Kent’s storm water fund running low

 

In a warning to Kent City Council on October 15, city budget and finance director David Coffee explained the need for the city to reallocate or raise more money for its storm water fund.

The fund, which pays to allow the city to assess and maintain the city’s storm water, will be able to pay for storm water capital improvement projects, or storm water projects built by contractors, through 2015, but most likely not for the years following, Coffee said during the council’s annual Capital Improvement Plan update.

“The Capital Improvement Plan is essentially a five-year rolling plan,” Coffee said. “Obviously the year that is most significant is the coming year, which is 2015, but then the subsequent four years are subject to further change and revision as things change.”

 

 

 

The storm water fund, which is just one fund assessed in the Capital Improvement Plan, pays for improvements to the storm sewer and drainage systems, said James Bowling, superintendent of engineering and deputy services director for the City of Kent.

The city can choose between a few plans of action to strengthen the fund, Coffee said. One potential plan is to increase the monthly $2.30 utility fee that Kent residents pay for storm water management. Rather than just raising the fee, though, Coffee said the city could offset costs to residents through water or sewer rate changes, which are separate funds from storm water.

“My forewarning to council is that they may need to entertain adjusting that fee in order to keep the funds solvent going forward if we’re going to be able to continue with the same capital plan and service level that we’re providing today,” Coffee said.

There are other options yet, which could be implemented individually or in some combination with one another, Coffee said.

“We can take the salary expenses that are associated with storm water, and we could move those to the general fund and expense them out of the general fund,” Coffee said.

However, moving those salaries would greatly impact the viability of the general fund, Coffee said.

“You solve one problem and create a new one by shuffling where the expense comes out of,” Coffee said.

Kent’s storm water projects for 2016, when the city expends funds will need reallocated or added, include a $1 million project on Miller Avenue, Harvey Avenue and Steele Street and an $87,000 project on Pine Street.

In 2003, the city drafted a Storm Water Management Plan in accordance with Ohio EPA regulations. The EPA states that communities with certain population sizes, including Kent and other cities and townships in Portage County, must follow six minimum control measures as part of Phase II of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

“I would say that the city has been cost-effective and efficient in dealing with the storm water problems and management issues that we have and in meeting the EPA’s requirements,” Bowling said. “But we’re limited in what we can get done based on the amount of funding that is available to fix and address some of the larger problems.”

In 2012, the Ohio EPA performed its most recent audit of the City of Kent’s storm water program. The resulting report listed five violations and 12 deficiencies, the latter of which included a reported lack in the number of times the city was able to inspect active construction sites. “The City indicates that they do not have the adequate resources to ‘keep up’ with these standards,” the report read.

Kent is not the only city in Portage County to have failed to meet EPA standards. A 2014 audit of the City of Aurora listed nine deficiencies, and 2013 audits of the City of Streetsboro and City of Ravenna listed eight and seven, respectively.

The Portage County Storm Water District, made up of the Portage County Engineer, Portage County Soil and Water Conservation District and Portage County Health Department, oversees storm water management in Brimfield, Franklin, Ravenna, Rootstown and Suffield Townships, as well as Brady Like Village and the Village of Sugar Bush Knolls.

As in the city of Kent, residents in these communities pay a monthly fee that funds storm water management, but it is lower at $1.50, said Eric Long, storm water engineer at the Portage County Soil and Water Conservation District.

The cities of Ravenna and Streetsboro are included in the Storm Water District’s permit, but they review and inspect storm water plans on their own, Long said.

“Streetsboro doesn’t have a user fee,” Long said. “I’m expecting to see that change, but right now their storm water compliance is done through their general operating fund.”

The $1.50 that residents pay in the communities that the Portage County Storm Water District oversees started at 50 cents and was originally supposed to increase to $3, but it didn’t.

The Storm Water District, and more specifically, the Portage County Soil and Water Conservation District, engage in public outreach and public involvement, which are two of the six requirements that the Ohio EPA mandates in its NPDES Phase II requirements.

“There’s a lot of things that a homeowner can do, and that starts at education of kids in the schools or at community events,” Long said. “That’s a big part of what we do, too, and an important one.”

Linda Oros, spokeswoman for the Ohio EPA, said municipalities can do a variety of things to meet the public outreach and involvement requirements.

“Sometimes they’ll sponsor stream cleanups or rain barrel workshops, and those are all activities that are associated with the storm water permit,” Oros said.

The City of Kent informs residents about storm water management through various means, including its “Tree City Bulletin” newsletter and public meetings, such as its last Capital Improvement Plan update.

Coffee said he anticipates Kent City Council to make a decision on the future of the storm water fund, at the latest, at the next Capital Improvement Plan update sometime between August and October of 2015.

“We get through 2015 OK, but clearly something will have to change beyond 2015 to keep the funds solvent, and while staff can make recommendations, ultimately it’s going to be City Council’s decision as to how they wish to proceed,” Coffee said.