Comments on: Storm Water Utility Opponents Meet Monday

By: RSH

RSH — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:15:22 +0000

i don’t think any of the churches and business are against paying a fee. The problem I heard was how much some of the churches and business had to pay. Some of those bills were as high as $10,000/year. That sure is alot of money for a business or church to pay especially in a bad economy.

By: Justin @ westover b.c.

Justin @ westover b.c. — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:12:17 +0000

For what it’s worth, this pastor is pretty disgusted at how some of my colleagues are responding to the storm water utility fee.

I have spoken in favor of the fee in several church gatherings, and, while plenty of our members at Westover Baptist did sign the petition, I refused. I have made it clear how foolish I think protests are, particularly those that erroneously claim this is a separation of church and state issue.

Environmentally speaking, churches are part of the problem. Being a good Christian and a good citizen means being part of the solution, i.e., paying our share.

By: Sundagger

Sundagger — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:54:33 +0000

It might be helpful for those who support the stormwater utility, and do not want SWM on your RE tax bill, to make that known to the mayor. It’s budget time, so it is especially important to let him know where you stand. Contact info on the cioty website, http://www.richmondgov.com.

By: debbieh

debbieh — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:44:37 +0000

Thanks for all the tips on rain barrels!

By: tvnewsbadge

tvnewsbadge — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:02:58 +0000

Nope, the way I heard it, Reva is the one who is fighting for the homeowner…

Of course, I was occupied at the time she was speaking and can’t swear to that.

By: sundagger

sundagger — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:09:11 +0000

So Trammel and Robertson, who never vote together, vote for the higher tax rate? Who else?

By: tvnewsbadge

tvnewsbadge — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:55:55 +0000

Stopped by the meeting, feeling under the weather so didn’t stay long, but no preachers while I was there played the religious exemption angle… they seemed more concerned with the Dillon Rule implications and bad faith issues from City Hall.

Reva Trammel broke some news though… If I understood her correctly, City Council has the votes to pass a fat increase in the Real Estate tax rate.

By: Heather

Heather — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:54:59 +0000

Henrico parks and rec. offers a class to make them and will sell you the extra barrels when they have them available. I think it cost $35?

By: CSB

CSB — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:10:17 +0000

Tricycle gardens and the James River foundation do Rain Barrel workshops now and again. There was also a guy selling them at the market last year, IIRC. They also show up on Craigslist quite frequently, all of which are usually $50-$75 ish.

By: Richard.H

Richard.H — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:49:06 +0000

Several groups also host workshops that allow you to build your own. I’ll keep an eye out and post when I found out.

By: Sundagger

Sundagger — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:47:12 +0000

For rain barrels. I think you canactually buy them from Amazon. I found them from the Rivanna River Soil and Water District. About $100 each, with all hardware.

By: debbieh

debbieh — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:36:12 +0000

Richard, we had our audit a couple months ago. Got high marks in some areas, but need improvement in others. We are in need of a rain barrel as well – let me know if you find one at a reasonable price.

By: Stuffa

Stuffa — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:15:53 +0000

Also to #8: Because it’s the right thing to do.

It can also save a homeowner money in watering costs during the summer months. Reducing runoff in general, and using rain barrels in particular, means that there can be water available for use in the yard/garden without having to utilize the city water supply.

So, it’s also a smart thing to do.

Should the city offer incentives, it would be even smarter.

By: Sundagger

Sundagger — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:42:29 +0000

#8…a copuple of reasons for Richard to try to manage stormwater. First, it is good public policy; it helps reduce the flow of water into the river, and the flow of pollutants into the bay. Second, under legislation approved by the just ended session of the legislature, localities will be able to develop incentive programs for homeowners ho reduce runoff, and rain barrells are a great way to do that.

By: Stuffa

Stuffa — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:28:54 +0000

Gravel is not impervious at all. Water trickles down through it versus sheeting off and down into a storm drain.

I don’t think that ANYONE should be exempt from this particular fee.

By: Jennifer C.

Jennifer C. — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:40:45 +0000

How impervious is a gravel railbed?

By: Jonathan Mallard

Jonathan Mallard — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:33:10 +0000

*ALL* property owners?

Good luck with any discussions involving the railroads.

By: CSB

CSB — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:52:53 +0000

Richard, why bother spending the money on rain barrels and stormwater management when the city is charging you for the service? :)

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:03:44 +0000

When you label something a “grievous burden,” you’d better be sure it really is. The people of Haiti are dealing with a grievous burden right now; the people of Richmond stuck with a stormwater utility fee, not so much.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:33:16 +0000

People and organizations on the network of water/sewer should pay the costs of infastructure within that system.

I find it shocking that property tax payers are funding free water/sewer for exempt parties like colleges and univerities, state and federal governments, non-profits and churches (as mentioned by sundagger – thanks for pointing that out!)

Pass the cost on directly to the users of the system. The churches have no leg to stand on.

By: Richard.H

Richard.H — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:31:18 +0000

In related news the Reedy Creek Coalition is coming by this morning to do an audit of our house/property to see what we can do to improve the damage we cause to the watershed. I already know we need rain barrels but will be interested to see what else they have to say. I full post on it will be up late today/tonight or tomorrow.

By: Scott Burger

Scott Burger — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:29:42 +0000

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/011024.html

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:05:56 +0000

I guess these opponents don’t care about EVERYONE’s responsibility for improving water quality and bringing the Chesapeake Bay back to life. I mean, you know, what do they care about God’s creation and stewardship? I am sure they have all already put rain barrels up on every one of their churches’s gutter spouts and replaced their asphalt parking lots with green pavers, right?

By: tvnewbadge

tvnewbadge — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:47:03 +0000

I thought this transparent attempt to pick the pockets of every taxpayer to increase the revenue stream of local churches had already been shot down.

I hope if anyone covers this meeting they get some video or stills of the high end vehicles a lot of these pocket pickin’ padres will be driving to the meetin’ place.

What I don’t get is why their own congregations put up with this.
After all, they’re going to be hit with the same increase in their tax burden that the rest of the community will be facing, and many of them can’t even afford to drive around in a broken down Ford, certainly not the high end Mercedes and BMW’s a lot of local preachers wheel around in.

By: sundagger

sundagger — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:17:51 +0000

Richmond implemented a stowm water utility in 2009 after four years of study, public hearings, community involvement and rate tweeking. At least five public discussions took place in the Fourth District, including one aimed specifically at churches and non profits. (six people attended)
Historically Richmond paid for SWM out of the general fund, that is, from the real estate tax. The problems that caused are two-fold. First, it makes SWM compete with every other city need for funding, including schools, police, fire, social services, etc. Every year the infrastructure fell into a little more disrepair. Second, a system that relies on real estate taxes excludes from paying about 50% of the property in the city, which is non taxed. That includes coleges and univerities, state and federal governments, non-profits and churches. All receive services; none pay RE taxes, so the entire burden falls on those who pay taxes. Under the SW utility, every property owner pays a fee to cover the costs of SWM. The fees collected allow the city to do two things. Firt, it creates a revenue stream to pay for the costly projects that environmental agncies are requiring. Second, it finally funds the routine “ditches and drains” projects that move water from the streets and yards through collection systems and away.
It is not necessary to have a SW utility, but if a city creates one, it is, by law, a requirement that no class of property can be exempt from fees.
It is necessary to fund the management of storm water from some source. If these protestors are successful, the effect on the tax rate will be about 4.5% increase on the real estate tax rate.

It is also interesting to note that the organizaer of the protests is a minister, whose congregation lives overwhelmingly in Chesterfielod County, so they wouldn’t pay anyway.