25M - AGMT - NPDES FEE STUDY - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Exhibit E - LWA PROPOSAL RFP NO. 14 -069 L A R R Y WALKER 4- ASSOCIATES CLIENT King County, Dept. Natural Resources and Parks CLIENT CONTACT Douglas Navetski Water & Land Resources Division, Stormwater Services Section King County, Dept. Natural Resources and Parks (206) 477 -4783 doug.navetski@kingcounty.gov PROJECTDATES 2012 -2012 LWA TEAM KEY STAFF Giles Pettifor KEY SERVICES • Permit Assessment and Cost Analysis • Assessment of Revenue Sources • TMDL Assessment and Cost Analysis Stormwater Permit Cost and Rate Fee Change Study King County, WA In early 2012 prior to joining Larry Walker Associates, Inc., while co- managing the NPDES Phase I municipal stormwater permit program for King County, Mr. Giles Pettifor and a colleague conducted a 10 -week analysis to assess the cost of compliance with the upcoming stormwater permit and its impact on the Stormwater Program budget. The County's stormwater program was overhauled in 2007 in response to the complexity of a new Phase I permit. Then, in late 2012, a new Phase I permit was promulgated which included new program requirements of such proportion as to required substantial increases in permit expenditures. As the stormwater program was funded by a parcel - assessed fee calculated in part by area of impervious cover, an increase in this fee would likely be needed to fund the new requirements. However, a significant increase was not preferred by Council or the public. Therefore, Mr. Pettifor determined, as accurately as possible, what the total of complying with every minute detail of the permit would cost for the County. The results would be compared to current funding levels by program to determine the deficits that would then be used to calculate the needed revenue to fund these new requirements and the corresponding fee increase required to cover the cost. The assessment included the following tasks: • Translate various attributes about each permit requirement into database; • The attributes for each permit requirement included: • Current requirement versus new requirement; • Timeline for implementation of each requirement; • Budget breakdown for current requirement down to task level accounting for staff and hours to track FTE need; and • Projected scope of effort to determine budget needed for each new requirement, translated into tasks and staff hours and additional costs, including determination of correct organizational location for each task. • Calculation of budget totals projected for each year of upcoming permit with details down to the individual staff hourly duties; • Forecast of estimated potential increases in program needs for associated water quality programs with permit nexus, including TMDLs, EPA actions including Superfund, responses to drainage emergencies or flooding, grant funding opportunities, or other regional efforts; • Calculation of projected revenue with current funding scheme and rates for stormwater management fee and comparison against forecast needs by year, showing deficit in funding needed, which would lead to non- compliance with permit; • Determination of annual revenue increase needed to fund Stormwater program's new requirements to ensure compliance with the permit, identifying the gap between current funding and amount needed to achieve baseline compliance, and translation of this gap into required fee increase on a per parcel basis; and • Compilation and distillation of this analysis into a concise internal memo and presentation that successfully garnered support from management and council staff for the pursuit of the stormwater management fee increase. Page 1 17 25M -75