http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/ED-RUNO29_20090728-172804/282663/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

This has been a long time coming…

http://www.oregonhill.net/?s=stormwater

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…

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

* 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.

VCU, despite its huge footprint, will be exempt.