Stormwater Utility Information
Folks are starting to receive their Stormwater Assessment and might be wondering about this new bill. I have a few answers. The information below comes from the city website so don’t kill the messenger. The FAQ is where I grabbed these but there is bunch more information on the main page including details on lessening your impact. I should also add that these fees go into effect July 1st.
How is the fee calculated and how much do I have to pay?
Richmond proposes a three-tiered rate structure for single family residential (SFR) parcels based on the amount of impervious surface area that a parcel contains.
RESIDENTIAL
Rates per Single Family Residential (SFR) parcelAnnual Fee
SFR parcels less than or equal to 1,000 sq. ft $25/yr.
SFR parcels between 1,001 – 2,399 sq. ft. $45/yr.
SFR parcels greater than 2,400 sq. ft. $70/yr.What is funded under this program?
The main components of the program are:
- Regulatory Compliance including water quality monitoring, floodplain management, and meeting the requirements of the City Stormwater Permit.
- Capital Improvements including storm sewer installation, culvert and ditch upgrades, stream restoration, water quality retrofits, and storm drainage master planning and engineering
- Operation and Maintenance including inspection and maintenance of catch basins, drainage ditches, detention ponds, and other stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) facilities
- Asset Renewal including catch basin and storm drain rehabilitation and replacement
- Example: Battery Park & Shockoe Bottom projects.
Richard, this is very useful. Heretofore, stormwater/drainage was paid from the General Fund, and frequently was the last program funded, as many of us south of the river know. Since 52% of the real estate in the city is tax exempt, that meant that the remaining 48% of us paid the bill for the entire city. Now, with the utility, the cost will be spread to all programs owners, whether tax exempt or not.
“Now, with the utility, the cost will be spread to all programs owners, whether tax exempt or not.”
VCU, despite its huge footprint, will be exempt.
Actually, it looks like there is new info on the FAQ, so it remains to be seen:
* Commercial, industrial, non-profits, schools, colleges/universities, state and federal owned properties and parking lots that have infrastructure or facilities set up to control the quality and quantity of stormwater run-off from their property may apply for a full or partial credit, up to 50% of the stormwater fee that is assessed.
SO VCU would not be exempt, would just be able to earn credits through mitigation?
It’s unclear.
This is nothing more than another tax – thinly disguised as a fee – for an issue that hasn’t materially changed in 35 years. The City’s size hasn’t grown since the 70′s, therfore, it stands to reason that the land area to drain is the same.
I wonder if the average rainfall has changed appreciably? (The answer is no!)
Pay close attention to the handwritten notes on page 5 of the following document.
http://tinyurl.com/l5nrl9
Also, pay attention to their use of quotation marks around such items as “funding” and “no new taxes”
More fun reading can be found here:
http://www.richmondgov.com/departments/publicutilities/Resource.aspx
[...] provision for credits or fee reductions if you take steps to reduce the runoff from your property. [via] Posted by john_m at 6:25AM under environment, [...]
Individual stormwater assessment letters will be mailed shortly, with a large notation on the frontr “This is Not a Bill.” Mailing will also provide information on how to appeal the assement.
The City’s boundaries may not have changed much since the 70′s, but there sure has been a lot of building and paving done over the last 30+ years! One need look no further than the intersection of Forest Hill Avenue and Chippenham Parkway for a fine example of 100 +/- acres that was mostly wooded 10 or so years ago and is now impervious surface. That’s just in our little corner of the City…All of that development translates into *much* more runoff that needs handling.
In the meantime, you might be able to reduce the fee by re-evaluating some of the hard-scaping on your property. A gravel driveway is permeable, a paved one is not: likewise a patio. One might be able to lobby for a credit for installing a rain garden, or a green roof on the carport.
The fact is that our infrastructure is in rough shape nation wide: I for one don’t have a problem paying less than $50 per year to address some of those problems locally…
Stephanie,
State law does not currently allow abatement credits for private home-owners. That’s something the city wants to change in the next session of the General Assembly.
Thanks David! It would be a great incentive (or excuse) for some to go watershed friendly.
As an environmentalist, I am not against the stormwater utility. As I have said all along, I demand that it is applied fairly (senior exempt is b.s., VCU exempt is EXTREME b.s.), and that the money raised goes to actually preventing stormwater runoff (that means more than putting giant pipes in the ground that just moves more water around).
This has been a long time coming…
http://www.oregonhill.net/?s=stormwater
David:
It would be very helpful if the City staff could publicly let the City Residents know about their intentions to change the Code to allow for credits to residential homeowners. I think that kind of legislation is something people would widely support and be willing to contact their elected officials about.
Several environmental organizations and individuals had hoped these credits would help prevent stormwater by providing a financial incentive for residents to adopt conservation practices. The Dillon Rule was always brought up as an excuse on why this could not be done. If there is a serious effort to correct this at the General Assembly, people need to know about it so they can become involved. I hope someone from the City government reads this and sees the wisdom in communicating their supposed intentions to the community!
Re: #9
Nice try, but that’s a non-issue. Note carefully the large detention pond in the middle of the property and the even larger ones behind the strip mall to contain the runoff from the lower lots. As David will surely tell you, they were probably prohibited from draining onto the railroad right of way.
Practically none of that runoff is seen by the city system and in fact, probably lessens the load to the City.
So, we’re back to the original thesis: a new, poorly disguised tax during a period of economic uncertainty.
Robert,
The City cannot change the Code; that is the authority of the legislature. If the City Administration goes ahead with this, the normal process is that during the fall, the administration and/or City Council develop a legislative package. We hope that this year it is a unified package. That document is public, and my memory is that it is actually in the form of a resolution, although I may be wrong on that. That package is then presented to the General Assembly. If citizens are interested, it pays to stay informed, through following Council actions, newspaper and television coverage, newsletters, etc.
No need to get so snippy, ducky.
I cited two examples of *commercial* development in our own back yard, so to speak, thinking that such mention would obviate the need to point out that a significant amount of residential development has *also* occurred in the same time frame.
Apparently I was wrong.
You’re only considering the Targe/Ukrops complex. Where is the retention pond for Walmart/Lowes? For the Wawa? For the Arbors Senior Living? That’s just that one intersection…
Your assertion that the land area to drain remains the same is a red herring: this is about impervious surfaces which, if one has even the most basic powers of observation, have proliferated over the years.
It may also be news to you that the retention pond overflow winds up in the permanent stream nearby, which, if I’m not mistaken, eventually makes its way to the James (exacerbating flooding), which flows into the Bay.
Give the tax protest a rest. It’s a fee, and a very small one at that.
I agree with Scott that the bigger bone to pick is the fact that residents are apparently bearing more of a burden than commercial/government entities. I’d like to see that change.
David:
All I am saying is if the City is really sincere about wanting to provide breaks for residential properties, they should make those intentions known to the citizens. I had no intention of posting on this blog until I saw the statement that the City staff wants to be able to offer this option to residents.
If this is really the case, then it would be great if City staff would communicate their intentions to the public. I would bet that there would be a good deal of citizen support behind such an amendment at the General Assembly.
I actually support the stormwater utility, unlike many others. I just want to see the funds used so the environmental impacts of stormwater is actually reduced, rather than seeing questionable stream straightening projects that cost millions and result in downstream pollution and flooding issues.
If stormwater is reduced, we would not have to see another $1.7 million being spent on dredging the lake at Forest Hill Park.
So, I am requesting City staff make their intentions known as to whether they are going to pursue legislation so that credits can be offered to residents. If there is silence and no official response to this publicly made request, we all have our answer.
If there is reply, it would be nice if the City can work with some key community members collaboratively to get legislation introduced at the General Assembly. From personal experience, I can state it is not that difficult to have legislation introduced. Getting it through is a little tougher, but it can be done. I think it would sail though given the reactions on this and other City blogs…
I agree with every point.
Jon Mallard (#6), I get your argument but think you are wrong. This is a fee and not a tax for a simple reason: a fee is incurred by everyone who benefits from the service: The feds, state, and non-profits would be exempt from paying this if it were a tax but they are not exempt from fees. Sure, the state may get a discount (not sure if they do or not), but if they pay something – which would be significant given all the land they own and don’t pay taxes on) it’s better than if they pay nothing, in which case the residents bear the burden of paying the load for those listed above.
Also, you’re incorrect about about nothing changing since the 1970′s. The size of the City hasn’t changed, you are correct, but when the City annexed a lot of Chesterfield, the problems already existed. Chesterfield never did anything and since they reverted to Richmond, we haven’t either. Call it the Annexation revenge.
Regardless, you still have to fix the problem. The German School Road project is an example. That was annexed from Chesterfield like 40 years ago and was bad then and remained so until they spent $20 million last year to fix it. Now Channel 12 will have to go elsewhere during heavy rain to find flooding.
It stinks you have to pay more, but the money is put into a specific fund to pay for only stormwater projects and nothing else. Calling it a tax would mean the fee is higher and I don’t think you want that. I know I don’t.
If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck.
If it walks like a tax, acts like a tax, and quacks like a tax, its a duck.
The problems not being fixed is a separate issue. Walk around some of those neighborhoods and it’s clear that problems are the least of their worries. They’d probably prefer to start with receiving basic services.
Leadership involves having a debate over and allocating resources that are subject to scarcity. Leadership does not involve deferring the issue for 39 years and then issuing a new tax that is not guaranteed to be directed at the problem.
Jonathan, it is guaranteed to be directed at the problem, as you well know. It is a utility special fund.
I am sincerely happy that this conversation/debate is happening. As I have said before, I am not necessarily against the stormwater utility as long as it is fairly applied and is actually used to stop stormwater runoff.
Jonathon is right to question the nature of the beast. Back in the 90′s Richmond citizens saw a special surcharge on their gas utility bills. The money went into the General Fund and was used on things like buying the Thalheimer building downtown and building the Canal Walk. In essence it was a tax from a PUBLIC utility. It was only after the Richmond Greens raised the issue that then City Manager Jamison got rid of it.
I am going to post something soon about what VCU will be charged for its share (which could be a welcome development). I am hoping the City will use the money to develop a ‘Green Alley’ program similar to what Chicago has. But in the meantime, keep the pressure on.
So Jonathan, are you saying you would rather call it a tax instead of a fee and have residents suck it up for the non-profits and non-taxpayers?
If they can collect it and direct the money ONLY to fixing the problem, I don’t care what they call it, especially if calling it a fee means I have to pay less!
Tom has the key point. 52% of the property is tax-exempt, shifting the burden to the 48% that actually pays RE taxes. The utility charges everybody. If the rain falls on you, you pay. That certainly has to be more fair. But we can do better. Let’s press for a change in City Charter/State Code to permit credits for residential owners. Let’s continue to look for ways we can reduce runoff, such as requiringpervious parking lots, or collection basins. But don;t carp at the SW Utility, because it really is a good idea, and moves us forward. We benefit, the river benefits, the bay benefits.
This deserves so much more than I have time for tonight. Briefly:
I think that it is a tax no matter what pseudonyms you wish to attach to it. If it smells, walks, etc. If you need to raise taxes, fine. Have that discussion with the people you’re taxing. Somehow these fees seem to hang on forever – like that universal line charge we pay each month to fund the Spanish American War.
Within that discussion comes having to make hard decisions if the people don’t want to be taxed more. That’s called doing your job, not avoiding it.
As for the equity in rainwater, please! Under that doctrine, I fully expect that the water rates will be equitably adjusted so that the individual homeowners no longer subsidize businesses at the same rate for the first 10,000 gallons per month. Scott Burger has been way out in front on this one.
I’m not holding my breath on the second point.
Jonathan, I would agree a sunset date should be attached to the fee, say 10 years or whatever it takes. But your obsession with what to call it ignores the fact that it is called a fee to be equitable to the residents. Which as you rightly point out, the water rates are NOT structured that way.
It’s ironic you argue for fair water rates but would rather call the Stormwater fee a tax and make those rates UNfair just so it is properly named.
It’s also worth noting that we are in the second year of a five-year plan to make the water rates less regressive.
Why should citizens have to wait for five years to go by before a seriously unjust situation is supposedly fixed?
Because, think about it Scott, as the rates are shifted, previous large users who got a break will have to pay more. This phases in the changes, so that businesses have a chance to prepare. Remember business? They are the people who create jobs, pay salaries, provide goods and services, pay the lion’s share of the tax burden. Face it, Chris Beschler is a gifted public manager, and he has done as a good a job with this as he has the other projects assigned to him.
What about the citizens that employ the talented Mr. Beschler?
I can understand a year, but five years of continued ‘break’ for businesses vs. citizens?
It’s not like citizens have a choice about paying for water. Also consider that the counties buy water from the City, yet charge their citizens less for it.
who woulda thought that a $50 fee/tax/whatchamacallit would generate such debate!
Much more later:
Tom – Pointing out the concept of trying to have your cake and eat it too. Thusfar, it would seem successful. Given the economic situation, I will posit it is unsustainable.
Interesting defense of business rights by David. So much for equal protection under the law.
Jonathan, David is absolutely correct. You complain about the lack of equal protection under the law, which is what us residents have NEVER had. Now that someone wants to fix it, you complain about the proper terminology rather than the fact that the new water rates and the SW utility WILL BE EQUITABLE, but you say it is the opposite. Can you explain that?
And Scott’s bemoaning of the five-year implementation is equally as puzzling. How would you do it Scott, just do it all in one year? You are talking about businesses that will owe thousands and tens of thousands of dollars. I would think you’d be a little supportive that is is finally happening at all.
“that the new water rates and the SW utility WILL BE EQUITABLE”
I will not go as far as to say that statement is untrue, but it does remain to be seen. I would like to see more info.
For example, I am very glad to hear that VCU will pay for 2,356 ERUs resulting in an annual SW utility charge of approximately $106,000. I am told this involves 185 parcels. This is a lot better than nothing, which is what I was initially lead to believe. How does this compare to average annual residential charge of $45? And what is VCU doing to actually solve its stormwater issues? More scrutiny is not a bad thing.
As for my “bemoaning”…
Why should citizens be forced to subsidize businesses’ water bills any longer? At least publicly admit its still very unjust and surprising that it has been happening as long as it has. How about some honesty and humility for a change?
Think of the thousands of Richmond citizens who are scrambling to survive right now and are forced to choose between paying rent, buying medicine, or paying the water bill? Talk about being “little supportive”!
So some of the bigger corporations/water users would have to make a larger dent/entry in their operating budgets and might be forced to cut some profits and dividends. You expect me to feel sorry for them after their water bills were essentially being subsidized by citizens for decades? Attack the top users and work down within a year’s time. Who knows, maybe some of them will actually do more to conserve water if they were made to pay for what they use instead of expecting a ‘break’. Create some work for plumbers and aquatic engineers.
It’s time for RIchmond to grow up and be accountable to citizens and stop the corporate welfare coddling. Hell, its time for the whole country to do the same.
[...] stormwater utility issue is refocusing attention to the water rates issue. Silver, as usual, is doing a lion’s [...]
I want to know how the city chose the square footage? Does anyone seriously think that they hired someone to go through the records of each house, including how many stories, the size of any impermeable patios or sheds on the property or whether ground samples were taken to check for permeability? Why should family A pay what family B does if 30% less water is going back into the sewage/drainage system? What if I have a double lot with heavy clay as the soil base and a small house? The result is I pay little and have more water runoff. What about sun exposure? Maybe my neighbor has much more sun and there for a greater rate of evaporation? Fee or tax? Who cares? It won’t/can’t be applied fairly and that’s the real shame.
Wil,
from the top:
Richmond proposes a three-tiered rate structure for single family residential (SFR) parcels based on the amount of impervious surface area that a parcel contains.
You have a point but also please realize that a big part of the impetus for the City’s stormwater utility is coming from state government’s impending environemntal requirements. Hopefully over time both the state and city governments will refine the utility laws and perhaps accomodate some of your concerns. Like I said, citizens need to keep the pressure on, yet also recognize that hopefully, in the long run, we will all benefit from less stormwater runoff in the form of a cleaner watershed.
The water rates, on the other hand, are a related item that deserve even more attention.
Looks like the TD is finally examining the differences between ducks and taxes.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/ED-RUNO29_20090728-172804/282663/
[...] Department of Public Utilities will mailed the stormwater utility bills to Fourth District residents October 6th. That means you should be getting them today or tomorrow. [...]