Duke Street Illustrates an Infrastructure Funding Solution


  • Dauphin County eliminated all of its load-posted, structurally deficient bridges with an ambitious approach to infrastructure funding.
  • Now the county is using the money it’s saved to fund a new infrastructure program benefiting its municipalities and private sector.
  • The program has already funded 10 projects worth $11 million with just a $1 million investment from the county.
  • Read on to learn more about Dauphin County’s innovative infrastructure funding solution.

Duke Street Bridge Under Construction

We begin this story in its final chapter, celebrating the construction of the Duke Street Bridge in Hummelstown Borough and South Hanover Township.

It’s a story that plays out all over America every day: a local government struggling to address aging, deteriorating infrastructure.

But Dauphin County’s story is different. With HRG’s help, they’ve found a solution to the infrastructure funding problem and are turning the page to a new, brighter future: a future they have the freedom to author themselves.

How did they get here? Asset management and capital improvement planning.

Ambitious Capital Improvement Program Eliminates Structurally Deficient Bridges

In 1984, 1/3 of Dauphin County’s bridges were structurally deficient. It’s the kind of problem many local governments – under tight budget constraints – might find insurmountable.  But Dauphin County knew that solving big problems is not done in one swift motion; it’s accomplished piece-by-piece.

Accordingly, HRG designed a long-term asset management and capital improvement planning program for them. It has several components:

  • Inspecting and assessing the condition of each county-owned bridge every two years.
  • Identifying the appropriate type and timing of maintenance, restoration or replacement measures.
  • Creating (and updating) a Bridge Improvement Plan that prioritizes these measures over a 10-year period. (Projects are ranked not just on the bridge’s structural condition but also its importance to the local transportation network [as determined by the amount of traffic it carries, whether it’s located on EMS or school bus routes, etc.])
  • Using this data to seek funding.
  • Leveraging this funding to complete projects over time, addressing the most urgent needs first and steadily whittling that list of structural deficiencies down to nothing.

By taking a proactive approach like this (vs a reactive approach that addresses bridges only after they’ve failed), Dauphin County extends the life of its bridges, maximizing their usefulness while minimizing their life cycle cost.

They also position themselves well for outside funding. A good capital improvement plan includes plenty of data about how many people rely on a piece of infrastructure and how they would be impacted if it were to fail or be taken out of service.  This information is very persuasive to funding agencies, who want to make sure their investment provides the biggest possible benefit to the community.

But agencies also want to be sure the money they invest will produce results: that the project will successfully transition from concept to construction. A well-designed capital improvement plan does just that. It shows you have identified exactly what is required to get a project built (including the timelines for permits and approvals) and that you know the full scope and cost of what you want to accomplish.  It also shows you have allocated money in advance to get the job done.

This level of detail reassures funding agencies that the money they invest will be used wisely and the project will be completed successfully. (See our article on Positioning Yourself for Grant Funding for more detail.)

In fact, funding agencies are increasingly requiring data like this in their application process, so a capital improvement plan is quickly transforming from a nice-to-have item into a necessary part of your infrastructure approach. (Our article on successfully applying for Pennsylvania Act 89 transportation funding explains this in more detail.)

Many pages have been written about Dauphin County’s success with this strategy over the years. (It has been featured in Pennsylvania County News and Road and Bridges magazine among others.)  In addition, the county has won several awards for projects accomplished using this approach: two Road and Bridge Safety Awards, a National Timber Bridge Award, and a historic preservation award from the PHMC.

But the successful completion of Duke Street in 2017 is not just an ending; it’s the beginning of a whole new story for Dauphin County. With no more load-posted, structurally deficient bridges to address, the county transitioned its focus from replacement to maintenance.  This has enabled county officials to create a new program for funding infrastructure, using a portion of the Liquid Fuels funds it used to need for bridge replacements.

Savings Are Used to Encourage Economic Growth With a New Infrastructure Funding Program for Municipalities and the Private Sector

The Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank combines this Liquid Fuels funding with additional money from PennDOT’s Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank to offer loans to county municipalities, businesses, and non-profits at unbeatably low interest rates (as low as 0.5%) for the construction of roads and bridges under their jurisdiction. Over the past three years, the county has turned a $1 million investment into 10 projects worth $11 million.

DCIB has funded 10 projects worth $11 million

Again, Dauphin County has its eye on the long view, using its funds to promote economic development throughout its municipalities.

As their example illustrates, the solution to funding our infrastructure is not a short story; it’s a novel with many chapters and a carefully planned arc. In fact, it’s a story that never ends – with the construction of Duke Street serving as the beginning of a new chapter: the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank.  This program will, in turn, fund many new stories with new characters: municipalities and private developers rewriting the future of their communities one roadway or bridge at a time.

Are you ready to become the author of your  community’s future?

 

UPDATE: Dauphin County celebrated a ribbon-cutting for the completed bridge in the spring of 2017.  Learn more about the bridge in the video below


Brian Emberg, P.E.Brian Emberg, P.E., has more than 30 years of experience and has designed hundreds of infrastructure projects. His understanding of project management and keen sense of business practices has lead him to his current position as Senior Vice President and Chief Technical Officer at HRG. He is responsible for the management and oversight of the firm’s technical service groups, sales and marketing, client management, and the maintenance and execution of quality management plans.

What Do Flashing Yellow Signals Mean For Your Municipality?

A new flashing yellow signal has been installed in the Harrisburg area.

It’s the first in Pennsylvania, but flashing yellow signals have been implemented throughout the country.

Studies show they improve safety and reduce left-turn crashes. They can also keep traffic moving more efficiently.

Read on to learn more about their benefits and how much it would cost to convert a traffic signal to this new technology.

Flashing Yellow in Lower Allen Township

 

Have you seen the new flashing yellow arrow traffic signals?

PennDOT recently unveiled Pennsylvania’s first one in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County at the intersection of Route 15 and Rossmoyne Road (shown above).

Over the next several months, PennDOT will monitor this intersection to see if the flashing yellow arrow helps to reduce accidents at this location. If it does, these signals will likely be deployed throughout the state.

How does a flashing yellow arrow work?

Historically, drivers making a left turn have had the right-of-way when the traffic light showed them a green arrow. There is no opposing traffic during a green arrow light, so drivers making a left turn don’t have to worry about other cars entering the intersection as they turn.

When a green circle is displayed, however, drivers can only make a left turn if there is no traffic coming from opposing directions. Drivers must first check for opposing traffic and then turn if the roadway is clear.

Under this new system, the flashing yellow arrow will replace the green circle. When a flashing yellow is displayed, drivers will be able to make a left turn, but they must first yield to any oncoming traffic.

Graphic excerpted from PennDOT’s Flashing Yellow Arrow Fact Sheet

Flashing Yellow Graphic from PennDOT

 

 

Why is the flashing yellow beneficial?

Drivers intuitively associate yellow with caution, so they are more likely to understand that they can only turn if there is no opposing traffic than they are with a solid green circle (which our brains associate with the direction to Go.)

In fact, a study by the Federal Highway Administration has shown them to reduce left-turn accidents by as much as 20%. This is one of the reasons the Route 15/Rossmoyne Road intersection was selected for the first flashing yellow signal in the state. More than 80% of the accidents at this intersection have involved left-turn movements (37 in the last four years).

In addition to improving safety, flashing yellow arrows can keep traffic moving more efficiently by providing more opportunities for left turns to occur. At intersections that previously went from green arrow to solid yellow, drivers will have an additional phase for left-turning movements. This, in turn, reduces delay and can eliminate complaints municipalities sometimes receive about frequently backed-up intersections.

Will municipalities be required to convert their traffic signals to this new flashing yellow arrow format?

No, there is no requirement for municipalities to implement flashing yellow signals at this time. Right now, PennDOT is testing the technology and seeing if it provides similar benefits in Pennsylvania to what is has provided elsewhere.

How much would it cost to convert municipal traffic signals to this new format?

In order to follow the new flashing yellow format, municipalities would only have to change their signal heads, not the mast arms. The new flashing yellow signal in Lower Allen Township cost $6,000 to install, but costs vary, depending on the existing signal operation and the number of directions that the arrow is being installed.

This number does not include engineering fees, which cover the cost of traffic counts, analysis, and a permit update, and can range between $4,000 – $6,000.

All told, a municipality can expect to pay between $8,000 – $14,000 for both construction and engineering fees associated with the implementation of a flashing yellow traffic signal.

For flashing yellow arrows to reduce accidents, as intended, drivers must understand what they mean. Therefore, PennDOT has undertaken an extensive public education effort. You can view a video that explains how the signals work and read a fact sheet about them on PennDOT’s website.

For any questions you might have about how a flashing yellow arrow might benefit your community or what implementation would entail, contact Darren Myer, HRG’s transportation manager for Western PA, or Eric Stump, our transportation manager for Central PA.


Darren Myer, P.E., PTOEMyer, has more than 16 years of experience in roadway and traffic engineering. He serves as traffic engineer for multiple townships and municipalities within Western Pennsylvania. His areas of expertise include traffic studies, signalization, roadway design, and the review of traffic impact studies and land development plans.

 

Eric Stump, P.E., PTOEEric Stump, has 14 years of experience and serves as the Traffic Team Leader for HRG’s Eastern Region. His experience includes preparing traffic impact studies for developments, reviewing traffic impact studies for municipalities, preparing traffic signal permit and construction plans, developing coordination programs for traffic signals in a system, and preparing PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit applications.

Effective Utility Management Starts With These Strategic Planning Tips

Strategic Planning Whiteboard

This article was originally published in the June 2016 issue of  Keystone Water Quality Manager. It is reprinted here with their permission.

We’re all familiar with the phrase “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.” This is paraphrased from an exchange between Alice and Cheshire Cat in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. Like Alice, you know you need to get “somewhere” because changing regulations, increasing costs, aging infrastructure and customer growth affect the way you provide your service. Each year as operators, managers, and board members, you’re forced to establish budgets, adopt rates and policies, and make recommendations that have long-lasting effects. You may use the best information available at the time but can’t be sure that you’re adequately prepared for what’s just around the corner.

Strategic planning is a tool that helps to identify where you need to go and the best road to get there by exploring the fundamental values and principles that support your utility’s policy and operating decisions. Properly done, it looks at all aspects of the utility’s operations in order to see if they reflect the needs of your customers, ensure regulatory compliance, and generate sufficient financial resources to be sustainable. This is not just a financial plan focused on replacing existing facilities or acquiring new ones, but a comprehensive look at the factors that will drive both short and long-term events and an identification of strategies to address them.

There are five basic elements in a strategic plan:

  1.  Vision
  2. Mission Statement
  3. Critical Success Factors
  4. Strategies and Actions to Meet Objectives
  5. Prioritization and Implementation Schedule

However, there can be as many additional elements as the utility feels is necessary to properly address the needs of all its stakeholders: its users, employees, and the community at large. Some of these elements may take a long time to complete, while others can be accomplished relatively quickly. For some, a good deal of data will be needed, while others will simply reflect widely accepted industry practices and preferences. The plan could take a month or a year to complete, depending on the level of detail believed to be required. However, one of the benefits of the planning process will be simply identifying the stakeholders and discussing the elements of the plan with them. The ability to identify areas of consensus and concern is a hugely important and valuable outcome of the plan.

Getting Ready for Strategic Planning

Before you can begin the process, there are some preparatory activities that should be completed:

Authorization
The first task in strategic planning is obtaining the authorization to move forward with the process at all. It is important to involve all of the decision-makers in the strategic planning process, and discussing the scope of the plan and its benefits is one of the best ways to achieve “buy-in” for the entire process. Without buy-in, it will be difficult to fully implement the resulting plan.

Identification of Stakeholders
Another important step is to make sure the process considers all relevant points of view. This may seem easy, but, when you actually begin to list them, the number of people and organizations relying on your utility to be well-managed and provide affordable, high quality service is probably greater than you think. While some seem obvious, consider the following examples:
• Current users
• Employees
• Regulatory agencies, including PA DEP and US EPA
• Municipal government, conservation districts and planning agencies
• The Chamber of Commerce or local economic development agency
• Future users, including land owners and developers

This is not intended to be a complete list, only a guide, and not every group will require the same level of involvement in the strategic planning process, but understanding how each group might be impacted is important.

Planning Your TimetableDetermination of the Plan’s Time Frame
Strategic plans are generally long-term, usually five years, but a different time horizon may be more useful if you are aware of some specific event likely to occur just beyond the five-year planning period. If a significant expansion of the utility appears likely, five years may not be long enough.

Organization
How will the strategic plan be organized? Who will guide the process? Is it to be done by an outside professional or internal staff? What is the schedule? What will the final plan look like, and how will it be disseminated? Does it need some type of formal adoption or approval? If so, by whom?

Determining the “Vision”

In essence, visioning asks the question: What will the organization look like in the future? Visioning will supply the context for the other elements of the strategic plan. For a wastewater utility, the visioning process may actually be one of the most involved elements of the plan since this is where you try to get a peek at what’s around the corner. Unlike some businesses where visioning is a projection of some blend of marketing prowess, economic predictions and industry trends, each utility is unique because the factors that drive future events will impact it differently.

The task is made a bit easier if you divide visioning into an external scan and an internal scan. Although they may be related in many ways, the external scan looks at:Financial Reports

  • potential changes in the regulatory environment,
  • community growth and development,
  • changes in demographics,
  • future interest rates,
  • future construction costs,
  • the overall level of economic activity.

(Increased economic activity in nearby communities should also be considered since it may impact your service area.)

The internal scan will focus more on:

  • the needs of existing users and employees,
  • service improvements,
  • transparency,
  • facilities,
  • finances,
  • rates,
  • operating policies,
  • organizational structure.

These are but a few of the areas that need to be considered in some detail.

The visioning process is almost as diverse as the elements themselves. Clearly, information from outside the utility is necessary. This may include individual interviews with consultants, suppliers and community leaders. Telephone calls, questionnaires, online surveys, and specific messages printed on bill inserts can also solicit feedback from targeted stakeholders. Regardless of how it’s done, the result should be a clear and concise statement that reflects the major trends that are likely to drive the future direction of your utility. But, before you can get too specific, you should develop the broad organizational goals. This is best done with a mission statement.

Drafting a Mission StatementDrafting Your “Mission Statement”

I know the idea that you can somehow cram the entire essence of an organization into a couple of tightly worded sentences seems impossible. Some mission statements will run on for several paragraphs, but do they really provide more information about the philosophy or principles that govern the utility’s operations? Usually not. Instead, the discipline of packing an organization’s values into a few words may actually provide a better understanding of its goals. Here is an illustration of a short but insightful mission statement for a wastewater utility, courtesy of the Lancaster Area Sewer Authority:

“To provide quality service and apply technology to process wastewater so as to protect and enhance the environment and health and well-being of the community at a reasonable cost.”

The mission statement should not simply be a collection of carefully chosen words that project an image that isn’t consistent with the utility’s values; rather, creating the mission statement should foster a deeper understanding and commitment to those values. This, in turn, provides the benchmarks that measure success.

business-servicesIdentifying “Critical Success Factors”

The visioning process should identify the broad goals and major initiatives that need to be incorporated into the strategic plan. It is not important to determine their feasibility at this point; detailed examination of alternatives will be done later. Simply decide if they are consistent with the mission statement and are not mutually exclusive. Some likely success factors might include:

  • Achieving greater transparency.
  • Building up operating and capital reserve accounts.
  • Having all professional employees become certified in their specialty.
  • Exploring alternative billing and payment procedures.
  • Creating or reviewing emergency response procedures.
  • Reviewing or increasing use of technology to achieve greater efficiency.
  • Expanding facilities to accommodate expected population increases.
  • Developing an action plan should demographic changes result in reduced flows.

These are only illustrations; the vision and mission statements will help dictate the critical success factors that should be included in your plan. The key here is to keep the success factors general in nature but focused on specific identifiable outcomes. Another important consideration is quantifying what it means to be successful and the metrics for measurement.

From the above illustration, achieving greater transparency is a success factor, but what exactly does that mean? What is it that should be more transparent, and what are the limits of what is made publically available? Can it measured by the number of visits to your website, or does it mean the creation of a website? Is it measured by a fewer number of requests for specific information or telephone inquiries? How about the development of a newsletter? Is that something that most customers believe would be useful based on data collected during the visioning process?

Some critical success factors may not be determined directly. In the example above, data may not have been collected on customer’s preferences during the visioning process. In that case, the success factor of achieving greater transparency will need to be defined by some other precedent activity to measure the benefits of transparency, or it may be determined that transparency is simply a virtue for its own sake whose benefits may not be immediately measurable. In that instance, the precedent activity may be to look at industry practice and see how your current practices can be improved.

If you are getting the idea that developing the critical success factors is a time-consuming process that requires a lot of effort in order to be done correctly, you’re right. This is often the work of several individuals and should involve a team approach at least to direct the work. Care should be taken to assign responsibility for completing an assignment to someone who is involved in the overall planning effort. If not, they may not understand the actual goal and may simply complete a task.

Developing critical success factors, defining them, and providing metrics for measurement is at the very heart of the strategic planning effort. While strategies and actions will provide the “to-do list” and ultimately become the basis for the final report, they will be driven first by the critical success factors you’ve defined.

Developing “Strategies and Actions”

This step is where the plan is actually created. Critical success factors identify the areas where some action seems warranted; they take our broad goals and further define the “somewhere” we want to go. The next step is determining how to get there.

negotiating_at_the_deskAgain, using the transparency example, probably everyone will agree that organizational transparency is desirable, but someone might disagree with the type of information that is made available or with the level of training that may be necessary to organize and screen information. Cost is always a consideration when implementing changes.

Because there are generally many facets to each critical success factor, it is important to have several individuals involved in formulating the strategy for evaluation and implementation. This is often accomplished by group meetings, where each critical success factor is discussed. Questions will likely arise that cannot be answered without some further investigation, so tasks must be delegated to a smaller group or an individual for follow-up. In fact, most of the early efforts will be directed to developing the process to obtain the necessary information and assigning someone to gather and analyze it. The analysis is essential so that the success factor can be implemented in a way that achieves its intended purpose. It also provides documentation for any critical success factors that cannot be implemented.

Once the strategy for implementation is determined, specific detailed actions for implementation should be prepared. One of the most important decisions in this stage of the process is timing. You want to think about the best time to launch a new initiative or modify or eliminate an existing one.

Another important task is to identify someone to champion the implementation. Maybe there is one lead person or several depending on the type and number of tasks. If achieving the critical success factor requires technology changes, someone involved with maintaining that technology should be involved in the implementation. This may seem obvious, but sometimes third parties are retained for implementation, resulting in a loss of buy-in from those who will be responsible for making it all work.
schedule

Prioritizing Tasks and Designing an Implementation Schedule

Even though this article opened with a reference to a fairy tale, there should be no fantasy about implementation. It’s just as much work as each of the other elements — maybe more, since there are now clear ideas on how each goal is to be achieved and, of course, the devil is always in the details. Regardless of how thorough the analysis was, complications can be expected. Another frustration usually is that it takes longer to accomplish than originally believed.

In order to avoid this, one of the first steps to implementation is to determine the schedule. Unless there are very few and straightforward critical success factors, some effort needs to be expended in prioritizing each success factor for each of the broad goals identified in the vision. Often, once the strategic plan is formalized, a sense of urgency to implement its objectives is inevitable. This is understandable since the reason for the plan is generally to improve the utility’s operations, so why would you want to delay?

For one thing, it’s important to remember that the plan itself looks at a five-year time period, so that not all benefits will be immediately available. Also, events are constantly changing, so some of the fundamental assumptions that went into the plan may change. This may not affect the plan, but the implementation schedule should allow time for monitoring external changes nonetheless.

Another important consideration is the time staff has available to implement the plan. While the plan is being implemented, all other work must continue. Even if some of the heavy lifting is assigned to others, the utility’s staff needs to be involved at each step if they are expected to achieve the plan’s goals and provide necessary feedback.

microphoneCommunicating the Plan with Your Stakeholders

Okay: you have the vision, you’ve determined the critical success factors, you’ve developed strategies for implementation, and you’ve created the implementation schedule. You have assigned staff to implement the various strategies in order to monitor progress and make sure that each strategy achieves its desired goal. One question remains: What does the final plan look like? Is it a printed document, a slide presentation published on your website, or an internal spreadsheet that serves as a checklist for monitoring implementation?

Like all the other aspects of the plan, the process that rolls out the plan is determined by the goals of the strategic plan itself. If the plan is centered on internal improvements, then employee meetings with handouts may be the most effective means of communicating the plan’s objectives and the strategies designed to implement them. If there are elements of the plan that are service-related – that impact your customers or the community at large – more formal printed materials may need to be prepared. Meetings with important relevant stakeholders may also be useful, especially if there are some financial impacts associated with the plan that they are expected to share.

The only thing that’s constant is change. Absent a crystal ball, tarot cards, or an Ouija board, a well-thought-out strategic plan is the best means of seeing the future. Even if it misses the mark, knowing why it missed and what parts of the utility may be affected is an important benefit that makes the exercise worthwhile. At the very least, developing the plan will require policy-makers, managers and staff to consider each other’s points of view and understand how the customers and community view your utility.

Sanitary Sewer Overflow Solution Comes from An Unlikely Source: A Fish

Sanitary Sewer Overflow

This article on how Middletown Wastewater Treatment Plant solved its Sanitary Sewer Overflow problem was originally published in the June 2016 issue of Keystone Water Quality Manager. It is reprinted here with their permission.

No doubt a fisherman would be intrigued seeing a rock bass on the fine screen at the Middletown WWTP, but the ear tuned to hear “inflow” was even more intrigued.

The visit from the rock bass had been preceded by two decades of inflow reduction efforts due to Sanitary Sewer Overflow issue (SSOs). Yet despite increased interceptor sizes and redirected flows, the SSOs continued. A sewer system dating back to the 19th century can indeed be challenging, but sometimes solutions are inspired in the unlikeliest of ways.

Discovery of the rock bass was mentioned casually at an authority meeting, and immediately the authority’s engineer began to wonder if there was an unknown connection between the borough’s sanitary sewers and storm sewers. Rock bass are not kept as pets, of course, so the fish would not have entered the system from a toilet or home drain. It must’ve come from Swatara Creek.  There is no way the fish came through the WWTP effluent pipe, and only the local storm sewers discharge to Swatara Creek, not the sanitary sewers.  Therefore, the fish must’ve entered the sanitary system directly from a connection with the storm sewers.  But where?

After several discussions with treatment plant operators and other staff at the borough and authority, the engineer was able to narrow the search down to three possible locations, one of which was located at the site of a streetscape project under construction at the time. Searching this area for a sanitary and storm sewer connection would be very difficult because it was the heart of the borough’s downtown business district and was surrounded by a nest of other utilities and old Brownstone businesses.  Yet the effort was worth it: By carefully coordinating with the contractor, the borough was able to discover the unknown connection between the local sanitary and storm systems, and, once it was corrected, sanitary sewer overflows (and basement back-ups at local businesses) were finally eliminated!

Middletown sewer connection

This story illustrates the importance of harnessing the feedback and input of your operators and staff at all levels of an authority’s organization. Had the operators’ odd discovery of the rock bass (later nicknamed Leaky) never made it to the authority and their engineer, SSOs could’ve potentially continued in the borough for many years.  Operators possess unique knowledge of a system’s materials, construction and history.  This knowledge has real value that can lead to major cost savings like those realized by this solution to the borough’s inflow problems.

As this story shows, incorporating the input of operators and staff at all levels of an organization can make finding solutions to your most puzzling challenges as easy as shooting fish in a barrel (or fine screen).


Joshua Fox, P.E.,Josh Fox is the eastern Regional Service Group Manager for HRG’s Water & Wastewater Service Group. He has extensive experience in the planning and implementation of I/I Programs and rehabilitation projects. 

 

Bruce HulshizerBruce Hulshizer, P.E., is a project manager in HRG’s Water and Wastewater Service Group. He has two decades of experience in civil engineering and is an active member of the Pennsylvania Water Environment Association, where he serves as co-chair of their Collection System Committee.

Tips Municipalities Can Use to Prepare for Flooding

by Erin Letavic, P.E.
Flooded Street

More than 83,000 homes in Pennsylvania are at risk of property damage from hurricane storm surges, according to a report from a California company specializing in financial and property related business intelligence.  The company, CoreLogic, estimates reconstruction costs for these properties could be as high as $11 billion if all the properties were destroyed.  This makes Pennsylvania the 13th highest-risk state for hurricane property damage.

Though Americans primarily associate hurricane damage with coastal states like Florida and Louisiana, Pennsylvania can also be inundated with storms related to hurricane activity (as anyone who survived the severe flooding of Tropical Storm Lee in 2011 can attest).

In addition, researchers at Penn State University who have been studying weather patterns predict that heavier storms are expected to occur more frequently in the coming decades. For example, a storm with a 24-hour rain total that used to occur once every 20 years is predicted to occur every 12-16 years by the year 2050.  This means, flood events that used to be rare will happen more frequently.

Accordingly, Pennsylvania municipalities should be prepared for heavy storms and the flooding and property damage they can bring. This means every municipality should have a flood preparedness program and should examine its infrastructure construction standards to make sure it is mitigating the risk of more frequent flooding.

The first step in preparing for flood risk is to identify where flooding is most likely to occur and what infrastructure will be affected.

Do you know what parts of your community are in the FEMA floodplain?

Do you know how that floodplain is predicted to change in the coming years?

Do you have critical infrastructure related to your water and sewage treatment system located within that floodplain? What about your power grid?  High-traffic roadways or public transit routes?  Petroleum or chemical storage facilities?

Are your critical community centers located within that floodplain such as the police and fire facilities? Hospitals?  City hall?  Public works facilities?  Shelters?  Communications centers?

Do your sanitary and storm sewer systems have the capacity to handle heavy storms without overflowing polluted water into your local waterways?

A civil engineer with knowledge of floodplain mapping and municipal land planning can help you answer these questions. Then, once the risks have been properly identified, your engineer can help you minimize the risk by upgrading infrastructure and amending codes and ordinances to promote wiser land use.  For example, he or she can examine your local floodplain regulations to confirm they conform to those recommended by FEMA and that they are being properly enforced during the land development and building permit process.

Though it will cost money to take the steps outlined here, the cost of repairing the damage done by a lack of preparation could be much greater. By preparing for storm surge impacts today, municipalities can save lives and money tomorrow.


Erin Letavic, P.E., Erin Letavic is a project manager in HRG’s Civil Group. She helps municipalities throughout Central Pennsylvania manage their stormwater permits and assists with various other municipal engineering tasks such as zoning and subdivision and land development plan reviews.

Form-Based Zoning Can Bring Municipalities and Developers Together on the Walkable Communities Buyers Want

Photo by North Charleston.  Published here under a Creative Commons license.Walkable Community

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) recently released the results of a nationwide poll showing millennials increasingly prefer walkable communities over the spread-out developments in many present-day suburbs. Other studies have confirmed similar preferences for walkable neighborhoods and mixed-use development; however, traditional zoning approaches, which emphasize low-density development and a separation of land uses, makes it difficult for residential developers to obtain approval for these communities. This article explores the rise in popularity of the walkable community and discusses how residential developers and municipal planners can use form-based zoning to create a community that meets the needs of everyone.

The Case for Walkable Communities

In 2013, NAR’s Community Preference Survey found that 60% of respondents preferred a neighborhood that mixes housing with stores and businesses within walking distance, and 55% would give up a home with a bigger yard in order to get one within walking distance of schools, stores and restaurants.

Additionally, a study by Gary Pivo at the University of Arizona’s Urban Planning Program and Jeffrey Fisher at Indiana University’s Kelly School of Business found that – other factors being equal – enhanced walkability increased the value of both residential and commercial properties.  Using data from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries and Walk Score, they compared more than 4,000 office, apartment, retail and industrial properties and determined that a 10% increase in walkability increased property value by up to 9% for all but the industrial properties.  (There was no discernible impact on industrial properties with a higher walkability score.)

This is in line with other studies of traditional neighborhood developments (TND) published in Real Estate Economics and the Journal of Urban Economics, which found that buyers were willing to pay between 12-15% more for pedestrian-friendly homes in the studied neighborhoods, compared to similar homes in neighboring low-density communities.

Increased property values benefit the developer selling the home, but they also benefit the local municipality as they increase property tax revenues. In addition, high density, walkable communities reduce the amount of infrastructure (such as roadways, traffic signals, water and sewer line extensions) needed to connect spread-out developments, which can save the  municipality money that would’ve been needed to maintain that infrastructure.

The most important reason for municipalities to consider making their zoning friendlier to walkable communities, however, might be their desire to stay competitive as a place people want to live.

Millennials represent a demographic of 80 million people, and they are the generation that will be buying homes and putting down roots in the years to come. Michael Myers, a managing director at The Rockefeller Foundation, is quoted in an article on The Atlantic’s CityLab website, saying, “As we move from a car-centric model of mobility to a nation that embraces more sustainable transportation options, millennials are leading the way…Cities that don’t invest in [these options] stand to lose out in the long run.” 

Bridging the Municipal-Developer Gap with Form-Based Zoning

If municipalities and developers agree that walkable communities can be beneficial, why aren’t more of them being built?

Over the past few years, these communities have become more and more popular with both developers and municipalities, but acceptance still is not widespread. Traditional zoning ordinances could be one of the reasons why.

Traditional zoning ordinances separate land uses into distinct zones: Commercial is separate from residential. Single family homes are separate from apartments and townhomes, etc.  This prevents the construction of developments that combine commercial and residential uses of different types in one space like modern walkable communities do. In addition, traditional zoning has emphasized a low-density approach because communities associate higher density with a loss of open space and community character and fear higher density developments will drain community resources.  However, developers require a higher density approach in order to make the many amenities (such as recreational facilities and civic and commercial spaces) affordable in a typical walkable community plan.

But form-based zoning could be the bridge that closes the gap between a community’s concerns and a developer’s needs.

Rather than fixating on density values and strict land use definitions, municipalities using a form-based zoning approach create a vision for the type of community they’d like to have and set standards to realize that vision.  If they want a community that encourages walking and social interaction in public spaces, they can set standards that will promote these activities.  For example,  Public Space standards can specify the types of pedestrian amenities, greenspaces and recreation requirements that make a place feel safe, comfortable and walkable.  They can also set the size of a standard block and govern how roadways and pedestrian amenities interconnect.  (Keeping the size of blocks small will make them more manageable for walkers, and interconnecting streets will provide shorter routes and more evenly distribute car traffic throughout the roadway network.  This will, in turn, have the added benefit of reducing congestion that comes from concentrating cars on just a few heavily travelled corridors, as is common in many traditionally zoned communities today.)

By using a form-based approach, municipalities can focus more on the form and feel of a community, instead of limiting development to strictly separated zones with a one-size-fits-all regulation of lot sizes.

In turn, residents enjoy the quality of life they seek, and municipalities can continue to attract growth, maintain a healthy tax base, and reduce the expenses associated with sprawling infrastructure. Meanwhile developers are able to meet a market demand profitably without navigating an unnecessarily lengthy entitlements process.

This type of approach allows communities to remain relevant and competitive in the decades to come as millennials age, take their resources and preferences to market, have kids and nurture the next generation. Municipalities and developers that dismiss these trends as merely a fad may be taking a big risk. Is it worth it?  We will know in 20 years.


HRG excels at bringing developers and municipalities together to meet the needs of a community in a way that benefits all parties. To discuss how walkable communities could benefit you, please contact us

Building Voter Support for Stormwater Fees

Hand vote

Many local officials realize the need to improve stormwater management to protect water quality, but fear constituents would oppose a new fee for stormwater services. Experience shows a transparent approach that involves community stakeholders can build consensus.

by: Adrienne Vicari, P.E.
 

(These tips are excerpted from an article we published in the October 2015 issue of Pennsylvania Township News magazine and are used here with their permission. Reprints of the entire article are available upon request.)

Increasingly stringent stormwater regulations are causing municipalities to think about how they can fund badly needed stormwater system improvements in their community. Many municipalities are considering funding their program through user fees charged by a municipal authority, as authorized by Act 68 of 2013, but some municipal leaders worry that a new fee may be unpopular with residents and businesses.

Though stormwater utility fees are still largely unchartered territory in Pennsylvania (less than a dozen communities have established one here), the use of dedicated stormwater utilities and stormwater fees is a nationwide movement that has seen steady growth over the past four decades. Western Kentucky University reports that there are more than 1,500 stormwater utilities throughout the United States and Canada, serving communities as small as 88 people to more than 3 million. Their success in building consensus among constituents for stormwater fees can show local municipalities a path to approval in their own community.

HRG has used information from the Western Kentucky University study, the nationwide non-profit Water Words That Work, and several case studies published by the EPA (along with our own experience implementing stormwater authorities) to come up with several tips on how municipalities can build local support for stormwater user fees.

 

  1. Make sure you have identified and involved all the potential stakeholders – even those who oppose the formation of a utility – and form a stakeholder advisory committee. If you don’t attempt to address the concerns of your opposition in these committee meetings, they can come back to haunt you later when it comes time to pass the resolution. According to the EPA case studies, this is what happened in Dover, New Hampshire, and Huntsville, Alabama. Both communities had small advisory committees, but they did not engage all community groups. Though there was unanimous consent among the committee members to form a stormwater utility, the opposition of certain community groups who had not been represented on the committee ultimately drowned out their voices, and the municipal leadership declined to pass the resolution.
  2. Make the stakeholder committee an open forum where people feel comfortable expressing all points of view. Again, you want to deal with any potential obstacles proactively, rather than be blindsided by them in the final stretch. Stakeholder advisory committee meetings are more conducive to problem-solving and negotiating in a deliberative way than public meetings are. By including your opposition early in the process and giving everyone a chance to speak freely, you ensure that major obstacles to support will have been addressed before a public vote.
  3. Have your stakeholder committee discuss the stormwater program and what it can accomplish first. Don’t bring up funding till you’ve established a need for improvements and motivated people to support them. People need to know what they’re getting before they can be motivated to hand over their money.
  4. Clearly define the benefits of the program in all public outreach efforts. Tell people exactly what improvements you intend to make with the money you raise, and quantify the benefits of those improvements whenever possible. For example: “This project will reduce the likelihood of flooding along Main Street by 75%.”
  5. Show, don’t just tell. Visuals are particularly persuasive. Water Words That Work found that showing people photographs of how the fee would be used had the single most dramatic effect of any information provided in gaining approval of the fee.
  6. Choose your words carefully. Name the fee to clearly convey the service you are providing. “Stormwater management” is too vague and largely meaningless to the average person, but “clean water protection” has obvious value. In the Water Words That Work survey, “pollution control and flood reduction fee” tested better than any other term containing the words stormwater, authority or utility.
  7. Emphasize fairness. People generally believe that those who use a service most should pay more for it, so show them how your fee ensures that is the case. Explain why it’s important that non-profits pay the fee because they, too, contribute to stormwater discharges (often more than residents because of their large impervious parking areas). Tell them about credits that people can receive if they lower their stormwater impact by installing green infrastructure on their property. In general, people perceive fees based on actual impervious area to be the most fair and equitable (as opposed to a flat rate), but some of the communities EPA studied did successfully enact flat rates with effective public education about the reasons why that option was chosen.
  8. Demonstrate cost-effectiveness and be transparent about finances. If a stormwater utility is truly the best approach for your community, the numbers will convey that, and detailed economic studies are always an integral part of the planning process. Use those numbers to prove that the stormwater fee will better accomplish program goals than general fund revenue or any other option available. Voters can often be mistrustful of a government’s ability to use funds wisely. Being transparent about program finances (how the fee was determined, how it will be used) eases minds and reduces the chance of a legal challenge.
  9. Define this as a local solution to a local problem. Avoid talk about state and federal mandates or general environmental goals. If flooding is a recurring problem in your community, show how this program will reduce that problem. If pollution is a concern, talk specifically about keeping local waterways clean: the stream families teach their children to fish in, the lake where they go swimming.

Determining whether a stormwater utility is the most effective way to fund infrastructure needs in your community is a complex process that requires dual expertise in civil engineering and financial consulting. Unfortunately, some communities are afraid to even investigate the option because they believe their constituents will never approve of a stormwater fee.   In communities where utilizing general tax revenue is not the best fit approach, research by EPA and others cited in this article shows that an effective public outreach program, which includes key stakeholder groups in the earliest planning stages, can be successful in persuading people to accept stormwater management fees.


VicariAdrienne Vicari, P.E., is the financial services practice area leader at HRG. In this role, she has helped the firm provide strategic financial planning and grant administration services to numerous municipal and municipal authority clients. She is also serving as project manager for several projects involving the creation of stormwater authorities or the addition of stormwater to the charter of existing authorities throughout Pennsylvania. Contact Adrienne about stormwater authorities.

Reduce Speeding with Speed Humps and Other Traffic Control Techniques

Many municipalities have a speeding problem in their neighborhood and wish to address complaints from their residents about safety concerns that result from excessive speed on quiet streets. While those residents often think a stop sign or reduced speed limit will correct the issue, studies indicate that unnecessary stop signs can actually increase speeds on local roads, and speed limits that are reduced below engineering standards are typically ignored.

In a previous post, we explained that the best way to reduce excessive speeding in a neighborhood is to combine education of the community with increased enforcement by police and the construction of engineering techniques that force drivers to slow down. There are many different traffic calming techniques, ranging from planting trees to constructing geometric roadway improvements.  In this article, we describe some common techniques, their cost, and their effectiveness.

Photo by pml2008.  Used under a Creative Commons license.
Street Trees

Street Trees

For a much lower cost than many of the other techniques discussed here, street trees have proven speed and accident reduction power. They also increase the aesthetic value of a neighborhood, reduce pollution, and maintain cooler temperatures, making them a very cost-effective improvement to a community.

Street trees are typically placed at 15-30 foot intervals and must be carefully located to ensure they provide clear sight lines and do not block street lights or utilities.   When designed properly, street trees can reduce speeds between 3 to 15 miles per hour, according to studies cited by urban designer Dan Burden. They also reduce the number of crashes (between 5-20 percent in one study conducted in Toronto).

Though the exact reason for this speed and accident reduction is not known for certain, several theories exist.  Some say the trees act as a visual wall that makes drivers more aware of a possible pedestrian presence.  Others point to the calming effect trees have on us psychologically, suggesting that a calmer mood causes drivers to slow down.

Average cost: Since tree species vary by region, this cost can also vary widely.  However, the average planting cost is between $250 to $650.

Photo by Robert Drudl. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Traffic Calming - speed hump

Speed Humps

The most commonly used of the traffic calming measures, speed humps are rounded, raised areas of pavement that are placed every 300-600 feet on local roads. They typically include pavement markings and warning signage on the approaches, so that drivers are aware of their presence.

Speed humps can vary in height between 3 and 4 inches. Studies indicate that, if implemented correctly, these humps will cause drivers to reduce their speed anywhere between 4 to 23 miles per hour.

While well-designed speed humps are effective at reducing speeds on local roads, they should not be used on major collectors, bus routes or primary emergency response routes because they slow down emergency response vehicles (up to 3-5 seconds per hump for fire trucks and up to 10 seconds per hump for ambulances carrying patients).

Average cost: According to published information, the cost of speed humps can range from $1,000 to $6,900, and the average is approximately $2,500.

Photo by Andrew Bossi. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Traffic Calming - speed table

Speed Table (a.k.a. flat-top speed humps)

A speed table is similar to speed humps, but the humps are longer: They are typically designed so that the entire wheelbase of a vehicle can rest on top. Speed tables have a flat section on top and ramps on either side, and textured materials such as brick may be used on the flat section.

They do not produce as jarring a ride as speed humps, so they are preferred by emergency responders; however, drivers typically do not reduce their speed as much as they would with humps, as a result.

When used as raised crosswalks, speed tables increase the likelihood that drivers yield to pedestrians, so they are a good choice for increasing pedestrian safety in a neighborhood.

Average cost: According to published information, the cost of speed tables can range from $1,000 to $6,900, and the average is approximately $2,500.

Roundabout

Many people often think of traffic circles and roundabouts as being interchangeable, but they are not. Traffic circles are often more confusing and simply involve building a raised circular island in an intersection. A modern roundabout will also typically include a raised circular island, but it will include flared approaches. Flared approaches align the vehicle to the right of the center island so that merging of traffic is accomplished more easily, and it eliminates confusion. In addition, splitter islands with yield signs are typically included on each leg approaching the intersection, which helps drivers perceive a change in the roadway is coming and proceed with caution.

Roundabouts can reduce speeds between 15 to 25 miles per hour within the roundabout, and they are very effective at reducing crash frequency in residential neighborhoods (as much as 77 percent in one study) as well as crash severity.

Though new to Pennsylvania, they have been used safely and effectively throughout the U.S. in California, Florida, Maryland, and Washington. Pennsylvania has more than 20 roundabouts throughout the state, and another 40 are currently proposed. (You can watch traffic moving through one we designed at the intersection of North Boundary and Marshall Roads in the video above.) Despite opposition from some residents who aren’t familiar with the traffic pattern, roundabouts have been proven to be safer than traditional intersection designs, and they reduce emissions versus intersections with traffic lights and stop signs. They also eliminate the energy consumption associated with operating traffic signals. As a result, federal and state governments are encouraging engineers to use roundabouts wherever possible.

Due to their high cost, roundabouts are typically only considered when intersection improvements are already necessary, as opposed to being used merely as a device to slow traffic.

Average cost: Costs vary greatly, but typically range between $350,000 to $500,000.

 Photo by Robert Drdul. Used here under Creative Commons license.
Traffic Calming - center median

Center Island Narrowing

Sometimes called mid-block medians, these islands are located along the center line of a street, thereby narrowing the lanes of travel and causing drivers to slow down slightly.   The islands may help to beautify the area with landscaping and can increase the safety of pedestrians by allowing them to cross one direction of traffic at a time (waiting in the island until the other direction is clear).

Emergency responders typically prefer these islands to other traffic calming devices, but they may reduce parking and driveway access. In addition, bicyclists do not like having to share a narrowed roadway with motorists.

Average cost: Costs range between $5,000 – $15,000.

 

Steelton Streetscape

Bulbouts

Bulbouts are curb extensions that can occur mid-block or at the intersections. They narrow the roadway, forcing drivers to slow down as much as 4 percent in some studies.

While emergency responders typically prefer these to other traffic calming devices like speed tables and speed humps, bicyclists do not like sharing a narrowed roadway with motorists. (However, bulbouts can be designed to include an island that allows bike riders to continue along the original curb line.)

Pedestrians also find bulbouts useful as they can be used to decrease intersection width, providing a shorter and safer crossing for people at the intersections.  This, in turn, reduces pedestrian crossing times.

But bulbouts must be carefully designed to ensure adequate drainage, and delineators should be used to make them visible to snow plows.

Average cost: Bulbout costs vary greatly but generally range between $15,000 to $25,000.

 Photo by Daniel Mayer. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Traffic Calming - raised intersection

Raised intersections

Raised intersections typically raise the pavement to sidewalk level over the entire intersection using sloped ramps onto a flat, often textured section in the middle, and then ramping back down to roadway height after the intersection.

They are very pedestrian-friendly and reduce intersection speed significantly, but the mid-block speed reduction is less than 10 percent. In addition, they must be carefully designed to ensure proper drainage.

Average cost: Raised intersections range in cost between $25,000 to $70,000.

Most of these traffic calming devices can be used in combination with each other, and, in fact, traffic calming devices should be planned and executed throughout a neighborhood, not on isolated streets. (If the devices are only used on one or two streets, drivers typically switch to alternate routes in order to avoid them, thereby shifting the speeding problem to a new location instead of eliminating it.)

Seeking the assistance of an experienced traffic engineer is crucial to the success of a traffic calming program because many factors must be considered in applying these techniques to ensure they do not cause unintended safety hazards, hamper emergency response, or create drainage problems.

Though the cost to implement these techniques may seem high, funding is available to help municipalities. In another post, we discuss how Act 89 Multi-Modal grants can be used to fund traffic calming projects like these.

For more information about implementing a traffic calming program in your community, contact Brian Emberg, P.E., our Senior Vice President and Director of Transportation Services.

The Potential Advantages of a Stormwater Utility for Financing Your Stormwater Management Needs

by: Adrienne Vicari, P.E.

West Clarion University Pond

Two years after the passage of Act 68, many municipalities still have legitimate concerns about whether a stormwater authority would be right for their community. In a previous article, HRG addressed concerns about public opposition, up-front costs, and a loss of control over the infrastructure covered under the MS4 permit. In today’s article, we discuss the potential advantages of stormwater authorities to municipalities searching for ways to finance their stormwater management programs.

Advantage #1: Stormwater authorities enable you to collect money from tax-exempt users.

Churches and non-profit organizations like hospitals contribute a lot of stormwater runoff to the local watershed, but a tax would never collect any revenue from them because they are tax-exempt. By using the stormwater authority structure, you can charge fees to these users and collect their fair share contribution to stormwater management efforts.

Advantage #2: Stormwater authorities can collect fees from multiple municipalities who may be contributing runoff to their watershed; municipalities cannot charge anyone outside their own borders.

Political boundaries and watersheds seldom coincide. Stormwater is not neatly contained by political boundaries, and watersheds often cross through more than one municipality. But townships and cities cannot charge other local governments for stormwater management under state law. A multi-municipal (or joint) stormwater authority, however, can be set up to serve an area that extends beyond the boundaries of a single municipality, which enables everyone within a particular watershed to contribute to the stormwater management services it requires.

Advantage #3: Stormwater authority fees are more equitable than a property tax.

As stated in #1 and #2, stormwater utility fees ensure that everyone who contributes to a community’s stormwater pays for the services they use (even tax-exempt organizations, particularly if a utility is set up on a watershed-wide basis).

But stormwater fees are also much more flexible and responsive to the true nature of stormwater than a straight property tax would be. The value of someone’s land has little to do with how much stormwater it creates, so a property tax is inherently unfair for this purpose. A property could be appraised at a high value and contribute very little to stormwater, but an experienced financial consultant can help set up an authority’s rate structure based on the quantity and/or quality of runoff a property creates (rather than charging a flat fee or basing it on acreage).

A municipality can also offer credits to property owners who install best management practices for controlling runoff. (This has the added bonus of encouraging good behavior: inspiring people to install stormwater control measures like rain gardens, buffers, etc. on their property.)

Thus, a well-designed stormwater utility ensures everyone pays according to how much he or she uses the service.

Advantage #4: Stormwater authorities provide a dedicated revenue stream for stormwater improvements.

Relying on general tax revenue for stormwater improvements isn’t practical for some communities. There simply isn’t enough money to cover all of the needs the municipality must address, and stormwater often falls to the bottom of the list because money is allocated to more high profile projects such as a bridge replacement or pavement rehabilitation. Unless there is major flooding, stormwater is often forgotten and doesn’t receive the financial attention it needs.

With a dedicated stormwater fee, the money is there to maintain, repair and replace stormwater infrastructure on a proactive basis, rather than waiting till flooding causes expensive damage or impacts public safety.

Advantage #5: A dedicated revenue stream for stormwater can improve the finances of a municipality.

It can do so in several ways. First, now that the municipality no longer directs tax revenue to stormwater management, it has more tax dollars available for its other priorities.

Second, debt associated with stormwater improvements is no longer considered direct municipal debt because it can be self-liquidated by the authority’s revenue stream. Therefore, the stormwater debt doesn’t count towards the municipality’s borrowing limit, and its impact on the municipality’s bond rating is reduced. (Since municipal authorities are not subject to the same restrictions on borrowing and bond rating concerns as municipalities, they are often able to implement larger projects or make improvements in a timelier manner than a municipality could.)

Third, many agencies that offer grants and loans expect the municipality to put up matching funds, which is hard to do when you don’t have a dedicated stormwater revenue stream. Even if matching funds are not an official requirement of the grant or loan, most funding agencies place a higher preference on recipients who have money available for the infrastructure because they have a greater confidence in their ability to complete the project if there are issues and to maintain it after it’s done.

Advantage #6: Stormwater authorities are better positioned to raise rates than municipalities are to raise taxes if stormwater obligations increase.

Tax increases are not popular politically, and they are hard to pass. As stormwater infrastructure needs change, municipalities may need a revenue source that is flexible enough to meet those changing demands.

Every municipality’s financial situation and stormwater needs are different, so it’s wise to seek the counsel of a consultant with dual expertise in engineering and financial consulting to determine if a stormwater utility is right for your community. If it is, your consultant can help you organize a program that maximizes an authority’s potential advantages: providing a dedicated revenue stream for stormwater management that is more equitable than other funding sources and freeing up the municipality’s tax dollars for other priorities without adding to its direct debt or negatively impacting its bond rating.

 


VicariAdrienne Vicari, P.E., is the financial services practice area leader at HRG. In this role, she has helped the firm provide strategic financial planning and grant administration services to numerous municipal and municipal authority clients. She is also serving as project manager for several projects involving the creation of stormwater authorities or the addition of stormwater to the charter of existing authorities throughout Pennsylvania. Contact Adrienne about stormwater authorities.

Overcoming Concerns About Forming a Stormwater Authority

by: Adrienne Vicari, P.E.

pond

Act 68 gave municipal authorities the ability to finance, own, operate and lease stormwater facilities, but, two years later, many municipalities still have questions about whether an authority is right for their community. Aging infrastructure and increasing regulatory obligations from the state and federal government have put a heavy burden on towns across Pennsylvania, and they are searching for ways to finance stormwater management beyond general tax revenue. However, concerns about the upfront investment creating an authority would require and the possible backlash from members of the community give them pause.

Every municipality’s financial situation and stormwater needs are different, so it’s wise to seek the counsel of a consultant with dual expertise in engineering and financial consulting to design a custom solution tailored to those unique needs. If forming a stormwater utility is indeed a good fit for your community, your consultant can help you overcome the typical concerns through a strategic approach built upon sound financial and engineering principles.

Concern #1: The community will be against new fees for stormwater.

It is true that residents, business owners, and non-profit organizations will initially question the need for another bill; no one likes paying new fees. However, municipalities can win public support with extensive community involvement and educational outreach. It’s important to communicate that the new fee will be used exclusively for stormwater management and will not be “raided” for other purposes. It’s also important to show the community exactly how their money will be invested: list the specific improvements you intend to make and use photographs and illustrations whenever possible. Emphasize the fairness of the fee: that everyone pays for the services they use based on the stormwater they contribute to the system (and not simply the value of their property). Accentuate the positive by naming the fee after the benefits it provides to the community (such as a “Clean Water Management Fee”), as opposed to the problems it addresses. Invoice the fee separate from taxes, similar to water and wastewater billing.

Concern #2: It will cost too much to get the authority up and running.

Most municipal budgets are stretched to their limit as it is, so investing money in the start-up costs associated with a new authority is a hard sell when that money could be used for maintenance and repair of ailing infrastructure. But, even though the results are not physically tangible like new culverts or pipe repairs, the money you spend on a new stormwater authority is a true investment in your community’s future. The authority will cost money to get up and running, but it will create revenue in the future that can be used to proactively address stormwater needs before they become costly emergencies. What’s more, that dedicated revenue stream makes you eligible for grants and low-interest loan programs that otherwise would’ve been out of reach because of the need for matching funds.

Speaking of funding, some programs will help defray the start-up costs associated with organizing an authority. For example, West Goshen Township, Chester County, has entered into a 50/50 cost-share with the Army Corps of Engineers for technical assistance with mapping and inventory of their stormwater infrastructure. This step is necessary to develop the Stormwater Management Program and ultimately determine the revenue requirements necessary to establish and justify the stormwater rate.

Depending upon whether the municipality sells its stormwater assets to the authority or leases them, the municipality can also receive an upfront or annual payment from the authority for the transfer of facilities, which will help to absorb some of the start-up costs, as well.

However, municipalities may be able to avoid a lot of the start-up costs associated with an authority by simply adding stormwater to the charter for their existing water or wastewater utility. If they do, the structure and administrative functions (the board, billing, etc.) will already have been set up; the articles of incorporation will just need to be amended.

Concern #3: We don’t want to give away authority over our stormwater infrastructure, especially considering the liabilities we have from our MS4 permit.

Though the municipality can appoint people to its board, ultimately, the authority is an independent body that makes its own decisions. Yet currently the municipality – not the authority – is responsible for any fines incurred from not complying with MS4 permit requirements. This arrangement can easily seem dangerous to many municipal officials, but solutions are available.

A knowledgeable financial consultant can assist in structuring the authority in many different ways to give the municipality flexibility in deciding which powers and purposes it wishes to assign. One option is to set up an operating authority and pair it with a management and services agreement. Under this arrangement, the municipality transfers its facilities to the authority, who collects a rate and charges from local users to finance their operation, maintenance and improvements. The authority then “hires” the municipality to conduct operations and maintenance and perform administrative functions such as billing.

Another option is the reverse leaseback authority. Under this arrangement the municipality continues to own the facilities and finance capital improvements, but it leases the system to the authority for operation, maintenance and the setting of rates and charges.

Hybrid versions of these examples can also be established based upon the priorities and goals of the municipality.

In addition, PA DEP is currently working through amendments to its program which may allow municipalities to transfer their MS4 permits to a stormwater authority along with the drainage and stormwater facilities. By transferring the permit, the municipality would also transfer the legal obligations and liabilities that go with it.

As you can see, the concerns that municipalities have about stormwater authorities can be alleviated through joint financial and engineering planning. Though municipalities typically think of their stormwater infrastructure as an issue for their civil engineer, municipal authorities are primarily financial organizations, so a thorough understanding of finance is important to ensure financial and legal obligations are met in the most advantageous way to the municipality as possible. With fears allayed, municipalities are then able to see the many advantages a stormwater authority offers. In our next post, we discuss these advantages of forming a stormwater authority.

 


VicariAdrienne Vicari, P.E., is the financial services practice area leader at HRG. In this role, she has helped the firm provide strategic financial planning and grant administration services to numerous municipal and municipal authority clients. She is also serving as project manager for several projects involving the creation of stormwater authorities or the addition of stormwater to the charter of existing authorities throughout Pennsylvania. Contact Adrienne about stormwater authorities.