HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016-09-22 packetN oti ce of Mee ting & T e ntativ e Ag e nd a
City of Jefferson Public Works & Planning Committee
1) Introductions
Thursday, September 22, 2016
7:30a.m .
John G. Christy Municipal Building , 320 East M c Carty Street
Boone/Bancroft Room (Upper Leve l)
TENTATIVE AGENDA
2) Approval of the July 21 , 2016 Committee meeting minutes
3) New Business
1. Parking Study (Britt Smith)
2. Application for HERO (Home Repa ir Opportunity) Funds (Jayme Abbott)
3. Bicycle Lane Project Update (David Bange)
4 . FY17 MoDOT Transit Operating Grant Agreement (Mark Mehmert)
5. Trans it All Day Bus Pass (Mark Mehmert)
0 °
6. Smart Growth America Sustainable Land Use Code Audit (Jayme Abbott)
7. Storm Water Follow Up (Matt Morasch)
4) Other Topics
1. Water Ma in Leak Report (Britt Smith)
5) Citizen opportunity to address Council/Staff on Stormwater and Other Public Works Issues
6) Adjourn
NOTES
Individuals should con ta ct t he ADA Coordinator at (573) 634 -6570 to request accommodations o r alterna tive formats as
required under the Americans with Disabilities Act Please allow th ree business days to process the request.
Please call (573) 634 -64 10 with questions regarding agenda items
MINUTES
JEFFERSON CITY
PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
Boone/Bancroft Room
John G . Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty Street
Committee Members Present:
*Larry Henry, Chairman
Ken Hussey
Rick Prather
Laura Ward
*Arrived late (7:37 a.m.)
Committee Members Absent:
Glen Costales
Staff Present:
Matt Morasch, Public Works Director
Mark Mehmert, Transit Division Director
Britt Smith, Operations Division Director
David Bange, City Engineer
July 21, 2016
Janice McMillan, Planning & Protective Services Director
Eric Barron, Senior Planner
Jayme Abbott, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
David Grellner, Environmental Health Director
Margie Mueller, Finance Director
Drew Hilpert, City Counselor
Steve Crowell , City Administrator
Brenda Wunderlich, Administrative Assistant
Attendance
4 of 4
4 of 4
4 of 4
4 of 4
Attendance
3 of 4
Vice Chairman Hussey called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. A quorum was present at this
time. The following guests were present: Madeleine Leroux (News Tribune), Gloria Vogt:(Towne Grill),
Brian Bernskoetter (JC Area Board of Realtors) and Councilman Rick Mihalevich .
1. Introductions
Introductions were made at this time.
2. Approval of the June 23, 2016 Committee meeting minutes
Councilwoman Ward moved and Councilman Prather seconded to approve the June 23, 2016
minutes, motion carried. Councilman Henry was absent from this vote.
Chairman Henry arrived at the meeting at this time (7:37a .m.) Vice Chairman Hussey turned
the meeting over to Chairman Henry.
3. Old Business
1. Amendments to Chapter 3 Advertising and Sign Code (Eric Barron/Drew Hilpert)
Mr. Barron distributed a handout of the comments received from the public meeting held on
July 14 and staff comments.
Minutes/Jefferson City Public Works and Pl anning Committe e 2
July 21,2016
There was discussion among Committee members, staff and those present regarding public
hearing, election signs , and sign content.
Councilman Hussey moved and Councilwoman Ward seconded to refer the amendments to
the City Council with recommendation to approve, motion carried.
2. Bike Lane Update (David Bange)
Mr. Bange gave an overview of how staff would implement the bike lanes .
There was discussion among Committee members and staff regarding dedicated bike lanes ,
shared bike lanes , bike signage including pavement sharrows, and "Strava" wh ich is a cyclist global
mapping app.
4. New Business
1. Vacation of Right-of-Way at 315 Jefferson Street for Building Addition (Towne
Grill-Michael & Gloria Vogt, Lisa Castillo, Requestor's) (David Bange)
Mr. Bange explained staff does not believe the request to vacate a portion of the Jefferson
Street right of way is in the best interest of the City and cannot support the request.
There was discuss ion among Committee members , staff and those present regarding the fact
that Jefferson Street is a major arterial street, the opportunity for use of existing property for
expansion, whether the plan is for a permanent or temporary structure , and the possibility of a
permissive use of right of way with a development agreement.
Committee members requested staff and Chairman Henry discuss issues with the property
.l owners and reach a mutual agreement.
2. Amending the City Code Pertaining to Sewer Bonds (Margie Mueller/Matt
Morasch)
Ms. Mueller explained the amendment would clarify the sewer bond covenant required to be
put aside in a replacement account is separate from any fiscal reserve policy.
Councilman Hussey moved and Councilwoman Ward seconded to refer the amendment to the
City Council with recommendation to approve, motion carried.
5. Other Topics
1. Water Main Leak Report (Britt Smith)
Mr. Smith referred Committee members to the report included in the packet.
2. Acceptance of Rental Facade Applications (Jayme Abbott)
Ms . Abbott explained the goal of the program is to improve the exterior appearance and
condition of residential rental properties. Applications for eligible projects will be accepted through
Friday, !\ugust 12, 2016 .
Minutes/Jefferson City Public Works and Plann ing Committee
July 2 f, 2016
3. Update on Food Code Open House (David Grellner)
Mr. Gre lln er ex plain ed staff proposes to update th e Food Code by adopting the 201 3 State of
Missouri Food Code. There were (2) two open houses and the public comment period will close on
August 19. Staff proposes introduction of the ordinance at the October 3, 2016 City Council mee ting .
6. Citizen Opportunity to address Council/Staff on Stormwater and Other Public Works
Issues
There was no one present to address the Committee .
7 . Adjourn
Councilman Prather moved and Councilman Hussey seconded to adjourn the meeting at this
time (8 :30a.m.), motion carried .
3
Department of Public Works Memorandum
320 E. McC arty Stre et • Jeffe rson City, Missouri 65 101 • P 573 -634-6410 • F 573-634-6562 • www.jeffcitymo .org
Date :
To:
From:
Subject:
September 19, 2016
Public Work and Planning Committee
Britt E. Smith, P .E ~
Parking Planning Study Update
Staff requests the committee's concordance to contract with Rich and Associates, Inc.
to update the Parking Planning Study previously completed in August of 1999.
In 1999 a comprehensive parking planning study was undertaken by the City . The
consultant hired to do the work was Rich and Associates , Inc. As the committee is
aware there have been numerous changes within the downtown area since the study
w~s completed and it is staff's opinion that. an update would be beneficial.
As a preliminary step in this process, staff contacted the consultant to exp lore their
availability and what the potential cosUscope might be . The consultant has t ime
available to complete the update in a timely manner and expects the cost to be under
$25,000. Contracts, in this range, can be approved by the C ity Administrato r and would
be paid though funds in the existing budget for the Parking Division.
cc: Writers File
Public Works CORE -improve the Qommunily -take Qwnership -d elive r ,B e sults -,5mpathi ze with the c usto me r
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Public Works & Planning Committee \, t \ J
Janice McMillan, Director of Planning and Protective Services ~\!'-"
I
Jayme Abbott, Neighborhood Services Coordinator of(
September 15, 2016
HOME Repair Opportunity (HeRO) Grant Opportunity
The HOME Repair Opportunity (HeRO) Progran\ provides funding to meet the need for
home 'repair, modification and maintenance for low-and moderate-income homeowners.
Missouri Housing Development Commission (MHDC) provides the funds to selected
eligible Sub-Grantees from its annual HOME allocation using a competitive application
process. Eligible homeowners may receive grant assistance up to $22,500 for necessary
repairs, modifications, and maintenance on eligible properties.
No other organization in the jefferson City area has indicated they will apply for these
ftmds for our area. If funded, this program complement the City's Community
Development Block Grant program.
Staff is seeking authorization to submit a grant application to the Missouri Housing
Development Commission for a HeRO grant. Grant application is due by October 7,
2016 with an anticipated decision date of December 2, 2016. In 2016, the City was
awarded $49,500 for the HeRO program; which is assisting two owner occupied
homeowners.
S 'l •• #h ·, t( , .. ._ .. ·:•(1 '
1-11~!0\JAJ HO\JW-1<\
MTSSOTJRJ HOUSING DEVELOl>l\ffiNT COMMISSION
NO'J'J CE O F FUNDJN G A VAILADILITY
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSJilPS }JROGRAl\ti
HOME REPAIR PROGRAM
HOME INVESTrviENT PARTNERSIIIPS PROGRAM FUNDS UP TO $2.200.000
The Missouri Hou sing Developm ent Commission (MI·IDC) hereby notifies Interested applicants of th e
availability of fund s for repair and rehabilitation of owner-oc cupied homes In an amo un t up t o $2,200,000 in
funding from th e HOME Inves tm ent Partnerships Pro gram . The availability an d use of these fund s Is subj ect
to Federal HOM E regulations (24 em Parts 91 and 92) and nny amendments t here t o Including the Fin al Rule
published by th e Department of Housing and Urban Developm ent in th e Federal Reg i ster on or auout
July 24. 201 3, and Is furth er subj ec t to MHD C's po lici es and program requirements.
MHDC reserves th e right to fund, in whol e or In part, any, all, or non e of th e applications submitted in
respo nse to this NOFA and reserves th e right to rea llocate fund s from th e amount avail able und er thi s NOFA
to other MHD C programs as It dee ms appropriate.
ELIGIBLE APPLI CANTS AND A RE AS
Eligible appli ca nt s include any co mmunity action agen cy, non -profit organi za ti on, hous i ng authority,
municipality or regional planning orgat )lzatlon that will und ertake the eligible act ivitie s on behalf of low-and
mod erate-in co me familie s within any non -metropolitan area in the state of Missouri or any fed era lly o r State
of Missouri decla red disa ster area. For purposes of thi s NOFA and the HOME Hepalr Program, a
non-metropolitan area is defined as any area or community in Missouri lo ca ted outside the city limits or
boundaries of Columbia, Joplin, Kansas City, Springfield, St. Jo se ph, St. Loui s City and St. Louis Count~.
ADMINISTRATIV E COSTS ALLOWED .,
Documented administrative costs of up to 10% of each projec t will be reimburse d to each agency upon the
completion of each project.
IMPORTANT DATES
Application Period Oegins: July 1, 2016
Application Period Ends and Applications are Due: October 7, 2016
Anticipated Decisi on Date: Dece mber 2, 2016
All materials including forms and guidelines will be availuble on MHD C's w ebsi te at www.mhdc.com on or
before July 1, 2016, at which time MHDC will begin accepting applications.
Applications for funding will be accepted by and must be received by MHDC at 920 Main, Suite 1400, Kansas
City, Missouri, until the deadline of 4:00p.m. CDT on Friday. October 7, 2016. Any application receiv ed after
the deadline will be deemed Ineligible and will not be considered for funding.
It Is anticipated that decisions regarding funding of proposals will be mad e by a vote of the Ooard of
Commissioners at Its regularly scheduled meeting on December 2, 2016, or as soon th ereafter as pos sible.
10 1l ~l61l'>
Memorandum
3 20 Eas t McCa rty Street • Jefferson City, Miss ouri 6 5101 • P: 5 7 3 .6 34.6 41 0 • F: 5 7 3.6 34 .65 6 2 • www.jeffcitymo.org
Date : September 16, 2016
To: Public Works and Planning Committee
From : David Bange P.E., City Engineer
Subject: Bicycle Accommodations on Bolivar Street
City staff is pleased to report that the installation of bike lanes on Bolivar Street and portions of Dunklin
and West Main Street has been completed .
This project included the installation of ded icated bike lanes in the 500 block of Dunklin Street and the
400-600 block of Bolivar Street. In addition "Shared Bike Lanes" were striped in the 200-300 block of
Bolivar and the 300-700 blocks of West Main Street.
To our knowledge the Shared Bike Lane is a new concept which draws heavily from the ideas and
striping patterns that already exist on the approach to intersections with right hand turn pockets as well
and the ideas contained within an advisory bike lane concept. As the name suggests the lane is shared
by both motorists and cyclists, however, cyclists have the right of way when they are present in the
lane. When a motorist encounters a cyclist in the shared lane they are to yield to and remain behind the
cyclist until it is safe to pass . When passing a cyclist the motorist should move completely out of the
shared lane and pass at a safe speed .
A presentation including pictures of the striping and associated signage will be presented at the
meeting . Include with this memo is a trifold brochure which has been developed to help educate
motorists and cyclist on the use of both types of bike lanes .
It is our intention to monitor citizens reaction and response to these shared lanes with the thought that
they could be a means of introducing additional bike facilities in the City where street widths or the
desire for parking do not allow space for traditional bike lanes .
I would be happy to address any of your questions or provide additional information.
DB:db
U:\Public Works \Enginee ring\dbange\PUBLIC WORKS & PLANNING\2016\S eptem ber 22 , 2016\Bol ivar Stre et Update Memo.docx
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I ride where there are no signs or symbols?
Yes! Cyclists are encouraged to u se the roadway
and ride with the flow of traffic. You should follow
the same rules as motorists including yielding
right-of-way and signaling. Always ride in or near
a travel lane; stay visible by riding where drivers are
looking.
It is legal to ride your bike on the sidewalk?
It depends on where you're doing your sidewalk
biking. City code prohibits bicycling only on
sidewalks in business districts such as the down-
town area. Although not encouraged, bicycling
on the sidewalk is legal in all other parts of the city.
Cyclists should always yield to pedestrians and stop
at crosswalks. Cyclists should use caution at
crosswalks and merging back into traffic.
What about riding at night7
When riding after dark, city code requires bicycles
to have a front facing white light and a rear-facing
red reflector.
Cyclists are also required to use reflective materia l
andjor lights on any part of the bicyclist's pedals,
crank arms, shoes or lower leg, visible from the
front, rear, and both sides .
~~~
More information and helpful tips can be found
through these organizations:
,,.\~tuur11-~. ~\ The League of American Bicyclists ...
~
/ http:j ;www.bikeleague.orgj
·""'
~ Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation
~ http:jjm obikefed.orgj
Know the rules of the road
Cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities
as drivers and are required to obey all traffic laws.
Make your intentions clear
Ride in a straight line, stay to the right, and don't
swerve between parked cars . Use signals when
turning and be aware of traffic behind you.
Stay visible
Wear bright or reflective clothing no matter when
you are riding. Ride where people can see you
and use the required lights and reflectors.
Be aware of your environment
Be aware the drivers and pedestrians around you.
Watch for turning vehicles and ride outside the
door zone of parked cars. Look out for hazards in
the roadway, such as trash, potholes, railroad
tracks, and stor m grates.
Prepare
Wear a helmet and make sure it fits properly.
Check the air in your tires, check your brakes,
lights, and chain. Carry tools and supplies that
are appropriate for your ride.
Havefunl
The Jefferson City area offers several greenway
trails, bikable streets, and parks. Get out there
and enjoy yourse lf!
'\efJ.ers0.f)
.-:::,C' \1. L_ ... Q.
~ ~~(!) ~
For more information please ca ll the Jefferson City
Engin eering Division, 573-634-6410 or visit
www.jefferso nqtymo.goy
Updated 09/02/20 16
Septl:rnber 20 16
Jefferson City
Bike Lanes
An informational guide
for motorists and bicyclists.
.-:~::::::-:=-====-=~
Dedicated Bike Lanes provide res erved
space on the roadway for bicycles to use and are
designated by a solid white fine with a white
WHETH ER BICYCLING OR DRIVING,
ALWAYS FO LLO W TRA FFIC LAWS.
Shared Bike Lanes are u sed by both
motorists and cyclists and are designated by a
dashed white stripe w ith a white b icy cle symbol
bic~.::: symbol and arrow on the pavement. :~Prr,,,;;.
'v "";.j .~-,.~ ;SZr'k .. ~~-~!/ ~-~:-.~ ~~~~ __ ..,. ... , ~ ... 77'~!'"-'--""""""" . ...,.,........,.....,.,.,~== '·~ "' _._l llill.l Park1ng L:mc
.• r"'r·,. and chevrons. Motorists are required to yield to
:---...,.~~"'(R~~' cyclists when they are present in::~ ~~ared fane.
· ( tJ!D j _ ~~<~~~Lam: _( (Jill]
-C>
(""[]]
®-C>-v ~ ===
00
@
~ ... @ .
""'-,
...
~7 ;;;
When you drive:
fii\ Always look for approaching bicyclists before ~ opening your door when you park next to a
bike fane.
Q Bicyclists are not required to ride in a bike
fane, expect to see bicyclists in other fanes
particularly at intersections.
When you bike:
® As you approach an intersection, use caution
-and assume turning or merging motorists do
not see you.
G) Wait behind motorists who are in the shared
spaced preparing to turn.
0 Always travel in the same direction as traffic.
0 You may use adjacent fanes to pass other
cyclist. to avoid being too close to parked
cars. to avoid obstructions or unsafe
conditions, or to prepare for a turn.
0 When you enter or exit a bike fane, make sure
to look behind you, signal. and yield to
vehicle s already in adjacent travel fanes
1/ .. f#l·~-,/'
Bicycle Symb ols and Sig ns
A
~
t
Sharrow
Designates a shared bike lane.
May or may not be used in
conjunction with a dashed line.
Bike Lane Symbol
Designates a dedicated bike lane.
~ l!sed in conjunction with a solid
--·fine.
Common Bike Signs-provide useful
information to all road users about how to
share the road and where to expect
bicyclists to be safely riding.
~
MAY USE
F'UI.L LANe
~
~ID
~
When you drive:
@ You must yield to cycl ist w h e n t hey are ~ presen t in the sha r ed fa n e but you may drive
in the shared fane when b icyclists are not
present.
@ If a bicycle is in the shared bike lan e remain
behind the cyclist until it is safe to pass.
When passing move completely out of the
shared lane and pass at a safe speed and
distance from the cycl ist .
When you bike:
0 Watch for motorists driving in o r merging
into the shared lane.
0 Always use caution and assume that turning
or merging motor v ehicles may not see you.
@ Always travel in the same direction as traffic.
fn\ When leaving the shared bike fane look
W behind you. yield to veh icles in adjacent
travel lanes. and use hand signals . :v
• • u
~~ = ~
o r
Left Turn Right Turn Stop
Department of Public Works Memorandum
320 E. M cCarty Street • Jefferson City, Mi ssouri 65101 • P 573-6 34 -6410 • F 573-6 34 -6562 • www.ieffcitvmo .org
Date: September 19, 2016
To: Public Works Committee
From: Mark Mehmert, Transit Director
Subject: FY 2017 MoDOT State Operating Grant for Transit
Rural and urban public transit agencies benefit from state funded operating assistance . This
general revenue fund and/or state transportation fund program helps to defray a portion of the
costs those agencies incur in providing mobility services in their communities .
JEFFTRAN's FY 2017 allocation for this funding is for $16 ,537 . The FY 2016 amount was for
$11,100.
Each year, this funding requires executing an agreement with MoDOT. A copy of the draft
agreement is attached .
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
MLM:mlm
cc : Matt Morasch, Public Works Director
ceo Form:
Approved:
Revised:
Modified:
TC09
06/96 (RMH)
08/16 (MWH)
MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERATING
ASSISTANCE GRANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the Missouri Highways and
Transportation Commission (hereinafter, "Commission") and City of Jefferson
(hereinafter, "Grantee").
WITNESSETH :
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to provide financial assistance
to the Grantee as appropriated from the State Fund and to set forth the conditions
upon which the assistance will be provided;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and
representations in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
(1) SCOPE OF WORK : The Grantee shall provide general public
transportation in accordance with the "Missouri State Transit Assistance Application "
which is attached and made a part of this Agreement as Attachment A.
(2) AMOUNT OF GRANT: The Commission awards the Grantee th~ sum
of sixteen thousand five hundred thirty seven dollars ($16 ,537) during the period
from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017 .
(3) PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT: The Grantee shall immediately
notify the Commission in writing of any condition or event which may significantly
affect its ability to perform the required activities in accordance with the provisions of
this Agreement.
(4) RETENTION AND AUDIT OF RECORDS :
(A) The Grantee shall maintain all records relating to this Agreement,
including but not limited to invoices, payrolls, etc. These records must be available
at all reasonable times at no charge to the Commission and/or its representatives
during the period of this Agreement and any extension thereof, and for three (3)
years after the date of final payment made under this Agreement.
(B) The Grantee shall submit to the Commission such data, reports,
documents, and other information relating to the Grantee's activities as the
Commission may require at any time .
(C) At any tim e during or after the grant period provided in this
Agre ement, the Commission may i.nsp ect, copy and audit all re cords posses se d by
or availabl e to th e Grantee, which may be pertin ent to thi s Agreement. If the
Commi ssion notifies th e Grantee of its sp ec ifi c intention to insp ect , copy or audit any
of these records, then the Grantee shall retain all of the records pertinent to this
Agreement until the Commission notifies the Grantee that it has completed its
inspection, copying or audit.
(5) THIRD PARTY CONTRACTS :
(A) Prior to execution by either party, the Grantee shall submit to
the Commission for review, comment and approval all contracts for services
included in the Public Transportation Budget and Service Statement to be provided
to the Grantee by a third party .
(B) The Commission shall not be liable to contractors or
subcontractors of the Grantee or any other person not a party to th is Agreement in
connection with the performance of the project.
(6) PAYMENTS:
(A) Limitations on Commiss ion Contribution: Funds made available
to the Comm ission and the Grantee are subject to appropriations made by the
General Assembly . In the event state funds available to the Commission are
reduced so that the Commission is incapable of completely satisfying its obligations
to all the Grantees for the current state fiscal year, the Commission may recompute
and reduce this grant. When added to federal operating assistance funds available
and applied to the same operating period, the maximum Commission payment on
any monthly or quarterly request shall not cause the total of state and federal
operating assistance to exceed the amount of operating assistance for which the
Grantee would have qualified in federal funds had additional federal funds been
available .
(B) Progress Payments: Progress payments, based upon actual
allowable costs , for not less than one (1) month and for no more than three (3)
months may be made upon receipt of an itemized invoice from the Grantee in an
appropriate format approved by the Commission. The itemized invoice shall be
reviewed by the Commission prior to payment and must include a certification that
costs have been incurred in the performance of the Agreement and a record of the
actual costs. Any costs deemed ineligible for reimbursement by the Commission in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement shall be deducted from the itemized
invoice before payment is made . Any rejected or unaccepted costs shall be borne
by the Grantee .
2
(C) Availability of Funds : The Commission 's duty to pay the Grantee
a s provid ed in this Agreem e nt is subj e ct to th e ava ilability of funds appropriated by
th e Missouri General Ass embly to and from th e State Fund and any subs equ e nt
dire ctives mand ated by the Gove rnor regarding the withh olding of appropriations .
(7) ASSIGNM ENT : The Grantee shall not assign , transfer or delegate any
interest in this Agreement , or its performance of any work required by this
Agreement , without the prior written consent of the Commission .
(8) INDEMNIFICATION :
(A) To the extent allowed or imposed by law, the Grantee shall
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, including its members and
department employees , from any claim or liability whether based on a claim for
damages to real or personal property or to a person for any matter relating to or
arising out of the Grantee's wrongful or negligent performance of its obligations
under this Agreement.
(B) The Grantee will require any contractor procured by the Grantee
to work under this Agreement:
(1) To obtain a no cost permit from the Commission 's district
engineer prior to working on the Commission's right-of-way, which shall be signed by
an authorized contractor representative (a permit from the Commission 's district
engineer will not be required for work outside of the Commission 's right-of-way); and ·
(2) To carry commercial general liability insurance and
commercial automobile liability insurance from a company authorized to issue
insurance in Missouri, and to name the Commission , and the Missouri Department of
Transportation and its employees, as additional named insureds in amounts
sufficient to cover the sovereign immunity limits for Missouri public entities ($500,000
per claimant and $3,000,000 per occurrence) as calculated by the Missouri
Department of Insurance , Financial Institutions and Professional Registration, and
published annually in the Missouri Register pursuant to Section 537 .610 , RSMo .
(C) In no event shall the language of this Agreement constitute or
be construed as a waiver or limitation for either party's rights or defenses with regard
to each party's applicable sovereign, governmental , or official immunities and
protections as provided by federal and state constitution or law.
(9) RIGHT OF COMMISSION TO TERMINATE AGREEMENT : Upon
written notice to the Grantee, the Commission may suspend or terminate all or part
of the financ ial assistance provided for in this Agreement when the Grantee is , or
has been, in violation of any of the terms of this Agreement.
3
(10) COMMISSION'S REPRESENTATIVE : The Commission's chief
engineer is designated as the Commission's representative for the purpose of
administe ring the provisions of this Agreement. The Comm ission's representative
may design ate by writt en notice other persons having th e authority to act on be half
of the Commission in furtherance of th e performance of this Agreem e nt.
(11) NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUS E: The Grantee shall comply with all
state and federal statutes applicable to the Grantee relating to nondiscrimination,
including, but not limited to, Chapte r 213 , RSMo; Title VI and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S .C. §2000d and §2000e, et seq.); and with
every applicable provision of the "Americans with Disabilities Act" (42 U.S .C .
§121 01 , et seq.).
(12) LAW OF MISSOURI TO GOVERN: This Agreement shall be
construed according to the laws of the State of Missouri. The Grantee shall comply
with all local, state and federal laws and regula tions relating to the performance of
this Agreement.
(13) VENUE: It is agreed by the parties that any action at law, suit in
equity , or other judicial proceeding to enforce or construe this Agreement, or
respecting its alleged breach, shall be instituted only in the Circuit Court of Cole
County, Missouri.
(14) NONSOLICITATION : The Grantee warrants that it has not employed
or retained any company or person, othe r than a bona fide employee working for the
Grantee, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay
any company or person, ot ~er than a bona fide employee, any fee , commission ,
percentage , brokerage fee, gifts , or any other consideration , contingent upon or
result ing from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of th is
warranty, the Commission shall have the right to annul this Agreement without
liability, or in its discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration , or
otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee , commission, percentage , brokerage
fee, gifts , or contingent fee.
(15) AM E NDMENTS: Any change in this Agreement, whether by
modification or supplementation, must be accomplished by a formal contract
amendment or supplemental agreement signed and approved by the duly authorized
representatives of the Grantee and the Commission.
(16) DISPUTES: Any disputes that arise under this Agreement shall be
decided by the Commission or its representative .
(17) LACK OF WAIVER : In no event shall payment of grant funds to the
Grantee by the Commission constitute or be construed as a waiver by the
Commission of any breach of covenants , or any default which may exist on the part
of the Grantee, and the making of any such payment by the Commission while any
4
such breach or default shall exist shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or
remedy available to the Commission with respect to such breach or default.
(18) NOTICES: Any notice or other communication required or permitted to
be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given three (3) days
after delivery by United States mail, regular mail postage prepaid, or upon receipt by
personal or facsimile delivery, addressed as follows :
(A) To the Grantee :
City of Jefferson
320 E. High St.
Jefferson City , MO 65101
Facsimile No .: 573-636-3632
(B) To the Commission:
Missouri Department of Transportation
105 W. Capitol Ave.
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Facsimile No.: 573-751-6555
or to such other place as the parties may designate in accordance with this
Agreement. To be valid , facsimile delivery shalr be followed by delivery of the
original document, or a clear and legible copy thereof, within three (3) business days
of the date of facsimile transmission of that document.
{Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]
5
IN WITN ESS WH ERE OF, the pa rties have ente red into this Agre em ent on
th e last date written below.
Exe cute d by th e G rantee this __ day of _______ , 20 __ .
Exe cuted by th e Commiss ion thi s __ day of ______ , 20 __ .
MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTAT ION COMMISSION
Director, Multimodal Op erations
Attest:
Secretary to the Commiss ion
Approved as to Form :
Counsel for the Commission
6
GRANTEE
City of Jefferson
By ___________________ _
Title __________ _
Attest:
By __________ ___
Title __________ _
Approved as to Form:
Counsel
.,
i
Ordinance Number
Department of Public Works Memorandum
320 E . McCarty Street • Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 • P 573-634-6410 • F 573-634-6562 • www.jeffcitymo .org
Date: September 19, 2016
To: Public Works Committee
From: Mark Mehmert, Transit Director
Subject: AII -Day bus pass
JEFFTRAN staff requests the Public Works Committee concur with the Public Transit Advisory
Committee's recommendation to enact an all-day bus pass on a trial basis (up to a year).
For some time, JEFFTRAN riders have requested to have an option to buy bus passes which
would provide for unlimited rides for various periods of time . Requests have included a daily,
weekly , monthly, quarterly and (for students) a semester-long pass.
JEFFTRAN staff discussed this topic with the Public Transit Advisory Committee, and the
Committee voted to advance a pilot all-day pa~s for consideration by the Public Works
Committee . ·
Potential benefits of the all-day pass include increased exposure for JEFFTRAN, a potential
increase in ridership and increased value as well as convenience for JEFFTRAN riders .
Potential revenue impact is estimated in the range of plus or minus $5,000 if approved .
If approved, all-day passes would be available from drivers and at JEFFTRAN's office at 820 E.
Miller St., as well as at City Hall.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me .
MLM :mlm
cc : Matt Morasch, Public Works Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PUOTECTlVE SERVICES
TO:
TJ-JROUGH:
FROM:
DATE.
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Public Works & Planning Committee
Janice McMillan, Director of Planning and Protective Services
Jaymc Abbott, Neighborhood Services Coordinator ()A-
Se ptember 15, 2016
Smart Growth America Sustainable Land Use Code Audit Grant
Smart Growth America is now accepting applications for its 20lfi'-2017 free technical
assistance workshops. There are nine different workshops offered as part of the program
in which sustainable land use code audit is one of them. The workshops are funded
under a grant from US EPA's Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities ProgTam.
The sustainable land use code audit workshop focuses on several areas such as storm
water, water conservation, natural resource protection, etc. This workshop includes a
one-day question and answer session with consultants, presentations, examples of best
practices, hands-on working session to conduct an initial sustainable code assessment
and tips & advice on implementation. The recipients of the technical assistance will
report regularly (30 days, six months and year after assistance) on the progress
implementing· any local solutions from the workshop.
Staff is seeking authorization to submit a grant application to the Smart Growth
America Technical Assistance Grant. The deadline for applications is October 6, 2016.
Department of Public Works Memorandum
320 E. McCarty Street ·Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 • P 573-634-6410 • F 573 -634-6562 • www.jeffcitymo .org
Date : September 20, 2016
To: Public Works and Planning Committee
From : Matt Morasch, P .E., Director of Public Works
Subject: Flash Flood Update and Storm Water Infrastructure and Funding
The purpose of this memo is to:
• update the Committee on the recent flash flood(s) that occurred in the City on August 151
and 1 th (and again on September 9th);
• review the City's technical assistance efforts related to flooding;
• quantify the funding needs of the storm water system; and
• briefly review costs implications of a storm water utility.
The August flash flood events flooded over 30 structures. The September event has yet to be
qu~ntified. City staff's research indicates the r~infall likely ranged around 100 year quantiti~s
(1d0 year storm= 1% chance of happening in any given year). The storms revealed many ;
inadequately built structures (homes and businesses) as well as many condition deficiencies in
the City's storm water system . Diagram No 1 highlights all structures and streets that were
known to have flooded during the August events. It also demonstrates that the heavy rainfall
was localized in the central/east portion of the City (September event was central/west). The
structure flooding incidents are typically private property matters and are often a result of
structures that did not properly account for storm water flow when constructed or remodeled.
The City code (section31-230) indicates that all structure "openings" should be a minimum of 4
ft. above the adjacent highest bank of the water course or the top of the adjacent drainage
facilities. In almost every instance, if the code were followed, the structure would have been
protected against flooding. City staff routinely fields calls concerning structure flooding and
often suggests to property owners that they modify their structures to comply with this code so
as to protect themselves from future flooding. Diagram No 2 simplistically demonstrates the
concept of modifying a structure's openings as a means of flood proofing .
When flooding occurs, City staff investigates each incident. A part of the investigation is
reviewing the infrastructure capacity and condition . We typically identify older grated inlets that
are susceptible to clogging as well as failed or rusted storm water pipes. A flooding incident
often hastens the failure of a deteriorated pipe. The pipes may collapse or create sink holes as
soils surrounding the pipes are carried away with the storm water. Diagram No 3 contains
Public Works' CORE Mission and Values
improve the ~ommunity-take Q wnership-deliver Results-~mpathize with the customer
before and after pictures of a failing pipe along Jason Drive in a subdivision near JCMG. The
pictures also demonstrate what is also occurring beneath streets that cannot be seen. The
street will often bridge these voids for a period of time until a small hole develops or a collapse
occurs.
Much of the community's storm water infrastructure was installed at least 1 or 2+ generations
ago (25 to 50 years ago) and is well past its useful service life . At this time the City has no
proactive plan in place to address the problem and our level of service in regard to storm water
is minimal. The City has developed many lists over the years in an attempt to quantify funding
needs. They include:
• $15+ million, complaint related staff tracking tool;
• $30+ million, 2006 Storm Water Master Plan derived from flood modeling and
complaints;
• $2+ million per year, 2007 Storm Water Utility Study derived from asset based
replacement.
No matter how one evaluates the need, the numbers are quite large and not getting better as
the system's deterioration is far outpacing available funding. The City currently utilizes sales tax
to fund storm water capital needs. In the next five year sales tax we are slated to spend about
$1 .8 million or about $360,000 per year on storm water.
The industry benchmark for funding sustainable storm water systems over multiple generations
is a storm water utility. The fact is that the City has no resiliency to quickly rebound from the
strains of flood events or major storm water failures. Allowing conditions like these to exist can
push fragile neighborhoods into decline. There can be other options to utility fees such as
reprioritize funds or pass additional sales taxes (not available in Jefferson City as the State
authorizes a Parks and Storm Water tax that currently goes all to Parks). However,
communities that prioritize storm water as a need typically have some type of utility fee system.
Attachment No 4 is an exceq;>t from a 2014 Black and Veatch Storm Wat~r Survey document
ind icating communities and their typically residential fees (the entire 20 page document is
available for viewing at the end of the agenda under reports).
The City's 2007 storm water utility study did much research into the subject and found that a
$3.50-$4 .50 residential storm water fee would generate the $2 million needed to modernize
and maintain the storm water system. Attachments No 5/6 summarize the "math" for those
fees. Since the 2007 study, the courts have determined that a community must have a vote of
the electorate to begin a storm water utility in Missouri.
If the Committee believes the City should investigate pursuit of a storm water utility, we suggest
a review of the 2007 study findings at a future meeting of the Committee or perhaps at a future
Council work session.
The above information will be presented at the September Committee meeting. If you have any
questions prior to the meeting please feel free to contact me. Thanks .
Pub li c W orks' CORE Miss i on and Values
improve the ~ommunity-take Q wnership-deliver Besults-~mpathize with the customer
BEFORE-WINDOWS AND DOORS ALLOW FLOOD WATER ENTRY FLOOD WATER LEVEL
D
LOWEST INTERIOR FLOOR ELEV-ATION
AFTER -ALTERATIONS PREVENT FLOOD WATER ENTRY
EB tE tE EB
FIGURE26
AVERAGE MONTHLY SINGLE -FAMI LY RATE
City/County
Seatt l e
Fo rt Collins
Philadelphia
Eve rett
Longmont
Appleton
Naples
Lubbock
Palo Alto
Orlando
Gresham
Bremerton
Austin
Loveland
Hamilton Cou nty
Pierce County
Gainesvi lle
Aurora
Edgewater
Charlotte
Cottage Grove
Denver
Hampton
St. Paul
T itusvi lle
Duluth
Charlest o n
Lake l and
Coc oa Beach
Oakland Park
Cocoa
Wooster
Bloomington
Dubuque
Ol athe
Tulsa
Dayt on
Fort Wort h
Sa telite Beac h
I
WA
co
PA
WA
co
WI
FL
TX
CA
FL
OR
WA
TX
co
TN
WA
FL
co
FL
NC
OR
co
VA
MN
FL
MN
sc
FL
FL
FL
FL
OH
MN
lA
KS
OK
OH
TX
FL
1 1 I 7011 STO Rf.I I'/ATER U TILI T Y SURVEY
2014 Average
Monthly Residential
Charge
26.58
14.26
13 .45
13.19
13.05
12 .92
12 .80
12.00
11.99
11 .00
9.84
9.83
9.20
9.10
9.00
8.83
8.56
8.16
8.00
7.89
7.47
7.38
6.99
6.83
6.62
6.08
6 .00
6 .00
6.00
6.00
5.75
5.75
5.72
5.60
5.55
5.43
5.42
5.40
5 .33
City/County
Roseburg
San Clemente
Cedar Rapids
Northen Kentucky
Sa nitation District No. 1
Gri ffin
Niceville
Haines Ci ty
Topeka
Summerville
Lawrence
Raleigh
Richmond
Ellicott Ci t y
Wichita Falls
Cincinnati
Mesquite
Billings
Arnold
Forest Park
Fayetteville
McKinny .
Clark County
Modesto
Littleton
Cont ra Cost a Co unty
Ashville
Overland Park
Frisco
Lakewood
Moline
Santa Clarita
Sa nta Cruz
Shel by County
Springfield
Elkhart
Columbia
Hillsborough County
Omaha
St. Louis
I
OR
CA
lA
KY
GA
FL
FL
KS
sc
KS
N C
VA
MD
TX
OH
TX
MT
MO
OH
NC
TX
WA
CA
co
CA
NC
KS
TX
co
IL
CA
CA
TN
OH
IN
MO
FL
NE
MO
2014 Average
Monthly Residential
Charge
5 .00
5 .00
4.90
4 .80
4.79
4.51
4.50
4 .25
4.00
4 .00
4.00
3.75
3.75
3.55
3.54
3.50
3.01
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.75
2.75
2.73
2.50
2.50
2 .34
2 .00
2.00
1.98
1.94
1.87
1.75
1.50
1.30
1.25
1.15
1.00
0 .64
0.24
REU: Math
~ 47,497 RElJ Customer Base Available
e $1/month/REU X 12months/year X 47,497RE.U's availab le= $569,964/yea r
.,
e REU Monthly Charge Funds Generated Yearly
~ $1 - . --$569,964
);> $2 ·-$1 '139,928
~ $3 - . $1 '709,892
~ $4 $2,279,856
~ $5 -.. -.. ------$2,849,820
~ $6 . - ' --$3,419,784
)> $7 I $3,989,748
);;> $8 -··--$4,559,112
)> $9 - - -·-. -~---. -··-$5,129,676 ----
);;> $10 $5,699,640
MOJltth ly Fee· E_xamp le
Facility Lot Size SF (ac) lmp~rvious SF % REU's@ Fee@ $3.50 Fee@ $4.50
(a c) -·-· Impervious 2500 SF REU per REU per
mont h month -......:.-.
Apartment 222,429 (5.1) 89,672 (2.1) 40.3 35.9 $125.50 $16 1.40
Complex 60+
I
units --. -"
Fast Food 40,962 (.9) 29,107 (.7) 71.1 11.6 $40.70 $52 .40
School 749,399 (17.2) 292,037 (6.7) 39.0 116.8 $408.90 $525.70
Complex
Convenience 35,370 (.8) 24,967 (.6) 70.6 10.0 $35 .00 $44.90
Store
Retail Center 477,334 (11.0) 412,959 (9.5) 86.5 165.2 $578.10 $743 .30
-"'
State Agency 205,068 (4.7) 121 ,063 (2 .8) 59.0 48.4 $169.50 $217.90
---.
Big Box 495,186 (11.4) 333,952 (7 . 7) 67.4 133.6 $467.50 $60 1.10
Grocery
Medical 147,409 (3.4) 68,760 (1.6) 46 .6 27.5 $96 .30 $123.80
Office
Suburban 278,865 (6.4) 72,845 (1 .7) 26.1 29 .1 $120.00 $131 .1 0
Church -·-" -
Hotel 128,803 (3 .0) 95,970 (2 .2) 74.5 38.4 $134.40 $172 .70
. I "' ---~ ---
Flooded Structures & Streets Resulting from 8/1 and 8/12/2016 Rain Events
I
A BLACK & VEATCH REPORT
N`
Z�
LIN
BLACK & VEATCH
Building a world of difference!
BLACK &dVEATCH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODU CTION 3
S URV EY HIGHLIGHTS 4
S URVE Y OVERVIEW 5
ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION 6
PLANNING 8
FINANCING AND A CCO UNTING 10
STO~MWATER U SE R FEES
AND BILLING 12
STORMWATER CREDITS
AND INCENTIVES 17
PUBLIC INFORMATION/
EDUCATION 20
Coler pl10to cot II tesy \1\'es Pec k
2014 '>1 0IH II'/~TER 1Jll l11Y SUHVH
INTRODUCTION
We lcom e to lll e 20 14 Rla c l· ~, Vt'~t lc ll
Ston mun ter Ut ili ty S w uey . WP in it ia te cl
th e bi -a n n u a l s u rv ey in 1991 t o assess
and s h a re in s ights on s t ormwa t er
m a n agem e n t , fin a n cin g, gov e rn a n ce
a nd oth e r e vol vin g t re n ds . We h a ve
con t in ued tha t tra d it io n , and th is
yea1 we are p rou d to sh a r e ou r ten t h
s t o rm water u ti li t y s u rvey.
This survey reports on the continuing trends in stormwater
utility organization, planning, and f inancing; the persistent
funding challenges; the iss ues that utility m anagers perceive
to be the most Important; and the priorities that drive capital
investment decisions.
In stormwater industry parlance. the phrase "Stormwater
Utility" refers to three primary elements. namely, a Program
that defines stormwater operations and management,
an Organization that is responsible for governance, and a
Funding approach that provides dedicated financing.
Stormwater is increasi ngly beginning to be perceived as a
resource to be protected and managed.similar to drinking
water resources. To do so effectively, th~ Program,
Organization, and Funding aspe cts have to be aligned
and holistically addressed, as it is done in the water and
wastewater sectors of the utility industry.
To assess the current trends i n all these three elements,
and especially the funding aspect, this survey was only
administered to those municipalities and/or entitles that
already have established stormwater user charge programs.
A "stormwater user charge" is similar to a water or sewer
user charge in that the user fee or charges have some key
characteristics including the following:
• The charges are assessed f o r stormwater service that is
provided, and hence has a reasonable nexus to the costs
incurred in providi ng that service;
• The revenues from stormwater charges are dedicated to
stormwater management, in other words to the purpose
for which It is assessed;
• The charges assessed are proportional to the property's
contribution and impact of stormwater runoff;
• The charges assessed are "voluntary" in that the u ser
has the opportunity to limit the u se of the service; and
• The fee or charge is non-discriminatory.
!HAn t vrAttH 1 3
SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS
The s mvt>y res ult s again affirm the followin g key fa cts about Lh e state of the
stm mwate r utility inclust 1 y :
Prevalence of Stormwater Utilities:
There co ntinues to be a prevale nce of Individual
mun icipally governed st ormwater utiliti es ra the r
than regional stormwater authorities. Co nseque ntly,
even t h ough st ormwater i ss ues such as surface water
quality and habitat degradation typ ically do not fo llow
j urisd ictional boundaries, munici palities are limited to
focusing o n and managing stormwater iss ues only within
their geographical juri sdictional authority.
Stormwater Industry Priorities:
In thi s year's survey, we added a new question o n i ndustry
priorities to garner persp ec tives on what utility managers
perceive to be the issues of importance in the stormwater
industry. We asked, and utility managers responded! The
three (3) issues that respondents ranked in the o rder of
importance are: (i) availability of adequate funding, (ii)
enhancing public awareness and support for stormwater
management , and (iii) management of the expanding
regulatory requirements.
A highlight of this response is that this is the first time
since the inception ·or this bi-a nnual survey, that "public
awareness and support" has been ci ted as the seco nd most
important issue. These stormwater iss u es of importance
that re spo ndents cited are closely aligned with those from
the wate r industry, which we recently p u blished In our "2014
Strategic Directions: U.S. Water Industry".
Infrastructure Investment Drivers:
In response to our new question on what drives
infrastru cture investment planning and d ecisions,
utility managers resp onded by se l ecting Re gulatory
Compliance; Flood Control: and Sa fety and Reliability as
the top three drive r s in the order listed.
4 I 701-1 '>lOR I-11'/AlfR llllllt> ~IIRV ~Y
Proactive Planning:
Balancing the competin g goals of ac h iev ing regula tory
compliance, prov idi ng the level of service that the
community desires, and maintaining affordable ra tes
requires effective planni ng and innovative approaches.
This balancing act applies not only to stormwater uti lities
but also to wastewater utilities, and especially to those
co mmunities that have combined sewer systems.
Therefo re. in t h is survey, we continued to assess the
type of integrated planning that utilities engage in. The
survey indicates that while a majority of the participants
ha s devel oped individual planning documents such as
st ormwater master plans and stormwater management
plans, only 12 % of the respondents have developed
integrated wet weather management plans to address water
resources i ssues more comprehensivel y.
Funding Adequacy:
La ck of adequate funding continues to plague even those
municipalities t hat have a dedicated stormwater u se r
fee. Out of a total of 78 respondents that participated in
this survey and_ indicated having a stormwate r u ser fee,
62% did not have adequate funding to meet most o f their
utility needs. The survey con t inues to highlight a growing
funding gap. Desp ite funding inade quacy, 31% of the
respondents indi cated not having any rate increases since
2004, wh ich can further exacerbate the funding gap.
The interdependencies among service level needs,
regu l atory requirement s, asset management, innovation,
and financing sign ificantly Increase t he complexity of
stormwater utility management. To effectively address
multiple needs and challenges, utilities h ave to engage in
more holistic solutions that incl ude in tegrated p l anning,
green infras tructure solutions, a strong public awareness
and education campa i gn, public-private par tnerships, and
regiona l collaborations to achieve cost efficiencies and
regional so lutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEY OVERVIEW
Th e 2014 Sto n muate 1 Ut ility SwtJey repmts t h e t esulls ol s ix fun c t ional e:ueas :
Section 1: Organization and Operations
Provides a profile of th e resp onde nts Including population
served, size of service a reas, t he cha racteristics of the
service area, and typ e of ut ility governance.
Section 2: Planning
Provides insights in to what utility managers perceive to
be most important industry i ssues and the infrastructure
inve stment drivers. Thi s section also highlights th e types
of pe rmit requ ire ments that utilities have to comply with
and th e type s of pla nning utilities have engaged in to
address stormwater management.
Section 3: Finance and Accounting
Reviews st o rmwater utility revenues, expenditures ,
sources of capi tal improvemen t and O&M finan cing , and
the adeq u acy of stormwater utility funding to meet utility
obligations.
Section 4: Stormwater Rate Structure and Billing
Evalu ates the t ypes of cos t s recovered t hrough user
fees, t he fee methodology used in se tting rates, the rate
stru ctures, and the ave rage monthly residential rate of
eac h utility th at participated in the su rvey. lnforma ti o,n
on t he billing frequen cy a nd types of exe mptions
and discou nt s that utilities offer, and Insights on l egal
challenges are also provided.
Section 5: Stormwater Credits and Incentives
Offers i nsights In to the types of cre d its, criteri a used in
offering credits, credits for "green initiatives", and any
Innovative progra m s suc h as cred its trading a nd banking.
Section 6 : Public Information/Education
Assesses the l evel of importance respondents att ribut e
t o public information/ed uca ti on and the methods of
edu cation and multi-media sources used In educating and
in disseminating information.
PROFILE OF RE S PONDE NTS
This year's nati onwide survey was co nduc ted on line during
Ma rch and April 2014. A tota l of 78 participan t s completed
the online questionnaire.
• The parti cipa nts spanned 25 states. All of these
participa nts fund sto rmwate r management in whole or
In part throug h stor mwa ter user fees.
• Th is year's participants reflect a much different mix of
utilities with a larger participation from smaller utilitie s,
and 25 fi rs t time pa rt icipan ts an d 53 repea t pa r ticipan t s.
• Eighty seven percent of the respondents serve a city,
rather than a co unty or region .
• The population served by the respondents ranges
from 9,785 (Cottage Grove, OR) to 1.5 million people
(Philade l p hia, PA); the areas served va ri es f rom 3 t o
1,020 square m i les.
• For those utilities tha t base charges on gross property
area , a n Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) ranged from
2 ,105 sq uare feet to 22,500 square feet of total parcel
area, with a median of 8,000 square feet.
• For those utilities t h at base charges on impervious area ,
an ERU ra nged from 794 square feet t o 7,500 square
feet of impervious area, wi th a median of 2,368 sq uare
feet.
COMPARATIVE RESULTS
Bl ac k & Veatch h as been assessing stormwater utility
fi nanci ng a nd management trends since 1991 through
the use o f this bi-an n ua l , nationwide survey. Co m pariso n s
of curren t and p ri or survey res u lts provide insights Into
possi ble industry chan ges. Please note, however, that
t hese comparisons are no t necessaril y i nd i ca t ive o f
trends, because the survey respondents may be different
between the current an d p rior su rveys.
It is ou r h ope that the information provided in th i s
report will be a va l uabl e resource to those involved in
th e st ormwater indu st ry. We wel come your questions
a nd comments regarding this survey report and/
or Bl ack & Veatch services . You can reach us at
Stormwater@.bv.com.
lliAC ~tVEI\lUI I 5
ORGANIZATIONAL IN FORMATION
1\Jalionwide, slmmwalel management responsib il ity 1esi des with inciivicl u al
municipal ent iti es rathet than with a mu lt i jmisdictiona l stmm walel a uth mity.
The traditional app1oach of each municipality m a nagi n g its own slonnwate 1
system and obligations affmds greater asset ownersh i p, b udget con t rol, and
program flexibility to m eet set vice level needs. However, such an approach
also impac ts economies of scale, creating operational inefficiencies, funding
challenges, and significant dispatiti es in storm water management standards,
even within a small geographic region or within a wate rshed .
Th is survey affirms the co ntinui ng trend of stormwater
user fee p rog rams ("u t ility") be ing more preva l en t in cities
ra ther in counties or special distr icts. Eighty seven perce nt
of t he participan t s re ported se rving a city jurisdictio nal
area, with three pa rti cipants repres enting a regional
authority. Th ese trends have re mained fairly co n si stent
since 2007.
FIGURE!
FOR MS4 PERMITTING PURPOS ES ARE YOU
CLASSI FI ED AS: (Select one)
Phase 1
(100,000 pop ulation and over)
Ph ase 2
(und er 100,000 popu lation)
c. 1 lOl l q<Jflttl''"' FR lllllln suRvh
This year's su rvey parti ci p ants inc luded a greater
participation fro m smaller sto rmwater utilities when
compared with our previous 2012 su rvey. Wh i le the
m edian nu mber of stormwater customers at the
p arti cip ating utilities i s 36,000, which is fairly consistent
w ith t he previous stormwa ter surveys , t h e percen tage of
participant s that ident i fied themselves as sta nd-alone
utilities h as increased from 46% to 55%.
FIGURE2
WHAT JURI SDICTIONAL AREA I S YOUR STORMWATER
UTILITY RESPONSIBLE FOR'? (Selec t one)
4%
Multiple municipalities
(Reg iona l authority)
City
only
FIGURE 3
WHAT I S TH E C HARACTE R ISTIC OF YOUR SERV I CE AR EA? (Selec t one)
Mix o f co mbi ned
se wer an d se parate
storm se wer
syst e m s
Separa t e sto r m
sewer syste m
F I GURE4
IF YO U SELECTED "MIX OF COMB INED SEWER AND SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS" IN THE PREVI OUS
QUESTION, I NDICATE THE PERCENTAGE OF COMBINED SEWER V E RSUS SEPARATE STORM SEWER SERVICES.
Combined sewer
Percentage•
Ove r 75 %
Less th an 25%
0
0 %
50% -75%
25%-50 %
4
31%
25% -50 %
50%-75%
5
38%
Less t han 25%
Over 75 %
4
31%
'Based o n num b et o f ulililies tha t sel ec ted "M ix of Combined Sewet and Separate S torm Seo.·:er Sys tems· in the ptevious q ues tion .
FIGURES
I S YOUR UTILITY UNDER CONSENT ORDER FOR COMBI N ED SEWER OVERFLOW ISSUES?
No
FIGURE6
PLEASE INDICATE HOW YO U R CURRENT STORMWATER OPERATIONS ARE GOVERNED. (Selec t one)
Stand -alon e st ormwal e r utility
Co m b ined w ith Departm ent of Pu blic Works (N onwater/wastewater utility)
Co mbined wi t h wate r and/or wastewater utility
Other (Mul tiple city departments)
55%
25%
19%
1%
2012
4 6%
28%
21%
5%
lllJ\0 & VfAittl I 7
.
• I
PLANNIN G
Utilities cunent ly face t he challenge of complying with ll1 ttlti ple ctJschargc
pet mils including th e Nati ona l Pollutant Dischatge Elimination System (NPDES)
and th e Munici p a l Separate Sto un Se wet System (M S4) p ennits t o m ee t th e
C lean Water Ac t (CWA) obligations. The sutvey indicates the continuing t r end of
municipalities generally focusing on individual permit requirements , rather than
comprehensively planning for multiple pennit obligations, even though many of
these petmits have ovedapping requirements. Integrated strategic and t actical
planning enables municipalities to effectively leverage available resources to
fulfill multiple regul atory requirements and public needs concurrently.
Thi s survey finds that while 73% of the re sponde nts
have t o comply with bo th NPDES and M S4 permit
requirement s, only 12% of responde nts have
d eveloped any type of integrated wet weather or water
res o urces plan.
Especially with a growing funding gap where utilities need
to consistently do m o re w i th Le ss resources, utilities need
to proactively develop and deploy integrated planning and
foster the idea of "one wate r". Such an approach would
better p os ition the utility to achieve the triple botto m Lin e -
economic, environmental, and community b e nefits.
With re sp ect to st or mwater rate setting, in the case of
combined sewer sy stems, utilities continue to grapple
w ith the policy issue of whether to allocate a portio n of
the combined sewer system and CSO mitigation O&M and
F/GUREB
WHAT TYPES OF PLANS HAS YOUR UTILITY DEVE LOPED?
(Select alit/Jot apply)
capital co st s to the stormwater utility. The survey indicates
that wh il e some CS O co mmunities, su ch as Ph iladelphia,
allocate a portion of the combined sewer sy stem cos t s to
stormwater uti lity, many others d o not. Such differe n ces
in m ethodo logy directly impac t the ma g nitude of
stormwater rates that utilities d e fine.
FIGURE ?
WHAT REGULATORY PERM I T REQU I REMENTS DO YOU
CURRENTLY HAVE TO COMPLY W ITH?
MS4 perm it
N PD ES perm it
To ta l maxi mum dai ly Load (TMDL)
CSO p rogram
Other
, I
91 %
79%
50%
14 %
4 %
Percentage based on number of utilities tha t responded to the question.
St ormwater /watershed m anagement plan
St or m wa te r m as ter pl an
Lo ng -term co ntrol p l a n (LTCP)
73%
72 %
17%
Integrate d we t wea ther m anage m ent p l an (to support was tewa ter
and stormwate r requirem e nt s)
Int egra t ed wa ter resou rces pl a n
Ot her
Pet centage based onnumlJet o f utilities lllat tesponded t o t/Je question
8 I )QH SH1R t·II'IATfR ll rtl 11) SIJilV~Y
12%
9 %
1%
F IGU RE9
PLEASE RANK ON A SCALE OF 1 TO S, THE I MPORTANCE OF EACH OF THE IS SUES LISTED BELOW
TO THE STORMWATER INDUSTRY. (I:Leostimportonl : 5 = Mostimpor tont)
4.4
4.2
Funding or availability of cap ital
Public awarene ss and support
for slormwater management L-----------------_.
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.3
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.0
FIGURE10
Inc reasi ng or expanding reg ulation s
Aging combined sewer
and stormwater infrastructure
Nutrient/TMDL requirements
Green infrastructure nee ds
Information technology
Integrated water supply planning
that includes stormwater capture
Integrated we t weather plann i ng
Aging workforce
Coastal resiliency
PLEASE RANK ON A SALE OF 1 TO 5, HOW THE FOLLOWING I SS U ES DRIVE INFRASTRUCTURE INV ESTMENT PLANNING
AND DECISIONS WITHIN YOUR STORMWATER UTILITY. {1 : Ve ryweok; 5 =Very s trong)
4.3 Regulatory compliance
4.1 Flood control
3.9 Safety and r eliab ility
3.8 Community expectations
3.5 Critical emergency re silience
3.2 Grants and incentives
3.1 W at e rw ays/habitat r es toration
01 A(~ t. VLA T( II J 9
FINANCING AND ACCOUNTING
A use1 fee funding m e('hanisll1 typi< ally p10vides 1 evellue stability, ce1 taint y,
and a dedi cated funding stre8m. Ilowever, even in a use1 fe e funded program,
diligent a nnual financia l planning and rate adJus t ments are n ecessa1y to maintain
1evenue s uffi ciency, build financial resiliency to meet changing needs, and provide
for long term fin a ncial viability. In th e cunent environment, utilities are unde1
pres sure to keep rates low wh il e maintaining or enh ancing the level of service.
Sto rmwater utilities continue to fund capital program primarily survey that 17% of the participants indicate that funding is not
throu gh cash financing as opposed to debt financ ing. As suffic ient to meet even t he "most urgent" needs i ndicating
Figu re 13a indicates, 85% of the partic ipants indicate cash a g rOYiing fu nd ing adequacy gap at a time when regulatory
financing as the primary source of capital funding, and the requirements and asset management needs are increas ing ..
trend of funding capital p rogram through user fee gen era ted
cas h reve n ues seems to con tinue. In the absence o f a
balanced funding m ix o f debt and cash financing, utilities
that rely solely on cas h financi ng of capital program, fa ce
capital fund ing challenges if t hey are unable to raise the rates.
Consisten t with th e l as t survey, only 32% o f t he partic ipants
indicate funding is adequate for meeting most needs. In this
F/GURE 11
Utilities need to engage in more robust and continuous public
education t o enhan ce underst anding of the stormwater
management needs and finan ci al issues In conj unction with
integrated planning. These measures will likely help utilities
cha rt a m o re f inancially viable pa th and enha n ce equi ty in cost
recovery. Ninety six percent of the utilities reported having a
user fee that is supported by a State enabling legisl ation.
PLEASE INDICATE THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR STORMWATER BUDGET T HAT I S ATTRIBUTABLE
TO CSO MITIGATI ON ISSUES. (Se lect one)
0 %, st orm wa t e r b u dget d oes n ot inc lude exp en d itures
rel at ed to com b ined sewer overflow (CSO) issu es
F /GURE /2
1%-10%
11 %-20 %
21%-30 %
31%-5 0 %
Ove r 5 0 %
WHAT I S THE ESTIMATED 2014 ANNUAL STORMWATER
CAPITAL I MPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET'?
Minimum
M axi mum
Average
10 I /flH <;lfJR t tl'.~lfR IJIII ttY StlrtVI'
$30,0 00
$7 2,000,000
$7,0 8 2,12 7
F IGU RE/3
46%
23%
16 %
0 %
0 %
15%
PLEASE PROVIDE AN APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF
FUNDING F ROM EACH SOURCE.
Majo rity debt fi nanced
M ajority cas h fin an ced
FIGURE 13A
PLEASE PROVI DE AN APPROXI MATE PERCE NTAGE OF FU ND I NG FROM ONE OR MORE OF T H E FOLLOW I NG SOURCES
THAT ARE U SED TO FI NANCE YO U R U T I LITY'S STORMWATER CA P I TAL I MPROVEMENT PROGRAM (C IP).
De bt fin an ced 15 % Ca sh finan ce d 85%
Stormwater reven u e bonds 17% Stormwater user fees 92%
Ge n eral obligati on (t ax) bo n ds 8 % Grants 27%
Sales tax bonds 1% Ad va l o rem t axes 4 %
Combined stormwater/oth er bon ds 1% Permitting and other taxes 18 %
Be n ef1t distri ct bon ds 0% Sa l es t axes 5%
O the r d ebt 5% Sp ecial tax d i stri cts 8 %
N ew d evel o pment impac t fees 8%
O ther cas h 12%
Pe/Ce n toge based on n u mbet of u tilities tha t r esponded t o the ques tio n .
FIGURE 14
P LEASE PROVI DE AN APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE FROM ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOW ING SOU RCES.
Stormwate r user fees
Taxes
Gra nts
Oth er
FIGURE15
Over 75%
87%
0%
28 %
5%
50%-75%
5%
13%
0%
5%
25%-50%
5%
13%
4 3%
0%
PLEASE INDICATE TH E LEVEL OF ADEQUACY OF AVA ILAB LE STORMWATER FU NDIN G.
2014 2012 2010
Adequat e t o m eet a ll needs 6% 18 % I 7%
Ad e quat e t o meet m os t need s 32% 31% 36%
A d equat e to meet m ost urg e nt needs 4 5% 40% 4 7%
No t adeq uate t o m ee t urgen t n ee d s 17% 11 % 10%
F/GURE16
DOES YOUR STATE HAVE ENABLIN G L EG I S LATION T H AT AUTHORI ZES MUNI CIPALITIES TO CHARGE
A STORMWATER USER FEE?
Ye s No
Less than 25%
3%
74%
29%
90%
2007
8 %
39%
4 0%
13%
Bl A< K t VE .\It II J I I
STOR M WATER U SER FEES A N D B I LLI N G
A t1 s01 fee needs lo 1eflec t a r easonab le n ex us between lh e costs incuued in
p10vi di ng services and the m agnitude of cha rges lha t a re defined fm lhe 1 a t e
paye1. 1\.s il is not pt actica l to tneas w e slounwalel nmoff, s tmmwate1 charges
a r e es tabli shed based on s un ogate measures such as a prope1Ly's pervious and/
or impervious areas. Over 90% of th e participants have indicated that th ey use
actual and/or effective impervious area as the basis of charges.
As service l evels may differ among the various
geographical areas, utilities often have to contend with
the policy issue of whether to se t rates that refle ct servi ce
leve l differences. While zone -based rates may provide for
equity in cost recovery, they can be ad ministratively more
burden so me and have the potential to create economic
disparities among zones.
from implementing requi site rate adjustments, utilities
sho ul d consider the feas ibility of implementing consis tent
rat e adjustments to maintain financial viability while
concurrently exploring mechani sms such as low income
assistance programs to help with affordab ility.
The risk of legal challenges could be a potential barrier to
establishing stormwater u se r fees. Seventy-eight percent
With re spect to rate setting, affordability is key to enabling of the utilities that re sponded in this survey had not faced
stakeholder buy-in . The survey indicates that a majority of any leg al challenges to their fees . Of those th at faced a
the participants (78 %) do not offer any typ e of discounts, l egal challenge, the challenge primarily seems to have
and o nly 11 % offer low income discount. Th e survey also been either due to lack of authority to assess fees or on
indicates that 30% of the participants had not adjusted the groun ds of co n stitutionality.
the rates in over 10 years. Instead o f having a long hiatus
F IGURE 17
PLE;ASE INDICATE THE YEAR WHEN YOUR UTILITY'S
CURRENT STORMWAT ER USER RATE SCHEDULE
BECAME EFFECTIVE .
Prior to 2005
2010-2014
12 I l(IJ.J s 1(1('!1.11'/A Tl H u I ll 11\ su RVI'
FIGURE 18
WHAT WAS THE MAGNITUDE OF YOUR UTILITY'S LAST
CHANGE IN FEES'?
2%
De crea se less
than 25%
Increase greater
than 50%
Increa se o f l ess
th an 25%
15 %
Increase
between 25%
and 50%
Pet cent age bosecl on numbet of utilities tlwlt esponded to tile question
F /GURE/9
IS YO U R STO R MWATER U SER FEE B A SED ON SO ME
FORM OF PARCEL AREA SUCH AS GROSS AND/OR
I MPERVI OUS A R EA?
Y es N o
FIGURE20
WH AT I S T H E BAS I S FOR CALCULAT I NG YOUR PARC EL
AR EA BA SED STORMWATER U SE R F EES?
(Selec l all that apply)
Gross area with
inten sity o f
devel opment
f ac to r
Gro ss
area with
runoff
fa ct or
10 %
Gro ss area
only
Im pervious
area
84% of respon dents use onl y on e m ethod.
F IGURE21
WHAT I S YOUR UTI LITY'S AVERAGE S I NGLE FAM ILY
RES I DENTIAL PARC EL SQUARE FOOTAGE? (Include
a ttached resldent ialtrp to fo w dl'tellin g unit s)
Average Gross Area
Min i mum
Max i m u m
Median
Average Impervious Area
Min i mum
Maximum
Med i an
Square feet
2,105
22,500
8 .000
794
7,500
2 ,368
F IGURE 22
WHAT TYP E OF RATE STRUCTU R E DOE S YO U R UTILITY
HAVE FOR T H E SI NGLE FAMILY RESI DENTI AL PARCELS'?
(Se lec t ott that opply)
Uniform flat fee
Tiered rate s
Indivi dua l ly calc ulated
FI GURE23
67 %
28%
6 %
I F YOU HAV E A T I ER ED R ES I DE NTI AL RATE STRU CTU R E,
PLEA SE I NDI CAT E T H E TOTAL N U MBE R O F TI ER S.
Percen tage based on number of utilities t110 t indicated t h ey h ad
liered wtes.
4% 2 T ier s
M ore than 6 Tiers
FI GURE 24
I F YOU HAVE A TI ER ED RES IDENTIAL R AT E STRUCTURE,
WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE TIERS? (Select one)
Impervio u s area tiers o nly
Gross a rea tie rs o nly
Ti ers for imperv io us area an d gross area
59%
32 %
9%
FIGURE 25
DOES YO U R STORMWATER RATE STRUCTURE I NCLUDE A
SEPARATE BI LLING /COLLECTION OR SERVIC E CHARGE?
12%
88%
BLAO "VfA i lll I 1 3
FIGURE26
AVE R AGE M ONTH LY SIN GLE -FAM I LY RATE
City/County I
Sea ttle WA
For t Collins CO
Philadel phia PA
Evere tt WA
Longmont CO
Appl e ton WI
Naples FL
Lubbock TX
Pa l oAtt o CA
Orl ando FL
Gresham OR
Bremerton WA
Austin TX
Love l an d CO
Ha m ilton County TN
Pie rce Co unty WA
Gainesvi lle FL
Aurora CO
Edgewat er FL
Charlo tte NC
Co tt age Grove OR
Denver CO
Hampton VA
St. Pau l MN
Ti tusville FL
Duluth MN
Charl eston SC
Lake land FL
Cocoa Beac h FL
Oakl an d Park FL
Co co a FL
Woos ter OH
Bloomingt on M N
Dubuque lA
Ola th e KS
Tu l sa OK
Day to n OH
For t Worth TX
Satelite Bea ch FL
14 I 2Cit 4 StuH t-11'/At ~H 1111111 t <.uRVf >
2014 Average
Monthly Residential
Charge
26.58
14.26
13.45
13.19
13.0 5
12 .92
12.80
12.00
11.99
11.00
9.84
9 .83
9.20
9.10
9.00
8.83
8.56
8 .1 6
8.00
7.89
7.4 7
7.38
6.99
6.83
6 .62
6.08
6.00
6.00
6 .00
6.00
5.75
5.75
5.72
5.60
5.55
5.4 3
5.42
5.40
5 .33
City/County
Roseburg
Sa n Clemente
Cedar Rapids
Northen Ken t ucky
Sa nit ation Distr ict N o. 1
Griffin
Niceville
Haines Ci ty
Topeka
Summerville
Lawrence
Ra l eigh
Richmond
Ellicott City
Wichita Falls
Cinc innati
Mesq u ite
Billings
A rnold
Fo rest Park
Faye ttevi lle
McKinny
Clark County
Modesto
Littleton
Cont ra Cost a Coun ty
As hville
Overl a nd Park
Fri sco
Lakewood
M oline
San ta Clarita
Sa nta Cruz
She l by Co unty
Sp ringfield
Elkhart
Columbia
Hillsborough Coun t y
Omaha
St. Louis
OR
CA
lA
KY
GA
FL
FL
KS
sc
KS
NC
VA
MD
TX
OH
TX
MT
MO
OH
N C
TX
WA
CA
co
CA
NC
KS
TX
co
IL
CA
CA
TN
OH
IN
M O
FL
NE
MO
2014 Average
Monthly Residential
Charge
5.00
5 .00
4 .90
4 .80
4 .79
4.51
4.50
4 .25
4 .00
4.00
4.00
3.75
3.75
3.55
3.54
3.50
3.01
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.75
2.75
2.73
2.50
2.50
2.3 4
2.00
2.00
1.98
1.94
1.87
1.75
1.50
1.30
1.25
1.1 5
1.00
0 .64
0 .24
F-IGURE 27
IN YOUR STORMWATER RATE S TRU CTUR E, DO YO U
H AVE RATES THAT D I FFER BY SERV ICE AREAS/ZON E OR
WATERS H EDS?
6%
Yes
No
FIGURE28
ARE ONE-TIM E IMPACT/CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES
APPLI ED TO NEW STORMWATER UTI LITY CUSTOMERS
OR NEW DEVELOPMENTS?
FIGURE29
HOW FREQUENTLY DOES YOUR UTI LITY UPDATE
CU STOMER PARCEL INFORMATION, SUC H AS
CUSTOMER CL ASSES A N D GROSS AND IMPERVIOUS
AREAS SPECIFIC TO STORMWATER B I LL ING? (Selec t One)
No specified frequency/as needed 70%
Annually 14 %
M o ruh~ 9 %
Quarterly 4 %
O th er 3%
F I GURE 30
HOW ARE STO RMWATER U SER FEES BI LLED? (Select One)
Included with Ot her Utility Bill
(Water /Sewer /Electric/Gas)
In cluded with tax bills
Se parate sto rmwater bi ll
FIGURE3 l
71 %
24%
5%
D O ES YO U R UTI LITY OFFER ANY OF T H E FOLLOW I NG
STORMWATER DISCOUNTS? (Select alliiJat apply)
No discoun ts o ffered
Low-income d iscount
Other
El derly/senior ci ti zen d i scoun t
Educational institutions discount
Disabled d iscoun t
FIGURE32
78%
11 %
8%
7%
5%
1%
WHAT OF THE FOLLOW I NG CL ASSES OF PROPERTIES
ARE CURRENTLY EXEMPT FROM STO RMWATER USER
FEES? (Select all that apply)
Public streets/roads/median 63% /public-rig ht-of-way
Und eve loped land 54%
Rail rights-of-way 41%
Public parks 27%
Government 24 %
Agricultural land 21 %
Schoo l d istric t s 19%
Cemeteries 13%
Colleges/universities 12%
N o propert ies are exempt 12%
Other 10 %
Airports 9 %
Religi ous organizations 5%
Di rect discha rge to wa ter b ody 3 %
O I Alr.f.Vfl\1<11 I 15
rtGURE33
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF S TORMWATER
USE R FEES? (Select O lle)
Residen t/t e nan t
Oth er
Pro p er ty o wn e r
FIGURE34
HOW IS PAYMENT ENFORCED? (Sel ec t all tiJO t apply)
Wa te r/el ectric service sh utoff
Lie n on property
Coll ec ti on age n cy
Ot h er
Sheriff's sa l e
FIGURE35
51%
47%
27%
10 %
4 %
HAVE YOUR STORMW/\TER USER FEES EVER FACED A
LEGAL CHALLENGE?
16 I l <l 1·1 5 1Cifl ii\'/•\1 Eili111LITY S U RV~Y
FIGURE36
PLEASE INDICATE THE CU STOMER/CLAS S THAT
CHALLENGED YOUR STORMWATER U SE R FEE .
(Select all that apply)
Re sid e ntia l
cu sto m er /cl ass
N on-residential
cu stome r/class
FIGURE37
WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE CHALLENGE?
(S elec t all that apply.)
Tax an d not a user fe e
Co n stitutio nal ity
Lack o f au thority t o assess stormwa ter fees
Eq u i ty and f ai rness
Rate met hodology
Ot her
59%
35%
29%
12%
12 %
6 %
STORMWATER CREDITS AND INCENTIVES
Slm mwate1 incentives can be defined as one-time moneta! y assistance m othe1
1ewards that rn unicipalities offer t o e n coUlage p10per ty owners to su p port
co1 nm un ity goa ls such as engaging in s u stamable deve lopment ptac t ices m
p10tecting wa l e t q u a lity. Incentives can be used as a mechanism to fos t er p u b1ic -
p t iva t e pa r t n ersh ips in s t o n n water m anagement.
St o rm water credi t s are o ngoing reduc tions to a p roperty's
calcu l ated storm water charges t h at are given to properties
that e ither red uce d em and o n the stor mwa t e r sys tem a nd /
o r reduce the utility's cos t o f se rvice throug h funct iona l
stormwater m anagement p rac t ices a nd Bes t Management
Practices (BM Ps). Sto rmw at er credi t serves a key ro l e in
en ha n cing t h e perception of "u ser fees" by affording t he
customers opportunities to reduce t he m ag nitude of the
user fees commen su rate w it h extent o f on si te sto rmwa te r
m anag ement.
As Fi gure 38 i ndica tes, 44% of t he responden t s o ffe r
some ty pe o f credi t s and only 15% to 18% percent offer
som e type o f incentives. Th e most common criteria
f or o ffering credits are vol u me reduction an d peak flow
re duct ion. Eve n in uti lities that o ffer credits, the actual
number o f parce ls that seek credits is relat ively low at four
perce nt. T his i s to some extent due to the fact that onsite
storm water m anagement is cap ita l i ntensive yieldi ng low
return on Investment, whic h in t urn i mpact s the eco n o m ics
o f e ngaging in onsi le stormwater management.
Bl A( K t VtAIOI I 1 7
18
FI GURE 38
DOES YO UR U T ILITY H AVE A STORMWATER CREDIT PROGRAM'?
F/GURE39
PLEA SE INDI CATE TH E CLASSES OF PARC EL S THAT AR E OFFER ED STORMWATER CRED IT S. (Selec t on e)
F /GURE40
Nonresidential only (i ncludes mu l tifam ily and co n dos)
Both residential and nonresidential
53%
47%
DO YOU OFFER CR EDITS FOR ANY OF TH E FOLLOWING STORMWAT ER MANAGE M ENT ACTIONS '? (S elect oll tl!at ap ply)
Volu m e reduc ti on
Peak fl ow reduction
1 Water quality con t rol ,
Direc t discharge to a su rf ace Wate r bo dy (w ithou t u sing a municipal sto rmwa ter sys t em1
Good housekeepi ng p rac ti ces (sweeping. oi l separa t ion. etc.)
FIGURE40A
Ed u ca ti o n
NPDES p e rm it compliance
O th er
PLEASE INDICATE THE MAXI MUM ALLOWABLE CREDIT FOR EA CH ACTION SELECTED.
Maximum allowance credit
Over75% 50%-75% 25%-50%
Vo l ume reductio n 37% 38% 25%
Peak flow reduction 26% 20% 27%
Water quality con trol 14 % 22% 43%
N PDES Permit Compliance 0 % 0 % 0 %
Educa tion 0% 50% 17%
Direct discharge to a surface wa ter
body (without using a municipal 50% 10% 10%
stormwater system
Good housekeeping practices 20% 0 % 20% (sw eeping, oil separation , etc )
Othe r 0 % 0 % 0 %
I /011 5 10HI·II'IAHfl Ullllf'o' S IJilVH
65%
59%
50%
41 %
21 %
18%
15 %
3%
less than 25%
0 %
27%
21%
100%
33%
30%
60%
100%
FIG UR E4 1
I S THERE A CAP FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CRED ITS
THAT ARE OFFERED?
FI GURE41A
IF YES, WHAT I S T H E MAXI M U M STORMWATER FEE
REDUCTION?
32% 40% 28%
FIGURE42
DO YOU OFFER CREDITS FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWI NG
TO ENCO!JRAGE "GREEN" OR LOW IMPACT
DEVELO~MENT (LID) STORMWATER MANAGEM E NT
PRACTICES? (Select all that apply.)
None o f the above
Po rous/permeable
su rfaces
Rain gardens
Green roofs
Rain barrels
Other
Percentage based onnumbet of tesponses
61%
36%
27%
21%
9%
6%
FIGURE43
DOES YOUR UTILITY OFFER A N Y TYPE OF STORMWATER
CRED ITS TRADING/BAN K IN G PROGRAM?
FIGURE44
DO YOU OFFER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS? (Select alll/1at apply)
Site assessmenl/BMP design assis tance 18%
Stormwater grants 15%
Cost sharing 15%
BMP installation cost rebates 6%
[)tAOt.VIAI(H I 19
PUBLIC INFORMATION/EDUCATION
Majmity of the pa1tic ipants conside1 educating the public and the policy mal:e1s
on stonnwate1 management and engaging them in developing integrat ed
solutions as essentia l oulleach tasks to sustain in g ston nwater u t ilities . Public
education a n d out reach is a lso one of the MS4 permit requirements which with
utilities have to com ply. As in dicat ed in Figure 45, 96% of the respondents view
o n going p ublic education as e ith er "h e lpful " or "essen ti a l " Lo Lh e success of t hei r
u se fee -funded storm wa t er utili ty.
To b e tter under stan d how utilities are en gaging
stakeholders, respond ents were asked to rate the
effectiveness of variou s sta ke h o lder engagement activitie s
that they have co ndu ct ed. Consistent with the previous
survey, direct and targeted inte rface with the customers
through community eve nts/presen tations continues to
rank the highest and interestingly social media had the
lowest rank ing. Utilities co ntinue to view leveraging
schools, to educate on st ormwater management, as
important a channel as print/TV media.
And, w ith all large-scale public Informat i o n and
educational ca mpaign, the key to effective communication
is the use of multiple commu nica tion s chan n els
f requently and consiste ntly t o en sure stake holders se e
and re m e mber the educa tion ca mpaign. . :
FIGURE45
HOW IMPORTANT I S AN ORGANIZED, ONGOING PUBLIC
INFORMATION/EDUCATION EFFORT TO CONTINUED
SUCCESS OF USER FEE-FUNDED STORM WATER
UTILITY? (Selec t one)
Help ful
Essential
2U I 211 11 S IURt.II'/Alf R liT lilt\ S liRVl>
F IGURE46
PLEASE RANK ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 5, THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SPECIFIC ACT I VITI ES YOU HAVE
UNDERTAKEN TO SECURE STAKEHOLDER APPROVAL
AND SUPPORT FOR STORM WATER USER FEES. (1 : Leos t
Effective. 5: Most Effec tive)
3.62
3.25
3.23
3.23
3.22
3.15
3.12
2.95
2.70
Commun ity even t
/presenta tions
Pr int/TV media
r el eases
News l etters/fliers
/brochures
P eriodi c w o rkshop s for
elec t ed offi cia l s/board s
/commi ssions
Stormwat er utility
lll.liiii1ill1iiirJ website
Citizens advisory
co mmittee
Socia l media
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right-of-Way
November 1, 2013 -September 19, 2016
.:\~;:.:tl m~~~;~a!~~j :~i~~:~w ~~rt. ;~;(:)l.:l}l·l~l H~a~~~~l:l/:/}~%?. l t~~W :;::;.tl)/>l §HH;~H%UH .!:.;::~;~;:
9/14/16 9/14/16 200 Hub St 21471
9/9/16 9/9/16 1901 Glenwood 21470
8/19/16 8/19/16 1105 and 106 Carri Ann 21469
8/15/16 8/15/16 200 Block Clay Stree t 21468
8/13/16 8/13/16 1810 Stadium 21467
7/25/16 8/11/16 8/29/16 26 Rosewood/Carol 21466 Closed
8/8/16 8/8/16 8/24/16 13 611 Hibernia 21440 Closed
7/26/16 7/26/16 7/29/16 3 Stadium and Carter 21439 Closed
7/26/16 7/26/16 7/29/16 3 1228 Carter 21438 Closed
7/26/16 7/26/16 8/12/16 14 Rosewood/Carroll 21437 Closed
7/25/16 7/25/16 8/12/16 15 1011 Winston 21436 Closed
7/20/16 7/20/16 8/12/16 18 East Ashley and Madison 21435 Closed
7/8/16 7/8/16 8/26/16 37 2653 Sue Drvie 21434 Closed
7/7/16 7/7/16 7/29/16 17 613 MichiQan 21433 Closed
7/6/16 7/16/16 8/2/16 12 701 E McCaty 21432 Closed
7/5/16 7/5/16 8/29/16 40 901 E Capitol 21431 Closed
7/4/16 7/4/16 7/11/16 4 901 Madison 21430 Closed
7/3/16 7/3/16 8/26/16 40 2201 Marilyn 21429 Closed
7/2/16 7/2/16 7/11/16 5 104 Jackson 21428 Closed
7/1/16 7/1/16 8/23/16 37 824 SW Blvd 21427 Closed
6/30/16 6/30/16 9/7/16 49 908 Westwood 21426 Closed
6/30/16 6/30/16 7/20/16 14 1816 Green Meadow 21405 Closed
6/28/16 6/28/16 7/11/16 11 1401 E Elm 21404 Closed
6/28/16 6/28/16 8/2/16 24 613 Waverly 21403 Closed
6/26/16 6/26/16 7/20/16 17 2406 James Street 21402 Closed
6/19/16 6/19/16 7/11/16 26 CotlaQe Ln/ Gordon 21401 Closed
6/14/16 6/14/16 8/12/16 44 Adams/State 21400 Closed
6/14/16 6/14/16 7/20/16 25 1101 Maplewood Ct 21399 Closed
5/26/16 5/26/16 6/28/16 23 1805 W Main 21398 Closed
5/10/16 5/10/16 5/31116 14 1115 E Miller 21397 Closed
5/5/16 5/4/16 1827 Mississippi 21396
5/5/16 5/5/16 5/18/16 9 617 Houchin 21395 Closed
5/2/16 5/2/16 1900 Summers Way 21394 Closed
5/1/16 5/1/16 5/10/16 8 938 Fairmont Blvd 21393 Closed
4/21/16 4/21/16 5/4/16 9 1209 West Main 21392 Closed
4/20/16 4/20/16 5/4/16 10 127 W Cirlce 21391 Closed
4/19/16 4/19/16 4/27/16 7 1210 Moreland 21390 Closed
4/15/16 4/15/16 2207 Merlin 21389
4/12/16 4/12116 4/19/16 6 620 Ohio 21388 Closed
4/12/16 4/12116 4/19/16 6 608 Ohio 21387 Closed
4/11/16 4/11/16 4/15/16 5 High Street ramp/MO Blvd 21386 Closed
4/7/16 4/7/16 4/15/16 7 207 Vista 21365 Closed
4/5/16 4/5/16 5/3/16 21 2015 Tower 21364 Closed
3/29/16 3/29/16 5/4/16 28 2026 W Main 21363 Closed
3/25/16 3/25/16 7/11116 73 1428 Bald Hill 21362 Closed
3/25/16 3/25/16 4/6/16 10 513 Gipfert Ln 21361 Closed
3/23/16 3/23/16 4/6/16 10 1805 Bald Hill Rd 21359 Closed
3/18/16 3/18/16 4/6/16 12 1014 Laura! 21358 Closed
3/10/16 3/10/16 4/6/16 20 333 Old Gibbler 21357 Closed
3/10/16 3/10/16 4/6/16 20 2210 Melody Dr 21356 Closed
3/10/16 3/10/16 3/15/16 4 400 Donna Bella 21355 Closed
3/7/16 3/7/16 3/9/16 2 618 E High 2154 Closed
3/2/16 3/2/16 2025 EdQewood (Hydrenl) 21353
2/26/16 2/26/16 4/6/16 28 2025 Edgewood 21352 Closed
2/23/16 2/23/16 8/24/16 130 1415 Stadium 21351 Closed
2/19/16 2/19/16 300 blk E Stale St 21320
2/18/16 2/18/16 2/29/16 8 Union/Jackson 21319 Closed
2/12/16 2/12/16 3/9/16 19 2109 Edgewood Drive 21318 Closed
2/12/16 2/12/16 3/9/16 19 818 Air View 21317 Closed
2/11116 2/11/16 3/9/16 20 2500 Orchard Ln 21316 Closed
2/11/16 2/11/16 2/25/16 11 1722 South Ridge 21315 Closed
Page 1 ol6
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right-of-Way
November 1, 2013 -September 19, 20 6
:·~~~t-tf:~: -~~~~i~~~~~t :~o@M:t~d : ~t~rji. ~~:-/:):{.~::_:~-:Hi:~~?:f :(.>>·>~-.:: t~t:~H :~u~·-;r:~:::>>~-~~~~sHp~).?:~\.//{)/
2/5/16 2/5/16 3/9/16 23 2000 Meadow Ln 21314 Closed
2/3/16 2/3/16 2/15/16 9 2128 Green Meadow Dr 2131 3 Closed
2/1/16 2/1/16 2/15/16 11 1308 Moreau 2131 2 Closed
1/29/16 1/29/16 2/1/16 1 1709 Francis 21311 Closed
1/28/16 1/28/16 2/1/16 2 710 Belair 21310 Closed
1/28/16 1/28/16 2/1/16 2 Hough Park and Kolb 21309 Closed
1/26/16 1/26/16 2/1/16 4 122 Boonville 21308 Closed
1/26/16 1/26/16 1/27/16 1 126 E Circle 21307 Closed
1/22/16 1/22/16 3/9/16 33 2124 Lowell 21306 Closed
1/21/16 1/21/16 2/4/16 11 1200 Moreland 21305 Close d
1/17/16 1/17/16 3/9/16 37 1822 Tanner Bridae 21304 Closed
1/15/16 1/15/16 1/25/16 5 906 Broadway 21303 Closed
1/11/16 1/1 2/16 1/14/16 3 810 Stadium 21302 Closed
1/11/16 1/12/16 1/13/16 2 RidQewood and W McCarty 21301 Closed
1/11/16 1/12/16 1322 Hoffman Dr 21235
1/2/16 1/12/16 1/29/16 20 Southwest and Sunvally 21211 Closed
1/2/16 1/12/16 1/14/16 9 1837 W McCarty 21210 Closed
12/24/15 12/30/15 1/6/16 8 1812 W Stadium Blvd 21209 Closed
12/21/15 12/23/15 1/6/16 10 1228 West EdQewood 21208 Clos ed
12/4/15 12/7/15 12/21/15 12 W . McCartv and Manilla 21207 Closed
12/4/15 12/7/15 12/21/15 12 1808 Greenberrv x2 21 206 Closed
11/28/15 11/30/15 2/23/16 60 2224 Oakview 21205 Closed
11/19/15 11/18/15 2/23/16 Oakview!Hillsdale 21204 Closed
10/28/15 10/28/15 12/4/15 25 2619 Schellridge 21203 Closed
10/23/15 10/26/15 12/4/15 28 319 Meier 21202 Closed
10/10/2015 10/12/2015 10/23/2015 10 400 E Cedar Way 21201 Closed
10/7/2015 10/8/2015 10/9/2015 3 1409 Moreland 21200 Closed
10/3/2015 10/5/2015 10/22/2015 14 MO Blvd and Stadium 21199 Closed
9/15/2015 9/15/2015 9/22/2015 6 213 E Elm 21198 Closed
9/8/2015 9/14/2015 9/22/2015 8 1025 Westwood 21197 Closed
9/7/2015 9/8/2015 9/22/2015 9 2601 SchellridQe 21196 Closed
9/5/2015 9/8/2015 9/22/2015 11 1901 Bassman 21195 Closed
9/2/2015 9/8/2015 10/30/2015 43 804 Adams 21194 Closed
8/18/2015 8/20/2015 8/20/2015 2 E Elm/Linn 21193 Closed
8/10/2015 8/20/2015 9/22/2015 31 933 Leslie 21192 Closed
8/7/2015 8/20/2015 9/15/2015 25 1312 Lynnwood 21141 Closed
6/30/2015 6/30/2015 7/6/2015 5 313 Hart 21139 Closed
6/30/2015 6/30/2015 7/2/2015 3 100 E Cedar Way 21140 Closed
6/22/2015 6/22/2015 6/25/2015 3 1707WestMain 21137 Closed
6/19/2015 6/22/2015 717/2015 13 800Adams 21138 Closed
6/17/2015 6/18/2015 6/24/2015 6 Satinwood/Brandv Lane 21136 Closed
6/10/2015 6/10/2015 6/15/2015 3 100 Jefferson 21135 Closed
6/2/2015 6/3/2015 6/9/2015 5 2406 James Street 21134 Closed
5/29/2015 5/29/2015 6/9/2015 8 623 Ohio 21133 Closed
5/26/2015 5/26/2015 6/9/2015 11 1313 Moreland 21132 Closed
5/21/2015 5/21/2015 6/24/2015 25 Hibernia/Mokane Road 21130 Closed
5/21/2015 5/21/2015 6/3/2015 10 1900 Stadium 21131 Closed
5/15/2015 5/15/2015 6/3/2015 13 319 Stadium 21129 Closed
5/14/2015 5/14/2015 6/3/2015 14 205 Boonville 21128 Closed
5/6/2015 5/6/2015 5/11/2015 3 1317 Monroe 21127 Closed
4/28/2015 4/28/2015 5/7/2015 8 312 E Capitol 21126 Closed
4/19/2015 4/20/2015 5/4/2015 10 1110 Lee Street 21125 Closed
4/15/2015 4/15/2015 5/7/2015 17 1711/1713 Hayselton 21124 Closed
4/3/2015 4/10/2015 5/7/2015 25 217 Stadium Blvd 21123 Closed
3/27/2015 3/27/2015 6/24/2015 66 1419 HouQh Park 21122 Closed
3/26/2015 3/26/2015 3/30/2015 3 209 E Atchison 20982 Closed
3/26/2015 3/26/2015 5/7/2015 31 Jackson/Stadium 20983 Closed
3/19/2015 3/20/2015 4/24/2015 26 419 Oak Vallev Ct 20980 Closed
3/19/2015 3/20/2015 5/21/2015 45 1902 Stadium Blvd 20981 Closed
3/17/2015 3/18/2015 3/30/2015 10 Dunklin/Jefferson 20979 Closed
3/6/2015 3/9/2015 3/12/2015 5 909 Indiana 20978 Closed
Page 2 of 6
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right-of-Way
November 1, 2013 -September 19, 2016
::~~~~tt ~r~~l;a!'~1: :~t~~~;te.1 . ~~r:~. //:/\/.t~b·~H~f/HH>:>·H }~~% ~.H:>:·/>::~:w~~~@uH::/~.:~:~~:uu::
3/5/2015 3/6/2015 VO ID 1104 Madison St (in ally) 20977 VOID
3/3/201 5 3/3/201 5 1808 Crader Dr 209 73 Clos ed
3/3/2015 3/4/2015 3/26/2015 18 110 blo ck Jackson 2097 4 Closed
2/27/2015 3/4/2015 4/15/2015 33 Boonville and Norris 20975 Closed
2/27/2015 3/4/2015 4/15/2015 33 W . McCarty and Hart 20976 Closed
2/24/2015 2/25/2015 3/24/2015 21 719 Jefferson 20972 Closed
2/22/2015 2/23/2015 121 2 Moreland Ave 20971 Closed
2/11/2015 2/11/2015 3/12/2015 22 2717 Lola Dr 20970 Closed
2/9/2015 2/9/2015 3/3/2015 17 1924 Hayselton 20968 Closed
2/9/2015 2/9/2015 3/2/2015 32 525 E High 20969 Closed
1/29/2015 1/29/2015 3/30/2015 44 Dunklin a nd Jefferson 20967 Closed
1/25/2015 1/26/2015 1/30/2015 4 104 N. Taylor 20966 Closed
1/21/2015 1/21/2015 1/30/2015 7 400 E Hess Way 20965 Closed
1/20/2015 1/21/2015 1/27/2015 5 117 E Circle 20958 Closed
1/19/2015 1/21/2015 1/27/2015 7 412 E Cirlce 20960 Closed
1/19/2015 1/21/2015 3/24/2015 47 401 Capitol 20963 Closed
1/19/2015 1/21/2015 2/6/2015 14 319 Meier 20964 Closed
1/17/2015 1/21/2015 2/6/2015 15 823 Primrose 20957 Closed
1/17/2015 1/21/2015 1/27/2015 7 917 Moreau 20961 Closed
1/16/2015 1/21/2015 1/30/2015 11 414 Hess Way 20959 Closed
1/11/2015 1/11/2015 1/21/2015 8 Boonville and West Main 20956 Closed
1/10/2015 1/11/2015 1/27/2015 11 Moreland and Moreau 20953 Closed
1/10/2015 1/11/2015 1/20/2015 7 1320 Moreland 20954 Closed
1/10/2015 1/11/2015 2/6/2015 20 2306 Hillsdale 20955 Closed
117/2015 1/9/2015 1/14/2015 6 2503 Industrial Drive 20952 Closed
1/6/2015 1/6/2015 1/21/2015 12 300 Berry St 20951 Closed
1/1/2015 1/5/2015 2/6/2015 26 1902 MO Blvd/Beck St 20949 Closed
1/1/2015 1/15/2015 2/11/2015 30 413 Beck St 20950 Closed
12/26/2014 12/29/2014 1/20/2015 16 1308 Houchins 20947 Closed
12/26/2014 12/29/2014 1/20/2015 16 Dunklin and Houchins 20948 Closed
12/2/2014 12/3/2014 12/15/2014 12 Donald Dr 20946 Closed
11/27/2014 12/1/2014 12/15/2014 14 Donald Dr 20945 Closed
11/18/2014 11/19/2014 12/15/2014 18 1924 Hayselton 20944 Closed
11/14/2014 11/17/2014 12/2/2014 18 837 Crestmere 20943 Closed
11/13/2014 11/17/2014 501 Mesa 20942 Closed
10/28/2014 10/29/2014 12/2/2014 22 2600 Schellridqe 20941 Closed
10/16/2014 10/20/2014 11/4/2014 13 1605 Bald Hill Rd 20940 Closed
10/13/2014 10/16/2014 11/4/2014 15 Doawood/Buehrle 20939 Closed
1017/2014 10/9/2014 10/19/2015 10 212 Broadway 20938 Closed
9/16/2014 9/17/2014 10/1/2014 10 2500 Country Club 20937 Closed
9/8/2014 9/8/2014 9/17/2014 9 Ridgeway and Oakview 20936 Closed
8/22/2014 8/26/2014 1017/2014 East Miller and Marshall 20934 Closed
8/21/2014 8/22/2014 9/15/2014 14 421 Union 20935 Closed
8/16/2014 8/1/2014 11/4/2014 65 1827 W. McCarty 20933 Closed
7/30/2014 7/31/2014 West Ashley and Mulberry 20860 Closed
7/28/2014 7/26/2014 200 block of S. Bluff Street 20859 Closed
7/23/2014 7/23/2014 8/11/2014 19 1319 E Elm Street 20856 Closed
7/23/2014 7/25/2014 8/1/2014 10 103 East Circle 20857 Closed
7/23/2014 7/25/2014 8/11/2014 19 700 Block of Michigam 20858 Closed
7/17/2014 7/22/2014 2025 West Edgewood Dr 20854 Closed
7/17/2014 7/22/2014 Hiebernia 20855 Closed
7/13/2014 7/22/2014 8/19/2014 37 1429 Di xon Drive 20853 Closed
717/14 7/8/14 7/15/14 1502 Greenberry 20852 Closed
7/5/14 7/8/14 10/3/14 58 114 Ridgeway 20851 Closed
7/1/14 7/3/14 8/14/14 21 1120 Lee Street 20850 Closed
6/30/14 7/1/14 7/15/14 400 Block Jackson 20848 Closed
6/30/14 7/3/14 7/15/14 1306 West Main 20849 Closed
6/20/14 6/23/14 7/15/14 1505 Stadium 20847 Closed
6/6/14 6/9/14 327 Fox Creek 20845 Closed
6/4/14 6/5/14 4/20/15 West Main and MO Blvd 20844 Closed
5/27/14 5/28/14 Industrial and Jaycee Dr 20842 Closed-New Main
5/21/14 5/21/14 6/4/14 14 321 Wilson Drive 20841 Closed
Page 3 of6
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right-of-Way
November 1, 2013 -September 19, 2016
~~~;;:r~; ~t~ti~~i~t1 :~~~~~:~id: ~~rti ~~-~U:::H·%~U H:~~~?.H /UH/~U. ·::rtt~~-~ -~u~:u·:.::H(~++*-~H/:<::.:·\~}/
5/20/14 5/20/14 6/4/14 15 4411 Indu strial 20840 Closed
5/13/14 5/14/14 1101 Industria l Drive 20839 Closed
5/8/14 5/13/14 5/14/14 6 Hillsdale and Binder 20837 Closed
5/1/14 505 Meier Dr 20836 Closed
4/29/14 4/2 9/14 5/6 /14 7 421 Ladue Rd 20835 Open-Driveway Issues
4/28/14 11/17/14 700 Block SW Blvd 20830 Closed
4/28/14 4/29/14 5/15/14 17 102 Vista 20832 Closed
4/28/14 4/29/14 5/1/14 3 1308 Cottage Lane 20833 Closed
4/28/14 4/29/14 5/6/14 8 2215 Hillsdale 20834 Closed
4/26/14 206 John St 20831 Closed
4/24/14 300 Block East High 20829 Closed
4/23/14 606 Washington Street 20828 Closed
4/16/14 2107 Buehrle Dr 20825 Closed
4/16/14 1010 Holly 20826 Closed
4/16/14 Maryland and Lowell 20827 Closed
417/14 2940 Valley View Drive 20824 Closed
4/2/14 1215 Edaewood 20822 Closed
4/2/14 1801 Notre Dame 20823 Closed
3/18/14 104 W. Franklin 20821 Closed
317/14 Hiberia/Mokane Road 20820 Closed
2/28/14 Locust!Walsch 20819 Closed
2/24/14 Edmonds I Dull e 20818 Closed
2/21/14 2708 Twin Hills 20817 Closed-Driveway question
2/18/14 306 N Lincoln 20815 Closed
2/18/14 Pondarosa Street 20816 Closed
2/13/14 100 Blk East Ashley 20814 Closed
2/11/14 317 Stadium 20813 Closed
2/4/14 216-218 McKinley Street 20811 Closed
213/14 1408 East High (Alley) 20812 Closed
1/20/14 1314 Moreau Drive 20751 Closed
1/20/14 1/20/14 5/6/14 106 311 E High Street 20752 Closed
1/12/14 Douglas I Wayne 20749 Closed
1/12/14 130 Boonv ille Road 20750 Open-Wa iti ng hot mix placement
117/14 1120 Carol Street 20748 Closed
1/5/14 1515 Rosewood 20747 Closed
1/3/14 708 Wicker Lane 20746 Closed-New Main
1/2/14 710 Wicker Lane 20745 Closed-New Main
1/1/14 McCarty Street/ Manilla 20743 Closed
1/1/14 Pierce I Edwards 20744 Closed
12/26/13 1504 Bald Hill Road 20742 Closed
12/23/13 1122 East Atchison 207 41 Closed
12/18/13 1505 Southwest Blvd. 20739 Closed
12/18/1 3 Marilyn I Oakview 20740 Closed
12111/13 1306 Emmience 20737 Closed
12/11/13 623-625 W McCarty Street 20738 Closed
12/10/13 709 E McCarty Street 20734 Closed
12/10/13 2107 Rear Mo. Blvd. 20735 Closed
12110/1 3 200 Blk Filmore 20736 Closed
12/8/13 719 Wicker Lane 20733 Closed
12/3/13 2109 Edaewood Drive 20731 Closed
12/3/13 1119 Darlene 20732 Closed
11/28/13 636 Belmont 20730 Closed
11/27/13 1210 Edgewood 20729 Closed
11/19/13 1310 East High Street 20728 Closed
11/14/13 603 Meir 20726 Closed
11/14/13 Westwood /Wood Cliff 20727 Closed
11/13/13 3032 Oak Valley Drive 20723 Closed
11/13/13 1901 Bassman 20724 Closed
11/13/13 11/15/13 5/14/13 316 Ash Street 20725 Closed -New Main
11/5/13 Satinwood Drive I Melody 20722 Closed
11/4/13 2207 Schell Ridge 20720 Closed
11/4/13 1822 Cedar Ridge 20721 Closed
5/30/13 6/3/14 6/4/14 370 2212 Oakview Drive 20843 Closed
5/12/13 5/13/14 2600 Jason Road 20838 Closed
Page 4 of 6
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right-of-Way
November 1, 2013 -September 19, 2016
::~a~;.:t ~~~~i~~~tt :~l~~j:~;~~ ~~ir~; ~::-.·/~U/H-:@2~~~-~H ~!U/t)/+ :=p~~j H ~-(·/~1/!:/!§H+!A;:+?>:::~::::?-u
138 Forest Hill 20753 Closed
1225 High Cliff 20754 Closed
1551 Bald Hill Road 20755 Closed
6/11/14 6/9/14 619 Houchin 20846 Closed
Page 5 of6