During the August 14, 2018 City Commission Meeting the following questions, highlighted in gray below, were presented to the City Commission. A response has been provided after each question.

The Jayhawk Watershed Report contained in the August 7 City Managers Report provided two updated options for Project #23 as listed in the 1996 Stormwater Master Plan. For clarification it should be noted that Option A provides a phased solution to a more comprehensive plan to address the hydraulically inefficient storm sewer within the watershed. Option B would rectify a hydraulic constriction and alleviate localized flooding however it would not address the issue of remedying the situation of the residence at 812 Ohio being constructed over the existing storm sewer.

Also brought into question was the effect of recent development within the upper reach of the Jayhawk Watershed on stormwater runoff. The Stormwater Management Criteria (SMC) was developed in concert with the 1996 Stormwater Master Plan. The SMC provides uniform procedures for designing and checking the design of storm drainage systems under the rainfall and land characteristics typical of Lawrence. All developed and redeveloped property are subject to the criteria. The SWC states that stormwater detention facilities shall be provided in connection with the development of land where problem areas have identified within the drainage basin.

Relative to the Jayhawk Watershed, detention facilities were provided with the construction of the KU football facility southwest of Memorial Stadium as well as the Varsity House apartment complex located between Mississippi and Indiana and 10th & 11th Streets. In order to help illustrate such improvements the table below indicates the effect of the indoor practice facility currently under construction west of Memorial Stadium. This table shows the discharge rates for the 2, 10 and 100-year design storm frequencies. The runoff rate for the all three storms decreased when comparing the existing situation prior to construction vs. the detained post construction condition.

Discharge Flow (cfs)
2-Year		10-Year		100-Year
Existing	Post Construction (Detained)	Existing	Post Construction (Detained)	Existing	Post Construction (Detained)
19.45	17.8	33.59	24.4	53.30	39.8

From 2006 through 2016, storm water fee revenues were $32 million.

The stormwater revenue for this period totaled $32,592,107

In addition, at some point, several bonds were issued to be used by multiple departments. It is unclear how much debt proceeds were directed for storm water, but debt service of almost $10 million was paid from storm water revenue during this period.

According to the numbers provided by the Finance Department during the period from 2006 through 2016 debt service totaled $10,068,463. A complete listing is provided in Appendix A. Debt service was being paid off from previously completed capital improvements such as Project #10 – 21^st, Stewart to Naismith Drive, Project #28 - 13^th & Oregon, and Project #29 – 21^st, Kentucky to Barker Court.

That left $22 million of storm water revenue to be spent on operations for maintenance of storm water lines, since no Capital projects from the Master Plan were worked during in that time period. During this same period, there were transfers of $5 million out of the Stormwater fund to the General fund.

From 2008-2017 transfers totaled $6,362,413.

It appears that a shift in priorities took place during this 11 year period, to focus on maintenance rather than focusing on the capital projects called for in the Master Plan.

There has not been a shift in priorities. The revenues from the storm water fund are prioritized to meet regulatory requirements, maintain and maximize the performance of the existing storm sewer system, and target large capital projects to reduce the probability of street or structure flooding which can cause health and safety issues.

It would be appropriate to ask for a review of how these dollars were spent, to determine how storm water department priorities changed during this time period.

This chart shows the Capital Improvement projects proposed to be funded by the Stormwater Fund from the 2018 budget and the recently-approved 2019 budget.

The first line shows CIP dollars of $700,000 going toward Contracted Street Maintenance Program. I have added the second line from the operations budget that shows the money being transferred out to pay for street curbs.

Curbs and gutters collect surface water from streets and channels it into curb inlets and ultimately into the storm sewer system. This function is an integral part of the storm sewer collection system. It is appropriate that storm water revenues fund the replacement of street curbs and gutters in order to maximize the capacity of the existing storm sewers and drainage channels.

These two items total $3 million and appears to be funding street maintenance, versus storm water maintenance.

The next line shows the purchases of street sweepers, which were not addressed in the Master Plan study. Are these storm water maintenance equipment and how were they funded before the storm water fee was implemented?

The City’s federally mandated Municipally Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit authorizes discharge of stormwater into waters of the United States under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). NPDES was established under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (33 U.S.C. 1251). The City’s first MS4 Permit became effective on October 1, 2004.

Street sweeping is a best management practice that coincides with the requirements of the City’s MS4 Permit by preventing materials from accumulating in and potentially blocking the storm sewer infrastructure. Similar to replacing street curbs, removing debris from the street prevents localized street flooding and reduces the frequency of system cleaning. In addition, it is good environmental stewardship by reducing the volume of litter discharged into the river.

The next section shows equipment purchases totaling $1.2 million. The question would be are these used for storm water maintenance or for storm water construction. Could this type of equipment be utilized by the larger Public Works department and have the costs shared?

All of the equipment listed within the CIP are used for storm water maintenance and are appropriate to be paid for by revenue generated by the Stormwater Utility.

The next line shows Storm water culvert lining. Is this a material cost to maintain storm water lines and is this work performed by storm water crews? Is this standard amount needed each year and are expenditures tracked?

Yes, the line item shown for storm water culvert lining is budgeted for general storm sewer infrastructure replacement or repair. This program was developed in concert with the purchase of specialized robotic sewer inspection equipment and expenses are tracked. The new inspection and repair program allows City Staff to safely and quickly determine the condition of existing storm sewers and prioritize repairs before failure occurs. Material, location, and condition data gathered during inspections is used to update the storm water infrastructure map and asset management software. The majority of the repair work is anticipated to be completed by the stormwater crew but could be contracted out to private construction companies depending on circumstances.

The last section shows capital construction projects. 13^th Brook drainage was a Group 3, but was re-categorized to a Group 1 project due to structure flooding, as we have asked that Project 23 be re-categorized.

The Naismith and Arrowhead projects weren’t part of the master plan. Have they been evaluated using the master plan criteria to be Group 1 priority projects?

Yes, they have been prioritized based upon their potential for failure and the impending consequences of those failures most notably the flooding of structures as well as public safety. It should be noted that the 1996 Master Plan categorized projects based on the best information available at the time of its development.

Mr. Bond said last week that all of these projects would be evaluated for priority need. I hope this can be accomplished before next year’s budget discussions and that the issuing of more bonds be considered for the funding of additional projects to make the Master Plan a priority again.

That is our plan.