 Hi, my name is Jennifer Dyke and I'm a senior planner in the Stormwater Management Division. This presentation is a slight modification of one we presented on January 26th to our Stormwater Master Plan stakeholder group and the public and staff that attended that meeting. We wanted to record it now and share it with you because we think it provides a good background on how and why our stormwater program was initiated and what our program has been focused on for the last 10 years. Understanding the history of our stormwater program and where we are today will help us as we plan for our next 10 years. And so today the agenda for our presentation is one, I'm going to briefly talk about the goals of our master plan update and talk about how we're involving the stakeholders in public to make sure that we get their feedback and consider that as we move forward. And then Greg Simmons, our assistant director of the Stormwater Management Division, is going to come in and he's going to talk about the stormwater program and give a good overview of the program. He's going to talk about the initial program objectives for when the program began in 2006 and then he's going to talk about the progress that we've made since 2006 and where we are today. And then lastly he's going to talk a little bit about the feedback that we got from the stakeholders during our first stakeholder meeting. So the goals of our stormwater master plan update, as I said, is we want to go back and look at the progress that we've made since 2006 and learn from all the experience and the information that we've been gathering since then. Then we want to look at all this and we want to look at evaluate our opportunities and efficiencies to move forward. We want to try to be more strategic as we move forward and looking at the next 10 years. We want to hear back from our stakeholders in public and engage in and align with them. And then we want to refine our strategies, policies, and priorities based off of all the information that we receive during the planning efforts. Depending on what we come up with, we want to use that information and then align our future resource allocations considering all this new information to really figure out how our program should be spending our funding for the better of City of Fort Worth. And then lastly we want to develop an implementation plan. We want to have short mid and long range objectives so we really know where we're trying to go during the next 10 years. We want to make sure that we have stakeholder endorsement for the product of our master plan and then ultimately we would like to get City Council to adopt our master plan. So we really want to make sure that we get public feedback for our master plan process and so we're having stakeholder group meetings that are open to the public. We're having a website and we're going to be adding information to the website during the course of the planning study. We're also sending emails to interested people who've been involved in prior stormwater efforts and who we think want to be involved in this effort as well. And then we're also posting information about these meetings on the City Calendar and on Nextdoor to try to reach out to more people who we think might be interested in participating in the process. And so we formed a pretty diverse stakeholder group. We have representatives from all the City Council districts as well as some representatives that were part of our stormwater committee that was formed when the division was started. So now I want to talk a little bit about our schedule as we move forward. This master planning process is around a year process and so we are right where the first star is right now. We just had our first stakeholder engagement meeting. We're planning to have four stakeholder meetings total and all of these meetings are open to the public. And after this meeting we're planning to start a benchmarking process. So we're going to go and look and see what other cities are doing in terms of stormwater and we're going to learn what they're doing and see if there's something new or different that we want to put into our implementation plan moving forward. And so our next stakeholder meeting will be around the end of our benchmarking process where we'll come back and we'll share with the stakeholders and public what we've learned during the benchmarking project and come up with some thoughts moving forward and get feedback from everyone at that point in time. And then we'll start working on the implementation plan. So the goal is at the end of 2017 to have a draft plan and then to move forward with City Council adoption in early 2018 of that plan. And now our assistant director Greg Simmons is going to come and talk about and give an overview for how we got to where we are today. This is Greg Simmons. I am as Jennifer mentioned the manager of the stormwater management program and assistant director in the transportation and public works department. I've been with a program since shortly after it was established and so again what we would like to do is provide some background on what's been going on with the program for the last 10 years to try and set the stage for the consideration that we're in right now in determining what the direction of the program needs to be for the next 10 years. So the stormwater program was first discussed back in the summer of 1999. There had been some flooding events that year as there had been before that periodically but never frequently enough for any serious consideration to be given to doing something differently to try and address the drainage problems in the city. But in summer of 99 there was a lot of flooding and so there were some discussions about needing to establish something that would be more effective in dealing with drainage problems in the city of Fort Worth but as happens many times you enter into a period where there's not so many rain events and it just kind of is not discussed as much anymore. But in the summer of 2004 there was again a series of major floods in different areas and so that was the event kind of the straw that broke the camel's back. A lot of citizens came down to the city council and they're really in some ways demanded that something be done that the city start doing more to address the flooding problems in the city of Fort Worth. So the city council responded by tasking the city manager and city staff to establish a committee of citizens to work with city staff to look at this issue and so that happened in October in 2004. The results of that process about a year of activity there was to establish a stormwater program and so that decision was made in December of 2005 to really do something to establish a much more robust well-resourced program to address flooding in the city of Fort Worth. So one of the things that those committees did or that committee did was really try and establish where we were as of 2006 versus where we wanted to be. So kind of a gap analysis and they looked at several different areas related to a drainage program. One of the most noteworthy ones, one of the biggest ones is capital projects which are the big infrastructure projects to expand the capacity of the drainage system to handle and prevent flooding. Before 2006 there was very little resources given to these sorts of projects and the estimate at that time was that there was about a half a billion dollars of backlog and not really any resources to do anything about it and so the desired outcome was to have some sort of reasonable predictable funding stream to address those things and so that was the first gap that was established in that study. Relative to the maintenance of the system so again the drainage system like any other infrastructure system or an appliance or a facility has to be maintained well before 2006 there was very little resources applied to maintaining the system it was basically a reactive sort of thing when something broke the city sent someone out to do something about it and try and fix what was broke but really didn't have any resources to be proactive on that and so the desired state would be to be proactive and actually understand what needed to be done prioritize those things schedule them and accomplish them. One of the biggest challenges that we had at that time was a incomplete inventory we really didn't know relative to the drainage system what we had where it was what condition it was and so there was a lot of recognition that one of the highest priorities for the stormwater program when first established would be to get together the data that we needed to understand the drainage system that exists in the time and again so understanding where the pipes were where the channels were how old they were what their design intent was what condition they were in materials those sorts of things that was the desired outcome relative to the inventory. On the planning side again we really didn't understand much about what the drainage system could do in various parts of the city the city is broken into the way we look at it a bunch of drainage basins and we only had about five percent of that relative to understanding how the drainage system was functioning what it could handle what flood risks there were and have any idea what we might be able to do to improve things and so there was a desire to really correct that where we could have a full understanding to some level of the drainage system in the city of Fort Worth and again the ability to know what needed to be done to correct problems and how problems in different areas compared to each other. One of the biggest factors relative to the flood risk in the city just like any other city is new development as new development comes in it has a great opportunity or ability to impact the drainage situation in the city and if it's not regulated correctly if it's not reviewed correctly then new development can significantly exacerbate flooding problems and back in 2006 we had old standards we only had one person who spent part of his time reviewing new development and so there was a recognition that the standards needed to be updated that we needed to resource a program to actually be actively reviewing new development to make sure that it wasn't making things worse. The whole program had very outdated equipment and technology and so to try and be effective and efficient in executing a program it was recognized as that needed to be updated significantly and our public education program was very limited and it was primarily related to water quality issues it wasn't really addressing and helping people understand flood risk in the city what they could do what the city could do and different factors related to flood risk and so again there was a recognition that we really needed to up the game in that regard. Another way looking at the gap would be look at resources what sorts of resources did we have at that time and what could that get us and so a consultant that worked with us before the program was established went out and looked across the country and looked at different levels of program and tried to compare those programs to what the city of Fort Worth had and where the city of Fort Worth wanted to go and they looked at it based on the overall budget for a stormwater program and how that broke down in these different areas based on the acreage of the city and how effective that program was and so based on that study they said if you want an incidental stormwater program that'll probably cost you about 25 dollars an acre and for a city the size of Fort Worth that would work out to be about a five million dollar budget where we were as of 2006 we had about a seven point six million dollar annual budget so that worked out to about 38 dollars per acre for the city of Fort Worth so that put us just a little bit above what was considered an incidental program. The next three levels of program this study identified again by looking at cities across the country were anywhere from minimal to aggressive and so you can see on the slide there the dollars associated with that per acre and for a city the size of Fort Worth what the annual budget would be if we resource the program to that level so in looking at these different gaps and trying to figure out where the city wanted to be the outcome of that look with the citizen committee was that the city of Fort Worth wanted to be a little bit above what was defined to be an aggressive program around the country so we wanted to be aggressive particularly in the areas of planning and understanding the drainage needs across the city and getting that inventory together and reviewing new development and maintaining the system it was recognized given the magnitude of the capital improvement need the CIP program that it probably wasn't going to be realistic to consider ourselves aggressive again that half a billion dollar backlog as was estimated back then was recognized we couldn't be aggressive there but if you put all that together the estimate was is that we would need about 32 million dollars a year by the fifth year of the program being established and so that would work out to be about 160 dollars per acre and if we wanted to go really all out and kind of have the state of the art top level program as compared to other programs in the country at that exceptional level it would cost about 50 million dollars a year and so the committee and city staff came back to city council and recommended this aggressive program at about 32 million dollars a year by the fifth year so how to get that money together is the big thing without raising taxes there was a need to identify how the program would be funded so a stormwater utility is a tool that many many cities have began using over the last few decades because many cities have the same issue city fort worth does and a stormwater utility becomes the thing many times that is established to fund the needs and so this study that we underwent that recommended the establishment of stormwater utility and recommended the funding levels you saw in the previous slide came up with this progressive rate structure over the first five years of the program so the dollars you see there as it says is this was the monthly fee per billing unit that was recommended over those first five years a billing unit for the stormwater utility fee is 2,600 square feet of impervious surface on a piece of property impervious surface is anything that keeps the ground from absorbing water like pavement or a building and so it was decided that if we assessed every property owner in the city of fort worth according to this fee structure that we could begin to develop the sorts of resources we needed to reach the goals that we were trying to reach so that was what was looked at initially and that was what was projected initially and the original projections didn't say anything beyond year five they were just focused on how to ramp things up by the fifth year to get us where we wanted to go so here's what actually happened in this particular row I have both the rate that was established in each year and the resulting overall revenue so for example in f y 07 we started out as was recommended at $2.96 per month per billing unit that resulted in an overall revenue that year about $10.2 million so you can see over the years we did have some fee increases by the fifth year we actually were a little bit ahead in terms of the recommended fee of what was recommended initially however that only got us $28 million in revenue so we did not quite reach that $32 million a year revenue in year five however in f y 12 our last fee increase we raised the fee to $5.40 per month per billing unit and as we sit here in fiscal year 17 our projected revenue for this fiscal year is $38 million just looking at our fee relative to others across the country an organization named black and veech does an annual storm water utility fee survey of cities across the country i think there's about 80 cities that respond to this and you see some of the ones called out along the bar there as well as a number of ones from texas so you can compare fort worth to and so relative to other cities across the country we're about middle of the pack in terms of how much we charge for our storm water utility fee now these aren't completely apples to apples because some cities do different things where they're storm water utilities than others do but generally speaking it's safe to say that our fee is about middle of the road as compared to other cities across the country looking at our revenue relative to where it comes from we have a single family residential billing and we have basically everything else and so the great majority of the accounts we have or the single family residential however 60 almost 60 percent of our revenue comes from non non single family residential and i'll show you a little bit later what that looks like for some very large rate payers so let's talk a little bit about what we do with all those resources what is the program all about well the storm water management program is very much like any other program in the city of fort worth in that we take our cues on what we do and how we shape our mission based on the direction from the city council and so the city council has established several strategic goals for the city they want the city of fort worth to be a safe city they want mobility to be something which contributes to the city instead of creating a problem i want city to be clean and attractive i want everything to be focused on making the economic base strong in the city and for new development for it to be orderly and sustainable and so these are the sorts of things that we the storm water program look at and say where do we fit in how can we contribute best to that we've established a mission statement is protect people and property from harmful storm water runoff and so immediately you can see the connection between that and the safe city and it is correct to say that much of our program really is a public safety program however for each of these other city council strategic goals there's a very direct linkage as well if roadways are flooding then mobility is impaired drainage systems in the way they're constructed in the way they function can either contribute to or detract from the cleanliness and the attractiveness of the city if there are flood prone properties that are chronically flood prone really makes it hard to develop them in a way where they can achieve their value and strengthen the economic base and of course new development as as we've already discussed if that's not being reviewed carefully then it can actually create and aggravate flooding problems in areas which would then take away from orderly and sustainable development and so our program really is directly connected to all the city council strategic goals with a real focus on public safety as the committee initially was looking at the program they tried to sum up what we wanted to do again how we wanted to breach that gap between where we were and where we wanted to be and there was a recognition very simplistically stated that we needed to make things better than they were right then one of those ways of making it better was we had a drainage system we needed to make sure that it was doing the best it could do so that was the maintenance and repair program and again recall that there was desire to have a aggressive maintenance and repair program because even if the city's drainage system in some cases was not adequate we wanted it to be able to do everything it possibly could do but again knowing that even when a system is doing as much as it can do in many cases it's not big enough to handle enough runoff to give the level of protection from flooding that was desired so we also needed to identify those areas prioritize those areas and conduct projects to expand the capacity of the system to make it handle more and protect people from flooding we also wanted to be able to be in a position where we could do a better job of warning people of road hazards so again there's many locations around the city of Fort Worth when it rains really hard water comes over the road that creates a hazard for motorist before the storm water utility was established there wasn't really any way other than a few signs to warn people of those and so we wanted to be in a position where we were much better about warning people at least that there was a hazard that they needed to take precautions against so making things better was the first very simple way of phrasing up what we wanted to do the second was we needed to keep things from getting worse so we knew it was going to take a long long time to keep chipping away at making things better in the meantime we wanted to make sure that we weren't making things worse and so there were two ways of trying to do that first is once we got different sections of the drainage system doing what they could do and functioning as they were designed we need to make sure we maintain that it wasn't going to do much good to spend a lot of effort to get something upgraded if it was not maintained and so we're really about the business of trying to keep the progress that we've made there the second piece again relates to development review and so new development is probably the biggest risk at making things worse and again as I've already said if we weren't reviewing that carefully then that could create worse flooding problems than existed so what I'm going to do now is go through each one of these rows on this table these are all the areas that showed up earlier as defining what the gap was and just talk about what we've done in the last 10 years so on the capital side big projects to try and reduce flooding here's some of the main facts associated with the capital program for the last 10 years again recognize that what was estimated initially was about a half a billion dollar backlog we actually learned over the ensuing years that really the backlog was a lot larger than that trying to get your arms around how much it would cost to fix something just by understanding or looking at a drainage problem was very hard so the overall backlog is probably much larger than half a billion dollars so we know we knew we needed a lot of money and the way to get a lot of money was to sell debt and so the stormwater utility since 2008 has sold 150 million dollars in debt to fund capital projects so that's been spent out pretty much over about a 10-year period the last of those funds should be spent this year so that works out to be about 15 million dollars a year or so for capital projects we do a lot of small projects so the average project less than a million dollars so we do lots of projects many times for just a little bit of money you can do a lot of good and the largest single project that we've done so far is about six million dollars and so you can see that our focus has been to try and take that 150 million dollars and spread it as widely as we could address as many problems as we could which primarily are fairly small projects we've also tried to leverage our funding with other entities like the Fort Worth school district, Tarrant County, the Fort Worth Tee and some other private partners so that 150 million dollars is what the city put together with revenue bonds to address drainage problems but we also try and get other people who have joint interest with us and a joint stake in solving flooding problems and we work with them so that allows us to make our money go even further so that 150 million dollars in revenue bond we pay 9.4 million dollars every year to service the debt on that and we will continue doing that until the 2030s the first of those revenue bonds will be paid off in 2033 and then over about a four-year period we'll pay off all of those all that 150 million dollars so at that point we'll be in a position with that revenue stream that we can actually start a revolving fund sort of process where we can as we retire debt we can sell more debt potentially but that's a long ways off so we're 16 years from the first of that in about 20 years before we've got all of that paid off so we're quite a ways away from getting ourselves to the point where we can actually start a revolving fund sort of approach to the capital program and selling debt so with this 150 million dollars we've really got most of what we call the low hanging fruit projects completed what we mean by low hanging fruit are the ones where a solution was fairly straightforward and where you could achieve a lot of flood reduction for a little bit of money and where we could spread that benefit around the city one of the charges given to the stormwater utility as we first started is we needed to make sure that we were really addressing needs all over the city and really start to show some progress as quickly as we could and so the priority in that day was to get out there and identify these projects that could be completed quickly could realize benefit could be seen all over the city and we've done that that's really where we focused and most of those at this point have been completed and so that's good and that's good progress the downside is is what remains as i'll show you in the next slide is pretty considerable another way of looking at what the capital program has accomplished is in terms of the drainage problems the number that have been addressed so a rough estimate some time ago was that when we started there were about 167 areas in the city that had a very significant drainage problem what we would call a critical drainage problem and so with the money so far in the last 10 years we will have knocked out over half of those and so again that's good and that shows a lot of progress but as i just mentioned one of the challenges that the program has and we'll go into more detail on this here in just a moment is that those remaining areas are a lot of the really hard very large very expensive ones and so we've made good progress in terms of reducing the number of areas but the remaining areas are going to be really hard and very expensive to address finally in terms of outcomes a couple of the things that we look at to try and communicate to people what they get for this program is the number of properties that receive mitigated flood risk from our program and the amount of traffic on roadways that have had hazardous road over toppings which are now protected and so the program today about over 700 properties have had the flood risk significantly mitigated either by a project which increases the capacity of the drainage system so that they're no longer at risk or in some cases by acquiring the property and so that property owner then has the ability to go acquire property somewhere else in the city which isn't flood prone and then the average daily traffic on these roads where we have corrected a hazardous road over topping situation is over a quarter of a million dollars every single or quarter million vehicles every single day and so those people have a significantly higher level of protection than they did before the projects just a few pictures of some of the things we've done one of those hazardous road over crossing places was in kind of near southeast Fort Worth just on the east side of 35 this is a location we're in 2004 a young lady and two small children lost their lives at this location we have since gone in and built a bridge there to eliminate that particular hazard a similar location on the east side of Fort Worth by the bell helicopter plant there's a red car in the woods back there that got washed off the road and this is this was a fairly frequent happening in that area it's a very low lying floodplain area again we've gone in and we've constructed a bridge at that location so that's no longer a hazard in the eastern hills neighborhood on the east side of Fort Worth kind of middlebrook area what you're looking at it looks like a ball field and that's what it is but it's also doubles as a detention pond so this is in front of eastern hills high school and eastern hills elementary school and this detention area was a partnership with the school district whereby we built them some new ball fields but in heavy rains it functions as a detention area and it's one part of a very significant part of a drainage protection project for the neighborhood there which had some chronic flooding and finally in sandsam park kind of the north side again one of the very vivid graphic example of the risks created by these hazardous road over toppings so the young man sitting up on the hill was very fortunate to be able to get out of that car and get up on that hill and since that time we've again built a bridge there and so the level of risk at that location has been significantly reduced one final project to make note of is at the luela merit school this is off camp buoy west just south of the big traffic circle and is another partnership with the independent school district so here's another neighborhood that had some significant flooding issues we were able to identify a piece of school district owned property that would really function well as a detention area and so we approached the school district again similar as at the eastern hills area and said what if we built you some ball fields here and then in heavy rains they would serve temporarily as a detention area in the school district based on what had happened the success we'd had at eastern hills was agreeable to that so we did that and this is a project which actually won a project of the year award through the stormwater solutions magazine so that's what we've been doing now just to give you a little bit of a feel for what remains to be done i'm going to go through each council district and give you just one example of a project that needs to be done and kind of the scale so you can see some of the challenges we're facing in terms of being able to fund these big capital projects so each one of these council district maps is going to have a bunch of icons and the stars represent places where we've either done a project we're planning a project or one is underway right now all the other icons represent in one way or another a flood hazard which has been reported since 2009 it's only since 2009 that we've been gathering this sort of data but you can just get some feel for the level of flood risk that exists in the district just by looking at these different icons so in council district two one of the biggest drainage problems is along a channel called lebo channel we've actually been working on that in phases for a while we've already spent a good bit of money to try and improve things they're mainly by again building bridges to eliminate hazardous road over crossing situations but to finish this out it would probably cost about 40 to 50 million dollars now it is something that we can phase in over time we can do pieces of the project and realize benefits along the way but to fix the whole problem is going to be about 40 to 50 million dollars council district three in the west cliff area to correct the flooding problem that we've identified there we estimate it'll cost somewhere between 15 and 20 million dollars and let me say this too that these cost ranges that you're seeing here are based on just the level of engineering that has been done is not enough to make it more precise and so we're giving you our best estimate of a range of cost because until more engineering is done we really don't know in council district four the riverside area we estimate 15 to 20 million dollars just to provide protection from a 50-year rain event typically we try and shoot for protection from a 100-year event which is the event that has a statistical probability of about one percent every year of occurring in this particular case the study realized that it was going to be completely cost prohibitive to provide 100-year level protection so but we thought for 15 to 20 million dollars a 50-year level of protection could be achieved which would be a very very dramatic improvement for this area council district five now stop six area this is a part of town where there's a lot of focus in the city right now of really doing some economic revitalization but based on the condition of the drainage system the capacity of the drainage system there's some significant flooding problems we've done some studies out there that suggest it would cost anywhere from 12 to 15 million dollars to address those council district six the garden acres area 20 to 25 million dollars council district seven has one of the most chronic worst problems which is in the arlington heights neighborhood cost estimate for that is 25 to 80 million dollars this cost range is a little bit different than the ones i've been reporting because this reflects at the lower end at the 25 million dollar end a lower level of protection that's just from a five-year storm if you wanted to go all the way up to a hundred-year level protection which would entail a tunnel pipe system all the way from arlington heights to the river down kind of at the close to the tcu area that would be at the 80 million dollar range so just to provide significant level of protection their increase would be 25 to 80 million dollars and council district eight this is a different sort of project this is actually not a flood mitigation project this is the sort of project though that is going to become probably increasingly the focus of the program which is the fact that a lot of our pipe system is falling apart and so we pulled one example of that for an area where it's got an old pipe system that's got some significant issues that is at risk of collapse and looked at that area and thought to do the rehab that's needed eight to ten million dollars that wouldn't do anything to make the system handle more water but it would keep us from having some sort of catastrophic collapse and finally council district nine kind of the berry mccart area estimates are 25 to 30 million dollars and again that's not a hundred-year solution we figure to provide protection for a hundred-year event again would just be cost prohibitive and so 25 to 30 million dollars so if you add all of those up just one example from every council district you get anywhere from 160 million to 350 million dollars a year in capital needs the funding that we project for the future without some sort of adjustment in the program is only eight to ten million dollars a year so again you can see that the need for the capital program is significant and it's significantly higher than the resources that we've got so this is one of the significant challenges that we have as a stormwater program finally on the capital program again one of the ways when we can't readily or quickly fix a flooding problem especially a hazardous road over topping issues we try to provide a warning system and so we've got 53 places around the city where we now have a fairly good timely way of notifying people or warning people when there's a hazard we still have a couple of hundred areas where we don't have this though so that's still a need on the maintenance side again we're reactive back in 2006 wanting to move to be proactive prioritize and scheduled so over the last 10 years we've done a lot with technology to take the resources we have and be smarter a work order system which helps us understand and record much better what the needs are around the city what the frequency of problems are how much it cost has been a key to working smarter there also getting in the hands of our field employees GIS data GIS is a acronym for geographic information system which basically takes data in our case data about the drainage system puts it on a map and so people out in the field can come in the area they can pull up on a map they can very quickly get a lot of information about the drainage system that is there that really helps them be a lot more efficient about what they're doing all of our vehicles also now have an automatic vehicle locator which helps the managers really know how to use resources in a much more efficient and effective way we've had a lot of focus on improving the processes and taking the resource that we have and realigning them and focusing them in the areas where we're most effective and efficient and so that's yielded a lot of benefit and we're also continuing to seek more efficiencies one of those ways is by establishing a new service center our only service center that we have right now where all of the people who maintain the drainage system in the city of Fort Worth where they work from is in far south Fort Worth that red star in far south Fort Worth off Columbus Trail is where they all are so it takes a good 15 minutes just to get to an interstate from there and they're trying to maintain the system all over the city in about a year we will be opening a new service center that's that star way up in the north side of fort worth off bonds ranch road in 287 that one has a much more ready access to highways highway 287 in our interstate highway 35 and so that will approve our operational efficiency significantly by splitting our maintenance forces between two locations and we've also got a three-year rolling maintenance plan which helps us prioritize and plan things out much more effectively so the main things they do is they maintain channels about 170 plus miles but only about a quarter of those are in the state now where they can be actively maintained so a big focus on the program is getting the rest of that mileage up to a status where it can be actively maintained and part of that program is also culverts bridge culverts like you see in the picture there they get clogged up in heavy rains with a lot of debris we have to keep those things clear takes a lot of resources we also have to maintain the vegetation along roadside ditches in these channels so we got about 50 plus miles that we do this for again there's a lot more need out there then we're able to get to but we've come a long ways in the last 10 years the inlets which are basically if you are familiar with looking at the curb line and seeing a hole where the water goes down into the pipe system that's what we call an inlet there's over 30,000 of those in the city of Fort Worth and we have the resources to clean or inspect about 8,000 a year and so we can get around to these once every three years or so which isn't too bad and we focus those efforts on the most important inlets too so we get to the ones more frequently that have a greater risk of creating problems and so we've come a long way in that area as well and finally the concrete associated with the drainage system whether that's some sort of armoring along a channel like you see in the picture that these men are working on or the pipe system itself which in many cases is concrete we have crews that go out and repair these systems one thing to note is that over 30 percent of the pipes we have are over 50 years old so as I mentioned before in one of those pictures that's where a lot of our need is going to be for the coming years is a lot of those pipes are going to start really creating problems for us if we don't go in and repair those now and here's one more slide on that so again we don't have much of a rehab program right now primarily we just react to things when they happen a failure of a pipe system usually manifests itself by some sort of depression or in a worst case some sort of sinkhole so when those happen we respond to them but we don't have the ability right now to be very proactive on that and so that's what we're trying to do as our storm drain pipes get older and older trying to get ourselves in the position where we have a good better understanding of where the needs are and we can really get on those in a proactive way before they become a big problem so relative to the inventory come a long ways with that as well we now have a pretty complete storm drain inventory we have good records again in the GIS system accessible via maps where the pipes are how old they are what condition they're in if we have some sort of data would indicate that and we've taken that data and kind of done a study to try and help us understand where the most critical areas are so based on various factors condition of the pipe age of the pipe type of soil around the pipe we've tried to identify the ones that appear to be at the greatest risk of some sort of problem and if they have some sort of problem would create the worst consequences and so the maps you see there on the right side of the slide the green yellow red or kind of an indication of where the worst ones are with the red being the worst and you see that they tend to be more focused in the center part of the city which is the older part and then the map at the far right corner is a little zoom in on one of those areas that we can do we can really look much more carefully at which parts of the pipe system have the greatest risk of failure and the greatest consequences if they do fail and in progress we are doing a lot more now to assess the insides of the pipes that really requires running a TV camera through it in most cases and so we've got over 900 miles of pipe and so it takes a long time to do that but we're starting that now again identifying some of the most critical ones and starting to do a condition assessment from the inside and we are also just now launching an inventory of our channel system so we've done it with the pipes the inventory with the pipes but what we don't have a really good comprehensive data on is the channel system around the city so that's kind of the next big piece of our inventory and condition assessment program on the planning side we've done a lot again we've done city-wide assessments which give us a real high level understanding of where some of the worst risk areas are for flooding potential high water areas is what we call them the map that you see there at the right is a reflection of kind of that high level of engineering which was done to try and figure out based on the capacity the pipe system and the topography of the area where water is going to pond and go when it can't get in the system and so that helps us focus on where the highest priority needs we're doing something similar in channels now with trying to understand and identify where we've got the worst risk of erosion that could create problems and so this is information which is really just available in the last few years and is very much helpful and in guiding and prioritizing our program we have done pretty detailed engineering assessments so on over 40 watersheds or those are drainage basins those are areas in the city where the water the runoff flows to a common place like a river or a creek so we've got about 40 of those throughout the city where we've got pretty detailed engineering on those and we've taken this sort of information and and we've been able to look at the 200 plus drainage basins in the city and assign them a grade again kind of a green yellow red sort of approach where the red indicates the worst and that map at the right you see a picture of what we've come up with and again you see most of the red is in the center part of the city where the system is older and the design standards were not then what they are now and so those are where a lot of our worst problems are and we're also in this in the process right now of taking the information that we have about flood risks and alternatives for fixing flooding problems and really trying to prioritize those in a very objective way so that we can understand where the best use for our resources is knowing that we've got such a big backlog and finally in this we also have doing a little bit more in terms of water quality and trying to install water quality devices which catch trash or sediment before they get to a creek or a river and we've got 16 of those in place now and we inspect them on a quarterly basis and clean them as needed relative to design standards again new development so when the program started we had a drainage manual that was at that time about 40 years old it was a very good drainage manual but it was very old needed to be updated again we didn't have much in the way of resources to enforce those and so we now have a new manual in 2006 we established it we've updated it twice since then most recently about a year and a half ago in September 2015 so we've got a very update manual which is used for our people to assess new development around the city to try and keep it from making things worse and what those people do is they review drainage plans for private development against those standards the goal is to make sure that those new developments don't create an adverse impact on anyone else however we want to execute the program in such a way that we don't unnecessarily squelch new development that was a big goal early on is as we we definitely need to do this but we don't want it to be so rigid or unreasonable or so hard that it chases away new development because the new development obviously is a very important part of the city's economic growth we've got seven full-time employees that work doing this we've got two consultant contracts which do reviews for us we completed over 1500 reviews in 2016 and it took us on average about 8.7 business days so a little less than two weeks to turn those reviews around and in addition to all those reviews lots and lots of meetings all the time developers and engineers coming in calling sending emails scheduled and impromptu and so these people who do this stay very very busy with all the activity that's going on in the city for it worth trying to keep up with the new development also in our development services our floodplain management so these are the folks that actually oversee kind of on behalf of FEMA the FEMA floodplains in the area so they're also a part of the development review process for those properties which are actually in the FEMA designated floodplain areas so they work with FEMA to try and make the floodplain maps as current as they possibly can they also administer what's called the community rating system which would directly translates into the flood insurance premiums that are charged to property owners in Fort Worth that are required to carry flood insurance which are those that have a mortgage and are in a FEMA floodplain so how we do with our program directly affects the flood insurance premiums that people pay right now we are at a community rating system level eight and that basically turns in translates into a 10 discount on flood insurance premiums for property owners in Fort Worth that are required to carry flood insurance and just recently about a year ago was completed a floodplain management plan which tries to make this program much more comprehensive much more strategic and also helps us with our community rating system rating relative to technology and equipment we've talked about that a lot already primarily a lot of that is relative to the maintenance program so we've talked about the work order asset management system which tracks our maintenance work orders the GIS stuff that we have now which gives field folks this information in the field and they've got these tablets these little kind of computer laptop sort of computers which give them that information in the field and again the vehicle locators that we've already mentioned and the different pieces of equipment that we have which have been a significant upgrade to our maintenance program and really made things much more efficient and effective finally public education we do an annual newsletter which goes out to everyone giving them a lot of information about our program about things they need to know about flooding again about what they can do to help themselves what we can do to help them how to contact us also online we've got a website which gives a lot of information about different projects we're doing from time to time we'll have questionnaires that we can ask people for their input we also send out email blasts to different neighborhoods at different times related to different projects and we also conduct public meetings about different initiatives we have and finally like everyone else we're trying to really make the best use we can of social media to inform and educate people so rate payers all this money again I mentioned before that the non-single family residential is where most of our money comes from so I wanted to give you some idea of comparison between single family residential and those others so average single family resident pays about sixty five dollars a year for stormwater utility fees so that's significant it's nothing to be just passed off but it's not that dramatic of a cost however for the big rate payers the city of fort worth itself is the single biggest rate payer we actually charge ourselves for stormwater utility fees so we pay almost eight hundred thousand dollars a year in stormwater utility fees so that translates into about the salaries of 15 police officers our second biggest rate payer in the city of fort worth is the fort worth independent school district so for the amount of money they pay in stormwater utility fees they could pay about 13 new teachers put them on staff alliance airport between american airlines and fedex pays about quarter of a million dollars a year in stormwater fees so I put all that out there just to help you understand that when we start looking at these resources and particularly if we start considering raising fees that there's organizations out there that pay lots and lots of money for stormwater utility fees and so it has a big impact on them as those adjustments are made one other thing that we do have is a credit program so by doing certain things relative to how they handle drainage on site different properties can be eligible for some reductions in their stormwater fees so schools for example if they do a public education program we give them I think it's a 10 discount on their stormwater utility fee and there's various other things that different entities can do to try and help make the drainage system better and benefit themselves by paying less stormwater utility fees here's how that budget breaks down all that revenue breaks down into these different areas so these are kind of the different areas that we've been talking about and you can see the different amounts of money that go into each one on that top line about 19 million dollars a year for flood reduction capital projects but keeping in mind 9.4 million of that is just to service the debt that we have that 150 million dollars in revenue bonds the other one I wanted to just quickly mention is the very bottom one business support so the stormwater utility like any other enterprise fund like the water department pays back to the city of Fort Worth what's called payment and lieu of taxes we also pay a street maintenance fee that kind of helps reimburse the city for the wear and tear that goes on city streets by having a lot of heavy equipment we also pay the city of Fort Worth and administrative services fee relative to our share of kind of the overhead functions for the city for rent for utilities for human resources budget services those sorts of things so that business support item is kind of the cost of doing business between that and the debt service those are things that we just have to do based on where we are in the life of program the rest of the money is what I would call the discretionary budget so that's about 22.1 million dollars and you can see on a percentage basis how that breaks down between those different areas so when we did this presentation for the stakeholder committee we took all that information which was a real big dump of information acknowledging the fact that it was going to be very hard for them to process all this but just to kind of give us a gut feel which would help direct us for the rest of this initiative to update our master plan on how they see things and where they think maybe there's some room for adjusting the resources and so we took a look at every one of those program areas on that pie chart and we said based on what you've heard so far what's your gut feel on the level of resources being dedicated to that area and whether it should be reduced a lot a little kept the same increased a little a lot or whether they just really couldn't make a decision they just didn't have enough information and so what we're going to show you in these next few slides is the answers that we receive to that so relative to the flood reduction capital projects you see the different responses we got which are primarily weighted toward either keeping things the same or increasing them a little or a lot relative to storm drain rehab the biggest one was keep it the same and then again you see the other answers relative to maintenance you can see the responses we got there development services flood warning and then the last thing that we asked them was to take all those different program areas and rank them for us in their opinion on what they thought was most important to least important and you see the responses that we got will probably be as we go through this process refreshing these as we give them more information on these different areas and some of this may change but we wanted to from the outset just get their initial gut feel their gut reaction on what the relative priorities were and how we might want to consider adjusting resources so this concludes our presentation here is our website so anybody who would like to get more information about what's going on here that's the address that you can go to and you can see the different pieces that you can see this presentation and other pieces of information is the schedule that has been mentioned previously you can see how that's going to roll out and then there's email addresses for myself and Jennifer so anyone who's listening to this who would like to get more information again we direct you first to the website if you have any more specific questions you can email either Jennifer or I if you would like to provide some specific input even some input maybe on some of those questions that we asked the stakeholder committee let us know we'd be glad to get your input that but we thank you for listening to this and would welcome your input thank you