For each element, a cost analysis has been provided in an attempt to quantify budget requirements for that element over a 10 year SMP planning period starting in fiscal year 2011.
The elements included are as follows:
- Maintenance Operations
- Staff Associated with Program Administration
- Program Administration
- Expenses Associated with Public Education
- Regulation & Code Development Support
- Inspection & Enforcement Support
- Environmental Protection Department Staffing
- NPDES Administration
- BMAP Support
- Street Sweeping
- Master Plan Reimbursement
- Stormwater Master Plan and Program Updates
- Program Setup & Maintenance
- Capital Projects
- Flooding Projects
- Water Quality Projects
- Watershed Studies
The individual costs for each of these elements have been summarized on Table 3-10. This table provides an overview of projected program costs and is intended to be used as the basis for evaluating and establishing actual funding mechanisms and rate requirements. For the identified program cost elements, the issue of county-wide versus special area benefit fees needs to be considered with regard to how the elements will ultimately be funded. Based on the cost analyses presented in this report, the recommended capital flooding projects appear suited for consideration of funding on a special benefit area unit basis due to their limited geographic focus. The other elements appear suited for County-wide program funding. All of the identified elements are included together on Table 3-10 for simplicity purposes to allow for an evaluation of total projected program costs. A brief discussion on Funding Alternatives can be found HERE.
Based on Table 3-10, the average annual estimated SMP cost is on the order of $6,108,648 per year including all recommended program elements. Each of the cost elements on Table 3-10 was further categorized as to the degree that they address water quality, water quantity, or public education. These categorized totals are shown on Table 3-11.
Based on the funding alternatives evaluated, the funding of a comprehensive SMP for Alachua County appears to be most suited to an assessment or fee or some combination thereof. It may be to the County’s best interest to fund each component differently. In this case, portions of the maintenance and administration may be able to be addressed through reallocations of existing County budget with others funded through a SMP based on collection of assessment or fees. Capital projects that will culminate in construction of improvements may also be considered for sales tax funding.
To justify and document a recommend assessment methodology and rate structure necessary to provide a dedicated funding source, or some combination of a dedicated funding source and additional County budget allocations, a separate Stormwater Funding Program Report will need to be prepared which would document the analysis necessary to legally justify the assessment rates for each parcel.
The external funding source possibilities discussed should be evaluated in earnest when possible to supplement the program funding, particularly with respect to capital project implementation