City of St. Petersburg Public Services & Infrastructure ... packets/Public Services and...

City of St. Petersburg Public Services & Infrastructure Committee

Meeting of April 13, 2017 – 9:15 a.m. City Hall, Room 100

Members: Chair Steve Kornell, Vice-Chair Ed Montanari, Council Members Charlie Gerdes and Amy Foster

Alternate(s): Council Member Jim Kennedy

Support Staff: Nina Mahmoudi, primary support staff; Judy Tenison, backup support staff

1) Call to Order

2) Approval of Agenda

3) Approval of Minutes

a) March 23, 2017

4) New Business –

a) Private Laterals Pilot Rebate Program – Claude Tankersley

b) Update on zoning for marijuana dispensaries – Michael Dema

5) Upcoming meetings – April 27, 2017

a) Green Cart Initiative Amendment to regulations for Pushcart Vending – Dave Goodwin,Nikki Capehart

b) Capital Improvement Assessment (Maintenance and Hurricane/Tropical Stormpreparedness) on Bridges – Brejesh Prayman

6) Adjournment

Attachments: Minutes of March 23, 2017 Committee Meeting New Business Item Support Material Pending and Continuing Referral List

City of St. Petersburg

Public Services & Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2017 – 10:30 a.m.

City Hall, Room 100

Members: Chair Steve Kornell, Vice-Chair Ed Montanari, Council Members Charlie Gerdes

and Amy Foster

Alternate(s): Council Member Jim Kennedy

Support Staff: Nina Mahmoudi, primary support staff; Public Works Administrator Claude

Tankersley, Engineering Director Brejesh Prayman, City Attorney Jacqueline Kovilaritch,

Assistant City Attorneys Jeanine Williams and Michael Dema, Planning and Economic

Development Director Dave Goodwin, Zoning Official Elizabeth Abernethy, City Administrator

Gary Cornwell

1) Call to Order – 10:32 a.m.

2) Approval of Agenda – Motion by CM Gerdes, all in favor

3) Approval of Minutes - March 9, 2017 - Motion by CM Gerdes, all in favor

4) New Business – Discussion on zoning for marijuana dispensaries in city limits – Dave

Goodwin and Elizabeth Abernethy

a) Abernethy gave a summary of other cities’ and counties’ Medical Marijuana Dispensary

Moratoria. She stated that at this time the City is not recommending any changes to the

zoning code and that the medical dispensaries fall under the same use category in the

code as pharmacies. Currently there is one dispensary that has plans approved and

permits ready to be picked up. She stated that some other jurisdictions have required

distance regulations, limits on hours of operations, and additional lighting for security;

but that the City is not recommending requirements for any of those additional items.

b) CM Kennedy asked if the City should decide on a policy before the State dictates one.

Assistant City Attorney Michael Dema suggested that while Legal plans to watch what

the state is doing, the current thought is to consider dispensaries as pharmacies and that

there isn’t a need to change or add to the code. Kennedy asked if the City can do anything

to circumvent State pre-emption. Dema stated he would do more research. City Attorney

Jacqueline Kovilaritch stated that it is safe to say that the trend from the State is complete

preemption without grandfathering existing ordinances but that Legal would conduct

additional research on the preemption language contained in pending bills regarding

dispensaries.

c) CM Kennedy asked if the City has any regulations relating to pharmacies. Abernethy

stated no.

d) CM Kennedy asked if the dispensaries plan to use armored cars for deliveries. Abernethy

stated that to her knowledge, the dispensary in question’s website only states they will

provide delivery services but doesn’t specify details about the delivery cars.

e) CM Kornell asked Legal to provide an update at the April 13 PSI Meeting.

f) CM Nurse stated that this is a cash business so there are inherent safety issues and he

would prefer inclusion of a distance requirement from each of the dispensaries.

Abernethy stated that due to the nature of the business, dispensary owners proactively

take their own security measures.

g) CM Montanari stated he would like a tightly written ordinance including distance

requirements, quantities of dispensaries allowed, and location requirements as they relate

to schools and churches. Abernethy stated that the proposed state bill caps quantity at one

dispensary for every 25,000 people.

h) CM Gerdes asked if the proposed state bill has distance regulations related to schools and

churches. Abernethy stated that proposed legislation would limit access to minors, which

may include a 1,000-ft distance rule from schools. The bill is under review. Gerdes asked

how we would handle state law if passed. Legal stated that a state license would dictate

regulations so it would be redundant to add to our code, but we could reference it. Gerdes

was in favor of that.

i) CM Kennedy asked how we would handle location distribution of allowed dispensary

quantities. Legal stated that there is nothing currently disallowing concentration, unless

other location rules were added.

j) CM Kennedy asked how long it would take to make these changes. Goodwin stated an

approx. three months. Legal stated the state decision will most likely come in July and so

the City didn’t think it would be necessary to go through the process of changing the code

given that. Abernethy followed up by stating that the seven dispensing organizations that

were approved by the state last year are just now coming to market and have very specific

conditional requirements for customers eligible to purchase from their store. It is a very

limited population.

k) CM Montanari asked for clarification of Clearwater’s plan. Abernethy stated that the

Clearwater Police Department is working on an ordinance that relates to security, not

zoning or land use.

l) CM Gerdes motioned to draft an amendment to the ordinance or a new ordinance to

require dispensaries to be 1,000 feet from schools and churches and bring the draft back

to the April 13 PSI meeting. CM Nurse asked that staff research if 1,000 feet would be

the appropriate distance; and asked that we don’t choose an impractical distance. CM

Montanari asked if we should include a geographic limitation as well. Abernethy stated

that so far interested parties have all made inquiries in geographically distributed areas-

none are clustered in a certain area. CM Foster stated that seeing a map would help her

make a determination on several factors discussed. Legal and Planning staff agreed to

bring some maps back for discussion.

m) CM Kornell asked if the City has the right to restrict pharmacies for single or multi-use.

Abernethy clarified that state rules say that dispensaries are only allowed to sell this

product. Kornell asked to include schools not currently in use (e.g., school board

property, generally) in the ordinance language.

n) Motion passes unanimously.

5) Report on utilization of the Hard to Hire and Apprenticeship Ordinance - Claude Tankersley and

Brejesh Prayman

a) Prayman reviewed recommendations by staff for updates to the hard to hire and

apprenticeship ordinance. He stated that staff met with several organizations and did an

audit of various recommendations. The overall concerns with the ordinance lie within the

apprenticeship program. He also stated a concern that a lot of the contractors don’t read

bid packages in time and there is a need to educate interested contractors earlier in the

pre-bid process. He reviewed four stages of the program and recommendations for each

stage.

b) CM Nurse asked for clarification that the intent of staff was to preserve the overall 10%

target set for apprenticeship, but that individual projects could go above or below the

threshold on a case-by-case basis as determined by the review committee. Prayman

confirmed that intent of the recommendation.

c) CM Foster confirmed that staff intended to provide a list of partner programs and point of

contact, not individual persons eligible for the apprenticeship spots. Prayman confirmed

the intent. She stated that she was uncomfortable giving power to the committee to

choose level of participation and that she prefers to keep the current threshold and waiver

system currently listed in the ordinance. She asked that we consider adding language

around how we are going to monitor and measure compliance metrics. Prayman stated

they would confer with Procurement to come up with the best monitoring metrics.

d) CM Gerdes asked that the City consider hiring an officer to liaise between both parties.

Cornwell stated that administration would look into it.

e) CM Kornell asked that we look into pre-certifying contractors and sub-contractors.

Prayman stated they would do so. He asked that staff consider adding union and

contractor representation on the review committee if that was to be instituted. Gerdes

stated he would like the committee to be all internal staff. Prayman stated the next step

would be to work with administration to create a recommended review committee for PSI

Committee’s review and approval.

f) CM Foster suggested there would be no need for a review committee if the current 10%

threshold and waiver language were kept intact. Gerdes stated he liked the committee

idea because it could allow contractual obligation for a higher threshold on a case-by-

case basis and raise the floor for some contractors. Nurse stated he liked the committee

idea because it requires staff to take ownership of maintaining the 10% threshold. Legal

stated that the City can negotiate a higher floor without changes to the ordinance.

g) CM Nurse suggested proceeding with the one language change at the April 6 meeting.

Cornwell agreed and asked that the committee give administration a month to review the

other suggested changes.

h) CM Kornell made a motion to discuss the following at the May 11 PSI meeting:

penalties, lower thresholds, pre-certification programs, Davis Bacon Act and

streamlining, and the compliance program. All in favor.

6) Adjournment – 12:20 p.m.

PRIVATE LATERAL REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

April 13, 2017Claude D. Tankersley, P.E.

Public Works AdministratorCity of St. Petersburg, Florida

INFLOW OR INFILTRATION?

• Inflow

• Stormwater

• Fast and intense

• Manholes, cleanouts and direct connection

• Infiltration

• Groundwater

• Slow and sustained

• Pipe and joint cracks

INFLOW OR INFILTRATION?

Infiltration

Inflow

SOURCES OF PRIVATE LATERAL I&I

• Root intrusion

• Cracked pipe

• Broken or missing cleanout

• Direct stormwater connection

SOURCES OF PRIVATE LATERAL I&I

• Old pipe

• Orangeburg

MAGNITUDE OF PRIVATE LATERAL I&I

• Difficult to quantify

• Depends on storm intensity, duration and antecedent soil moisture conditions

• Depends on condition of pipe

• Range: 5% - 75% [Source: WEF, 2015]Average: 38%

WEF = Water Environment Federation

IDENTIFYING SOURCES OFPRIVATE LATERAL I&I

• Smoke Testing

• Building Inspections

• Dyed Water Testing

• Closed-Circuit TV

CHALLENGES OF PRIVATE I&I PROGRAMS

Education:

• Public doesn’t realize it’s a problem

• Public wary of government intentions

• Resistance to “more regulations”

Funding:

• Property owners are reluctant to repair/replace for no direct benefit

• Spending public money on private property is complex

Legality:

• Property owners and special interest groups wary of:

• Public inspections

• Public reporting

• Site access liability

• Liability of impact to property values

PROGRAM OPTIONS

Type

• Voluntary

• Warrantee (third-party)

• Mandatory

• Upon inspection

• Time of sale

• Time of refinance

Carrots & Sticks

• Need-based grants

• Reduced/waived fees

• Rebates

• Refundable penalties for non-compliance

• Sewer bill credits

Funding

• Special assessment

• Service charge

• Flat fee

• Low-interest loans

• Utility rate increases

• Warrantee (third-party)

SAMPLE PROGRAMS

City of Berkeley, CA –Time-of-Sale / Major Remodel Inspection Program

• An inspection on demand, if the building is undergoing a major remodel, or at the time of sale if the lateral is over 20 years old.

• The inspection must be performed by a qualified plumber, who must submit the results to the municipality. If the lateral is approved, the property owner will get a Sewer Lateral Certificate.

• Any violations may be prosecuted as misdemeanors.

• Repairs paid by property owner.

SAMPLE PROGRAMS

City of Des Peres, MO – Lateral Insurance Program

• The property owner is responsible for the initial investigation and the costs of root removal, if necessary.

• The program will pay for repairs. A $150 deductible applies, which can be waived in the case of proven economic hardship.

• If the cost of repair exceeds $7,500, the property owner must pay the remainder of repair costs.

• Program funded from a $28 annual fee is levied on all residential property tax bills in the municipality.

SAMPLE PROGRAMS

City of Davenport, IA – Sewer Lateral Repair Grant Program

• Property owner hires a professional plumber who must certify that the sewer lateral is in need of repair.

• Property owner submits Sewer Lateral Repair Grant Application with $500 deductible.

• Once the appropriate documents are received and eligibility under the program is confirmed the City will contract the repairs to be performed up to $10,000.

• Program funded from sewer rates.

SAMPLE PROGRAMS

Montecito Sanitary District, CA – Sewer Lateral Rebate Program

• Property owner hires a professional plumber who must certify that the sewer lateral is in need of repair.

• Property owner hires a professional contractor to repair/replace private lateral. Orangeburg pipe cannot be repaired – it must be replaced.

• Once the appropriate documents are received and eligibility under the program is confirmed, the property owner will receive a one-time-only 50% rebate up to a maximum of $2,000.

• Program funded from sewer rates.

FLORIDA PROGRAMS

• As of April 2017, no comprehensive private lateral repair and replacement program has been identified in the state of Florida.

• Multiple Florida utilities offer third-party service line warrantee programs. These programs do NOT cover inflow and infiltration related repairs.

• Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park and Tarpon Springs have ordinances allowing each City to inspect private systems and require repairs. This is primarily used to manage mobile home parks and other large private systems.

• To avoid public confusion, the Pinellas County Wastewater/Stormwater Task Force Technical Working Group recommends a consistent countywide framework that can be adopted and adjusted by each utility to meet the specific needs of their system.

POTENTIAL ROADBLOCKS TO PROGRAM

Inconsistent with the other 18 utilities in Pinellas Co.

Lack of customer support and participation

Unaffordable

Inconsistent application across customer baseUnenforceable

RECOMMENDED PATH FORWARD

Develop Inspection Ordinance

2

Develop Funding Mechanism

3

Support Countywide Initiative

1

Public Education Campaign

4Inaugurate Completed Program 2018

5

Water Environment Federation | Private Property Infiltration and Inflow 1

Infiltration and inflow (I/I) of extraneous stormwater and groundwater to sanitary sewers can overwhelm the conveyance capacity of sewers and is a significant cause of system overflows. Sewer laterals, which connect buildings on private properties to sewer mains, are often a significant source of I/I.

This fact sheet outlines key considerations for municipal utilities establishing a framework for private

property I/I (PPII) mitigation activities. Cross references are made to a number of interrelated fact

sheets that are either currently available or in development on a range of sanitary sewer I/I topics.

The complete set of I/I fact sheets provides comprehensive information on I/I management.

Private Property Infiltration and Inflow

FACT SHEET

Felix Belanger, Phil Hubbard, Roger Lehman, Andy Lukas, Bob Swarner,

Srini Vallabhaneni, and Jacqueline Zipkin

Private Property Program Needs Assessment

A comprehensive I/I reduction program requires effectively addressing PPII sources. Figure 1 identifies potential I/I sources at a typical residential private property. Before embarking on a PPII removal program, which can be costly and challenging, it is important to ask the following questions:

What is driving the utility to reduce I/I?

How much I/I needs to be removed? Can it be removed through public system work alone?

Is the problem system-wide or in specific basins or neighborhoods?

Is there information to indicate whether the source of the problem is primarily inflow or infiltration?

Answers to these questions will begin to shape the approach and extent of a utility’s private property strategy.

Figure 1. A diagram explaining I/I. Image by Tetra Tech


Program Approaches

There are many programmatic approaches to PPII correction. These include voluntary programs incentivized by utility-funded grants, rebates, or loans; mandatory programs that require action upon hitting certain triggers, such as selling a property; correction work implemented by the utility with permission from the property owner; insurance programs; and a variety of combinations or extensions of these approaches. The Water Environment Federation (WEF) Private Property Virtual Library provides many useful examples of these different approaches.

Policy and Legal Issues

Some of the greatest challenges to removing I/I from private property sources are not technical; rather, they are related to legal and policy issues. Therefore, it is critical for a utility considering PPII removal to involve their legal counsel early on in program development and to take into consideration Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules.

Limits of Private Ownership

The first step is to understand the limits of private property in one’s system; that is, does the utility have legal ownership of any part of the sewer lateral? As such, the following three scenarios are common:

1. The property owner owns and is responsible for the entire lateral from the building to the sewer main,

2. The utility owns the entire lateral, or

3. The utility owns the “lower lateral” from the property line to the sewer main, while the property owner owns the “upper lateral” from the property line to the house.

Scenarios may also include various combinations of easements and ownership, so it is important to first understand the limits of utility ownership and access. Then the utility can make any changes or clarifications needed through ordinance amendments. Regional utilities also may need to work with their satellite agencies to define responsibilities.

Legal Basis for Illicit Inflow Source Disconnection

When requiring a private property owner to disconnect direct I/I sources from the sanitary sewer system, the

utility must have a sound legal basis that clearly states which stormwater (or “extraneous” water) sources are prohibited. This is typically included in the sewer use ordinance. Utility legal counsel should review the ordinance to ensure the utility has the authority to require disconnection of sources such as downspouts, foundation drains, sump pumps, area drains, stairwell drains, and driveway drains.

Use of Public Funds

Any time a utility spends money to correct or improve private property assets, questions will arise regarding the legality and equitability of such public investments. While determinations must be made on a utility-specific basis, it is important to consider whether existing local or state laws restrict use of public funds on private property or the use of utility rates to disproportionately benefit certain customers, such as California’s Proposition 218. Some utilities have sought a determination from the state attorney general before embarking on a PPII removal program. If, from a legal standpoint, private owners will derive some benefit from the program— provided that it is incidental to public benefits—utilities may still need to consider the political implications of any perceived fairness issues among customers if funding or resources are made available to some, but not all. If a utility cannot demonstrate a broader public benefit, then public funds should not be expended on private properties.

Additionally, utilities have also sought guidance from the IRS or tax attorneys as to whether grants or other uses of public funds on private properties could be considered taxable. Recent responses to IRS inquiries indicate that determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Right of Access

As with any improvements to private property, whether the utility is performing the work or funding it, access and limits of liability must be considered. Utilities use various strategies to obtain access to private laterals: from temporary easement or ownership of the lateral to a voluntarily signed liability waiver to specifying access rights in the municipal code. The level of permission needed may be dependent on the work performed. For example, some agencies have concluded that property owner permission is required to inspect private laterals. Other agencies require access for inspection as part of their ordinance, yet they seek property owner authorization before performing any work.


Funding

Another PPII removal challenge is funding. Some utilities determine that private property owners should bear the cost of private sewer improvements. Often, utilities determine that it is in their best interest to provide some level of funding to private property sewer improvements. However, some utilities may find it cost-prohibitive to assume responsibility for all PPII improvements while others may not. State and local laws govern how financial assistance can be applied to property owners. While wide policy latitude is often given to municipalities, care should be taken to consider precedent-setting policy decisions. In developing a private property improvement funding program, utilities should consider the following issues.

Purpose

Utilities will want to consider how much funding they provide to support or incentivize private property improvements. Some utilities have covered the full cost of improvements and others offer cost-matching programs where grants cover part of the overall cost. Cost coverage decisions will depend on the utilities’ objectives. For instance, is the objective to provide support to customers who want to make the improvements, but do not have sufficient funds? Or is it to entice customers that would not otherwise consider upgrades? Another question could be, how much of a problem is I/I for the utility? The former question lends itself to a partial grant program while the latter two questions may point to full funding.

Funding Sources

Potential funding sources can include user fees, proceeds from bond sales, and program participant fees. Some communities have added a special sewer rate to fund the costs of PPII programs exclusively. State and federal funds may be available for some or all of the costs, including administrative, engineering, and construction costs. For example, some external funds may be available for “in-the-ground” infrastructure improvements, but not for utility staff time to administer the program. However, some state revolving funds may preclude financing of private improvements.

Funding Eligibility

Funding eligibility considers both the types of PPII removal activities that qualify and the level of financial assistance provided by the program. Some communities reimburse infiltration source corrections only while inflow source corrections are the property owner’s responsibility. The level of financial assistance also can

be a function of the property owner’s financial strength, with some municipalities offering grants or forgivable loans to low-income participants. Municipalities may need a right-of-entry form for full funding.

Reimbursement

It is common to establish reimbursement limits on both types of repairs—inflow source disconnection and private sewer lateral rehabilitation—as well as total property limits. Utilities have allowed participants to repay their required contributions over time and in various ways, including through loans and incremental property assessments.

Cash Flow

The cash flow required for a program depends on a number of factors, including anticipated participation, duration, costs shared by participating property owners, and how costs will be repaid. Some utility PPII removal programs set annual limits on participation using a first-come, first-served approach, with unfunded properties waiting first in line for the subsequent funding year.

Satellite Systems

Funding approaches involving arrangements between a regional utility and satellite agencies also may warrant consideration. An interesting regional example comes from Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’s Basement Connection program. The district established a 10-year, $62-million program to fund PPII improvements in its 28 satellite municipalities. A policy prescribed certain limits on how the funds must be spent, but decisions on many other details, including property owner financial participation, are the responsibility of the municipalities.

The Hampton Roads Sanitation District in southeastern Virginia elected to fund PPII improvements in 14 satellite agencies. The district’s Sewer Lateral Investigation Program’s estimated cost is $200 million. The utility hires the plumbers and inspects the work, the plumber warranties the work, and the property owner signs an agreement for both single-family and commercial properties.

Some utilities have covered the full cost of PPII

improvements and others offer cost-matching

programs where grants cover part of the overall cost.

http://basementconnection.mmsd.com/



http://www.hrsd.com/pdf/SLIP/SLIP%20Informational%20Flyer%2020121004.pdf

http://www.hrsd.com/pdf/SLIP/SLIP%20Informational%20Flyer%2020121004.pdf


Public Outreach

A communication plan is essential to any successful public program. However, it is critical to PPII removal efforts because direct interface with the customer and his or her property is involved. Public outreach is multifaceted, starts at the conceptual stage, and continues throughout implementation. Once a utility decides to include private property as part of its comprehensive approach to reducing I/I, convincing local elected officials of the need for the project begins, followed closely by efforts to inform the public about what is proposed and why it is important. An informational video distributed via public news and utility outlets is one option to convey the message.

Stakeholder Input

During the program development phase, public meetings and Web sites are useful tools for informing the public about options local elected officials are evaluating. These forums also can serve as a means for gathering feedback to help craft a program that meets residents’ needs. Another option is using door-hanger notices to inform residents about program implementation, pending inspections, and any problems that have been identified.

All stakeholders must be identified along with the appropriate form of communication needed to reach those groups. For example, local plumbers are an important stakeholder group. Additionally, if a point-of-sale approach is being pursued in which property owners are required to take action before transferring property titles, local realtors would be an important stakeholder group. In many communities, there is an

existing local association of realtors that meets regularly. A presentation at one of these meetings illustrating key program details would be effective in eliminating confusion and misinformation as a new point-of-sale inspection program begins. If not informed early on in the process, realtors can delay a PPII program.

Once a program is established, a Web site is a good way to inform and educate residents about the program and its progress. It is important that the Web site outlines when and how the program will affect residents and that it be kept up to date to sustain an engaged public outreach program. The utility’s ongoing communications program should provide contact information and keep customers informed of successes and changes. In addition to a Web site, bill stuffers can help inform residents of a program’s status and the overall progress in eliminating I/I. Program brochures can also be made available at permit counters and community events. Finally, some communities have also used public service announcements on television or radio.

Implementation

Identifying and Addressing Defects

Identifying defects on private property that contribute to I/I can be challenging, time consuming, and expensive. In most cases, the owner of the property must give permission for the local utility to access their property. Once that is granted, the local utility can begin the identification process. There are many lateral sewer system evaluation survey methods in use across the country, including, but not limited to, the following: building inspection, smoke testing, dye testing, closed-

Communication is critical to PPII removal efforts because

direct interface with customers' properties is involved.

Image by Tetra Tech

Smoke testing is used to detect sources of I/I. Image by

Tetra Tech


circuit television, and wet-weather tests such as rainfall and I/I simulations. Results from these field surveys help identify defects and determine lateral sewer conditions. Subsequently, this information is used to formulate specific improvement plans to cost-effectively remove inflow sources and repair, rehabilitate, or replace lateral sewer systems. Additional resources about identifying and addressing defects are provided at the end of this fact sheet.

Evaluating Effectiveness

Periodic reports on program effectiveness to governance boards that approve funding, or otherwise authorize implementation, will likely be necessary. It is important to consider reporting needs when establishing the supporting flow-monitoring and modeling efforts, program controls, pre- and post-improvement data collection and management methods, and reporting protocols. When initially embarking on a PPII removal effort, many utilities find it useful to perform concentrated, relatively small pilot projects that include efforts to evaluate effectiveness in property owner participation, communication, cost, and I/I reduction. Such pilot projects can yield extremely important initial information to frame the expected long-term program costs and effectiveness.

Technical aspects of flow monitoring and data analysis are important for reliably characterizing the effectiveness of PPII removal. In addition, example programs with effectiveness evaluations can be found through the WEF Private Property Virtual Library, recent WEF conference proceedings, and in the “Additional Resources” section in this fact sheet.

Additional Resources

“Sanitary Sewers,” a 2011 fact sheet developed by the WEF Collection Systems Committee

The Private Property Virtual Library, an online database by the WEF Collection Systems Committee

Existing Sewer Evaluation and Rehabilitation, MOP FD-6 (3rd Edition), a 2009 manual by WEF and the American Society of Civil Engineers

“Private Sewer Laterals,” a 2014 resource by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

State of Technology for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Collection Systems, a 2010 EPA publication. Reference chapter 5 “Sewer Lateral Renewal Technologies.”

Report on Condition Assessment of Wastewater Collection Systems, a 2010 EPA publication

Sanitary Sewer Overflow Analysis and Planning (SSOAP) Toolbox, an online EPA resource

SSOAP Toolbox Enhancements and Case Study, a 2012 EPA publication

“Eliminating Private Sewer Lateral Inflow and Infiltration in Delaware County,” a video by the Delaware County Regional Water Quality Control Authority

Private Sewer Lateral Program, an online resource of the East Bay Municipal Utility District

Also check out the resources of Springfield, Missouri’s Clean Water Services’ Private Sewer Repair Program and the City of South San Francisco, California’s notice of sanitary sewer system service.

Acknowledgments

WEF Collection Systems Committee

Contributing authors

Felix Belanger, Tetra Tech

Phil Hubbard, Hampton Roads Sanitation District

Roger Lehman, Weston Solutions

Andy Lukas, Brown and Caldwell

Bob Swarner, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, King County

Srini Vallabhaneni, CDM Smith

Jacqueline Zipkin, East Bay Municipal Utility District

Copyright © 2015 by the Water Environment Federation. All rights reserved.

Figure 2. Flow before and after PPII rehabilitation. Image by

Brown and Caldwell

http://wef.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442451434

http://wef.org/PrivateProperty/

https://www.e-wef.org/Default.aspx?TabID=251&productId=5302

http://www.epa.gov/region1/sso/pdfs/PrivateSewerLaterals.pdf

http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1008C45.pdf

http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1008C45.pdf

http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1008H44.pdf

http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1008H44.pdf

http://www2.epa.gov/water-research/sanitary-sewer-overflow-analysis-and-planning-ssoap-toolbox

http://www2.epa.gov/water-research/sanitary-sewer-overflow-analysis-and-planning-ssoap-toolbox

http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100G00U.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=827Xx-Cyt7A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=827Xx-Cyt7A

http://www.eastbaypsl.com/eastbaypsl/

http://www.springfieldmo.gov/cleanwater/

http://www.ssf.net/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2367

http://www.ssf.net/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2367

Implementation Schedule for Short-Term Actions

PINELLAS COUNTY

WASTEWATER/STORMWATER

TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP

Initial Action Plan Appendix

January 13, 2017

Pinellas County Wastewater/Stormwater Technical Working Group


2

Table of Contents

1. Goals of the Pinellas County Wastewater/Stormwater Technical Working Group .................................... 3

2. Technical Working Group Members and Collaboration............................................................................... 3

3. Overview of Wastewater and Stormwater Systems in Pinellas County...................................................... 6

3.1 Level of Service ........................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Reliability of Sewer Utilities ....................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Florida Regulations ..................................................................................................................................... 8

3.4 Engineering Standards ............................................................................................................................... 8

3.5 Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems ........................................................................................ 9

3.6 Interconnection between Wastewater Systems ...................................................................................... 11

3.7 Wastewater Utility Rates and Capital Investment Programs ................................................................... 15

3.8 Stormwater Management Systems .......................................................................................................... 16

3.9 Stormwater Design Frequency Standards ................................................................................................ 18

4. Best Practices, Common Challenges and Opportunities ............................................................................ 19

4.1 Challenges with Short-Term Actions ........................................................................................................ 21

4.2 Challenges with Long-term Solutions....................................................................................................... 29

5. Initial Action Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 36

5.1 Short-Term Actions .................................................................................................................................. 36

5.2 Long-Term Actions ................................................................................................................................... 36

5.3 Monitor Progress of Actions .................................................................................................................... 36



3

1. Goals of the Pinellas County Wastewater/Stormwater Technical Working Group The Pinellas County Wastewater/Stormwater Technical Working Group was convened to form a

collaborative team to address the challenge of managing wastewater infrastructure within the complex

network of city, county and investor-owned systems. At the outset, the Technical Working Group was

asked to address three key goals:

Avoid and mitigate spills, overflows and releases of sewage into the environment, particularly water

bodies.

Increase the capacity and resiliency of the collective sewer system and wastewater treatment

infrastructure.

Seek opportunities to address drainage and stormwater issues that impact the sewer system.

The Task Force was expected to create long-term, comprehensive solutions for stormwater inflow and

groundwater infiltration issues, and to identify the potential need for increased countywide system

capacity. Capacity is directly impacted by the amounts of stormwater and groundwater entering the sewer

system. The Technical Working Group was charged with seeking solutions that can be implemented on

both a short-term and long-term basis, as well as ways to mitigate emergency situations. Through

collaboration, communication and mutual support, the Technical Working Group has developed solutions

that result in beneficial outcomes to our community:

Ensuring public health and safety of our citizens;

Practicing superior environmental stewardship by protecting our water, land, air, and wildlife

habitats;

Planning for climate resiliency;

Fostering economic growth and vitality.

The group has sought to turn common challenges into opportunities and identify solutions to better serve

County-wide residents and restore public confidence in the management of Utilities and Public Works in

Pinellas County. The groundwork has been laid toward short-term and long-term plans of action that will

lead to improved countywide management of stormwater and wastewater in the sanitary sewer system,

especially during heavy rain events.

2. Technical Working Group Members and Collaboration

Technical Working Group members include community leaders and technical experts representing

Pinellas County, cities within Pinellas County, community organizations, and investor-owned utilities.

Member representatives are listed in the following tables:



4

Steering Committee

George Cretekos Mayor, City of Clearwater Rick Kriseman Mayor, City of St. Petersburg

Julie Ward Bujalski Mayor, City of Dunedin Amy Foster Council Chair, St. Petersburg City Council

Samuel Henderson Mayor, City of Gulfport Debora Schechner Mayor, City of St. Pete Beach

Matthew Campbell Manager, Town of Kenneth City

Chris Alahouzos Mayor, City of Tarpon Springs

Woody Brown Mayor, City of Largo Robert Minning Mayor, City of Treasure Island

Bill Queen Mayor, Town of North Redington Beach

Terri Wollin Chairman and President, Big C

Doug Bevis Mayor, City of Oldsmar Marlene Murray President, CONA, St. Petersburg

Charlie Justice Commission Chairman, Pinellas County

Tim Lima President, CNCN

Mark S. Woodard County Administrator, Pinellas County

Linda Umberger President, Lealman Community Association

Sandra Bradbury Mayor, City of Pinellas Park

Gary Katica President, Mayors’ Council

Nick Simons Mayor, Town of Redington Beach

Patrick C. Flynn Vice President of Operations, Utilities Inc. of Florida

Bert Adams Mayor, Town of Redington Shores

Corey Givens Vice President, NAACP

Andy Steingold Mayor, City of Safety Harbor

Kenneth D. Colen President, On Top of the World

Leslie Waters Mayor, City of Seminole Jerry Frulio President, Tierra Verde Association

Max Elson Mayor, City of South Pasadena



5

Technical Working Group

David Porter Utility Director, City of Clearwater

Jorge M. Quintas Public Works & Utilities Director / City Engineer, City of Dunedin

Don Sopak Public Works Director, City of Gulfport

Irvin Kety Director Environmental Service Department, City of Largo

Patrick C. Flynn Vice President of Operations, Utilities Inc. of Florida

Nan Bennett Director of Public Works, City of Oldsmar

Bill Breckinridge Assistant County Administrator, Pinellas County

Randi Kim Utilities Director, Pinellas County

Rahim Harji Public Works Director, Pinellas County

Marty Reich Director of Public Utilities, City of Pinellas Park

John Branch Sewers/Stormwater Supervisor, Town of Redington Shores

Ray Boler Public Works Director, City of Safety Harbor

Shawn Shimko Assistant Director of Public Works, City of South Pasadena

Claude Tankersley Public Works Administrator, City of St. Petersburg

Michael F. Clarke Public Works Director, City of St. Pete Beach

Paul Smith Public Services Director, City of Tarpon Springs

Mike Helfrich Director of Public Works, City of Treasure Island



6

3. Overview of Wastewater and Stormwater Systems in Pinellas County

Florida regulations do not allow stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, or subsurface

drainage to be introduced into the sanitary sewer system. These instances often occur through inflow and

infiltration. Inflow occurs when stormwater is misdirected into the sanitary sewer system through

improper connections such as roof leaders, yard and area drains, manhole covers, and cross connections

from storm drains. Infiltration occurs when groundwater seeps into the sanitary sewer system through

cracks or leaks in sewer pipes which are caused by age-related deterioration, loose joints, damage or root

infiltration.

The Florida regulations also do not permit wastewater and stormwater to be combined in one system.

Therefore, wastewater and stormwater are managed separately in Pinellas County with individual

collection and treatment systems operated by various agencies.

3.1 Level of Service

The level of service that wastewater utilities provide must take into consideration two main

factors: the capacity of the infrastructure needed to collect and treat the anticipated flow, and

the reliability of the infrastructure under expected conditions. Wastewater treatment plants are

designed to provide a peak treatment capacity of two times the annual average daily flows, in

accordance with sound engineering practice as required by Florida regulations. In general, the

regulations require reliability of the process up to and including the conditions expected during a

25-year storm (or 10-year flood if appropriate flood protection measures are provided). The rules

of design also include protection from physical structural failure up to a 100-year storm but do

not assume operational reliability under these conditions.

Without an interruption of the water distribution system, wastewater customers generate

wastewater 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Therefore, infrastructure failures may occur during

events beyond these reliability standards.

To provide a level of service beyond what is currently practiced, it is important to understand the

unique technical constraints that wastewater utilities must consider when making decisions that

affect their level of service.

Wastewater collection systems (gravity pipelines and manholes for the most part) must be sized

to be large enough to handle peak flows but not oversized to the point that they won’t function

properly under normal flow conditions. Pipelines are designed to have the proper size (diameter)

and slope (fall) to ensure that wastewater discharged to the sewers flows at a speed to prevent

solid materials from depositing in the pipelines, which can cause backups and overflows onto the

streets, and to prevent the formation of gases within the sewers that are hazardous and which

can destroy the pipelines themselves. Oversizing gravity pipelines to accommodate infrequent

events can result in a sewer system that does not function under normal flow conditions and has

reduced service life.



7

In a similar manner, oversizing wastewater treatment plant components beyond a technically

acceptable level can result in facilities that won’t operate correctly and will result in high

operation and maintenance costs. In addition, since 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year storms by

definition are only statistically expected to occur every 10, 25 or 100 years, the oversized portions

of the treatment facilities would go unused for extended periods resulting in high operational and

maintenance costs to keep them ready for use when needed.

Industry-wide practice provides a level of service that meets normal system demands (up to two

times the average flow).

Inflow occurs when water from illegal connections of sump pumps, downspouts, and foundation

drains is channeled directly into sanitary sewer pipes. Once an event beyond a 10-year storm

event is experienced, the amount of stormwater inflow and groundwater infiltration can inundate

a collection system depending upon the age and condition of the collection system infrastructure.

The level of service provided will begin to degrade at various levels as the severity of the storm

event increases. For our existing collection systems, ongoing rehabilitation and replacement of

infrastructure must occur to maintain the same level of service as originally designed.

Therefore, the level of service provided by a wastewater facility meeting the regulatory agencies’

minimum rules is technically reasonable. Increased levels of service can be added to meet the

desires of the citizens that the utility serves to the extent technically and financially feasible.

Simply stated, any level of service over the level required by the regulatory agencies can be

achieved, however, at greater costs to the rate payers. Attempting to achieve a level of service

where the wastewater system could operate under the most severe conditions would be very

costly. Cost estimates associated with providing a higher level of service and impacts to utility

rates are discussed later in this report.

This Technical Working Group believes that finding solutions to the maintenance, rehabilitation,

and replacement issues that are common to older utilities (not only in Pinellas County but

nationwide) is the proper and most feasible way to increase reliability and resiliency of our

wastewater systems and that re-setting the level of service to a significantly higher level, beyond

the original design level of the facilities, would be cost prohibitive and technically very challenging.

This report provides our assessment of the status of our systems and recommendation for

improvements.

3.2 Reliability of Sewer Utilities

A sewer utility is composed of complex system of interacting components, each with their own

reliability characteristics and potential failure mechanisms. The overall reliability of a sewer utility

can be thought of as the sum of its individual parts. Much like the links of a chain, a system failure

can occur as the result of the failure of an individual component. When a wastewater system is

overwhelmed by a severe storm or natural disaster, the failure will cascade through the system

as individual components become overloaded and pass the strain along to other components. It

is important to note that sometimes the initial failure has nothing to do with the capacity of the



8

infrastructure. For example, utility electrical systems can fail due to electrical power supply

failures, animal infestation, or other accidental incidents. Some failures simply cannot be

predicted and thus cannot be prevented.

To enhance the reliability of a sewer system, a factor of safety is applied to individual component

capacity. This is excess capacity (or strength) that serves when the flow and/or pressure is

increased unexpectedly beyond normal system operation. Improved reliability occurs as a result

of an increase in factor of safety, but does not typically reach 100%.

System reliabilities must take into consideration the unique conditions and circumstances of each

utility system and will require engineering approaches specific to each system. Reliability

improvement measures will need to be evaluated based on technical feasibility and prioritized

based upon cost effectiveness. This effectiveness can be further promoted through the continued

collaborative sharing of technology, ideas, and resources between utilities within Pinellas County.

3.3 Florida Regulations

Florida regulations provide minimum standards for the design and operational criteria of domestic

wastewater facilities. The regulations require that collection systems and wastewater treatment

plants be designed in accordance with sound engineering practice. Specific design requirements

for new or rehabilitated wastewater treatment facilities dictate reliability of the wastewater

treatment plants. In general, the regulations require reliability of the process up to and including

the conditions expected during a 25-year storm (or 10-year flood if appropriate flood protection

measures are provided). The rules of design also include protection from physical structural failure

up to a 100-year storm but do not assume operational reliability under these conditions

3.4 Engineering Standards

It is sound practice to follow guidelines established by the engineering profession for wastewater

facilities including the Water Environment Federation’s Manual of Practice No. 8 for the Design of

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants and Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities

established by the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health

and Environmental Managers (otherwise known as the 10 States Standards). These guidelines are

incorporated into the Florida regulations by reference and establish the following design

standards:

Peaking factors of 2.0 times the average daily flow for systems that serve a population of

100,000 or more.

If the ratio of peak hourly flow to average daily flow is 3:1 or more, flow equalization should

be considered. This may be accomplished by building a wet weather retention basin (or

tank) and gradually returning the excess flow to the treatment plant during off-peak

periods.

Infiltration of groundwater up to 200 gallons per day per inch diameter/mile for new pipe

construction and 10 times that or 2,000 gallons per day per inch diameter/mile for older

existing sewers is acceptable.



9

3.5 Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems

In Pinellas County, wastewater generated by residential and commercial customers is either

collected by city, county, or investor-owned sanitary sewer systems and conveyed to a

wastewater treatment plant or managed onsite by the property owner utilizing a septic system.

The point of connection between the private property and the sanitary sewer system is at the

public/private property line in either the single parcel or multifamily situation. There are also

some communities such as condominium complexes and mobile home parks that own and

maintain the sewer system within the community.

Jurisdictional boundaries of wastewater service areas were originally developed in the late 1970s

for north, central, and south Pinellas County in compliance with the requirements of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments and Florida regulations. These jurisdictional boundaries

are set forth in 201 Facilities Plans and were designed to address long term, environmentally

sound, and cost effective options for wastewater treatment. Initial steps established the design

constraints of existing and future facilities, as well as characteristics of the surrounding natural

environment.

At the same time, sanitary sewer service areas were delineated and service commitments to the

respective populations, both existing and projected, were established. In order to determine the

present and future wastewater capacity requirements for the utilities managed by Pinellas County

and each of the municipalities, population estimates and projections for each respective service

area were developed for the 201 Facility Plans for each municipality and portions of the

unincorporated County to be served. A number of agreements were subsequently established to

ensure continued service commitments in conformance with 201 Plan recommendations, since

commitments do not necessarily follow jurisdictional boundaries. Responsibilities addressed in

such agreements included such things as planning, financing, construction, operation and

maintenance of facilities to ensure continued and adequate service to all customers, as well as

rate establishment and industrial pre-treatment requirements.

Currently, there are 17 public and investor-owned entities in Pinellas County that maintain

sanitary sewer systems serving over 302,912 customers. A customer is defined as an individual

account or property and does not indicate the number of people served. The network of sewer

pipelines in Pinellas County encompasses 3,646 miles of sewer pipes, 79,165 manholes, and 825

lift stations.



10

Table 1 – Wastewater Networks

Sanitary Sewer System Owner/Operator

Customers (laterals)

Sewer Pipe (miles)

Manholes Lift Stations

St. Petersburg 82,480 938 20,000 81

Pinellas County Utilities 83,326 1,151 23,050 298

Clearwater 37,277 401 15,000 75

Largo 22,207 321 5,441 52

Pinellas Park 20,911 288 4,225 102

Dunedin 12,562 128 3,084 43

Safety Harbor 8,950 92 1830 25

Tarpon Springs 8,046 110 2,152 60

Oldsmar 5,211 59 1,200 25

St. Pete Beach 3,710 52 800 17

Gulfport 5,480 42 868 2

On Top of the World 4,959 n/a n/a n/a

Mid-County (Utilities Inc. of Florida)

2,732

22

420

17

Treasure Island 2,405 19 570 12

Tierra Verde (Utilities Inc. of Florida)

1,030 9 240 7

Redington Shores 874 6 129 4

North Redington 407 n/a n/a n/a

South Pasadena 345 8 156 5

Total 302,912 3,646 79,165 825

*n/a = not available

Wastewater generated in Pinellas County is treated at one of 14 wastewater treatment plants operated

by municipal and investor-owned owners. The collective permitted capacity of the 14 wastewater

treatment plants is about 155 million gallons per day (MGD), which is based upon the annual average daily

flow. The collective peak treatment capacity of the 14 treatment plants is 309 MGD, approximately two

times the annual average daily flows in accordance with sound engineering practice as required by Florida

regulations.



11

Table 2 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacities

Owner/Operator Wastewater Treatment Plant

Annual Average

Permitted Flow

(MGD)

Peaking Factor

Peak Design

Capacity (MGD)

St. Petersburg Northeast 16 2 32

Northwest 20 2 40

Southwest 20 2 40

Pinellas County William E. Dunn 9 2 18

South Cross Bayou 33 2 66

Clearwater Northeast 13.5 2 27

Marshall 10 2.5 25

East Plant 5.0 2.5 12.5

Largo Largo 18 1.8 32

Dunedin Dunedin 6 2 12

Tarpon Springs Tarpon Springs 4 2 8

Oldsmar Oldsmar 2.25 2 4.5

On Top of the World On Top of the World 0.6 2 1.2

Utilities Inc. of Florida Mid-County 0.9 2 1.8

Totals: 154.55 309.1

Treated effluent from the 14 wastewater treatment plants in Pinellas County is either discharged to

surface water, pumped into deep aquifer injection wells, or distributed as reclaimed water for beneficial

reuse.

3.6 Interconnection between Wastewater Systems

Municipalities and investor-owned utilities that do not own and operate their own wastewater

treatment plants or have formed partnerships with nearby communities, convey their wastewater

to another municipal system via an interconnection between the respective sewer systems:

Pinellas Park, Redington Shores, and North Redington convey wastewater to Pinellas County’s

South Cross Bayou facility;

Safety Harbor conveys wastewater to Clearwater’s Northeast facility (which is co-owned by

Safety Harbor);

St. Pete Beach, Treasure Island, South Pasadena, and an unincorporated area known as Bear

Creek convey wastewater to St. Petersburg’s Northwest facility;

Gulfport, Ft. Desoto, and Utilities Inc. of Florida’s Tierra Verde system convey wastewater to

St. Petersburg’s Southwest facility.



12

In addition, other interconnections exist to convey wastewater from areas of a city or the

County that are not readily served by their respective wastewater treatment plants:

Pinellas County conveys wastewater from an area in East Lake to Oldsmar.

An unincorporated area known as Greenbriar conveys to Dunedin.

Wastewater service areas for each of the wastewater treatment plants is depicted in Image 1, while

municipal boundaries are depicted in Image 2.



13

Image 1: Wastewater Service Areas



14

Image 2: Municipality Boundaries



15

3.7 Wastewater Utility Rates and Capital Investment Programs

Municipal and investor-owned wastewater treatment and collection system operators are

expected to operate in a cost-effective and responsible manner. Utility rate structures for

wastewater collection and treatment services in Pinellas County are varied and based on a

multitude of factors. Investor-owned utilities (e.g. Utilities, Inc. of Florida), have no taxing

authority and thus rely solely on revenue generated from their customers.

All utilities are responsible for providing high quality, cost effective sewer service to the citizens

and business owners within their respective sewer service areas. Each Utility must adhere to state

and federal laws, rules, and regulations while operating and maintaining the sewer system. The

sewer system provides an environmentally safe and sanitary means of collecting and transmitting

discharged domestic waste from residential, commercial, and industrial users. The sewer system

provides for the treatment and disposal of objectionable materials and organisms associated with

the waste in order to protect public health, property, and the environment.

The sewer funds are enterprise funds, and are committed solely to support sewer system

functions. Generally, water and wastewater rates and charges are based upon a combination of

fixed and volumetric charges determined to be sufficient to meet both capital and operating

needs of the individual utilities. Some Utilities have caps on monthly sewer flows, above which

no additional monthly fees are charged

Utilities, Inc. of Florida, as an investor-owned Utility, applies rates and charges that are set by the

Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) through its rate-making process. Rates are designed to

produce revenue sufficient to cover annual operating expenses, recover capital investment, and

offer an opportunity to earn a return on that investment. Historically, the PSC has not allowed its

regulated utilities to establish reserve funds.

According to a 2016 Water and Wastewater Rate Study prepared by Public Resources

Management Group for the City of Oldsmar reflecting a review of all municipal sewer rates

throughout Pinellas County, single-family residential customers with a monthly consumption of

4,000 gallons incur a sewer bill that ranges from $27 to $36 per month. Most utilities have

implemented modest rate increases over time that are designed to generate sufficient revenues

to fund key operating requirements and needed system infrastructure renewal and replacement

activities while keeping rates affordable for customers, maintaining a safe work environment for

personnel, and remaining compliant with applicable statutes, rules and regulations. According to

EPA’s financial capability assessment guidance (EPA 832-B-97-004), a utility cost in the range of

1.1% to 1.9% of median household income (MHI) is considered a “medium” burden while costs in

the 1.9 to 2.1% of median household income (MHI) is considered a “high” burden. Given a median

income of $47,500 in Pinellas County, rates exceeding $44 per month may be considered a median

burden and costs $75 per month would be considered a high burden. Based on this guidance,

sewer rates in Pinellas County are currently in the affordable range. In the last decade, utilities

have adjusted rates annually by 1 to 10% depending upon each Utility’s requirements.



16

Across all utilities in Pinellas County, the collective plan for capital improvement programs for

wastewater infrastructure for fiscal year 2017 is approximately $130 million. Over the next six

years (fiscal years 2017 through 2022), the total planned capital investment for infrastructure

improvements is approximately $590 million. Capital improvements including plant expansions

and upgrades as well as ongoing rehabilitation and replacement of existing assets. Capital

spending by public utilities is restricted to public infrastructure.

3.8 Stormwater Management Systems

In the early 1980s, a Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) was produced and includes both

Incorporated and unincorporated areas of Pinellas County. The SWMP assumed a full buildout

condition and mapped the 25-year and 100-year flood extents based on high-level stormwater

modeling.

Subsequently, more detailed Watershed Management Plans (WMPs) have been produced at a

catchment-scale. The newer WMPs supersede the SWMP data because the modelling effort was

much more detailed and extensive, taking into account a greater proportion of the piped

stormwater network. In addition to flooding, the WMPs also give consideration to surface water

quality and natural systems. Not all watersheds have new WMPs.

The County’s overall condition assessment and needs of its watersheds and receiving waterbodies

are currently identified through a combination of the SWMP and WMPs with the eventual goal of

all these being identified in WMPs as they continue to be developed. The County has developed

a central inventory of all the needs and utilizes this for development of capital improvement

projects (CIPs), improving operations and maintenance in areas that need it the most and

incorporating them into other programs that reduce flooding and improve the quality of our

surface waters.

Stormwater Jurisdictions

There are 56 watersheds across all of Pinellas County. Pinellas County works cooperatively with the municipalities to develop WMPs and in general, takes the lead when the majority of the watershed is within unincorporated Pinellas. To date, the County has taken the lead in watershed management planning in 14 watersheds. WMPs for watersheds that are primarily within the Cities are developed by the respective Cities. See Image 3 on next page.



17

Image 3: Watersheds and Municipal Boundaries



18

3.9 Stormwater Design Frequency Standards

Stormwater design frequency standards are identified in the draft Pinellas County Stormwater

Manual (9 May 2016, http://www.pinellascounty.org/plan/stormwater manual.htm). The Table

below summarizes the minimum design frequencies for use on County transportation facilities.

Table 3 – Stormwater Design Frequency Standards

Facility Frequency Inches over 24 hours

Roadside, Median and Collector ditches or swales 10-year 7.5

Outfall ditches, Major Channels and Canals 25-year 9.0

Storm Drains 10-year 7.5

Bridges and Cross Drains on Evacuation Routes 100-year 12.0

Bridges and Cross Drains on Arterial and High-Use (ADT > 1,500) Roads

50-year 10.5

Bridges and Cross Drains on all Other Roads and Facilities 25-years 9.0

Roadside Ditch Culverts 10-year 7.5

Newly developed and redeveloped properties are required to detain stormwater runoff so that

the post-development discharge rates do not exceed the pre-development discharge rates for the

25-year/24-hour design storm. The frequencies cited by the table above are minimums. Higher

design frequencies shall be used where Level of Service (LOS) requirements prevail or Master Plan

Goals warrant use of such. Examples of this are situations where structural flooding LOS concerns

may entail consideration of the 100-year design frequency and requirement to complete design

in accordance with future improvements identified by Stormwater Master Plans or Watershed

Management Plans.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

The County, together with 23 municipal co-permittees and FDOT, operate their Municipal

Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) pursuant to the requirements of Phase I permit

FLS000005. The City of St. Petersburg has an individual Phase I MS4 permit, FLS000007. Both

permits specify requirements for maintenance, enforcement of illicit discharges and illicit

connections, public education and outreach, water quality monitoring and pollutant loading

assessment, permitting, management of hazardous materials, staff training, Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) planning and implementation, and program funding. Each City and the

County are responsible for these items within their jurisdictional areas.

http://www.pinellascounty.org/plan/stormwater%20manual.htm



19

Capital and Operations Spending

Across all city and county public works departments in Pinellas County, the collective plan for

capital improvement programs for stormwater infrastructure for fiscal year 2017 is

approximately $25 million. Over the next six years (fiscal years 2017 through 2022), the total

planned capital investment for stormwater infrastructure improvements is approximately

$138 million. Funding mainly comes from city and county Surface Water Utility Fees, and the

Penny for Pinellas.

4. Best Practices, Common Challenges and Opportunities

Several common best management practices have been identified to effectively manage wastewater and

avoid and/or mitigate spills, overflows and releases of sewage into the environment.

The following are common best management practices employed by utilities in Pinellas County:

Table 5 – Utilities Best Management Practices

Challenge Best Management Practice Utilities in Pinellas County

Wastewater treatment plants Peaking design capacity = 2x peaking factor in accordance with sound engineering practice as required by Florida regulations

X

Gravity sewers Cleaning, TV inspection, pipelining, replacement

X

Public laterals TV inspection using small “push” cameras, pipelining

X

Force mains Force main inspection and replacement programs

X

Air release valves Inspection and replacement X

Manholes Lining and rehabilitation X

Lift stations Rehabilitation and replacement X

Collection system hydraulics Routine hydraulic modeling of collection system to assess capacity, flow, and identification of any hydraulic limitations

Utilities update hydraulic models at varying frequencies.

Privately-owned laterals, sewer systems and lift stations

Inspection and enforcement programs, lateral repairs, cleanout repairs, funding programs.

Some cities in Pinellas County have ordinances that allow inspection and enforcement



20

Challenge Best Management Practice Utilities in Pinellas County

Stormwater management Smoke testing, removal of illicit stormwater drainage connections; Removal of stormwater inundation on sanitary sewer manholes

Most utilities in Pinellas County perform smoke testing and removal of illicit stormwater connections; Opportunities are being explored to remove flooding of sanitary sewer manholes

Inflow and Infiltration Studies Flow monitoring to assess relative contributions of inflow and infiltration within the sewer network, smoke testing, water quality monitoring (indicators for infiltration/inflow), monitoring of pump station run times.

Utilities are in various stages of assessing the magnitude and relative contributions of inflow and infiltration and measuring effectiveness of corrective actions implemented.

The Technical Working Group identified many common challenges to minimizing sanitary sewer

overflows, particularly during short-term, intense storms as well as large or sustained storm events. These

include:

Inflow of stormwater and infiltration of groundwater during severe storm events

Aging infrastructure

Equipment breakdowns during emergencies

Maintenance of private laterals and lift stations and the limited control over such by the receiving

utility

Illicit stormwater connections to the sanitary sewer system

Resources (staff, equipment, contractors) during emergencies

Introduction of grease, wipes, and other “non-flushables” into the sanitary sewer system by system

users that adversely affect system capacity and function

Dialogue with and education for the public

Sea level rise causing inundation of the collection system and compromising low lying infrastructure

Current design capacities and level of service expectations, especially for peak flows during extreme

weather events.

Available funding

Sensitivity to adjacent municipal rate structures so as to maintain an “affordable and competitive

rate”

For each of these challenges, the Technical Working Group identified opportunities to improve the

wastewater and stormwater infrastructure in Pinellas County, as well as ways to mitigate emergency

situations through collaboration and mutual support. The following is a discussion of challenges and

opportunities identified as a result of this collaborative effort. These challenges and opportunities are



21

divided into challenges that can be addressed with short-term actions versus challenges that will require

longer term solutions.

4.1 Challenges with Short-Term Actions

4.1.1 Flow Monitoring Program for Inflow and Infiltration

During typical dry weather and wet weather conditions, the 14 wastewater treatment plants

and associated collection systems have sufficient capacity to collect and treat wastewater

flows generated by Pinellas County residents and businesses. However, wastewater flows

resulting from stormwater inflow and groundwater infiltration into the sanitary sewer system

can exceed the capacity of the collection system and/or wastewater treatment system during

severe weather events such as Tropical Storm Hermine (up to 22 inches of rain), Tropical

Storm Colin (up to 18 inches of rain), and the heavy, sustained rains over a three-week period

in July/August 2015. In addition, stormwater can contain materials that are toxic to the

biological treatment process irrespective of flow rates.

Utilities can address inflow and infiltration by controlling it at the source, or increasing

capacity at the wastewater treatment plants to accommodate higher peaking factors, or both.

The efficacy of which plan of action is most appropriate to pursue depends on a multitude of

factors. Generally, efforts that reduce inflow and infiltration are favored over the construction

and operation of additional treatment capacity designed primarily for peak flow conditions.

Utilities are in various stages of assessing the magnitude and relative contributions of inflow

and infiltration and measuring effectiveness of corrective actions implemented to date. The

Technical Working Group agreed that installation of a combination of permanent and

temporary flow monitoring devices will be needed to fully assess the current situation and

establish a system for ongoing monitoring. The appropriate locations for installation of flow

monitors throughout each utility sewer system needs to be determined by each respective

Utility. Some utilities are already progressing toward installing flow monitors while others are

just beginning.

It was agreed that establishing a flow monitoring plans by sewer basin is a typical approach.

The Technical Working Group agreed to develop a scope of work template for inflow and

infiltration studies that could be utilized by all utilities so that a consistent approach could be

followed.

Since there exists some interconnectivity between sewer systems, utilities that have

interconnections will need to cooperate to implement flow monitoring plans and share

information that can support making decisions about improvements needed for both the

collection and treatment systems.

Installation of flow monitors, where feasible, preferably before the start of the 2017 rainy

season, was identified as a short-term goal.



22

Flow monitor equipment, installation, maintenance, monitoring, data collection, and

modeling can be very costly. The Technical Working Group agreed that funding to supplement

Utility enterprise funds would assist with implementing these efforts.

The Technical Working Group agreed that sharing information generated from inflow and

infiltration studies would benefit each Utility. The Technical Working Group discussed the

possibility of a common platform for sharing information.

Ongoing monitoring will allow utilities to monitor progress toward reducing inflow and

infiltration. While there is no standard for an acceptable level of inflow, generally acceptable

levels of infiltration are up to 200 gallons per day per inch diameter/mile for new pipe

construction and 10 times that or 2,000 gallons per day per inch diameter/mile for older

existing sewers. For about 3,200 miles of pipe and an average diameter of 12 inches, this

would amount to between 8 - 80 million gallons per day. In comparison to average flows,

which are 155 million gallons per day, an additional 80 million gallons per day of flow is still

within the current peak design capacity (310 million gallons per day) of wastewater treatment

plants in Pinellas County.

4.1.2 Address System Hydraulic Bottlenecks

Utilities in Pinellas County identified hydraulic “bottlenecks” in their respective collection

systems during recent severe storm events. The wastewater collection systems in Pinellas

County are the result of interconnection of numerous development projects constructed over

time. The interconnected systems have not always been adequately assessed to ensure that

the existing pipe networks have hydraulic capacity sufficient to manage combined flows. The

systems typically have sufficient capacity to handle average or peak flows but often

experience hydraulic restrictions at “bottlenecks” during severe storm events. These

bottlenecks include larger gravity sewer pipelines that convey to smaller gravity sewer

pipelines, which can cause backups in the sewer system during high flows. Another example

of a bottleneck is an area where there are multiple 90 degree bends in series or “zig zags”,

which can cause highly turbulent flow and reduce the conveyance efficiency. Hydraulic

restrictions can contribute to overflows during severe storm events.

When these bottlenecks are identified, utilities utilize hydraulic modeling to identify options

for eliminating the hydraulic restrictions by either enlarging the lines, increasing pumping

capacities, or changing operating protocols to managing pumping of high wastewater flows.

Utilities can then initiate projects to remove bottlenecks in their sewer systems.



23

4.1.3 Rehabilitation and Replacement Programs for Aging Infrastructure

Utilities in Pinellas County have ongoing inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and

replacement programs to address aging infrastructure and to control inflow and infiltration

into the sanitary sewer system. These programs include:

Gravity sewer cleaning and TV inspection

Flow monitoring to assess relative contributions of inflow and infiltration within the sewer

network

Gravity sewer pipelining

Gravity sewer pipeline rehabilitation and replacement

Public lateral pipelining

Force main sewer replacement programs

Air release valve inspection and replacement

Manhole lining

Lift station rehabilitation and replacement

Common challenges associated with these programs include:

High demand for and limited availability of pipelining contractors

Technology challenges regarding force main condition inspection tools

Lining materials utilized for manholes historically have not been as durable as products

that are currently on the market.

Gaining adequate access to facilities with requisite equipment and materials

High restoration costs

Negative economic impact to the community during construction

Utilities in Pinellas County should take advantage of the latest technological advancements

when conducting inspections and rehabilitating sewer pipelines including:

Non-destructive condition assessment tools that utilize pressure waves or acoustic

sensors. There are limited applications for this technology since it requires a launch port.

Advanced lining materials for manholes and pump stations. Utilities will share

specifications for the latest products currently available on the market.

Air release valve designs that are placed in an offset pipeline versus inline in the force

main so that they can be more easily accessed for maintenance.

Newer designs of rain trays inserted into manhole rings.

Flush to the ground, locking cleanout caps.



24

4.1.4 Reduce Stormwater Drainage and Connections to the Sanitary Sewer System

In addition to inflow of stormwater to the sanitary sewer during stormwater events, illicit

connections of roof drains, underdrain systems, and sump pumps can contribute to inflow to

the sanitary sewer system. Smoke and dye testing is commonly performed by utilities to

identify illicit connections to the sanitary sewer and require property owners to disconnect.

There are a number of mechanisms that the Cities and County could use to improve

collaboration with their Stormwater groups primarily through incorporating the evaluation of

wastewater infrastructure into the stormwater goals and vice versa. Below are short term

opportunities the Technical Working Group identified:

Watershed Management Plans and Stormwater Models: The County and Cities have

continued to develop Watershed Management Plans (or similar types of plans) that

identify the extent and duration that areas will be inundated under different storm

events. These areas can be overlaid onto the wastewater system network utilizing GIS

tools to help identify possible locations where stormwater could possibly enter the

wastewater network through manhole tops. These areas could be targeted for remedial

actions which include ensuring the manholes are secured so no stormwater enters them

or stormwater improvement projects that would remove the inundation off the

manholes. Recent improvement to the stormwater modeling techniques now provide the

ability visualize the rise and fall of groundwater levels before, during and after storm

events. This provides an opportunity, at a planning level, to identify areas where

groundwater could seep into the wastewater network through aging infrastructure or

leaking joints. Utility providers can target these areas first in performing detailed inflow

and infiltration studies or incorporate this planning level analysis as the first step of an

inflow and infiltration study.

4.1.5 Resource Sharing/Maximization

Prior to major storm events, utilities initiate emergency preparedness plans to prepare for

the storm. These activities typically include:

Checking the operational readiness of all critical equipment,

Pump down tankage and collection system as much as practical,

Securing all facilities for storm readiness,

Fueling vehicles and emergency generators,

Establishing emergency purchase orders to utilize pumper/tanker truck services and

staging reserving pumper/tanker trucks in anticipation of high overflows.



25

Common challenges utilities face during a storm include:

Limited warehouse inventory of spare parts

During storm events, mechanical equipment is often running for long periods of time and

is susceptible to breakdowns. In some cases, utilities have an inventory of spare

equipment or access to spare equipment through a local supplier. However, in cases of

larger or specialty equipment, spares are not always readily available locally.

Failure of equipment that cannot be sourced locally

Limited staff resources to respond to storm

Availability and competition for pumper/tanker trucks

Competition for local contractors

During major storms and emergency events, municipalities rely on the Florida

Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (FlaWARN) to obtain supplemental support.

FlaWARN is the formalized system of "utilities helping utilities" to provide mutual aid during

emergency situations. The network provides a secure web-based data bank of available

resources and a practical mutual aid agreement designed to reduce bureaucratic red tape in

times of emergency. The goal of FlaWARN is to provide immediate assistance, as quickly as

possible, to impacted utilities by whatever means necessary until such time that a permanent

solution to the devastation may be implemented.

The technical working group discussed the possibility of communicating and sharing

information about equipment and resources through collaboration amongst warehouse

managers and warehouse inventory information systems.

In addition to FlaWARN, which is utilized for large scale incidents that impact the region and

require bringing in resources from outside the area, other tools that may be useful for

facilitating resource sharing and mutual aid during storm events include:

WebEOC

WebEOC can be used for tracking or management of large or more prolonged utility incidents.

WebEOC works regardless of jurisdictional boundaries as it is a web-based application.

WebEOC has ‘boards’ that can used to track resource requests, log actions taken, track

significant events that have occurred, track human resources, provide situational awareness

using data provided on these ‘boards’. Use of WebEOC would require some system setup (to

provide the right boards for utility incidents), establishing system logins, and training of

participants. This tool could potentially also be used for sharing information about available

equipment and resources amongst warehouse managers and across warehouse inventory

information systems.



26

Alert Pinellas (CodeRED)

Alert Pinellas (CodeRED) is an application that can be used for notifications and

communications. Fixed lists can be created that can be broken out to executive leadership,

response teams, subject matter expert call outs, community notifications, etc. Multiple device

types can be notified concurrently.

Purchasing Solutions

Several opportunities have been identified that may benefit through a collaborative

purchasing approach for services required during storm events as well as normal operating

conditions. These include contracts for pipelining, emergency pumper/tanker trucks, and

other commonly used services.

Pipelining Contractors

Due to the high demand and competition for pipelining contractors, Pinellas County

hosted a meeting on November 9, 2016 to discuss purchasing options. Representatives

from Pinellas County, the cities of Dunedin, Pinellas Park, Oldsmar, and Tarpon Springs

along with contractors met to discuss the viability of facilitating a cooperative contract

for cured in place pipelining (CIPP) services.

Representatives from the municipalities discussed the similarities between their current

CIPP contracts and consensus was reached that the contracts from all agencies were very

similar in both approach and specification. This is a good start for a potential cooperative

contract.

The contractor representatives thought there could be possibility for economy of scale if

the smaller cities could combine their projects with prospective county projects and bid

larger projects in one large competitive bid package. While in theory this appears

feasible, it can be very difficult to manage and coordinate. From a practical perspective,

because of size and scope, smaller municipal projects may be better suited to a work

order based contract which is similar to what most agencies currently have in place.

The discussion then focused on the possibility of facilitating a request for qualifications

and placing all qualified firms on a quote list so that projects can be combined when the

timing is optimum and then strategically competitively quoted. According to the

contractors, this method is currently utilized in Houston, Texas and Jacksonville, Florida

with much success. The decision was made to test the potential of proceeding with a

cooperative contract in this manner where the County would facilitate the request for

qualifications and coordinate competitive quoting by combining other agency

requirements periodically throughout the year. It was determined that this method is

not only best for coordination of requirements but also lends itself to the most

advantageous pricing as firms are competing consistently throughout the year for work.

It is anticipated that a cooperative contract facilitated in this manner will be released by

the county in the spring of 2017.



27

Emergency pumper/tanker truck services

Currently, the county and cities utilize pumper/tanker truck services on an emergency

basis to respond to storms. Typically, these services are procured on an emergency basis

and the utilities are often competing for limited availability of trucks. Pinellas County

plans to initiate procurement of an emergency service contract, in collaboration with the

cities, to get upfront commitments of pumper/tanker truck services based on the

potential collective need in the county.

Cooperative or “Piggyback” Contracts

There are a number of other types of contracts that would be amenable to cooperative

agreements of “piggyback” terms. For instance, Pinellas County Utilities recently entered

into a contract for valve inspection and maintenance services. The utilities agreed to

develop a master list of contracts for utilities services that could be shared.

Information Management

Currently, utilities in Pinellas County do not have a shared platform for wastewater and

stormwater infrastructure. The county would benefit by developing one master shared

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) model that incorporates all county wastewater and

stormwater infrastructure. This consolidate GIS model could be shared between the county

and the cities and would serve as a tool for collaboration and infrastructure improvement

decisions. The county and most of the cities currently use or are in the process of migrating

to the ESRI eGIS platform.

The County and the Cities are in varying stages of migrating from legacy computer

maintenance management systems (CMMS) to Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) systems.

EAM systems will provide a better tool for managing assets based on condition and risk

factors. The cost of EAM systems may, however, be prohibitive for smaller utilities.

4.1.6 Public Dialog

Like most established metropolitan areas, the condition of wastewater and stormwater

infrastructure in Pinellas County varies by the asset type, age, materials, construction

methods, soil conditions, and other factors. Maintenance and rehabilitation of wastewater

and stormwater infrastructure is required on an annual, perpetual basis. Utilities face a

common challenge of convincing the public to continue to invest in infrastructure

rehabilitation as the cost of infrastructure must be covered by utility rates in the case of

wastewater infrastructure or taxes and stormwater fees or assessments in the case of

stormwater infrastructure.

In addition to funding public infrastructure, many property owners do not understand their

responsibility with respect to maintenance of private laterals.

The public also does not have a general understanding of how their day-to-day activities could

negatively impact operation and maintenance of the sewer system, for example, by disposing



28

of “non-flushables” such as grease, wipes, and other personal care products down the sewer.

Disposal of these items into the sanitary sewer system can result in obstructions during dry

weather conditions or exacerbate blockages and overflows during wet storm events.

Municipal utilities regularly communicate with customers about what should not be flushed

down the drain. However, communication and compliance with guidelines is not consistent

across the County.

The citizens of Pinellas County would benefit from a coordinated, holistic public education

campaign to inform residents and business owners about the current condition of wastewater

and stormwater infrastructure in Pinellas County, programs needed to fund investment in

infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation, and how the public can contribute to the

wastewater and stormwater management issues in order to protect public health, safety, and

the environment. Important communication messages include:

Condition of wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.

Maintenance of building plumbing, private laterals, and cleanouts.

Encouraging partnership with the public in protecting sewer system function and capacity

(proper disposal of fats/oils/grease and “non-flushables”; water conservation).

Setting expectations for utility level of service for normal conditions versus severe

weather events and/or natural disaster conditions.

Utility rate increases needed to increase level of service, keep up with inflation costs, and

fund infrastructure improvement projects.

Communication channels that could be used include public service announcements aired on

television or at movie theaters, vehicle wraps, events, social media, and digital media.

Potential communications partners include the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, University of Florida’s Institute of Food and

Agricultural Sciences (USF/IFAS) Extension, Southwest Florida Water Management District,

the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Commission, and Chambers of Commerce.

4.1.7 Legislation, Regulations, Local Ordinances

Pinellas County would benefit if the following legislation, regulations, or local ordinances were

adopted either at the County or State level:

Point of Sale policy.

Countywide ordinance allowing inspections of private systems by utilities.

Code Enforcement (extend county policy through Interlocal Agreements with cities)

through County Environmental Act Enforcement.

Countywide ordinance for industrial pretreatment and control of fats, oils, and greases.



29

4.2 Challenges with Long-term Solutions

4.2.1 Develop a Maintenance Program for Private Laterals, Sewer Systems and Lift Stations

In Pinellas County, the pipeline or “lateral” that connects the building plumbing to the public

sewer system is owned by the private property owner. The private property owner is also

responsible for maintenance of the private lateral, which typically extends from the building’s

plumbing to the property line.

In addition to private laterals, there are also a number of apartment complexes,

condominiums, mobile home parks, commercial shopping centers, and industrial facilities

that own sewer systems and lift stations within the community that then connect to the public

sewer system. The responsibility of maintenance of these private sewer systems and lift

stations remain with the private owners.

The magnitude of inflow and infiltration associate with private laterals and sewer systems can

vary greatly depending upon the age and the level of maintenance provided by the private

owner as well as the materials and methods used to construct the facilities. Typical sources

of inflow and infiltration from private laterals include:

Pipe cracks or failures due to aging infrastructure or root damage,

Leaking pipe joints,

Improperly installed, damaged, or missing cleanout caps,

Illicit connections of roof drains, yard drainage, underdrain systems, and sump pumps.

It is difficult to measure the amount of inflow and infiltration from private laterals and systems

because installing flow meters at all connection points would be cost prohibitive. Thus much

of the data available is based on estimated flows. The majority of respondents to a survey of

utilities by the Water Environment Federation conducted in 2015 indicate that private inflow

and infiltration sources can contribute anywhere from 20% to 75% of wet weather flow.

In addition to causing excessive flows to the public sewer system and wastewater treatment

plant, inflow and infiltration in private laterals can also cause sewer backups into buildings

resulting in property damage, health risks and environmental degradation.

For utilities, the most common challenges associated with private laterals and sewer systems

include:

Lack of legal authority to enter private property to inspect conditions. Some cities like

Tarpon Springs, Pinellas Park, and Largo have ordinances in place that allow utilities to

perform inspections. However, there is not a standard ordinance across the County. The

Pinellas County Environmental Enforcement Act allows the County to coordinate the



30

enforcement of environmental ordinances, rules and regulations; provides for civil

penalties to recover damages for any pollution, alteration, degradation or elimination of

a surface water; provides authority for inspections and for emergency orders requiring

the immediate cessation of the activity causing the violation. Under this authority, the

County has enacted ordinances that can be used to enforce sewage releases to surface

waters or the stormwater system from private laterals, septic tanks, and lift station and

the issuance of fines up to $10,000 per violation per day. The Act also covers discharges

to the soil/ground but ordinances have not been adopted for these situations.

Inability to enforce provisions of local sewer use ordinances or regulations.

Restrictions on spending public monies on private property (Article VII, Section 10, Florida

Constitution).

High cost to repair private laterals ($2,000 - $5,000 per property).

Lack of a comprehensive inventory of all private sewers and lift stations in Pinellas County.

As previously discussed, the expenditure of public monies to benefit private entities or

persons is prohibited by the Florida Constitution. Any expenditure of public funds must be

for a primarily public purpose, with only incidental or secondary benefit to private interests.

However, private sewer laterals, systems and lift stations contribute sewage to the public

systems and potentially cause or contribute to the failure of the public systems. Thus, there

may be a compelling argument for public funds to be expended to prevent private systems

from causing failure to public systems. Regrettably, there is no consistent approach to this

problem within Pinellas County, Florida or the United States.

Without a consistent approach, each public sewer utility is left on its own to craft solutions to

encourage private entities to maintain their laterals, sewer systems or lift stations. This can

lead to a patchwork of ordinances, permitting requirements, incentives or penalties to

confuse the public and inadvertently advantage or disadvantage a community’s ability to

attract and maintain residents and businesses.

The following possible solutions were identified for privately-owned laterals, sewer systems

and lift stations:

Statewide adoption of statutes and programs that regulate the inspection and

enforcement of private laterals, sewer systems and lift stations that connect to public

sewer utilities.

State funding alternatives for private laterals including grants, loans, incentive programs,

or rebates. One popular program that could be used as a template for a statewide

initiative is the My Safe Florida Home of 2006-2008. In lieu of a statewide initiative, a

common countywide approach for inspection and enforcement of private laterals, sewer

systems and lift stations should be pursued that would provide consistency within Pinellas

County and the twenty-four municipalities. Common local funding alternatives for private

laterals could include grants, loans, incentive programs, or rebates. An example of a

successful local program is the Sewer Repair Grant Program implemented by the City of

Davenport, Iowa. The program funds eligible repairs up to $10,000. Payment of a $500



31

deductible is required to participate in the program. Property owners can apply for the

grant after contracting with a professional sewer clearing or plumbing company and a

determination is made that the property’s sewer later is in need of repair. These type of

programs are funded by the Utility and typically require an increase in customer utility

rates of $2 to $3 per month.

Federal funding programs such as Community Development Block Grants can be utilized

for low to moderate income homeowners. Fort Walton Beach currently is using this

mechanism.

Insurance or warranty programs. Insurance programs can be provided to homeowners

by a private insurer directly or managed by the Utility. Typical costs for residential

properties are $18 to $120 per year or $1.50 to $9.99 per month. Typical coverage

includes 80 to 100% of repairs up to $5,000 to $7,800. Camera inspections fees of $200

to $300 are often charged separately. Some programs have limit coverage to lateral

failures and do not cover leaking laterals. States with successful programs include

California, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,

Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and

West Virginia.

Point of Sale inspection and certification programs.

4.2.2 Reduce Stormwater Drainage and Connections to the Sanitary Sewer System

The following solutions to address stormwater drainage issues were identified:

Using the data from Watershed Management Plans (WMPs) and Stormwater Models to

identify areas where stormwater could have possible impacts on the wastewater systems

the Cities’ and County’s Stormwater programs can undertake the following steps to

ensure a cohesive approach in tackling sanitary sewer overflows.

Capital Improvement Plans: Most of the stormwater capital improvement projects are

primarily focused on replacing aging infrastructure, improving the water quality of surface

runoff or reducing flooding. The County and Cities could include “stormwater impacts to

the wastewater system” as one of the factors in prioritizing their individual stormwater

capital improvement plans.

Stormwater Master Planning: The County and Cities should continue to partner in the

development of WMPs and ensure their individual plans are aligned and updated on an

as-needed basis.

The Technical Working Group determined that better coordination should occur with

their Stormwater partners in eliminating some of the inputs into the wastewater system

that could cause sanitary sewer overflows. The Technical Working Group noted once

stormwater inflow points begin to be eliminated there could be unintended flooding in

areas that were previously drained by the wastewater system. These areas will need to

be addressed with drainage improvement projects.



32

4.2.3 Establish Level of Service Expectations for Wastewater Design Capacities

As discussed previously, the 14 wastewater treatment plants in Pinellas County are designed

to handle peak flows up to two times the annual average daily flows. During recent storm

events, some of the wastewater treatment plants experienced flows in excess of peak design

capacities which resulted in sanitary sewer overflows at the plants as well as at some

manholes and lift stations within the collection system. Since the collection systems are not

specifically designed to handle stormwater, the higher than normal flows were attributed to

storm-related inflow and infiltration.

Excessive flows during storm events can be managed by either controlling inflow and

infiltration or increasing the capacity of wastewater treatment plants to handle the additional

flows, or a combination of both. Based on observed flows during Tropical Storm Hermine,

some plants experienced 2.5 to 3 times their annual average daily flows. As stated above,

most plants are designed to handle a peak flow of two times their annual average daily flows.

The following table shows the amount of capacity that would be required to enable the plants

to handle these higher peaking factors.

Table 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity

Annual Average

Permitted Flow

(MGD)

Peaking Factor

Peak Design

Capacity (MGD)

Peaking Factor

Peak Design

Capacity (MGD)

Additional Capacity (MGD)

All Wastewater Treatment Plants in Pinellas County

155

2

310

3

465

155

One approach is to add treatment capacity to handle higher flows during rain events. Based

on current information, the estimated cost to construct wastewater treatment infrastructure

is approximately $5.00 to $8.00 per gallon per day. The cost to build 155 million gallons per

day of additional capacity is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion. This does not take into

account the availability and cost of land to expand a facility nor the annual operating expense

to maintain and repair these peak flow facilities. Many facilities are surrounded by existing

land uses that effectively limit an onsite expansion. While adding treatment capacity needs

to be explored as a long-term option, there are operational challenges associated with

maintaining biological treatment processes that are not utilized on an ongoing, continual

basis.

Alternately, storage capacity can be added to handle peak flows during rain events. The cost

of constructing storage tanks can range for $1.00 to $2.00 per gallon of storage capacity,

which would equate to an estimated cost of $300 million for 155 million gallons of storage

assuming a one day storm event. If multiple days of storage would be needed to

accommodate higher flows over an extended period of time, which is typically the case in



33

severe storm events, these costs would escalate. For three days of storage, the cost would

approach $1 billion. This amount of storage may not be sufficient, based upon recent storm

events where plants did not return to normal flow conditions for up to five to seven days. Raw

wastewater storage facilities present their own siting challenges including land availability

and odors generated from the storage of septic wastewater.

In concert with increasing the treatment and/or storage capacity at plants, the corresponding

collection system infrastructure would need to be increased to convey the flows to the

wastewater treatment plants. The challenge associated with designing larger collection

system pipes is the accumulation of corrosive gases in the collection systems when the pipes

are not flowing full. Another option that could be explored for certain areas is adding

redundant pipelines, whereby the main pipeline could convey average flows and the

redundant pipeline could be utilized to handle excessive flows during severe weather

conditions.

Due to these constraints, adding storage and treatment capacity may be a limited option for

some utilities. In summary, typical challenges associated with adding storage and treatment

capacity at wastewater treatment plants to handle higher peak flows include:

Available land space

Maintenance of equipment that is infrequently utilized (i.e., only during extreme weather

events)

Manpower resources required to empty and clean each storage facility after each use

Finding available routes to place force mains needed to operate remote storage facilities

Odor control at storage facilities located near residential areas

Visual concerns of locating tank farms in resident neighborhoods

The estimated cost of infiltration and inflow control in the collection system depends upon

the age and condition of the sanitary sewer system and laterals but can be on the order of

$10 per gallon per day. The total cost for infiltration and inflow control is estimated to be in

excess of $1 billion.

Based upon the above estimates, the additional investment that may be required to address

inflow and infiltration is estimated in the range of $1 to $1.5 billion. In comparison to the

current spending level of utilities in Pinellas County ($590 million), the estimated shortfall is

$500 million to $1 billion. If these improvements are funded by the utilities, the utilities would

need to increase rates by 20 to 30% assuming financing over 30 years.

The effectiveness of adding capacity to manage inflow and infiltration versus controlling

inflow and infiltration at the source is location dependent. The preferred course of action will

depend on factors specific to each circumstance and will likely require the application of a

combination of approaches.



34

As discussed above, the combined capacity needed to handle a peak flow of three times the

annual average daily wastewater flows in Pinellas County is 465 MGD. The cost of additional

treatment capacity is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion. The cost of additional storage

capacity is estimated to approach $1 billion. These costs do not include the cost of increasing

the size of sewer collection pipes.

As we have seen during recent storm events, the amount of rainfall and associated inflow and

infiltration that can impact a particular wastewater treatment plant is not uniform across the

County. Therefore, adding capacity across the entire County would result in an investment in

infrastructure that would remain idle during the majority of the time. One approach to adding

capacity may be to add capacity at a limited number of plants that could then serve other

plants during and after storm events. This will require constructing pipe interconnections

between the collection systems that serve those treatment plants and include complex

funding mechanisms between utilities to address both the capital improvements and the

annual operating costs.

4.2.4 Sea Level Rise

In August 2015, the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel (CSAP) developed regional sea

level rise projections for Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco and Manatee Counties which range

from 1.97 to 6.89 feet over the next 84 years. The projections were adopted in October 2015

by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and serve as the best available science for sea

level rise planning in the region. To further these efforts, the County applied for and received

a RESTORE Act grant to complete a Vulnerability Assessment for the County’s Critical

Infrastructure. This project includes a GIS-based planning tool for sea level rise and storm

surge, an assessment of the County’s most vulnerable infrastructure and high level economic

analysis and adaptation strategies. This study will be the basis for the development of more

detailed economic analyses and planning for Adaptation Action Areas. Current efforts in

Watershed Planning also include assessment of the stormwater system and associated

floodplains for impacts from sea level rise and ensuring that any recommended

improvements have been adjusted for anticipated changes. Lastly, to ensure our

infrastructure is designed to manage risks associated with sea level rise and storm surge, the

County is developing a Sea Level Rise Planning tool for capital improvement projects. The tool

is intended to help project managers identify risks and to develop design strategies to ensure

effective long-term management of our infrastructure.

4.2.5 Long-Term Funding

Given the potential need to increase utility rates by 20 to 30% to cover estimated additional

infrastructure investment needs, a number of potential funding sources should be explored

to supplement existing Utility revenue-funded infrastructure improvement projects. These

include:

BP settlement funding

BP settlement awards to cities and Pinellas County

State-level Gulf Coast Consortium for RESTORE Act funding



35

Penny for Pinellas

Funding for stormwater flooded areas that my contribute to inflow to sanitary sewer

State Grants

Reimbursement program akin to Pinellas County septic connection program in Largo area

where septic tanks were failing.

State-administered homeowner grant program is preferred since neither investor-owned

utilities nor private property owners can receive grants, and not all municipal utilities have

the staffing available to administer grants.

Alternate/untapped funding sources (environmental management funds/grants) to

improve systems, CDBG, “MySafeFLHome” or other state-incentivized program.

Loans (State Revolving Fund)

Other state funding sources include: 319(h) grants, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

grants, and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) cooperative

funding that can be applied for and utilized on projects to improve water quality in

impaired waters.

Federal Grants

National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Natural Resource Damage

Assessment funding for sanitary sewer projects.

Community Development Block Grants

For private property owners in economically disadvantaged areas in conjunction with a

public project (e.g., replacing public laterals/gravity sewers).

Must be economically disadvantaged areas.

Cost sharing programs

Cost sharing programs between private property owners and utilities.

Insurance programs

Maintenance contracts managed by utilities

Private insurance programs for laterals

Local Taxes

Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) – municipal service assessment fee for

inspections/repairs, non-ad valorem tax.

4.2.6 Healthy Beach Testing

To address public health concerns, Pinellas County would benefit if the State Public Health Unit would resume regular testing of waters on both the Gulf and Tampa Bay to monitor and confirm the healthy status of beaches for the public.



36

5. Initial Action Plan

The following Initial Action Plan was developed by the Technical Working Group for consideration by the

Steering Committee. Recommended actions are divided into those that can be implemented short term

and those that will require longer term implementation plans.

5.1 Short-Term Actions

The following are recommended short-term actions to be completed by all utilities organizations

throughout Pinellas County. While some of the actions can be initiated during the current fiscal year

(FY17), others may be dependent upon funding allocation in FY18. These action items fall into seven main

categories:

Inflow and Infiltration Studies

Address System Hydraulic Bottlenecks

Rehabilitation/Replacement Programs for Aging Infrastructure

Stormwater Drainage Improvements

Resource Sharing/Maximization

Public Education

Legislation, Regulations, Local Ordinances

A specific list of actions and timeline for each is presented in the table on page 38.

5.2 Long-Term Actions

Recommended long-term actions include:

Annually investigate the feasibility of implementing asset management systems software.

Statewide adoption of the following statutes and programs starting in 2017.

o Regulation of inspection and enforcement of private laterals, sewer systems, and lift

stations that connect to public sewer utilities.

o A Point of Sale inspection and certification programs.

Start evaluating funding alternatives for private laterals including grants, loans, incentive

programs, or rebates in 2017.

Investigate availability of Federal, State, and local funding programs, in 2017, such as

Community Development Block Grants, SWFWMD, BP settlement awards or RESTORE Act

funds, Penny for Pinellas, local taxes, and other potential sources to address

infrastructure improvements.

Continue to evaluate the need to add plant capacity and/or storage tanks.

5.3 Monitor Progress of Actions

The Technical Working Group will continue meeting bimonthly to follow through on the

implementation of the short-term and long-term solutions adopted by the



37

Wastewater/Stormwater Technical Working Group. The Technical Working Group will also

provide milestone briefings to the Wastewater/Stormwater Task Force quarterly, or as needed.



38

TopicReturn

Date

Referral

Date

Prior

meetingReferred by Staff Notes

Discussion on zoning for

marijuana dispensaries in city

limits

4/13/2017 11/21/2016 3/23/2017 Rice Goodwin Legal to provide a report on preemption

language contained in pending State bills

regarding dispensaries.

Private Laterals Pilot Rebate

Program

4/13/2017 3/2/2017 Kornell Tankersley 1. What has been discussed at the County level

2. Pros/Cons on programs they have seen

3. Issues that have to be dealt with from both

perception level and policy level

4. Ideas of what next steps can be made

5. How many manholes have been repaired and

how many are need of repair in the area of the

study

6. How do we fund a program

7. Legal - Is there a basis in the law if we are

faced with a health safety issue, what rights do

we have going on private property and

inspecting (pipes)

Green Cart Initiative Amendment

to regulations for Pushcart

Vending

4/27/2017 6/16/2016 Rice Goodwin

Nikki Capehart

PUBLIC SERVICES & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE March 23, 2017

TopicReturn

Date

Referral

Date

Prior


Capital Improvement Assessment

(Maintenance and

Hurricane/Tropical Storm

preparedness)

a. Bridges

b. Seawalls

c. Roads

d. Sidewalks

e. Sewers

f. Potable Water

g. Stormwater

h. Wastewater

i. Reclaimed Water

j. Buildings

a. 4/27/2017 2/2/2017 Kennedy a. Prayman

A report on utilization of the

Hard to Hire and Apprenticeship

Ordinance

5/11/2017 9/22/2016 3/23/2017 Foster Tankersley Staff to report back on penalties, lower

thresholds, pre-certification programs, Davis

Bacon Act and streamlining, and the compliance

program

A discussion of the first quarterly

report in regard to the diversion

program for several

misdemeanor crimes which is

being implemented by the

Sheriff's dept

5/25/2017 Quarterly Kornell PCSO 2/6/16 Spoke to Sherriff's Dept. They are

working on the report and will distribute as

soon as complete

TopicReturn

Date

Referral

Date

Prior


Vehicle for Hire Ordinance 4/21/2016 8/25/16

9/22/16

10/13/16

11/21/16

PH

Kennedy Legal - Judd Discussion of Vehicle for Hire Ordinance with

focus on Transportation Network Companies,

inc. background checks, insurance and handicap

accessibility requirements;

5/26/16 - Mayor's office is working with legal

on draft ordinance, expect something within

next month

11/21/16 - 1st Public Hearing; second PH in

future

Mechanical Noise/Downtown

Noise

6/16/2016 7/28/2016 Kornell Goodwin Direct request to CM Kornell

Urban Construction (Mechanical

Noise Concerns)

10/13/2015 11/19/15

6/16/16

12/15/16*

*(ENRS)

Nurse Rick Dunn 6/16/16 - Urban Construction Task Force

Report; Claude Tankersley to return with a

report on cooling systems. Rick Dunn to return

with a report on how other cities handle

noise/recommended changes

12/16/16 - Preliminary District Cooler Plant

Analysis report at ENRS

01/27/17 - Per Rick Dunn: Planning & Eco Dev is

including mechanical noise issues as a

component of a proposed change to existing

noise ordinance. Not sure when it will be ready

to return to PSI

St. Petersburg Downtown

Partnership Looper Funding and

Possible Expansion

3/10/2016 Kennedy

Nurse

Evan Mory 5/5/16 - waiting on PSTA for a downtown

circulation study

5/25/16 PSTA is doing study for the downtown

transportation now that the grid system is in

place. Report due before endo of year -

November

TopicReturn

Date

Referral

Date

Prior


Agreement to allow

advertisement on bus shelters

that are constructed with private

sector funds

4/21/2016 5/26/2016

10/27/16

Legal - Winn Discussion on revising sign ordinance to allow

advertisement on bus shelters constructed with

private sector funds

5/5/16 - legal is ready to proceed

5/26/16 - Motion made for legal to meet with

LEMA Construction for the purpose of putting

together a document that would comply with

the written authorization requirement in the

Florida Statutes inc. discussions with PSTA.

6/16/16 - Legal to bring back in July

10/27/16 - Winn is waiting to hear back from

PSTA

Potential for expanding

reclaimed water system

5/12/2016 Gerdes John Palenchar Report from staff regarding reclaimed water

system

Discussion of Brownfields & the

incentives for developers

8/4/2016 Kornell Legal - Kovilaritch legal to provide a report regarding FL Statutes

and how to apply the state reg brownfield area

Report on Proposed South St.

Petersburg Master Plan with a

potential 2050 plan

8/4/2016 Kornell Kevin King

Presentation in regard to the

Best Management Practices

(BMP) concerning reduction of

nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay

from community gardening

activities

9/8/2016 Kornell Pinellas County

Cooperative

Extension

Discussion re making the

Manhattan Casino the new home

of the Dr. Carter G. Woodson

African American Museum

10/20/2016 Kornell

TopicReturn

Date

Referral

Date

Prior


Discussion of requiring our

wholesale sewer customers to

make certain budget

commitments on an annual basis

to reduce the amount of

infiltration/inflow in their sewer

collection s systems

1/19/2017 Kornell

A report on flooding specified

areas and along Dr. MLK, Jr. St S

near Lake Maggiore

9/22/2016 Kornell Stormwater

John Norris

2/28/17 - to be a part of the stormwater master

plan

Resolution declaring the City of

St. Petersburg as an inclusive and

welcoming city for all of its

residents

3/16/2017 Wheeler-

Bowman

City of St. Petersburg Public Services & Infrastructure ... packets/Public Services and...

Documents

Transcript of City of St. Petersburg Public Services & Infrastructure ... packets/Public Services and...