By
Erik W. Lombard,
James Moore,
Tom Hamm
Probably much as your jurisdiction, rain falls on our entire county. Is every drop the responsibility of the local government to manage? There is a drainage problem on private property that lies downstream of a large parking lot at a county park; should the stormwater utility pay to correct it? Who ensures that detention ponds are maintained? If a culvert that runs under a county road intersection needs replacing, who picks up the bill—the county transportation department or the stormwater utility?
Answers to questions like these are seldom explicitly answered in the local code or the state nonpoint-source regulations. It is often the responsibility of staff to interpret the various requirements of local, regional, and state regulations into a workable, consistent set of policies that meet the regulatory mandates, while providing an acceptable standard of services to the residents in a cost-effective manner.
Like many local governments, Henry County, GA, decided to adopt a stormwater management utility after recognizing the funding challenges brought on by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II compliance and regional watershed management mandates resulting from being in the Atlanta metro area.
One the fundamental questions that arises when getting a stormwater utility off the ground is “Where is a local government going to spend utility money, and what services will it provide?” While the NPDES permit lays out minimum requirements, and while an ordinance enabling the utility will provide some broad guidance, most of the operational details are left out.
A common way of framing these policies is through an Extent of Service (EOS) and Level of Service (LOS) policy. The EOS typically outlines where a utility will expend its resources (Figure 1), and the LOS details what services can be expected.
This is important. If either is defined too narrowly, then the utility may not find itself in a position to tackle the problems for which it was created. If either is too broad, the result may be a stormwater management program that is financially unsustainable.
Although many stormwater utilities draft up an EOS and LOS as part of the startup process, unforeseen challenges and local realities often lead a utility in new directions. This was the case in Henry County. In the brief three years since the creation of our utility, we found that our program had matured and our policies had developed to the point that our original EOS and LOS were ambiguous and could be improved upon.
As we went through the process of revising the EOS and LOS, we recognized some opportunities and synergies and ran into many challenges. We wanted to share our experiences with our peers to encourage review of these important documents and perhaps make the job a little easier.
Here are some of the opportunities you may recognize while revising your EOS and LOS:
- This is fantastic opportunity to reinforce an important part of the utility’s “mission” and get all of the utility staff, local government staff, and officials on the same page. The EOS will clarify for everyone where the utility can work, and the LOS will describe generally all of the routine operations that the utility undertakes. When the “where” and the “what” are clarified and combined with a quick review of utility’s purpose (usually handled in the executive summary), people who don’t think about stormwater every day and/or don’t think about stormwater from a regulatory point of view will be reminded of the mission or understand the goals of the program.
Have we seen any tangible changes? Yes—the term “Level of Service” is now regularly being used by operational staff and administrators at the county; everyone seems to have a better idea of the department’s overall direction. Obviously an increased understanding of our limitations and capabilities by the staff helps tremendously when working with the public.
- We recognized early in the process that defining in what areas the utility could work was actually very complicated. In an effort to have a quick reference while working on the document, we came up with a flowchart (Figure 2). We ended up handing the flowchart out to staff almost immediately because it was such a useful tool. The reaction was interesting. The questions it prompted indicated there was a lack of clarity even among the staff regarding details about where we could work, and what we were able to do in certain situations. This strengthened our resolve to complete these documents.
- Revising the EOS and LOS will allow you to put your department’s current practices in writing. Our utility had changed and matured significantly since 2006, and the NPDES permit had been renewed. The new permit had some changes that needed to be incorporated. The day-to-day procedures, such as responding to drainage complaints and service requests, scheduling projects, and public outreach events, were all included in the new LOS document. (We did not go into too much detail, preferring to leave specifics to be included in a Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] document.) Many of the procedures that are now routine had not been initiated when the original documents were drafted, and, consequently, they were never written down. If necessary, our LOS would allow a completely new staff to step in and restore service in a very short time.
- Take the opportunity to look over your utility’s budget after reworking the EOS and LOS. We found that the newly clarified EOS and LOS provided a framework to fine-tune the allocation of resources. Specifically, we reorganized our budget spreadsheet and added line items that match some of the procedures in the LOS; giving those procedures a dollar amount improves our organization and speeds the approval process.
- Revisit your commitment to an equitable benefit for all ratepayers. At times, it seems like we spend all of our time and resources on a few drainage problems with loud advocates. We do not have a specific example here, but having the
different parts of the stormwater program laid out in a concise document reinforced that we are spreading the benefit of the utility around to all ratepayers.
- We recommitted to evolving our maintenance processes as rapidly as possible from reactive to proactive. It is a difficult but important step for a successful utility. Much of the process is administrative once an accurate inventory of the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is completed. In our case, we decided to work on setting maintenance intervals for some components of the MS4 that have been inventoried and assessed (our MS4 is only about 40% mapped at this point).
We identified the following challenges while revising our EOS and LOS documents and needed to revise our plan and time line as a result.
Defining the EOS and LOS for your program. We thought we knew what the definitions were; it turns out we had a lot to learn. We researched online, in texts, and in documents looking for EOS and LOS definitions and information that pertained to our situation, and we did not find much. We did even more brainstorming, writing, and revising to come up with some “guiding statements.” If you have not done so, we suggest that you develop similar definitions that are relevant to your program. It provides a great baseline to build from. The EOS and LOS “definitions” for your program need to be detailed enough to be useful but broad enough to be flexible—in a word, simple.
You can view the baseline or guiding statements that we used in our EOS and LOS documents on our Web site; they follow the Executive Summary.
Understanding the difference between the EOS and the LOS. It is easy to get them confused and put the wrong information in the wrong document. Especially when writing the EOS, in every section step back and ask yourself which document (EOS or LOS) this information belongs in. For example, consider maintaining roadside ditches: the EOS will describe that they are an element of your MS4 and will be maintained. The LOS will explain that roadside ditches are inspected annually and will list the types of maintenance they will receive (mowing, sediment removal, etc.).
Balancing the level of detail in the LOS. It is important to save the actual “nuts and bolts” for an SOP. In the LOS, describe what you are going to do—not exactly how you are going to do it. For example, the LOS might explain that “all drainage complaints will be logged in a database, and an inspector will visit the location within 48 hours.” The details of the software used, what information will be collected from the caller, and the formatting of the form the inspector will fill out can probably be spelled out in the SOP the staff uses. This separation has the added benefit of keeping flexibility in day-to-day operations; if better software comes along or additional information needs to be collected from callers, the EOS and LOS do not have to be reapproved.
Balancing regulatory requirements of the permit with providing a reasonable level of customer service. It is easy to get wrapped up in the permit requirements. Don’t forget about the ratepayers. Studies have shown successful utilities have excellent customer service!
Getting stakeholder input. It is critical to get your community on board, either through a public steering committee or through public information meetings. It also makes the next challenge—passing legal review—easier to navigate. This does not have to be difficult. In our case, we e-mailed drafts to our steering committee and asked for them to e-mail comments back or to come in to the office at a specified time to discuss the document. Obviously, a public meeting requires more planning; regardless, it is important to say the public was involved, and therefore it will be worth the effort.
Passing legal review by the local government’s legal department. We received some great feedback. Even the best intentions may open your local government up to unforeseen liability. Also, a reviewer can advise you on what will be required to get the document approved. Will it require an ordinance change or a resolution, or can the city/county manager approve it? Plan accordingly; the reviewer will almost certainly need some background and a lot of time to review the documents.
The Henry County Stormwater Management Department’s EOS and LOS have not been reprinted here because much of the language is program-specific; however, they are available on our Web site if you would like to review them.
The EOS and LOS are in many ways the heart of a stormwater utility; updating and revising them can make the utility’s staff’s job easier and cause the utility’s “product” to be distributed more evenly and fairly to all ratepayers. There are many other benefits to having a well-thought-out and accurate EOS and LOS, including better understanding by all local government staff and officials, and a more precise budget. It will not be easy to do a thorough job, but with some planning, a reasonable time frame, and involvement of all the necessary players, a quality product will result that will be useful for a long time.
Special thanks to all of the staff here for working so hard to make this a great program!