Private Facility Inspection and Maintenance: “Deluxe with Bacon” or “Maintenance Lite”?

Residential areas present subtler, but no less significant, issues. Some of the newer neighborhoods in Lacey have stormwater facilities that are difficult to differentiate from other common areas. These neighborhoods are developed and settled with high maintenance and aesthetic expectations. Because the developer established a high benchmark for the homeowners association, homebuyers enter the neighborhood with an understanding that monthly homeowner association dues of $60–$75 per month are the norm. High monthly dues allow neighborhoods to hire reputable landscaping companies to maintain common areas in a condition similar to many golf courses. Newer neighborhoods tend to do a relatively good job of maintenance. The most complex problem facing these neighborhoods is the collection of monthly homeowner fees.More typical neighborhoods in Lacey face challenging problems. In these neighborhoods, the construction of storm facilities and the establishment of a homeowners association predate current development standards or were often an afterthought of the developer. The vegetation in and around the storm ponds is not well planned or established. Residents have no personal ownership in the storm ponds, and the ponds often become eyesores to the community. The owners are never educated about the their roles and responsibilities regarding storm system maintenance. Within a couple of years, people have thrown yardwaste and old tires into the storm pond. The neighborhood children, always curious and looking for a place to play, have constructed a BMX track complete with jumps. Today’s homeowners are also more transient. Families commonly move every four to five years, and even in a neighborhood with an effective association, transience takes a toll. As residents change, much of the corporate knowledge about roles, responsibilities, and neighborhood history disappears. Thus, common threads of understanding become less and less focused. People soon tire of doing things because “that’s the way we have always done it.”What Are the Solutions, and What Does Lacey Do?The City of Redmond, WA, has an example of the “deluxe with bacon” I&M program. Redmond has a very strong economic base with 1,200 commercial properties. Redmond’s private facility I&M program employs 2.5 FTEs. Implementation of the program included developing an extensive database that facilitates geographic information system location, report generation, letter production, and scheduling inspections. Field inspectors are supplied with vehicles and safety equipment appropriate to their duties. They perform development inspections and respond to spills. Redmond has an effective program that is backed by the authority to cite noncompliant property owners. Similar to most Phase II communities, Lacey still employs a proactive program of reacting to problems as they are identified (irony intended). Problem identification occurs in many ways. Most often city staff will observe a private facility in need of care while performing work in the area. The forces of nature can also be a good source for problem identification. Three years of above-average rainfall generated innumerable phone calls from residents with nuisance flooding problems. The most insidious form of identification occurs when high concentrations of pollutants appear in city-owned storm facilities or in one of the city’s surface waters. This occurs infrequently, however, because most storm systems in Lacey have no surface discharge.Once a problem has been identified, the city contacts the owner. Face-to-face contact is the preferred method. Owners or responsible parties are often difficult to locate, and contact is made by mail, noting the deficiencies and describing needed corrective actions. Should the owner fail to comply, a more aggressive letter to the owner explains that failing to take remedial action will result in the city performing necessary repairs at the owner’s expense. Every effort is made to ensure that the owner is educated through the process. Because the services of a professional landscaper generally cost less than the services of the city, most recalcitrant owners have complied. This approach has been effective. Only the impacted owners are targeted, however, and it is a very time-consuming process for staff. City representatives also attend homeowners association meetings to provide technical assistance, blueprints of neighborhood storm systems, and guidance on maintenance needs appropriate to the neighborhood. This approach has been well received by associations, but the effects are also limited in scope and useful life. The importance of maintenance must be shared with all of the owners, not just with an association.The city has also discussed the option of assuming ownership of all stormwater facilities. This option is very distasteful, as there are approximately 300 private stormwater systems. The magnitude of the maintenance resources needed to support this approach is immense. Stormwater utility rates would have to be dramatically increased. The level of service and the quality of maintenance would most certainly be different from the expectations of many of the ratepayers. From a compliance perspective, this approach would be much easier to manage, but the changes the approach would require are very unattractive.Several years ago, Lacey stormwater staff analyzed the resources needed to implement a “deluxe with bacon” program. City maintenance staff performed a number of mock inspections on various private storm systems to estimate the average time required for an inspection. It would take one FTE two years to make one complete round of inspections through the city. One of the most time-consuming parts of the initial effort would be modifying the city’s stormwater inventory. After the first round of inspections, the staff effort would go down to approximately 0.5 FTE. Other costs exist, however, such as a vehicle, a database to support the program, and a new ordinance granting authority to cite uncooperative owners.During 2000 and 2001, the city was awarded a public information and education grant through the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Under the terms of the grant, the city held three storm pond maintenance workshops. The city hired a consultant to facilitate the production of mailers, contact neighborhoods, invite people to the workshops, and set up for the workshops. Each workshop had representatives from four or five homeowners associations; all residents were welcome to attend. City staff taught the class and included a short lesson on the source of stormwater, theories behind its management, common problems found with residential storm systems, and minimum maintenance needs. Afterward, participants were able to talk one on one with staff and ask specific questions. In addition, participating neighborhoods were offered the chance to participate in a neighborhood storm pond cleanup day facilitated by the city. Staff attended and sweated alongside homeowners at eight storm pond cleanup events. Each work party began with a brief tour of the stormwater facility to give homeowners a better understanding of the functions of their respective storm systems. Almost 9 tons of trash and debris were removed, with a total of 125 homeowners participating. All debris removed from the ponds was hauled and disposed of at the city’s expense. Participant evaluations were very positive. Residents were able to meet neighbors, and the field days aided in creating a sense of community. Ideally this process helped develop a deeper sense of ownership for the residents. At a minimum, residents were provided with a better understanding and respect for their storm systems. The most understated benefit of the program was an increased understanding that city staffers are not purely regulatory drum beaters. The program opened up a channel of communication between residents and staff. In fact, participant evaluations commonly mentioned the value of personal contact with city staff. The final cost of the project, including staff time, was $20,000. Because of the success of the project, Lacey has applied for a Centennial Clean Water Fund grant with the Cities of Olympia and Tumwater and Thurston County to repeat the project across multiple jurisdictions. The city is not yet ready to fund the storm pond maintenance workshop as a programmatic element of its comprehensive program, nor is it prepared to take a “stormwater cop” approach. Lacey is currently implementing a “maintenance lite” approach. This is not meant to imply that there is little effort or commitment. Instead, multiple approaches are used and are dynamic by nature. The storm pond maintenance workshop should become a programmatic element of the stormwater program within the next two years. The goal would be to make a five-year visitation cycle through the city. In conjunction with this education effort, the city authorized hiring an additional seasonal employee to help the maintenance division during the busy season. This allows a small redistribution of time for existing staff to implement an inspection program. The inspection program will also take approximately five years to make one cycle through the city.SummaryBecause of the public’s resistance to ever-increasing taxation, jurisdictions are not anxious to increase service rates to support larger programs. Meanwhile, mandates at both the state and federal levels increase the responsibilities and liabilities of local jurisdictions. Combined, these issues lead to a tendency by jurisdictions to require individual property owners to take responsibilities that have often been managed by the jurisdiction. As population centers continue to grow, more and more jurisdictions will be forced to either assume ownership of all infrastructure with larger utility programs to support or require property owners to assume more responsibility.Regardless of a jurisdiction’s management protocols, maintenance is a ubiquitous issue. Stormwater that is entirely managed within the confines of a project boundary can still pose threats to surface water, groundwater, or property if not properly managed. Improperly treated stormwater can cause the failure of infiltration or detention systems. In the West, this is especially poignant because of recent Endangered Species Act listings. Lacey has found inspections and education efforts coupled with interactive field activities to be very effective. Pure enforcement fosters isolation between the public and public agencies.Eventually, proactive I&M will need to be addressed by every jurisdiction, not only Phase I and Phase II communities. Compliance enforcement efforts must be tailored to the relationship between a jurisdiction and its customers. Cooperation with and by residents is very important when trying to change behavior. Whether implementing a “deluxe with bacon” or “maintenance lite” program, balance is the key.