
service charge rate methodology must be fair and reasonable and the resulting service fees must
bear a substantial relationship to the cost of providing the services and facilities. The latter is
commonly referred to as a rational nexus test. Elected officials may not be arbitrary and capricious
in making decisions involving service fee rates, and the selected rate methodology may not be
illegally discriminatory or confiscatory in its application. Beyond those general restrictions the City
Council has great latitude in determining what type of rate structure and level of fees are appropriate
in local circumstances.
The issue of discrimination requires some clarification. The fundamental purpose of a service fee
rate methodology is to “discriminate” (or differentiate) among various customers so that those who
place a greater cost burden on the program and facilities pay commensurately higher fees.
However, service fees may not be structured in ways that would illegally discriminate among
customers based on gender, age, religion, race, ethnicity, or other banned characteristics. For
example, a wastewater utility providing sewage treatment services and facilities might charge
cheese processors a higher service fee per unit of flow than residential customers because the peak
amount of flow and the strength of the effluent cheese processors discharge to the sewer system
demands larger conveyance facilities and more expensive treatment processes. However, a given
cheese maker couldn’t be charged more or less than others simply because they were a Dutch (or
Swiss, or Danish) cheese maker.
13.4.3 - Recommended Rate Methodology
Based on the proposed program strategy and the Rate Structure Analysis, an impervious area rate
methodology is recommended. It is proposed that the City employ an equivalency unit,
described in this report as an “equivalent runoff unit” or ERU, to normalize the application of the
impervious area rate parameter to diverse properties and customers. In other instances slightly
different terms have been used, such as an equivalent service unit, equivalent drainage unit, or
equivalent residential unit. The concept is consistent, however. The purpose of an equivalent
unit is to provide a common value for calculating service fees for dissimilar properties.
It is recommended that a simplified residential rate be adopted initially. All single-family
residences would be charged at one rate. The simplified, flat-rate residential charge will make
the initial assembly of a master account file easier and less costly. The equivalency unit, or
ERU, might be reflective of the typical service demands of a single-family residence.
Alternatively, the typical residence might be determined to represent two, or even ten ERUs,
depending on how the equivalency unit is defined. A flat-rate charge for residential customers is
a generally accepted practice in stormwater service fee rate design when the residential fees are
expected to be less than $5 per month.
The assumed ERU value used in this analysis is 3,000 square feet of impervious area. We
believe that 3,000 square feet is reasonably representative of the amount of impervious area on a
typical single-family detached residential property in Jefferson City, but that figure should be
validated by sampling residential properties throughout the City. Each 3,000 square feet of
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-38 September 29, 2003
impervious coverage, or increment thereof, would be charged the same amount under the
proposed rate concept. The equivalency unit would serve as the divisor for determining fees for
all non-residential parcels. The actual measured impervious coverage in each case would be
divided by the equivalency unit to calculate the number of units to be charged to each customer.
The number of equivalent impervious area units on each non-residential parcel would be
multiplied times the same rate per unit that would be applicable to the residential flat rate. Thus,
using the assumed ERU value of 3,000 square feet of impervious area, a small commercial
property, a single-family residence, and a public park all having 3,000 square feet of impervious
coverage or less would all be charged for one (1) ERU.
Rate modifying factors such as the simplified single-family charge are used to enhance the equity
of a service fee, reduce the expense of implementing and maintaining master account file, and
otherwise make the basic methodology better in its local application. A full range of modifying
factors that could be applied to the basic impervious area rate methodology recommended for
Jefferson City was considered in the Rate Structure Analysis. In the final analysis only two, the
simplified residential rate (described above) and service charge credits for mitigative on-site
systems and activities, are recommended for inclusion in the City’s initial service fee rate
structure. One or more of the other modifiers examined in the Rate Structure Analysis may be
worthy of reconsideration in the future.
Secondary funding methods that augment a service fee are more likely to be appropriate as a
stormwater program evolves than at the outset. Generally, they would be applicable only in
special situations to: 1) take advantage of opportunities to obtain federal or state funding; 2)
institute individual service fees to customers who require special services; 3) enable local areas
of the City to pay extra to obtain a higher level of service than the basic program would normally
provide; or 4) apply special charges to equalize financial participation in capital costs among
properties over time.
Other funding methods that could be used in coordination with a stormwater service fee were
screened for compatibility with the program strategy. The following secondary funding methods
were judged to be potentially practical for the City’s stormwater management program. They are
not recommended for immediate implementation, but should be considered in the next few years
as the program moves forward and cost of service information becomes more refined:
• special fees termed “system development charges” should be applied to new development to
equalize financial participation in capital costs over time, especially if the City aggressively
pursues funding of the capital improvements identified in the Master Plan Update on a pay-
as-you-go basis;
• in-lieu of construction fees should be adopted that would allow developers to participate in
the cost of regional stormwater facilities as an alternative to requiring that every development
build on-site stormwater detention systems;
• impact fees should be considered for new subdivision and commercial developments;
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-39 September 29, 2003
• special assessments might be used to expedite small, localized capital improvement projects;
• developer extension/latecomer fees for private stormwater system extensions should be
adopted to properly apportion the cost of infrastructure that will serve currently undeveloped
areas; and,
• Federal and State funding, including stormwater project construction funding available
through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and federal highway programs,
should be pursued.
13.4.4 - Projected Rate Base
Land use data with a relatively high level of detail and accuracy was used in the hydrologic and
hydraulic engineering analyses performed in developing the Master Plan Update. The same data
was used to generate a basic estimate of the “rate base” that will be available in Jefferson City to
support the stormwater program through service fees. However, land use data applied to the
engineering was not structured to support a rate study or facilitate assembly of a service fee master
account file. The consultant members team therefore incorporated other data to supplement the land
use information generated for engineering purposes and applied their experience in other
communities to arrive at an estimate of the rate base.
The rate base represents the total of all clients that will be “served” by the stormwater utility and
charged for its services. Service is broadly defined and applicable to properties in upland areas and
along the slopes as well as those that directly abut the Missouri River, major channels and water
courses. Every developed property from the top of the hill to the floodplains along the Missouri
River will be “served” in some manner by the City’s efforts to control runoff, reduce erosion, and
correct water pollution caused by stormwater runoff. The estimated rate base for the service fee
includes tax-exempt properties as well as taxable properties, which is an especially important
consideration in a State capital city like Jefferson City.
The most identifiable clients, who also the largest component of the rate base initially, are the
property owners and managers of properties that will be served by the City’s program to acquire,
improve, maintain, operate, and/or regulate the use of the stormwater systems. This includes
residences, commercial and industrial properties, institutional facilities like schools and State
offices, and other developed lands. Eventually, the total rate base for the stormwater program may
also include some who are not owners of properties. For example, the City is required to adopt and
enforce effective construction site controls by its NPDES permit. Builders might therefore be
charged a special service fee to isolate the cost of plan review and inspection of on-site erosion
control measures and stormwater system installations on individual lots and commercial properties.
In that situation, they would become a component of the utility rate base. Also, the rate base may
not be limited to the area within the City. If the City and Cole County agree on extension of the
stormwater utility into the unincorporated area surrounding Jefferson City, the rate base might then
include properties in the County as well as the City.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-40 September 29, 2003
Table 13-13 summarizes the rate base assumptions used in projecting the stormwater service fee.
The projected distribution of billing units among single-family residential and other properties in
Jefferson City is consistent with the experiences of stormwater utilities in similarly sized cities
throughout the United States.
TABLE 13-13 – RATE BASE SUMMARY
Property Type # of Equivalent Units % of Equivalent Units
Single-family Residential 17,319 34 %
All Other Properties 33,592 66 %
Totals 50,911 100 %
The cost of service and rate base data assembled by the consultant team provides a reasonably
accurate basis for projecting the service fee rates necessary to meet the stormwater utility’s costs of
services and facilities and performing a pro forma cash flow analysis. However, because the
information for non-residential properties used to estimate the rate base was assembled initially for
master planning purposes, it is not precise to the level needed to project the rate base or generated a
master account file for billing. Nor is it detailed, complete, and accurate. Thus, the rate base figures
presented in this report may be as much as fifteen (15) percent above or below the rate base that will
have to be determined by measuring the actual impervious area on each non-residential property.
Furthermore, the City Council must make several key policy decisions in the course of adopting a
service fee that may impact the rate base. For example, as the capital of Missouri, Jefferson City has
many properties owned by the State. If the City Council decides not to charge the stormwater
service fee to such properties, it could reduce the available rate base by as much as twelve (12)
percent.
13.4.5 - Rate Study Cash Flow Analysis
The rate study determines the level of service charges that would be necessary to meet the revenue
requirements of the program in the context of several conditions and assumptions. Cash flow is a
critical consideration. In this case, the goal of holding the service charge constant for the five years
of the analysis period influences cash flow and is a vitally important factor in setting the service fee
rate. Unless the rate base is growing extremely rapidly, holding a service charge rate constant for
five years while program costs are increasing substantially over the same period dictates that excess
revenue be accrued in the first two or three years and drawn down in the later years of the period. If
annual or even bi-annual rate increases were an assumption, the service charges would still have to
increase to keep pace with the revenue requirements of the program.
This analysis assumes that the recommended impervious area rate methodology and simplified
residential service fee concept will be adopted. It assumes that all properties with impervious area
in the City will be subject to the service fee, including those in public ownership and those owned
by tax-exempt entities such as churches. However, neither City streets nor State highways would be
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-41 September 29, 2003
charged because they function as major components of the drainage systems. Allowances are made
in the cash flow analysis for service fee credits for both on-site mitigative measures and other
activities that are beneficial to the utility program plus delinquencies and bad debt.
Three cash flow scenarios are described in this section. Under the first cash flow scenario,
capital projects would be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. Estimated expenditures would be
$1.8 million in Year 1, increasing to $2.6 million by Year 5. Service fee income would be
relatively consistent at about $2.3 million annually. Total spending during the five-year period
would be approximately $11.1 million. The required service charge per ERU would be
$3.85/month.
The second and third cash flow scenarios involve bonding to fund the capital projects to spread
the costs of infrastructure capitalization over time. The second scenario assumes that the City
will sell a bond issue of approximately $4.5 million to fund the same capital projects that would
be expensed under the first scenario. Although the actual operating and capital program
spending would be the same as in the first scenario, debt service on the bond over the five years
would total approximately $2 million, compared to the $4.5 million in expensed capital
estimated for the same period in the first scenario. Cash flow requirements would range from
about $1.2 in Year 1 to $2.2 million in Year 5. Bonding of the capital projects would reduce the
total five-year cash flow requirement to $9.4 million, resulting in lower service charge rates. The
service charge per ERU would be $3.08/month. Revenue generated from service charges would
be about $1.9 million annually
Under the third scenario, the bond issue would be increased to $6.8 million, enabling the City to
fund additional capital projects not included in the first two scenarios. Annual cash flow
requirements would range from $1.2 in Year 1 to $2.5 million in Year 5. However, total
program spending would be about $2.3 million greater than the first two scenarios due to the
increased bond program. A monthly service charge of $3.43/ERU would be required, generating
annual revenues of about $2.1 million.
Fund balances accrued in the first four years would be fully exhausted by the end of the fifth year
in all cases, requiring a rate increase in the sixth year. In the first case, the monthly service
charge per ERU would have to be increased from $3.85 to approximately $4.90/month to meet
the estimated cost of service in Year 6. In the second scenario, the necessary increase would be
from $3.08/month to approximately $3.90/month. The third scenario, which enables the City to
address all of the projects identified in the Master Plan Update other than the Culvert/Bridge
Rehab, would require an increase from $3.40/month to about $4.37/month in Year 6. Assuming
that costs will continue to increase thereafter, additional rate increases would be needed from
time to time in all cases.
Tables 13-14, 13-15, and 13-16 summarize the pro forma cash flow analysis for the utility under the
three scenarios described in Section 13.3. The format of the tables is explained below.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-42 September 29, 2003
Annual Operating Expense in the cash flow analysis includes all personnel, supplies, and services.
Capital Expense includes major equipment, land and easements, and system betterments
(construction improvements), but does not include contributed capital (improvements built by
developers) or projects built and primarily funded by the State of Missouri. Inflation, at an annually
compounded rate of three and one-half (3.5) percent, is applied only to Annual Operating Expense
in the rate model. The first scenario assumes that the City will opt to fund capital projects on a pay-
as-you-go basis. The other two scenarios assume that it will employ bonding for fund the capital
projects, thereby reducing the monthly service charge during the funding analysis period. The
administrative expense of bond sales, annual debt service, and related expenses are accounted for in
the rate model. The sum of all these costs makes up the projected Total Annual Expenses of the
utility.
Other Revenues, such as interest income and fund balances carried forward from previous years,
must be deducted from the Annual Expenses to determine how much revenue must be generated
each year by service fees. Other Revenues may also include federal and state grants and loans,
special assessments for projects, and special fees for plan review and inspection. In this case,
stormwater improvements being funded by the sales tax extension are not included in the Cost of
Service Analysis . Therefore, the sales tax revenues applicable to those expenditures are not
included among Other Revenues.
The basic Service Fee Revenue Requirement is determined by deducting the Other Revenues from
the Total Annual Expenses. The service fee revenue requirement must then be adjusted to account
for several reduction allowances, including credits, offsets, delinquencies and bad debt. The service
fee rates must be set to generate sufficient excess revenue to meet the Service Fee Revenue
Requirement, recognizing the non-operating expense items that will reduce the actual cash flow
each year. An Adjusted Service Fee Revenue Requirement is the product of this calculation.
As described previously, the total rate base is estimated based on the best available data and the
consultants’ experience and judgment to account for limitations in that data. Essentially, the
Adjusted Service Fee Revenue Requirement must be divided by the total number of ERUs to
determine the necessary charge per ERU. The program strategy and cash flow analysis were
adjusted several times to find a “best-fit” set of circumstances for accomplishing the program
objectives while also accommodating the goal of holding the service charge constant for five years.
The rate model indicates in all cases that a substantial fund balance will be accrued in the first few
years and eroded by expenditures that exceed revenues in the later years of the analysis period.
The Service Fee Rate/ERU/Month is set in the rate model to meet the five-year revenue requirement
and produce a year-end fund balance at the end of the fifth year of no less than five (5) percent nor
more than ten (10) percent of the projected annual operating expense in Year 6. A year-end fund
balance is a prudent and common provision for municipal utilities that must operate at a financial
arm’s length from other accounting units. It provides a cushion against high seasonal expenditures,
short-term revenue shortfalls, and emergencies such as natural disasters. In this case, the objective
of holding the charges constant for five years has the effect of adding a greater fund balance in the
early years of the utility.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-43 September 29, 2003
In Table 13-14, the rate model calculates that a service fee of $3.85/ERU/month ($46.20/year)
could be held constant throughout the five-year analysis period if the City chooses the first
scenario wherein capital expenditures would be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. Each acre of
impervious area would be charged $55.90/month ($670.80/year). This amounts to $.0154, or just
slightly more than one and one-half cents, per square foot of impervious area per year. If the
City opts for the second scenario (shown in Table 13-15) which relies on bonding for major
capital projects, the monthly rate per ERU would be reduced to $3.08 ($36.96/year), or $.0123
per year for each square foot of impervious coverage. The third scenario (shown in Table 13-
16), which calls for a larger bond issue to several expedite capital projects, would require a rate
of $3.43/month/ERU ($41.16/year). This amounts to $.0137 per year for each square foot of
impervious coverage.
The projected service fee rates under all of these scenarios are generally consistent with the
experiences of stormwater management programs nationally that rely on service fees. A charge of
$3 to $5/month for single-family residential properties is typical. Many cities and counties have
adopted a flat-rate service fee for all single-family residential properties (as recommended in this
report). The impervious area methodology is the most commonly used approach among stormwater
utilities and special districts, and the charge per square foot of impervious coverage is within the
norm of $.01 to $.02 per square foot per year. The recommended approach conforms to industry
standards and norms in all regards.
Given the moderate residential service charge estimated in all three of these scenarios, the
consultant team believes the best option is the third scenario. The larger bond issue would pay for
several important capital projects that would not be funded in either the first or second scenario.
The monthly charge per ERU would be less under the third scenario than under the first, which
relies on pay-as-you-go funding for capital projects. The second scenario would result in the lowest
service charge, but would not fund all of the capital projects that can be built under the third
scenario. We believe that the $.35/ERU/month difference between the service charges in the second
and third scenarios is justifiable and reasonable given the fact that it would enable the City to fund
an additional $2.3 million of important capital projects. We recommend that the City Council adopt
a rate of $3.43/ERU/month as presented in the third scenario.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-44 September 29, 2003
TABLE 13-14 – PRO FORMA CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
SCENARIO #1 – EXPENSED CAPITAL PROJECTS
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Expenses
Annual Operating Expense $ 1,012,904 $ 1,076,839 $ 1,100,155 $ 1,156,868 $ 1,242,491
Annual Budgeted Capital Expense $ 808,916 $ 1,209,578 $ 1,120,263 $ 1,230,972 $ 1,351,706
Subtotal: All Annual Budgeted Expenses $ 1,821,320 $ 2,106,416 $ 2,220,418 $ 2,387,840 $ 2,596,197
Subtotal: with Inflation 6 $ 1,821,320 $ 2,183,114 $ 2,298,777 $ 2,513,613 $ 2,779,788
Bond Sale Costs and Debt Service $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Bond Debt Service Reserve $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total: Annual Expenses $ 1,821,320 $ 2,183,114 $ 2,298,777 $ 2,513,613 $ 2,779,788
Revenue Requirement Adjustments
Fund Balance Carried Forward $ 0 $ 383,769 $ 559,518 $ 646,195 $ 492,516
Other Fees and Charges $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Interest Income $ 13,500 $ 11,513 $ 16,786 $ 35,382 $ 21,515
Recovered Delinquencies $ 0 $ 105,000 $ 65,000 $ 15,000 $ 5,000
Other Resources (Grants/Loans)$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total: Adjustments $ 21,500 $ 508,282 $ 649,304 $ 704,577 $ 527,031
Service Fee Revenue Requirement $ 1,800,820 $ 1,680,832 $ 1,649,473 $ 1,809,036 $ 2,252,757
Revenue Reduction Allowances
Delinquencies and Bad Debt $ 165,000 $ 125,000 $ 75,000 $ 65,000 $ 60,000
Credits and Offsets $ 3,000 $ 4,500 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Total: Revenue Reduction Allowances $ 168,000 $ 129,500 $ 80,000 $ 70,000 $ 65,000
Adjusted Service Fee Revenue
Requirement
$ 1,968,820 $ 1,810,332 $ 1,729,473 $ 1,879,036 $ 2,317,757
Number of ERU 50,911 51,166 51,421 51,679 51,937
Service Fee Rate/ERU/Month $ 3.85 $ 3.85 $ 3.85 $ 3.85 $ 3.85
Annual Service Fee Revenue $ 2,352,089 $ 2,363,850 $ 2,375,669 $ 2,387,547 $ 2,399,485
Year-end Fund Balance $ 383,769 $ 559,518 $ 646,195 $ 492,516 $ 74,988
Fund Balance: % of Operating Costs 7 33.27 %47.48%50.38 %34.49 %5.25 %
6 Inflation of annual operating expense is estimated at 3.5 % per year, compounded, beginning in Year 2.
7 Fund Balance stated as a percentage of the following year’s Annual Operating Expense. The stated objective is to
hold the service charge constant over the five-year period and achieve a year-end fund balance of no less than five
(5) percent nor more than ten (10) percent at the end of Year 5.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-45 September 29, 2003
TABLE 13-15 – PRO FORMA CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
SCENARIO #2 – BONDED CAPITAL PROJECTS OF $4.5 MILLION
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Expenses
Annual Operating Expense $ 1,012,904 $ 1,076,839 $ 1,100,155 $ 1,156,868 $ 1,244,491
Annual Budgeted Capital Expense $ 123,916 $ 179,578 $ 220,263 $ 260,792 $ 281,706
Subtotal: All Annual Budgeted Expenses $ 1,136,820 $ 1,256,417 $ 1,320,418 $ 1,417,660 $ 1,526,197
Subtotal: with Inflation 8 $ 1,136,820 $ 1,333,114 $ 1,398,777 $ 1,543,613 $ 1,709,788
Bond Sale Costs and Debt Service $ 67,500 $ 508,000 $ 508,000 $ 508,000 $ 508,000
Bond Debt Service Reserve $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total: Annual Expenses $ 1,204,320 $ 1,841,114 $ 1,906,777 $ 2,051,613 $ 2,217,788
Revenue Requirement Adjustments
Fund Balance Carried Forward $ 0 $ 530,851 $ 580,242 $ 584,408 $ 413,365
Other Fees and Charges $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Interest Income $ 13,500 $ 15,926 $ 17,408 $ 17,533 $ 12,402
Recovered Delinquencies $ 0 $ 105,000 $ 65,000 $ 15,000 $ 5,000
Other Resources (Grants/Loans)$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total: Adjustments $ 21,500 $ 659,777 $ 670,650 $ 624,941 $ 438,766
Service Fee Revenue Requirement $ 1,182,820 $ 1,181,337 $ 1,236,127 $ 1,426,672 $ 1,779,022
Revenue Reduction Allowances
Delinquencies and Bad Debt $ 165,000 $ 125,000 $ 75,000 $ 65,000 $ 60,000
Credits and Offsets $ 3,000 $ 4,500 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Total: Revenue Reduction Allowances $ 168,000 $ 129,500 $ 80,000 $ 70,000 $ 65,000
Adjusted Service Fee Revenue
Requirement
$ 1,350,820 $ 1,310,837 $ 1,316,127 $ 1,496,672 $ 1,844,022
Number of ERU 50,911 51,166 51,421 51,679 51,937
Service Fee Rate/ERU/Month $ 3.08 $ 3.08 $ 3.08 $ 3.08 $ 3.08
Annual Service Fee Revenue $ 1,881,671 $ 1,891,080 $ 1,900,535 $ 1,910,038 $ 1,919,588
Year-end Fund Balance $ 530,851 $ 580,242 $ 584,408 $ 413,365 $ 75,566
Fund Balance: % of Operating Costs 9 46.02 %49.24 %45.56 %28.95 %5.29 %
8 Inflation of annual operating expense is estimated at 3.5 % per year, compounded, beginning in Year 2.
9 Fund Balance stated as a percentage of the following year’s Annual Operating Expense. The stated objective is to
hold the service charge constant over the five-year period and achieve a year-end fund balance of no less than five
(5) percent nor more than ten (10) percent at the end of Year 5.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
13-46 September 29, 2003
TABLE 13-16 – PRO FORMA CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
SCENARIO #3 – BONDED CAPITAL PROJECTS OF $6.8 MILLION
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Expenses
Annual Operating Expense $ 1,012,904 $ 1,076,839 $ 1,100,155 $ 1,156,868 $ 1,244,491
Annual Budgeted Capital Expense $ 123,916 $ 179,578 $ 220,263 $ 260,972 $ 281,706
Subtotal: All Annual Budgeted Expenses $ 1,136,820 $ 1,256,417 $ 1,320,418 $ 1,415,840 $ 1,525,197
Subtotal: with Inflation 10 $ 1,136,820 $ 1,333,114 $ 1,398,777 $ 1,543,613 $ 1,709,788
Bond Sale Costs and Debt Service $ 102,000 $ 768,000 $ 768,000 $ 768,000 $ 768,000
Bond Debt Service Reserve $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total: Annual Expenses $ 1,238,820 $ 2,101,114 $ 2,166,777 $ 2,311,613 $ 2,477,788
Revenue Requirement Adjustments
Fund Balance Carried Forward $ 0 $ 710,178 $ 719,844 $ 684,167 $ 473,167
Other Fees and Charges $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Interest Income $ 13,500 $ 21,305 $ 21,595 $ 20,526 $ 14,195
Recovered Delinquencies $ 0 $ 105,000 $ 65,000 $ 15,000 $ 5,000
Other Resources (Grants/Loans)$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total: Adjustments $ 21,500 $ 844,483 $ 814,439 $ 727,693 $ 500,362
Service Fee Revenue Requirement $ 1,217,320 $ 1,256,631 $ 1,352,338 $ 1,583,920 $ 1,977,426
Revenue Reduction Allowances
Delinquencies and Bad Debt $ 165,000 $ 125,000 $ 75,000 $ 65,000 $ 60,000
Credits and Offsets $ 3,000 $ 4,500 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Total: Revenue Reduction Allowances $ 168,000 $ 129,500 $ 80,000 $ 70,000 $ 65,000
Adjusted Service Fee Revenue
Requirement
$ 1,385,320 $ 1,386,131 $ 1,432,338 $ 1,653,920 $ 2,042,426
Number of ERU 50,911 51,166 51,421 51,679 51,937
Service Fee Rate/ERU/Month $ 3.43 $ 3.43 $ 3.43 $ 3.43 $ 3.43
Annual Service Fee Revenue $ 2,095,498 $ 2,105,975 $ 2,116,505 $ 2,127,087 $ 2,137,723
Year-end Fund Balance $ 710,178 $ 719,844 $ 684,167 $ 473,167 $ 95,297
Fund Balance: % of Operating Costs 11 61.57 %61.08 %53.34 %33.13 %6.67 %
10 Inflation of annual operating expense is estimated at 3.5 % per year, compounded, beginning in Year 2.
11 Fund Balance stated as a percentage of the following year’s Annual Operating Expense. The stated objective is to
hold the service charge constant over the five-year period and achieve a year-end fund balance of no less than five
(5) percent nor more than ten (10) percent at the end of Year 5.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 14
Legal Review
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 14 - Legal Review .........................................................................................................14-1
14.1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................14-1
14.2 - Current Legal Status ......................................................................................................14-1
14.3 - Funding..........................................................................................................................14-1
14.3.1 - Hancock Amendment ...............................................................................................14-1
14.4 - Ordinance Recommendations ......................................................................................14-16
14.4.1 - Adoption of a Sustainable Funding Mechanism for the Stormwater Management
Program ...............................................................................................................................14-16
14.4.2 - Adoption of the Proposed Changes to the Design Standards Manual....................14-16
14.4.3 - Stream Setback Ordinance .....................................................................................14-16
14.4.4 - Green Space Ordinance ..........................................................................................14-16
14.4.5 - Revision of Ordinances that Impact Impervious Surface Installation ...................14-17
14.4.6 - Sediment and Erosion Control Ordinances............................................................14-17
14.5 - Additional Items for Consideration.............................................................................14-18
List of Tables
No tables used in this section
List of Figures
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-1 September 29, 2003
Section 14 - Legal Review
14.1 - Introduction
As part of this project, a legal review was conducted to assess the legal authority of the current
stormwater program, the impacts of any changes to the stormwater program and suggestions for
additional ordinances or other legal authority to allow the proposed program to function.
14.2 - Current Legal Status
A review of the current stormwater program found no unusual consequences with regards to
possible future legal authority routinely required for stormwater management, such as the ability
to enact ordinances, the ability to regulate the development community, etc.
14.3 - Funding
Most of the the legal analysis relating to funding of the proposed stormwater management
program has been incorporated into the funding discussion in Section 13 of this report. The
reader is directed there for the detailed discussions. However, specific discussion with regards to
the Hancock Amendment and how it would impact any fees collected to support the proposed
stormwater management program is presented below.
14.3.1 - Hancock Amendment
The City of Jefferson City is developing a storm water management program. Funding for this
program is likely to include a stormwater utility fee that will be imposed on property owners to
pay some portion of the program's expenses. Generally, these fees are calculated based primarily
on the amount of each property's impervious surface and development intensity.
A city's possible imposition of new fees raises the issue of whether those fees are subject to the
Hancock Amendment. The purpose of this discussion, therefore, is to discuss: 1) what the
Hancock Amendment is; 2) the Missouri Supreme Court's attempts at establishing standards to
determine Hancock Amendment compliance; 3) traditional distinctions between a tax and a user
fee; 4) Missouri cases applying the most recent test vis-a-vis sewer and water service fees; and 5)
how a storm water utility fee might fare under this test.
1) What is the Hancock Amendment?
On November 4, 1980, Missouri voters approved Amendment No. 5 to the Missouri
Constitution. This amendment is commonly referred to as the "Hancock Amendment" and was
codified at article X, sections 16 through 24.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-2 September 29, 2003
The restrictions on local government authority are contained in section 22. This section provides
in part:
(a) Counties and other political subdivisions are hereby prohibited from levying any tax,
license or fees, not authorized by law, charter or self-enforcing provisions of the
constitution when this section is adopted or from increasing the current levy of an
existing tax, license or fees, above that current levy authorized by law or charter when
this section is adopted without the approval of the required majority of the qualified
voters of that county or other political subdivision voting thereon.
M. Const., art. X, section 22.6 This is the operative provision prohibiting local governments
from levying a new or increased "tax, license or fee[s]" without approval of a majority of the
voters. It is modeled after Michigan's Headlee Amendment. Michigan Const., Article IX, section
31. The Michigan version provides:
Units of Local Government are hereby prohibited from levying any tax not authorized by
law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax
above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the
approval of a majority of the qualified electors of that unit of Local Government voting
thereon.
The Hancock Amendment's purpose is to control governmental revenue and expenditure
increases. See Buchanan v. Kirkpatrick, 615 S.W.2d 6, 13 (Mo. banc 1981).
2) What is the standard to determine if a charge is subject to the Hancock Amendment?
In 1982, the Missouri Supreme Court gave a broad reading of the phrase "tax, license or fees."
Roberts v. McNary, 636, S.W.2d 332 (Mo. banc 1982). In Roberts, St. Louis County increased
its fees "for numerous county services, such as parks and building inspection[s]." Id. at 334. A
taxpayer challenged this increase and argued that no increase can occur without voter approval.
6 The Missouri legislature enacted a statute that defines the term "increasing" as it is used in article X, section 22.
This statute provides:
The term "increasing" as used in section 22 of article X of the Constitution of the State of Missouri when referring to
any license or fee of any county or other political subdivision does not mean adjustments in the level of any license
or fee necessary to maintain funding of a service, program or activity which was in existence on November 4, 1980,
or which was approved by a vote of the people subsequent to November 4, 1980. A statement of the costs necessary
to maintain the funding of such service, program or activity shall be prepared and shall indicate the service, program
or activity supported by the license or fee. The statement and work papers related thereto shall be a public record
and subject to examination pursuant to chapter 6 10, RSMo.
To the extent that Jefferson City might impose a new fee rather than increase an existing fee, this statute is not
applicable.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-3 September 29, 2003
The county argued that user fees were outside the scope of the phrase "tax, license or fees" and
therefore the Hancock Amendment did not apply.
The Court relied on definitions contained in Webster's Third New International Dictionary and
stated, "Reading the words examined here for their ordinary and customary meanings, they
present a sweeping list of the types of pecuniary charges the government makes. Quite simply,
this exhibits an intent to control any such charges to the extent that the voters must approve any
increase in them." Id. at 336. This broad interpretation included virtually all fees imposed or
increased by a local government.
Between 1982 and 1991, the appellate courts struggled to develop a coherent interpretation of the
Hancock Amendment. See generally Beatty v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 867 S.W.2d
217, 218 (Mo. banc; 1993) ("In this case we return to our continuing struggle to define the
perimeters of the Hancock Amendment and particularly of Article X, Section 22(a) of the
Missouri Constitution."). During this time frame, some decisions held that a particular charge
were subject to the Hancock Amendment, while other fees were not. See Zahner V. City
ofPerryville, 813 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Mo. banc 1991) (holding that "fees" did not include special
assessments charged for street improvements to abutting landowners because those owners were
not provided with a "privilege" or a "service"); Pace v. City of Hannibal, 680 S.W.2d 944 (Mo.
banc 1984) (holding that voluntary payments by a city utility board into the city general revenue
fund, in lieu of a franchise tax, was not a license, tax or fee); but see Loving v. City of St. Joseph,
753 S.W.2d 49 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988) (holding that Hancock Amendment applied to fees
charged by private companies for using publicly-owned facilities); State ex rel. City of St. Louis
v. Litz, 653 S.W.2d 703 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983) (holding that the enactment of $150 inspection
and permit fee for removal and demolition of buildings was subject to Hancock Amendment).
In 1991, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed itself in Keller v. Marion County Ambulance
District, 820 S.W.2d 301 (Mo. banc 199 1). In Keller, an ambulance district instituted a policy
of collecting fees for services rendered "rather than a subscriber charge of all consumers in the
service area." Id. at 302. The majority of these new service charges "were increases over the
previous charges, and none were submitted to the voters for approval." Id. The new fees were
challenged by a group of taxpayers who lived in the ambulance district. This group, which sued
as a class, alleged that the service charge increases constituted a tax and should have been
submitted to the voters for approval.
The Court began by reviewing previous Hancock Amendment decisions and then stated that
"there are two types of local revenue increases: those subject to the Hancock Amendment and
those not subject to the Amendment." Id. at 303.
In overturning Roberts v. McNary, supra, the Court reasoned:
If the people of Missouri intended to prohibit localities from increasing any source of
revenue without voter approval, a general term like "revenue" or “revenue increase"
could have been used. Instead, the people of Missouri characterized "fees" in § 22(a) as
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-4 September 29, 2003
an alternative to a "tax." This characterization suggests that what is prohibited are fee
increases that are taxes in everything but name. What is allowed are fee increases which
are "general and special revenues" but not a "tax."
Id. at 303. The Court held that "increases in the specific charges for services actually provided ...
are not subject to the Hancock Amendment." Id. at 305. The Court instructed that future courts
should "examine the substance of a charge, in accordance with this opinion, to determine if it is a
tax without regard to the label of the charge." Id.
The Court established five criteria as "helpful" guidance in determining whether a charge
constituted a tax or a fee. These criteria, commonly known as the "Keller factors," are:
1) When is the fee paid? - Fees subject to the Hancock Amendment are likely due to be
paid on a periodic basis while fees not subject to the Hancock Amendment are likely due
to be paid only on or after provision of a good or service to the individual paying the fee.
2) Who pays the fee? - A fee subject to the Hancock Amendment is likely to be blanket-
billed to all or almost all of the residents of the political subdivision, while a fee not
subject to the Hancock Amendment is likely to be charged only to those who actually use
the good or service for which the fee is charged.
3) Is the amount of the fee to be paid affected by the level of goods or services provided
to the fee payer? - Fees subject to the Hancock Amendment are less likely to be
dependent on the level of goods or services provided to the fee payer while fees not
subject to the Hancock Amendment are likely to be dependent on the level of goods or
services provided to the fee payer.
4) Is the government providing a service or good? - If the government is providing a good
or a service, or permission to use government property, the fee is less likely to be subject
to the Hancock Amendment. If there is no good or service being provided, or someone
unconnected with the government is providing the good or service, then any charge
required by and paid to a local government is probably subject to the Hancock
Amendment.
5) Has the activity historically and exclusively been provided by the government? - If the
government has historically and exclusively provided the good, service, permission or
activity, the fee is likely subject to the Hancock Amendment. If the government has not
historically and exclusively provided the good, service, permission or activity, then any
charge is probably not subject to the Hancock Amendment.
Id. at 304-05 n.10. "No specific criterion is independently controlling; but, rather, the criterion
together determine whether the charge is closer to being a 'true' user fee or a tax denominated as
a fee." Id.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-5 September 29, 2003
3) Traditional distinctions between a tax and a fee
In Keller, the Court supported its analysis that Roberts was decided too broadly by recognizing
the "traditional distinction between 'true' user fees and taxes denominated as fees... " The Court
explained that
[f]ees or charges prescribed by law to be paid by certain individuals to public officers for
services rendered in connection with a specific purpose ordinarily are not taxes ... unless
the object of the requirement is to raise revenue to be paid into the general fund of the
government to defray customary governmental expenditures ... rather than compensation
of public officers for particular services rendered ....
Keller, 820 S.W.2d at 303-04. This distinction underlies the Keller factors.
In a later opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court cast some doubt on how long the Keller factors
would remain viable by stating, in response to an argument that Keller should be overruled:
"While the Court will continue to assess the wisdom and viability of Keller's holding in
appropriate cases, we need not decide Keller's ultimate fate in this case." Beatty v. Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer Dist., 867 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Mo. banc 1993). In light of this language, attention
should also be paid to the traditional distinctions of a tax and a fee in the event that the Keller
factors are eliminated. It is therefore appropriate to examine cases outside Missouri that involve
storm water utility charges to determine if courts hold that these charges are fees or taxes.
In City of Cincinnati v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 271 (1997), aff’d on other grounds, 153 F.3d
1375 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the city enacted a storm drainage service charge on the owner of each lot
and parcel of land within the city. The following is the trial court's description of how the
drainage fee was calculated:
To determine the storm drainage service charge, each property is first classified into one
of three classes, A, B or C, according to its square footage and its use as residential or
commercial property. Class C properties include "Multi-family (3 families and more),
Residential Property and Non-Residential Property." Cincinnati, Ohio, Ordinance 281 §
720-55. Each Class C property also is assigned an intensity of development factor (IDF),
which identifies the property as in one of ten categories of land use, each with a
corresponding numerical IDF. For example, undeveloped parcels are assigned an IDF of
.00, while commercial parcels have an IDF of .85. Cincinnati, Ohio, Ordinance 281 §
720-57. In addition, properties also are assigned an area range number (ARN) according
to their square footage. Cincinnati, Ohio, Ordinance 281 § § 720-1-A3, 720-61. Once the
IDF and ARN are determined, the monthly storm drainage service charge for a Class C
property is calculated as follows:
Multiply the area range number (ARN) of each lot or parcel times the intensity of
development factor (IDF) of each lot or parcel, which equals the equivalent runoff units
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-6 September 29, 2003
(ERU). Multiply this figure times the monthly charge per equivalent runoff unit. This
calculation may be phrased as follows:
ARN x IDG [sic] = ERU
ERU x ($) charge per ERU Monthly Storm Drainage Service Charge, Class C
39 Fed. Cl. 271, 272 (citing Cincinnati, Ohio, Ordinance 281 § 720-61(3) (emphasis in original)).
The issue before the court was whether this charge constituted a user fee or a tax. If it was a user
fee, it could be assessed against the federal government; if it was a tax it could not. The court
quoted the United States Supreme Court for the difference between a tax and a fee:
Taxation is a legislative function, and Congress, which is the sole organ for levying taxes,
may act arbitrarily and disregard benefits bestowed by the Government on a taxpayer and
go solely on ability to pay, based on property or income. A fee, however, is incident to a
voluntary act, e.g., a request that a public agency permit an applicant to practice law or
medicine or construct a house or run a broadcast station. The public agency performing
those services normally may exact a fee for a grant which, presumably, bestows a benefit
on the applicant, not shared by other members of society.
Id. at 274 (quoting National Cable Television Ass’n v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 340-41
(1974)).
The court concluded that the drainage charge was not based upon actual usage but was only
estimated on the property's square footage and on the development intensity. Id. at 276. "Under
the system enacted by the City of Cincinnati, during a month of drought or a month of flooding,
the [property owner] would be assessed the same amount of storm drainage service charges." Id.
The court ruled that the drainage fee was a tax and dismissed the case.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court, but on other grounds.7 City of Cincinnati
v. United States, 158 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir . 1998). In so doing, the appellate court specifically
stated that it was not reaching the issue of whether the drainage fee was a tax or a user fee. 153
F.3d at 1378. While this holding has the effect of negating the trial court's decision, the trial
court's analysis is nonetheless informative.
Also instructive is a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court on whether a storm water service
charge was a tax or a user fee under Michigan's Headlee Amendment. Bolt v. City of Lansing,
587 N.W.2d 264 (Mich. 1998). This decision is instructive because the Hancock Amendment, as
noted above, is modeled after Michigan's Headlee Amendment.
7 The reason that the appellate court affirmed the trial court on different grounds is not relevant to this discussion.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-7 September 29, 2003
The following is a description of the City of Lansing's storm water service charge:
Estimated storm water runoff is calculated in terms of equivalent hydraulic area (EHA).
As defined by the ordinance, EHA is "based upon the amount of pervious and impervious
areas within the parcel multiplied by the runoff factors applicable to each." Impervious
land area, which impedes water absorption, thus increasing storm water runoff, is defined
as
[t]he surface area within a parcel that is covered by any material which retards or
prevents the entry of water into the soil. Impervious land area includes, but is not
limited to, surface areas covered by buildings, porches, patios, parking lots,
driveways, walkways and other structures. Generally, all non-vegetative land
areas shall be considered impervious. Pervious land area is defined as "[a]ll
surface area within a parcel which is not impervious..."
Residential parcels measuring two acres or less are not assessed charges on the basis of
individual measurements, but, rather, are charged pursuant to flat rates set forth in the
ordinance. These rates are based on a predetermined number of EHA units per one
thousand square feet. For residential parcels over two acres, commercial parcels, and
industrial parcels, the EHA for an individual parcel is calculated by multiplying the
parcel's impervious area by a runoff factor of 0.95 and pervious area by a runoff factor of
0. 15 and adding the two areas.
587 N.W.2d at 267.
The Michigan Supreme Court identified three factors to be considered in determining whether
the charge was a fee or a tax: 1) the charge must serve a regulatory purpose rather than a
revenue-raising purpose; 2) the fees must be proportionate to the necessary cost of service; and
3) the charge must be voluntary. Id. at 269. The court noted that the city's efforts to comply with
the Clean Water Act and obtain a NPDES permit regarding combined sewer overflows resulted
in a control program costing $176 million over thirty years. Fifty percent of this cost was to be
funded by the storm water service charge. However, 63% of the $176 million constituted capital
expenditures. The court found this problematic because the city did not attempt "to allocate even
that portion of the costs that will have a useful life in excess of thirty years to the general fund.
This is an investment in infrastructure that will substantially outlast the current 'mortgage' that
the storm water charge requires property owners to amortize." Id at 270. The court thus held that
"[t ]he revenue to be derived from the charge is clearly in excess of the direct and indirect costs of
actually using the storm water system over the next thirty years and, being thus disproportionate
to the costs of the services provided and the benefits rendered, constitutes a tax." Id.
The Michigan Supreme Court did, however, state that a storm water service charge could be
constitutional if it reflected the actual costs of use, metered with relative precision in accordance
with available technology, including some capital investment component..." Id. at 27 1. Indeed,
other courts have upheld storm water utility fees. See Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-8 September 29, 2003
Christ, Inc., 667 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1995) (holding that storm water utility could be funded through
special assessments because developed properties received a special benefit and the
apportionment method bore a "reasonable relationship" to the benefits received); Teter v. Clark
County, 704 P.2d 1171 (Wash. 1985) (holding that storm water charges were fees and not taxes,
but that even if the charges were taxes, they were statutorily authorized and uniform in nature
and thus would be valid); Long Run Baptist Assoc., Inc. v. Louisville and Jefferson County
Metro. Sewer Dist ., 775 S.W.2d 520 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989) (holding that sewer district had
statutory authority to impose storm drainage service charge and that the charge was not a tax);
Zelinger v. City and County ofDenver, 724 P.2d 1356 (Colo. 1986) (holding that storm drainage
service charge was not a tax, but rather it was a special assessment); City of Wooster v. Graines,
556 N.E.2d 1163 (Ohio 1990) (holding that statutorily authorized sewer utility was not illegal tax
due to generating surplus funds).
4) Missouri cases applyinng the Keller factors to water and sewer fees
In Beatty v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 867 S.W.2d 217 (Mo. banc 1993), the issue was
whether the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District ("MSD") could raise its sewer charges without
approval of district voters. MSD revised its monthly sewer service charges by increasing the
monthly service fee by $4 and decreasing the capital improvement fee by $4. The total amount
charged remained the same. The court applied the Keller factors as follows:
Factor No. 1: When is the fee paid?
The Court stated that this criteria relates to "the regularity with which the fee is paid."
Here, the fee was paid on a periodic (monthly) basis. The Court found that this factor
favored the taxpayer's position that it was really a tax.
Factor No. 2: Who pays the fee?
The Court stated that while it was true that almost all of the MSD residents pay the
charge, "it is also true that only persons who actually use MSD's services pay the charge."
The Court found this factor in favor of MSD's position that it was a true fee.
Factor No. 3: Is the amount of the fee that is paid affected by the level of goods or
services provided?
The Court stated that "the charge imposed must bear a direct relationship to the level of
services a 'fee payer' actually receives from the political subdivision." MSD argued that
the uniform fees for residential customers reflect an estimated, average use that a
customer makes of the services. The Court rejected this approach and stated that an
"economist could easily construct a model to show that any fee government collects is
based on the 'estimated annual' use of governmental services." Id. at 221. The Court
found this factor in favor of the taxpayer.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-9 September 29, 2003
Factor No. 4: Is the government providing a service or good?
There was no dispute that MSD was providing a service in return for a direct payment.
The Court found this factor in favor of MSD.
Factor No. 5: Has the activity historically and exclusively been provided by the
government?
Each party cited numerous examples of public or private sewer services. The Court
stated that "no clear answer" existed.
The "scorecard" was that each party had two factors found in its favor and the fifth factor was
inconclusive. The Court held that any doubt as to whether a charge was subject to the Hancock
Amendment should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer and the charges could not be increased
without voter approval.
Feese v. City of Lake Ozark, 893 S.W.2d 8 10 (Mo. banc 1995), involved sewage service charges
that were "virtually identical to those of Beatty with one exception. [T ]he city assesses its
sewage charge against property not connected to the sewage system." 893 S.W.2d at 812. MSD
did not charge properties that were not connected to the system. The Court held that the city's
charges were subject to the Hancock Amendment.
In Missouri Growth Association v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 941 S.W.2d 615 (Mo.
App. E.D. 1997), MSD revised its ordinance after Beatty and again raised sewer charges without
voter approval. Under the new ordinance, however, customers were charged "a volume charge
based on the amount of wastewater contributed after sewer services are provided. The volume
charge was based on a new study that was conducted in an effort to bill customers for sewer
charges that bear a direct relationship to services received." Id. at 620.
The court applied the Keller factors as follows:
Factor No. 1: When is the fee paid?
The fee was paid on a periodic (monthly) basis, but "only after the sewer service is
provided." The Court held that this fact made it more like a user fee than a tax. The
Court found this factor in favor of MSD.
Factor No. 2: Who pays the fee?
The Court noted that only those who use the services pay, and about 75,000 properties
did not receive sewer bills. The Court found this factor in favor of MSD.
Factor No. 3: Is the amount of the fee that is paid affected by the level of goods or
services provided?
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-10 September 29, 2003
MSD amended the charge so that unlike the previous charge, it was not a flat charge.
Customers were charged, in addition to uniform charges for billing and collection and
system availability, a volume charge based on a study that determined sewer services on
an individual basis as measured by an individual customer's water usage (i.e., individual
consumption). The Court held that the charge bore a direct relationship to services
provided. The Court found this factor in favor MSD.
Factor No. 4: Is the government providing a service or good?
There was no dispute that MSD was providing a service in return for a direct payment.
The Court found this factor in favor of MSD.
Factor No. 5: Has the activity historically and exclusively been provided by the
government?
Again, each party cited numerous examples of public or private sewer services and the
Court found that this factor was inconclusive.
This time, the "scorecard" was MSD 4, plaintiff 0. The Court held that the charge was
not subject to the Hancock Amendment.
In Mullenix-St. Charles Properties, L.P. v. City of St. Charles, 983 S.W.2d 550 (Mo. App. E.D.
1998), the city increased its water and sewer rates to cover operating losses. The water and
sewer bills contained four different charges: 1) a gallonage charge applied to water services; (2)
a gallonage charge applied to sewer services; (3) a minimum charge; and (4) a user charge.
The "gallonage charge" applied to water service is applied on a declining block rate
schedule. When a customer has used all the water in the first rate block, that customer
moves into the next rate block and is charged a lower rate for that water usage. The
"gallonage charge" for sewer service is based on the metered water used by a customer
and is charged at a flat rate. The "user charge" (also called a "service availability" or
"base charge") is a charge paid by a customer regardless of whether the customer uses
any water or sewer service. User charges are common components of water and sewer
utility rates and are designed to cover the costs associated with customer billing,
waterworks system availability, system maintenance, system repair, depreciation, and
debt servicing. The "minimum charge" is the minimum bi-monthly charge a customer
would pay for water and sewer service.
983 S.W.2d at 554.
The court applied the Keller factors as follows:
Factor No. 1: When is the fee paid?
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-11 September 29, 2003
The fee was paid on a periodic (monthly) basis on or after the provision of a good or
service. The Court found this factor in favor of the city.
Factor No. 2: Who pays the fee?
The Court noted that only those who use the services pay. The Court found this factor in
favor of the city.
Factor No. 3: Is the amount of the fee that is paid affected by the level of goods or
services provided?
The Court stated that the record supported a finding that the charges were based on
individual consumption. Two expert witnesses testified to this effect. Furthermore, the
court, relying on Missouri Growth Association, stated that the inclusion of the uniform
user charge "did not change the essential characteristics of the bills from user fees to
taxes." The Court found this factor in favor of the city.
Factor No. 4: Is the government providing a service or good?
There was no dispute that the city was providing a service in return for a direct payment.
The Court found this factor in favor of the city.
Factor No. 5: Has the activity historically and exclusively been provided by the
government?
As in previous cases, the Court stated that this factor was inconclusive.
The Court then simply stated that "[t]he water and sewer bills in this case are clearly user fees for
particular services rendered."
5) How might a storm water utility fee fare under Keller?
The following analysis examines the Keller factors in relation to a storm water utility fee.
Factor No. 1: When is thefee paid?
Under Missouri Growth Association and Mullenix, supra, the storm water utility fee may
be based on periodic billing but should only be billed after the service has been provided.
See factor no. 4 regarding the nature of the storm water management program service.
Factor No. 2: Who pays thefee?
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-12 September 29, 2003
Unlike the water and service charges discussed above, property owners subject to a storm
water utility fee do not have a choice whether to connect to a system or not. The storm
water utility fee should therefore account for properties that:
a) are not improved (i.e., no impervious surface);
b) have existing storm water improvements;
c) contain on-site improvements that reduce storm water flow into the city’s
system; and
d)for whatever other reason, do not use the system or use it to a limited extent.
Factor No. 3: Is the amount of the fee that is paid affected by the level of goods or
services provided?
This may be the most difficult factor to achieve. Under Beatty, "estimated average use"
is inadequate. Instead, as in Missouri Growth Association, individual consumption must
somehow be measured. The fee will stand the best chance of being exempt from
Hancock requirements if the amount of the fee paid by each fee payer is based on a
measurable indicator of system use.
Factor No. 4: Is the government providing a service or good?
Under Beatty, the city should be able to establish that this factor leans toward it being a
true user fee because it is providing a service. The "service" (i.e., diversion of storm
water to reduce flooding, property damage, the discharge of pollutants into the waters of
the United States, and other Clear Water Act objectives) needs to be articulated.
Factor No. 5: Has the activity historically and exclusively been provided by the
government?
The likelihood that a court will determine that this factor favors the charge's
characterization as a user fee will be greatly increased by establishing that the fee will be
used to provide services to the fee payer that are different in kind, or maybe scope, than
those that have been historically provided by the City.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-13 September 29, 2003
Keller Factors Beatty Mo. Growth Assn Mullenix Storm water utility fee
analysis
When is the fee
paid?
The Court stated that
this criteria relates to
"the regularity with
which the fee is paid."
Here, the fee was paid
on a periodic
(monthly) basis. The
Court found this factor
in favor of the
plaintiff.
The fee was paid on a
periodic (monthly) basis,
but "only after the sewer
service is provided." The
Court held that this made it
look more like a user fee
than a tax. The Court
found this factor in favor of
MSD.
The fee was paid on a
periodic (monthly) basis
on or after the provision of
a good or service. The
Court found this factor in
favor of the city.
May be billed periodically
but only on or after the
service has been provided.
Who pays the fee?The Court stated that
while it was true that
almost all of the MSD
residents pay the
charge, "it is also true
that only persons who
actually use MSD's
services pay the
charge." The Court
found this factor in
favor of MSD.
The Court noted that only
those who use the services
pay and about 75,000
properties did not receive
sewer bills. The Court
found this factor in favor of
MSD.
The Court noted that only
those who use the services
pay. The Court found this
factor in favor of the city.
The storm water fee should
account for properties that
have no or little storm
water runoff or for other
reasons do not require the
city's service.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-14 September 29, 2003
Keller Factors Beatty Mo. Growth Assn Mullenix Storm water utility fee
analysis
Is fee amount
affected by level
of service
provided?
The Court stated that
"the charge imposed
must bear a direct
relationship to the
level of services a 'fee
payer' actually
receives from the
political subdivision."
MSD argued that the
uniform fees for
residential customers
reflect an estimated,
average use that a
customer makes of the
services. The Court
rejected this approach.
The Court found this
factor in favor of the
plaintiff.
Customers were charged
based on a study that
determined sewer services
on an individual basis as
measured by an individual
customer's water usage
(i.e., individual
consumption). The Court
held that the charge bore a
direct relationship to
services provided. The
Court found this factor in
favor MSD.
Expert testimony
contributed to the record
that supported a finding
that the charges were
based on individual
consumption. The Court
found this factor in favor
of the city.
This is the factor that may
be the most important.
Individual consumption of
capacity or other use of the
services/system paid for
with the fee must somehow
be used to calculate the fee
charged to each fee payer.
Recall that Beatty rejected
the "estimated average use"
approach.
Is the government
providing a good
or service?
There was no dispute
that MSD was
providing a service in
return for a direct
payment. The Court
found this factor in
favor of MSD.
There was no dispute that
MSD was providing a
service in return for a direct
payment. The Court found
this factor in favor of MSD.
There was no dispute that
the city was providing a
service in return for a
direct payment. The Court
found this factor in favor
of the city.
Define the service that is
provided.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-15 September 29, 2003
Keller Factors Beatty Mo. Growth Assn Mullenix Storm water utility fee
analysis
Has the activity
historically and
exclusively been
provided by the
government?
Each party cited
numerous examples of
public or private sewer
services. The Court
stated that "no clear
answer" existed.
Each party cited numerous
examples of public or
private sewer services. The
Court stated that this factor
was inconclusive.
As in previous cases, the
Court stated that this
factor was inconclusive.
We would think that a
Court could be convinced
of this factor if it is clear
that revenues derived from
the storm water utility fee
are, in fact, used to provide
services of a type or scope
that is different than those
historically provided.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-16 September 29, 2003
14.4 - Ordinance Recommendations
Based on the results of the modeling and overall review of the current stormwater program in the
City of Jefferson, several ordinance recommendations can be made. These recommendations are
for informational purposes only and should only be used to gain understanding of the results
such an ordinance should effect on the stormwater management program.
14.4.1 - Adoption of a Sustainable Funding Mechanism for the Stormwater Management
Program
As part of this project, a funding mechanism is being recommended that will supply the
stormwater management program with a sustainable level of funding. The magnitude of the
costs associated with projects being proposed as part of this study are beyond the abilities of the
current funding scheme. It will be vitally important to the success of the stormwater
management program that a viable and sustainable funding source be adopted and implemented
within the City.
14.4.2 - Adoption of the Proposed Changes to the Design Standards Manual
The proposed changes to the current Design Standards Manual are based largely on Section 5600
APWA’s Kansas City Chapter design standards manual. These revisions will allow the City to
take advantage of gains in the knowledge of stormwater management and place the City in a
position to adopt future revisions of the parent standard.
14.4.3 - Stream Setback Ordinance
Based on the modeling results, encroachment upon the stream corridor has caused a number of
structures to be placed in the floodplain. An ordinance restricting development inside the future
conditions (or ultimate buildout) floodplain would minimize the amount of damage being
experienced during high flow events in the future. The areas restricted by the stream setback
ordinance should be placed in a permanent easement that would disallow any sort of
development that would restrict the hydraulic capacity of the stream cross-section. The purpose
of such an ordinance is to prevent future problems from occurring. This will minimize the
opportunities for obstructions through the flow path of the stream and thus minimize backwater
impacts.
This ordinance should also regulate upstream of the current FEMA limits and include the entire
City. Since flooding can occur throughout the City, the ordinance should regulate accordingly.
14.4.4 - Green Space Ordinance
Along with the stream setback ordinance above, the City should consider modification of the
current green space requirements. Green space ordinances can be combined with the stream
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-17 September 29, 2003
setback ordinances discussed above to require additional “green space” with development and to
direct that green space to the stream corridor within the stream setback area. When working
within the riparian area of a stream, green space ordinances and stream setbacks function in
much the same manner; requiring undeveloped areas to remain around the stream corridor.
Additionally, green space requirements can specify the types of green space required. This could
be something as simple as requiring a set amount, or increasing the current amount for a given
land use type, of pervious, vegetated area on a property, up to requiring tree counts and leaving
beneficial trees in place for large developments or even allowing cluster development with large,
contiguous green space requirements. The multiple examples of successful programs in other
cities are too numerous to mention. The reader is encouraged to research this tool outside of this
report.
The purpose of this type of green space ordinance is to increase the amount of pervious surface,
thus decreasing the amount of runoff. Obviously, these types of measures are best applied over
large areas of the city in order to realize the benefits of the increased pervious surfaces. Just as
obvious is the impact this will have on the development community and regulations governing
their work. Therefore, any green space ordinance adjustments must be part of a coordinated look
at the overall development process in Jefferson City.
14.4.5 - Revision of Ordinances that Impact Impervious Surface Installation
In conjunction with the adjustments to the green space requirements, the City should consider
revising those ordinances that impact the installation of impervious surfaces. Ordinances such as
street width, housing density, cul-de-sac requirements and others have been found to
unnecessarily increase the amount of impervious surface installed. The science of stormwater
management has evolved greatly over the last 10-15 years and many new ways of looking at
stormwater and the things that impact its management are now being implemented throughout
the country. Since impervious surfaces are the major cause for stormwater run-off, minimizing
the amount of impervious surfaces will reduce the amount of run-off there is to manage.
14.4.6 - Sediment and Erosion Control Ordinances
As part of this report, recommendations have been made with regards to Jefferson City’s current
sediment and erosion control program and are presented in Section 16 of this report. Therefore,
discussion of that topic will not be duplicated here. However, it should be mentioned here that
none of these recommendations should be taken in a vacuum. It will be important that all
ordinance recommendations are made with their impacts to the development of Jefferson City
and the impacts to water quality considered. No one recommendation will solve the stormwater
problems being experienced in Jefferson City, but a well thought plan can offer lasting benefits
for the City for years to come.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
14-18 September 29, 2003
14.5 - Additional Items for Consideration
In addition to the items described above, there are several additional items that must be discussed
amongst the City Council, City staff, SWAC and the public at large because of their impacts on
the stormwater management program. Some items for consideration would be:
• How to handle private structures that impact the stormwater system adversely? If a privately
owned culvert is undersized and causing localized flooding, how should the City pursue
rectifying the problem?
• How to handle rights of entry (rights of way, easements) to both public and private projects?
• Who should own, and thus be responsible for maintenance of, various projects?
• What types of land use planning techniques will the City be willing to adopt in order to
reduce the impacts of future development? What will the impacts be to the developers and
how will those be dealt with/mitigated?
• Often times, localized flooding is the result of poor drainage swale or yard maintenance.
How will the City mitigate these problems?
• Regulations will be required in order to properly manage stormwater, but regulations require
enforcement. How will enforcement take place?
These are some of the most common issues cities face as they begin to properly manage
stormwater. Jefferson City will probably need to deal with them as well, in addition to others
that will appear. This is one example of how stormwater management will need to be a dynamic
process in Jefferson City.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 15
Drainage Design Criteria
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 15 - Drainage Design Criteria .......................................................................................15-1
15.1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................15-1
List of Tables
No tables used in this section
List of Tables
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
15-1 September 29, 2003
Section 15 - Drainage Design Criteria
15.1 - Introduction
As part of the establishment of a comprehensive stormwater master plan for the City of
Jefferson, a review of the current Design Standards Manual was completed for the purposes of
suggesting possible revisions to the manual. The revisions would take advantage of the recent
advances in stormwater management and would be based on regionally and/or nationally
accepted standard.
The manual was reviewed and suggested revisions were based on the Section 5600 of the
APWA’s Kansas City Chapter Design Specifications Manual. Rather than a wholesale revision
of the manual in both form and function, the current form of the manual was kept in order to ease
the acceptance by the community and suggested revisions were inserted into the current manual.
The manual was then given to staff for review and further possible revisions.
The reader is directed to the latest version of the City of Jefferson’s Design Standards Manual for
more information.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 16
Erosion and Sediment Control
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 16 - Erosion and Sediment Control...............................................................................16-1
16.1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................16-1
List of Tables
No tables used in this section
List of Tables
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
16-1 September 29, 2003
Section 16 - Erosion and Sediment Control
16.1 - Introduction
As part of a comprehensive stormwater management plan, the erosion and sediment control plan
for the City of Jefferson was reviewed. The intent of the review was to offer suggested language
for enhanced sediment and erosion control policies and standards.
After review of multiple model ordinances, a proposed draft of a new sediment and erosion
control ordinance was submitted. This proposed ordinance is based on several other city
ordinances from the region. The two most significant enhancements were:
1) adoption of the most recent version of the APWA’s new Kansas City Chapter Erosion and
Sediment Control Construction Specifications and Design Standards; and
2) establishment of significant penalties for failure to comply with the adopted standards.
The final proposed ordinance was presented to staff for further revision and establishment of
ordinance language.
The reader is directed to the City of Jefferson’s most recent revision of the erosion and sediment
control ordinance for further details.
Any ordinances adopted as part of the sediment and erosion control plan within Jefferson City
will be critical in helping the City meet its NPDES Phase II compliance plan.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 17
NPDES Phase II Compliance Plan
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 17 - NPDES Phase II Compliance Plan ........................................................................17-1
17.1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................17-1
List of Tables
No tables used in this section
List of Figures
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
17-1 September 29, 2003
Section 17 - NPDES Phase II Compliance Plan
17.1 - Introduction
As a continuation of the implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Phase II of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES Phase II) was implemented. The population of
the City of Jefferson at the time of implementation the NPDES Phase II regulations made it
subject to the regulations.
As part of this project, a NPDES Phase II compliance plan was assembled and submitted to the
City for review. After final modifications by City staff, the compliance plan was submitted to
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) prior to the March 10, 2003 deadline.
The reader is directed to the final permit submitted by the City for further details.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 17
NPDES Phase II Compliance Plan
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
i September 29, 2003
Table of Contents
Section 17 - NPDES Phase II Compliance Plan ........................................................................17-1
17.1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................17-1
List of Tables
No tables used in this section
List of Figures
No figures used in this section
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
17-1 September 29, 2003
Section 17 - NPDES Phase II Compliance Plan
17.1 - Introduction
As a continuation of the implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Phase II of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES Phase II) was implemented. The population of
the City of Jefferson at the time of implementation the NPDES Phase II regulations made it
subject to the regulations.
As part of this project, a NPDES Phase II compliance plan was assembled and submitted to the
City for review. After final modifications by City staff, the compliance plan was submitted to
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) prior to the March 10, 2003 deadline.
The reader is directed to the final permit submitted by the City for further details.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Section 18
Glossary of Terms
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
18-1 September 29, 2003
Section 18 - Glossary of Terms
18.1 - Introduction
The purpose of this section is to provide a description of the terms and acronyms associated with
this project. Not all of these terms are used in this study; however, they are included here for
purposes of educating the reader on stormwater management and to offer insight into terms that
may be used when referring to this study.
18.2 - Definitions
‘
Depression Storage - The fraction of precipitation that is trapped in depressions on the
surface of the ground.
Design Criteria - Guidelines upon which planning and engineering decisions and
judgements are based.
Design Standards - Detailed engineering drawings and/or specifications promulgated by
public or private organizations that leave little choice to design engineers and technicians
(e.g., manhole, catch basin, and inlet standards).
Design Storm - A precipitation event that, statistically, has a specified probability of
occurring in any given year (expressed either in years or as a percentage).
Detention Facility - Any structure, device or combination thereof, that functions to accept
inflow from surface runoff and discharge it at a controlled rate less than the peak inflow
rate.
Developer - Any person or corporation engaged in the process of changing, modifying or
altering the use of land.
Development - Any activity that alters the surface of the land that generally creates
additional impervious surfaces including, but not limited to, pavement, buildings and
structures.
Drainage - Interception, collection and removal of excess stormwater from an area into
another area or into a receiving water body.
Enclosed Drainage System - A drainage system consisting of essentially continuous pipes
and/or box culverts below the ground surface.
Erosion - The removal of soil particles by the action of flowing water.
Excess Runoff - Direct surface runoff that cannot be accommodated satisfactorily by the
existing or planned drainage system.
Flood Control - Preventing the entry of stormwater into an area from another area, or from
a stream or other water body.
Flood Plain - The area surrounding a watercourse that is inundated with floodwater.
Flood Routing - An analytical technique used to compute the effects of system storage and
system dynamics on the shape and movement of a flood wave.
Floodway - A tool or concept used by local communities for flood plan management. The
area of the 100-year flood plain is divided into a floodway and floodway fringe. The
floodway is the channel of the stream plus any adjacent flood plain areas that must be
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
18-2 September 29, 2003
kept free of encroachment to that the 100-year flood can be carried without substantial
increases in flood height. Minimum Federal standards limit such increases to 1.0 foot,
provided hazardous velocities are not exceeded.
Freeboard - The vertical difference in elevation between the hydraulic gradient and a
referenced point. Examples are the difference between the maximum water surface level
behind a dam and the top of a dam, or the difference in elevation between the water
surface at a culvert beneath the roadway and the surface of the roadway.
Head - The difference in depth of a liquid at two given points; a depth generally expressed
in feet.
Hydraulic Gradient - The elevation of the surface of the water in the drainage system at any
point.
Hydrograph - A graph of runoff rate, inflow rate or discharge rate, versus time.
Hydrologic Soil groups - A soil characteristic classification system defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service in which a soil may be categorized into one of four soil groups (A,
B, C, or D) based upon infiltration rate and other properties.
Impervious Surface - Any surface that does not readily permit water to infiltrate. Examples
are roofs and concrete or asphalt-paved surfaces.
Improved Channel - Any channel whose characteristics are changed by either grading or
construction of lining materials.
Interception - Rainfall that is caught by foliage, branches, leaves, and other aboveground
objects.
Lag - The time interval from the center of mass of excess rainfall to the peak rate of runoff.
Level of Service - The return period for which a drainage system, or an individual element
of that system, has adequate hydraulic capacity.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
18-3 September 29, 2003
Master Planning - A “systems” approach to the planning of facilities, programs and
management organizations for comprehensive control and use of stormwater within a
defined geographical area.
Natural Channel - An existing channel that has not been appreciably altered by grading,
lining or changing its course.
Open System - A drainage system consisting of open channels, either natural or improved,
with only comparatively short lengths enclosed by pipes or culverts.
Pervious Surfaces - Surfaces that absorb water such as undeveloped areas, fields, yards and
other unpaved areas.
Reach - A specific length of the storm drainage system between two points. For example, a
reach may consist of a single culvert or may consist of several connected pipes or channel
sections. The term "line" may also be used synonymously within the report.
Receiving Waters - Streams, lakes, bays, etc., into which stormwaters are discharged.
Return Period - A statistical term for the average frequency that a given event may be
expected to occur, although it does not imply that the event will occur regularly at even
intervals. It can also be defined as the reciprocal of the probability of an event. For
example, a storm having a 10-year return period statistically can be expected to occur
once in a period of 10 years, a probability of occurrence of 0.10, or 10%. However, the
event may occur at any time, and two such events may actually occur on successive days.
Sediment - Soil particles eroded by flowing water; either in suspension in that water or as
deposited.
Storm Drainage System - Natural or constructed facilities and appurtenances, such as
ditches, natural channels, pipes, culverts, bridges, improved channels, street gutters, inlets
and detention facilities, that serve to collect and convey surface drainage.
Storm Sewers - Usually, enclosed conduits that transport excess stormwater runoff toward
points of discharge (sometimes call “storm drains”).
Stormwater Management - Encompasses both “control” and “developmental” activities in
which there is physical interaction with stormwater (a broader interpretation includes
activities of an institutional nature – financing, staffing, etc.).
Stormwater Storage - Temporary storage of excess runoff on, below, or above the surface
of the earth for the purpose of attenuating excess runoff.
Time Of Concentration - The time period necessary for surface runoff to reach the outlet of
a sub-basin from the hydraulically most remote point in the tributary drainage area.
Travel Time - The sum of the time intervals for overland flow, sewer or gutter flow, and
pipe and channel flow from the hydraulically most remote point in the tributary to the
discharge point of interest.
Watershed - All land draining to the storm drainage system at any given point. This term is
used synonymously with the terms tributary area, drainage area, drainage basin,
catchment area, subwatershed and subarea.
Water Surface Profile (Existing) - the “Existing” water surface profiles represent flooding
conditions based on current land use conditions within the study area.
Water Surface Profile (Future) - the “Future” water surface profiles represent flooding
conditions based on future land use conditions within the study area.
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
18-4 September 29, 2003
Zone A - FEMA Flood Insurance Zone - Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by the 100-
year flood, as determined by approximate methods; no base flood elevations are shown
and no flood hazard factors are determined.
Zone AH - FEMA Flood Insurance Zone - Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by types
of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are between 1.0 and 3.0 feet; no base flood
elevations are shown and no flood hazard factors are determined.
Zone A1, A3-A6, A8, A9, A14, A16 and A18 - FEMA Flood Insurance Zone – Special Flood
Hazard Areas inundated by the 100-year flood, with base flood elevations shown and
zones subdivided according to flood hazard factors.
Zone B - FEMA Flood Insurance Zone – Areas between the Special Flood Hazard Areas and
the limits of the 500-year flood; areas are protected from the 100- and 500- year floods by
dikes, levee or other water control structure; areas subject to certain types of 100-year
shallow flooding where depths are less than 1.0 foot; and areas subject to 100-year
flooding from sources with drainage areas less than one square mile.
Zone C - FEMA Flood Insurance Zone – Areas of minimal flooding.
ACRONYMS
CIP - Capital Improvements Program (or Plan)
DTM - Digital Terrain Model
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIS - Flood Insurance Study
GIS - Geographic Information System
HEC – Hydrologic Engineering Center (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
MDNR – Missouri Department of Natural Resources
NPDES –National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
SWMM – Stormwater Management Model (EPA)
TIN - Triangulated Irregular Network
USACE - Unites States Army Corps of Engineers
Stormwater Management Plan
City of Jefferson, Missouri
September 29, 2003
Report Table of Contents
Preface
Section 1 ............................................................................................................Executive Summary
Section 2 .........................................................................................................................Introduction
Section 3 ........................................................................................................Watershed Description
Section 4 .............................................................................................Public Involvement and Input
Section 5 ....................................................................................................................Data Collection
Section 6 ...............................................................................Geographic Information System (GIS)
Section 7 ..........................................................................................................Hydrologic Modeling
Section 8 .............................................................................................................Hydraulic Modeling
Section 9 ...............................................................................................Drainage System Evaluation
Section 10 ...........................................................................................Recommended Improvements
Section 11 ....................................................................................................................Cost Opinions
Section 12 .........................................................................................................Project Prioritization
Section 13 ..................................................................................Preliminary Cost and Rate Analysis
Section 14 .....................................................................................................................Legal Review
Section 15 ...................................................................................................Drainage Design Criteria
Section 16 ..........................................................................................Erosion and Sediment Control
Section 17 ............................................................................................NPDES Phase II Compliance
Section 18 .............................................................................................................Glossary of Terms
Appendix A....................................................Funding Options and Detailed Rate Analysis Report