Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study - Apr. 2007EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Upon acknowledgeinent by the Okeechobee Board of County Commissioners (B.O.C.C.) and the
Okeechobee City C��uncil, stormwater management became an official forefront issue within the
region's agenda. Unexpected growth, both current and forecasted, coupled with unforeseen
weather patterns have brought the aforementioned topic to center stage. Numerous commercial
and residential devf;lopments within the County-wide area have been marked by their apparent
lack of engineering design or framework, culminating in a decided lack of stormwater
infrastructure, a ger.�eralized trait which also marks a majority of the County and City land as a
whole. Flooding issues now pose an impending threat to the region, a threat which has led the
local authorities -to ��ollectively agree that an effective solution to the regional dilemma must be
researched.
A comprehensive review of both County and City stormwater service provision under the
respective present d,ay organizational processes revealed sizeable disparities between public need
as operationalized in the included survey process and the capacities of current infrastructure and
service personnel t:o meet these needs. County and City stormwater dealings share noted
similarities in that both have operated under a strictly reactionary basis of service provision.
Furthermore, both have traditionally lacked the financial and organizational resources to attempt
any sort of proacti��e reorganization of the respective stormwater "deparhnents," a term used
loosely as neither bc�dy possesses any substantive level of stormwater specialization. On County
and City accounts, personnel are drawn from every day Road and Bridge or Public Works
Deparhnent tasks, respectively, to answer reactively to stormwater complaints on a strictly as-
needed basis. The ��nd result is that both departments often find themselves overrun with a
plethora of stormwater related duties during times of inclement or catastrophic weather, a
phenomenon that h�is possessed alarming staying power in recent years; this ultimately renders
both departments i�icapacitated with regard to resource allocation and allowing business to
operate "as usual" ��ithin County/City parameters. Both bodies have agreed with a resounding
decisiveness that an effective solution should be researched and implemented.
Using precise stati;�tical methodology, Craig A. Smith & Associates (CAS) has worked in
conjunction with both County and City officials to development an efficient reorganization of the
current organization. set-ups to allow for a consistently praactive approach to stormwater issues,
one that looks in the: end to maximize both County and City autonomy simultaneously.
It is proposed that the County Road and Bridge Department (R & B) undergo a substantive
reorganization. The revised department will entail a Public Works Director to oversee the two
essential sub-depart:ments, `Road Maintenance' and `Stormwater'. Meanwhile, the City Director
of Public Works wi:ll work alongside the Road and Bridge Director of Stormwater Management
to decide areas and projects of critical concern to be implemented by this sub-department. It is
through this exchange that the City will serve as a critical arm of the stormwater specialization,
given its current possession of much of the existing stormwater infrastructure and runoff issues.
Under this proposf;d set-up, some additional personnel will enable the Road and Bridge
Department to pos:�ess detailed specialization in both sub-deparhnents, allowing for greater
efficiency of operations as well as for the possibility of an expansion that parallels growth within
the County as a whole. Meanwhile, City resources, both personnel and financial, will be freed up
to more effectively serve the local constituency, as stormwater needs will now be met through
the expanded Road and Bridge Deparhnent; all the while, the City retains its influence over
stormwater issues through the Stormwater Sub-Department.
Funded through a ��tormwater fee of approximately $25 per ERU1, the expanded Road and
Bridge Department., working alongside the City Director of Public Works will possess the
resources needed (,�pproximately $4.7 million) to implement proposed capital improvement
projects and the ent�ailing departmental reorganization, as offered through the detailed modeling
within the CAS Stormwater Master Plan. The fee is rooted in local precedent as an identical set-
up is currently employed through the present day fire fee assessment.
Ultimately, the proposed reorganization as detailed within this feasibility study aims to maximize
service provision ta the County-wide region and to allow for proper infrastructure needed to
' An Equivalency Residential Unit (ERU) is roughly approximately to a single family dwelling.
-2-
support current �md forecasted growth levels. Through this proposed reorganization,
intergovernmental ��oordination will also be achieved. The end result looks to be a specialized
sub-department tha�t maximizes both service provision and local autonomy within both the
County and City arE;nas.
-3-
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
STORMWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
TASLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Introduction .................................................................................. 7
l.l Purpose g
1.2 Public Input Meeting Analysis 9
2.0 Statement of I7tility.Vision, Mission, & Goals .................................................. 16
2.1 Mission Introduction 16
2.2 Vision 16
2.3 Mission �'�tatement 16
2.4 Goals 17
2.5 Project Specific Goals 18
3.0 Review of Existing Stormwater Management Services ........................................19
3.1 Scope of :Existing General Services 19
3.2 Coverage and Shortcomings of Existing Services in Okeechobee County 20
33 Coverage and Shortcomings of Existing Services in the City of Okeechobee 30
4.0 Proposed Stor�mwater Management Expansion ............................................... .39
4.1 Implement Capital Improvements 39
4.2 Address ]�ong term Stormwater Issues 40
4.3 Develop :Public Outreach Program 41
4.4 Organiza:ionalImplementation 42
4.5 Methodology and Budgeting 43
4.6 Proposed Organizational Setup 48
5.0 I2eview of Alternative Funding Sources .. ........... ................ ......... ............ ........ 54
5.1 Evaluatio�� Criteria 55
5.2 Altemati��e Funding Mechanisms 56
53 Comparison Matrix 71
5.4 Grants 74
5.5 RecommE;ndation 76
6.0 Evaluation of Alternative Rate Structures & Revenue Streams ................ ... ...... ...77
6.1 Alternative Mechanisms For Estunate of a Stormwater Fee 77
6.2 Calculation of ERU's 79
6.3 Revenue �Generation 83
6.4 RecommF;ndation 84
7.0 Proposed Action Plan .................................................................................85
7.l Contract Completion gs
7.2 Presentation and Selection of Altematives 86
7.3 Public He.aring g(
7.4 Creation c�f Selected Altemative g�
7.5 Implemer.itation of Needs g'7
�!
_ .
TAELE OF FIGURES & TABLES
Figure 3.1: Current �Organizational Setup - Road and Bridge .............................................. 24
Table 3.1: Okeechobee County Road and Bridge Department ............................................. 28
20(16-2007 Annual Budget Department, Okeechobee County
Table 3.2: City of Okeechobee Stormwater Expenditures ................................................ 34
Public VVorks Dept. 2006-2007 Annual Budget
Figure 3.2: City of Okeechobee, Organizational Setup ................................................ 36
Table 4.1: Future Proposed Budget, Road and Bridge Dept . ................................................... 46
Figure 4.1: Proposed'. Organizational Setup, Expanded .....................................................47
Ro;ad and Bridge Department
Table 4.2: Future Proposed Budget, Stormwater Dept. ............................................. ....53
Table 5.1: Comparison Matrix — Funding Alternatives ....................................................72
Table 5.2: Comparisnn Matrix — Various Funding Implications .......................................... 73
Table 6.1: ERU Calculation ..................................... ............81
Table 6.2: Impact of Rate Structure Alternatives
..................................................84
-5-
TABLE OF EXI3IBITS
Exhibit 1.1: Public l:nput Survey — Raw Data ................................................... ...15
Exhibit 3.1: Road a�id Bridge Dept. Budget 2006-2007 ........................................................29
Exhibit 6.1: Fire Re�scue Assessments 2006-2007
�
.........................................................SS
OKEECHOBEEE CITY/COUNTY
STORMWATER UTILITY FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS:
1.0 PROJECT IN7CRODUCTION
The County of Ok��echobee, Florida is experiencing an unforeseen escalation of growth. This
developmental spike, according to all estimates, looks to continue its upward trend in the near
future. As the County and City of Okeechobee continue to grow, stormwater management will
become significanfly more important. Much of the development has and continues to be
completed without an adequate regional and sub-regional infrastructure to remove, store and
treat stormwater nznoff. In addition, the southern most portions of the county are being
developed within tlie commercial corridor of US 441; consequently, historical flood plains are
being lost. As a resizlt, portions of the County and City will continue to experience flooding after
even minor storm events. It should be noted that historically, stormwater issues have been dealt
with on a case-by-case basis under a decidedly reactive paradigm, with flooding taking the
majority of precedence; proactive stormwater plans for the present and future have traditionally
been few and far be�tween.
Current regulation,� and environmental concerns have increased the need to create a
Comprehensive Master Plan to address both the quantity and quality of runofF discharged into
the canals and ditclies contained within the County and City limits. Across the nation, many
counties are facing requirements that entail implementing plans to reduce off=site discharge and
increase water qualiry treatment while providing adequate conveyance and flood control.
Continued growth i�z Okeechobee County and the City of Okeechobee will result in a multitude
of stormwater man.agement challenges. During the next two decades these challenges will
include but not be limited to the reduction and elimination of chronic flooding, rapid growth and
protection of natural. systems.
SFWMD Staff, County and City StafF along with members of the CAS team have engaged in
numerous meetings both at the Okeechobee County District Offices as well as at the City offices.
�7-
The purposes of these meetings entailed the development of a scope and strategy that will
eliminate the curre:nt general trends of not having a stormwater utility while focusing in on a
general scope for t:he feasibility study. A lack of a stormwater revenue source is the present day
hindrance with re,�ard to the County and City's ability to perform previously planned and
scheduled stormwater improvements.
A major point of discussion was to utilize available data to assist in developing appropriate fees
for stormwater chaxges, similar to what is already in operation within the County/City for fire
assessment. The County and City offered assistance in retrieving some of the required
documented inforrr�ation presented in Section 3.0 of this study.
On a local level, waters discharged from Okeechobee County essentially affect the overall
quality of Lake Ok:eechobee. The Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP, 2004) outlined a
strategy to meet th�� total phosphorus total maxirnum daily load (TMDL) of 140 metric tons per
year for Lake Ok��echobee. The implementation of projects that reduce phosphorus loads
associated with urban runoff sources was specifically recommended in the LOPP. This project
seeks to provide th�� feasibility of adopting a County wide Stormwater Utility in such a way that
the City becomes c�rucial subset of a Stormwater Utility. The proposed idea is to incorporate and
deeply imbed the C:ity into the restructured Road and Bridge Department so that the appropriate
arm of the City will serve as a substantial portion of the specialization abilities of the new
Department. Furthf:rmore, the adoption of a Stormwater Utility looks to greatly enhance the
County/City's Corr.�prehensive Stormwater Master Plan which is under development and would
provide a means to augment the limited current stormwater infrastructure.
1.1 Purpose .
In a cooperative ei_fort between Okeechobee County, the City of Okeechobee and the South
Florida Water Mariagement District, an analysis of the potential for a Stormwater Utility to
address drainage i;;sues has been undertaken.2 This analysis will address the extent of the
2 Due to time constraints, many of the established event milestones have diverged from their initial and respective deadlines. Any
procedural flaws in the initial design have been addressed and look to be su�ciently a]leviated with the completion of the Master
:
drainage problems, required infrastructure to address the problems, stormwater conveyance
needs, and the fea.sibility of charging a Stormwater Fee to fund the system. Through the
implementation of a stormwater utility and fee, the County/City would also be in a position to
develop a plan for future improvements and a detailed and timely schedule for maintenance of
the existing system.
1.2 Public Input M:eeting Analysis:
A Public Workshop was held on May 17, 2006 at the Okeechobee Civic Center at 6:30 PM. The
goal of the worksh��p was to introduce the study project (the Okeechobee Stormwater Master
Plan and Utility Feasibility Study) and inform the public of the intent, status, future course and
goals of the study. The turnout of approximaiely 30 to 40 people was large for a meeting of this
type. The attendees included public officials, elected officials, newspaper representatives, and
members of the gen��ral public.
The meeting introd�zced to the attendees the "Points-of-Contact" or team members and defined
the roles that they would play in the study. Included were the SFWMD, County and City
representatives who were responsible for project implementation and the formation of the
Consultant Planning; Team.
The first topic prese;nted was the Stormwater Master Plan. This Plan will include the following
elements:
• Areas of the study
• Identificatioii of problems
• Development of conceptual plans
• Prioritizatior► of proj ects
• Identify pernlitting and easement issues
• Funding Anz�lysis
• Capital Impr�vements Plan Recommendations
Plan, already in its final si:ages of development. Communication protocol was specifically addressed: SFWMD — Will Salters/
Okeechobee County — Jim Threewits/ CAS — Mark Tomczyk.
�
The Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study goals were then presented. This segment provides an
analysis of the pote�ltial to establish the Stormwater Utility and imposing a fee to fund the utility.
The "Stormwater Questionnaire" was explained and handed out to the attendees and any
questions were ansvvered. The questionnaire was to be used as an information gathering tool that
could possibly give some insights into the community's knowledge of areas that needed attention
for work, and whether or not the public would be willing to pay a stormwater fee. It was
explained that the irnpacts of this possible fee would be looked at in the realm of its effect on the
City and County Administration, the development of 5 year revenues, and the possible
development of ordi.nances for the governmental entities, if necessary.
(a) Su��vey Process:
The following provides a description of the process used to develop, distribute and
analyze the survey distributed at said public input meeting in addition to the variegated
outlets listed. in this report. The final survey form is included in the Appendix along with
the results oi.'the survey.
(b) Intent:
The Planning Team for the Stormwater Study wished to collect data from the general
public regarciing the drainage issues in Okeechobee County and their reaction to potential
solutions. A series of public meetings are scheduled throughout the process. In addition,
a survey was. given wide distribution for all residents of the County.
The survey �vas intended to convey the thoughts of the general public regarding drainage
issues. The public was asked questions about the severity of the problems and other
questions regarding solutions. This survey was not intended to be a referendum
regarding an;y issue, but rather an opportunity for the public to have input.
(c) Question Development:
-10-
The develo��ment of the survey instrument was a collaborative effort among all of the
Planning Team. The first step was to determine the information required by the technical
team membE;rs and to gain an insight regarding the potential Stormwater Fee issue. The
questionnaire was kept short to elicit more response form the public.
The original version of the survey instrument was reviewed by the Administration and
elected offirials of Okeechobee County and the City of Okeechobee. Every effort was
made to incc►rporate all concerns of the parties impacted by the issue.
(d) Survey ��istribution:
The Plannin,g Team attempted to distribute the survey in a manner that gave the widest
opportunity for residents to provide input. Cooperation form the City of Okeechobee,
Okeechobee County and the South Florida Water Management District was vital to the
distribution ��fforts. The final distribution included the following:
• At publir input meetings where residents were requested to complete the forms and
return th��m to the Planning Team
• The survey was placed in the newspaper for wider distribution
• A website was produced where residents could complete the survey
• Surveys •were placed in various public places with a collection opportunity
The public ,�vas able to return their completed surveys to a Planning Team member,
through fax, in an e-mail or on the website.
(e) Methodo�ogical Concerns
It should be noted that the potential for selection bias does exist within the survey
delivery met:hod; this reality has been taken into careful consideration regarding the
robustness of public support for a stormwater utility and its accompanying fees. And,
while it is lznderstood that the outlined survey methods described above effectively
�f!
constitute a"straw poll," budgetary and time constraints occluded the complete picture of
public opinion that might otherwise have been more successfully gauged through true
random sele�iion, via statistical processes strongly established in the social sciences.
However, for the purposes of this study, it is believed that following public opinion
findings will serve as a rnodest preliminary gauge of civic willingness to move forward
with this public project.
(� Survey RE�sults3
The completed surveys enabled the Planning Team to identify a variety of locations
where Storrr.�water is a problem. The persons who completed the survey were also able to
offer their thoughts to the process and potential solutions.
Analysis of the following public input survey feedback reveals that overall, among
survey partiripants, it is strongly believed that a drainage problem within the County-
wide area exists. Only three returned surveys expressed disbelief that a drainage or
flooding problem existed within the region. Two of these were from County residents;
one was frona a City resident. Additionally, the most common response as to the length of
rainfall that tended to pose flooding problems was between one to two hours of rain,
combining 1:he two most populous categories, indicating a substantive issue with
stormwater rnanagement exists.
There were s,everal questions that led to important findings for the Planning Team. These
questions are::
(Q) Have you noticed a drainage problem?
RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Yes 74 94.8
3 See Exhibit 1.1 as referenced on Page Nine (9) for raw data on Survey Responses.
-12-
No 3 3.9
No Answer 1 1.3
TOTAL 78 100.0
Result:
A vast majority of tlae public believes that a d��ainage p�oblem exists.
(Q) Place of reside:nce:
LOCATION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
City 16 20.5
County 59 75.6
No Answer 3 3.9
TOTAL 78 100.0
Result:
The population of t`he City of Okeechobee is 14.2% of the population of Okeechobee County.
7'he attendance at tlae meting reasonably rep�esents the disti�ibution of population.
(Q) Occurrence of Drainage problems:
OCCURRENCE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
After a short rain of 1 hour (A) 12 15.4
After a short rain and an intense storm (A&C) 1 1.3
All rain events (A, F3 & C) 4 5.1
After a 2 hour rain event (B) 36 45.2
After a 2 hour rain and an intense storm (B & C) 6 7.7
Only after an intens�� storm (C) 15 19.2
No Answer 4 5.1
TOTAL 78 100.0
Result:
Most of the problems are with a 2 hour rain event or more intense.
4 The most recent survey data available (2004-2005) estimates that the population of Okeechobee County is just shy
of 40,000 residents; similarly, the City of Okeechobee currently sits around the 5,800 population mark, rendering the
City proportion of the Cc�unry roughly around 14% as the statistics indicate within this survey.
-13-
(Q) Would you be willing to pay a fee to address stormwater issues?
RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Yes 38 48.7
No 29 37.2
No Answer 11 14.1
TOTAL 78 100.0
Result:
The responses indicate that the general public is likely to be receptive to a Sto��mwates- Fee.
-14-
Sformwater runoff is rainfall that can accumulate after a storm event. Many times due to the
severity or length of the storm, runoff accumulates to a level which floods property and roads. With
this in mind:
Question No.
Question 1A;
Quesfion 1B:
Quesfion 2:
Quesiion 3.
Quesfion 4:
Question Details
Have you noticed any ponding or flooding problems in your immediate area (work/live)?
For example, significant amounts of water in the streets, parking lots, on right-of-ways?
Please provide a street address or approximate region where you have noticed an immediate
flooding problem.
Where have you seen the problems in general? Provide an address, name of a building or cross
streets where
the non-immediate problem(s) is/are located.
When do these problems occur on average?
Can you identify the cause and duration of the problem and/or a possible solution?
Question Answer Options
Yes/No
Free response
Free response
a) After a short rain
(one hour)
b) After 2 hours of rain
c) Only after an intense storm
Free response
ir tne oniy way to correct tne propiem�s� tnat you nave iaentiriea anove was to pay a stonnwater ree,
would you
support a City/County-wide fee on all businesses and residents to correct these problems and
maintain the
Quesfion 5: solutions?
Yes/No
Question 6: � Are you a resident of the County or
OKE�CHOBEE COUNTY — CtTY OF OKEECHOBEc
STORMWATER QUESTiONNAiRE
Okeechobee County and the City of Okeechobee along with the South Florida Water Management
District are currently I� th@ L�fO�PgG nf iriantifyijnn nrpFjlorp �rnu� �^� ���Q^f'-,i i��+;,..... •��, �,. ,._
a r ����a� �viuuvi ia 'vJiu i i cyai ua w
flooding and conveyance of Storm Runoff in the City and the County. We woufd like to get your input on
this subject and hav�� a few questions that will only take a couple of minutes of your time to answer.
OPTIONAL: Although not required, providing your name, address and telephone number will make it possible to
locate the area of concem. Thank you for your assistance.
NAME (print):
PHONE:
ADDRESS:
Stormwater runoff is rainfall that can accumulate affer a storm event. Many fimes due to the severity or
length of thE� sform, runoff accumulates to a leve! which f/oods private properEy and roads.
With this in mind, have you: -
1- Noticed any ponding or flooding problems in your immediate area (where you work or
(ive) after a storm? For example, significant amounts of water in the streets, parking
lots, on righi:-of-ways? Please be specific: provide a strest address.
Yes No
2-Where have you seen the problems? Please provide an address, name of a building or
cross streets wfiere the problem is located. If you are aware of more than one problem
area, please provide a numbered listing of locations:
3-When do these problems occur? Please check one. If more than one problem was
identified in question #2 above, use that same number to answer questions #3 and #4 also.
(a) After a short rain (up to an hour)
(b) After .2 hours of rain
(c) Only �after an intense storm
4- Can you identii�y the cause and duration of the problem and/or a possible solution?
5-If the only wa�+ to correct the problem(s) that you have listed above was to pay a
stormwater fee, would you support a City/County-wide fee on all businesses and residents
to correct these problems and maintain the.solutions?
Yes No
6- I am a resident of the City County
PLEASE SUBMIT COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE BY JUNE 15, 2006.
C:OMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED AT:
CITY HALL - 55 SE Third Avenue
OKEECHOBEF COUNTY ANNEX - 499 NW Sth Ave
SFWMD - 205 North Parrott Avenue Suite 201
WE3 SU�BMITTAL: WWW.C�.OKE�CHOBEt FL US or FAX 866-259-5051
Public Survey Input
Raw Data Key
No.
To maintain pubiic
confidentiality, names
have been assigned a
numerical value.
Regon 1A
confidentiality standards,
regions of residency as
reported on the survey
have been assigned a
numerical value of 1- 6,
indicating residencies in
similar areas.
Answer
1B
Answer
�
Answer
�
Answer
C_L_�
Answer
�5_
Answer
�
Answer
No. Re ion C�1A ,1B g2 g3 g4 (�5 , 6
1 Yes 441 SE In front of Walmart b No County
Water not flowing to 10th St.
2 Yes SE 27th Terr. Between 8th St. & railroad c retention pond No
700A & along 724-Drainage problem out
3 3 Coquina & other properties
4 1 Yes S. side NW 34th St. & NW 4th Ave. 441 N. & north side of 34th St. b,c Culverts on 34th St. need cleaning No County
S 21 Ave. - Road floods after any amount
5 1 Yes of rain b Correct drainage issues Yes County
149th at 63rd St. - Floods over 149th due to blocked Cleanout shelirock used to olua
culvert under road S of 63rd St. culvert under 149th & check v
6 4 Yes stop sign CR599 & 441 in front of Walmart a culverts along CR599 Yes County
2318 SW 21 st St. - Eagle Bvay Dr. drainage Divert more water upstream to west
7 1 Yes overload floes into our subdivision & backs up b drainage ditch Yes County
Fix slope of properties & add more
8 2 Yes 940 SE 23rd. St. - Drainage swales overflow 920 SE 23rd St. a,b,c drainage grates & keep them clean Yes
My property - after heavy rain, water east of
Parrott Ave, north of Walmart & south of
River Bend Mobile Home Park flows east into Water should flow to slough & then
9 1 Yes my property c north into an old run of Taylor Creek
Culverts small & drainage ditch
10 1 Yes 23 Court out to 40th Avenue a couid be blocked along 40th Ave. Yes County
Install a drain pipe under 12th Ave
11 4 Yes 1109 SW 6th St. - Back yard and right-of-way a to the other side of 12th Ave. No City
Water gets dammed up along
12 2 Yes SE 34th Street Berman Road & SE 46th St. c Berman Road No County
Pond overflows onto road in front
Flooding at entrance to Oak Villas to the second set of of Villas 8, 9, and 10 & in front of
13 2 Yes Villas Wal-Mart, Highway 9 b
Replace culverts at Oak Lake
Oak Lake Eastates & the whole Est. entrance & dig ditches out to
14 4 Yes SW 24th Avenue SW of City & County b Durance (?) Road & beyond Yes County
Water doesn't move south due to
2510 SW 2nd Ave. - Floods in front yard, across construction. Culverts set too high &
15 4 Yes driveway and entire lot. Ditch in front overflows. c some have been crunched. Yes County
34350 NW 32nd Ave. - north end of property floods
due to development & all the water runs east to one County should install additional pipe west
16 1 Yes drainage pipe on the north side of the property b of 32nd Ave. Yes County
SW 8th Way (Palm Bay Ranch) - heavy rain causes Fix ditch in front & ditch behind house
17 4 Yes street flooding that goes halfway up driveway Drainage ditch behind house a,b,c would flow better into Lake Okeechobee
.,
Entire SW 21 st St. - Ditches
2369 SW 21 st St. - 2' standing water flooding flood over so they aren't visible & Repair ditch, remove my driveway &
18 3 Yes drain fields SW 24th St. - Entire St. floods b,c replace conduit Yes County
Corner of SW 3rd Ave. & 23rd St. - Low point in ditch Excavate ditches to uniform depth, clear
19 4 Yes system; water can't flow south or west. 3rd Ave. S. of City/County line b,c culverts of debris, invert culvert elevations Yes County
20 1 Yes SW 16th St. back to Oak Park - Drainage is awful Oak Park b Yes County
21 3 Yes Sable Lane - No culverts b Convert Eagle Bay culverts to a 24x36 oval Yes County
SW 19th St. to 37th. Ave. floods Clean ditches, culverts & add new ones.
North side of 19th St. - Floods due to poor drainage due to clogged culverts & Install culverts under 32nd Ave. to drain
22 Yes east of Oak Park Area undersized drains b into drainage ditch east of 32nd Ave. County
Water doesn't go down to the ditch as it
23 1 Yes 810 SE 80th Ave. - North 30 acres South part of SE 60th Ave. b once did Yes County
24 2 Yes SW 21st Parkway & 67th Dr. - Flooding covers road c Clean culverts County
25 1 No 312 NW 3 St. - Front/Back yards & side lots flooded c Too much rain- need more wind No County
Culvert at L-63 north canal not large
Drainage easement through my property drains all enough to handle runoff; water backs up
26 3 Yes areas to my NE. NE 40 Ave. c in property No County
Highway 70 E. by Four Seasons
& Just past the road that leads Fix drainage to allow water to flow out of
27 3 Yes 700 NE 96th Ave. - My front yard to Thundercross b yard - entire street runs into it Yes County
Brentwood Estates Developer didn't install
905 SE 9th Ave. - South side of my properiy floods proper drainage or swales when he put in
28 5 Yes after large amounts of rain b the road No City
29 3 Yes NW 30th St. - Floods 2-3 ft. Highway 441 c Culvert in front of our home floods into yard No County
1971 SW 28th St. - After rain even (3" or more) ditch
on north side of SW 28th St. floods my property due to
30 2 Yes runoff from Oak Lake area & beyond b Clean ditch &12th Ave. canal No County
445 NW 113 Dr. - After heavy rain, ditch & yard flood Suivey drainage ditch & dig for quick
31 1 Yes & ponding is visible on the road Quail Acres in general b drainage to current ditch & ranch No County
603 SW 10th Ave. - Ponding on south side of 6th St.
at SW 10th Ave. ditch between my property & Clean ditch & study swales at 6th St.
32 3 Yes property west of church is clogged a & 10th Ave. Yes City
33 Yes b No County
1112 SW 15th St. & 10th Dr. - Water within 6' from
house after hurricanes. Ditch full & not moving after
34 1 Yes 2 hour rain. Ditch on 10th Dr. is not much of a ditch b Maintain ditches & culverts No City
19th St. & 37th Ave. - Shallow ditch fills with water from
35 1 Yes surrounding areas a Dig deeper ditches No County
4807/4808 SE 27th St. - Standing water across street
after short but heavy rain. Ground on Swale/
36 1 Yes right-of-way is higher than the street level a County
972 NE 28th Terrace - Dithes haven't been dug out
37 Yes in years & water can't drain down to 7th Avenue 1006 NE 28th Terrace b Dig deeper ditches No County
North end NW 38th Avenue - Creek behind house full
38 4 Yes of storm debris causing our yard to flood constantly b Clean out the creek Yes County
17780 NW 38th Ave. - Creek across street overflows
due to storm debris & neighbor across the creek
39 1 Yes cleaning his land and dumping it into creek b Clean out the creek Yes County
17620 NW 38th Ave. - Creek behind house floods
when it rains 2" due to storm debris & neighbor that
40 3 Yes cleared his land into it b Bulldoze debris out of creek Yes County
17580 NW 38th Ave. rear creek - When it rains a lot,
the creek overflows due to storm debris & neighbor
41 1 Yes that cfeared his land into it . b Push trees out of the way Yes County
NE 4th Ln. & west of NE 60th - Swales fill up when it
42 6 Yes rains NE 60th Ave. south of SR70 a Clean swales/culverts & site litterers Yes County
SE 4th St. & SE 16th Ave. - We have water standing
43 3 Yes in house after heavy rains b Unclog culverts leading to drainage ditch Yes County
2181 SW 8th St. - Last hurricane water was 1/4 of an
44 4 No inch from coming into the house due to clogged drains c Drains & ditches need to be cleaned No City
Corner SW Park St. & 10th Ave. - I have a culvert to the
side & ditches in front, beside & behind my proper•ty that
45 4 Yes drain well except during hurricanes No City
17740 NW 38th Ave. rear creek area - Creek overtlow
with large rain due to storm debris & neighbor
46 6 Yes clearing land into it b Bulldoze the �rePk vA� r„� �.,+„
-- � . i ...,,. �.r i I
3632 NW 34th Ave. - House is original Basswood
house & lower than the others; water drains into yard
& doesn't drain off. Culverts aren't kept clear & we have
47 4 Yes flooding several times a year c Keep main culverts clean Yes County
3549 SW 19th St. - My lot & block collects water
sooner & lasts long after major rain due to poor Engineering survey to detect & correct
48 1 Yes drainage Oak Park Subdivision in general b the problem No County
822 SE 11th St. - Rain water runs south down SE
49 1 Yes 9th Ave. & stops in my yard a Keep water flowing to the creek City
6868 NE 5th St. - A ditch divides property 20 ' from
5u b res back door & overflows/floods due to poor drainage c Clean out ditches regularly Yes County
831 SE 25th St. - After a heavy rain, strest drains fill Install more, enlarge existing drains
51 1 Yes up due to size & not enough of them c & outflow pipe No County
SE 50th Ave. - Is the main road in King's Bay & a
short rain causes standing water on the street midway
52 Yes & at the end of 50th Ave. 441 South a No County
1401 SE 8th Dr. - Street, yard, & drive flood due to
53 6 Yes clogged ditch b Dig out ditch City
54 6 Na No County
West side SE 8th Dr, from 14th St. to 9th Ave. -
Stormwater is to flow into golf course ponds then to Reconstruct swales/culverst on east side
55 1 Yes Taylor Creek a 8th Drive
Behind 2207 SW 22nd Circle south - Pond backs up
56 4 Yes & floods swales & property a Dig out swales & check drainage Yes County
NW 50th Drive - Private landowners south of 50th Dr.
have runoff that drains under it to the north onto
SFWMD land. 50th Dr. acts as a berm which causes The culverts on the north side of Clean & increase culvert sizes, maintain
57 Yes the backflow back into the landowners property. NW 50th Drive b ditches & check road elevation Yes City
Lazy 7 Ranch Acres - Drains to Popash slough &
water is controlled by SFWMD with culverts. When When water table up & they hold water in
58 1 Yes they hold up the slough, we can't drain properly SW 67th Terr. & SW 77th Terr. b,c slough, the whole subdivision floods Yes County
6305 NW 7th St. - Neighbors culvert is plugged with
59 1 Yes rocks & blocks drainage NE 6th St. b,c Yes County
10812 NW 8th Ave. - Storms cause flooding in yard Whole neighborhood from
60 1 Yes & house due to poor drainge Highway 441 b Open up ditches & repair/replace culverts Yes County
4058 SW 13th Way - 6" of water in road & yard after
61 Yes Wilma In front of Wal-Mart on 441 b,c Fix drainage Yes County
Ground level low, culverts possibly blocked
62 1 Yes SE 24th Blvd. - Streets & yards flood after storms SE 23rd Court. b or no culverts present County
Backyard property between SE Culverts appear plugged or not put in
63 4 Yes SE 24th Blvd. - Streets & yards flood after storms 23rd Terr. & 24th Blvd. a,b,c properly No County
Between SE 23rd & SE 24th
64 1 Yes SE 24th Blvd. - Streets & yards flood after storms Blvds. b Probably clogged culverts No County
Oak Park - Standing water
65 4 Yes 3571 SW 19th St. - Front & back yards flood destroyed drainfields b No drainage in ditches - only evaporation Yes County
New homes are built on higher ground
66 1 Yes 920 SE 13th Ave. - Backyard floods for days after storm b draining into our yard Yes City
New homes are built on higher ground
67 5 Yes 967 SE 13th Ave. - Backyard floods for days after storm b draining into our yard Yes City
Need dirt, ditch, or drainage since new
68 4 vP� aa� cF ��±h o �� o.,,.�..,,..a �,...,�.. r__ �_.._ ra-- -� -
- �a..�ya�� ������ ��� uay� diier �[o�rn b homes have been built Yes City
103rd Ave. - Heavy rains overflows ditch causing Enlarge culverts to the south & clean
69 4 Yes my house to flood Off Highway 70 east c out ditches Yes County
Drains & ditches need to be cleaned; we
12050 NE 26th Ave. & acreage south of this - Clogged were told two years ago that they would be
70 4 Yes drainage ditch causes flooding 441 North c cleaned No County
SW 21st St. & SW 5th Ave &
2006 SW 5th Dr. - In front of house & between my SW 6th Ave. between 21 st St. Divert water in ditch-culvert goes nowhere;
71 1 Yes neighbor at 2000 SW 5th Dr. & 19th St. a,b,c put drain between houses to divert water Yes City
72 1 Yes 300 NW 34th St. (parking lot of VFW Post) b No County
Mall parking lot & SE corner of Clean drains on SE 8th Ave. & put fiil on
73 1 Yes 8th Ave. between SE 3rd St. & 8th Ave. SE 7th St. & 9th Ave. a SE 7th Ave. Yes City
74 1 Yes 31460 NE 16th Way b Cut ditches Yes County
Area to the east across SE 9th
Ave. & SE 8th Ave. - Wilcox Sorrie culverts/ditches clogged & new
823 & 825 SE 10th St. (duplex across street) & west Shores & Okee Estates privacy fence across 9th Ave. between
75 5 Yes from there Subdivisions a,c farmsrs house & Brentwood Subdivision No City
317 SW Park St. - Parking lot
behind restaurant in Village Ditch beside my house was covered for a
76 1 Yes 3464 NW 10th Ave. - Floods due to 441 being redone Square won't drain b water line No County
2561 SE 3rd Ave. - Ditch in front of adjacent Pond located two blocics behind
77 Yes property fills, with little water moving through Pizza Hut c No County
Drain pipes to small & at the Wal-Mart
3218 NW 37th Ave. - Ditch overflows almost to the entrance problem seems to be poor
78 1 Yes house Wal-Mart entrance engineering No County
� i� �
2.0 VISION, MISSION, AND GOAL STATEMENTS
2.1 Mission Introduction
This element will focus on the public participation segment of the analysis which is intended to
solicit input regarding the location and severity of the drainage problems and mechanisms to
finance the improvements. The parties in this analysis are cognizant of the concerns of the
public and wish to include their thoughts into the planning process. Every effort has been made
to include all citizens and landowners in Okeechobee County.
This section of the overall report will address the principal public participation elements; public
input meetings and a survey of the population.
The establishment of a Stormwater Utility has the following goals and objectives.
2.2 Vision:
The Okeechobee Stormwater Utility will create a funding vehicle to focus on stormwater
management issues and the maintenance of the existing and future stormwater management
systems within Okeechobee County and the City of Okeechobee while also providing water
quality treatment and storage needed prior to discharging into Lake Okeechobee.
2.3 Mission Statement:
The Okeechobee Stormwater Utility will provide essential stormwater management services
in an efficient, cost effective, and timely manner to sustain the quality of life enjoyed by the
citizens of Okeechobee County by protecting public and private property from flooding.
Further goals include maintaining the quality of primary roadways, conserving existing water
sources, minimizing the degradation of the environment and natural habitats, and
maintaining/enhancing the water quality of stormwater delivered to Lake Okeechobee.
-16-
2.4 Goals:
• Development of an integrated management approach based upon the science and
understanding of the runoff component of the water budget, especially the
relationships between runoff, storage and water quality
• Introduction of new and maintenance of existing Collection and Conveyance systems
to provide management of stormwater runoff.
• Installation of water quality capabilities to provide treatment of stormwater runoff
that will ultimately reduce pollutant discharges to receiving waters including
tributaries and Lake Okeechobee
• Development and maintenance of the necessary infrastructure to adequately manage
and protect the County and City's water resources
• Conservation of water by reducing over drainage of natural systems and by
considering the balance of drainage and natural systems prior to construction of
drainage facilities in adjacent developed lands
• Operation of publicly owned stormwater management facilities to achieve maximum
stormwater control and water quality benefits for the community
• Maintenance of stormwater facilities to operate at design capacities
• Compliance with, as appropriate, FDEP's and SFWMD's Environmental Resource
Permitting regulations for new development and redevelopment activities to improve
stormwater management and to achieve established water quality and water
conservation objectives and provide overall community benefits
• Enforcement of the County/City stormwater rules, regulations and requirements
• Attainment of compliance with Federal and State Water Quality management and
annual pollutant reduction requirements in order to enhance environmental restoration
with Okeechobee County.
-17-
2.5 Project-Specific Objectives:
The ultimate objective of this cooperative-agreement is for the South Florida Water Management
District (District) and Okeechobee County to develop a cost sharing mechanism to generate
necessary funding to conduct a feasibility study on the development and implementation of a
proactive stormwater utility.
It should be noted, however, that additional objectives include but are not limited to:
• An assessment of the foreseeable expansion of the County's current stormwater services
program that will be required to improve existing flood protection levels
� To undertake ancillary water conservation opportunities
• Begin to address the pending Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements of
phosphorous to the Lake
• To begin preparation for the impacts of the evolving Statewide Stormwater Management
Rule
• Evaluate the impacts of a credit system in the projected revenue potential; develop
policies and criteria for granting credits
• Analyze if federal, state, and city holders of utility easements or other tax-exempt land or
undeveloped property should be exempted
• Assist County staff in the development of an ordinance that addresses the creation and
implementation of a stormwater utility
• Create a Master Account File
• Develop a plan for information/education of the public regarding the need for and
implementation of a stormwater utility
• Present findings to County staff for presentation to County Commissioners
:
3.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SERVICES
3.1 Scope of Existing General Services:
To fully comprehend a review of existing stormwater management services, a brief overview of
is provided. The first stormwater review processes were first initiated in the late 1980's through
early 1990's. This has been identified as the starting point in which Okeechobee County
developed site plan review processes that were all encompassing, including everything from site
grading, on site water storage, and allowable discharge. This was further reinforced by the
introduction of comprehensive planning and the creation of land development regulations.
A paralleling water resource study conducted within the parameters of Lee County (2005)
reported that:
Continuing degradation of the State's streams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries during the
1970's, 1980's, and 1990's, combined with a rapid increase in the consumption of
Florida's drinkable ground and surface water supplies, has focused Federal and State
regulatory attention on improving water quality and conserving the dwindling ground and
surface water supplies for potable consumption.
Regarding localized implications, Lake Okeechobee experienced an increase in the scrutiny and
importance toward the management of the surrounding water resources. As a result of these
concerns, numerous reports have concluded that:
We are currently moving to the era of [stormwater management], which is characterized
by an increasing concern over the availability of an adequate raw water supply that is
suitable to meet Florida's daily potable water needs and satisfy Florida's environmental
requirements. These three factors — flood control, [consumable] water supply, and
environmental water resource management requirements — have shaped the current
planning and regulatory perspectives of Florida.
-19-
- _ __ _ -- _ _.. _ _ ... _ _ _.._...
3.2 Coverage & Shortcomings of Existing Services in Okeechobee County:
A review of pre-existing stormwater management services already in operation within county
parameters revealed a system that is both quantitatively and qualitatively reactive in its dealings
with water runoff issues. The current set-up establishes the Road and Bridge department as the
sole proprietors of stormwater concerns for both the county and city, including but not limited to
drainage jurisdiction.
Stormwater management related activities currently performed by the County were limited to
eight essential "action categories": construction, maintenance, repair, capital improvements,
development review, permitting, inspections, and special drainage assistance along with hazard
mitigation. These were denoted as the essential qualifying categories of work that were
performed within the department. However, the County noted stormwater activities were
inescapably intermingled with everyday road work activities. Nonetheless, the vital
characteristics of each category of performance were outlined by the County as follows.
(a) Construction, Maintenance, c� Repair
These three categorical elements were coalesced into a single practical category given
the County's assertion that no new projects, which would entail construction, were
undertaken within the previous year's budget. It was emphasized that the reactive
duties of the department entail repairing items that are damaged succeeding inclement
weather patterns (Repair), and that the department needs to improve the organization
and expand resources needed to ensure properly regular maintenance. It was
documented that a vast majority of these Repair incidents involved the installation of
culvert pipes that had eroded over time or as a result of an unusually active storm
season, usually as a result of a lack of monitoring and consequently a dearth in
maintenance ability. Maintenance staffing is essentially limited to the two mowing
crews whose designated job is to prevent ditch flooding as a result of overgrown
vegetation along with a Highway Technician who monitor roadways for potential
-20-
new transportation issues. With the exception of the mowing crew, however, the
County reported that no staff was assigned, either full or part time, to stormwater
preparatory maintenance.
(b) Capitallmp�rovements
Capital Improvements are operationalized as the acquisition of either new equipment
or the entailment of construction on newly developed facility improvement plans,
such as investments in new cross sectional ditches. Given, however, that reported
construction of new stormwater related facilities were nonexistent in the previous
fiscal year, Capital Improvements in stormwater affiliated areas were limited to
drainage enhancement and the acquisition of new Road and Bridge Department
equipment (an estimated 44% of which is allocated to stormwater usage; roughly 11 %
of Road and Bridge Department Capital Improvements, many of which overlap with
the Maintenance and Repair categories are allocated to stormwater services).
(c) Developmental Review, Permitting, c� Inspections
These three elements were deemed to be qualitatively within the same practical
category. Developmental Review essentially entails specific site-plan review. A staff
member with this designated duty will attend meetings pertaining to newly proposed
construction projects and must approve these construction projects as well as be
responsible for inspecting the project while it is under development and construction.
Permitting, on a similar note, entails a similar degree of site-plan review in that the
staff inember is given the task of evaluating construction development on the project
site and is meant to ensure that regulatory obligations are being met as well as issuing
the required permitting documentation. Consequently, the Inspections classification is
absorbed as a sub-duty of the two aforementioned categories; both Permitting and
Developmental Review entail Inspection of the site plan and a succeeding report of
the investigative findings to ensure quality requirements are being met.
-21 -
(d) Special Drainage Assistance
This final categorization of Road Department activities is limited to contractual work
that the County sees fit to initiate. Due to the inherent financial and organizational
limitations of the Department, it is at times necessary for the County to contract
outside companies to develop and implement particular Capital Improvements on an
as-needed reactive basis.
It is important, however, to note that while these remain the official categorizations of work that
takes place with an emphasis on stormwater reaction, there is a decided lack of labor
specialization due largely in part to a lack of financial and capital resources available to the
County Road and Bridge Department. Additionally, all funding for the Deparhnent stems from
the County gas tax collected throughout the year, a source which netted approximately
$6,722,547.00 during the 2006-2007 fiscal year, not including accrued interest.s
The Road and Bridge Department, currently, does not have a set number of crew members
dedicated to the task of responding spontaneously to civic stormwater complaints or undertaking
the resultant cleanup and drainage duties. The essential dynamics of the current system of
stormwater operations entails pulling Road and Bridge employees away from their "everyday"
road maintenance/repair tasks to improvise solutions to stormwater issues as they arise, during
weather patterns and seasonal changes. An analysis of public opinion, operationalized by the
included public input survey in Chapter One, has revealed sizeable disparities between the level
of service necessitated by the public with the degree of services currently made available by the
City and County with regard to stormwater services. Matters are further complicated by a lack
of mapping for existing infrastructures including resolutions to flooding issues and rolling
schedules for ditch inspections; the status quo entails a limited, at best, maintenance schedule
with a small amount of consideration for any actual preventative stormwater services.
Figure 3.1 outlines the basic organizational set-up of stormwater staffing and services that are
currently in operation within Okeechobee County. It is important to note once more that the
5 See Exhibit 3.1.
-22-
current set-up of this Department does not allow for permanent full-time staffers to attend to
stormwater issues; they are pulled from everyday road maintenance duties to attend to watershed
issues on a reactive, as-needed basis. It was specially noted by the County that even the positions
that are fundamentally unrelated, either directly or indirectly, to stormwater drainage are at times
dispatched to deal with these issues should no other employees be available. In this way, the
reactive nature of the system is emphasized once more; a lack of labor and equipment
specialization is but one additional impediment that occludes any true preventative stormwater
measures from being implemented at a County-wide level.
The County Administrator oversees the head of the Department, the Road Maintenance Director
who is currently responsible for all supervision of the Department's undertakings. The Director
is assisted in paperwork and office oversight by an Administrative Assistant and an Assistant
Road Maintenance Director who performs much of the same task work as the Director. A
Highway Maintenance Technician who is in possession of two subordinate laborers possesses the
jurisdiction of all road assessments, work orders, and repairs. Four Supervising Foremen oversee
various equipment operators and miscellaneous laborers (such as tire repair, welding, etc.) while
answering to the Road Maintenance Director as well as to the position's three designated
assistants as evidence in Figure 3.1. An Herbicide Spray Technician oversees roadside care while
seven additional Equipment Operators manage the most frequently used field equipment not�
requiring special licensure such as the small dump and pick-up trucks. In addition to the
aforementioned positions, a part-time custodian tends to the County Court House maintenance
where many of the Road and Bridge Department positions are based.
- 23 -
Figure 3.1: 2006-2007 Current Organizational Set-up
Road and Bridge Department
Okeechobee County
Both the County and City are currently under-staffed and under-equipped to run a thorough
stormwater program. Presently, the staffing is intermingled with Road and Transportation issues
which dilute the County's ability and availability to continuously meet the existing and growing
stormwater needs of the region in general. Currently, the Road and Bridge Deparhnent
participates in a minor role with respect to site plan review and construction approval. The
County and City, however, needs to develop long term water quality monitoring, prevention
and/or natural resource protection plans. The County/City lacks stormwater mapping and/or
quantity o.f actual piping in County/City right-of-ways.
Table 3.1 is an established budget for the 2006-2007 fiscal year for the Road and Bridge
Department, demonstrating the total financial allotment for individual sub-groups (Personnel,
Operating Expenses, etc.). The Table then proceeds to evidence the estimated dollar amount and
percent of total budget that was allocated to stormwater services. It should be noted that
stormwater services for the County do not overlap with current services provided by the City
with the exception of a single ditch (the "City Limit Ditch"); a separate section pertaining to
City-wide services is provided as well in the following section. Due to the fortunate lack of
overlap in County/City stormwater services, a similarly detailed budget was constructed for the
City of Okeechobee with little concern for financial "double-dipping," or over-inflating the total
amount of money that is currently allocated to stormwater services.
Furthermore, since there are no full-time staffers that deal solely with stormwater issues, the
methodology employed in calculating these numbers should be discussed; at a meeting with
County officials, the total annual 2006-2007 budget expenditures were presented to the CAS
team.b Using an activity log provided by the Assistant Road Maintenance Director, it became
possible to estimate with some statistical certainty the percentage of each line in the budget
provided in Exhibit 3.1 that was theoretically allocated full-time to stormwater services. For
instance, regaxding the Personnel category, the Assistant Director was able to detail a list of
stormwater services that were typically performed in the span of a year; using the activity log, it
become possible to detail what percent of County road-side mowers, for instance, worked full-
time on stormwater issues, even though no single entity can be credited with full-time
6 See Exhibit 3.1.
stormwater service. For budgetary allotment purposes, however, this aforementioned
methodology proved sufficient.
Table 3.1 evidences the fundamental dearth of financial and staffing support for adequate
stormwater services in a growing County and City. The most abundant fiscal allocations to
stormwater are found within the Personnel category; at its most plentiful, such funding is limited
to 25% of the total Personnel budget. Comprising no more than 13% of the Road and Bridge
Deparhnent's total financial resources, it is further demonstrated that in order to expand such
services, a drastic change in funding must first occur. It should be noted that the numbers
appearing in Table 3.1 may be slightly inflated due to recent climate-related anomalies such as
the previous years' abnormally active humcane seasons in addition to the heavy rainfall
experienced as a result; an additional $25,000 was built into the budget to reactively deal with
Special Drainage Issues and Improvements as a result of these irregular weather patterns.
Additional personnel resources were necessitated as well to respond to these drainage issues,
both within field operations and administratively as a consequence of the numerous applied
grants and federal aid that was requested by the Deparhnent to perform the aforementioned
activities on top of "typical" stormwater allotments. On an annual basis, all else being equal, it is
likely that the "true" annual financial allocation to stormwater services is decidedly less. Given
this, however, it can be said with a fair degree of statistical certainty that the annual stormwater
budgetary receipts are rarely, if ever, greater than Table 3.1 depicts.
-27-
Table 3.1: Okeechobee County Road and Bridge Department
2006-2007 Annual Budget
Total R&B Dept. Amount & Percent ($ /%)
Expenditures Allocated to Stormwater
Services
Personnel Services
Salaries $1,109,155 $ 321,654 / 18%
Overtime $ 30,000 $ 8,700 / < 1 %
FICA $ 87,000 $ 25,272 / 1.5%
Retirement $ 108,561 $ 31,482 / < 1 %
Life/Health Insurance $ 326,620 $ 94,719 / 5.5%
Worker's Compensation $ 45,210 $ 13,110 /< 1%
Sub-total $1,706,692 $ 431,793 / 25%
O eratina Ex enses
Equipment/Misc. $2,615,006 $ 256,793 / 9%
Sub-total $2,615,006 $ 256,969 / 9%
Ca itallm rovements
Drainage Improvements $ 25,000 $ 25,000 / 100%
New Equipment $ 577,200 $ 256,969 / 10%
Other/Misc. $1,798,649 $ 0 / 0%
Sub-total $2,400,849 $ 281,969 / 11%
Total General Ex enditures $6,722,547 $ 938,789 / 13%
:
_ _ ._ _ . _ _ _ _ .. _. _ ___ _.. .
Exhibit 3.1
Okeechobee County Road and Bridge Department
2006-2007 Adopted Budget
-29-
O.K� �HOB�= COUi� � `!
1 i"`�:1�;S'POr<TAT)ON TRL'ST �Ui�D (1� �)
L
� i DE� i: ROAD iV1A1hT�NANC�
�
�I .
8 (De�amnen� 5D - Proo�am 541
9 Personner Services
10 Safaries (i200)
i 1 . .Overiirne ('i40D)
12 F1CA (27 DO)
13 Recirement {2200)
14 liTe!Health Insurance (Z30D)
15 Worker`s CompensaTion (24Q0)
16 Tofal Pe:sanne/ Services
'f7 O,veratino cxnenses
18 Professional 5ervices (3100)
19 P.roiessiona( Services - NRCS (10-37 00.)
2D Prar Ser/Enainer - Berman Rd. (06-3'10.0
2'1 Pror Ser/Enainesr - Eagle Island Rd. (09
Z Pr.or SerlEnaineer - SE 43rd Ave_ (�3-31
23 Prof Ser/Eng Fuel Tank Cover Bldg(02-3
24 Prof Ser/Eng - Mechanics Shop (10-3� i:
25 Pror" Ser/Eng Equip Storage B.Idg (D1-3't'
26 Prar' Ser%Eng Berman Road (043112)
27 Pr�f Ser/E; � Ce::ncy Hi!1s {13-51't2)
28 1Vfedical Suppiies (3104)
29 Inairec't CostAilo�ation (311 1)
30 Computer Related (32D1)
3 i T�vef/Food/Cash (40�0)
32 Communicaiions (4100)
33 Freight (415a)
34= Transaortaiion/PQstage (4200)
35 Utiii'ry Service (430�)
36 Rentals & Leases (4400)
3i lnsurance (45�0)
38 Venicle Repairs/Maini. (4600)
39 Gontracted Services (4fi01)
40 Contracted Svcs_ Tramc Signal Naint. ((
41 . Con'trac'ted Svcs. Street Light tiRaint_ (02
42 Contracted 5vcs. NRCS (10-46D1)
43 Contracted 5vcs. DEP Grant (11-4601�)
?4 Maint, Supplies, Tools (46�2)
45 RepairslMaint.-Bldg. (46D4)
46 Tires (46Q5)
?7 Repairs/R/{aint- Equipment.(4621')
48 RepairslMaint - Fuel Sysiem (4622)
49 CurrentObiiga'tions (4900)
5D Adveriising (4907)
51 Office 5upn(ies (51D0.)
52 General Operaiing (5203)
53 Gas, Oif, Lube (52.07)
�4 Equipment Under �750 (5205)
5� CJniforms (5212)
5o Safery Suopiies (5217)
5% Road iUaierials (�300)
58 B�ooks, �ues, Tuiiion (5400)
F9 Educaiion (54531
��. �Toral Operaiino �xAenses
�1 EGapiralDuf/av
�- 'Irrtprovements - Buiidinas (0260)
33 �Bldcs-Mec:�anic 5hop (6250)
�� IIuiiding - =¢uinment Storac� (01-�2501
•� �Buiiding - =ue� -�ntc Canopy (02-02501
�o [New =�uiomen: (640d)_
' Glmorovenenis Siaraae �anKs ;01-c�001
Acivaf
2D02!2�J0^
84L, j'% /
2�.529
6�,07.3
S�,o°5
20.R,627
2?_802
1.ZZ�.363 �i
0
0
i �,T75
20,250
0
0
0
0
0
a
575
459, 848
835
0
11,333
i ,0.52'
50
7fi.; 8.70
2,.799
30, 89�
17,71 �
s,°so
158,38�'
0
0
0
4,286
3,586
1�,948
35,587
0
31'7
69
1, 977
7.941
12 � ,?77
G,L�SJ
1 D, 429
2,Q37
;7="'50 .'
43g
'S0
949_OQS
=, r 58
0
0
0
.=.�. kGJ
i. ,8�
Amended Projected
Ac�ual Ac.ivai Budeei Acival
3f2�D4 2Q04/20�5 20Q5l2�06 2005I200o
Adonied Chana� From
Budg�i .2005I200c To
2006(20D% 2006/ZD07
901,�'S 92�,365 1.,D43,OOo i,04o,.0�; 1,1Q°;?5o 60,149
42,2-7 3�i,JLJ 3D;OOD 31,905 30,OOD p
70,821 72;089 79,790 8Q,%07 8�,1�'5 7;3�5
73, i i 2 72.688 86, 952 78,703 1 �8,5o i 22,4D9
Z3?,b64 =31,F,�8 Z78;421 24&;297 32fi,o20 4g,��go
36.592 34.581 52.975 a�.3°5 45.2�0 (7 7g�
35S,S71 1,.i7Q,6D1 1,�Q;3?4 1';52:i,748 i,lOfi,E92 43E.348
880
0
0
15.25D
0
0
0
0
c
�5 i
119,88fi
602
0
1 �, 082
1,445
25
7?,511
1,639
J/;�O(
9,428
1 °06
74?,732
1'S,461
0
0
6,710
1,45b
i 8,6b4
35,�40
0
261
343
1,552
6, D22
75,c�'6
2,3Z;
1.0,383
_.�ss
T21,°30
."iJ�
0
_'1fi,i:,o
ss_���
0
G
0
=?O 90�
ooc
0
9,61 D
0
0
0
0
D
D
52.2D4
0
397
79, 922
i28
185
1�1,757
°68
0
. 89,?10
1,a?4
40,572
2�,538
1;OOD
T6a,D80
fl75
0
0
5,9'! 5
2,453
1'S,Z75
43.384
0
1. "33
386
1, 339
6�581
102, 072
L..�,Jrb
,� 270
�. szs
i4a, Q32
Jd�
0
s2s_soa
0
0
0
�G�.?%o
? ^i�
104,"?D
260,426
0
0
3,2'10
3,OQ0
3;000
0
�;9Q1
io,73:,
575
159; 846
i,a�D
5D0
i2,00D
a,200
45
80;000
4;OD0
37, 0.88
16,500
11,475
i73,5�0
4Q;.481
2;988, �75
i,870;8B.9
8;000
4; 000
15,000
o9,5d0
0
�50
845
1,�D
7,5D�
12D,400
9,'[7?
10,500
J.JOO
Z�%,298
1,?O.G
1, 000
o, 32'1, 407
�?,��o
2�,0➢0
3o,2�C
30,ODC
5�2 Qo0
�, OG
�
206,426
D
0
D
0
0
0
�39, 9 00
16,79D
485
1 F9; 846
526
0
9,825
5,5.87
0
77,057
1,85D
3fi.,935
9,a5�
°,�35
165,972
11,;5i5
2.988> �5
370,889
7, 80B.
1,i76
9, 826
49,�30
0
0
677
1, 8B4
5,7.6?
7 6�,083
1,383
11,04i
2, i72
190,046
�
^ s ,.s,zs�
0
D
0
0
�-1,^G2
J_J
104,�D
D
0
0
2D,000
3;000
3,OOD
3, �.00
0
U
575
159.846
1.000
5�0
i2,00.0
2.d��
25
8.0.;�0.0
�a;QDO
54,272
16,bDD
7, �Q
�73,�5�
40,497
0
�,�aa,000
8,000
4,000
is.,oao
4Q, 000
7!500
l'Oo
345
T ,7�d
7,5�0
i20,D.00
8; 520
10, 50D
3,aDG
200,000
1,40.0
i , QOD
:6'1'�_0.06
10;000
?�.�aD
40,OL�0
40..00G
5--,2�0
�
0
(260,426;
D
0
16,790
0
0
3,000
(?�, 90'I )
(1.6.,790)
0
D
0
0
0
(2.200)
(2D)
0
0
17,78?
0�
(3, 975)-
0
0
(2,888,07�)
(370: B 89)
0
0
0
(29,500)
7, 50Q
(53�
(500)
0
0
0
(248)
G
0
iz/,?98)�
� I0
(i2,�00)�
1,60D •
�,SOC I
10,OOQ i
�� _d�, 1
; 5_0001 �
oK�_c��g�= counin
1 TRANSPORTATION iRUST FUND (�01)
�
:� DEPT: ROAD DEr'�ARTME\�T
a
5
6
7
8
9 Paae Two Amended Projected Adooted Change From
T� .Actual Actual Acival Budaet Acivai Budaet 20Q5/2006 Ta
11 De aRment 50 - Proaram 541 2flQZ'2003 2003/200a 2a04/2�Q5 20Q5/2D06 2005/2000 2006l20D7 �OOoi2007
12 Capifal Ouflav con't
13 Improvements- Raad Stripina (6306j 0 0 12,�97 15,00.0 0 50,OD0 35,OD0
14 Improvements Peavine (02-63DD) 38,406 0 0 D 0 0 0
15 Improvements-(00-6300) 210 0 0 0 0 �0
16 Improvemen[s-Rural Road Lightino (03 0 0 D 11,32D 1,320 ,_ 0 (11;320)
17 Bridge Repair (6302) 0 0 0 25,OOD 0 25,000 p
18 Bridge Repair - Industrial Park Bridge(01 D 300,000 0 0 0 0 � D
19 Bridae Repair - 5E 43rd Ave Bridge(O6-E 0 0 0 937,395 0 190,�00 52,605
20 Impv - Berman Raad Widening (12-6301) 1,782,Z; 7 1,536,2D1 0 (1,782,Z�)
2'1 Paving (630`i) 68�,427 817,15b 56,321 783,1.22 783,7�Z2 1,22D,274 437,152
22 Improvements - Brad.y Road (11-6301�) 0 0 0 0 0 177,375 177,375
23 imorovements - Berman Road (06-6300) 3,062,584 0 0 0 0 0 p
24 Improvernents - Eagle Is{and (09-6301) 679,35D 71,2D4 0 0 0 0 0
25 Improvements - Traffic Light OFiS ('10-6� 0 35,7�5 1 ofi,05D 0 0 0 0
26 Improvements - Tum Lanes.,-70 & 710.(11. . , 0: .... 3'12,89'I 127;652 0. 0.,. ,. p p
27 Improvements - Erasion C.ontrol 0 0 D 0 0 ZQ;D00 20;Q00
28 Imorovements - Sidewalks (6305) 0 0 0 0 0 0 p
29 Improvemenis-�Draina e(6303 0 0 D 0 0 25,.00.0 25;00�
30 Total Capital Ouftay 4,69�,837 1,796,32'1 6'12,30.� 3,425,774 2,7.92,5E8 2,40�:;II49 ('1.,D24,925)
31
32 Dekt Senrrces -
33 Berman Rd. So. �denina Year � of 90
34 Principal (71�Q) 62,245 4 0 85;562 81,248 12?,6�.3 39.,D91
35 interest (720Q) 3,61.9 0 0 37,816 3fi,416 52,b73 14,757
36 Tota/ Debf Services 6�,864 0 0 �IZ3,378 '1�i7,6"o4 'IZ7,226 b3;848
37
38 Confinqencv/Resarve/Non Ob
39 Trans. to Gen. for lns. Res. 91'I2) 9,930 0 0 0 0 p p
40 Tota/ ContJResvJNonOp 9,'f30 D D p p p p
49 Grand -fotal 6,942;�239 3,871,971 2,8�6;509 �f'1,44Q,903 9,047,274 6,599,773 (4,5�'t,730)
42
43 Na, of Personnel Full-Tme 33 33 33 32 � 32 3.S
44 No. of Peraonnel Part-Time � 7 � 1 .� 1.
45
46
47 "
48
49
5D �
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
67
62
03
64
6b
OD •
6/
_ ; -� �._
With growth continuing to escalate at unprecedented levels, it is likely that the current
stormwater paradigrn must abandon its reactive approach in favor of a proactive strategy, one
that will build into its calculations the level of current services needed along with the projected
growth rate. This new approach must do what the existing plan does not; it must allow for
flexibility needed to address continued growth trends and climatic anomalies while
simultaneously handling the standard civic and environmental concerns the current system has
consistently failed to resolve.
Both County and City realize that an entire restructuring of the stormwater management system
is required to meet the new goals and objectives as set forth by the Board of County
Commissioners (B.O.C.C.). A stand-alone stormwater (Natural Resources) Division or
Department will be required in the future to meet the growing stormwater needs whether or not it
remains a direct part of the Road and Bridge Department as proposed. The County and City staff
will work side by side with consultants to determine appropriate budget and staffing resolutions.
3.3 Coverage & Shortcomings of Existing Services in the City of Okeechobee:
Presently, the City of Okeechobee possesses a set of stormwater services similar in provision to
those which are offered by the County to the regions outside of the City. Admittedly, one such
similaxity is found within the decidedly reactive nature of the operations; this reality is coupled
with a lack of labor and expertise specialization in the stormwater arena. The essential working
paradigm of the City's current level of stormwater and drainage service provision is one of
"sufficient maintenance," in that a certain degree of mindful planning is allowed for such that
canals and ditches are properly cleaned and cleared in preparation for an anticipated storm or
rainy season. However, the proactive nature, for all intents and purposes, ends there. There is no
financial allocation that is dedicated to the design and implementation of any substantive capital
improvements to the City's stormwater infrastructure. Also, much like the County, stormwater
activities are buried within everyday Public Works related tasks, rendering them for all intents
and purposes indistinguishable to the casual observer from road maintenance activities for
instance.
-30-
Historically, stormwater services have been limited to maintenance tasks such as cleaning and
landscaping of the canal beds that outline the City boundaries as well as installing driveway
culverts if a particular area proved to be a continuous flood-prone region. Portions of this
paradigm were altered following the anomalies that were the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons,
which brought with them countless complaints of flooding. Furthermore, these two particular
seasons shed light upon a critical issue facing the City: growth management with regard to its
quantity and succeeding impact upon quality. Flooding and water quality issues were brought to
light by the plethora of hurricane caused damage upon the region; planning for future growth,
which the region has unquestionably experienced, has become a pivotal issue for the City. As a
result of this new set of weather related patterns, patterns that are marked by more volatile
storms than the City has witnessed in years past, the need for more efficient use of stormwater
and drainage resources has been acknowledged.
The Director of Public Works, a position that is overseen by the City Administrator, deals with
stormwater and drainage issues on a strictly as-needed basis. Much like the County Road and
Bridge Department, no official stormwater task force or staff inembers are currently employed
by the City; members are pulled from the ranks of the Public Works Department on a similar
reactive and as-needed basis as is the current custom within the County. Unlike operations within
the County Road and Bridge Department, however, the City currently does not employ "action
categories" to classify projects accomplished under the Public Works Department. Stormwater
related projects are primarily limited to swale and ditch mowing. The Deparhnent of Public
Works currently employees seven general staff inembers. Figure 3.2 depicts the current
organizational structure of stormwater related services under the sole jurisdiction of the Public
Works Department.
With personnel limited to a supervising foreman, a single equipment mechanic and four
equipment operators/laborers, the Department faces a multitude of challenges with the task of
sufficiently maintaining waterways to prevent additional flooding. It is unlikely that the City, as
circumstances currently stand, will be able to provide the necessary resources and expertise to
design and implement capital improvements within the area to streamline the maintenance
process and make way for additional service provision to the City residents. It is because of this
-31-
__- - _ _ -._ __ _._ _ _
reality that it is proposed that the City will play an integral role in the newly restructured Road
and Bridge Department under the Stormwater wing, to provide the historical and institutional
knowledge base for the existing stormwater infrastructure within the City limits.
It should be noted that the methodology for the City budgeting configurations in this study was
complicated by the absence of activity logs through which a confidence interval would have been
derived to approximate a list of stormwater related expenditures that harbor significant statistical
weight. However, using a simple ratio establishment, it was possible of estimate a stormwater
budget with percentage of total City expenditures shown as well. The total budgetary
expenditures from the City of Okeechobee were used as a base calculation for total revenue
allocated for various purposes. This expenditure was found to be approximately $15,548,000.00;
the Public Works Department (#541) had an operating budget of $1,271,169.00, including
salaries, comprising roughly 8% of the total City budget for 2006-2007. In the tradition of
political science, this study assumes that for practical purposes the County is a macrocosm of the
City and that the two possess comparable ratios regarding stormwater expenditures.�
Unfortunately, a confidence interval was unable to be established from the current City records.
Therefore this study's effort to quantify stormwater expenditures is noted as the first step in the
right direction regarding proper future assessment. For the purposes of this study, with regard to
the methodology in Table 3.2's budgetary considerations, the effort was made to err on the side
of financial conservatism; the City's annual expenditures for stormwater are likely slightly more
than the outlined amount, for reasons detailed in Section 4.5.
Table 3.2 estimates a total slate of stormwater related expenditures to be approximately
$ 176,374.00, roughly 22% of the total Public Works Deparhnent Budget, and less than one
percent (< 1%) of the City's total annual budget for 2006-2007 ($15,548,000.00). It should be
noted once more than the Table 3.2 provides the best possible estimate of stormwater related
expenditures given the lack of activity logs and detailed stormwater record keeping. The
� The estimated percentage of total expenditures that stormwater services consume was intentionally deflated by 5
percentage points (20% for Personnel and 39% for Operating Expenses, respectively) to prevent City budget
deiicits. Should the decision be made to alleviate the surplus as a result of stormwater service cessation, the option
of an immediate reduction in citizen taxation can be undertalcen.
-32-
numbers in coluxnn three of Table 3.2 were acquired by using a simple variation of the
percentages employed in the County Road and Bridge Deparhnent budget estimation. As
expected, a correlation was observed between County Road Department e�penditures and City
Public Works expenditures in that both observed a greater dollar amount of respective salaries
expended than operating expenses; yet operating expenses, in both City and County instances,
comprised a proportionately greater percent of expenditures when total department budgets were
considered, indicating that as political science has established, County workings are often a
working macrocosm of their entailing cities (the City of Okeechobee in this instance).
- 33 -
_ _ _
_
_ _ _ _
Table 3.2: City of Okeechobee Stormwater Expenditures
Public Works Department 2006-2007 Annual Budgetg
Total City-Public Amount & Percent ($ /%) of
Works Department Total City Budget Allocated to
Ex enditures Stormwater Services9
Personnel Services
Executive Salaries $ 119,536.00 $ 23,907.00 / 19%
Regular Salaries $ 233,565.00 $ 46,713.00 / 20%
Overtime $ 5,000.00 $ 1,000.00 / 20%
FICA $ 26,736.00 $ 5,347.00 / 19%
Retirement $ 38,835.00 $ 7,767.00 / 20%
Life & Health Insur. $ 51,202.00 $ 10,240.00 / 19%
Workers Comp. $32,987.00 $ 6,597.00 / 19%
Subtotal $ 507,861.00 $ 101,572.00 / 20%
Su lies/O eratin Ex enses
Utilities $ 100,000.00 $ 39,000.00 / 39%
Rentals & Leases $ 10,000.00 $ 3,900.00 / 39%
Insurance $ 49,048.00 $ 19,128.00 / 39%
Vehicles $ 19,550.00 $ 7,624.00 / 39%
Subtotal $ 178,598.00 $ 69,652.00 / 39%
Ca italIm rovements
Improvements $ 103,000.00 $ 5,150.00 / 5%
Subtotal $ 103,000.00 $ 5,150.00 / 5%
Total General Ex enditures $ 789,459.00 $ 176,374.00 / 22%
8 For Personnel calculations, it was assumed that 20% (.2) of the listed expendihues were stormwater related; within
the Operating Expenses category, 39% (.39) were classifies as stormwater associated; finally, within Capital
Improvements, 5°/a (.OS) were quantified as pertaining to stormwater projects. It should be noted that these numbers
are direct variations (minus five percentage points) of the percentages established for use within the Road and
Bridge Department's budget estimations (See Table 3.1).
� CAS Reserves the right to instigate budget alterations as information from the Stormwater Master Plan continues
to be received within the respective departments.
-34-
Figure 3.2 City of Okeechobee Organizational Chart
Public Works Department
Presently, the City has acknowledged regions that are in critical need of stormwater services
given their tendencies to flood during even relatively mild inclement weather. Much of this may
be attributed to the decided lack of sufficient stormwater and drainage infrastructure during the
initial City planning phases. These areas include, but are not limited to, the 12th Avenue Ditch
and North 14th Street within the City parameters.
Local officials have also noted that large amounts of time, and consequently large degrees of
public worker productivity, are spent within repetitive actions such as ditch and swale
maintenance to remove weeds and other foreign materials. A lack of detention facilities results in
these materials being directly flushed into waterways within the City which are in direct contact
with Lake Okeechobee. In order to deal with flooding and subsequent maintenance issues the
City must continuously pull workers from their everyday tasks under the Deparhnent of Public
Works. It is strongly believed that the Stormwater Utility and subsequent restructuring of the
County Road and Bridge Department will allow greater resource flexibility within the City,
given that water quality issues such as lab services and pollution management are built into the
new Stormwater sub-deparhnent as a component of this proposed Utility. The essential water
quality goal of this Utility will allow the City to free up many of its current resources that are
presently occupied with the continuous cleaning tasks associated with canal and waterway
maintenance with the current level of stormwater services that are presently provided. By
proactively monitoring water quality standards and simultaneously implementing recommended
capital improvements, it is conceivable that current infrastructure will be decidedly less likely to
face damage or encounter inefficiencies, characteristic of the prior system.
4.0 DEFINING AN EXPENDED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Through CAS' meetings with the County's Administrator and Deputy Administrator, a number
of functions designed to expand the County and City's Stormwater Programs through the
development of a Utility were designed. An overall desire of the County/City would be to
develop and implement an organized maintenance plan, establish a protocol to address
emergencies and citizens' complaints, and establish both short and long term priorities in
improving the system (Capital Improvements Projects).
In keeping in concert with the defined goals, vision and mission statement, the following would
be the essential components of the expanded program; their place in the grand scheme of the
newly proposed Organizational set-up will also be discussed as follows:10
4.1 Implement Capital Improvements
Essential County-wide Capital Improvements have been identified in the comprehensive
Stormwater Management Program Master Plan1 � currently being completed. This Master Plan
looks to develop a set of priorities for the stormwater management program. It will also
establish the activities to be undertaken in line with these Capital Improvement priorities, as well
as a time schedule and list of resources that will be needed to accomplish the various elements of
the stormwater management program. The Stormwater Management Program Master Plan will
help guide the implementation of the stormwater utility over the long-term.
Furthermore, it is desirable to define the level of service and performance standards for the
County-wide Stormwater Management Program. The stormwater management program looks to
plan, prioritize, design and construct system improvements at a pre-determined level-of-service
that is considered to be appropriate for public drainage systems. Defining the level and extent of
service as well as performance standards for the County-wide drainage systems will provide
valuable guidance about how and where stormwater management is to be delivered for improved
present day water management. As the County and City look ahead to the management of
10 See Figure 4.1 for Organizational details.
11 From this point forward any reference to a Master Plan will be synonymous with the Stormwater Management
Program Master Plan currently being completed by CAS, unless otherwise noted.
-39-
future growth there needs to be some allowances for flexibility with regard to dealing with
increased amounts of stormwater that will be generated from this gr-owth.
The Stormwater Management Program will ensure compliance with Federal and State regulatory
mandates as well as implement reasonable regulatory programs that comply with stormwater
quality mandates from Federal and State agencies. Floodplain management requirements will
also be met.
Through the Master Plan, it will be possible to integrate various stormwater programs in order to
utilize resources at the utmost efficiency. The Stormwater Management Program will minimize
duplication and inefficiencies in the management and implementation of the various stormwater
management elements in order to improve cost-effectiveness of the Program and to optimize the
use of already scarce resources. It will promote integrated programs and inter-municipal
cooperation aimed at ensuring a positive public reception to the Program.
In addition to successful implementation in a manner that not only complies with but also
surpasses state and federal regulation requirements, the Master Plan will spell out the procedures
needed to acquire stormwater easements where required, including natural and historic flow-
ways. Furthermore, conveyance construction will be undertaken where conveyance is required
and does not currently exist, providing for additional floodplain storage.
It is conceivable that the supervision of these duties will fall under the jurisdiction of the Road
Maintenance & Stormwater Direction, with the compliance of the Assistant Director of
Stormwater Management. It is likely the Permitting official under the Director's jurisdiction will
ensure adherence to the aforementioned regulations.lZ
4.2 Address Long Term Stormwater Issues
Stormwater quantity (flooding) has been identified as an integral component within the
management program. This program will be enhanced to include comprehensive long-range
management efforts to minimize flood risks and the many detrimental effects of flooding. These
efforts include prioritizing and addressing stormwater infrastructure needs such as maintenance,
12 See Figure 4.1.
.�
repair, replacement, upgrades and capital improvements to a much greater and comprehensive
extent than the action classifications are currently employed within Okeechobee County.
Stormwater quality issues will be sufficiently addressed as an integral function within the
Program as well. The management program will begin a trend of addressing stormwater quality
issues in addition to quantity issues. On way to distinguish between quantity and quality issues is
that quantity issues are primarily concerned with water level measurements and "how much".
Quality issues pertain to the specific causal impact upon the affected constituencies as "to what
degree". This applies to water quality regulatory demands, as well as to erosion and sediment
controls and to stream and aquatic system health.
The newly implemented Stormwater Management Program will aim to protect and restore
natural stream corridors. The health of the aquatic ecosystem is dependent on both. quality and
quantity management. The County/City's stormwater management program will address both
stormwater management system concerns and water quality issues.
It is proposed that these goals be met with the installation of the five new subordinates under the
Director of Public Works, including a Global Information System (GIS) Team, a survey crew,
Operations Scheduler, as well as a Natural Resources Director to work in conjunction with the
Road Maintenance & Stormwater Director to proactively address long range planning issues with
regard to both road and stormwater issues. With a novel slate of available personnel and
proposed professional services, it is believed that the current Road Deparhnent will be both
specialized and transformed into a governmental sub-branch that is in possession of all resources
necessary to implement effective long term planning as a means of resolving current stormwater
issues as well as future issues that may arise as a result of the continuance in projected regional
growth.
4.3 Develop a Public Outreach Program
Over time, as defined in the NPDES program, the Management Program will develop a formal
public outreach and involvement program so as to allow for a continuance of the water
management values this program looks to imbed within the County-wide region. Stormwater
outreach efforts will identify key stakeholders, development and business communities, and the
general public to be tapped as leaders in the spread of stormwater issue knowledge. Education
-41 -
_ __ _ _
_ _ _. _ _ _
efforts will focus on both causes and solutions for stormwater problems, including possible
regulatory remedies should unforeseen dilemmas arise in the region. The goal will be to
establish a clear understanding that stormwater and surface water systems are a public resource
to be protected and managed in the public interest, thereby instilling a stormwater value system
into the core of local government.
The Program will establish clear Stormwater Management Program leadership that the public
will recognize. The Stormwater Management Program will clearly identify point(s) of contact
responsible for system planning, regulatory compliance and enforcement, system design,
construction and maintenance, and addressing stormwater concerns from the public so as to
make the public education procedure flow smoothly.
With the supervision of the Road & Maintenance Director, it is believed that the Assistant
Director of Stormwater Management in conjunction with the position's available stafF will work
in accordance with the established standards of the Director of Public Works to initiate and
implement a Public Education program with the goal of aiding in the long term planning issues
that will already have been undertaken by the Department, thereby achieving the originally
outlined ideals of the Stormwater Management Program.
4.4 Organizational Implementation
To implement a program as defined above, the necessary additional staff has been defined.13 It
should be noted, however, that final approval from the Board of County Commissioners and the
Okeechobee City Council will be necessitated before finalized plans can be implemented and an
ultimate vision with quantified goals established. However, it is believed that in order to attain
the aforementioned objectives, an organizational set-up and preliminary budget similar to the
ones that can be found within this study will more than suffice in the attainment of the outlined
stormwater goals. It is suggested that the Road and Bridge Department undergo the
transformation and restructuring as proposed in Figure 4.1, the entailing positions of which are
outlined in detail within section 4.6 of this study.
13 See Figure 4.1.
-42-
4.5 Methodology and Budgeting
In order to calculate the estimated budgetary expenditures of the expanded Road and Bridge
Department it was necessary to establish a statistical ratio that would offer us concrete numbers
that fall within a 95% confidence interval of the hypothetical "true expenditures". To perform
this, changes in Personnel were employed as a means of instituting the base ratio. Prior to the
adoption of the Stormwater Management expansions, stormwater personnel comprised an
approximated 25% of total personnel services; less than nine individuals. Following the
departmental reorganization, stormwater personnel will comprise roughly 18.5 individuals; the
established ratio in this instance was 8.75 to 18.5 (8.75:18.5). When the initial 25% was
compared to the 8.75:18.5 ratio, it yielded an expected change of approximately 210% given the
relationship between the change in respective personnel numbers. This percentage (210%) was
then employed as a surrogate measure for expected increases in stormwater services when
precise budgetary numbers were unavailable. Given that Personnel was the sole category in
which definitive "before" and "after" cost estimates were available, said category was designated
as the control surrogate. This methodology was primarily used in calculating the Operating
Expenses of Stormwater Management in Tables 4.1 and 4.2; note that it renders the maximum
foreseeable estimate for required expenditures; it is unlikely that required revenues will exceed
these approximated amounts as detailed in the "total" rows in the following two tables, given that
a standardized five percent (5%) inflation rate has been strategically built into Table 42 to allow
for budgetary flexibility in anticipation of unforeseen implementation costs.
The aforementioned methodology holds strong in its accuracy and predictive value. Such
methods, using the 210% (2.1) ratio as outlined above, predicted the expanded stormwater
expenditures under the restructured Road and Bridge Department to hover around $1,987,440.00;
couple this dollar amount with a new injected variable, the Stormwater Master Plan, in which the
County is forecasted to spend roughly $2,500,000.00. The total for these two figures, the total
increase in necessary stormwater expenditures, is approximated to be $4,684,000.00.
Table 4.1 reveals a preliminary operating budget for the expanded Road and Bridge Department,
including the Road and Stormwater sub-deparhnents. The outlined budget has been deemed
highly feasible given that the operating expenses for the 2006-2007 fiscal year were
approximately $6,800,000.00, an amount that was rendered solely from the County gas tax and
will likely remain in place; it is believed that said tax will continue to reign in similar, if not
- 43 -
exceedeci amounts, of revenue in the upcoming years. Therefore, when considering the financial
viability of this project as a whole, it is crucial to maintain the aforementioned amount collected
via the gas tax within the projected scope of feasibility.
An analysis of the 2006-2007 fiscal year within the Road and Bridge Department's budget14
reveals that the numbers proposed in this study are not only feasible but beneficial to the City's
current budget as well. The approximated annual expenses needed by the restructuring of the
Road and Bridge Deparhnent will total around $11,600,000.00; of that amount, it has been
estimated with some statistical certainty that around $4,700,000.00 will be dedicated to
stormwater purposes within the County-wide region, leaving a necessitated $6,880,000.00 for the
Road sub-section of the newly restructured Department. It is proposed that this Road sub-section
retain the approximated $940,000.00 that the Deparhnent was previously spending annually on
stormwater service provision. Such an action would render total estimated revenue of
$6,890,000.00 for the Road sub-department, which will provide sufficient funds to cover the
expanded Road sub-section services as well as maintenance of existing road and highway
provisions.ls Furthermore, revenue from the City of Okeechobee currently allocated to
stormwater services will be absorbed back into the City's annual budget, culminating in greater
fiscal flexibility in the City budget all the while providing an expanded set of stormwater
services in addition to fulfilling the essential goals necessary for continuing capital
improvements. It is for this specific reason that careful effort was made to slightly underestimate
the amount of money the City currently allocates to stormwater services, given the absence of the
Public Works activity logs necessary to calculate a statistically significant estimate; this study
proposes that the City retain the money that would normally have been allocated to stormwater
purposes. Because of this, methodology protocol indicates that offering the City a conservative
financial estimate as to the dollar amount they should expect to retain in a budget surplus to
allocate at their discretion remains the most logical option, all else being equal.
Regarding the issues of integrated watershed planning and potential lab services necessary to
employ sufficient water quality monitoring�b, in addition to finances needed for land acquisition,
each item is dependent upon financial approval of the designated amount within the Master Plan
14 3ee Exhibit 1.1.
's It should be noted that this numerical estunate includes the interest earned on gas tax revenue as shown in Exhibit
1.1.
�� Lab services and water quality monitoring issues in this instance will entail inspection of standing and flowing
water sources to ensure that all established quality standards and regulations are continuously being met; detailed
financial and service provision estunates will be unavailable until a final budget is established.
-44-
Project Implementation within Tables 4.1 and 42. Until the Master Plan reaches completion,
$2,500,000.00 is the most reasonable estimation that can be provided and is dependent upon
B.O.C.C. approval. Although this item amount was intentionally constructed to allow for fiscal
flexibility within the budget, the proposed amount includes sufficient annual funds to include
project implementation as recommended by the in-progress Master Plan but also the necessitated
land acquisition and watershed planning as well.l � Again, it will be noted that a finalized budget
will be available following approval from the B.O.C.C.18
Regarding the approxirnated funding currently allocated by the City to stormwater services, it is
proposed that the City will retain this money and absorb said amount (as well as its entailing
personnel and equipment related resources) back into the annual budget to use at the City's own
discretion. Two essential options are present at the on-set of this occurrence; the first, a reduction
in local taxation to coincide with the implementation of the stormwater fee as an offset in price;
the second, channeling of an unspecified dollar amount, as is recommended by this study, into a
reservoir fund for catastrophic events within the City that may require immediate attention such
as severe and unforeseen hurricane devastation. It is believed that such an action will in the end
aid local autonomy by allowing the City to rely more confidently upon in-house funding to
attend to acute needs that may arise with the City jurisdiction.
17 Note that the suggested annual financial allocation to Master Plan recommended capital improvements includes
all associated costs, including land acquisition.
18 Section 7.0 outlines an Action Plan which details this approval process and may be referenced for furkher
informative disclosure
- 45 -
�� Furthermore, C.A.S. reserves the rights to revise or make editions to the preliminary budget as information from
the underway Master Plan continues to be received.
20 It should be noted that this financial estimate is solely contingent upon the amount of revenue that the Board of
County Commissioners is willing to allocate to the project and has the potential to vary considerably.
-46-
TABLE 4.1
FUTURE PROPOSED BUDGET
POST-ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT RESTRUCTLTRING19
TAELE 4.2
FUTURE PROPOSED BUDGET
STORMWATER RESTRUCTURINGZ'
(Costs shown in thousands}Z'
STORMWATER
EXPENSES
Stormwater General Oversight
Director of Public Works
Administrative Assistant
Capital Improvements Program Director (Contracts Manager)
Road Maintenance & Stormwater Director
Operations Scheduler
Natural Resources Director (Water Quality Monitoring)
Permitting (est. 1)
Surve>> & Mapping
Global Information System (GIS) Team (est. 1)
Registered Surveyor (est. 1)
Survey Team (est. 2)
Stornzwater Management
Assistant Director of Stormwater Management
Clerical/Accounting (est. 1)
Supervisor of Field Operations
Equipment Operators (est. 4)
Laborers (est. 6)
PERSONNEL TOTAL:
Stormwater Oversight Administratzve
_ Office Supplies & Equipment
Utilities (Electric, Rent, Internet, etc.
Survev & Manning
Miscellaneous
Stornzwate�• Mana
Miscellaneous
New Equipment
Master Plan Project
OPERATING EXPENSES TOTAL
nplementations"
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL
$46,750.00
$19.2�0.00
$24,750.00
$35,750.00
$19,250.00
$27,000.00
$22,000.00
$27,500.00
$35,750.00
$44,000.00
$60,000.00
$32,000.00
$50,000.00
$200,000.00
$120,000.00
EST. ( +/- % ) CHANGE IN
CURRENT ROAD DEPT.
+ 175%
$ 7,500.00
$ 40,000.00
$55,000.00
$12,100.00
$192,500.00
$ 167,000.00
$ 38,000.00
$ 321,000.00
$ 833,100.00
$ 540,000.00
.00
+ 333 %
+ 1203%
+
Z' Please note that C.A.S. reserves the rights to revise or make editions to the preliminary budget as information
from the underway Master Plan and input from the Board of County Commissions continues to be received. More
importantly, it should be noted that a five percent (5%) inflation was buiit into this total to prevent budgetary
shortages in the future due to unforeseen costs that may arise during the implementation process.
zZ Methodologically, the nuxnbers in column two were calculated using a".55 threshold"; for statistical purposes, it
is assumed that all new staff positions not directly under the new stormwater sub-department's jurisdiction will be
employed on stormwater related projects for 55% of the time. The original costs founds in Table 4.1 were then
multiplied by the .55 threshold to attain the likely dollar amount to be allocated to stormwater purposes. This is
synonymous with the 5% inflation rate referenced in Footnote 12.
z3 It should be noted that this financial estimate is solely contingent upon the amount of revenue that the Board of
County Commissioners is willing to allocate to the project and has the potential to vary considerably.
-47-
4.6 Proposed Organizational Set-up
Figure 4.1 demonstrates the proposed organizational set-up of the Road and Bridge Department
with a special emphasis on resource specialization; Road Maintenance and Stormwater
Management are effectively separated into two sub-sections of the Department as a whole, with
specialized staffers and directors manning individualized positions that cater specifically to the
services of the department title (i.e. Stormwater).
(a) The Director of Public Wo��ks
The pinnacle of the Department hierarchy, as before, will be the County
Administrator, who will supervise the Director of Public Works, a position that will
be charged with overall supervision for the four subordinate roles in addition to the
Road Maintenance and Stormwater Director. This position, it should be noted, will be
responsible for the majority of oversight and with setting the long range Deparirnent
agenda, such as watershed planning; it is expected that the details of these agendas
will then be sent to their respective sub-departments where the designated Assistant
Director will operationalize the plan details in accordance with recommendations
from the in-house Survey crew.
To assist in day to day matters, an Administrative Assistant will accompany this
position. It is within this role that essential accounting and book-keeping at the
macro-level will take place with two lower micro-clerical levels (Road &
Stormwater) reporting to this Assistant.
(b) Capital Improvements Director (CID)
This position will entail fulfilling the role of Contract's Manager. The CIP Director is
expected to be charged with the task of contracting outside services when needed to
assist in planning for both the Road and Stormwater sub-sections. Directly
answerable to the Director of Public Works, the CID will be directly responsible for
all Capital Improvement Projects including the implementation of the
recommendations outlined in the Comprehensive Stormwater Master Plan in addition
to issues such as land acquisition and flood plain improvements.
-48-
(c) Globallnfo��mation System (GIS) Team /Su�vey Team
These two subordinate offices to the Director of Public Works will include a team of
four to six individuals, at least one of which will specialize in Global Information
Systems, CADD, and mapping technologies to assist the remaining members of the
section who will focus on land surveying, working in accordance with both the
Natural Resources Director (see below) and the CID to establish target areas for
project study and implementation. The Survey team, it is expected, will be headed by
a Registered Surveyor who will oversee the section as a whole.
(d) Road Maintenance & Stormwater DiYector (RM & S)
This Director will head both sub-deparhnents (Road & Stormwater) and be charged
with oversight on both an administrative and substantive level. It is proposed that an
additional full-time Administrative Assistant position be placed as directly
accountable to the RM & S Director to assist in accounting and record keeping as
well as management of daily affairs.
It is expected that the RM & S Director will keep in constant contact with the
position's two specialized assistants, to plan proper Construction, Maintenance and
Repair as previously classified by the Department's prior action categorization; one
of the aforementioned assistant's will focus solely on Road Maintenance, the other on
Stormwater Management to allow for a specialization that was not previously
possible within the prior organizational set-up of the Department as a whole.
Furthermore, the responsibility of expanding the current scope of Development and
Regulatory procedures will fall partially under the jurisdiction of this position, in that
this post will set the precedent to be followed within the established Permitting sub-
department.
(e) Operations Scheduler
The Scheduler will coordinate with outside contracted companies as well as in-house
management to devise a methodical and logical systems operation. Appointments for
-49-
- - _ _ _. _ __
all categorizations of activities such as Construction, Repair, Maintenance, and
Capital Improvements will be coordinated in a systematic means in a timely and cost
efficient manner.
(� Natural Resources Director
This Director will be charged with tending to issues that directly pertain to the
environment such as water quality management, natural systems enhancement,
mitigation, as well as monitoring at the macro-level adherence to specific ecological
regulations and possessing considerable involvement in watershed planning. As one
of the five subordinates to the Director of Public Works, this Natural Resource head
will guide and advise the Department as a whole on issue immediately relatable to the
environment and ecology of the terrain.
(g) Assistant Dif-ector of Road Maintenance
The Assistant Director of Road Maintenance will report directly to the RM & S
Director and will be charged with the maintenance and operation of the Road
Maintenance sub-department, which will pertain to any and all road construction
and/or activities. It should be noted that much of the same structure and
organizational settings of the original Road Department remain the same within this
sub-section; the sole exception being that all stormwater related services have been
extracted from this sub-department. This position will essentially serve many of the
same functions as the current Road Maintenance Director, the sole difference being
the solitary concern of the position will be centered on Road services.
All supervisory Foremen, Highway Maintenance Technicians, and their entailing
subordinates (primarily laborers and equipment operators) will report to this Assistant
Director on daily affairs and on matters such as project progression. Additionally, it is
expected that a small clerical and book-keeping staff will be available strictly for
Road Maintenance services and records to allow for a more clarified budget and
record accessibility.
(h) Assistant Director of Stormwatef• Management
-50-
This position aims to fulfill the currently unmet stormwater service needs of the
county-wide region, having been extracted from the current Road Department to deal
solely with stormwater services. A small clerical staff will be available for book-
keeping and day-to-day functioning purposes. Furthermore, a permitting sub-
department will be shared by both Road Maintenance and Stormwater Management
sections, and will report to both Assistant Directors. In addition to the general office
staff, a field team will be established as a subordinate to the Assistant Director of
Stormwater Management to include approximately five equipment operators, six
laborers, and two additional servicemen assigned to equipment repair, to be shared
with the Road Maintenance Deparhnent.
It is crucial to note that the City's direct involvement within the new Stormwater
Department will enter through this sub-section. The City Director of Public Works,
the entity currently charged with stormwater oversight, will coordinate with this
Assistant Director in serving as the specialization aspect of the new sub-department
given that the City's Director of Public Work (PW) is the current source of oversight
for stormwater service provision within the City limits. It is expected that these two
positions, the Assistant Director of Stormwater Management and the City Director of
Public Works, will work in conjunction with the expressed needs of the county-wide
area, much of these necessitated services admittedly will originate within the City
parameters; given this, it is proposed that City PW Director will play an equal role in
determining the distribution of sub-department services throughout the area. The City
will provide much of the regional specialization needed to instigate and complete
projects within the City parameters, where much of the County's population and
infrastructure currently lies.
The intricate knowledge of the City's topographical characteristics possessed by the
City PW Director looks to provide essential insight and project coordination with
regard to expressing the needs of the City as well as serving as the representative arm
of the residents of Okeechobee. The City Administrator as well as the City Council
will bring forth concerns to the City's Public Works Director who will then co-
legislate projects under the Stormwater Department. It is proposed that these two
positions meet once a month to discuss the progression of current projects and to
-51-
decide upon the most cost-efficient allocation of the Department's financial and
personnel resources with regard to the succeeding projects and capital improvements
that come about as a recommendation of the City coupled with the input from the
County Director of Public Works. This comprehensive yet efficient set of inputs
operationalized through the Assistant Director of Stormwater Management in
conjunction with the City Director of Public Works looks to more equitably and
efficiently distribute stormwater service provision throughout the County-wide
region. Additionally, any public concerns or issues arising will also be immediately
dealt with through this sub-section, with both the County and City jurisdiction
possessing the authority to co-legislate proposed projects and developmental planning
to higher points on the hierarchy for approval, much like the checks and balances
employed in separate governmental branches.
Furthermore, it should be noted that all permitting and compliance issues will be
handled within the permitting and respective clerical offices depending upon whether
the issue at hand is Road Maintenance or Stormwater Management related in nature.
-52-
County
Administrator
�
Directar of Public
Works (Engineer)
Custodian (1)
AdminisVative
Assistant (1)
Capital
Lnprovements Dir.
City Council
Registered
Surveyor
�
Survey Team (2)
GIS Team (]) I I Operations
Scheduler(1)
Natural
Resources Dir
Asst. Director of Road
Maintenance
Road Maintenance &
Stormwater Director
Administrative
Assistant (1)
Asst. Director of
Slormwater Maintenance
City Administraror
City Director of Public
Works
ClericaU Herbicide/Spray Supervisor of Pernulting*
Clerical/ Highway Maint Utility Foreman (1) Mechanic/Shop/ Permitting* Accounting (1) Technician Field Operalions (1)
Accounting (1) "Cechnician (1) Truck/Foremen (4) (1)
Equipment Laborers (5-S)
Laborers (2) Equipment Tire Repair Operators (4-6)
Operators (5-7) Worker*/Welder*
l'ire Repair
Worker*/Weider*
Figure 4.1: Tentative Organizational Chart Post-Stormwater Master Plan
(Note: Asterisk (*) denotes position that is shared between the two sub-departments departments.)
53
.�
L�
5.0 REVIEW OF TECHNICAL FUNDING SOURCES
The purpose of this section is to identify the potential mechanisms for funding the stormwater
management program in Okeechobee County including, but not limited to, a possible Stormwater
Utility system. The system used most often throughout the State of Florida is a Non-Ad
Valorem Tax levy included on the property owner's annual tax bill. This system is not the only
source of funds available to local units of government, nor the only mechanism available.
One of the sources of data regarding the potential funding alternatives for a Stormwater Utility is
the "Stormwater Se�-vices Funding Options" prepared for Lee County Natural Resources
Division in October 2005. A total of 14 funding mechanisms were discussed and evaluated for
application to a Stormwater Utility in Lee County. None of these alternatives were considered to
be the sole funding source for the service. Rather, a combination of these sources would be most
appropriate. For this analysis, the basis of the funding alternative analysis from the Lee County
Study was applied to Okeechobee County and the City of Okeechobee for consideration for
assistance in the funding the potential Stormwater Utility. As in the case of the Lee County
analysis, no single source is likely to provide all necessary funds for the development and
operation of the expanded stormwater program.
Since the inception of this study, the State of Florida has experienced a strong political
movement that is focused on reducing Property Taxes in the State. Several concepts have been
discussed that include a reduction of Property Taxes and the potential increase in Sales Taxes.
Although several combinations of these methods have surfaced, no single plan can be considered
as a likely final bill. However, is does appear certain that the ability of local governments to
raise revenue will be reduced.
The impact of the tax reduction proposals on local governments such as Okeechobee County and
the City of Okeechobee cannot be estimated, at this time. Any final decision on the funding
alternative(s) for the Stormwater Utility may have to wait the decisions by the Florida
Legislature.
54
The potential mechanisms for funding Okeechobee's stormwater management program are
varied and include the following:
• General Fund
• Property Taxes
• Dedicated property Tax Increments
• Sales Taxes
• Dedicated sales Tax Increments
• Special Purpose districts
• Homeowners/Condominium Owner Associations Fees
• Special assessments
• Fees, Licenses and perxnits
• Penalties and Fines
• Developer Contributions
• Impacts Fees
• Fee-in-Lieu-Of Payments
• Stormwater Service Fees
Okeechobee County could potentially use these funding sources singularly or in combination to
meet the needs of the existing and/or expanded stormwater management program. In addition to
the discussion of the potential sources of revenue, this memorandum also includes a review of
possible grant scenarios available to the Stormwater Utility. These grants cannot be relied upon,
at this time, nor would they be the primary source of funding.
5.1 Evaluation Criteria:
A set of criteria has been established to conduct the review of the potential funding sources for
the Stormwater Utility in Okeechobee County. The criteria established for this purpose reflects
the ability to meet the objectives of the system, the equity of the levy and the ease of
implementation.
- 55 -
The five criteria are:
1. Revenue Generation Capacity — Does this source have the ability to generate the funds
required to operate and construct the system?
2. Association of Cost with Benefit — Is there a nexus between the fee paid by any person or
entity and the benefit attained?
3. Implementation — How difficult would it be to put this system into operation?
4. Public Approval — Is a referendum required?
5. Jurisdiction — Does the County and/or City currently have the power to enact this source?
There is no specific weighting of these criteria. Any decision to support any particular
mechanism will include all of these points in the review. Table 5.1 contains the matrix
identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the options. Table 5.2 lists the various alternatives
and the best use of the funds generated from that source.
5.2 Alternate Mechanisms:
The following list of funding sources will serve as an identification of the methods considered in
this review. In addition, the descriptions of the designated sources have culminated in assigned
points that have led to a rating within the comparison matrix.
(a) General Fund:
Governmental Accounting is typically divided into General Fund and Enterprise Fund
accounts for all governmental agencies. The General Fund represents the accounting for
Revenue and Expenditures that are of a common (or general) nature for the agency.
Enterprise Funds address special activities where Revenue is either earned or generated
for a single purpose. The most common Enterprise Fund is a Water and Wastewater
Utility.
-56-
Revenue sources for the General Fund include Ad Valorum Taxes, Franchise Fees,
Utility Taxes and Intergovernmental Transfers such as State Shared Revenue and Gas
Taxes. Any consideration of use of General Fund Revenues for Stormwater Utility
purposes must recognize that ultimately the source of funding are those mentioned
previously.
An allocation from the General Fund for stormwater purposes is the method used by local
governmental agencies that do not have a specific Stormwater Utility. The functions are
usually addressed through the Public Works Deparhnent, and are a reco�mized
responsibility of the local government.
The General Fund Budgets of the County ($14.7 million) and City ($5.5 million) for FY
2006-2007 include a variety of revenue sources including Property Taxes, Franchise
Fees, Utility Taxes, User Fees and other devices. Based on estimated annual costs of the
Stormwater Utility of $4.7 million, the stress on the General Fund could be significant
due to the competition for funding of other governmental services. In addition, the
County and City may not be able to direct funds in a pro rata share from their current
budgets.
Such a source would be easy to implement since no other authorization is required and
the jurisdictions have the power to fund this system. Such a funding source will not be
able to insure fairness and equity for the association of costs and benefits.
Strengths of this method:
• Ease of implementation with only a vote of the governing body required
• No public approval required
Weaknesses of this method:
• Other services provided by the local governments compete for funds
• Recurring commitments by the local government agencies account for much of the
current budgets
-57-
• No direct association with fees paid and benefits received
Analysis:
The General Fund is typically a"catch-all" for general services provided by the local
government. Additionally, services such as Public Safety and Administration consume a
significant portion of the revenue generated. General Fund revenue has been used for
special purposes by many local governments. However, this mechanism is typically used
when the expenditures are not significant to the total budget, or as a temporary source
until a stormwater utility fee can be fully implemented.
The annual budget for the proposed Stormwater Utility will be approximately 23% of the
combined County/City General Fund, which will significantly hinder the operations of
the local governments. A more likely solution is to use the General Fund to help
establish the Stormwater Utility for Administrative purposes and generate revenue from
other sources for the capital and operational issues.
(b) Property Taxes:
Use of Ad Valorem Tax levies for stormwater purposes can be accomplished through a
designation of a portion of the funds generated by the millage rate for that function. The
current property tax collections by the County and City account for approximately one-third
of the total revenues for the General Fund. The ability to collect sufficient funds from this
source is questionable, particularly in light of the Property Tax reduction initiatives in the
Florida Legislature.
Any new development should not contribute more/higher peak discharge than from existing
developrnent due to Environmental Resource permitting. This method also does not
associate the costs and benefits of the stormwater program. Since the levy is based on value
of the property, high value parcels will pay a higher share regardless of the impact generated.
This method would be easy to iinplement since the jurisdictions have the power and no other
authorization is required.
:
Strengths of this method:
• Ease in implementation
• No public approval required
Weaknesses of this method:
• No direct association with fees paid and benefits received
• Upper limit on millage rates exist
• Stormwater purposes must compete with other services
Analysis:
Property Taxes may not be a likely source of funding for specific governmental activities based
on the Property Tax issues currently under discussion in the State. In addition, the use of this
source does not provide a relationship between the impact generated by an individual parcel and
the t�. Property owners will pay a fee based on value of their property and not the generation of
stormwater run-off. Even if the local governments retain most of their ability to impose Property
Taxes, the use of this method will require an increase of approximately 67% in the millage rates
of the County and City.
Since Property Taxes are a large portion of the General Fund revenue, their inclusion in the
overall funding mechanisms for a Stormwater Utility should follow the same concept of assisting
in the establishment of the Utility, until permanent funding can be g.enerated.
(c) Dedicated Pi-opef�ty Tax Increments:
This method would function similar to the one above except that a specific millage rate will
be identified and fixed for stormwater purposes only. To make such a method work
properly, both the County and City would have to impose the same millage rate for the Fiscal
Year.
-59-
The current Taxable Value for the entirety of Okeechobee County is $2,264,220,916. A
dedicated levy of .1 mill will generate a total of $226,000 annually.
The strengths and weaknesses of this method are the same as in the previous source.
Analysis:
The principal difference of this option to the previous one is that the millage rate will be
established exclusively for the Stormwater Utility purposes. The adoption of the annual millage
rate is now divided into two segments: Operations and Debt Service. This proposal would
include Stormwater Utility as a third. The increase in Property Taxes to cover all of the annual
costs of the program would be 2.1 mills.
The restriction on the ability of the local governments to levy Property Taxes as previously
discussed exists in this option as well.
, (d) Sales Taxes:
One of the principal discussions in the Lee County Study previously mentioned is the use of
Sales Tax revenues for Storxnwater Utility purposes. They note that "Many communities
throughout the United States have elected to use a portion of their sales tax proceeds to fund their
stormwater management program and construct/repair infrastructure". However, the principal on
which this is based, local distribution and control of sales tax dollars, does not exist in Florida.
Communities are permitted to levy an additional %2 Cent or 1 Cent that can be used for special
purposes. Okeechobee County has levied an additional 1 Cent for tourist related purposes.
State Sales Tax revenue is received in Okeechobee County from State Shared Revenues
which is placed in the General Fund. These funds are from the %z Cent that is allocated to the
local jurisdictions from the State budget. The County and City could pledge a portion of these
revenues for stormwater purposes. This source is funded primarily using population as a
factor.
The County and City could allocate a portion of the funds for the special purposes and will not
.1
require authorization.
The strengths and weaknesses are similar to the use of General Fund sources.
Analysis:
The Sares Tax option is not appropriate for use in Okeechobee County since the only mechanism
to levy sales taxes at the local level is the additional %2 Cent or 1 Cent option. Okeechobee
County has already used that option.
(e) Dedicated Sales .Tax Increments:
The State Constitution does permit local jurisdictions to impose an additional 1 Cent to the
Sales Tax (to 7%) for local improvements. Okeechobee County already has a levy of 1 Cent
and cannot add additional Sales Taxes. Increased Sales Taxes are imposed based on the
results of a referendum that states the increase considered and the specific use of these funds.
The 1 Cent Sales Tax is defined in the original ordinance (92-14A0, which was reaffirmed in
1999. This 1 Cent sales tax was dedicated for use for Tourist Development purposes as
specified in Section 62-129.1 of the County Charter. Since the referendum did not include a
stormwater program, funds cannot be diverted for such a use.
The figures for the most recent year (2005) reveal that the Taxable Sales in Okeechobee
County were $445,548,995. The additional Sales Tax revenue from the 1 Cent levy is
$4,455,000, with the bulk of these funds raised in the unincorporated area of the County.
This source does raise a significant amount of funds, however, they are already allocated for
the tourist development purposes stated in the referendum.
This method assumes the Stormwater Utility would be allocated the increase in Sales Taxes
collected over the current amount. This system would be similar to Tax Increment Financing
(TIF) used in CRAs and other special districts. The current Sales Tax revenues (and likely
the increases) have been included in the budgetary process of the County and City. Removal
of this source could have a significant impact.
-61 -
Weaknesses of this method:
• Not permitted under State law and current increased Sales Tax commitment to tourism
Analysis:
The Sales Tax option is not appropriate for use in Okeechobee County since the only mechanism
to levy sales taxes at the local level is the additional 1/z Cent or 1 Cent option. Okeechobee
County has already used that option.
(� Special Pufpose Districts:
Income from a special purpose district or special assessment district is generally dedicated to
that district. The area that is designated special, for whatever reason, would pay an
additional tax or has an increased assessment. The justification for such levies is that many
capital improvements enhance the value of the adjacent land, thereby providing a potential
benefit to property owners. The funds from the additional tax or assessment would be
returned to that area and used for program administration, renewal/replacement, capital
improvements, and water quality.
Districts of this type could be dependent (reporting to the establishing governmental entity)
or independent (with its own governing board). If the entity is dependent, the district could
be established without a referendum. Considering that the entity in Okeechobee County
would include both the County and City governments, an independent district may be
required. This type of entity would require a referendum.
The district could raise funds through either an ad valorem tax levy or a non-ad valorem fee.
Placement of either fee on the annual Tax bill would be the simplest form and would be
appropnate.
This source does match the charge to the benefit received better than General Fund or similar
sources since the revenue can only be used for the stated purpose.
-62-
Strengths of this method:
• Associates costs with benefits
� Relatively easy to implement
• No competition for funds from other sources
Weaknesses of this method:
• Administration requires strong coordination by both the County and City
• Public approval required
Analysis:
Use of Special Purpose Districts for funding of Stormwater activities has significant potential in
that the district will be created only for the stated purpose of providing stormwater programs.
Districts can be established along Watersheds or other appropriate geographic designations.
Since the funds raised can only be used in that district, there is a direct relationship between the
fee and the benefit received.
The levy can be either an ad valorem or a non-ad valorem tax applied to the annual tax bill. This
mechanism is similar to that used by many of the Improvement Districts and Water Control
Districts in the State.
(g) Homeownei/Condominium OwnerAssociations Fees:
Under this option, the source of funding would be the organizations organized to represent
specific residential, commercial or industrial areas. Each of these organizations impose an
annual fee for general operation and/or maintenance of the common properties of the
development. A separate charge could be levied for the stormwater portion of the operation
since many of the existing organizations are responsible for maintenance and operation of
drainage facilities, typically lakes or other waterways. The active maintenance that occurs
typically addresses weed control or other conditions. They do not normally address
drainage,
-63-
flood control or maintenance issues.
This mechanism will directly allocate costs to the persons receiving benefit (the property
owners), however, no county-wide system is likely. Drawbacks to the area-wide plan are:
• These entities are authorized to address the facilities that are within their
geographic jurisdiction and cannot used outside of the development
• Associations of this type are not universal throughout the County
• Most associations do not have sufficient authority through their Charter
• Coordination with all entities would be very difficult
Analysis:
The Homeowners/Condominium Owner Association alternative can be a useful source for
funding programs within their geographic area only. These entities cannot pay for services
provided to others.
(h) Special Assessment Districts:
Special assessments, typically in the form of municipal services taxing/benefit units, are a
means of funding specialized activities that benefit a defined area(s) of the community.
Special assessments are essentially a special purpose district that is operated by a municipality
without an.independent governing board, to provide what might be a standard community
service in other communities.
This method is similar to the Special Purpose District with the option of a dependent district.
The advantage over the other type of entity is that this district does not require a referendum,
easing implementation.
Strengths and weaknesses are similar to Special Purpose Districts, however, public
approval is not required.
.�
Analysis:
Use of Special Purpose Districts for funding of Stormwater activities has significant potential in
that the district will be created only for the stated purpose of providing stormwater programs.
Districts can be established along Watersheds or other appropriate geographic designations.
Since the funds raised can only be used in that district, there is a direct relationship between the
fee and the benefit received.
(i) Fees, Licenses, and Pei�mits:
The local jurisdictions can impose a fee or charge for any lawful purpose. Assigning a
charge for stormwater purposes does meet that designation. Both the County and City could
impose this type of charge to generate sufficient funds to meet stormwater operations and
capital.
The implementation process would not be complicated in that both jurisdictions have the
power to impose such a charge. This method would also associate the costs to the property
owners with the benefit received. Although the size of the charge and nexus to the property,
could vary, this method does offer equity.
The collection of the charges would prove to be the most difficult issue. If the charge is
collected through an annual billing process, the payment by the property owner could be less
certain. In addition, the cost associated with the establishment and operation of a billing
system would increase the costs to the local jurisdictions.
Strengths of this method:
• Associates cost with benefits
• Ease in implementation
Weaknesses of this method:
• Not able to generate sufficient funds
Analysis:
-65-
This source is used typically only for recovery of costs associated with issuing the permits and
licenses. The ability to generate significant revenue does not exist
(j) Penalties and Fines:
The underlying focus of this method is the association of a charge with an illegal activity.
Any Penalties and Fines would also have to be associated with drainage issues so that a direct
connection with the charge occurs. The first issue is the amount of revenue that can be
collected from this source. The current amount of Penalties and Fines from all sources (Other
than Traffic) is not significant. Projections of revenue from this source would be difficult, if
not impossible, to estimate, particularly since it should be assumed that property owners
would correct any problems in order that they may avoid further fines.
This source can be included as an adjunct to another funding mechanism. Any penalties or
fines associated with stormwater issues could be added to the Stormwater Fund.
Strengths of this method:
• Ease in implementation
Weaknesses of this method:
• Not able to generate sufficient funds
• Additional. enforcement costs for operation
• Association of costs and benefits not always attained
Analysis:
The revenues generated from penalties and fines typically can only recover the cost associated
with the inspection process. Some fines can be assessed to pay for corrective action that is taken
by the Stormwater Utility. These fines are charged when a substantial action is necessary.
(k) Developer Contributions:
•.
This mechanism could be a method to generate capital infusion to the Stormwater System.
Developers would contribute funds that would be used to construct the required facilities and
improve the overall drainage service. Since the developers will only be present during the
planning and construction stage of the project, this source would not provide long-term
financing.
The method would be easy to implement since an ordinance form the jurisdictions is the only
requirement. In addition, the method allocates costs to those generating the drainage issues.
This method does not address the current problems from areas already developed and does not
provide funds for on-going operations.
Strengths of this method:
• Associates cost with benefits
• Ease in implementation
Weaknesses of this method:
• Use for capital costs only
� Not able to generate sufficient funds for maintenance and operation
• Does not provide funding for county-wide uses
Analysis:
This mechanism can only be reasonably used for capital items in the stortnwater program. The
contributions would be used to complete infrastructure improvements that will benefit the
property under development. Annual operations cannot be funded from this source. Developers
who are required to complete on-site retention and other drainage systems as part of their project
will also object to such a fee since they will have already paid significant funs for drainage
purposes.
(Z) Impact Fees:
There are currently no Impact Fees in Okeechobee County and the establishment of such a
-67-
fee would require analysis and approval by both jurisdictions. Impact Fees have been
established for drainage purposes in other jurisdictions. However, the most frequent use is for
Roadways, Schools and Recreation. It is unlikely that Impact Fees for drainage will be imposed
prior to inclusion of such fees for the other services. At present, neither Okeechobee County nor
the City of Okeechobee is considering Impact Fees. This condition may change in the future
based on growing needs and the potential limitation of revenue sources.
Data collected from the Okeechobee County Planning and Development Department was
used to determine the amount of new development occurring in the County. The only data
regarding the current or future development came from a report from CRW Associates listing
the developments under consideration. A review of the current development approval
applications in Okeechobee County reveals 88 projects. However, most of these projects are
small in size and would not generate significant funds from Impact Fees. There are
approximately 15 larger subdivisions considered for approval. However, all of these projects
are large ranches and ranchettes that average approximately 10 acres per unit. These units
will not have a significant impact on the stormwater issues in the County since the amount of
impervious surfaces are minor compared to the total amount of land for the parcel.
It is anticipated that the future growth in the County and City would include more typical
residential developments that may generate the opportunity for Impact Fees.
Strengths of this method:
� Associates cost with benefits
• Moderate implementation concerns
Weaknesses of this method:
• Use for capital costs only
• Not able to generate sufficient funds for maintenance and operation
• Does not provide funding for county-wide uses
Analysis:
.:
This mechanism can only be reasonably used for capital items in the stormwater program. The
contributions would be used to complete infrastructure improvements that will benefit the
property under development. Annual operations cannot be funded from this source. Developers
who are required to complete on-site retention and otr�er drainage systems as part of their project
will also object to such a fee since they will have already paid significant funs for drainage
purposes.
(m) Fee-in-Lieu-of Payments:
An alternative to requiring developers to construct stormwater management facilities on their
own property is to require them to pay an initial "front-end" charge for the capital
improvements needed to serve their development. Typically the fee-in-lieu-of payment is
charged for the community's construction for larger localized or regional facilities to provide
peak flow attenuation to reduce downstream flooding and/or provide off-site stormwater
treatment in-lieu-of conventional on-site stormwater treatment requirements required by the
State/Water Management Districts.
The charge would be representative of the development's contribution to the regional facility
on the watershed. A fee-in-lieu-of is a technique to generate the funding needed for capital
improvements in a watershed. The term is developed from the case in which the developer is
required to construct infrastructure including storxnwater systems.
The strengths and weaknesses of this method are similar to those with Developer
Contributions or Impact Fees.
Strengths of this method:
• Associates cost with benefits
• Ease in implementation
Weaknesses of this method:
• Use for capital costs only
.•
� Not able to generate sufficient funds for maintenance and operation
• Does not provide funding for county-wide uses
Analysis:
This mechanism can only be reasonably used for capital items in the stormwater program. The
contributions would be used to complete infrastructure improvements that will benefit the
property under development. Annual operations cannot be funded from this source. Developers
who are required to complete on-site retention and other drainage systems as part of their project
will also object to such a fee since they will have already paid significant funs for drainage
purposes.
(n) Stormwater Service Fees:
This method allocates costs to the property based on the service provided and is considered a
user fee system. The implementation is not difficult since the jurisdictions have the authority.
The only issue is how the service would be provided.
The allocation of the costs to build and operate the system is based on the run-off generated from
each individual parcel. This process makes Stormwater Service Fees a more equitable method
since all parties pay based on their impact to the system.
The key element of this method is a parcel-by-parcel allocation of costs requiring. an
identification of use for each property in the area. Okeechobee County has an advantage in that a
Fire Fee has previously been imposed and is also levied on an individual parcel basis. Each
parcel is identified by use and size and a fee applied. This current file will have to be modified
slightly to add the potential of a Stormwater Utility Fee.
Many urban areas have such a process, where no on-site retention is required. The local
government develops the facilities and charges the property owner for use of the system. The
property owner for a large project has an option of using this program or providing their own
retention. Small properties do not have any real option, however.
-70-
Although a combination of several sources could be used to fund a stormwater program, the
governing agency should identify a primary source of funds for the operation of the
Stormwater Utility.
Strengths of this method:
• Associates costs with benefits
• Relatively easy to implement
• No competition for funds from other sources
Weaknesses of this method:
• Administration requires strong coordination by both the County and City
Analysis:
This alternative provides the most reasonable combination of allocating costs to those who cause
impact as well as the ability to generate funds. The fact that a similar system is already in place
in Okeechobee County makes application of this alternative easy to perform.
5.3 Comparison Matrix:
Table 5.1 contains the matrix where all of the means and methods are listed in accordance with
their ease of attainment. Table 5.2 lists the potential use of the funds generated by each
alternative.
0
-71-
Table 5.1
COMPARISON MATRIX
FUNDING ALTERNATIVES - STORMWATER UTILITY
Method Revenue Associate Implementation Public Jurisdiction
Generation Cost with Potential Approval Locally
Ca aci Users Re uired
General Fund Moderate Low Easy No Yes
Property Taxes Good Low Easy No Yes
Dedicated Property Good Low Easy Yes Yes
Tax Increments
Sales Taxes Very Low None Very Difficult No No
Dedicated Sales Very Low None Very Difficult Yes No
Tax Increments
Special Purpose Good High Easy Yes Yes
Districts
Homeowner/Condo Very Low Good Difficult Yes No
Associations
Special Assessment Good High Easy No Yes
Districts
Fees, Licenses and Low Good Easy No Yes
Permits
Penalties and Fines Low Uncertain Easy No Yes
Developer Capital Good Easy No Yes
Contributions Only
Impact Fees Capital Good Moderate No Yes
Only
Fee-In-Lieu of Capital Good Easy No Yes
Payments Only
Stormwater Good High Easy No Yes
Service Fees
-72-
Table 5.2
POTENTIAL USE OF FUNDS
ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES
Funding Program Engineering Regulation Operations Capital Water
Source Administration Planning and Design and and Facilities Quality
Enforcement Maintenance Construction Mana ement
General Fund Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Property Tax Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dedicated
Property Tax Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Increment
Sales Tax Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Detlicated Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sales Tax (If Specified) (If Specified) (If Specified) (If Specified) (If Specified) (If Specified) (If Specified)
Increment
Special Yes
Purpose Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (If Specified)
Districts
Hameowner
and Yes Yes Yes
Condominium Possibly Internally Internally Internally
Owner
Associations only only only
Fees
5pecial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Assessment (If Specified) (If Specified) (If Specified) (If Specified) (If Specified) (If Specified) (If Specified)
District
Fees, Licenses Yes Yes Yes Yes
and Permits
Penaities and Yes Yes Yes
Fines
Developer Possibly Possibly Yes
Contributions
Impact Fees Possibly Possibly Yes
Fee-In-Lieu-of Possibly Possibly Possibly Yes Possibly
Payments
Stormwater Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Service Fees
- 73 -
- _- _. . _._
5.4 Grants:
Grants cannot be guaranteed for future funding of the program. Crrants may be available
for some aspects of the program, especially in the start-up period. However, the long-
term potential is not significant.
Non-local funding of stormwater programs/proj ects are exceptionally limited and have
not been a priority for the Federal Government and the State of Florida as stormwater
management has been relegated to the localities as an unfunded mandate; therefore the
following section has been partitioned off from the majority of funding alternatives as the
grants category is essentially a stand alone financial anomaly in and of itself that should
not be solely relied upon for project solvability. Nevertheless, monies acquired from
governmental grants remain a very real possibility that holds the potential to ease the
project's financial burden and will be elaborated on accordingly.
One known source of direct funding for such programs/projects is known, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Section 319 Non-Point Source
Management Implementation Grant. In the State of Florida, funds (approximately $9
million annually) are passed from EPA through the State of Florida's Departrnent of
Environmental Protection. In this process, local projects must be submitted to the Florida
DEP for consideration, ranking and selection.
Programs and/or project funded through this program are required to provide a minimum
of a 40% non-federal match to any funds awarded. Applications to the program must be
submitted to the Florida DEP no later than July 1 for funding after July 1 of the following
year. (example: an application submitted July 1, 2006 may be funded after July 1, 2007)
A fact sheet regarding this program in included in the Appendix
The only other identifiable source of financial assistance is Florida's State Bond Loan
program by which money is loaned to a political subdivision of the State through the sale
of Pollution Control Bonds. Terms of the loan are negotiated with repayment interest
74
_._.. _ _ __ . .
_
rates equal to those currently available to the State. The repayment period is negotiated
based on the anticipated useful life of the project to be financed. (see the attached fact
sheet for more information E�ibit 2.) A fact sheet regarding this program is included in
the Appendix
Beyond these funding/financing mechanisms, the other potential sources of funds are
appropriations from the State or Water Management District for direct funding. These
appropriations would require negotiation with the funding agencies and in the case of
State appropriations; a request to the legislature through local delegation of state elected
officials is required.
The County should also investigate non-traditional sources of funding by leveraging
funds for other types of projects. Many projects to be undertaken by the County can have
stormwater components designed as an integral part of the program. Therefore, by
obtaining grants for the primary project, the stormwater components will also receive
funding. Examples include funding for parks that may include detention/retention areas
or roadway reconstruction or beautification with swales, curb and gutter, and drainage.
Such non-traditional sources of funding could provide some stormwater funding from
parks and recreation sources such as the Florida Recreation Development Assistance
Program (FRDAP) or the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program (LWCF)
administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or from roadway
sources such as the National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act
(NEXTEA) enhancement funds or discretionary funding through the local district office
of the Florida Department of Transportation.
75
_ _ _ _. . _-- - _ _ _ _ _. . __ _
5.5 Recommendation
Based on the conditions that exist in Okeechobee County, a Stormwater Utility should
address issues in both the County and City. This utility should be county-wide and cover
both jurisdictions. The best mechanism for this requirement is a Special District that has
the power to levy a charge for all properties in the County. This charge should be a Non-
Ad Valorem levy attached to the annual property tax bill. The strengths of this method
are:
. There is a direct relationship between the fee charged and the benefits received.
• A system is already in place with the Fire Fee in the County. This process must
be adapted to include the City.
. The funds generated must be used only for the purposes of stormwater.
• This recommendation follows a system that has been implemented throughout the
State of Florida and been ratified.
76
6.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES
The following section is intended to address the methodology and changes to be
implemented in a proposed Okeechobee County Stormwater Utility. The utility will be an
Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) based charge. These units will be defined and proper
methodology for computing multiple ERU sites will be provided. All charges will be
based on an ERU which is equivalent to one (1) residential unit.
Okeechobee County contains varying types of property usages. Each type is unique and
contributes differently to the stormwater system. Some uses have high coverage of
impervious material while others may have minimal coverage of such areas. Commercial
properties with large paved areas contribute high volumes. Meanwhile, agricultural
properties are mostly pervious; however, they likely contribute nutrients to the system.
Ultimately, regardless of property usage, the goal is to see stormwater runoff reduced
dramatically across the board.
Non-local funding of stormwater programs/projects are exceptionally limited and have
not been a priority for the Federal Government and the State of Florida as stormwater
management has been relegated to the localities as an unfunded mandate.
6.1 Alternative mechanisms for Establishment of a Stormwater Fee
There are generally three structure types for the establishment of a Stormwater Fee. The
selection of the specific type for this system should be based on the question of equity so
that each property owner pays a charge based on the impact generated from their
property. The three types of fee structures are:
• Flat Rate — where all properties are charged the same rate per ERU.
Non-residential properties will be assessed based on their size and run-
off coefficients.
77
• Multi-tier Rate — which acknowledges some of the special
characteristics of large tracts with pervious surfaces (such as
agriculture). Although these lands still add to the issue of drainage
around roadways and other similar uses, they also hold water that
would otherwise need to be addressed through a stortnwater program.
Under this scenario, costs such as Administration and some regional
services will be paid by all properties, and specific projects that exist
in more urban areas are only paid by developed properties.
• Ad Valorem Millage — this option divides the total cost by the Taxable
Value of the jurisdiction and the cost is allocation based on the value
of the property.
(a) Flat Rate
The strength of the Flat Rate system is that it is easier to implement. All properties pay
the same rate per ERU. After the number of ERUs is established for each parcel, the
calculation is simple.
One of the major weaknesses of this system is that agricultural properties pay the same
rate per ERU as developed property. Although the coefficients significantly reduce the
number of ERUs per acre, the overall impact is that a large portion of the cost will be
paid by agricultural properties, just because of the shear size of these parcels.
(b) Multi-tier Rate
The multi-tier rate could divide the costs into General Administrative, Regional Facilities
and Sub-regional facilities. Under this concept, all parcels pay a rate that addresses the
Administrative and Regional aspects of the program. All properties will benefit from
these services and a region-wide fee is appropriate. Sub-regional facilities (such as those
that serve more urban areas) will only be paid by those properties that have experienced
development and generate more stormwater that must be addressed. These costs will be
�
allocated only over the parcels that contain these properties. Vacant resident, commercial
and industrial properties will be included since they are within the developed area.
However, the coefficients generate a smaller ERU for such properties. The name multi-
tier denotes that the number of tiers could be any number. For this analysis, we assume
that there are two tiers, agricultural and developed.
The principal weakness of this system is that the definition of the two tiers must be made
and the distinction be made clear. Additionally, the costs associated with each tier must
be clearly defined so that one tier does not pay for facilities and services they do not use.
(c) Ad Valorem Millage
The application of this method is the easiest of all three types. The Taxable Value is
already known and a simple calculation will generate the millage rate.
The weaknesses are that the system allocates costs by value, not the amount of impact on
the system, and the method also puts a significantly higher burden on agricultural lands.
In addition, the proposed changes in the State Legislature may make this method moot.
6.2 Calculation of ERUs
An Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is a measure that represents the typical run-off
from one single family housing unit. Typically, all residential units (single family, multi-
family, condominium and mobile home) are defined as one (1) ERU. For non-residential
properties, the number of ERUs is calculated based on the amount of square footage on
the property.
The basic principle is that each residence will be designated as 1 ERU. For multi-family
residences, the number of ERUs corresponds to the number of units in the structure. All
mobile homes will also be 1 ERU.
79
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional properly is levied based on the relationship to a
single residential unit. To determine the value of an ERU, all single family homes in
Okeechobee County were identified along with the square footage of the unit. The
average of all single family units is 1,800 square feet. Therefore, a commercial property
will be calculated based on the square footage of the building is divided by 1,800 to
determine the number of ERUs for that property. However, each parcel will be a
minimum of 1 ERU.
For vacant and agricultural acreage, a factor was used to modify the size of the parcel.
This accounts for percolation ability and lack of impervious surfaces. These factors have
been previously developed in the Brevard County Stormwater Utility Analysis24. 'I'he
soil conditions in the two counties are reasonably similax, so the same factors were
employed for this analysis. The application of the adjustment factors result in a ratio of
approximately 3 ERUs for each 10 acres of land.25
Government properties, canals, rights-of-way and other similar properties were not levied
an ERU.
The total number of ERUs is shown as follows:
z4 * Number of ERU's = Gross area of parcel in sq. feet x 0.03 x 0.4
1800 sq. feet
'S See Exhibit 6.1 for further information regard the Fire Assessment Fee for 2006-2007.
:1
TABLE 6.1
ERU Calculation
Category
Agriculture
Vacant Residential
Residential
Vacant Commercial
Commercial
Vacant Industrial
Industrial
Vacant Institutional
Institutional
Leasehofds
Canals R-O-W
Government
Non-Ag Acres
Total
Total Non-Ag
Parcels
3,014
14056
14,604
188
1007
50
164
3
243
28
136
796
871
19,692
16,678
ERUs
154, 248
8,960
14,829
121
2,927
19
451
3
571
76
0
0
3,880
186, 084
31,836
ERUs for the portion of Okeechobee County that lies within the St. Johns Water
Management District have been estimated as 3,413 including all parcels. For agricultural
properties, the ERU count is 3,331
,�
Exhibit 6.1
Fire Rescue Assessments 2006-2007
Okeechobee County
,
Exhibit "A"
FIRE RESCUE ASSESSMENTS
2U06 - 2007
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
LlSE CATEGORIES
Residenfial
AGRiCULTURAWACAI�IT
PROPERTY USE
CATEGORIES
A ricultural/Vacant < 5 acres
AGRICULTURALNACANT
PROPERTY USE
CATEGORIES
AgriculturalNacant > 5 acres
and < 640 acres
NON-RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY USE
CATEGORIES
Hotel/Motel/RV Parks
Re ulaied b F.S. Cha ter 513
NON-RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY USE
CATEGORIES
Rate Per
Dwel[ing Linit
$76
Rate Per
Parcel
$50
Rate Per Each
Add'I Acre
(added to
$0.34
Rate Per
$8
Building
Classification
(in square foot Commercial/ Industrial/
ran es) institutional Warehouse
� '�,999 $166 $33
2,000 - 3,499 �331 $65
3,500 - 4,999 $579 $113
5,000 - 9,999 $827 $�61
1D,DOD- 19,899 $1,654 $321
20,OOD - 29,999 $3,308 $642
30,000 - 39,9�9 $4,961 $962
40,000 - 49,999 $6,61�5 $1,283
> 50,D00 $8,269 $1.603
6.3 Revenue Generation26
The typical stormwater utility fee throughout Florida is approximately $4 per month, or
$48 annually. This average accounts for larger and small areas as well as urban and rural
communities.
Based on the estimated budget of approximately $4.7 million annually, the Stormwater
Fee can be estimated for each of the alternate fee structures discussed in this section.
The Flat Rate options include all parcels paying a fee at the full amount of ERUs. Under
this scenario, the ERUs would generate an annual fee of $25.26 per ERU. For a
residential unit, this equates to $25.26 per year. Based on the average size of an
agricultural parcel, the typical fee would be $1,266 per year.
The system could eliminate the fee for agricultural lands and charge a Flat Rate of
$147.63 for each ERU.
The Flat Rate system could put an undue burden on agricultural lands. However, some of
the facilities do provide benefit for the agricultural properties. The development of a
Multi-tier system would adjust for the impact that both property types have on the
system. Under the Multi-tier Rate, the agricultural properties will only have to pay for a
portion of the system. Based on the current plans, it is estimated that the agricultural
lands will receive benefit from 1/4 to 1/3 of the facilities and programs. Methods 3 and 4
in Table 6.2 provide the a.nnual fees for each land use type under the Multi-tier Rate. The
agricultural properties will receive a fee of between $6.31 and $8.42 per ERU. Non-
agricultural parcels will be charged a fee of between $106.83 and $117.03 per ERU. A
further breakdown of the costs for the system must be prepared to assess the proper ratio
for the Multi-tier Rate.
26 These calculations must be refined to account for the format of the Property
Appraiser's Tax File. These adjustments will be minor, but the final number of ERUs
will likely change. The range of estimates and their entailing magnitudes are valid.
:
The Ad Valorem Millage Rate that must be imposed to generate sufficient funds is 2.1
mills
TABLE 6.2
IMPACT OF RATE STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
Method Agricultural Non-
Fee/ERU/Year Agricultural
Fee/ERUlYear
1. Flat Rate all parcels at full ERUs $25.26 $ 25.26
2. Flat Rate only Non-Agricultural parcels charged $ 0.00 $147.63
3. Multi-Tier Rate (Agriculture at 25% of cost) $ 6.31 $117.03
4. Multi-Tier Rate (Agriculture at 33.3% of cost) $ 8.42 $106.83
5. Ad Valorem Millage 2.1 mills 2.1 mills
6.4 Recommendation
The best structure for the proposed Stormwater Utility System and the annual fee is the
Multi-tier Rate. The exact allocation of costs must be determined, but it is expected that
the cost to be allocated to Agricultural lands is between 25% and 33.3%. In addition, the
other revenue systems identified earlier should also be used to establish and supplement
the system. The use of these sources will reduce the estimated fee.
.,
�r�
�
7.0 ACTION PLAN
The following text details a specified plan of action that will enable this stormwater
utility to manifest. As to be expected, any mentions of explicit dates or timelines are
tentative and subject to change and/or revision as either the county or city see fit. What
follows is a brief overview of the perceived course of action:
• Contract Completion
• Presentation & Selection of Alternatives
• Public Hearing
• Creation of Selected Alternative
• Implementation of Needs
7.1 Contract Completion:
Upon completion of the preliminary draft at hand, the feasibility project will go to both
the City and County for further addendums, revisions, or change to any potential
problems the body may find within the content of this study. With this draft to serve as an
initial guideline for the overall body of the stormwater utility, it is expected that the
City/County will collaborate the affected local municipalities to streamline the specifics
of the project, as it is unlikely that an initial draft such as this will encompass all of the
questions and concerns that either the governing bodies or the public at large may
encounter.
The City/County will be asked to provide further insight, using the completed study at
hand as a basic outline, to fill in any quantitative gaps or revise the report in such a way
as to make the feasibility of the project all the more feasible. Ultimately, the idea is to
tailor the implementation and practical workings of the utility to the specific needs of the
County, which necessitates further qualitative input for substantive output.
:
- Immediately succeeding the aforementioned input phase, the report will be revised to any
extent that is necessary to successfully incorporate the specific needs of the City and
County governments and citizens. It should be noted that even at this stage of the utility
development that a majority of budgetary estimates will remain in flux, pending
successful passage of a municipal ordinance; however, the finalized slate of expenditures
is not expected to vary greatly from the preliminary budgeting provided in this report, as
variation has already been taken into account by building flexibility into the numbers that
have been provided.
It will be at this point in which the Contract and its entailing agreement with the South
Florida Water Management District will be finalized and reach completion
7.2 Presentation & Selection of Alternatives
Following both the City and County staff input coupled with public revision processes,
the report will then be delivered to the Board of County Commissioners (B. O. C. C.) for
final inspection, revision, and approval. It is during this phase of the action plan in which
final substantive concerns from the governing bodies will be incorporated into the report
and developing Master Plan. It is at this point when finalized budgeting details will
become available following the succeeding degrees of approval from the B. O. C. C.
Comments will be considered and final quantitative revisions will be made before the
project outline is presented to the effected public.
7.3 Public Hearing
After the concerns brought forth by the Board of County Commissioners have been taken
into account and incorporated into the revised project draft, the utility outline will go
before several public hearings at locations and times to be decided. It is the intention that
the multiple available occasions for public input will allow for a greater
comprehensiveness in utility specifics. Questions and concerns from the effected public
will be welcomed and incorporated into the finalized project documents.
:.
_ _. __ _
7.4 Creation of Selected Alternative
Following both the public and private input stages of project developnnent, a finalized
feasibility document will be established and presented before its respective authorities. It
is:the expectation that a comprehensive and thorough outline to the proposed stormwater
utility will result from these numerous and inclusive input phases.
7.5 Implementarion of Needs
Upon the finalization of the feasibility study at hand, it is expected tr�at a stormwater
utility ordinance will then be introduced, establishing the project as set forth within the
agreed upon final documentation. This procedure will solidify the essential skeleton of
the project including services to be provided as well as the organizatio:nal set up of the
utility as well as its finalized operating procedure. It is expected that the final two stages
to follow will entail a financial solidification of budgetary formulae.
At this stage, a finalized Master Plan as well as a detailed listing of capi.tal improvement
requirements will be available and incorporated into the preliminary budget presented
within the initial project drafts. The utility will be considerably closer to its execution
date at this time and will have had several additional rounds of public an�3 private input to
determine the appropriate service level that will be necessitated by the current and
projected growth of the stormwater demand level. Given this, it will no�w be possible to
construct a working budget with precision, as well as to denote the locale for incoming
project funds for both the initial annual operations as well as detaile;d projections of
upcoming fiscal years.
A finalized annual budget will then be constructed from the available array of
information and used to relegate a definitive order for putting the various branches of the
utility project in action in addition to witnessing the finalized establishirient of a working
timeline for accomplishing such an act.
:
Finally, the project will entail the creation of a stormwater division within the Road and
Bridge department, as the pre-existing stormwater services are currently performed under
this jurisdiction and will already possess many of the necessary resource;s and stormwater
knowledge. The stormwater division will be established according to the organization
plan outlined in this report and as approved by public authorities. Th.is will include a
Division Director position to be filled; it should be noted that the Dir��ctor will remain
accountable to the City and County Administration as well as the F:oad and Bridge
Deparhnent. While functioning as a separate and ultimately more efficient entity, the
Stormwater Division will possess the resources needed to effecti��ely combat the
stormwater runoff issues that have plagued the region.
Accordingly, the entailing personnel will be screened and brought on board to implement
the outlined plans as set forth by the organizational outline. Following fhe genesis of the
independently functioning stormwater utility, the division will operate airtonomously and
adopt a proactive approach to stormwater which entails proper nnaintenance and
preventative environmental landscaping as well as possessing the regula:tory authority to
afFect stormwater policies for both current and incoming commercia:l and residential
developments.
..