&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy
(1807T)
June 2013
EPA-100-K-13-0004
Evaluation of the Role of
Public Outreach and
Stakeholder Engagement in
Stormwater Funding
Decisions in New England:
Lessons from Communities
Promoting Environmental Results
< >
Through Evaluation
-------
Page intentionally blank
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements i
Executive Summary ii
Methodology and Cases iii
Summary of Findings iv
Recommendations vii
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation 1
1.2. Intended Audience 2
1.3. Report Organization 2
2. Stormwater Regulatory Framework and Funding 4
2.1. Stormwater Regulatory Framework 4
2.2. Stormwater Funding 5
2.3. Stormwater Utilities in the United States 6
2.4. Stormwater Regulation and Utilities in New England 7
3. Methodology 10
3.1. Evaluation Hypotheses and Questions 11
3.2. Information Collection and Analysis 17
3.3. Caveats and Limitations 19
4. Findings 21
4.1. Overview of Communities 21
4.2. Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement 27
4.3. Other Factors Influencing Funding Mechanism Adoption and Support 39
5. Recommendations 56
5.1. Recommendations for State and Federal Stormwater Regulatory Agencies 56
5.2. Recommendations for State or Regional Agencies and Organizations 57
6. Conclusion 59
Appendix A: Logic Model 60
Appendix B: Description of Communities 62
South Portland/Long Creek, Maine 63
South Burlington, Vermont 69
Reading, Massachusetts 73
Raleigh, North Carolina 79
Manchester, New Hampshire 84
Berkeley County, South Carolina 87
Huntsville, Alabama 91
Dover, New Hampshire 95
Lewiston, Maine 102
Newton, Massachusetts 106
Warren County, Kentucky 110
Appendix C: Project Contacts 113
Appendix D: New England Regional Stormwater Program Funding Symposium 114
Overview 114
Key Themes and Discussion Points 114
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England
-------
Acknowledgements
Ross Strategic and Industrial Economics, Incorporated (lEc) conducted this evaluation under Contract EP-
W-10-002 between lEc and EPA's Office of Policy. The consulting team consisted of Tom Beierle, Andy
Chinn, and Anna Williams of Ross Strategic.
This project was the result of a submission from EPA Region 1 to an annual program evaluation
competition at EPA. EPA's Evaluation Support Division (ESD) within the Office of Strategic Environmental
Management in EPA's Office of Policy selected the proposal. The project proceeded with the oversight
and advice of a team composed of EPA personnel from Region 1, ESD, and the Office of Water. Team
members were: Anne Leiby (Region 1), Josh Secunda (Region 1), Sarah Levinson (Region 1), Ray Cody
(Region 1), Carl Koch (ESD), Yvonne Watson (ESD), and Mike Mason (Office of Water).
The project team would like to thank the project contacts for the valuable information they provided
and thank participants at an October 2012 New England symposium on stormwater funding for
providing initial feedback on project findings. The team would also like to thank external reviewers that
provided comments on a draft of this report: Warren Campbell at Western Kentucky University and Julie
Beth Hinds at Birchline Planning.
EPA's Office of Policy and EPA Region 1 provided support for this evaluation. To access copies of this or
other EPA program evaluations, please visit EPA's Evaluation Support Division website at
http://www.epa.gov/evaluate.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page i
-------
Executive Summary
In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued rules under the Clean Water Act that
required many small communities with municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) to obtain
permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. These MS4 communities face significant fiscal and
other challenges in implementing stormwater management programs to comply with Clean Water Act
requirements, control flooding, and protect local water resources. A critical element of an effective
stormwater management program is adequate and sustainable funding. MS4 experiences across the
country suggest that development of support among community stakeholders is an important step for
communities seeking to adopt and implement stormwater funding strategies.
Nationally, MS4 communities have considered several options to fund their stormwater programs.
However, the public funding discussions often center on whether to fund stormwater management
costs through the communities' general fund (i.e., property taxes), create a dedicated funding
mechanism like a stormwater utility, or use a combination of the two approaches. Stormwater utilities
typically raise funds by assessing user fees to residential, commercial, industrial and non-profit property
owners. The user fee is generally based on the total square footage of impervious surface area of their
properties.
This evaluation report describes lessons about the role and design of public outreach and stakeholder
engagement strategies related to community stormwater funding decisions. The evaluation is based on
the experiences of eleven small and medium-sized communities, primarily—but not exclusively—in New
England. The evaluation has two complementary goals: first, to evaluate whether and how public
outreach and stakeholder engagement efforts (including the use of consensus-building protocols)
influenced the adoption of stormwater funding mechanisms; and second, to draw on the communities'
experiences to identify lessons for other MS4 communities considering stormwater program funding
solutions.
The evaluation report focuses on stormwater utilities because they are the most prevalent funding
mechanism nationally. Further, utilities were the primary funding mechanism considered by the
communities evaluated.1
The geographic focus of the report is New England, where stormwater utilities are much less prevalent
than in other regions of the country. Of the approximately 500 New England communities subject to
stormwater requirements for MS4s under the Clean Water Act, only 10 have established stormwater
utilities.
1 EPA does not endorse the adoption of any specific stormwater program funding mechanism; that decision is up to individual
MS4 communities. However, many of the insights and lessons in this report will apply to other sustainable stormwater funding
strategies that communities may consider.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page ii
-------
Methodology and Cases
The research on which this report is based followed a program evaluation methodology consistent with
other program evaluations supported by EPA's Evaluation Support Division (ESD) using methods
common to the program evaluation field.
The program evaluation methodology for this project focused on answering twelve specific evaluation
questions. These questions—and answers to them—are detailed in the main body of the report. In
summary, these questions addressed:
• The extent to which stakeholder engagement helped communities decide on, accept, and
implement a stormwater funding mechanism (and whether alternative approaches could lead
to the same outcomes).
• The factors (e.g., community conditions, stormwater management costs, litigation risk, etc.) that
influenced: 1) the need for stakeholder processes, 2) the success of these processes, and 3)
whether communities adopted and implemented stormwater funding mechanisms.
• The factors that may have created unique challenges for communities in New England and small
and medium-sized communities generally.
• The cost of stakeholder processes (and what factors influenced costs).
• How federal and state agencies can help communities and stakeholders effectively consider
stormwater funding options.
• Resources that would be useful to communities considering stormwater funding mechanisms.
The primary information collection and analysis methodology for the project was comparative case
study analysis supplemented by discussions with national experts on stormwater program development,
funding, and consensus building. Cases included New England communities, as well as communities
outside New England that served as a comparison group to identify possible challenges that might be
unique to the New England region. The eleven selected community case studies were:
New England Communities
Other Communities
Dover (New Hampshire)
Lewiston (Maine)
Manchester (New Hampshire)
Newton (Massachusetts)
Reading (Massachusetts)
South Burlington (Vermont)
South Portland/Long Creek (Maine)
Berkeley County (South Carolina)
Huntsville (Alabama)
Raleigh (North Carolina)
Warren County (Kentucky)
Information to support the evaluation was obtained through open-ended discussions with contacts
familiar with the history of stormwater funding discussions in their communities, discussions with
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page iii
-------
national experts on stormwater funding, primary document research (e.g., city and county council
meeting minutes, newspaper articles, etc.), and published case studies. A New England Regional
Stormwater Program Funding Symposium, held in New Hampshire in October 2012, provided an
opportunity to discuss and refine preliminary findings.
Summary of Findings
The findings set forth in this report confirm that stakeholder support plays a critical role in the successful
adoption and implementation of stormwater funding mechanisms. In order to build stakeholder support
and successfully adopt a stormwater funding mechanism, public outreach strategies and focused
stakeholder engagement are critical. The specific factors that municipal decision-makers must take into
account—such as citizen or business opposition, the policy environment (e.g., enabling legislation), anti-
tax sentiments, chronic flooding, and other issues—will differ from town to town. Therefore, the specific
design of any public outreach and stakeholder engagement strategy must be tailored to uniquely
address these factors and related stakeholder concerns. The specific approaches used by the eleven
communities for engaging stakeholders differed. However, communities that effectively addressed their
stakeholders' specific concerns were more likely to adopt and implement their proposed funding
mechanism.
The experiences of the eleven case study communities suggested several ways that public outreach and
stakeholder engagement processes contributed to the development and adoption of stormwater
funding mechanisms:
• A forum to proactively educate stakeholders about the need for improved stormwater
management and funding, and for stakeholders to educate stormwater utility proponents about
their concerns.
• An opportunity to test and refine program designs by soliciting stakeholder feedback.
• An opportunity to develop innovative, collaborative solutions.
• An opportunity to find the balance between costs and services that fee payers could support.
• Access to local knowledge and expertise.
• Creation of support and momentum for a consensus-based solution.
Key lessons about effectively implementing stakeholder engagement were:
• Identify and involve all key stakeholders.
• Proactively engage stakeholders that support developing a utility and those that oppose it.
• Foster deliberation and exchange of ideas among stakeholders with many points of view.
• Start by discussing what the proposed program should accomplish, and only then talk about
how to fund it.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page iv
-------
• Implement a stakeholder engagement process appropriate to the community's circumstances
and budget.
• Recognize that building adequate community support takes more than achieving consensus on
an advisory committee's recommendation.
Key lessons on effectively developing and implementing public outreach/involvement were:
• Make a locally-compelling case that a stormwater funding program meets a critical need.
• Demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the funding approach.
• Use several forms of proactive outreach.
• Recognize that despite outreach efforts, the first bill arriving in the mail will be the first time
many people become aware of the new fee—be responsive and flexible through the first few
billing cycles.
As mentioned above, the experiences of the communities evaluated in this report demonstrate that
implementation of public outreach strategies and focused stakeholder engagement are critical to
creating support for stormwater funding mechanisms. However, other factors also affected this support
and subsequent adoption of stormwater funding solutions, as described below.
Local Community Conditions. Case contacts highlighted specific community conditions that influenced
the degree of support for utility proposals and the likelihood of their adoption. They were:
• A highly visible problem, such as frequent flooding, impairment of valued water bodies, or
pending litigation.
• Significant negative consequences that could be felt by stakeholders if a solution was not
implemented.
• State legislation enabling the establishment of municipal, fee-based stormwater utilities.
• Regional clustering of stormwater utilities.
• Policy priorities and/or fiscal realities that favored moving stormwater management costs to a
dedicated fund.
• Low per-capita stormwater user fees.
• Local economic conditions.
• The absence of an active local anti-tax, anti-government movement.
Program Design. Several aspects of program design that influenced the level of stakeholder and
decision-maker support included:
• Early, robust, and transparent technical analysis of costs and fees.
• Fee structures that were perceived as fair.
-------
• Recognition that some tax-exempt property owners would be paying stormwater management
fees for the first time (and, as stakeholders with specific concerns, should be engaged in
program design efforts).
• Utility proposals that included "credit systems" that offered property owners reduced user fees
if they took action within their property boundaries to reduce stormwater impacts.
• User fees that were roughly equivalent to those of similar communities.
• Accountability for how funds would be spent.
• In some cases, keeping fees "low on the public radar" (for example, by intentionally proposing
artificially low user fees and/or by subsuming stormwater user fees into existing water and
sewer bills).
Program Management. Contacts also noted that the need for community support did not end once a
utility was adopted. It was critical, they said, to effectively launch and implement user fee billing to
avoid generating controversy from stakeholders that may only have found out about the utility when
the first bills arrived. Key lessons were:
• Be competent and responsive during the initial billing cycles.
• Demonstrate that programs are providing the promised level of services.
• Ensure that the ordinance establishing the utility includes a process to adjust fees to generate
adequate revenue overtime.
Litigation. Nationally, threatened or actual litigation has influenced whether stormwater utilities were
adopted by decision-makers or whether they were repealed. Litigation has typically centered on
whether stormwater fees were, in fact, "fees" (which municipalities typically have the authority to
charge) or an unauthorized tax. With the exception of Lewiston, Maine, litigation was not a significant
issue in the communities studied for this project. However, lessons drawn from these communities'
experiences suggest that well-planned public outreach and stakeholder engagement strategies can help
communities avoid litigation by:
• Revealing and resolving legal vulnerabilities raised by conflicting stakeholder interests through
discussions.
• Involving stakeholder groups that might legally challenge a utility in stakeholder deliberations
from the beginning.
Availability of Resources. For many communities, the cost of implementing public outreach and
stakeholder engagement processes influenced whether and to what degree the communities involved
stakeholders in program design. Case contacts identified several factors that influenced their towns'
decision on whether to implement such efforts:
-------
• The degree to which a community's political leadership and staff time were devoted to public
outreach and stakeholder engagement.
• The cost of third-party neutral facilitation and process support.
• Additional costs for technical support to stakeholder advisory committees.
• The degree and complexity of the public outreach and stakeholder processes required.
Role of Local Decision-Makers. Local decision-makers' understanding of, and commitment to, a funding
solution was an important factor in utility adoption as well. Regardless of the quality of the stormwater
funding proposal, it must ultimately be adopted by city councils, county councils, Boards of Selectmen,
Boards of Aldermen, or other local political representatives. Case contacts suggested factors in addition
to public outreach and stakeholder engagement that influenced whether decision-makers adopted
stormwater utility proposals:
• The extent to which decision-makers were seeking out a funding mechanism and providing
strong, early support for a solution.
• Whether there was a local champion that made a compelling case early and often to decision-
makers.
• Whether decision-makers were kept involved throughout the stakeholder engagement and/or
program design process.
• The extent to which political risk was minimized for elected officials.
• The extent to which decision-makers were assured that program services would be adequate
and that user fees would be fair, rational, and supported by their stakeholder constituencies.
New England-Specific Challenges. Finally, the evaluation identified stormwater program funding
challenges that may particularly affect New England's MS4 communities:
• Old and failing infrastructure with concomitantly high maintenance and construction costs (i.e.,
retrofitting).
• Weak or non-existent county government.
• No critical mass of nearby successful utilities for interested MS4s to join or emulate.
Recommendations
Case contacts and stormwater funding experts suggested that federal and state entities could take a
number of actions and provide resources to help communities develop and implement stormwater
funding mechanisms. Recommendations included:
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page vii
-------
• Offer incentives to communities developing funding mechanisms to support their stormwater
management plans, such as funding for stormwater utility feasibility studies, program design
assistance, stakeholder consensus-building process design and facilitation, GIS mapping services
and aerial photography to calculate impervious surface square footage, and green infrastructure
demonstration projects.
• Enhance communication to MS4 communities about state and federal stormwater
requirements; for example, through an EPA national awareness campaign or through state
regulators' participation at local municipal meetings.
• Offer state and/or federal incentives for regional, inter-municipal watershed-based funding
solutions.
Recommendations for agencies or institutions involved in stormwater management, such as NGOs,
regional planning commissions, universities, law schools and bar associations, included:
• Identify or develop model stormwater utility ordinances based on state enabling legislation.
• Continue to evaluate and compile evaluations of MS4 communities' stormwater program
funding efforts, and analyze those that demonstrate strategic approaches to program
development, funding solutions developed through stakeholder consensus, and trouble-free
implementation.
• Establish an online clearinghouse to share the resources listed above.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page viii
-------
1. Introduction
Small and medium-sized communities with municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) face
significant fiscal and other challenges in implementing stormwater management programs to comply
with Clean Water Act requirements, control flooding, and protect local water resources.2 A critical
element of an effective stormwater management program is adequate and sustainable funding. MS4
experience across the country suggests that development of support among stakeholders in the
community is an important step for communities seeking to adopt and implement stormwater funding
strategies.3
1.1. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation
The evaluation on which this report is based examined the role of public outreach and stakeholder
engagement in stormwater funding decisions based on the experiences of eleven small and medium-
sized communities in New England and other communities around the country.4 The evaluation had two
complementary goals. The first was to evaluate whether and how public outreach and stakeholder
engagement efforts, including techniques for building consensus, were critical to the successful
adoption of sustainable stormwater funding mechanisms.5 The second goal was to draw on the eleven
communities' experiences to identify lessons for MS4 communities seeking agreement on stormwater
program funding solutions in the future. The project on which this report is based followed a rigorous
evaluation methodology guided by standard practices used in program evaluations supported by EPA's
Evaluation Support Division and by a methodology report developed at the beginning of the project.
The analysis focused on stormwater utilities as fee-based funding mechanisms because they are
prominent throughout the country and were the primary funding mechanism under consideration in the
communities evaluated. Stormwater utilities typically fund stormwater programs by charging
residential, commercial, industrial, and non-profit property owners a fee based on the amount of
2 A municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) includes (but is not limited to) catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-
made channels, pipes, tunnels, and/or storm drains that discharge to surface waters. To be recognized as an MS4 for regulatory
purposes, it must be owned by a state, city, town, village or other public entity. An MS4 cannot be part of a Publicly Owned
Treatment Works and may not operate as a combined sewer. For a complete definition, see 40 C.F.R. 122.26(b)(8).
3 In the context of this report, "stakeholders" are all groups, individuals or organizations that may be affected by the outcomes
of a project or proposal. A subset of the term is "key stakeholders," who have the ability to stop a proposed project or cause it
to fail.
4 In the context of this report, "public outreach" means proactive distribution of information about stormwater control
programs and funding solutions to as many people as possible in a community. Often, this is done through the dissemination of
brochures, bill inserts, and other materials and through local media and public meetings. "Stakeholder engagement" is defined
as convening stakeholder representatives and engaging them in a process to understand, provide input on, and/or reach
agreement on a stormwater program funding solution. In the communities studied for this project, this was often done by
appointing stakeholder advisory committees or meeting individually with stakeholder groups.
5 Consensus building is a group decision-making process that seeks to craft acceptable agreements among stakeholders.
Stakeholders can be said to have reached consensus when, after every effort has been made to meet their respective interests,
everyone agrees that they can live with the final proposal: http://web.mit.edu/publicdisputes/practice/cbh chl.html.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 1
-------
impervious area on their properties as a proxy for their use of, or impact on, the public stormwater
system. Although this report focuses on stormwater utilities, this focus does not imply that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) endorses this or any other specific stormwater funding
mechanism; that decision is up to individual MS4 communities. Many of the insights and lessons in this
report will apply to other sustainable stormwater funding strategies that communities may consider.
The evaluation focused on New England municipalities, where stormwater utilities are far less prevalent
than in other regions of the country. The theory that New England communities face particular
challenges to adopting stormwater funding mechanisms led EPA Region 1 to propose the project on
which this report is based. Although the evaluation focuses on Region 1, it also considers municipalities
in other states to draw on a broader set of community experiences and to provide a comparison with
New England.
The findings set out in this report confirm that stakeholder support plays a critical role in successful
adoption and implementation of stormwater funding mechanisms and that public outreach strategies
and focused stakeholder engagement protocols are critical elements of creating support for a funding
mechanism. The specific factors that municipal decision-makers must take into account—such as citizen
or business opposition, the policy environment, anti-tax sentiments, chronic flooding and others—will
differ from town to town. Therefore, the specific design of any public outreach and stakeholder
engagement strategy must address these factors and the stakeholder concerns they may raise. Although
the specific approaches used in the eleven communities for communicating with and involving
stakeholders differed, the communities that were able to adopt and implement funding mechanisms
were predominantly those that designed approaches that addressed their stakeholders' specific
concerns.
1.2. Intended Audience
This report is written primarily for municipal stormwater managers and decision-makers in small and
medium-sized MS4 communities and other stakeholders involved in local decisions about stormwater
funding. The report also provides information useful for state and federal agencies that write permits,
and provide assistance to MS4 communities.
1.3. Report Organization
Section 2 provides background on MS4 communities and stormwater utilities across the country and in
New England. Section 3 summarizes the project methodology (additional detail is contained in Appendix
A). Section 4 describes key findings about the role and benefits of public outreach and stakeholder
engagement, other factors that influence the successful adoption and implementation of stormwater
utilities, and specific funding challenges for New England MS4 communities. The section also provides
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 2
-------
summary information on each case. (Appendix B provides a more detailed description of each MS4 case
study.) Section 5 describes recommendations suggested by project contacts about how state, regional,
and federal agencies and organizations can help communities successfully achieve stormwater funding
solutions. Section 6 summarizes key points of the report.
Throughout the report, hyperlinks in footnotes are included when information or documents were
accessed online. The hyperlinks were accessed during the period of development for this report and all
hyperlinks were valid as of the final date of this report.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 3
-------
2. Storm water Regulatory Framework and Funding
2.1. Stormwater Regulatory Framework
Controlling stormwater helps mitigate flood events, reduce stream erosion, and reduce the amount of
contaminants entering municipal streams and other water sources. In short, it is an important part of
protecting human health and the environment and moderating the negative economic impacts of
stormwater runoff.
In 1987, amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA)6 were passed that required EPA to regulate
municipal stormwater discharges through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting process (NPDES permits control point source discharges into waters of the United States).
EPA established permitting requirements in two phases. In 1990, the agency promulgated NPDES Phase I
stormwater rules, which required MS4 systems in an incorporated place or county with populations
greater than 250,000 (large MS4s) and MS4 systems in an incorporated place or county with populations
between 100,000 and 249,999 people (medium MS4s) to obtain NPDES permits for their stormwater
discharges.7 The Phase I stormwater rules also applied to discharges in the construction and industrial
sectors. In 1999, EPA issued Phase II rules, which required a designated subset of small MS4s—referred
to as regulated small MS4s—to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges.
Regulated small MS4s include MS4 systems serving less than 100,000 people in "urbanized areas" (as
defined by the Bureau of the Census) and other MS4 systems that the permitting authority may
designate for NPDES permit coverage. Most states with federally delegated CWA programs then issued
their own (sometimes more stringent) Phase II MS4 stormwater permits.
Phase II stormwater permits require small MS4 municipalities to develop, implement and enforce
stormwater management programs to reduce their discharges to the maximum extent practicable.8
These programs are required to set out goals and best management practices (BMPs) covering six
minimum control measures:
1. Public education and outreach;
2. Public involvement and participation;
3. Construction site stormwater runoff control;
4. Post-construction site stormwater runoff control;
5. Illicit discharge detection and elimination; and
6. Pollution prevention and good housekeeping.
6 Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4) amending the CWA (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. [1972]).
Some MS4s that serve populations less than 100,000 have been brought into the Phase I program by a NPDES permitting
authority and are treated as medium or large MS4s, independent of the size of the population served.
8 EPA's regulations addressing the control of storm water discharges are found, generally, at 40 C.F.R. Part 122. EPA's authority
to designate stormwater discharges for NPDES permitting purposes is found at 40 C.F.R. 122.26(a).
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 4
-------
Some MS4 municipal boundaries include significantly impaired water bodies subject to the CWA's Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) provisions.9 MS4 stormwater permits covering such impaired water bodies
often include specific requirements for BMPs to further reduce loadings from stormwater runoff. For
example, in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, nutrient and other TMDL criteria have been incorporated
into MS4 permits issued to communities in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia.10
In addition to discharges covered under NPDES Phase I and Phase II rules, Congress provided "residual
designation authority" (RDA) allowing EPA to require permits from additional dischargers where any of
the following are true: RDA is needed to meet TMDL allocations; discharges contribute to water quality
violations; or discharges are a "significant contributor" of pollutants.11 RDA is a discretionary action that
EPA and states can exercise, and the parameters under which it is exercised continue to evolve. The
possible exercise of RDA had a direct impact in at least one of the cases studied for this evaluation.
2.2. Stormwater Funding
Most small and medium-sized communities that develop enhanced stormwater management programs
are responding primarily, but not exclusively, to state and federal MS4 permit requirements. In a 2012
EPA survey of regulated MS4 communities, over 70% of respondents noted that the main driver for their
implementation of stormwater control practices (increasingly, green infrastructure and low impact
development practices) was their MS4 permits.12 The remainder stated that flooding was their primary
driver.
No direct federal funding has been provided for implementation of the NPDES Phase II requirements,
but municipal stormwater work may be eligible for subsidized loans through State Revolving Funds,
which are supported by federal funding. MS4 communities often find current budgets for stormwater
management insufficient to fund the more stringent permit requirements. Historically, stormwater
programs have often been funded through property tax revenues (i.e., a "general fund"), and
stormwater management responsibilities were typically distributed among various local government
departments (e.g., streets, public works, engineering, etc.). Many communities planning upgraded MS4
compliance activities are therefore unaware of their precise level of stormwater-related spending
9 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): A TMDL establishes the amount of a pollutant that a water body can assimilate without
exceeding its water quality standard for the pollutant. See section 303(d) of the CWA and 40 C.F.R. Part 130; EPA Residual
Designation Pursuant to Clean Water Act, Region 1: http://www.epa.gov/regionl/charles/pdfs/RODfinalNovl2.pdf.
10 Laurens van derTak, et.al, "Trends in Stormwater Utility Implementation." Stormwater 13:5 (July-August 2012). See:
http://www.stormh2o.com/SW/Articles/Trends in Stormwater Utility Implementation 17636.aspx.
11 See Section 402(p)(2)(E) and (6) of the CWA, and 40 C.F.R. 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C) and (D).
12 Holly Galavotti, et al., National Overview of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program: Status and Progress
(2012).
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement In Stomiwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 5
-------
because activities and costs are budgeted as separate line items among many departments within
municipal government.
MS4 communities have several potential options for funding new stormwater programs. However, the
public funding discussion usually centers on whether to continue to fund stormwater management
through the general fund or to create a dedicated fund by establishing a utility (or a combination of the
two approaches).13 Stormwater utilities were first implemented in the 1970s to raise funds to construct
flood control infrastructure. Stormwater utility adoption increased as Phase I and Phase II permits were
issued.
Stormwater utilities are usually funded through the collection of user fees from all property owners
within the community. User fees are calculated based upon Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs). One
ERU is equal to the average single-family residential lot's square footage of impervious surface.
Properties that encompass larger impervious surface areas pay fees based on multiples of an ERU. As
alternatives to calculating fees based on impervious area, some communities use other proxies such as
water consumption (measured by water meter readings) or even the number of parking spaces on a
property.
Utility fee structures generally include credit systems that encourage property owners to reduce
stormwater volumes flowing from their properties by offering fee reductions based on practices or
infrastructure investments that reduce runoff (e.g., rain gardens, pervious pavement, etc.).
2.3. Stormwater Utilities in the United States
According to a 2012 annual stormwater utility survey conducted by Western Kentucky University, there
are between 1,500 and 2,000 stormwater utilities in the United States.14 (This survey is the most
comprehensive analysis of stormwater utility implementation throughout the country and is referenced
several times in this report.) Stormwater utilities have been implemented in 39 states and the District of
Columbia, in communities ranging from 30 people to over 3 million (see map in this section). States with
the most stormwater utilities are Florida (173 utilities), Minnesota (129 utilities), Washington (110
utilities), and Wisconsin (103 utilities).
Of the systems surveyed by Western Kentucky University, the lowest average monthly single family
residential fee was less than one dollar, and the highest was over twenty dollars. Most fell in the range
of two to six dollars per month.
13 For a brief description of additional options for funding stormwater, see EPA, "Funding Stormwater Programs":
http://www.epa.gov/regionl/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/FundingStormwater.pdf.
14 C. Warren Campbell, et al., Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2012:
http://www.wku.edu/engineering/documents/swusurveys/swusurvev-2012.pdf.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 6
-------
Stormwater Utilities 2012
Source: Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2012
2.4. Stormwater Regulation and Utilities in New England
In New England, the states of Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont administer delegated
NPDES Stormwater Permit Programs and issue small MS4 Stormwater permits in response to the NPDES
Phase II regulations (see Table I).15
' General permits for delegated states, which include effective dates and expiration dates, are available at the following links:
- Connecticut: http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2721&q=325702&depNav GID=1654
- Maine: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/stormwater/ms4/final 2008 ms4 gp.pdf
- Rhode Island: http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/regs/regs/water/ms4final.pdf
- Vermont: http://www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater/docs/ms4/sw Final MS4 permit 12 5 12.pdf
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 7
-------
Table 1: Small MS4 Permit Status for Delegated New England States
State
Connecticut
Maine
Rhode Island
Vermont
Effective Date of General Permit
Januarys, 2011
July 1, 2008
December 19, 2003
Decembers, 2012
Expiration Date of General Permit
Januarys, 2013
June 30, 2013
December 19, 2008+
December 4, 2017++
+ Permits have expired but are administratively continued pending issuance of the Phase II permit; the expired permit remains
in full force and municipalities are required to continue to implement it.
++ Prior to the general permit issued in 2012, Vermont had a general permit issued March 19, 2003.
EPA administers NPDES stormwater permit programs for Massachusetts and New Hampshire.16 In 2003,
EPA Region 1 issued general permits for MS4 operators located in these states. The 2003 Small MS4
General Permit expired May 1, 2008 but has been administratively continued. Operators covered by the
2003 Small MS4 General Permit will remain covered until EPA authorizes their MS4 discharges under a
new permit or otherwise revokes permit authorization.17
Table 2 shows the number of New England communities subject to NPDES Phase II requirements as well
as the number of communities that have established stormwater utilities. Of the approximately 500
New England communities subject to NPDES Phase II requirements, only 10 have established
stormwater utilities. This is in spite of the fact that all of the New England states have passed legislation
authorizing municipalities to establish stormwater utilities or determined that existing state law
authorizes their establishment. New England accounts for less than 1% of the total number of
stormwater utilities in the United States.
For further information, see EPA Region 1's NPDES permitting website:
http://www.epa.gov/regionl/npdes/permits/permit final ms4.pdf.
17 For further information, see EPA Region 1's Small MS4 General Permit Update website:
http://www.epa.gov/regionl/npdes/stormwater/updated-info-sms4gp.html.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 8
-------
Table 2: Summary of New England Phase II Status and Stormwater Utilities
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Total
Number of
Communities
Subject to Phase II
Requirements18
130
28
238
38
39
9+
482
Number of
Communities with
Stormwater
Utilities19
0
3
5
0
0
2
10
Date of State Stormwater Utility Enabling
Legislation20 21
2007 for pilot studies in New Haven, New
London, and Norwalk; no state-wide
authorization
Authorized under existing state law
2006
2007 (Manchester only); 2008 (statewide)
2002
2003
Along with specific communities, the Vermont permit includes the University of Vermont, Burlington International Airport
and the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection: Final MS4 General Permit, Appendix C:
http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/Permits and Licenses/Water Discharge General Permits/MS4 gp.pdf
Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection: Final MS4 General Permit, Appendix A:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/stormwater/ms4/final 2008 ms4 gp.pdf
Massachusetts: EPA Region 1 Summary of Permit Year 8 Reporting:
http://www.epa.gov/regionl/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/MA-SWMP-Summaries-Metrics-Yr-8.pdf
New Hampshire: EPA Region 1 Summary of Permit Year 8 Reporting:
http://www.epa.gov/regionl/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/MA-SWMP-Summaries-Metrics-Yr-9.pdf
Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management, Office of Water Resources webpage:
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/water/permits/ripdes/stwater/t6faq/faq.htm
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation: Fact sheet for NDPES General Permit 3-
9014 (2010) for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s:
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/stormwater/docs/ms4/sw ms4 draftfactsheet.pdf
19 Campbell, 13-50.
20 US EPA, New England Region, Funding Stormwater Programs (April 2009) EPA 901-F-09-004:
http://www.epa.gov/regionl/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/FundingStormwater.pdf.
21 Specific references for authorizing legislation are:
Massachusetts: MGL Chapter 83-Sections 1 and 16, and MGL Chapter 40 - Section 1A.
Maine: 38 M.R.S.A. §480-F; 30-A.M.R.S.A §§ 3001 and 4352.
New Hampshire: NH RSA Chapter 149-la.
Vermont: Chapter 18 V.R.S.A., §8-311 (incorporating Act 109 of the Vermont Legislature (2002)).
Connecticut: Public Act 7-154, Section 2(b) (Municipal Stormwater Authority Pilot Program).
Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws Title 45, Chapters 45-61 (Rhode Island Stormwater Management and Utility District Act of 2002.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 9
-------
3. Methodology
The research on which this report is based followed a program evaluation methodology consistent with
other program evaluations supported by EPA's Evaluation Support Division (ESD) using methods
common in the program evaluation field. It is based on a methodology report developed at the outset of
the project.22 The project began with the development of a logic model, which is a graphic
representation of the inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes for the system or process to be
evaluated, and the key relationships among those elements. The logic model for this project described a
generalized process of a community's development, adoption, and implementation of a stormwater
funding mechanism, including key participants and processes for stakeholder engagement and public
outreach (the logic model is contained in Appendix A).
Following the development of a logic model, the project team identified evaluation hypotheses and
developed the evaluation questions the project would seek to answer (these questions are described
later in this section). The team then developed the data collection methodology, including:
• Design of data collection and analysis protocols based on a comparative case study approach;
• Design of a community case selection process to facilitate comparisons among communities and
answer the evaluation questions; and
• An approach for data collection through background and case study research and discussions
with case contacts and experts.
Preliminary findings from data analysis and synthesis were discussed at an October 2012 New England
Regional Stormwater Program Funding Symposium attended by New England stormwater managers,
officials, and others, which also provided the project team an opportunity to gather additional
information through audience comments.23 A summary of information shared at the symposium is
included as Appendix D.
The remainder of this section describes the evaluation hypotheses and evaluation questions, including
the extent to which each evaluation question was answered (Section 3.1). The section goes on to
provide an overview of the approach for information collection and analysis (Section 3.2).
22 "Evaluation Methodology: Effective Approaches to Establishing Municipal Stormwater Funding Mechanisms" (Draft 2/27/12).
23 A copy of the presentation delivered during the symposium is available at:
http://www.horsleywitten.com/stormwaterfunding/pdf/Stormwater symposium.pdf.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 10
-------
3.1. Evaluation Hypotheses and Questions
The evaluation was informed by hypotheses about the value of public outreach and stakeholder
engagement in community adoption of a stormwater funding mechanism, with a specific focus on the
value of consensus-building techniques. They were:
• Hypothesis 1: MS4 communities are more likely to reach agreement on stormwater funding
mechanisms if they use some form of consensus building to arrive at their decisions.
• Hypothesis 2: Communities are more likely to adopt and effectively implement funding
mechanisms that are developed based on stakeholder agreements that result from consensus
building processes.
• Hypothesis 3: MS4 communities that try and fail to fund their programs either are not using a
consensus building process (or its key elements), or are not effectively implementing it.
These hypotheses informed the development of specific evaluation questions, as described below. They
also helped guide the selection of case studies to include both cases that used extensive consensus-
building as part of their decision-making about stormwater utilities and cases that did not.
The discussion below lists the evaluation questions and provides a general overview of the extent to
which these questions were answered by the information collected during the project. It also describes
some key findings and describes where answers to the questions are discussed more fully in the findings
and recommendations sections of this report. In general, the research was able to address all of the
questions, although there are some areas of suggested further research. Some key findings were not
fully anticipated by the evaluation questions, and these are summarized below where most appropriate.
Examples of findings that were not fully anticipated at the outset of the project included:
• A broad range of approaches to stakeholder engagement generated public support for
stormwater funding solutions depending on community conditions.
• Building early support for funding solutions among city and county councils and other local
decision-making bodies was an important factor influencing whether a stormwater funding
solution was ultimately adopted.
• The emergence, in some cases, of effective opposition to stormwater funding outside of
stakeholder advisory committees could prevent adoption of a stormwater funding solution even
if committee members unanimously supported the solution.
Question numbers below refer to the numbers used in the methodology report where "EQ" is short for
"Evaluation Question." Some questions are addressed together where appropriate.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 11
-------
EQ-1. To what extent is a stakeholder process desirable for a community to decide on, and accept, a
stormwater funding mechanism? Are there other alternative approaches that lead to the same
outcomes?
EQ-2. What factors drive the need for, and value of, stakeholder processes in communities?
The experience of the communities confirms that public support plays a critical role in successful
adoption and implementation of stormwater funding mechanisms and that public outreach activities
and stakeholder engagement protocols are important for generating public support. The specific value
of public outreach and stakeholder engagement—along with lessons drawn from the experience of the
eleven case communities—are described in Section 4.2. Among others, key benefits include:
• Creating a forum to proactively educate stakeholders about the need for improved stormwater
management.
• The ability to access local knowledge and expertise.
• An opportunity to generate collaborative solutions and refine program designs.
At the same time, the evaluation showed that not all communities that successfully adopted and
implemented stormwater utilities used the same type of approach to public outreach and stakeholder
engagement. Some communities used stakeholder advisory committees in conjunction with extensive
outreach while others were able to build support through targeted one-on-one meetings with key
stakeholders. This fact illustrates that there is no single prescription for how to effectively engage
stakeholders, and it highlights that other factors influence program adoption and implementation (these
are described in Section 4.3). In general, the more complex and contentious the issues in a community,
the more need there was for extensive and multi-faceted public outreach and stakeholder engagement.
Factors that made funding issues more complex and contentious in some of the communities studied
included:
• The drivers for program development and/or potential funding solutions were complex and
required substantial analysis and creative strategies.
• A stormwater fee system would significantly redistribute stormwater management costs among
stakeholder groups (including groups that had not previously been required to contribute to
stormwater funding).
• There were few or no existing program models in the region or state.
• Stormwater management costs—and therefore utility fees—were high compared to similarly-
sized communities nearby.
• There was a reasonable likelihood that a stakeholder group or groups could oppose the funding
mechanism and encourage decision-makers to reject or repeal it.
• The potential for stakeholder opposition and/or intra-stakeholder conflict was high.
• Local decision-makers were uncertain about the level of community support for a stormwater
funding mechanism and the political risk they might face in approving it.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 12
-------
EQ-3. What specific elements of stakeholder processes help create or derail agreement on an effective
approach to stormwater funding?
The cases offered several lessons about how to undertake successful stakeholder engagement and
public outreach processes that can create agreement on a stormwater funding solution. These are
detailed in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3. Key strategies for creating stakeholder agreement include:
• Identify and involve all key stakeholders.
• Proactively engage both stakeholders that support developing a utility and those that oppose it.
• Foster deliberation and exchange of ideas among stakeholders with many points of view.
• Start by discussing what the proposed program should accomplish, and only then talk about
how to fund it.
• Implement a stakeholder engagement process appropriate to the community's circumstances
and budget.
• Recognize that building community support takes more than getting agreement among a small
group of people on an advisory committee.
EQ-4. What contextual factors make stakeholder agreement on an effective approach to stormwater
funding more or less challenging and in what ways?
• Are there factors that make agreement in small and medium sized communities more or less
difficult? If so, what are they?
• Are there factors that make agreement in New England communities more or less difficult? If so,
what are they?
EQ-5. How can stakeholder processes be designed to overcome contextual challenges?
The project identified several factors related to community conditions and program design that
influenced the extent to which communities could agree on stormwater funding proposals and whether
decision-makers adopted them. These are described in Section 4.3. Examples of key factors include:
• The visibility of the program and the magnitude of consequences felt by many stakeholders if a
solution is not implemented.
• Litigation risk.
• Affirmative state legislation enabling municipal stormwater fees.
• Regional clustering of stormwater utilities.
• Inclusion of "credit systems" that give property owners reduced fees for practices that reduce
stormwater impacts within their property boundaries.
Additionally, program contacts identified factors that have made adoption of stormwater utilities
particularly challenging in New England. As described in section 4.3.6, these included old and failing
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 13
-------
infrastructure and high maintenance costs, weak county government, and no critical mass of successful
utilities in the region. Because many of the project contacts discussed challenges for small and medium-
sized communities in the context of challenges for these types of communities in New England, the
report focuses on New England rather than on small and medium-sized communities generally. Future
research on small and medium-sized communities across the country may identify common challenges
in addition to those faced in New England.
EQ-6. How are stakeholder processes and decisions about stormwater funding mechanisms influenced by
the overall cost of stormwater management and the community's resources to address it?
• What are effective ways that communities have addressed the relative priority of funding
stormwater (vs. other community priorities)?
• What are effective ways that communities have considered and agreed on allocating the costs of
stormwater management?
• Can stakeholder agreement reduce the total cost of stormwater management?
As described above, the project identified several contextual and program design factors that influenced
the outcomes in these communities. Several of these related to the cost of stormwater programs and
how those costs are distributed among property owners through fee structures. Because most
communities were required to enhance stormwater programs to meet regulatory requirements (or face
fines, etc.), the discussion was less about whether to pay for enhanced stormwater programs (versus
other community priorities) but how to do so (and, in a few cases, when to begin collecting new
revenues). Several of the findings throughout Section 4 relate to these issues of cost and how
responsibility for paying for stormwater services should be allocated among property owners in the
community. Key cost-related factors that influenced community acceptance of stormwater fees
included:
• The amount of the fees given the magnitude of stormwater program costs and funding needs.
• The perceived fairness of how stormwater costs were allocated to properties through fee
structures.
• The relative priority of funding stormwater versus other policy priorities.
EQ-7. Where a stormwater funding mechanism (e.g., stormwater utility) has been adopted, what were
the strongest influences on adoption ? What role, if any, did stakeholder agreement play?
As noted above, public support played a critical role in successful adoption and implementation of
stormwater funding mechanisms, and public outreach and stakeholder engagement were important for
generating public support. Project contacts offered insights into several other factors that also
influenced adoption, such as community conditions, program design, cost, litigation risk, and the
understanding and support of local-decision makers. These additional factors are the focus of Section
4.3.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 14
-------
EQ-8. Where a stormwater funding mechanism (e.g., stormwater utility) has been effectively
implemented, what were the strongest influences on implementation? What role did stakeholder
agreement play?
Project contacts also offered several insights into how to maintain public support through the critical
period of initial implementation (these are described in Section 4.3.2 along with findings about program
design). Key factors include:
• Competence and responsiveness during initial billing.
• Demonstrating that programs are providing the promised level of services.
• Building in a process to adjust fees over time to generate adequate revenues.
E Q-9. Can stakeholder agreement reduce litigation over stormwater funding mechanisms?
The analysis did not specifically answer the question about whether stakeholder agreement can reduce
litigation over stormwater funding mechanisms. This was largely because the eleven cases examined did
not involve extensive litigation initiated by stakeholders against the utilities. Instead, the analysis
focused on how legal uncertainty (e.g., resulting from a lack of state enabling legislation for stormwater
utilities) and the threat of litigation influenced the program development and adoption process. Section
4.3.3 describes these findings and suggests some ways in which stakeholder engagement may reduce
the likelihood of successful legal challenges to stormwater utilities. Lessons from communities suggest
that good public outreach and stakeholder engagement can help communities avoid litigation by
revealing and resolving legal vulnerabilities through stakeholder discussions and creating buy-in from
those that might otherwise bring a legal challenge. Future research, possibly building on the annual
survey of stormwater utilities conducted by Western Kentucky University, would help inform the
relationship between stakeholder engagement and litigation.
EQ-10. How much does it cost to run a stakeholder process to effectively consider stormwater funding
options?
There was little information available from case contacts or case documentation about the specific costs
of public outreach and stakeholder engagement efforts. In many cases, this information was proprietary.
In other cases, public outreach and stakeholder engagement support services were bundled into an
overall set of technical and support services, and not broken out by line item in available
documentation. However, discussion with case contacts revealed information about the types of costs
and factors that influence their magnitude. Section 4.3.4 specifically addresses the cost of implementing
public outreach and stakeholder engagement activities. Key factors affecting these costs are:
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 15
-------
• The amount of leadership and staff resources devoted to public outreach and stakeholder
engagement.
• The cost of third-party neutral facilitation and process support.
• The cost of technical experts involved in stakeholder engagement efforts.
• The degree and complexity of public outreach.
Additional future research on actual costs of public outreach and stakeholder engagement may be
helpful for local stormwater managers and stakeholders.
EQ-11. How can federal and state agencies help communities and stakeholders effectively consider
stormwater funding options?
EQ-12. What guides, tools or other resources would be most useful to communities considering
stormwater funding mechanisms?
Case contacts offered several suggestions about how federal and state agencies could assist
communities and what types of guides, tools, or other resources would be most useful. This information
was used as the basis for the recommendations presented in Section 5:
• Create incentives to develop funding mechanisms in conjunction with stormwater management
plans.
• Enhance communication about state and federal stormwater requirements.
• Offer state and/or federal incentives for regional, watershed-based solutions.
• Provide state and federal program development funding for activities such as stormwater utility
feasibility studies and program design assistance, stakeholder consensus-building process design
and facilitation, access to GIS mapping services to support development of fee structures based
on impervious surface square footage, and/or stormwater infrastructure demonstration
projects.
• Provide specific technical assistance or technical tools for developing funding programs, such as
assistance with calculation of impervious surface areas, aerial photography, and/or a state or
regional "circuit rider" program modeled on other programs for technical assistance to small
and medium-sized towns.
• Develop model stormwater utility ordinances (and/or communicate about existing ones).
• Develop case studies and examples of effective program development, adoption, and
implementation.
• Establish online clearinghouses of model public outreach and stakeholder engagement plans.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 16
-------
3.2. Information Collection and Analysis
The primary information collection and analysis methodology for the project was comparative case
study analysis supplemented by discussions with national experts on stormwater program development,
funding, and consensus building. Comparative case study analysis is an appropriate methodology to
evaluate complex policy development processes and other topics characterized by:
• Unique contextual factors that affect activities, outputs, and outcomes;
• Program designs that are customized to particular community circumstances;
• Relationships between activities, outputs, and outcomes that are not well understood and may
be unpredictable; and
• Unique outcomes that may warrant further investigation.24
Using case study analysis allowed the evaluators to collect information at a level of detail sufficient to
analyze the project's hypotheses and answer its evaluation questions.
Case studies were selected based on a purposive sampling of
MS4 communities. Purposive sampling is a process of selecting
cases to represent certain types of processes or outcomes. It is
designed explicitly to create cross-community comparisons
that reveal insights related to the evaluation questions, rather
than as a random sampling of all possible cases. Specific cases
were identified using a snowball approach. A snowball
approach identifies case studies on an ongoing basis through
discussions with evaluation project contacts and resources,
including the evaluation team, written compilations of cases,
discussions with experts, and discussions with case study
contacts. Specifically, cases were selected to:
• Represent a spectrum of stakeholder engagement
from no or little engagement to "gold standard"
consensus-based processes.
• Represent cases that achieved stakeholder agreement,
decision-maker adoption, and/or effective
implementation—and cases that failed to do so.
• Represent relatively recent cases (i.e., in the last eight
years).
Community Case Studies
Balbach, Edith. Using Case Studies to do Program Evaluation: California Department of Health Services, Tufts Univ., 1999.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 17
-------
Cases included New England communities, as well as communities outside New England that served as a
comparison group to identify possible challenges that might be unique to the New England region.
The eleven selected community case studies were:
• Berkeley County, South Carolina
• Dover, New Hampshire
• Huntsville, Alabama
• Lewiston, Maine
• Manchester, New Hampshire
• Newton, Massachusetts
• Raleigh, North Carolina
• Reading, Massachusetts
• South Burlington, Vermont
• South Portland/Long Creek, Maine
• Warren County, Kentucky
Full case descriptions of these communities are included in Appendix B.
In addition to these eleven communities, the report analyzed specific aspects of additional communities'
experiences with stormwater funding mechanism development, adoption, and implementation. These
included Bangor and Portland, Maine; Chicopee and Ayer, Massachusetts; Nampa, Idaho; Colorado
Springs, Colorado; and Poway, California.
Information to support this evaluation was obtained using the following methods:
• Open-ended discussions with people familiar with the history of stormwater funding discussions
in their communities. These contacts included lead staff from stormwater management
agencies, process facilitators, and participating stakeholder representatives.
• Primary document research, such as city or county council meeting minutes, newspaper articles
and stormwater ordinances.
• Published case studies.
This information was supplemented by open-ended discussions with national stormwater experts. These
conversations identified cross-cutting factors, issues and challenges faced by communities. They also
helped identify potential cases for in-depth analysis and existing resources that would be useful to MS4
communities. These individuals are identified in Appendix C.
-------
A New England Regional Stormwater Program Funding Symposium held in New Hampshire in October
2012, provided an opportunity to discuss and refine preliminary findings with over 100 participants from
MS4 communities throughout New England. A summary of the information shared at the symposium is
included in Appendix D.
3.3. Caveats and Limitations
Although the case study methodology used for this report generated rich detail across the cases and
revealed several common themes related to the evaluation questions, it had some limitations. These
limitations should be taken into account when interpreting the report's findings. They are:
• Findings are based on a case study approach. Cases were intentionally selected based on their
processes and outcomes in order to provide explicit comparisons among cases that would
inform the evaluation questions. The methodology did not involve a random selection of cases,
comparison against a control group, or other features of a study design aimed to generate
statistically valid comparisons. As these data are qualitative in nature, data were subject to
qualitative analyses that would preclude quantitative statistical analyses.
• Findings are based on a limited number of cases. Although common themes emerged among the
cases studied, it may be that examination of additional cases across the country would identify
other themes or challenge the findings identified in this report. The analysis of eleven selected
cases cannot ensure external validity of these findings or generalizability beyond the selected
cases. A concern about external validity within the New England region is lessened because the
report covers a substantial number of the existing stormwater utilities in New England.
Moreover, the October 2012 New England Regional Stormwater Program Funding Symposium
brought together representatives from many other communities in New England to provide
feedback on initial findings; the information shared at the symposium was generally consistent
with the findings of the report. Also, discussions with stormwater funding experts around the
country drew on their experience with other communities.
• Information about cases came from a limited number of people involved in each case and
available documentation. One to four people provided information about each case.
Information they provided may be influenced by their recollection, role, and opinions about
events. The primary contacts for information about the cases were lead staff from the local
agencies that managed the stormwater funding program development process. A sub-set of
cases also drew on discussion with facilitators and stakeholder representatives participating in
these processes. There were no discrepancies in how multiple contacts described the facts of
any particular case nor were there contradictions between information provided by case
contacts and written documentation of the cases. However, a more detailed analysis of cases
drawing on the perspectives of multiple participants would certainly identify new information
and nuances about the cases.
-------
Taken together, these factors could mean that a study examining different communities or using a
different type of methodology could arrive at a different set of findings and recommendations. Such
studies would be useful in increasing our knowledge and understanding of the role of stakeholder
processes in stormwater funding decisions.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement In Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 20
-------
4. Findings
This section describes the findings of the report. It is divided into three sub-sections. Section 4.1
provides an overview of the eleven communities studied. These communities employed diverse
strategies to involve their stakeholders. Their approaches and range of outcomes provide a rich base of
experience for the findings discussed later in the section. Section 4.2 describes findings related to the
role of public outreach and stakeholder engagement. Several of these findings are expressed as lessons
for other communities interested in how to successfully implement these processes. Section 4.3
describes other factors—including community conditions, program design, litigation risk, and cost—that
influenced adoption and implementation of stormwater utilities in the communities. Section 4.3 also
describes challenges unique to communities in New England.
4.1. Overview of Communities
Strategies for public outreach and stakeholder engagement differed widely among the eleven
communities. Outcomes differed as well: stormwater utilities were adopted in some communities and
rejected in others. This sub-section provides an overview of the communities and describes these
differences. Subsequent sections describe more of the detail of the cases in relation to specific findings.
Four local jurisdictions employed extensive public outreach and stakeholder engagement efforts-
including convening a committee of stakeholders to advise on program design. All four stormwater
utility proposals were subsequently adopted. The experience of these four communities highlights the
benefits of stakeholder engagement and public outreach and illustrates how these processes can help
lead to program adoption. They are:
• South Portland/Long Creek (ME), which involved a consensus-based process led by a neutral
facilitator that emphasized identifying and involving key stakeholders (both opponents and
proponents of stormwater fees) and fostering consensus-based decisions by a stakeholder
advisory committee. Participants developed and established a stormwater utility that local
commercial property owners could choose to participate in to satisfy stormwater regulatory
requirements.
• Raleigh (NC), which also undertook a consensus-building process through a stakeholder advisory
committee supported by a neutral facilitator. This effort was supplemented by meetings around
the city with stakeholder groups. The stormwater utility proposal recommended by the
committee was passed by the City Council.
• South Burlington (VT), which used a combination of extensive public outreach, input from a
stakeholder advisory committee, and one-on-one meetings with key stakeholder groups to
develop a stormwater utility proposal that was subsequently adopted by the City Council.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 21
-------
• Reading (MA), which worked through two stakeholder advisory committees and engagement
with the city's Town Meeting process to design and adopt a stormwater utility program.
The benefits of public outreach and stakeholder engagement highlighted by the four communities above
are reinforced by the stories of two other communities that did not involve stakeholders in program
development; these communities subsequently failed to adopt a stormwater funding mechanism and
provide a cautionary tale about what can happen if stakeholders are not involved in program
development. They are:
How did communities engage and
inform stakeholders (or not)?
Across the cases, stakeholder engagement and
public outreach involved a combination of one
or all of the following approaches:
• Broad public outreach to homeowners to
inform them about the needs and benefits
of a stormwater program and funding
mechanism;
• Small group or one-on-one meetings with
key stakeholder representatives, including
those expected to pay relatively high fees
(e.g., commercial property owners), non-
profit organizations not required to pay
property taxes (e.g., churches, certain
hospitals, etc.), and neighborhood or
homeowner associations; and/or
• Stakeholder advisory committees that
deliberated on possible funding
approaches and ultimately recommended
that a specific funding solution be
adopted.
In the communities that did not pursue any of
the public outreach or stakeholder
engagement processes described above,
program development was typically
undertaken solely by municipal stormwater
managers, often with the assistance of a
technical consulting firm.
• Manchester (NH), in which a funding
proposal was developed by city staff, but
was never brought before local decision-
makers for a vote because of opposition
from local elected officials.
• Berkeley County (SC), in which a funding
proposal was developed by county staff but
was rejected by a vote of the County Council
when significant stakeholder opposition to
the proposal emerged.
Two other communities convened stakeholder
advisory committees, but their recommended
funding proposals were not adopted. These two
cases, described below, illustrate how opposition
from stakeholders can emerge outside of advisory
committee processes if some stakeholders are not
aware of funding proposals or involved in their
design. The two cases also illustrate how factors
such as legal uncertainty can influence the adoption
of stormwater utilities. They are:
• Huntsville (AL), in which a stormwater utility
proposal was developed by a stakeholder
advisory committee and brought before the
local City Council; the proposal stalled amid
public controversy and legal uncertainty and
was never voted on.
• Dover (NH), in which a proposal from a stakeholder advisory committee was rejected by the City
Council amid public opposition.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 22
-------
Two communities performed little to no public outreach and did little to engage stakeholders.
Stormwater utilities were adopted in both. These communities were:
• Newton (MA), in which the city was under an EPA consent order to address illicit connections,
and the Board of Aldermen adopted a stormwater utility that was developed quickly by city staff
with little public outreach and no stakeholder engagement.
• Warren County (KY), in which the development of the stormwater utility was championed by the
county's Judge-Executive, the highest public official in the county. There was no public outreach
or stakeholder engagement in program design, but the utility was adopted and implemented
without any legal challenges.
Finally, Lewiston (ME) adopted a stormwater utility proposal after engaging key commercial
stakeholders through one-on-one meetings (however, the city did no broader public outreach). These
companies would pay fees under the new system. Although most of these businesses did not like the
idea of the stormwater fee, they did not actively oppose it when it was considered and passed by the
City Council.
These last three cases—Newton, Warren County, and Lewiston—illustrate how the degree and type of
stakeholder engagement needed (or not needed at all) to address stakeholder concerns and successfully
adopt stormwater utilities can vary widely depending on community conditions, stakeholder concerns,
and factors such as program design and local decision-maker support.
Table 3 summarizes the eleven cases by showing whether a stormwater funding mechanism was
adopted in the community.
Table 3: Summary of Program Adoption Status among Case Study Communities
Did the community adopt a stormwater funding mechanism?
Yes
South Portland/Long Creek, ME
South Burlington, VT
Reading, MA
Raleigh, NC
Lewiston, ME
Newton, MA
Warren County, KY
No
Huntsville, AL
Dover, NH
Manchester, NH
Berkeley County, SC
Table 4 provides more detail on the drivers that led each community to seek a stormwater utility, the
use of public outreach and stakeholder engagement, information about whether a utility was adopted,
and the range of fees adopted or considered. As outlined in the table, MS4 regulatory requirements
were key drivers in most of the communities, but flooding, water quality, erosion, sedimentation, aging
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 23
-------
infrastructure, and other issues also drove communities to improve stormwater management and seek
stormwater funding solutions.
Table 4: Summary of Communities' Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement, Utility Adoption, and
Stormwater Fees
Case Study
South
Portland/
Long Creek,
ME
South
Burlington,
VT
Drivers
• Impairment
designation
under CWA
• EPA exercise of
Residual
Designation
Authority
• Compliance
with MS4and
TMDL
requirements
• Pressure from
homeowners
associations,
developers and
others to
resolve
stormwater
permit issues
Public Outreach and
Stakeholder Engagement
Process
• Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (Long Creek
Restoration Project Steering
Committee) and stakeholder
sub-committees
• Watershed Committee of all
interested local stakeholders
• Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (Stormwater
Advisory Committee)
• Targeted meetings with
homeowners associations
and large property owners
• Public outreach through
public presentations and
brochures
Stormwater
Funding Mechanism
Adoption
• Committee
developed the
Long Creek
Watershed
Management
Plan; four-
municipalities
involved signed an
inter-local
agreement to
create quasi-
public Long Creek
Watershed
Management
District to
implement plan
and fee system.
(Commercial
property owners
then signed
individual
agreements to
participate.)
• Approved by City
Council (2005)
Fee Summary
• Commercial: variable
fee based on
impervious surface
($250/month per acre)
• No residential fee (the
geographic area does
not include residential
properties)
• Residential: flat fee
($5.94 per month per
single-family lot;
increased from original
$4.50 per lot)
• Commercial: tiered fee
based on impervious
surface (ten tiers)
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 24
-------
Case Study
Reading, MA
Raleigh, NC
Warren
County, KY
Newton, MA
Drivers
• Compliance
with MS4and
TMDL
requirements
• Poor surface
water quality
• Flood control
• Erosion and
sedimentation
• Backlog of
capital
improvement
projects and
system
maintenance
for flood
control
• Anticipated
MS4 permit
requirements
• Poor
maintenance
and failing
storm water
infrastructure
• Flooding and
water quality
problems
• EPA consent
order to
address illicit
connections
Public Outreach and
Stakeholder Engagement
Process
• Stakeholder Advisory
Committees (Ad Hoc
Stormwater Committee and
Water, Sewer, and
Stormwater Management
Advisory Committee)
• Some limited public outreach
and education (e.g. through
bill inserts and Town Meeting
process)
• Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (Stormwater
Utility Stakeholder Group)
• 10 public meetings around
the City
• One-on-one meetings with
local citizen action groups
• No public outreach or
stakeholder engagement
during program development
• No public outreach or
stakeholder engagement
during program development
• Limited public education
through utility bill inserts and
video on local TV channel
Stormwater
Funding Mechanism
Adoption
• Approved by
Board of
Selectmen (2005)
• Approved by
Town Meeting
(2006)
• Approved by City
Council (2003)
• Approved by
County Board of
Magistrates and
Judge Executive
• Approved by
Board of
Aldermen (2006)
Fee Summary
• Residential: flat fee of
$3.30/month
• Commercial: variable
fee based on
impervious surface
($3.30/month per
2,552 sq. ft)
• Residential: tiered fee
structure based on
home size (from $1.60
to $11.60/month)
• Commercial: variable
fee based on
impervious surface
($4/month per 2,260
sq. ft)
• Residential: flat fee
($4/month per water
meter)
• Commercial: flat fee
($10/month per water
meter)
• Residential: flat fee
(approx. $2/month)
• Commercial: flat fee
($12.50/month)
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 25
-------
Case Study
Lewiston,
ME
Huntsville,
AL
Dover, NH
Berkeley
County, SC
Drivers
• Need for a
sewer and
storm water
system
upgrade as a
result of a
consent
agreement
between city,
state, and US
EPA
• Severe
flooding
• Anticipation of
more stringent
MS4 permit
requirements
• Anticipated
changes to SC
NPDES Phase II
MS4 permit
Public Outreach and
Stakeholder Engagement
Process
• Meetings with 10-15 entities
that stood to pay the highest
fees
• Public hearings as part of City
Council decision to approve
stormwater utility
• Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (Flood Mitigation
Planning Committee)
• Public meetings (once fees
proposed)
• Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (Ad-Hoc
Stormwater Utility Study
Committee)
• Public workshop and
question and answer sessions
(once fees proposed)
• No public outreach or
stakeholder engagement
during program development
• City held two public hearings
in conjunction with
consideration of ordinance
by County Council
Stormwater
Funding Mechanism
Adoption
• Approved by City
Council (2006)
• Utility not voted
on by City Council
pending state
enabling
legislation
• Rejected by City
Council (2011)
• Rejected by
County Council
(2011)
Fee Summary
• Residential: flat fee
($4.15 per month)
• Commercial: flat fee of
($4.15 per month) plus
variable fee ($0.054/sq
ft of impervious
surface) for area
exceeding 2,900
square feet base
amount
(Note: fees proposed but
not adopted)
• Residential: flat fee
estimated at $2-
$5/month
• Commercial: not
specified
(Note: fees proposed but
not adopted)
• Residential: flat fee
(approximately
$7/month in year 1
increasing to
approximately
$12/month in year six)
• Commercial: variable
fee based on
impervious area
($7/month per 3,919
sq. ft increasing to
$12/month in year 6)
(Note: fees proposed but
not adopted)
• Residential: flat fee
($3/month)
• Commercial: flat fee
($9/month for
commercial and
industrial properties;
$6.50/month for non-
profit and tax-exempt
properties)
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 26
-------
Case Study
Manchester,
NH
Drivers
• Flooding
• Compliance
with
anticipated
regulatory
requirements
Public Outreach and
Stakeholder Engagement
Process
• No public outreach or
stakeholder engagement
during program development
Stormwater
Funding Mechanism
Adoption
• Utility not
proposed to City
Council following
election of new
mayor who
opposed the
utility
Fee Summary
(Note: fees proposed but
not adopted)
• Residential: tiered fees
• Commercial: variable
fee based on
impervious area
($2.80/month/ERU)
4.2. Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement
This section describes findings related to the benefits of public outreach and stakeholder engagement. It
also describes lessons drawn from the communities studied about how to effectively implement
stakeholder engagement and conduct public outreach.
4.2.1. The Benefits of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement
The experiences of the communities suggest several ways that public outreach and stakeholder
engagement can contribute to the development and adoption of stormwater funding mechanisms. They
are:
• A forum to proactively educate stakeholders about the need for improved stormwater
management and funding and, as importantly, for stakeholder to educate stormwater utility
proponents about their concerns.
• An opportunity to test and refine program design by soliciting stakeholder feedback.
• An opportunity to develop innovative, collaborative solutions.
• An opportunity to find the balance between costs and services that fee payers can support.
• Access to local knowledge and expertise.
• Creation of support and momentum for a consensus-based solution.
Each of these benefits is discussed in more detail below.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 27
-------
A forum to proactively educate
stakeholders about the need for improved
stormwater management and funding
and, as importantly, for stakeholder to
educate stormwater utility proponents
about their concerns. Communities used
public outreach and stakeholder
engagement strategies to inform
stakeholders about the need to manage
stormwater, the benefits of doing so, and
the importance of adequate and stable
funding. Engaging the public early about
the "case" for stormwater management
and funding allowed the communities to
build understanding and support and to
identify and work through potential
controversies.
In South Burlington, Vermont, for example,
the Departments of Public Works and
Planning and Zoning actively sought out
homeowners associations and large
commercial property owners to discuss the
need for improved stormwater
management and funding, and to discuss
how the proposed program could benefit
them. (For example, the city identified
approximately 80 commercial property
owners that would receive bills of over
$1,000 per year and invited them to
breakfast meetings to discuss the purpose
and basis for the impending fees.) The City
of Raleigh pursued a similar approach,
holding at least 10 public meetings with
neighborhood stakeholder groups and
community action groups to describe the
need for enhanced stormwater
management and stable funding—in
addition to convening a stakeholder advisory
How Stakeholder Engagement can Strengthen
Support for Program Design: Comparison of
Reading, MA and Berkeley County, SC
A comparison of two communities that both proposed
flat residential fees—with much different outcomes-
illustrates the value of stakeholder engagement in
program design.
In Reading, MA, a key discussion point for the
stakeholder advisory committee was whether (and how)
to charge fees based on each property's actual
impervious surface area. The committee concluded that
collecting valid data would require the town to conduct
expensive aerial surveys every three years. The
committee decided instead to use a flat fee for
residential properties rather than one calibrated to each
property's actual impervious surface area. The program
ultimately adopted by Reading's Town Meeting included
this flat fee structure.
In contrast, Berkeley County, SC, did not engage
stakeholders in the development of its program and
therefore did not have the opportunity to test and refine
its proposed program design. Like Reading, the design
used a flat stormwater fee for residential properties.
When County Engineering Department staff members
brought the proposal forward to the County Council—
and members of the public attending Council meetings—
the staff found itself having to explain and defend the
flat fee structure (among many other plan elements) as
it was asking the Council to approve the proposal.
Council members and citizens raised fairness concerns
about how the flat fee did not take into account
differences in square footage of impervious areas
between commercial, residential, and farm properties
(e.g., businesses with large parking lots would pay only a
little more than a rural home on farmland). At every
Berkeley County Council meeting in which the proposal
was discussed, questions and controversy escalated,
ultimately leading to the Council's rejection of the
proposal. If the Berkeley County Engineering
Department had established a stakeholder committee,
these types of issues might have been identified and
potentially resolved before bringing a proposal to the
County Council for approval.
committee.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 28
-------
An opportunity to test and refine program design by soliciting stakeholder feedback. Stakeholder
advisory committees, in particular, gave funding proponents an opportunity to test and refine program
design by considering the multiple perspectives of community stakeholder groups. Frequent topics of
discussion included determining the amount of revenue that would be needed to supply various levels
of service, who would pay the stormwater fees, and how fees would be calculated given the
community's pattern of property ownership. These discussions often revealed underlying concerns or
disagreements that could be worked through deliberatively and led to program proposals with broad
support.
An opportunity to develop innovative, collaborative solutions. By working collaboratively with
stakeholders, some communities were able to identify and develop innovative and cost-effective
stormwater management solutions that would not have been recognized and adopted without
stakeholder participation. For example, in South Portland/Long Creek, a stakeholder committee of
commercial businesses designed a coordinated program in which local property owners could
voluntarily participate in a stormwater utility funding mechanism rather than separately pursue
individual Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permits for each property. Funds
would be used to pay for riparian and structural restoration projects to manage stormwater. These
community-wide projects were more cost-effective than if each landowner were to comply on its own.
By one estimate, this strategy reduced compliance costs to participating landowners by 75%.
An opportunity to find the balance between costs and services that fee payers can support. A key
stormwater program design challenge is determining the level of stormwater services a community is
willing to pay for. In Raleigh, this question was taken directly to Raleigh's Stormwater Utility Stakeholder
Group and was a principal focus of the group's deliberations. Participants in this group represented a
broad array of community institutions, interests and perspectives. They were presented with four
different options for levels of service, what each would cost, and the associated stormwater fees (see
call out box in this section). Project contacts said the city staff members were surprised that
stakeholders chose option "B," which represented a substantial increase in services and costs over the
status quo (which was equivalent to a mix of options C and D). A stakeholder committee member said
that the group coalesced around option B because participants felt that the city needed to be proactive
in its stormwater program, and that option B would allow it to plan and prioritize stormwater-related
activities. Option B was ultimately adopted by the City Council and implemented.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement In Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 29
-------
Shac
Stak
Sour
Summary of Level of Service Options and Costs: Raleigh, North Carolina
ed boxes represent existing levels of costs and services at the time of the program design process.
eholders chose to recommend option B, which was an increased level of services and cost.
Level of Service
A
o
C
D
Annual O&M
SSmillion
Fully
Preventative/100%
Routine
$4.8 million
Mixture of Routine
and Inspection Based
S3 million
Inspection Based
Only
$2 million
Responsive Only
Annual
Management,
Compliance and
Implementation Cost
$5 million
Comprehensive
Planning +
Compliance + Full
Implementation
S3 million
Pro-Active Planning +
Compliance +
Systematic
Implementation
$2 million
Priority Planning +
Compliance + Partial
Implementation
n/a
Annual Capital
Improvement
Projects
SSmillion
16-year program
$4million
25-year program
SSmillion
33-year program
$2 million
Annual
Program
Cost
$17 million
$11.8
million
$8.0 million
$6.0 million
Estimated
User Fee
($/SFU/m
onth)
$5.76
$4.00
$2.71
$2.03
Equivalent
Tax Rate
($/$100)
$0.067
$0.046
$0.032
$0.024
ce: City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Funding Study: Final Report, March 2003.
Access to local knowledge and expertise. A few communities engaged stakeholders explicitly to access
their knowledge and expertise about stormwater. For example, in Reading, the town convened an ad-
hoc advisory committee on stormwater to tap into community expertise rather than hiring consultants.
Members included citizens that had been appointed to positions on other town boards and that were
knowledgeable on stormwater issues. Similarly, in South Portland/Long Creek, one of the explicit
rationales for convening a stakeholder-based steering committee of local businesses was to access their
knowledge about the area's commercial properties and current stormwater management practices, and
to use that information to inform feasible approaches for stormwater management and program
funding. During this process, participating stakeholders contributed critically important financial
analyses of stormwater costs and fees. These analyses were credited by project contacts as critical in
developing a consensus-based agreement.
Creation of support and momentum for a consensus-based solution. Many communities found that
generating public support and "buy in" through public outreach and stakeholder engagement showed
decision makers that their programs had community support. One person involved in the process in
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 30
-------
Raleigh, for example, stated that without a stakeholder group "it would have been like previous times
where we talked about it but nothing happened."
4.2.2. Lessons about Stakeholder Engagement
In addition to highlighting the benefits of public outreach and stakeholder involvement, the case studies
offer lessons for other communities. This sub-section describes lessons related to stakeholder
engagement. The next sub-section describes lessons related to public outreach.
Key lessons from the communities about how to effectively implement stakeholder engagement
include:
• Identify and involve all key stakeholders.
• Proactively engage both stakeholders that support developing a utility and those that oppose it.
• Foster deliberation and exchange of ideas among stakeholders with many points of view.
• Start by discussing what the proposed program should accomplish, and only then talk about
how to fund it.
• Implement a stakeholder engagement process appropriate to the community's circumstances
and budget.
• Recognize that building community support takes more than getting agreement among a small
group of people on an advisory committee.
Each of these lessons is described below.
Identify and involve all key stakeholders. Several of the communities made a concerted effort to
proactively identify and reach out to key stakeholders. South Portland/Long Creek used a facilitator who
initiated a stakeholder engagement process by convening meetings and interviews with individuals in
the community to determine who should be involved in the process. In Raleigh, a facilitator
recommended that fifteen different stakeholder groups be represented on the advisory committee and
asked the City Council to nominate representatives for each of these groups. According to case contacts,
the stakeholder list ensured that a variety of interests were represented. To complement the
stakeholder committee process, Raleigh staff met with neighborhood associations as part of the
program development process. Similarly, in South Burlington, city staff and contractors identified
approximately 80 commercial property owners that would receive bills totaling over $1,000 per year and
met with them to discuss the impending fee.
Proactively engage both stakeholders that support developing a utility and those that oppose it.
Stakeholder engagement is fundamentally about the exchange of ideas, concerns, and interests to
create a program that meets the needs and interests of all stakeholder groups. As such, it is important
to include supporters and opponents. Raleigh's facilitator advised cities to include their biggest
-------
advocates and their biggest critics in deliberations on program design. In South Portland/Long Creek,
participants chose to include a representative of the Conservation Law Foundation on the stakeholder
committee even though the Foundation was instrumental in taking legal action that dramatically
increased compliance responsibilities and costs for many of the commercial property owners on the
committee. This decision, case contacts said, was critical to the success of the process. The Steering
Committee in South Portland/Long Creek also actively sought out business leaders who had expressed
negative opinions about the stormwater utility concept, and invited them to participate in the
stakeholder engagement process. A consideration for Dover and Huntsville—where significant public
opposition emerged after the stakeholder advisory process concluded with consensus recommendations
for stormwater utilities—is whether more extensive representation of stakeholder interests on their
committees could have allowed a broader exchange of ideas and concerns and a more broadly accepted
solution.
Foster deliberation and exchange of ideas among stakeholders with many points of view. Stakeholder
processes encourage the exchange of ideas and deliberation about program alternatives from many
perspectives. Neutral facilitators can help foster this type of deliberative environment, as they did in
Raleigh and South Portland/Long Creek. In Dover and Huntsville, the lack of a deliberative forum to
address controversy when it emerged derailed funding proposals. In both of these communities, conflict
emerged during public meetings after the advisory committee process had concluded. Public meetings
offer stakeholders a forum to make their opinions known, but they are not good forums for discussion
or consensus-building. Moreover, the Dover and Huntsville public meetings tended to attract only
opponents. The Dover Feasibility Study, written after the rejection of the utility, noted that public
meetings "were attended and dominated by a small group of citizens strongly opposed to establishing
the utility." The study stated that, in retrospect, it would have been helpful to have stakeholder
committee members "attend the City Council meetings and public hearings and talk in support of the
committee's recommendation" and to make sure that other stakeholder groups in favor of the utility
attended.
Start by discussing what the proposed program should accomplish, and only then talk about how to
fund it. In Raleigh, participants said it was critical that the stakeholder committee process initially
focused on the desired level of service—and only then addressed how revenues would be raised. As
noted earlier, the stakeholder group selected a higher level of service (at a higher cost but also allowing
for a more proactive program) than other options on the table. Only after several meetings were held to
come to agreement on a level of service did the group consider funding options.
Implement a stakeholder engagement process appropriate to the community's circumstances and
budget. When it comes to designing a stakeholder engagement process appropriate to a community, it
is difficult to be prescriptive. One community, Lewiston, held one-on-one meetings with prominent
businesses and was able to adopt a program without much controversy. Other communities used far
more extensive processes. Even communities that convened stakeholder committees engaged them in
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement In Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 32
-------
different ways. Some communities looked to their committees to fully develop and agree on program
design recommendations. Others used their committees more as sounding boards for ideas generated
by city staff. Some communities complemented the work of stakeholder committees with a parallel
effort by meeting one-on-one with stakeholder groups to inform them about proposed programs and
gauge their concerns. Differences in local decision-making culture, the public's need for broadly
disseminated information, the relative value of stakeholder "buy-in" to a consensus-based solution, and
several other factors seem to have influenced process design and its ultimate adoption.
In general, communities are well advised to implement more intensive stakeholder engagement
processes—generally involving a committee of stakeholder representatives seeking consensus on a
funding program design—when:
• The drivers for program development and/or potential funding solutions are complex and
require substantial analysis and creative strategies.
• A stormwater fee system would significantly redistribute stormwater management costs among
stakeholder groups (including groups that have not previously been required to contribute to
stormwater funding).
• There are few or no existing program models in the region or state.
• Stormwater management costs—and therefore utility fees—are high compared to similarly-
sized communities nearby.
• There is a reasonable likelihood that a stakeholder group or groups could oppose the funding
mechanism and encourage decision-makers to reject or repeal it. That is, the potential for
stakeholder opposition and/or intra-stakeholder conflict is high.
• Local decision-makers are uncertain about the level of community support for a stormwater
funding mechanisms and the political risk they may face in approving it.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement In Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 33
-------
Effective Stakeholder Process Design in Raleigh, NC
Raleigh is one example of a formal, consensus-based stakeholder process designed by a professional
facilitator that led participants through a series of analyses and discussions that resulted in consensus
recommendations. The stakeholder group was comprised of 25-30 participants representing the
development community, environmental groups, the real estate industry, neighborhood groups and
schools.
The stakeholder group held eight meetings from October 2002 to February 2003. The meeting structure
was as follows:
• Meeting 1: Reviewed existing stormwater program, funding options, and the role of the
stakeholder group. City staff outlined the need to improve the city's stormwater management
program and funding.
• Meeting 2: Discussed the stormwater program's current level of service. The discussion
emphasized that a utility user fee would not necessarily be the group's final recommendation. The
facilitator distributed take-home questionnaires to solicit stakeholder feedback regarding levels of
service that they thought the city should provide.
• Meeting 3: Reviewed an example of an effective stormwater management program (Charlotte-
Mecklenburg County, NC) and a case study on the Mine Creek Drainage Basin; discussed
stakeholder feedback on the level of service issue as reflected in questionnaire responses.
• Meeting 4: Participated in a field trip to look at several stormwater control infrastructure projects
(i.e., culvert upgrades, stream restoration, wetland creation, regional stormwater pond).
• Meeting 5: Discussed stakeholder reactions to the field trip. Participants participated in a voting
exercise to identify preferred levels of service for each area of the stormwater program.
Stakeholders also discussed various funding options such as property taxes, municipal service
districts, special assessments, sales taxes, and a dedicated stormwater fund.
• Meeting 6: Discussed funding options and residential and non-residential rate structure options.
• Meeting 7: Discussed residential and non-residential rate structure options and credit options.
• Meeting 8: Finalized recommendations to the Raleigh City Council.
Recognize that building community support takes more than getting agreement among a small group
of people on an advisory committee. Huntsville and Dover convened stakeholder committees to inform
the design of stormwater programs, including funding proposals. In both cases, committee members
unanimously recommended adoption of a stormwater utility. However, vocal citizen opposition
emerged once fee structures were announced, and local decision-makers rejected the funding
proposals. There was little proactive outreach to the broader stakeholder community by either
community during program design. Stormwater funding proposals were presented to the public only
after the committees had completed their discussions and developed recommendations.
Dover's feasibility study—written by the city's consultants after the City Council rejected the stormwater
utility proposal—said that the city should have implemented a broad stakeholder outreach strategy. It
suggested that the city was lulled by the success of its stakeholder planning committee, and thought
that there would be little community opposition. The feasibility study stated:
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 34
-------
"In general the public stakeholder process was a very successful approach gaining the buy-in of
key people that would be most affected by a stormwater utility. However, the success with
gaining this sector's support may have created a bit of a false sense of security that didn't take
into consideration the opponents that were not part of the process and would strongly voice
their concerns during the public process."25
Warren Campbell, primary author of the Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey and a
participant in the process in Huntsville, echoed this assessment. He noted that achieving consensus
agreement among a small group of participants in a stakeholder committee does not necessarily
translate into community-wide support. He wrote:
"My experience indicates that most reasonable people can be educated to the need for
consistent stormwater funding and will support the formation of stormwater utilities when a real
need exists. However, the public at large may see only a "rain tax" and one more movement by
local governments to take money from its citizens."26
4.2.3. Lessons about Public Outreach
As highlighted by the experience of Dover and Huntsville, public outreach—as distinct from more
intensive stakeholder engagement efforts—plays an important role in building support for program
adoption. Whereas stakeholder engagement emphasizes focused deliberation among stakeholders,
public outreach focuses on broad dissemination of information throughout the community about the
benefits of stormwater management, the appropriateness of the funding program, and what to expect
when the funding program is implemented. It refers to the process of information dissemination as well
as the content of what is communicated to the community. Effective public outreach requires planning,
thoughtful design, and the commitment of staff and other resources. The communities offered several
lessons about public outreach content and process:
• Make a locally compelling case that a stormwater funding program meets a critical need.
• Demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the funding approach.
• Use several forms of proactive outreach.
• Recognize that despite these outreach efforts, many people won't hear about new fees until the
first bills are mailed out—be responsive and flexible through the first few billing cycles.
Each of these lessons is described below.
25 City of Dover, New Hampshire, Dover, New Hampshire Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study Final Report
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/stormwater/documents/dover-final-report.pdf, p. 6.
26 Campbell, 6.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 35
-------
Make a locally compelling case that a stormwater funding program meets a critical need. For the
communities that adopted and implemented stormwater funding mechanisms, it was critical to
establish that more effective stormwater management offered the community tangible benefits.
Portland's Public Outreach Plan put it succinctly: "It is not about how the money is raised—it is about
how the money is spent." (For more on Portland's Public Outreach Plan see the call-out box in this
section).
Raleigh made a point of inviting communities with a history of drainage and flooding problems to public
meetings so that the city could demonstrate how its program would resolve these problems. The city
was so successful in describing how improved stormwater management would address flooding that, at
one public meeting, citizens told a state senator to sit down as he lambasted city staff over the
stormwater proposal. Their message was: "We are here to talk about solutions."
-------
Stormwater Messages in Portland, Maine
In 2012, the City of Portland, ME published the Sustainable Stormwater Funding Outreach Plan as a
component of its effort to develop and implement what the city called a "Stormwater use charge." Based
on analysis of target audiences, the plan outlined several key messages that resonated with the citizens of
Portland. (Although Portland has a combined Stormwater and sewer system—and the messages reflect the
need to improve the sewer system as well as control Stormwater—the general themes resonate for
separate Stormwater systems as well.) Key messages were:
• Clean Growth: Sewer system improvements will ensure the city can continue to grow into the
future, while sustaining a healthy natural environment for residents and visitors to enjoy, and
maintain regional competitiveness.
• Definable Needs: Sewer system maintenance needs—and costs to meet these needs—have been
documented by a credible science and engineering entity.
• Accountability: Sewer funds are obligated to only sewer system projects under local law; to ensure
accountability for the use of additional revenue, implementation of the repair and improvement
plans will be periodically audited and results distributed.
• Fairness: New sewer rate calculations are fair, as opposed to the current billing system, which is
not. The less water you use or send into the sewer system, the less you pay to maintain and
improve this system.
• Cost-Savings: Some businesses, including important city employers, and many residents will see
lower overall bills.
• Incentives: Residents and businesses can lower their runoff management fees if they take steps to
reduce runoff from their property.
• Social Norm: According to a recent survey, residents are receptive to the fee if they are convinced
the money will be used as promised and will ultimately benefit the economy.
The plan also emphasizes using local images to emphasize the benefits of the program, such as "before and
after" pictures of infrastructure repairs, flooded streets and basements, repair crews at work, and local
shellfish harvesting. It also suggests communicating facts such as program successes to date and
maintenance backlogs under the current system.
Source: City of Portland, "Sustainable Stormwater Funding Outreach Plan":
http://www.portlandmaine.gov/stormwater/stormwaterfundingoutreachplan012612.pdf
Demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the funding approach. One of the most compelling arguments in
communities that adopted a Stormwater utility was that it was more cost-effective than other possible
alternatives. In Bangor, ME, for example, lead city staff emphasized a comparison of the costs of funding
a Stormwater program through a utility to the cost of funding it through a property tax increase. They
then compared the costs of both to the consequences and costs of non-compliance. Their rationale was
picked up by a local paper, which wrote that a typical residence would pay $22 per year through a
Stormwater utility fee but would pay $83 per year if revenue were collected via property taxes.27
27 Andrew Neff, "Bangor residents will pay new fee for Stormwater upgrades," Bangor Daily News, Feb. 7, 2012:
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/07/news/bangor/bangor-residents-will-pav-new-fee-for-stormwater-upgrades/.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 37
-------
Comparing Stormwater Utilities to Use of General Funds
Compared to use of general funds for stormwater programs, many communities find several advantages to
stormwater utilities, including:
Fees are equitable because they are based on how much the properties contribute to stormwater
runoff.
Fees are spread over a larger base because they typically include tax-exempt properties.
Fees are stable over time and are not subject to declines in property value or local general fund
budgeting decisions.
Fees can take stormwater revenue "off the books," allowing reductions in local property taxes or
funding for other community priorities.
Fees can be calibrated to meet total stormwater program revenue needs and are often adjusted
over time as revenue needs change.
Credit systems and approaches for calculating impervious area create incentives for investments
or activities that reduce run-off.
Utilities raise awareness about the need for stormwater management and bring transparency to
the amount of public investment in it.
Portland Maine Emphasizes that
"Clean Water Equals Clean
Growth"
Source:
http://www.portlandmaine.gOV/stormwater/c
leanwaterequalscleangrowth.pdf
Use several forms of proactive outreach. People receive
information in different ways, and successful programs
sought out and used the written, visual, and in-person
channels through which their citizens most frequently
got information. These programs also conducted
outreach early in program development rather than
announcing fully developed proposals just prior to
consideration by decision-making bodies.
Many case study communities used multiple methods of
outreach, including bill inserts, newspaper articles and
public meetings. Programs also enlisted the efforts of
others in their communication efforts. In Raleigh, for
example, a local reporter was invited to meetings of the
stakeholder advisory committee. In Newton, a video
produced by a local college student was aired on a local
cable channel, and effectively communicated the need
for a sustainable stormwater funding mechanism.
The case studies illustrate that it is important that public
outreach be proactive rather than passive. In Dover,
stakeholder committee meetings were open to the
public but no one other than committee members
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 38
-------
attended. The meetings were broadcast on a public access channel as well. Nevertheless, a key criticism
leveled during council meetings by Dover residents and City Council members was that very few
members of the community knew about the process or the proposed utility.
Recognize that despite these outreach efforts, many people won't hear about new fees until the first
bills are mailed out—be responsive and flexible through the first few billing cycles. No matter the
quality of public outreach, some community members won't know about the stormwater fee until initial
bills arrive in the mailbox. Recognizing this, Lewiston focused on public outreach during the
implementation phase. After its stormwater utility ordinance was adopted, the Director of Public Works
spent about twelve months meeting with individual property owners to explain the new fee and how
impervious surfaces contributed to stormwater problems. Sub-section 4.3.2 below provides some
specific lessons for communities about responsiveness during initial billing.
4.3. Other Factors Influencing Funding Mechanism Adoption and Support
The experience of the cases illustrates that public outreach strategies and focused stakeholder
engagement protocols are critical elements of creating support for a funding mechanism. However,
these processes do not exist in a vacuum. Other factors also affect whether communities will adopt
stormwater utilities and successfully implement them. This sub-section describes several of these
factors that were highlighted by case contacts. They are grouped into the following sub-sections:
• Local community conditions.
• Program design and initial implementation strategies.
• Litigation risk.
• The cost of funding public outreach and stakeholder engagement.
• Local decision-makers' understanding and commitment to a funding solution.
• Stormwater utility challenges that may be unique to New England.
4.3.1. Local Community Conditions
Case contacts highlighted several aspects of local community conditions that can influence the degree of
community support for utility proposals and the likelihood that proposals will be adopted. They are:
• A highly visible problem, such as frequent flooding, impairment of valued water bodies, or
pending litigation.
• Significant consequences felt by many stakeholders if a solution is not implemented.
• Affirmative state legislation enabling municipal stormwater fees.
• Regional clustering of stormwater utilities.
• Policy priorities and/or fiscal realities that favor moving stormwater costs to a separate fund.
• Per-capita stormwater costs.
-------
Basement Flooding Makes the Case for a
Stormwater Fee in Chicopee,
Massachusetts
The City of Chicopee established a system in 1998
to collect fees from residents specifically for
managing storm water. Residents said they were
willing to pay a new fee if the funds could address
highly visible problems, such as sewer back-ups in
wet weather that flooded their basements.
• Economic conditions.
• The presence of an active local anti-tax,
anti-government movement.
Each of these factors is described below.
A highly visible problem, such as frequent
flooding, impairment of valued water bodies, or
pending litigation. Communities that can clearly
demonstrate the need for improved stormwater
management and funding in terms that local
citizens understand and value are more likely to
earn community support for a funding solution.
In Newton and Raleigh, for example, flooding
events made stormwater needs highly visible and
created public pressure for a solution. The
authors of the Western Kentucky University
Stormwater Utility Survey wrote that floods are
"the only 100% effective form of outreach."28
(See the example of Chicopee, Massachusetts in
the call-out box on this page.)
Public awareness of impending costs can also
build support for stormwater funding solutions.
In South Burlington, for example, many private stormwater systems were in disrepair and out of
compliance; as a result, many property owners were acutely aware that they might be required to pay
for upgrades individually rather than through a community-wide funding mechanism. In addition,
polluted stormwater was affecting the water quality of Lake Champlain, a highly valued and visible
community resource. According to a case contact, these factors "did outreach for us."
Severe consequences felt by many stakeholders if a solution is not implemented. The potential for
high costs and negative consequences if a funding agreement is not reached can generate stakeholder
support for a stormwater funding solution. As noted above, the possibility that homeowners would be
required to pay individually for privately owned stormwater system upgrades in South Burlington was a
strong motivator for a community-wide solution. Similarly, stakeholders in South Portland/Long Creek
were highly motivated by the opportunity to avoid the regulatory regime associated with EPA exercising
its Residual Designation Authority (RDA) under the CWA. (The Conservation Law Foundation had already
petitioned EPA for RDA; absent a community-wide solution the RDA would have significantly increased
potential future costs by requiring each landowner to pursue an individual permit and stormwater
Source: EPA, "Creating a Storm Water Utility in
Chicopee, Massachusetts":
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/innov
ma.cfm
'Campbell, 9.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 40
-------
treatment projects.) This created pressure
among the participants to agree on an
alternative, collaborative solution. 29 Litigation,
chronic flooding, and other undesirable
consequences can also motivate communities to
pursue stormwater utilities.
State legislation authorizing municipal
stormwater fees. A key conclusion of the 2012
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility
Survey was that "The first step in transforming a
state from [stormwater utility (SWU)]-hostile to
SWU-friendly would be to assure that all cities,
counties, and watersheds in the state have the
authority to enact stormwater utilities and assess
fees."30 Indeed, the communities without state
legislation explicitly authorizing local stormwater
utilities were subject to legal challenges.
Regardless of whether the issue was litigated,
the issue could stall progress. In Huntsville, for
example, amid a public outcry about proposed
stormwater fees, the city attorney declared that
the city did not have the legal authority to create
a stormwater utility and needed a state law to
authorize it. Local proponents were never able to
marshal support for passage of enabling
legislation in the state legislature. The
stormwater utility was never adopted.
Residents Ask: Why Now?
When public opposition to a stormwater utility
emerged in Dover, some citizens asked why the
city should act now when the revised general
stormwater permit covering the state had not
been issued. In short, the consequences of not
implementing a utility were not imminent. An
excerpt from a local newspaper article "Dover
Council rejects stormwater utility plan" captures
the sentiment:
"Resident after resident, some waiting in
the hall for their turn to speak as every
seat in council chambers was filled prior
to the meeting's beginning, took the
stand to speak against the creation of the
utility. ... [A] former city councilor, set the
tone for what most of the public's
comments revolved around during the
public hearing portion of the meeting. As
the EPA has yet to formally mandate the
city to take stormwater actions ... [he]
said, the utility should not be proposed
for the upcoming fiscal year budget."
Similarly, a key argument against a proposed
stormwater program in Berkeley County, South
Carolina was that its necessity was based only on
the intangible expectation that the community
would someday be subject to stricter stormwater
regulations under a proposed revision to the
state's general MS4 permit.
Regional clustering of stormwater utilities. When it comes to implementing a stormwater utility in a
state, it is easier to follow than to lead. The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey
states, "after one city develops a utility, surrounding suburbs and communities see the benefits and
form their own."
Several project contacts noted the importance of regional clustering and the fact that a clustering
pattern has yet to develop in New England (as the map in Section 2 illustrates). Contacts in Huntsville
said that a key challenge was the lack of in-state stormwater utility examples. Conversely, the contacts
EPA issued a final RDA for Long Creek on October 28, 2009. ME DEP then issued a general permit enforcing the RDA
requirements to the Long Creek Management District (the utility) and an individual permit to landowners who did not join the
District arrangement.
30 Campbell, 10.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 41
-------
in Raleigh said that the ability to point to nearby communities that had already established stormwater
utilities was important for successful adoption of the utility.
Policy priorities and/or fiscal realities that favor moving stormwater program costs to a separate fund.
Competition among policy priorities is a familiar municipal budget dilemma. Sometimes this dynamic
played to the advantage of stormwater funding. Because stormwater utilities move expenditures from a
general fund (paid by local taxes) to an enterprise fund (paid by fees), they were perceived in some
communities as releasing general funds to cover other priorities. In Reading, for example, the Town
Manager and the Board of Selectmen saw a stormwater fee as a welcome strategy to allocate additional
general funds to key priorities such as schools. Reading had struggled to balance its budget in the past,
and state law limited property tax increases.
Per-capita stormwater program costs. The cost of stormwater programs, and therefore the amount of
revenues that must be generated through fees, varies by community. There is no obvious answer to
"how high is too high?" when it comes to fees. However, several case study contacts noted that there is
a threshold above which fees become unacceptable to a community. (In the cases analyzed in this study,
monthly residential fees were typically in the range of $2.00-$6.00 per month). In one community, fees
were recently raised from $4.50 to $6.00 per household with no controversy; however, a case contact
said that future costs could require fees around $20, which are expected to be very controversial.
Economic conditions. Several case contacts said that proposing new fees during an economic downturn
was particularly challenging. The testimony of one citizen at a Berkeley County Council meeting captures
the sentiment: "The economy is in disrepair; at the same time you want to place another financial
burden on folks who least can afford it."
The presence of an active local anti-tax, anti-government movement. Several project contacts noted a
key contextual challenge for communities was the presence of an active local stakeholder group
opposed to new taxes and fees. The manner in which local opposition derailed stormwater utilities in
Huntsville and Dover is described earlier in this report. A similar process played out in Berkeley County.
During the required readings of the stormwater utility proposal for the Berkeley County Council's
Committee on Public Works, a small but organized and active group of citizens emerged to oppose the
fee. Combined with the skepticism of some council members, this opposition ultimately contributed to
the council's rejection of the proposal.
4.3.2. Program Design and Initial Implementation Strategies
Case contacts highlighted several aspects of program design that influence the level of stakeholder and
decision-maker support for utility proposals. Contacts also noted that the need for community support
does not end with stormwater utility adoption. It is critical, they said, to be competent and flexible
through initial implementation of the fees to avoid generating controversy from stakeholders that only
-------
find out about the stormwater utility when the first bills arrive. Key factors identified by case contacts
are:
• Early, robust, and transparent technical analysis of costs and fees.
• Fee structures that are perceived as fair.
• Recognition that some property owners will be paying for stormwater management for the first
time.
• Inclusion of "credit systems" that give property owners reduced fees for practices that reduce
stormwater impacts within their property boundaries.
• Fee amounts that are roughly equivalent to those in other similar communities.
• Ensuring accountability for how funds will be spent.
• In some cases, keeping fees "low on the public radar."
• Competence and responsiveness during initial billing.
• Demonstrating that programs are providing the promised level of services.
• Building in a process to adjust fees over time to generate adequate revenues.
Each of these factors is described below.
Early, robust, and transparent technical analysis of costs and fees. Stakeholder-supported programs
developed accurate estimates of stormwater management costs early in the design phase. Transparent
analysis made these costs credible to participants. In South Portland/Long Creek, for example, case
contacts said that accurate information about fees was vital because large commercial stakeholders
were literally weighing the costs and benefits of paying the fee versus litigation.
In communities where costs weren't clearly analyzed, opponents could claim that fee structures were
arbitrary and inequitable, or that the community was being asked to "sign a blank check." In Berkeley
County, proponents offered to cut the revenue collected by the utility by two-thirds during final
deliberations by the County Council. Doing so may have undermined the credibility of the cost analysis
originally prepared by county staff. (Decision makers voted to reject the utility.)
Fee structures that are perceived as fair. In some communities, the argument that a stormwater utility
was more equitable than funding stormwater through property taxes was compelling. In many cases, it
was significant that tax-exempt properties would pay stormwater utility fees but not stormwater
program costs funded by property taxes. For example, in Lewiston Maine, residential properties
accounted for approximately 40% of all impervious surfaces but paid 53% of all property taxes, while
tax-exempt properties accounted for around 12% of impervious surfaces and paid no property taxes.
Fee designs based on individual properties' actual impervious areas were perceived as the most credible
and fair. Programs such as Raleigh's stormwater utility achieved a balance between equity and simplicity
by designating several property size tiers, each with its own fee. Systems with flat fees (i.e., one
-------
standard fee for residences and one standard fee for businesses) ran the risk of complaints when fee
payers compared properties and fees. They wondered, for example, why a home with a short dirt
driveway paid the same fee as a home with a long paved driveway—or only a little less than a large mall
with a parking area.
Recognition that some property owners will be paying for stormwater management for the first time.
Stormwater utilities charge fees to property owners regardless of their tax status. Thus, communities
that funded their stormwater programs through property tax revenues might now assess stormwater
user fees on tax-exempt entities—and charge these property owners for stormwater services for the
first time. This could include large properties such as universities, hospitals, and churches with large
areas of impervious surface. Often, such institutions are highly influential in the community, and can
oppose funding proposals. Lessons from cases about the value of including opponents in stakeholder
engagement processes suggest including these types of entities in program design deliberations.
Inclusion of credit systems that give property owners lower fees for practices that reduce stormwater
impacts within their property boundaries. Many case contacts cited credit systems as important to
building community confidence that fee systems were fair. Under credit systems, fees can be reduced
through management practices or infrastructure investments that limit stormwater runoff. Credit
systems enhanced the perceived fairness of utility proposals and built support for adoption; however,
few residents or businesses actually took advantage of them once utilities were adopted in the
communities (largely because projects were too costly or the credit process was too cumbersome
compared to simply paying the fee).
Fee amounts that are roughly equivalent to those in other similar communities. Fee payers and local
decision-makers in the communities studied for this project often wanted assurance that they were not
paying more than other communities of comparable size and with similar stormwater management
needs (or that fee differences were justifiable). Lack of comparability emerged as a point of controversy
in Dover, New Hampshire. The stakeholder committee estimated that the typical Dover home would pay
around $130 per year in stormwater fees based on cost calculations done as part of the feasibility study.
Such fees would be much higher than fees that other municipalities in New Hampshire had proposed.
For example, the City of Nashua's proposed fee was approximately $25 per home per year.
Ensuring accountability for how funds will be spent. In some communities, it was important that funds
raised through stormwater fees could only be spent on stormwater. One of the factors that derailed the
adoption of a stormwater utility in Berkeley County, for example, was a perception that the revenues
were creating a "slush fund."
Typically, stormwater fees are deposited into a fund dedicated solely to the stormwater program, where
local budgeting processes provide some oversight and accountability. In the case of South Portland/Long
Creek, stakeholders went a step further by establishing a standing committee to oversee use of
stormwater funds. Similarly, the Stormwater Working Group established in Raleigh, North Carolina to
-------
help design the stormwater fee system evolved into an ongoing advisory committee acting as a quasi-
Board of Directors for utility implementation.
AMEC's Top 10 Reasons Stormwater Utilities Fail
In August 2007, Andy Reese with the consulting firm AMEC published a list of the top ten reasons
stormwater utilities fail. This list is based on his extensive experience working with communities on
stormwater. Excerpted from his article "CSI Utility," which was published in Stormwater magazine, the top
10 list is:
• Reason #10: Our database was messed up without the ability to easily fix its problems.
• Reason #9: Our program or performance did not meet community expectations.
• Reason #8: Our rate structure unexpectedly limited our ability to move forward with our program.
• Reason #7: We didn't prepare our elected officials for vocal complaints.
• Reason #6: We couldn't explain our program and funding strategy or rates.
• Reason #5: We didn't involve the community early enough or in the right ways.
• Reason #4: It was not legal.
• Reason #3: We didn't understand the process.
• Reason #2: We didn't present a true compelling case.
• Reason #1: We did it the convenient and inexpensive way, not the right way.
Source: Andy Reese, "CSI Utility," Stormwater (August 31, 2007)
In some cases, keeping fees "low on the public
radar." Some communities used program design
strategies that kept utility fees below their
citizens' radar, including:
• Intentionally low fees. Newton felt that
it was important to keep fees low to
increase the chances of getting the
utility enacted; it focused on raising
"seed money" for the stormwater
program rather than ensuring full
funding. The city is now seeking to raise
fees and is planning to implement a
stakeholder engagement and public
outreach strategy to support its effort;
see the call-out box in this section
illustrating the consequences of setting
low fees). Warren County assessed
commercial businesses only a $10 per
The Consequences of Low Fees
Newton's political leaders initially adopted a flat
fee ($25 per year for residences, and $150 per year
for commercial properties), but now have to go
back to property owners with a proposal for
substantially increased fees. The initial low fees
have not generated sufficient revenue to cover
much more than administrative costs for its
stormwater program. Inequities in the current fee
structure are also being addressed; for example,
residential properties comprise 60% of the
impervious area in the city but contribute 78% of
stormwater revenues. The City is developing a new
system that bases fees for multi-family and
commercial properties on each property's
impervious surface area. Some commercial
property owners would see substantial increases in
fees under the proposed scenario; for example, the
city estimates that one apartment complex
currently paying $25 per year would have its
stormwater fee increase to $1,653 per year.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 45
-------
month flat fee, regardless of the size of their impermeable surface area; it also notified those
businesses that could take advantage of credits to reduce their fees to $4 per month.
Fees added to existing water and/or sewer bills. In Newton, not only were fees low, they were
added to existing water and sewer bills. A project contact said that the low fees and billing
approach meant that "people barely noticed" the new fee. Several other communities included
stormwater fees in the monthly water and/or sewer bill.
Good timing. At the time that the stormwater utility was being considered by Newton's Board
of Aldermen, the city received national attention for spending $197 million to replace its high
school. Although the school cost over-runs sensitized the local Board of Aldermen to new
expenditures, it also served to distract the Newton Taxpayer Association and deflected attention
from the stormwater utility effort.
Tolerating some non-payment. Warren
County chose not to pursue a small number
of customers that refused to pay, thereby
avoiding enforcement costs and potentially
unwanted controversy about the fee.
Competence and responsiveness during initial
billing. Having staff available to respond to
customer concerns during initial billing cycles was
critical to communities seeking to avoid a public
backlash against new fees. One case study contact
advised communities to expect controversy and
concerns with the first billing cycle and be ready to
respond.
Accurate billing systems were critical to the new
programs' credibility. Good systems allowed
communities to generate accurate bills from the
start. In Reading, Massachusetts, the town
conducted a complete dry run of its system before
sending out its first stormwater bills. This allowed
Reading to check for and eliminate any anomalies,
such as double billing, which helped reduce
complaints.
Demonstrating that programs are providing the promised level of services. To sustain support for the
stormwater funding program over time, communities need to demonstrate that they are delivering
what they promised (and what people are paying for). Some case contacts suggested giving stormwater-
related construction projects, and any other use of stormwater utility revenues, high visibility. For
Effective Initial Implementation
Reading, Lewiston, Raleigh, South Burlington
and other communities issued their first bills
with relatively few problems. Their collective
experiences suggest a collection of several "best
practices" that can help smooth initial
implementation:
• Distribute a fact sheet describing the
stormwater fees with residents' water bills
prior to the initial stormwater bill cycle, and
again when the stormwater bills are issued.
• Establish a dedicated phone line for
questions and complaints.
• Have well-trained and responsive city
employees staffing the phone lines to
respond to complaints and questions.
• Solve obvious billing errors quickly and
transparently.
• Give staff some flexibility to resolve bill
disputes quickly when customers present
compelling facts about billing errors.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 46
-------
example, South Portland/Long Creek's first project was installation of a stormwater treatment system at
the Maine Mall, which demonstrated how revenues would be invested in stormwater solutions. In
contrast, Newton, Massachusetts is currently encountering difficulty publicly demonstrating the value of
its stormwater program because revenue is only enough to cover staff and operating expenses and not
visible capital projects. Raleigh contacts advised: "Citizens expect increased levels of service with new
fees, so make sure you are able to explain what the money is being used for."
Build-in a process to adjust fees to generate adequate revenues. As communities grow and their
stormwater management responsibilities expand over time, increased revenue may be required.
Program designs should build in a process allowing local decision-makers to revisit and adjust fees. As
noted above, Newton is currently revisiting its fee structure and considering how to engage citizens in
the process. Some communities, such as Reading, built in an automatic escalation in fees based on a
fixed annual percentage increase.
4.3.3. Litigation Risk
Actual litigation or the threat of it can influence whether stormwater utilities are adopted by local
decision-makers. Western Kentucky University's 2012 Stormwater Survey described legal challenges to
stormwater utilities across the country. Thirty-six legal challenges were decided in the utilities' favor.
Twelve decisions struck utilities down, and two were listed in the survey as "unfavorable" to the utility.
The survey also stated that four stormwater utilities were repealed by local decision makers (three of
these are described in a call-out box in this section).
Litigation typically centers on whether stormwater fees are, in fact, "fees" (which municipalities typically
have the authority to charge) or a tax, which municipalities must be legislatively authorized to impose.
Legal definitions for "fee" and "tax" can vary from state to state. However, a "fee" is generally defined
as a "charge for a specific service" while a "tax" is a general obligation not paid in exchange for any
specific benefit or service.31 Therefore, if fees are collected in excess of the amount budgeted for
stormwater services and are spent on activities other than stormwater, courts may determine that they
are a tax.
Among the eleven communities studied for this project, actual litigation was not as significant an issue
as it has been in other communities around country where lawsuits or the threat of them led decision-
makers to reject utility proposals or repeal existing utilities. Of the seven cases among the eleven
communities studied in which a stormwater utility was adopted:
31 Janice Kasperson "The Stormwater Utility: Will it Work in Your Community?" Stormwater 1:1 (November-December 2000):
http://www.stormh2o.com/SW/Articles/The Stormwater Utility Will It Work in Your Commun 212.aspx.
-------
• Five communities faced no legal challenges.
• Reading faced a legal challenge (from two citizens charging that the fee was really a tax and
should be deductible). The suit was dropped before going to trial.
• Lewiston initiated legal proceedings against non-payers, with one case ultimately going to the
state Supreme Court, which decided in favor of the city. (See the call-out box on this section.)
Lewiston Goes to Court
In 2011, the City of Lewiston took the owner of a small strip mall to the Maine Superior Court seeking
payment of overdue stormwater utility fees. The Court issued a decision in favor of the city. In its opinion,
the Court backed the city's 2006 ordinance and its stormwater fees, rejecting the property owner's claims
that the city had no legal right to impose or collect fees and that these fees constituted a tax. Specifically,
the Superior Court confirmed the legitimate purpose of the stormwater utility as funding expenses
necessary to provide stormwater management services to comply with federal and state water quality
requirements. The Court also upheld the city's use of "impervious surface" as the basis for determining the
fee applied to a property. As a result, the Court issued a judgment for the City of Lewiston for the unpaid
fees, interest, penalty, and a portion of the city's attorney fees. The property owner appealed the decision
to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. In 2012, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision fully affirmed the
lower Court's decision.11
For the four remaining cases in which stormwater utilities were not adopted, case contacts did not point
to potential legal challenges as a factor that influenced the towns' decisions. (In Huntsville, legal
ambiguity in the absence of state law was a factor, but there was no actual lawsuit).
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 48
-------
Examples of Stormwater Utilities Repealed
Although not in New England, some stormwater utilities have been so controversial that they have been
repealed. These examples are described below.
Poway, California. In November 2007 the City Council in Poway created a stormwater utility. The city
mailed notices to all property owners informing them of the fee. Under state law, property owners
objecting to the fee were required to send a written notice to the city, and if a simple majority of property
owners subject to the fee objected, the fee would not be enacted. Only 20 objections were received and
the city proceeded to collect the fee. (The average annual fee per household was $44.) The fee provided
80% of the city's $1.6 million annual stormwater budget. However, in November 2010, the state passed
Proposition 26, which broadened the definition of "tax" to include many pre-existing fees and charges.
Since a tax assessment required two-thirds voter approval for implementation, the city decided to
discontinue collecting the fee and send rebates to ratepayers covering 12 months of fee collection. (The city
code places a one year statute of limitations on rebates).
Colorado Springs, Colorado. In 2006, the Colorado Springs City Council established a stormwater enterprise
fund to address a backlog of approximately $300 million in drainage projects. Over the following three
years, the stormwater enterprise fund collected an average of $16 million per year through fees,
approximately half of which was spent on capital projects. Citizens opposed to the enterprise fund placed
an initiative on the 2009 Colorado Springs ballot. The initiative mandated a phase-out of the stormwater
fee over an eight-year period. It passed, and after a brief debate about its applicability to the enterprise
fund, the City Council voted to discontinue it.
Nampa, Idaho. In May, 2011 the Nampa, Idaho City Council adopted an ordinance charging a stormwater
fee ($6.00 every two months). Afterwards, a similar fee in Lewiston, Idaho was struck down by the Idaho
Supreme Court, which concluded that the fee amounted to a tax—and that taxes must be enacted
legislatively by the state legislature. (Lewiston subsequently cancelled its program and issued refunds).
Following the Supreme Court decision, two lawsuits were brought against the Nampa stormwater program
charging that the stormwater fee was an unauthorized tax. In response to the Supreme Court decision and
local lawsuits, the Nampa City Council (at least one member of which had campaigned against the fee)
voted to repeal the stormwater utility a year after it had originally passed, and refunded all of the money
collected.
Although there are no guarantees, good public outreach and stakeholder engagement can help
communities avoid litigation in two key ways:
• Robust program design. As noted above, a key benefit of stakeholder engagement—particularly
when an advisory committee is formed to work on program design over a period of months—is
to test program design elements. Although they do not necessarily involve rigorous legal review,
stakeholder discussions are likely to reveal issues that may make program elements subject to
legal challenge. This is particularly true for discussions of fairness and accountability, which tend
to strengthen the tie between how much a property pays in fees and how much that property
contributes to stormwater problems (and thereby utilizes stormwater services). This can
strengthen a program's ability to demonstrate that fees are tied directly and solely to
stormwater services.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 49
-------
• Creating buy-in from those that might otherwise bring a legal challenge. In several programs,
stakeholder engagement swayed the opinion of those that initially opposed fees and might
otherwise have pursued legal challenges.
Additional factors not directly related to public outreach or stakeholder engagement can determine a
program's resistance to legal challenge. State and municipal enabling legislation, local administrative
codes, and state case law precedents can all play a role. A full assessment of these factors is beyond the
scope of this report. In Newton, case contacts said that consultation with city and state lawyers during
program development was important in preventing legal difficulties.
4.3.4. The Cost of Funding Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement
For many communities, the cost of public outreach and stakeholder engagement can influence whether
and how communities involve stakeholders in stormwater program design. Given the importance of
building stakeholder support, lack of funds for these processes can hamper adoption of stormwater
utilities.
There was little information available from case contacts or case documentation about the specific costs
of public outreach and stakeholder engagement activities, and research in this area may be useful to
communities. However, case contacts identified some key factors that influence how much it costs to
involve and inform stakeholders. Key factors are described below.
The amount of leadership and staff resources devoted to public outreach and stakeholder
engagement. As noted above, many communities had a "champion" employed by city or county
agencies that led the effort to develop and adopt a stormwater utility. One of the many jobs for such
champions was being the public face of the program for stakeholders, putting these champions on the
front lines of public inquiries, advisory committee meetings, public meetings, city and county council
meetings, and myriad other activities. In addition, city technical staff often played a role in developing
analysis and materials primarily for a stakeholder audience. The staff time devoted to these efforts
increased relative to several factors, including: how controversial the issue was, the length and
complexity of the public outreach and stakeholder engagement processes, and the complexity of the
stormwater funding mechanism design and adoption process.
The cost of third party neutral facilitation and process support. Like internal staff time, the cost of
facilitation and process support increased with the complexity of the project. For example, the facilitator
in South Portland/Long Creek conducted substantial stakeholder interviews to identify potential
stakeholder advisory committee participants and to scope key issues even before the advisory
committee process began. Project contacts say this was critical to the success of the process, but it
required significant investment—in addition to the investment in advisory committee facilitation and
other outreach to stakeholders. Raleigh was another example where the city chose to make a
-------
substantial investment in facilitation and process support. In both cases, facilitation was regarded as one
of the key factors for success.
The cost of technical experts involved in stakeholder engagement efforts. Many communities hire
technical experts to conduct feasibility studies and participate in other aspects of program design (in
some cases, these firms also provide facilitation services). While much of this work would be necessary
even if there were no stakeholder engagement process, technical experts are often involved in
stakeholder engagement activities, as resources for technical sub-committees, for example.
Communities can reduce costs if some technical analysis can be done voluntarily. For example, Reading
intentionally recruited advisory committee members that were knowledgeable about stormwater and
that could provide technical guidance. Stakeholder groups participating in the South Portland/Long
Creek advisory committee also provided voluntary technical analysis.
The degree and complexity of public outreach. Extensive public outreach efforts require investment in
audience analysis, messaging, communications product development, and use of multiple
communications channels (some of which, such as mass media advertising or direct mail, can require
substantial investment). These costs increase along with the number of audience segments, products,
and channels used. Some communities studied were able to get free public outreach through the work
of stakeholder organizations or individuals. In Newton, for example, a media alert by the Charles River
Watershed Association and a video about stormwater developed by a Boston College student, raised
public awareness about stormwater issues.
Some communities were able to defray costs by obtaining state and federal planning grants that
supported some or all of their efforts. The process in South Portland/Long Creek, for example, was
funded through a grant from a CWA grant from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. In
Dover and Manchester, the cities' feasibility studies were funded through a state grant.
4.3.5. Local Decision-Makers' Understanding and Commitment to a Funding Solution
Regardless of the process used to develop a stormwater funding program, it must ultimately be adopted
by local decision-makers—such as city councils, county councils, Boards of Selectmen, Boards of
Aldermen, or other local political representatives. In New England, this step often involves approval at
local Town Meetings as well. Case contacts suggested factors in addition to public outreach and
stakeholder engagement that influence whether or not local decision-makers will adopt a stormwater
utility proposal. They are:
• Strong, early support from local decision-makers.
• Local champion that made a compelling case early and often.
• Decision-makers involved throughout the design process.
• Limited political risk.
-------
• Decision-makers assured that the
program design was solid and
supported by their constituencies.
These factors are described below.
Strong, early support from local decision-
makers. In many of the communities
studied, local decision-makers needed to be
convinced by local agency staff and
stakeholders that they should support a
stormwater utility. In contrast, local
decision-makers in some communities-
such as Lewiston, Newton, and Reading-
were very interested in a stormwater utility
early on and helped drive the process
forward (see call-out box). These were also
cases in which decision-makers adopted
stormwater utilities with much less public
outreach or stakeholder engagement than
the other cases where utilities were
adopted.
Local champion that made a compelling
case early and often. Local agency staff can
build support for a stormwater funding
program—and ultimately smooth its path to
adoption—by preparing local decision-
makers over relatively long periods of time.
For example, the town engineer leading
stormwater program development in
Reading prepared the Board of Selectmen
and Town Meeting representatives to make
decisions about stormwater funding for
several years by attending meetings and
describing the needs for enhanced
stormwater management practices and funding
In Some Cases, Local Decision-makers Actively
Sought a Stormwater Solution
In some cases city staff needed to "sell" the stormwater
utility concept to skeptical local decision-makers. In
other cases, local decision-makers actively sought to
quickly adopt and implement a stormwater funding
solution to solve local fiscal, regulatory, or legal
challenges.
For example, In Lewiston, the City faced a state-wide tax
revolt that emerged around 2003-2004. The revolt
increased pressure on politicians to avoid property tax
increases (property tax receipts paid for half of the city's
stormwater costs; residential wastewater fees for
sewage services paid for the other half). The Director of
Public Works and the City Administrator suggested that
a stormwater utility would provide tax relief for city
residents and create more equity in the tax system by
capturing tax exempt properties. According to
Lewiston's Director of Public Works, the opportunity to
raise funds without the political risk of raising taxes
changed the Council's attitude toward a stormwater
utility from "We don't want to do this" to "We really
need to do this now." The Council asked the Director to
develop a utility in six months. Although some
community opposition emerged, the City Council voted
to approve the utility, avoiding the need for a large tax
increase.
In Newton, the Board of Aldermen "required some
convincing" that a stormwater utility was the solution,
but the city was under an EPA consent order to address
illicit connections and supported the stormwater utility
proposal when it was brought for a vote. In Warren
County, a project contact noted that a key factor in
program adoption was the leadership of the County's
Judge-Executive, the highest public official in the county.
He acted as a "champion" for the program because he
understood the regulatory drivers for developing a
stormwater program. Timing was also important in that
the utility was created during a budget "crunch" and—as
was the case in Lewiston—provided a new means of
collecting revenue.
Warren Campbell, the author of the annual Western Kentucky University stormwater utility survey
noted that the chances of a community adopting a stormwater utility without a local champion are
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 52
-------
"next to nil."32 Contacts in several communities that adopted stormwater funding mechanisms could
point to such a local champion who moved the process forward and consistently kept the issue before
local decision-makers.
Decision-makers involved throughout the program design process. Raleigh is a good example of
keeping local decision-makers involved in the program design process. The Stormwater Division of the
city's Department of Public Works managed the program design and stakeholder engagement process
and kept the Raleigh City Council proactively involved. This included having the Council appoint
stakeholder representatives to the advisory committee, which ensured that the Council remained
confident in the integrity of the process and that all key stakeholders' views were represented.
(Interestingly, there was an explicit decision not to have City Council members on the committee so that
all participants could speak freely). The Council was kept apprised of the progress of the committee by
Stormwater Division staff.
Limited political risk. The emergence of vocal opposition, legal uncertainty, and other factors can easily
increase political risk for decision-makers and derail adoption of a stormwater funding mechanism. In
Huntsville, for example, vocal public opposition increased the political risk for Council members if they
adopted the proposed utility. That political risk was further increased when the City Attorney called into
question the legality of the utility fees. (Indeed, the legal questions may have gotten Council members
"off the hook" of making a decision on the utility). Overlapping election cycles for City Council seats and
Mayor meant the city was perpetually in an election cycle, so decision-makers were even more attuned
to political risk. (According to a project contact, the City Council and Mayor will not take on controversial
issues within one year of an election.)
Decision-makers assured that the program design is solid and supported by their constituencies. The
process in Raleigh was successful in building decision-maker confidence that its community supported
the proposed program. All stakeholder committee members showed their support by attending the final
meeting at which the Council voted on the program. The program passed by a 7-1 vote. According to
case contacts, there was little discussion among Council members after receiving the recommendation.
They were apparently satisfied with the committee's work and confident of community support for its
conclusions. By that time, one contact said, "everyone understood that if we wanted to move
forward...we needed a stable funding source." In contrast, only one stakeholder representative on
Dover's Ad-Hoc Stormwater Utility Study Committee attended the City Council meeting at which the City
Council voted on the utility proposal. That person was the sole citizen who spoke in favor of the utility.
At the end of the meeting, the Council rejected the proposal.
32 Campbell, C. Warren. Personal discussion. 17 Sept. 2012.
-------
4.3.6. Stormwater Utility Challenges in New England
This section describes specific stormwater program funding challenges faced by New England's MS4
communities that may help to explain why New England communities have been slow to adopt utilities.
Key challenges include:
• Old and failing infrastructure and high maintenance costs.
• Weak or non-existent county government.
• No critical mass of successful utilities in the region.
Each key challenge is discussed below.
Old and failing infrastructure and high maintenance costs. Given the age of New England communities,
stormwater infrastructure tends to be old and costly to maintain. In Lewiston, for example, 120-year-old
pipes are still in use. Where communities have continued to grow, their stormwater systems are often
under-sized. This puts additional pressure on existing infrastructure and creates demand for new
investment to allow continued development. (One case contact contrasted New England's undersized
systems with systems in the Midwest, which are often over-sized by design to accommodate future
growth). Increasing maintenance costs for old infrastructure can result in increased per-capita costs,
which may be reflected in increased tax burden or relatively high stormwater fees compared to the rest
of the country.
Some New England communities that established stormwater utilities dealt with high per-capita costs by
instituting fees that paid for only part of their stormwater program. For example, Reading,
Massachusetts chose to use its general fund to pay for stormwater-related activities already underway
at the time the utility was established, and fund new compliance-related activities (i.e., under a more
stringent MS4 permit) through stormwater utility revenues. Newton, Massachusetts also chose to pay
for only part of its stormwater program through utility fees.
Weak or non-existent county government. Whereas some parts of the country can create watershed-
wide solutions and leverage regional resources through county governments, the county structure of
government in New England is either weak or non-existent. Connecticut and Rhode Island have
abolished their county systems, and Massachusetts has abolished eight of its fourteen counties.
Counties are often large enough that they encompass all or much of a watershed. In contrast, the legal
boundaries of MS4 communities in New England tend to be smaller, and watersheds encompass many
town boundaries. In New England, then, jurisdictions need to cooperate to develop efficient watershed
protection solutions. In areas of high density with numerous municipalities impacting local water bodies,
asking residents to pay for a stormwater program that would mainly generate benefits downstream or
address problems created upstream (i.e., citizens asking, "why should we pay for their problem?") is
challenging—especially if it is for a water resource that is underutilized by the community.
-------
Some Maine communities have successfully cooperated regionally. They provide models of regional
cooperation that other New England communities should study. The South Portland/Long Creek solution
was created by an agreement entered into by the communities of South Portland, Westbrook, Portland
and Scarborough and all their relevant stakeholders. Bangor is developing its own regional approach.
State legislative action and state- and federally-funded technical support could be used to encourage
regionally based stormwater control solutions. The EPA-funded "Sustainable Stormwater Funding
Evaluation for the Upper Charles River" represents such an approach.
No critical mass of successful utilities in the region. As described earlier, stormwater utilities tend to
proliferate as regional clusters. However, no New England state hosts a critical mass of utilities that
might ease the adoption process for other nearby communities that may want to adopt or join one. It
may be intimidating for a community to consider becoming a utility "pioneer." For example, New
Hampshire communities considering utility adoption closely observed events in Manchester and Dover,
which ended with the rejection of both utility proposals. These New Hampshire communities perceived
the Manchester and Dover outcomes as discouraging, which was a deterrent to considering utility
adoption themselves.
New England utility proponents could consider leveraging existing utilities to encourage adjacent towns
to create their own fund or join an existing utility. Doing so could ultimately create a regional mass of
utilities that encourage other towns to follow suit. This would mean, for example, encouraging towns
adjacent to existing utilities to adopt their own. It could also mean expanding a utility's jurisdiction to
include adjacent and satellite communities, adjacent unincorporated areas, or other political
jurisdictions in the watershed. If adjacent jurisdictions join a stormwater utility, it may result in lower
stormwater fees due to economies of scale, which may help create stakeholder support. Such a solution
could be mutually beneficial for the existing utility, which would gain ratepayers. It could also be
beneficial to the joining jurisdiction, which would avoid the costs of setting up a new program and may
result in lower rates. To encourage these types of solutions, communities could broaden stakeholder
processes to include representatives from nearby municipalities and conduct public outreach across all
potentially participating jurisdictions. These efforts should emphasize the benefits—including lower
costs—of a stormwater utility covering a broader geographic area.
-------
5. Recommendations
Community contacts and stormwater funding experts consulted for this project suggested several
activities and resources that would help communities seeking to develop and implement stormwater
funding mechanisms. They are presented here as recommendations for actions that could be
undertaken by state and federal regulatory agencies and/or other state or regional agencies institutions
involved in stormwater management.
5.1. Recommendations for State and Federal Stormwater Regulatory Agencies
Create incentives to develop funding mechanisms in conjunction with stormwater management plans.
A municipality's ability to comply with its stormwater permit is dependent on its ability to pay for the
design, adoption, installation and maintenance of stormwater control technologies and practices.
Municipalities that fail to fund their programs will almost certainly fail to comply with their legal
requirements. Several local agency contacts with responsibility for stormwater management suggested
that regulatory agencies should create strong incentives or even requirements for communities to
develop funding proposals concurrent with their MS4 stormwater permits. For example, a few contacts
suggested that MS4 permits should be amended to require permittees to set out the manner in which
they plan to fund their stormwater programs. One contact suggested that state agencies or EPA should
require a detailed line item budget for how stormwater programs will be funded. State agencies
operating delegated MS4 programs or EPA (in the case of non-delegated programs) should consider
what requirements or guidance are feasible and appropriate for ensuring that communities with MS4
permits have considered the revenues needed to pay for these programs and have a plan for generating
sufficient revenues.
Enhance communication about state and federal stormwater requirements. Some contacts suggested
EPA should pursue a national awareness campaign on the benefits of effective stormwater management
and funding. On a state level, one contact suggested, state regulatory agencies should attend meetings
of city councils or other local decision-makers to educate them about regulatory requirements and
compliance needs. State and federal entities should seek to clearly communicate stormwater regulatory
requirements, with a particular focus on clear messages to local decision-makers. These agencies could
work through stormwater or public utility associations, such as chapters of the American Public Works
Association, as part of their communication strategy.
Offer state and/or federal incentives for regional, watershed-based solutions. Given the challenges to
implementing watershed-based or regional strategies in New England, some contacts suggested
channeling state or federal grant resources to regional planning and design efforts. The local
jurisdictional cooperation in the South Portland/Long Creek case and the regional efforts centering on
Bangor, Maine may be useful models.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 56
-------
Provide state and federal program development funding. Several program contacts suggested that
state and federal agencies fund key program design activities, including:
• Stormwater utility feasibility studies and program design assistance. This was illustrated in the
State of New Hampshire's funding for several stormwater utility feasibility studies for
communities in the state.
• Stakeholder consensus-building process design and facilitation. For example, the South
Portland/Long Creek stakeholder engagement process was funded through a grant from the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection using CWA 319 funds.
• Access to GIS mapping services to support development of fee structures based on impervious
surface square footage.
• Stormwater infrastructure demonstration projects featuring low impact development and
sustainable technologies that lead to effective treatment of polluted stormwater and
compliance with permits.
Provide specific technical assistance or technical tools for developing funding programs. State or
federal government could provide useful technical analysis or tools to communities. For example, they
could help with calculation of impervious surface areas. States, in particular, may be able to leverage
resources for specific watersheds—for example, funding regional watershed aerial photography
covering multiple municipalities. At the 2012 New England Regional Stormwater Program Funding
Symposium, some participants suggested a state or regional "circuit rider" program modeled on other
programs for technical assistance to small and medium-sized towns. For example, the Rural Water
Association has a circuit rider program that provides traveling technical experts employed by the
association to rural towns.33 These types of programs could provide direct technical assistance on
stormwater funding to communities.
5.2. Recommendations for State or Regional Agencies and Organizations
Develop model stormwater utility ordinances (and/or communicate about existing ones). The author
of the Western Kentucky Stormwater Utility Survey, Warren Campbell, advised that "once [state]
statutory authority is established, create a model stormwater utility ordinance that conforms to state
law. All a community would have to do is write in the jurisdiction name, determine the funding method,
and adopt the ordinance."34 In Lewiston, the Director of Public Works drafted the city's stormwater
utility ordinance based on a model utility ordinance developed for Maine communities.35 State agencies
or other organizations involved in stormwater management—such as regional planning agencies—could
33 See, for example, the West Virginia Rural Water Association: http://www.wvrwa.org/programs/circuit rider.aspx and MA
DEP wetlands circuit rider program: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/cridr.htm.
34 Campbell, 10.
35 Maine State Planning Office, Main Coastal Program, A Model Stormwater Utility for the State of Maine (June 2005):
www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mcp/downloads/nonpoint/modelstormwaterutility junQ5.pdf.
The Rote of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Storrnwoter Funding Decisions in New England O Page 57
-------
develop similar stormwater utility model ordinances consistent with state enabling legislation and
stormwater regulatory requirements.36
Develop case studies and examples of effective program development, adoption, and
implementation. Several case communities looked to other, similar municipalities for information about
how to approach stormwater management and funding. Raleigh, for example, drew on the experiences
of Austin and Tallahassee in designing its program. Case contacts suggested developing a searchable
information "clearinghouse" focusing on successful funding program designs, descriptions of how
communities developed and adopted stormwater funding proposals, and information about the
effectiveness of stormwater funding programs over time. One contact said that successful models used
by other communities could show local decision-makers that there is "light at the end of the tunnel."
State agencies and state or regional organizations involved in stormwater management could develop
case studies of MS4 communities in their areas and convene other communities to learn about
experiences in their region.
Establish clearinghouses of model public outreach and stakeholder engagement plans. Several case
contacts were interested in seeing model public outreach and stakeholder engagement plans. A key
source of such plans is successful MS4 communities themselves. South Burlington's strategy sets out a
good example of a multi-faceted public outreach and stakeholder engagement effort. Raleigh and South
Portland/Long Creek provide models for multi-stakeholder consensus-building. The Portland public
outreach plan provides a good model for thoughtful development of tailored messages that resonate
with key stakeholder groups in the community. State agencies or state or regional organizations
involved in stormwater management could develop a clearinghouse for these types of model plans.
36 Two New England Regional Planning Organizations involved in stormwater are the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (for
their Model Stormwater Management Ordinance, see: http://www.pvpc.org/resources/landuse/ero sedi bvlaw.pdf) and the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (for its stormwater resources, see: http://mapc.org/resources/low-impact-dev-
toolkit/stormwater-bylaws).
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 58
-------
6. Conclusion
The experiences of the communities outlined in this report underline the important role stakeholder
involvement and support plays in successful adoption and implementation of stormwater funding
mechanisms. Public outreach strategies and focused stakeholder engagement protocols are critical
elements of creating support for a funding mechanism. The experiences of these communities suggest
that small and medium-sized municipalities must assess their own unique contextual circumstances and
adapt their approaches to public outreach and stakeholder engagement to build stakeholder support
and give decision-makers confidence that adopting a stormwater utility is responsive to the needs of
their community. The lessons contained in this report are intended to help small and medium-sized
communities accomplish this goal.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 59
-------
Appendix A: Logic Model
One of the first steps in designing the methodology for this project was developing a logic model. A logic
model is a graphic representation that describes the inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes for a
system or process to be evaluated, and the key relationships among these elements. The logic model for
this project described the key elements of, and participants in, the development of a community's
stormwater funding mechanism (see Exhibit A on the following page). It recognized that the
development of a stormwater funding mechanism is generally a component of a broader effort to
design or re-design a community's overall stormwater management program.
In the logic model, the blue boxes represent the administrative process of analysis and design of a
stormwater management program (including its funding mechanism) followed by adoption by decision-
makers (e.g., a city council) and then implementation by a stormwater management agency or
equivalent institution. The orange boxes represent a stakeholder engagement process that contributes
to program design and ultimately, according to the logic of the model, increases stakeholder awareness
and support for effective implementation. The pink boxes at the bottom of the diagram represent a
process of public outreach that helps create community-wide awareness and support for the
stormwater funding mechanism. (It is important to note that not all of the elements of this logic model
are present in every case of stormwater funding mechanism development or in the cases analyzed in
this evaluation.)
The circled numbers in the logic model illustrate the evaluation questions to which the elements of the
model corresponds. (Evaluation questions are highlighted in Section 3 of this report.) The evaluation
questions focus primarily on the relationship between the stakeholder engagement process (orange
boxes in the logic model) and the process of program development, adoption, and implementation (blue
boxes).
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 60
-------
Exhibit A: Logic Model: Establishing and Effective Stormwater Funding Mechanism
Budget for SW Program
Development ^
Budget for
Stakeholder Process
Guidance and Supp
for Effective
Stakeholder Processes |
(e.g. by EPA, state
agencies, etc.) ( 12
! Budget for Public
i Education and
i Outreach
Stormwater Program Analysis and
Development
• Goals, objectives, and strategies
Technical analysis of base line and needs
Alternatives analysis (infrastructure and
programs)
Revenues needs
Financing strategies (e.g., SW utility)
Key Participants
Regulators/
technical assistance
•EPA, state agency
Short Term
Outcomes
(Awareness)
Preferred Stormwater
Program Design
• Funding mechanism
• Prevention measures
• Infrastructure
• Revenue needs
SW Management
Agency
• Management
•Technical
Decisions about
Whether and Howto
Convene Stakeholders
Stakeholder Process to Inform SW
Program Design
• Initial assessment
•Timing
• Inclusiveness/transparency
• Leadership
• Process fairness/neutrality
•Technical information and problem-
solving
• Facilitation
Political Leadership
• Mayor
•City Council
• Public (e.g., NE
town meeting)
Political Leadership
Awareness and Support
Intermediate
Outcomes
(Behavior)
Decision-makers Adopt
Legal and Institutional
Foundation for Stormwati
Funding Mechanism (and
other aspects of SW
Management)
•Ordinances
• Regulations
• Institutions
• Infrastructure investments
•Oversight
Facilitator
Stakeholder
Agreementon
Stormwater Funding
Mechanism (and
other aspects of SW
Management)
1
'( c y
i Public Education and Outreach \J
Benefits and costs of SW management
Visibility (e.g., news coverage)
: Public Supportfor
i Stormwater Funding j
I Mechanism j~
Stakeholders
• Public/private
sources
• Issue-based
(environmental,
anti-tax, etc.)
• Regulators
• Political leadership
•Others affecting
(or affected by)
SW funding
decision
Stakeholder Awareness
and Support
LongTerm
Outcomes
(Condition)
Effective and
Sustainable Stormwater
Funding and Program
Implementation
• Effective management
• Financial sustainability
• Regulatory compliance
j CommunityAwareness j
^j and Support
i General Public
= program design & implementation
I = stakeholder process
= public outreach
Contextual Factors Affecting SW Funding Decisions, Stakeholder Process, and Public Outreach
• Natural systems
• Stormwatersourcesand costs
• Existing Stormwater program and infrastructure
• Political context
Regulatory drivers
Economic drivers
Hazards (e.g., floods)
Community capacity to fund Stormwater management
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 61
-------
Appendix B: Description of Communities
The following sections describe the eleven cases on which much of the report is based. These case
descriptions contain information from multiple sources including public meeting records, discussions
with public officials and civil servants, consultant reports, feasibility studies, municipal websites, and
published articles.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 62
-------
South Portland/Long Creek, Maine
Size of Community: Approximately 125 commercial properties /3.5 square miles
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
South Portland awarded a Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) grant to
begin stormwater management planning
Long Creek Watershed Restoration Project Stakeholder Meetings
Long Creek Watershed Management Plan published
Interlocal agreement signed (Portland, South Portland, Scarborough, and Westbrook)
MPDES General Permit issued
Long Creek Watershed Management District filed articles of incorporation
First assessments due for participating landowners
Date
2007
2007-2009
July 2009
2009
October 2009
January 2010
May 2010
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
The Long Creek Watershed is a 3.5-mile area comprised almost entirely of commercial properties. It falls
within the municipalities of South Portland, Westbrook, Portland, and Scarborough, Maine. Prior to the
events described in this case description, the cities of South Portland, Westbrook, and Portland
operated independent stormwater systems. (An additional participating city, Scarborough, did not have
a piped drainage system but did have a system of culverts and ditches for stormwater conveyance.)
Several studies, including studies by US EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
indicated that Long Creek was contaminated with heavy metals and other pollutants, and stormwater
runoff was a contributing factor.37 Conversion of rural land in the watershed over multiple decades had
resulted in increased impervious cover. Maine DEP designated Long Creek an "urban impaired stream"
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) because it failed to meet water quality standards due to stormwater
runoff.
A process to develop a stormwater solution (as described below) was already underway when legal
action by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) led EPA to exercise its Residual Designation Authority38
under the CWA to require specific commercial property landowners to address stormwater runoff from
their properties. EPA's action significantly increased potential future compliance costs for these
landowners and increased the pressure on potential stakeholders to create a collaborative solution.
See, for example, "Causal Analysis of Biological Impairment in Long Creek, a Sandy-Bottomed Stream in Coastal Southern
Maine," EPA/600/R-06/065A; http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile7p download id=470459.
38 RDA allows EPA to require permits from additional dischargers where any of the following are true: RDA is needed to meet
TMDL allocations; discharges contribute to water quality violations; or discharges are a "significant contributor" of pollutants.
See also: http://www.epa.gov/regionl/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/LongCreekFinalResidualDesignation.pdf.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 63
-------
Stormwater Funding Mechanism Development
Stormwater planning began in 2007 when the City of South Portland received a CWA Section 319 grant
from Maine DEP. The city hired a neutral facilitator who began by identifying and meeting with
stakeholder groups. The facilitator identified stakeholder representatives to represent each group's
interests and organized stakeholder representatives into a thirty-eight member Long Creek Restoration
Project Steering Committee. Committee members included commercial property owners (the largest
and most significant stakeholder group), nonprofit organizations, public and quasi-public agencies and
four municipalities.39
For the next eighteen months, the committee worked to produce a "Long Creek Watershed Restoration
Plan." Technical consultants were hired using Section 319 grant funds. The final plan identified the
critical infrastructure improvements and remediation work needed to achieve compliance and
estimated costs. The facilitator led committee meetings and worked with members to develop
consensus on the plan. At the same time, the Conservation Law Foundation was pressing its concern
that unregulated runoff was contributing to the impairment of the creek's water quality and petitioned
EPA to impose strict new requirements on landowners in the watershed with large areas of
impermeable pavement and rooftops.
The Long Creek Watershed Restoration Plan proposed a collaborative funding mechanism in which
landowners would pay a Stormwater fee based on their property's square footage of impervious
surface. Their fees would be deposited into a Stormwater utility. The utility would undertake
construction and maintenance projects in the area (including on the properties of its members) to
reduce Stormwater run-off. Technical and financial analyses provided by the Cumberland County Soil
and Water Conservation District (CCSWCD) and the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership (an NGO)40
demonstrated that landowners' compliance costs would be far less with this collaborative approach
than if they chose to comply with individual permits on a property-by-property basis. This "go it alone"
approach would require each landowner to obtain a permit for each of their properties. They would
then have to fund the required compliance activities for each property as well.
The four municipalities of South Portland, Westbrook, Portland, and Scarborough signed an inter-local
agreement in 2009 to establish the Long Creek Management District, which would administer the
watershed plan and fee system. The District's Stormwater activities were managed by the CCSWCD,
which also operated the utility. Participating property owners' obligations were set out in a
"Participating Landowner Agreement."41 Property owners signing the agreement committed to:
39 The area's residential population is quite small. Therefore, homeowners were not represented.
40 CCSWCD and the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership both participated on the Steering Committee, Technical Advisory
Subcommittee, and the Models and Outreach Subcommittee.
41 See: http://www.restorelongcreek.org/docs/landowner agreement/pla final.pdf.
The Rote of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Storrnwoter Funding Decisions in New England O Page 64
-------
• Enter into and remain covered by Maine's General Permit.
• Pay an annual stormwaterfee (see section below).
• Authorize an easement allowing the Utility District to perform work on participants' private
property.
The Watershed Management Plan outlined a ten-year timeline and described anticipated management
measures to be funded through the stormwater fee.
The committee's identification of critical compliance projects set out in the Long Creek Watershed
Management Plan helped strengthen CCSWCD's proposal for federal Recovery Act funding, which
resulted in securing a $2.1 million zero-interest loan to begin its work.
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
The neutral facilitator designed the stakeholder engagement and public outreach strategy. She
identified key stakeholder groups and encouraged them to appoint representatives to a steering
committee.
The process included:
• A Steering Committee that led the planning process.
• Sub-committees that provided technical analysis and other services to the committee.
• A large Watershed Committee of local commercial businesses, governments, and community
organizations that participated in meetings led by the Steering Committee and provided
guidance on the development and implementation of the Watershed Plan.
The Steering Committee also decided to invite CLF to join the committee. Many stakeholders viewed CLF
as the originator of their stormwater compliance problems. However, according to project contacts,
CLF's participation significantly contributed to the quality of the final plan.
-------
Figure 1: Organization of Long Creek Watershed Restoration Project
ecnmcai Advisory
Subcommittee
Watershed
Committee:
Stakeholders
-businesses,
government,
nonprofit,
Steering Committee
odels & Outreach
Subcommittee
Source: Long Creek Watershed Management Plan
The committee's challenge was developing a stormwater management plan acceptable to the interests
of each group represented by a committee member and a funding approach that garnered enough
voluntary participation to be financially viable. Committee members knew that their utility proposal
required a compelling financial case. Project contacts noted that, in the end, commercial property
stakeholders calculated whether it would be cheaper for them to fight their individual permit
requirements in court or to join the utility. The committee's data convinced them that a utility could
lower commercial property compliance costs by as much as 75% compared to the cost of complying
individually. The Maine Policy Review reported that ultimately, over "100 of the 125 landowners
designated by EPA as requiring a stormwater discharge permit made a preliminary election to
participate in the collaborative program."
Factors that helped create stakeholder agreement included:
• Neutral facilitation that provided effective process management.
• Committee members with a wide range of interests and views. The facilitator made sure to
include business leaders skeptical of the utility concept for as well as stakeholders such as CLF
more inclined to favor this approach.
• Willingness of business leaders to participate as stakeholders to develop creative solutions,
rather than sending legal proxies to represent them.
• Impending regulatory requirements that exerted pressure on all stakeholder groups to develop
a solution.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 66
-------
• The committee's demonstration of the potential cost-effectiveness of a collaborative solution
over "going it alone." The technical and financial analyses provided by technical consultants,
the CCSWCD, and the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership (an NGO) to the committee allowed
stakeholders to determine whether their respective interests would be better served by joining
the utility.
In addition to the Steering and Watershed Committees, which engaged stakeholders directly in the
decision-making process, a Models and Outreach Subcommittee conducted ongoing public education
and outreach efforts, including the development of the Project website (www.restorelongcreek.org).
Program Adoption
Articles of incorporation for the Long Creek Watershed Management District were filed in 2010.
Legislation specifically recognizing the use of interlocal agreement authority to establish the District was
enacted by the Maine Legislature in the same year.42
Continued stakeholder participation on the District's Governing Board gives stakeholders ongoing input
into and oversight over the program.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
In May 2010, initial utility assessments became due. Participating landowners were initially assessed
$3,000 annually per acre of impervious cover. Fee increases were limited to 2% per year plus inflation
pending annual approval by the District Governing Board.43 The Steering Committee recommended the
annual cap to ensure that stormwater fees would not increase by unpredictably large amounts year-to-
year. Credits were available if landowners installed onsite stormwater management practices.
Public sector entities were allowed to contribute services in lieu of all or a portion of their stormwater
fees. For example, state and local departments of transportation could contribute road construction and
maintenance resources, or engineering and technical expertise.
Program Implementation
According to presentations made at the 2012 annual District meeting, the program has been financially
stable. Its FY 2011 budget was approximately $1.4 million, 61% of which was spent on construction and
maintenance activities. The District planned to meet water quality standards by 2020. By the time of its
2012 meeting, the District had completed two of ten planned mitigation projects, and commenced
undertaking many non-structural activities, including street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, BMP site
inspections and winter maintenance.
42 See: http://www.mainelegislature.org/ros/LOM/LOM124th/124R2/PUBLIC506.asp.
43 Inflation was determined based on the Consumer Price Index, which is a measure of the average change over time in the
prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.
-------
Summary of Legal Challenges, as Appropriate
There were no legal challenges to the plan.
Reference Documents
1. "Almost time to pay bills for Long Creek's cleanup", Portland Press Herald, April 30, 2010.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/almost-time-to-pay-bills-for-long-creeks-cleanup 2010-04-
30.html. Accessed 7/30/2012.
2. Long Creek Watershed Management Plan: http://restorelongcreek.org/docs/plan/lc wmp.pdf.
Accessed 7/30/2012.
3. Long Creek Watershed Management Plan: June 2008 Fact Sheet.
http://www.restorelongcreek.org/docs/fact sheet 6-08.pdf. Accessed 7/30/2012.
4. Long Creek Watershed Management Plan: August 2007 Fact Sheet.
http://www.restorelongcreek.org/docs/fact sheet 8-07.pdf. Accessed 7/30/2012.
5. "Public Collaboration in Maine: When and Why It Works", Maine Policy Review 19:2
(Summer/Fall 2012).
http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/files/pdf mpr/vl9n2/ForumMPR voll9no2 FIN.pdf.
Accessed 7/30/2012.
6. "Threat of Lawsuit Lead to Watershed District", Maine Townsman, June 2011.
http://www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu/pdfs/maine townsman long creek article.pdf. Accessed
7/30/2012.
7. Long Creek Restoration Project: Presentation from 2012 Annual Meeting.
http://www.restorelongcreek.org/docs/management district/annual meeting/2012/long cree
k annual meeting 30Jan2012.pdf. Accessed 8/14/12.
-------
South Burlington, Vermont
Size of Community: Population 15,814 / 16 square miles
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
Stormwater utility Feasibility Study conducted
Stormwater Utility District approved by City Council
First utility bills sent out
Date
2001 (finalized in
December 2003)
March 2005
July 2005
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
The City of South Burlington faced several stormwater-related issues that included compliance with new
MS4 and TMDL regulatory requirements, deteriorated residential Stormwater systems, beach closures,
localized flooding, erosion, sedimentation and unstable stream banks. Seven water bodies in the city
were deemed "impaired" by the State of Vermont. A number of highly visible Stormwater systems,
many of which were privately owned, were failing and needed costly repairs or upgrades. State law
required properties totaling two or more acres of impervious cover to obtain Stormwater discharge
permits, and hundreds of these permits had expired. This was important because Vermont law requires
property owners to hold a valid Stormwater discharge permit when transferring title. Thus, permit
expirations created uncertainties about real estate transactions. Finally, there was a threat of a
development moratorium due to legal challenges brought by the Conservation Law Foundation under
the Clean Water Act that proposed to disallow any new discharges to impaired waters. Homeowner
associations, developers and others pressured the city to develop a solution.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism Development
Stormwater utility development was led by the city's Department of Public Works (DPW) and
Department of Planning and Zoning. A Stormwater Advisory Committee (SWAC) was formed, and an
engineering consulting firm was hired.
In 2001, the consultants conducted a feasibility study, which assessed the city's Stormwater budget
(spread across various agencies) and estimated the cost of future activities such as infrastructure
investments, operations, and maintenance.
The city established the SWAC to help it develop a Stormwater program design and funding mechanism
proposal. The committee reviewed the city's minimum baseline Stormwater budget and developed a
"wish list" of stormwater-related activities, equipment and staff support if funding were not a
constraint. The SWAC then assessed possible funding sources and recommended the creation of a
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 69
-------
stormwater utility. The SWAC advised that citizens would be willing to pay between $4 and $5 per
month in utility fees.
During the next phase of program development, consultants worked with municipal staff to refine the
proposed stormwater utility design. The consultant proposed using impervious surface area as the basis
for the rate structure, since this mechanism was legally defensible and tested nationally. A technical
committee, comprised of staff from the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory and the
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, estimated the area of impervious surfaces for
properties within the city's limits using satellite imagery.
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
During program development, the city and its technical consultants engaged with stakeholder
representatives through the SWAC stakeholder advisory committee and engaged directly with many
developers, homeowners associations, and large property owners in the city. The city also conducted
broad public outreach and education about program needs and benefits.
The SWAC was composed of homeowners, developers, local business owners, environmental
organizations, technical experts and members of the education community. It acted as a sounding board
for city staff and consultants as they developed the stormwater program in addition to providing advice
on messaging and outreach.
Stakeholder engagement via the SWAC was complemented by targeted outreach to homeowners
associations and large ratepayers. City staff and consultants spent significant time and effort educating
homeowners associations about how stormwater fees would be calculated and charged to
condominiums and other multi-tenant properties, as well as discussing the associations' needs, concerns
and perceptions about state regulations, ongoing lawsuits, and the condition of their infrastructure. City
staff and contractors identified approximately eighty commercial property owners who would receive
bills totaling over $1,000 per year and sent each of them a personal invitation to breakfast meetings to
discuss the impending fees. The discussions were framed as opportunities for these property owners to
provide input on how the proposed stormwater program could provide value for them. Through these
meetings, stakeholders stated that their key need was receiving city assistance on how to comply with
the state's evolving stormwater regulations.
Important insights from the SWAC process and other stakeholder meetings included:
• The importance of helping large ratepayers navigate the permitting process.
• The importance of encouraging the city to work cooperatively with property owners during
program implementation to resolve compliance issues before enforcement action was taken.
The Rote of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Storrnwoter Funding Decisions in New England O Page 70
-------
• Inclusion of a stormwater fee credit program.
• Identifying the correct balance between stormwater fees and service levels.
The city also conducted broad public outreach about the need for a comprehensive stormwater
solution. The city conducted several public presentations describing problem areas, benefits, the
differences between a tax and a utility, and information on how rates would be structured. It also
developed public information brochures. As noted above, stormwater issues were highly visible in the
community because of high profile lawsuits, the impact of expired state permits on property
transactions, impending high costs to meet regulatory requirements, the threat of a stormwater-based
development moratorium, beach closures, and localized flooding and erosion.
Program Adoption
The proposed stormwater utility was presented twice to the City Council. Presentations included an
overview of stormwater, its impacts, and problem areas. They also included a description of the
proposed stormwater utility structure and its benefits, including possible projects that the utility would
fund. In March 2005, the City Council adopted the proposed stormwater program and established a
utility to pay for its activities. There was no significant public controversy.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
Through the stormwater utility, residences were assessed a flat monthly fee of $4.50 per single-family
lot (increased to $5.94 in 2011). There was no credit system for residences. However, the city
committed to operate and maintain privately-owned residential systems once they were upgraded to
meet current state standards. (Prior to this, owners of the private systems were responsible for their
own operation and maintenance.) Residential stormwater fees were included in water and wastewater
bills (billed quarterly).
For commercial properties, the utility established a tiered fee system based on each property's
impervious surface area (depending on size, properties fell into one of ten fee tiers). Commercial
properties could participate in a credit program by implementing stormwater management practices.
Program Implementation
After the first bills went out, the city received many calls from ratepayers with concerns and questions
about the fees. The city was well prepared, having established a troubleshooting phone number for
ratepayers to call and a script for staff to follow. In some cases, the city had made billing mistakes and
worked with owners to correct them. Most calls were from residential owners. A possible reason for
fewer calls from commercial entities was that the city had met with many of them one-on-one during
the program development phase.
-------
After approximately three billing cycles, negative feedback faded. One person involved in the effort said
that new utilities should expect controversy during the first billing cycle, especially with homeowners
who are not aware of (or involved with) program development. The best plan, she said, is to be
prepared, competent, helpful, and flexible.
The city focused on undertaking highly visible stormwater projects to show that the ratepayers'
stormwater fees were being put to good use.
The City Council increased fees for the first time in April 2011; there was little to no opposition from the
community. Currently, the utility raises approximately $1.8 million per year from stormwater fees (it
obtains additional stormwater program funding through grants). Many of the utility's objectives have
been accomplished, including repair and replacement of failing infrastructure. Currently, the utility's
budget is sufficient to meet its needs; however, the cost to meet impending TMDL requirements may
require increased future revenues.
Legal Challenges
There were no legal challenges to the fee. However, some large institutional entities refused to pay. The
city had to work out specific payment arrangements with the University of Vermont, the Vermont
Agency of Transportation, and Burlington International Airport; all are now paying their fees.
Reference Documents
1. "The South Burlington Stormwater Utility," Planning Commissioners Journal. Undated.
http://pcj.typepad.com/planning commissioners jo/dipietro.html. Accessed 8/7/12.
2. "Assessment of Stormwater Financing Mechanisms in New England: Final Case Study Report."
Charles River Watershed Association.
http://www.crwa.org/proiects/stormwater/Municipal%20SFM%20Case%20Studies%20Repo.pdf
. Accessed 8/7/12.
3. South Burlington 2010 Stormwater Annual Report.
http://www.sburlstormwater.com/downloads/reports/2010 MS4 Annual Report.pdf.
Accessed 8/7/12.
4. South Burlington Stormwater Advisory Committee Membership.
http://www.sburlstormwater.com/about us/committee.shtml. Accessed 8/7/12.
The Rote of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 72
-------
Reading, Massachusetts
Size of Community: Population 24,747 / 9.9 square miles
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
MS4 permit issued to Reading
Reading established an Ad Hoc Stormwater Committee to work on the MS4 permit
The Board of Selectmen asked the Water and Sewer Advisory Committee (renamed The
Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Management Advisory Committee, or WSSMAC) to analyze
and recommend Stormwater funding options
WSSMAC recommended a Stormwater utility to the Board of Selectmen
DPW presented the Stormwater utility concept to Town Meeting
Stormwater utility adopted by Town Meeting
First billing
Date
2003
2003
2004
August 2005
November 2005
April 2006
September 2006
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
The primary driver for development of a Stormwater utility in Reading was compliance with new MS4
requirements, which significantly increased the need for Stormwater management activities and their
related costs. Other drivers included improving poor surface water quality, flood control, and controlling
severe erosion and sedimentation in the town's three rivers: the Aberjona, Ipswich, and Saugus.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism Development
The development of a Stormwater utility in Reading was led by its DPW. When Reading's new MS4
permit was issued in 2003, DPW established the Ad Hoc Stormwater Committee to help the town
develop its Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the permit.44
The Ad Hoc Stormwater Committee included citizens appointed to town boards (the Planning Board,
Conservation Commission, and Board of Health). The Committee was asked to investigate current
stormwater-related expenditures and activities, what work would be needed to comply with MS4
requirements and their associated costs, and to identify funding options. (Before establishment of the
Stormwater utility, funding was provided by the general fund, which could only pay for limited
maintenance.) The committee estimated that total operating and capital costs to comply with its new
permit could total $540,350 a year. At that time, Reading allocated only $165,350 per year to
Stormwater activities through the general fund. The committee met for approximately nine months and
44 Designated MS4 entities are required to submit a general permit application, referred to as a Notice of Intent letter, within
ninety (90) days of the Rule's effective date. The principal function of the NOI letter submittal is to identify the MS4 entity or
entities seeking coverage under the general permit NOI letter, and to ensure, via a legally binding agreement if necessary, that
all requirements of this Rule will be addressed during the 5-year permit term.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 73
-------
then presented its recommendations to Reading's Board of Selectmen. At that point, the town realized
that raising stormwater revenues that were sufficient to achieve compliance was going to be a major
challenge. It did not want to commit to permit compliance without having a funding source in place.
The Board of Selectmen then asked the town's water and sewer committee to more specifically analyze
stormwater funding and options. The water and sewer committee was renamed the Water, Sewer, and
Stormwater Management Advisory Committee (WSSMAC). After six months, the WSSMAC outlined
funding options for the Board of Selectmen and recommended that a stormwater utility be established.
Around the same time, Reading's DPW presented the stormwater utility concept at Reading's Town
Meeting, with nearly 200 people present (Reading has an elected Town Meeting form of government).
The Board of Selectmen and Town Manager supported the stormwater fee proposal. The Board of
Selectmen requested that the WSSMAC and DPW develop the stormwater utility idea further. The
WSSMAC and DPW responded by analyzing user fee options. A key question was whether (and how) to
charge fees based on each property's impervious surface area. The WSSMAC realized that the town
would have to fund photographic flyovers every three years to update its data on the size of properties'
impervious surface areas. Given this challenge and expense—and that the difference between a variable
fee and a fixed fee would be small—the committee decided on a flat fee for residential properties.
After about a year of work by the WSSMAC, a specific stormwater utility proposal was brought to the
Board of Selectmen. By this time, a few of the selectmen had been replaced and the new members were
not as supportive of a stormwater utility. Originally, the town had anticipated covering all stormwater
costs through the stormwater utility. However, the Board of Selectmen now decided that a utility should
only cover the costs of additional stormwater management activities required by the new permit; all
other stormwater costs should still be covered by the general fund. The WSSMAC and DPW
compromised and recommended that the general fund cover activities already underway such as street
sweeping and catch basin cleaning; activities required by the new MS4 permit—including new capital
projects—would be covered by the stormwater utility fee.
In the spring of 2005, the WSSMAC and DPW were ready to present a proposal but could not get on the
Town Meeting calendar until November 2005. At that point, some citizen opposition to the proposal
emerged, and one individual threatened to file suit if a utility were established. As a result, the WSSMAC
and DPW presented at the November 2005 Town Meeting but did not ask for a vote on the utility
proposal. In addition, Massachusetts had not yet passed a law that specifically allowed stormwater
utilities, and the Town was concerned about passing legal muster.45 The proposal was tabled and sent
45 There are two general laws that provide the authority for municipalities to establish a stormwater utility in Massachusetts:
Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 83, Section 1 & 16 and MGL Chapter 40, Section 1A. Through MGL Ch. 83,
municipalities have the right to set up a stormwater utility and to charge utility fees in support of stormwater-related services
performed. In 2006, this particular section was strengthened to clarify a municipality's ability to establish stormwater utilities.
MGL Ch. 40 complements MGL Ch. 83 by providing a definition of a district for the purpose of water pollution abatement,
water, sewer, and/or other purposes. Jointly, these pieces of legislation provide a municipality with the authority to charge
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement In Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page /4
-------
to Reading's legal counsel to determine its legality and to the state Department of Revenue to affirm
that it would treat a stormwater charge as a fee rather than a tax. Both said that the proposed fee was
legally acceptable. Town Meeting members then voted to approve the utility in April 2006. Two
residents filed a joint suit after the utility was adopted (see section below on legal challenges), but the
suit was later dropped.
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
Rather than hire consultants, the town developed its stormwater funding program through two
committees, both of which relied on community expertise. The first was the Ad Hoc Stormwater
Committee that developed the MS4 NOI and highlighted the need for a stormwater funding mechanism.
The committee was a voluntary group comprised of town employees, officials, and citizens, all of whom
served on various town boards.
After the Ad Hoc Stormwater Committee forwarded its recommendation for a dedicated source of
stormwater funding, the Board of Selectmen tasked a second committee, the WSSMAC, to develop a
specific stormwater funding proposal. The committee was composed of stakeholders appointed by the
Board of Selectmen. The WSSMAC members had previously addressed water and sewer rates and had
expertise in this area. According to a study by the Charles River Watershed Association, "having various
viewpoints to address stormwater management issues and create a dedicated funding source created a
stronger utility proposal."
The former Reading Town Engineer described the WSSMAC as a "working group" that operated as "a
clearinghouse and provided an opportunity for public input." The Committee's job was to make
recommendations on utility design to the Board of Selectmen. Much of the analytical and program
development work was done by town staff and taken to the WSSMAC for feedback. The WSSMAC came
to consensus on most of its recommendations to the Board of Selectmen. On some issues on which the
group could not come to consensus, the committee members voted.
In addition to the dual committee process, there was some public outreach following approval of the
utility in 2006. The town began distributing information to citizens about stormwater program needs
through water and sewer bill inserts, letters to the editor of the local newspaper, a newsletter and a
website. A key venue for public outreach was the Town Meeting, which generally drew up to 200
attendees. Nevertheless, the former Town Engineer said that the stormwater utility was adopted
without broad public knowledge. In retrospect, the Town Engineer said he wished there had been more
public outreach early in the process.
utility fees for stormwater management services just as fees are charged for providing other public services such as drinking
water, sanitary sewers and electricity.
-------
Program Adoption
When initially presented with the concept of a stormwater utility, the Board of Selectmen was described
by a project contact as "skeptical," but the Board ultimately approved the proposal. Their approval may
have been influenced by the fact that Reading is a largely residential community with a small
commercial tax base. It had struggled to balance its budget in the past, and state law limited property
tax increases. The Town Manager and the Board of Selectmen saw a stormwater fee as a potential
strategy for taking stormwater "off budget" (i.e., outside of the general fund, at least in part) so that the
general fund could be used for other priorities.
Following Board of Selectmen approval, final approval was needed at Town Meeting. Reading has an
elected Town Meeting of 192 members rather than an open Town Meeting (there are 24 elected
representatives for each of 8 precincts). This structure was regarded by the Charles River Watershed
Association as an advantage to approving the stormwater utility (compared to an open Town Meeting of
all residents). Some Town Meeting members had served 10-15 years in their positions and were well
aware of stormwater issues.
A key project contact felt that the fact that a committee of local citizens recommended the stormwater
utility did not play a large role in swaying the Board of Selectmen or the Town Meeting vote supporting
the stormwater utility proposal. It may have helped, he said, but it "didn't push it over the top." More
important, he said, was a recognized and long-standing need to address stormwater management—and
the town's work to continually raise awareness of the issue and educate the Board of Selectmen and
Town Meeting over time.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
The adopted funding mechanism for residential properties was a flat fee of $39.84 per year ($3.30 per
month). Commercial properties paid $39.84 per year for each 2,552 square feet of impervious surface.
Exemptions and credits are available; for example, undeveloped properties are exempt. Early payment
results in a 10% discount, and stormwater best management practices can qualify a property for up to a
50% credit.
Program Implementation
There was little public opposition when the first stormwater utility bills were sent out. A project contact
noted several factors that aided in smooth initial implementation:
• A fact sheet was distributed with residents' water bills before the first stormwater bills were
mailed, and again when stormwater bills were issued.
-------
The DPW Director met with all staff that might interact with the public to make sure that all
points of contact for public questions were clear.
Water and sewer rates in Reading were high, so the stormwater fee appeared relatively low in
comparison. (Stormwater fees were included in water/sewer bills).
A large increase in water and sewer rates occurred around the same time as the first
stormwater bills were received, which deflected attention from the new stormwater fee.
Example: Stormwater Utility FAQ Issued by Reading
Storm Water Enterprise Fund Frequently Asked Questions
I. What is storm water','
Storm water is ram water thai runs off impervious surfaces -such an streets, driveways., park:
rooftops, or other tightly packed surfaces;. Impervious surfaces reduce the ability of sjorm>
ahs-i-irbed or infiltrate intes the ground,
2. Why did Town Meet in jj and the Board i>f Stlecimcn vole to establish a storm w ate
enterprise fund (SMI-IK)?
["he Town of Reading is required by the United Statirs Environmental Protection Agency (L
develop a storm water msEiageniesit plan shas reduces the discharge of pollutants la oat start
dram system and water ways. The Town is required so be in fait compliance with the term:
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDt.S) Phase I! permit by 2U0K tome*
and state mandates. The Town established a SWfcF to provide a dedicated and adequate so
tiiisdimg for our storm water management program.
3. \Vhy K Sturm water manageinitil necessary'.*
^torm water often contains surface pollutants including petrokeiiEn products, soaps, deterge
lawn fertilizer which eventually empty into the Abcrjcma. Ipswich, and Saugus rivers. l:ffc
sEorm walerni ana i^emcni also helps reduce flooding and the erosion of river banks.
4. Hww i* the SW£I< fee calculated?
Single and Two-S-'amily properties will be billed at a flat rate. All other pennies wilJ be a
annual storm water fee based on the totnl amount of impervious surface area OT the lot. wh
biiled quarterly. Condominium properties wilt be billed based u-n the toiaJ amount of impcr
wit] appear as a separate charge on your quarterly wmier and sewer bill. The tee will be cal
follows tor the following different types of property:
ily Residences
:ial/ industrial
Hat fee of S9.96/quarter or
($39.84 annually |
Surfac
5, How is total impervious surface area determined'*
Impervious surface arras were measured using she fawn's mapping system (t»IS). Uuil
driveways, and parking areas, were delineated from aerial photos. The surface area of tf
was calculated and will be assessed at a rate of S39.SH/ 2.552 sq. ft. (annually) for multi-fan
commercial, and industrial properties.
6, (-"or what purpows will SVVtF fct ren'cnue be used?
Storm water fee revenue will be used to hire two laborers thai will perform stream and dele:
maintenance activities, Ilw Stt'tF will allow the Ucpartment of Public Works to address a
at stream and drainage maintenance sss-ues that have not been completed due so staffing one
iintilations. Storm waEer fees will also fund capaEai expenditures for drainaite system raappi
layer}, ilhcit dssthar^e detection, and genera! drainage svstcm mfrasimtisure lERjiroX'ejnents.
FAQs
5. Will re^dents be assessed a S\VEF fee if tbeir property U located an a private way ar&a a
Iowa accepted •areet that does not have catch hasim or storm drains?
YL'S, aishougii a property rtiay be Sucated OH a private way or on a town aetcpted s-treei thai does m>t
has'C catch basins i« storm drains, ttie j>wtitr will bx; as^L'ss^J a storrifi Witter fee since tiii; propeity stiil
p«>duc«Si runoff tnio ih«." Ti>wn*s s-lonn water swsem.
6. Are there certain tv|ii-s of properties that are exempt from the storm water Tee?
UK: Iksird of Selectmen: a^iprov^d a raic structure as rccimtrtierided by the Water, fewer, and Siortn
Wafer Management Advistw Committee thai do«& not provide any exempfiotis for municipal
pnsperlies. schools, or properties owned by religioiis or regisleretl tion-profil oryaEH2atiosis.
Uttiieveiopci! property (witiwut iitiper'viuuai surfiices) ss the ottlv category of property that will sio! be
a_s!.es^ed a storm waier fee.
7. Has the Town made any provisions for storm water abatements?
Yes, to eneouraije property owners to ininirni/e the amount of runoff" from properties, and to reduce
ihe aiiKiuiil of pollutants entering Town waterways, tlie Town has. instiluletl the following storm waler
abatun-KJnt program:
SinLl. A T»i.-l amils Rrsi.k.uvs
Single and two-family residential properties that tnstaJL and maintain infiltration systems or other
means to reduce runotTwiil be eligible for an abatement of up to 50% of iheir total asse^smem.
fdatt Industrial/ Mdtt-F>«ilv
Commercial/ Industrial/ Multi-Family properties that tnstaJi and maintain siate-of-the-ati sttmn water
Irualment and infiltmtion iystem* will be eligible for ait atMtemectt up to 5f>% of tbeir tfttal
8, What are *orfle typical storm water devices that qualif) for abatement*?
* Diywells
« Inflllration Chambers
• DeientioK Ponds,
9. What are some typical devices that do NOT qualify Tor abatements?
• Drmking water filtration systems
• Rain BiUTeb
* Sump Pumps
10. Where can I obtain more information or file for an abatement?
Property owners or condominium associalimts ion bohal f of condominium owners) seeking additional
information or would like to file for an abatement should contact the Depafiment of Puhlic Work:*,
Engineering Division at ^781) *J42-9t)»2. The Abatement Appticauoa form may be obtattued tlirough
the Town of Reading *ebsiii" a? w\vw,ci-K'adi]ii;.ma.u-s, or may be picked up ai ihe Engineering
Office at Reading Town Hall. 16 Lowell St.
11. IM the Morm wattr abatemetJl permanent?
The storm water abatement percentage will only change if the imperviau-s surface area changes.
The stormwater fee raises approximately $300,000 annually. It covers cleaning and rebuilding catch
basins, ditch cleaning, detention basin maintenance and street sweeping. The fee was recently raised in
order to ensure relatively small, incremental increases over time as stormwater management costs rise
and to avoid the need for sudden large increases.
-------
Legal Challenges
Two citizens filed a lawsuit once the stormwater utility was adopted. They argued that the fee was really
a tax (and therefore deductible). According to the Town Manager, the lawsuit was dropped in 2009.
Reference Documents
1. Presentation: "Structuring a Stormwater Utility":
http://www.salemsound.org/PDF/ReadingStormwaterUtility.pdf. Accessed 8/6/2012.
2. Town of Reading - Stormwater Management Program Website.
http://www.readingma.gov/Pages/ReadingMA Engineering/npdes content. Accessed 8/7/12.
3. "Assessment of Stormwater Financing Mechanisms in New England: Final Case Study Report."
Charles River Watershed Association.
http://www.crwa.org/proiects/stormwater/Municipal%20SFM%20Case%20Studies%20
Repo.pdf. Accessed 8/7/12.
4. Letter: 'We cannot opt out', Reading Advocate, August 2006.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/reading/news/opinions/x902790619tfaxzz22srlNBIP. Accessed
8/7/12.
5. "Storm water made a fee", Reading Advocate, April 2006.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/reading/news/x902789335. Accessed 8/7/12.
6. Town of Reading - Stormwater Abatement Applications.
http://www.ci.reading.ma.us/Pages/ReadingMA Engineering/permits/stormwater abatementa
E£. Accessed 8/7/12.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England €1 Page 78
-------
Raleigh, North Carolina
Size of Community: Population 416,000 / 145 square miles
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
First formal discussion of forming a Stormwater Utility / First watershed planning
studies undertaken
Development of a Stormwater Comprehensive Plan
Stormwater Division formed— Began work on Raleigh's Phase 1 MS4 NPDES Permit
Severe Flooding in Northeast Raleigh and Hurricane Fran
Public Education Program / Staff Workgroup for a Stormwater Utility began
Stakeholder group formed to discuss Stormwater funding and program options
Stakeholder group work completed
Stakeholder group recommended to City Council a Stormwater utility be approved with
a threefold increase in funding and significantly increased service levels
Council approved implementation of a Stormwater Utility as part of the budget
Stormwater Utility Ordinance and Rate Resolution approved by Council
Stormwater fee collection began
Date
1985
1989
1989
August 1995/Sept 1996
Mid-2001
October 2002
March 2003
April 2003
June 2003
November 2003
March 1, 2004
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
A major driver for a new approach to Stormwater management and funding was the need to address a
large backlog of capital improvement projects and system maintenance needs. These projects were
needed if the city was to maintain regulatory compliance and control flooding.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism Development
Development of a Stormwater utility was led by the DPW's Stormwater Division. Discussions within city
departments began in 1985 along with the first watershed planning studies. In 1989, the city's
Stormwater Division was formed and began to determine the work needed for Raleigh to comply with
its Phase 1 MS4 NPDES Permit. The city's watershed planning studies and Stormwater planning analyses
indicated the need for large infrastructure investments and an accelerated maintenance program.
Severe flooding affected northeast Raleigh in August 1995, and hurricane Fran struck the region in
September 1996. The city began a public education program on improved Stormwater management and
created a staff workgroup for a Stormwater utility in 2001.
In 2002, Raleigh contracted with a consultant to develop a Stormwater management funding study. The
City Council supported the Stormwater utility concept and created a Stormwater Utility Stakeholder
Group to advise it on program design and funding options. The group met eight times and completed its
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 79
-------
study in March 2003 (as described below). In April 2003, the group recommended to the City Council
that a stormwater utility be formed. The City Council passed the utility ordinance in November 2003.
This was followed by initial billing in March 2004.
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
The stakeholder group was comprised of 25-30 participants selected by the City Council. To select
members, the city's consultant provided the Council with a list of 15 stakeholder categories that should
be represented. The City Council then nominated specific individuals to represent each of these
categories. (According to one project contact, "everybody knew who needed to be involved.")
Participants included representatives from the development community, environmental groups, the real
estate industry, neighborhood groups and schools. By convening this group, the city hoped to make sure
that the proposed program was what citizens wanted (and were willing to pay for) and thus gain
community support. There was an explicit decision not to include City Council members on the
committee so that stakeholder group members would be more comfortable speaking freely.
The stakeholder group held eight meetings from October 2002 to February 2003. Facilitators designed
the process to initially focus on the stakeholders' desired level of services and only later address funding
options. One stakeholder participating in the process said that coming to agreement first on levels of
service helped the group agree on the funding mechanism later in the process. The flow of the meetings
was as follows:
• Meeting 1: Reviewed existing stormwater program, funding options, and the role of the
stakeholder group. City staff outlined the need to improve the city's stormwater management
program and funding.
• Meeting 2: Discussed the stormwater program's current level of service. The discussion
emphasized that a utility user fee would not necessarily be the group's final recommendation.
The facilitator distributed take-home questionnaires to solicit stakeholder feedback regarding
levels of service that they thought the city should provide.
• Meeting 3: Reviewed an example of an effective stormwater management program (Charlotte-
Mecklenburg County, NC) and a case study on the Mine Creek Drainage Basin; discussed
stakeholder feedback on the level of service issue as reflected in questionnaire responses.
• Meeting 4: Participated in a field trip to look at several stormwater control infrastructure
projects (i.e., culvert upgrades, stream restoration, wetland creation, regional stormwater
pond).
• Meeting 5: Discussed stakeholder reactions to the field trip. Participants participated in a voting
exercise to identify preferred levels of service for each area of the stormwater program.
Stakeholders also discussed various funding options such as property taxes, municipal service
districts, special assessments, sales taxes, and a dedicated stormwater fund.
• Meeting 6: Discussed funding options and residential and non-residential rate structure options.
The Rote of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Storrnwoter Funding Decisions in New England O Page 80
-------
• Meeting 7: Discussed residential and non-residential rate structure options and credit options.
• Meeting 8: Finalized recommendations to the Raleigh City Council.
A key focus for the stakeholder group was agreeing on a balance between their desired level of
stormwater funding services and the funding required to provide these services. During the process, a
consultant presented stakeholders with a "menu" of funding options that represented different service
levels (see table below).
Level of
Service
A
B
C
D
Annual O&M
$6 million
Fully
Preventative/
100% Routine
$4.8 million
Mixture of
Routine and
Inspection-Based
$3 million
Inspection-Based
Only
$2 million
Responsive Only
Annual Management,
Compliance and
Implementation Cost
$5 million
Comprehensive Planning
+ Compliance + Full
Implementation
$3 million
Proactive Planning +
Compliance + Systematic
Implementation
$2 million
Priority Planning +
Compliance + Partial
Implementation
n/a
Annual Capital
Improvement
Projects
$6 million
16-year
program
$4 million
25-year
program
$3 million
33-year
program
$2 million
Annual
Program Cost
$17 million
$11.8 million
$8.0 million
$6.0 million
Estimated
User Fee
(S/SFU/
month)
$5.76
$4.00
$2.71
$2.03
Equivalent
Tax Rate
($/$100)
$0.067
$0.046
$0.032
$0.024
• = Consultant estimate of current City of Raleigh levels of service
Source: City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Funding Study: Final Report, March 2003.
The stakeholders then voted on their preferred level of service. Ultimately, stakeholders agreed on the
"B" service level, an increase from existing levels of service, which were in the "C" and "D" range (see
highlights in table). The estimated annual cost of level B was $11.8 million. This level of service would
provide a mixture of routine and inspection-based maintenance for operations and maintenance,
proactive planning, full regulatory compliance and systematic implementation of the stormwater
management plan. Project contacts said that staff were surprised that stakeholders chose a higher (and
more expensive) level of service. A stakeholder committee member said that the group coalesced
around option B because participants felt that the city needed to be proactive in its stormwater
program, and that option B would allow it to plan and prioritize stormwater-related activities.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 81
-------
In addition to the stakeholder committee, Raleigh held at least ten public meetings around the city, and
distributed information about the stormwater utility in water bills. DPW staff also met with various
citizen action groups. City staff invited a local newspaper reporter to sit in on stakeholder group
meetings, and the environmental editor for a local paper was invited to sit in near the end of the
meeting process.
Program Adoption
From the time that the City Council approved the establishment of a stakeholder committee, it
supported the stormwater utility concept. Following the recommendation from stakeholders, the
Council passed the utility ordinance in November 2003 by a 7-1 vote. According to the city's Stormwater
Manager, there was not much discussion by the Council after receiving the stakeholder committee's
recommendation; they were satisfied with the work of the group and by that time, "everyone
understood that if we wanted to move forward with an aggressive Capital Investment Plan, we needed a
stable funding source." All of the stakeholder committee members attended the final City Council
meeting and spoke on behalf of the proposed utility.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
Residential fees were based on the square footage of impervious area for a property. There were five
tiers for single-family homes (i.e., one dwelling on one parcel):
• Tier One: 400 to 1000 square feet = $1.60/month
• Tier Two: 1,001 to 3,870 square feet = $4.00/month
• Tier Three: 3,871 to 6,620 square feet = $6.80/month
• Tier Four: 6,621 to 9,500 square feet = $11.60/month
• Tier Five: Over 9,500 square feet is billed at the commercial rate (see below)
The stormwater fee for commercial, industrial and multi-family properties was determined by their
respective proportional amounts of impervious surface as compared to the median residential property.
Rates were $4 per 2,260 square feet of impervious surface.
Program Implementation
Stormwater fees were issued as line items in water and sewer bills. The city held public meetings at
various locations to inform people about the new fee and sent out information in water bills. A project
contact said that it was important to have a phone line for staff to address all questions and concerns
about initial bills. Several members of the stakeholder group continued their involvement by joining the
Stormwater Management Advisory Committee (SMAC), which was created when the stormwater utility
was established. It advises the city on the program on an ongoing basis. One case contact mentioned
that the advisory committee provided continuity and helped with the transition to program
implementation. Very little education was required for the SMAC to come "up to speed" because
-------
stakeholders who served on the SWAC and went on to serve as SMAC members were already well
educated on stormwater issues.
Revenues raised through the utility have been sufficient to cover program costs, and there has been no
increase in fees.
Legal Challenges
There were no legal challenges to the utility. A project contact said that some other cities in the area
were sued but that many cities in the state had already formed utilities and Raleigh learned from their
experience how to design a process and program that reduced the risk of litigation. It was important
that North Carolina had enabling legislation in place. The contact said "any time we do something like
this in North Carolina there has to be enabling legislation for it."
Reference Documents
1. "A New 'Rain Tax' May Fall: North Carolina localities turn to new levies for stormwater
programs", Carolina Journal News Reports, May 2003.
http://www.carolinaiournal.com/articles/display story.html?id=731. Accessed 7/30/12
2. City of Raleigh Stormwater Utility homepage:
http://www.raleighnc.gov/home/content/PWksStormwater/Articles/StormwaterUtilityMainPag
e.html. Accessed 7/30/12
3. City of Raleigh Stormwater Ordinance, Adopted November 2003.
http://www.raleighnc.gov/content/PWksStormwater/Documents/MISCINDIVIDUALDOCUMENT
S/StormwaterUtilityOrdinance.pdf. Accessed 7/30/12
4. Presentation by Danny Bowden, Stormwater Manager, City of Raleigh, North Carolina.
http://www.efc.unc.edu/publications/Presentations/stormwater/bowden.pdf. Accessed
7/30/12.
5. City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Funding Study: Final Report, March 2003.
The Rote of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 83
-------
Manchester, New Hampshire
Size of Community: 110,000 population, 34.9 square miles
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
City of Manchester adopted ordinance on stormwater management
Stormwater feasibility workshop with city staff
New Hampshire legislature passed a bill authorizing any state municipality to form a
stormwater utility
Date
August 2006
October 2007
2008
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
Key drivers for Manchester to enhance its stormwater program were flooding, water quality, the need
for capital improvements, and compliance with anticipated regulatory requirements. Two years prior to
starting stormwater utility planning, three 100-year storm events occurred in the area. The city's 2007
stormwater utility feasibility study reported that "it is generally thought that existing stormwater system
infrastructure deficiencies (pipe size, slope, etc.) have contributed to the damaging flood events which
the city has experienced in recent years." Manchester's existing stormwater infrastructure was
described as "large, aging, and somewhat neglected."
Stormwater management responsibilities in Manchester were divided mainly between the Highway
Division (engineering, operations and maintenance, and capital improvement) and the Environmental
Protection Division (management and regulation). The city's 2007 stormwater budget was $765,000 (not
including its capital investment in a major combined sewer outfall upgrade underway at the time). The
estimated annual revenue needed to "bring the stormwater program to a moderate level" was
approximately $2.6 million. By the time of the 2007 feasibility study, Manchester was required to
comply with updated MS4 requirements and develop a Stormwater Management Program.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism Development
In August 2006, Manchester adopted a stormwater management ordinance. The city also began
analyzing the feasibility of establishing a stormwater funding mechanism.46 Working with consultants,
the city participated in an initial scoping effort to determine whether a utility made sense and then
undertook a more extensive feasibility study. The feasibility study concluded that a user fee was the best
option for financing a stormwater program because of its equity, stability, and adequacy. It also outlined
a process for creating and implementing a utility, including a stakeholder engagement process, public
46 Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Manchester by adding a new Chapter 54: Storm Water to Title V:
Public Works. http://manchesternh.gOV/website/Portals/2/Departments/environ protec/AdoptedOrdinancePDF 2007.pdf.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 84
-------
outreach/education campaign, billing system, suggested payment mechanism, and other items. The
study outlined a series of next steps and a timeline for adoption and implementation.
While work on the feasibility study was underway, the New Hampshire legislature passed a bill
authorizing Manchester to form a stormwater utility. The legislation required approval by two-thirds of
city Aldermen in order for a stormwater user fee to be established. In 2008, New Hampshire passed
additional legislation authorizing all municipalities to form a stormwater utility with majority approval of
the municipality's governing body.47
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
Manchester conducted no stakeholder engagement or public outreach while developing its stormwater
utility concept. Consultants ran a stormwater workshop in 2007. It was only attended by city employees,
consultants, and two Aldermen at-large. According to project contacts, the next step was to present the
plan to the Board of Aldermen and large commercial property owners in the community; however, this
step was not taken due to the circumstances set out below.
Program Adoption
With the feasibility study and technical work complete and state enabling legislation in place, the pieces
were in place to seek Board of Aldermen approval of the new utility. However, a mayoral election had
just been held and the newly elected mayor had partially based his campaign on opposition to the new
utility. After the election, the proposal was never brought before the Board of Aldermen for a vote, and
there has been no progress since then.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
Although not implemented, elements of Manchester's planned stormwater fee included:
• A three-tiered system for residential properties. (The feasibility study estimated that residential
property owners would be willing to pay roughly $4.00-$5.00 per household per month if a
compelling case were made.)
• $33.60 per ERU per year for commercial properties.
• A credit system.
Funds from Manchester's wastewater enterprise fund would also have contributed to the stormwater
utility because the city's wastewater and stormwater systems are partially combined and thus the
enterprise fund would contribute to some of the system's operations, maintenance, and improvement.
47 New Hampshire State Law: Title X, Public Health, Chapter 149-1: Sewers; Assessment for Sewers
Section 149-l:10-a: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/x/149-i/149-i-10-a.htm.
-------
Program Implementation
Adoption and implementation of a stormwater utility is on hold until a more favorable political climate
in Manchester develops.
Legal Challenges
There were no legal challenges to the proposed stormwater utility.
Reference Documents
1. City of Manchester - Stormwater website.
http://manchesternh.gOV/website/Departments/EnvironmentalProtection/Stormwater/tabid/2
67/Default.aspx. Accessed 8/13/2012.
2. City of Manchester Stormwater Feasibility Study, June 2008.
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/stormwater/documents/manch-sw-utilityfs-
rpt.pdf. Accessed 8/13/2012.
3. City of Manchester Stormwater Ordinance.
http://manchesternh.gOV/website/Portals/2/Departments/environ protec/AdoptedOrdinanceP
DF 2007.pdf. Accessed 8/10/2012.
4. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Meeting Minutes: New Hampshire
Stormwater "Funding" Feasibility Study Grant Participant Meeting. March 14, 2011.
-------
Berkeley County, South Carolina
Size of Community (unincorporated area): 105,267 population, 1,165 square miles
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
Berkeley County adopted a Stormwater Management Ordinance to develop and enforce
stormwater management program
SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environment Control) authorized
Berkeley County to discharge stormwater under its NPDES Phase II MS4 General Permit
New Draft State MS4 General Permit placed on public notice
Three readings of the proposed Stormwater Management Utility Ordinance presented to
the County Council by the Committee on Public Works and Purchasing
County Council rejected the proposed ordinance on third reading.
Date
2007
2008
March 2011
July-Sept. 2011
Sept. 2011
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
Berkeley County was the only coastal county in South Carolina without a stormwater utility. The main
driver for new stormwater management revenues was an anticipated and more stringent revision to
South Carolina's NPDES Phase II MS4 General Permit (MS4 permit) that would increase requirements for
stormwater management. At the time that the stormwater utility was being considered, Berkeley
County was operating under the state's MS4 permit (approved by the state in 2008). The permit
required the county to implement and enforce a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP).
Anticipated permit revisions were expected to significantly increase stormwater management costs.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism Development
Berkeley County sought a new source of revenue to comply with its anticipated MS4 revisions. The
proposed fees would only apply to the unincorporated parts of Berkeley County. The county's
Engineering Department, working with a consultant, developed the utility concept and its initial design.
The county conducted no public outreach activities or stakeholder engagement efforts during program
development.
The county didn't have sufficient data to calculate the impervious surface areas of residential and non-
residential properties. Therefore, the Engineering Department proposed a flat fee based on land use.48
The Department saw this fee structure as an "interim step" that would allow the county to raise
sufficient funds, including funds to calculate the impervious surface areas of residential and non-
residential properties later. The county could then develop a variable fee structure based more closely
Fees would be assessed based on whether the property was single family residential, multifamily residential, a mobile home,
non-residential, developed tax-exempt property, or non-profit property.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 87
-------
on actual site conditions. (The county estimated that a detailed study to determine the total area of
impervious surface would cost $400,000 to $500,000). In describing the interim fee strategy to the
County Council, the County Engineer stated that "We are trying to do the best we can as fast as we can
with the information we have." (The time pressure was largely driven by anticipation of the state's
revised MS4 permit).
In Berkeley County, proposed ordinances must be read at three meetings of the committee with
jurisdiction (in this case, the Committee on Public Works and Purchasing). After the third reading, the
Council votes on the measure. To prepare the Council for consideration of the proposal, the county
Engineering Department held a budget workshop in which the County Engineer and a consultant
described the stormwater utility concept and the revenue needed to manage a program that would
achieve regulatory compliance. The consultant for the county subsequently made a presentation to the
Council at its Committee Meeting in June 2011 to again describe the proposed utility. The consultant
stated that the Council had only two choices (other than non-compliance with the anticipated permit):
funding stormwater management through property tax revenues in the general fund or creating a
stormwater utility.
During the three readings at meetings of the Committee on "The economy is in disrepair; at the
Public Works between July and September 2011, City same time you want to place another
Council members and stakeholders attending the meetings financial burden on folks who least
began to voice concerns. A small but active citizens group can afford it, and on top of that, the
appeared at these meetings to oppose a stormwater fee. folks who least contribute to it."
Council members also voiced their increasing concerns —Testimony at Berkeley County
about the utility concept. Issues raised included: Council Meeting
• Citizens didn't know the utility was coming and didn't understand it.
• This was a new tax not a fee.
• It wasn't fair that businesses with large areas of impervious surface would only pay a bit more
than a rural home on farmland.
• The flat fee wasn't fair because it didn't take into account differences in impervious surface
areas among properties.
• The county didn't need more money; it was already complying with its existing stormwater
permit.
• This was an unfunded federal mandate.
• This could turn into a "cash cow" allowing the county to fund other, unrelated projects.
After the third reading, the proposed ordinance went to the Regular Council Meeting for a vote on
September 26, 2011. Concerns similar to those voiced in previous Council and Committee meetings
were expressed. The Council voted against the ordinance—even though county staff proposed reducing
the stormwater fees by two-thirds.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 88
-------
According to the project contact, new permit requirements will most likely be funded through a tax
increase.
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
The county engaged no stakeholders and performed no public outreach during program development.
Once the fee was proposed to the County Council and citizens became aware of it, Council and
Committee meetings became the main forum for hearing citizen and Councilmember concerns. The
county also held some ad hoc open meetings to which members of the public were invited; during these
meetings, county staff attempted to explain the need for, and value of, the stormwater utility.
Program Adoption
Although the county's Engineering Department was being
proactive about stormwater funding in light of upcoming
regulatory requirements, the County Council hadn't asked the
Department to prepare a stormwater funding proposal. The
Engineering Department found itself having to "sell" the
utility concept to the Council. In the Committee meetings to
present the concept, Council members were asking
fundamental questions about the need for the utility and its
design. In addition, an economic downturn made it difficult to
propose new fees.
"At the next meeting of council, I'm
going to have a resolution or
something for [the South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control], and I think it
needs to reflect those who voted
against doing it, because we now are
going to probably face an
enforcement action."
—County Supervisor to City Council
following rejection of the proposal
In retrospect, the project contact suggested that more stakeholder engagement would have been
helpful. A stakeholder committee, she said, could have been a forum for educating citizens and Council
members about the need for stormwater management and sources of revenue to pay for it. Although
she cautioned that the small group of organized citizens opposing the fees would probably not have
been swayed by a public process, a stakeholder engagement process may have provided a means for the
county Engineering Department and the County Council to hear from a broader range of supporters and
opponents and help build consensus around a solution.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
The county proposed an "interim flat fee" for single family residential properties ($3/month),
multifamily residential properties ($1.50/month), non-residential (commercial or industrial) properties
($9/month), and non-profit/tax-exempt properties ($6/month). Fees would have been added to the
property tax bill. The ordinance authorized development of a credit policy.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 89
-------
Program Implementation
The program was not implemented.
Legal Challenges
There were no legal challenges to the proposed stormwater utility.
Reference Documents
1. Berkeley County stormwater website.
http://www.berkelevcountysc.gov/dept/engineering/stormwater.asp. Accessed 8/17/2012.
2. Berkeley County Draft Stormwater Management Ordinance.
http://www.berkelevcountvsc.gov/forms/engineering/BC%20Utility%20Ordinance.pdf.
Accessed 8/17/12.
3. Berkeley County Council Meeting Minutes (June 2011-September 2011).
http://www.berkeleycountysc.gov/aandm/?dept=. Accessed 8/17/12.
4. Berkeley County Stormwater User Fee Presentation (July 20, 2011).
http://www.berkelevcountvsc.gov/forms/engineering/BCStormwaterUtilityPresentation.pdf.
Accessed 8/17/12.
5. "Berkeley sinks stormwater fee", (Posted September 27, 2011; updated March 18, 2012). The
Post & Courier (Charleston). Accessed 10/29/12.
-------
Huntsville, Alabama
Size of Community: Population 180,000 / 120 square miles
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
City Council established Flood Mitigation Planning Committee to develop a Flood
Mitigation Plan
Flood Mitigation Plan issued (contained a recommendation to form a stormwater utility)
City Council unanimously adopted Flood Mitigation Plan
Citizen opposition to a stormwater utility emerged, and there was legal uncertainty due to
a lack of state enabling legislation. City Council deferred approval of a stormwater utility.
City officials began work with state legislative representatives to pass state enabling
legislation.
Major flooding in Huntsville region led the City Council to pass a resolution in support of
state authorizing legislation for a stormwater utility
Action on state authorizing legislation is pending. No stormwater utility has been
developed in Huntsville.
Date
August 2000
June 2001
September 2001
2002-2003
May 2003
2003-present
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
Damaging floods in 1988, 1990, and 1999 motivated Huntsville to explore stormwater management
improvements. Regulatory issues were not a primary driver for stormwater funding.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism Development
The City Council created a Flood Mitigation Planning Committee in August 2000. Its charge was to study
flooding problems and develop a mitigation plan. The Committee worked with the Huntsville
Engineering Department (the agency responsible for flood control) for ten months to develop a plan. At
the conclusion of the process, Committee members unanimously recommended a stormwater utility as
their preferred strategy to raise flood mitigation funds.
The City Council unanimously adopted the Flood Mitigation Plan in September 2001.49 A stormwater
utility proposal was not explicitly presented for a vote, but the Flood Mitigation Plan recommended
creation of a utility. The plan noted that "there are many policy and financial issues that need to be
reviewed and settled before a utility recommendation can be submitted to the Mayor and City Council."
The Mayor supported a stormwater utility, but wanted the Huntsville Times to endorse it before
pursuing it further. The Times published a supportive editorial describing the cost of the utility as akin to
a glass of wine per month. However, the editorial brought the utility concept to the attention of a small,
' Minutes from May 23, 2003 Huntsville City Council meeting (testimony of Ed Starnes).
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 91
-------
active citizens group that opposed new taxes. The group deluged City Council members and the Mayor's
office with negative messages concerning the proposed fee. Public meetings about the utility were
contentious. In the midst of these public debates, the City Attorney declared that the city did not have
the legal authority to create a stormwater utility and needed the state legislature to authorize it to do
so. The City Council deferred the decision on establishing a stormwater utility.
The Mayor began work on getting enabling state legislation passed by holding discussions with state
legislators.50 The state legislative representatives said they wanted a City Council resolution requesting
them to introduce the needed legislation. Given adverse public reaction, several City Council members
didn't support such a resolution. The case contact said that, at that time, the Council would likely have
passed the resolution by a 3-2 vote. This result would have been sufficient to adopt the resolution.
However, the contact believed that it would not have been compelling enough for the state legislative
delegation to take action.
As the discussions with the state legislature were going on, the Flood Mitigation Committee encouraged
the city to begin a public education program to "explain the needs and benefits" of a stormwater utility.
The Committee noted that many of the activities described in the Flood Mitigation Plan had now missed
deadlines and were not on schedule because of a lack of a revenue source.
In May 2003, a large flood affected every district in Huntsville and catalyzed the community's attention
to the need for flood control. This motivated the City Council to reconsider passing a resolution
requesting state enabling legislation. Such a resolution passed unanimously in May 2003.51
However, there was no action at the state level, in part because one local state legislator opposed the
utility concept. Local political support eroded when a Council member that supported the stormwater
utility left the Council and was replaced by one who did not support it. There has been no concrete
action on a stormwater utility in Huntsville since that time. (Huntsville's annual Flood Mitigation
Evaluation Reports for 2004-2009 label the issue as "awaiting enabling legislation.")
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
The Flood Mitigation Committee, which originally proposed the concept of a stormwater utility, was
comprised of nineteen members, twelve of whom represented Huntsville residents or other stakeholder
groups (the rest were city staff). The Flood Mitigation Committee's annual report described public
members of the committee as a "cross-section of Huntsville." Five Committee members were selected
by the five City Council members to represent the Council Districts, and seven represented other
50 Existing state enabling legislation for Birmingham, Alabama's stormwater utility applied only to Class 1 municipalities and
Huntsville did not fit into that category. (2002 Flood Mitigation Evaluation Report).
51 Resolution No. 03-442. Council meeting minutes described the resolution as requesting "the legislative delegation to pass a
bill giving the City Council the opportunity to use a stormwater utility fee as a fund-raising mechanism if it chose to do so...this
did not require the Council to do anything at all... it would simply give them another tool for raising the money to mitigate flood
damage to the entire city." City Council minutes, May 22, 2003.
-------
stakeholder groups. The stakeholder group representatives were invited for balanced representation
from the agricultural sector, developers and other impacted groups such as the U.S. Army and the
Tennessee Valley Authority. Committee work was supported by a Technical Advisory Committee of flood
mitigation planners, floodplain managers, climatologists, engineers and representatives of federal
agencies with flood management responsibilities.
The Flood Mitigation Committee held 10 meetings, all of
which were open to the public. The flow and content of
the meetings was guided by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's 10-step planning process (see call-
out box). During the first and last meetings, approximately
60 people attended. The intervening meetings were
attended almost entirely by Committee members. For the
first meeting, the Committee invited several agencies,
including USGS and the Army Corps of Engineers, to
participate in a public presentation of the Committee's
plan. The final meeting was in City Council Chambers to
explain the results of the Committee's work. Prior to this
final meeting, an article and editorial on the Committee's
work were published in the Huntsville Times, and the
citizens attending the meeting were mostly present to voice
Program Adoption
The Federal Emergency
Management Agency's 10-step
Planning Process
1. Organize to prepare the plan
2. Involve the public
3. Coordinate with other agencies
4. Assess the hazard
5. Assess the problem
6. Set goals
7. Review possible activities
8. Draft an action plan
9. Adopt the plan
10. Implement, evaluate and revise
their complaints.
As outlined above, several key factors contributed to the City Council not adopting a stormwater utility,
including:
• Community opposition in the form of a small vocal group of opponents. A project contact noted
that there were people that would have clearly benefitted from flood control efforts funded by
the proposed utility, but they did not attend meetings or speak up against vociferous
opponents.
• Legal uncertainty. In the midst of public opposition, the City Attorney determined that state
legislation was needed. There was also little precedent for a utility—Alabama had only one
other stormwater utility at the time.
• Political uncertainty and risk: The election cycles for the City Council and the Mayor meant that
the city was in a near-constant election cycle.52 According to a project contact, the City Council
and Mayor do not take on controversial issues within one year of an election, leaving a small
window for significant action.
There are two election cycles in Huntsville. During the first cycle, three city council members are up for election. During the
second cycle, two city council members and the mayor are up for election.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 93
-------
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
The city never developed a detailed stormwater fee proposal. The Huntsville Stormwater Mitigation Plan
noted that a user fee structure would be determined after completion of a feasibility study.53
Program Implementation
As noted previously, adoption and implementation of a dedicated funding source for flood management
is indefinitely on hold. However, Huntsville continues to implement other goals set forth in the 2001
Flood Mitigation Plan, such as new watershed modeling and flood studies.
Legal Challenges
There were no legal challenges.
Reference Documents
1. Huntsville Flood Mitigation Plan (2001):
http://www.huntsvilleal.gov/engineering/Original Flood Mitigation Plan.pdf
2. Flood Mitigation Evaluation Report 2002-2009: 2002 report link:
http://www.huntsvilleal.gov/engineering/AnnualReport8-30-02.pdf
3. Huntsville Flood Mitigation Website (with plan, annual report, etc.):
http://www.huntsvilleal.gov/engineering/floodmitigation.phptfblank
4. Huntsville City Council: http://www.huntsvilleal.gov/citycouncil/ (online minutes go back to
2003)
5. Narrative Discussion of the City of Huntsville Storm Water Management Program.
http://www.hsvcity.com/NatRes/swnarrative.pdf. Accessed 8/10/12.
53 The Huntsville Engineering Department estimated the residential user fees could be in the range of $2 and $5 per month.
Huntsville Stormwater FAQ: http://www.huntsvilleal.gov/engineering/FrequentlyAsked.htm.
-------
Dover, New Hampshire
Size of Community: Population 30,000 / 29 square miles
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
NPDES Phase II regulations adopted
City of Dover convened Ad Hoc Stormwater Utility Study Committee to assist with
storm water funding feasibility study
Stormwater Utility Study Committee meetings
Stormwater Utility Committee issued report and recommendations
Dover City Council voted against adoption of recommendation to create a Stormwater
utility
Final report on feasibility study published
Date
2003
August 2010
Fall 2010
December 2010
February 2011
November 2011
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
Dover's Stormwater infrastructure is over 100 years old. (When EPA required separation of Stormwater
and sewer systems in the 1970s, Dover constructed a new sewer system, and the original sewer system
became the Stormwater system.) According to the city, prior to the events described below, "the age
and condition of the Stormwater infrastructure in the urbanized area of the city [demanded] attention
following many years of neglect." The city's interest in a sustainable source of Stormwater funding was
driven by its anticipation of more stringent MS4 permit requirements that would require increased
maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure, and might require installation of new
controls as well. At the time, three separate municipal departments managed aspects of the Stormwater
program using general funds:
• The Highway Division, which focused on storm drainage system maintenance.
• The Sewer Department, which focused on emergency catch-basin cleaning, illicit discharge
detection and elimination program.
• The Engineering/Utilities Department, which focused on capital projects.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism Development
The City of Dover's Community Services Department recognized the need for increased revenue to fund
Stormwater management activities. The Department applied for and received a grant from the New
Hampshire DES to conduct a Stormwater utility feasibility study. The City Council subsequently passed a
resolution in March 2010 to create an Ad Hoc Stormwater Utility Study Committee to participate in the
study. According to the City Council's resolution, the purpose of the committee was to "participate in
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 95
-------
the Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study and report to the City Council upon completion of the study with
its findings and recommendations for future funding of stormwater operations and improvements."
The Ad Hoc Stormwater Utility Study Committee was chaired and co-chaired by City Council members.
(The Chair was the primary proponent championing a utility on the Council.) The Committee included
both government representatives and representatives of stakeholder groups. (The Committee's
members are further described below). The Committee met monthly for six months and issued its final
report in late 2010. The report unanimously recommended formation of a stormwater utility to the City
Council.
The Committee estimated that the typical Dover home would pay around seven to eight dollars per
month in stormwater fees. The committee recommended that fees be phased in over a six-year period
to ease the impact on fee payers and allow for further public education and outreach. The proposed fee
was considerably higher than those proposed by other New Hampshire municipalities, in part because
the committee recommended moving all stormwater related costs into a stand-alone utility. One case
study contact noted that, in comparison, Nashua's proposed fee was approximately $25 per year, and its
proposed stormwater program would create a visible public park along its riverfront incorporating
stormwater control in the park space.
After the Committee's report was forwarded to the City Council, a public workshop and two public
question and answer sessions were held in January and February 2001. Among other things, the
announcement for these meetings described the rationale for the utility and that a utility was an
alternative to increases in property taxes. It stated "If a stormwater utility is created, the operation and
maintenance of the stormwater system will no
longer be derived from the general fund, which "Resident after resident, some waiting in the hall
will result in fewer tax dollars needed for for their turn to speak as every seat in council
stormwater activity..The City Council also has chambers was filled prior to the meeting's
the option to forgo the creation of a stormwater beginning, took the stand to speak against the
utility and raise the additional $300,000 [to pay creation of the utility ... [A] former city councilor,
for new stormwater management activities] set the tone for what most of the public's
from property taxes. " comments revolved around during the public
hearing portion of the meeting. As the EPA has yet
During the public workshop, question and to formally mandate the city to take stormwater
answer sessions, and later during open meetings actions, ... [he] said, the utility should not be
of the City Council, a vocal group of stakeholders proposed for the upcoming fiscal year budget"
declared their opposition. The Dover
- Excerpt from local newspaper article: Dover
Stormwater Feasibility Study noted that these
Council rejects stormwater utility plan
meetings were "dominated by a small group of
citizens strongly opposed to establishing the
utility."
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 96
-------
Those opposing the utility emphasized several themes, including:
• There was not enough public outreach or education, and citizens needed more time to
understand the utility proposal.
• No new MS4 permit had been issued. Therefore, assessing a stormwater fee to comply with
hypothetical future permit requirements was premature.
• The permit requirements were an unfunded federal mandate.
• The utility fees were a tax in disguise and would harm economic development.
• The existing stormwater program budget is already paid for through the general fund and no
further revenues are presently needed.
Some stakeholders opposed the stormwater fee (proposed as a flat fee) because they felt it was not
equitable. The city had determined that the cost of analyzing GIS data for each parcel to determine
specific areas of impermeable surface would exceed the return in fees assessed. Thus, the committee
recommended a flat fee. However, stakeholders pointed out that, for example, a single-family residence
with a 100-foot driveway would pay the same rate as a single-family residence with a 25-foot driveway.
After the process was over, some members of the Dover Ad Hoc Stormwater Utility Study Committee
provided additional perspectives on why citizens opposed the fee, including:
• People felt the infrastructure problems were not real.
• It was bad political timing with the poor economy and a high level of anti-tax sentiment.
• Influential stakeholders exaggerated the cost of the proposed fee, saying it would cost
$3,600/year per house.
• People questioned why they hadn't heard about it before.
• Residents worried that they would not have any control over future rate hikes.
In the face of public opposition, in February 2011 the City Council voted seven to two against creating a
utility. The two City Council members who chaired and co-chaired the Ad Hoc Stormwater Utility
Advisory Committee voted for it, and the remaining City Council members (and the Mayor) voted
against it. Several City Council members stated that they weren't necessarily against a utility, but
thought that a vote should be postponed until the public had more time to understand it, particularly
since new permit requirements were not yet in place.
The feasibility study noted that, in retrospect, it would have been helpful if supporters had attended
Council and other public meetings. Only one public member of the Ad-Hoc Stormwater Utility Study
Committee attended the Council meeting at which Council members voted down the utility. He spoke in
favor of the utility.
-------
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
The City Council's resolution creating the Ad Hoc Stormwater Utility Study Committee clearly defined its
membership as including two City Councilors (as Chair and Vice Chair of the committee), city officials
and the following public members:
• Planning Board representative.
• Dover Utilities Commission representative.
• Commercial real estate developer representative.
• Dover Chamber of Commerce representative.
• Non-profit organization representative.
• Two citizens at large.
Members were nominated by the Mayor and City Council and appointed by a vote of the City Council.
According to project contacts, this approach was used to give Council members some assurance that
Committee recommendations would reflect the views of their constituent communities. The feasibility
report noted that the selection of participants for the committee provided "an opportunity to empower
some of the most likely to oppose the utility to be part of the process." The Governing Procedures for
Committee participation required "every member [to] check back with their respective organization or
constituency and...keep them aware of the ongoing [Committee] process and actions."
Consensus was encouraged but not required for Committee ,,Many good fhlngs CQme ^ o/f/jg
decisions. According to the Committee's Governing feasibility process. A citizen
Procedures: "Although consensus (when all members are in committee representing various
full or substantial agreement) would be desirable, a majority stakeholder groups that wouldbe
opinion on key recommendations is adequate. The decision- affected by f/jg outcome ofthe
making goal is to have the majority of members agree on the committee>s recommendation were
item at hand, with no member objecting to a decision or an Me fo ^ cooperatively and
agreemen . despite concerns and misgivings
unanimously voted to support the
The flow and highlights of the Committee's five meetings was formation ofa storm water utjljty/>
as follows:
-Dover Stormwater Funding
. Meeting 1: Goals and Objectives Feasibility Study
o Focused on understanding the committee
process, Stormwater impacts, current approaches, future needs, and program goals and
objectives
• Meeting 2: Program Plan and Compelling Case
o Focused on the current program, potential funding alternatives, and the advantages and
disadvantages of different funding approaches
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 98
-------
o Generated a list of stormwater management priorities and agreed that water quality
and flooding are the highest priorities.
MeetingS: Levels of Service, Funding Options, and Rate Structures
o Agreed that the desired level of service should be the current level of stormwater
management plus new actions necessary to comply with the upcoming MS4 permit,
ongoing spoils management, a stormwater needs assessment, increased infrastructure
reinvestment, and watershed capital improvements, totaling approximately $2 million in
costs per year—which would be an increase in funding of $1.1 million per year. ($2
million became the basis for estimating utility fees.)
o Indicated a preference for establishing a stormwater utility (of the members attending,
eight voted in favor of a utility and one member voted in favor of using general funds).
o Decided to recommend that new costs be paid out of the general fund in the absence of
a stormwater utility and that all stormwater costs be "backed out" of the general fund if
a stormwater utility was established.
Meeting 4: Draft Recommendations
o Reviewed and discussed draft recommendations, including phase-in of fees, fee
structure, and the approach to billing.
Meeting 5: Recommendations and Final Report
o Discussed proposed changes to the report.
o Discussed recommendations for a Public
Outreach Plan, with some members saying
that it might be too expensive for a small
town like Dover and suggesting more
limited public outreach strategies.
One participant observed, the "committee grasped the
[stormwater utility] concept right away, could speak
intelligently about it, and supported the utility
unanimously."
The Committee provided some passive opportunities for
public participation and education during the Committee
process. Committee meetings were open to the public but
no Dover residents attended. The meetings were also
broadcast on a public access cable channel.
"In general the public stakeholder
process was a very successful
approach gaining the buy-in of key
people that would be most affected by
a stormwater utility. However, the
success with gaining this sector's
support may have created a bit of a
false sense of security that didn't take
into consideration the opponents that
were not part of the process and
would strongly voice their concerns
during the public process."
-Excerpt from final report of Dover
Stormwater Feasibility Study
Although the consultants managing the process presented a comprehensive public outreach strategy to
the committee, members felt that public outreach was a long-term process that fell outside the scope of
the Committee's assignment. They decided not to pursue it. One participant said that additional City
Council support would have been required for the Ad Hoc Committee to receive a mandate for public
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 99
-------
outreach. However, in the City Council meeting during which the stormwater utility proposal was taken
up for a vote, the Council simply rejected it rather than tabling the decision and pursuing public
outreach.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
As described in Ad Hoc Stormwater Utility Study Committee recommendations, the proposed
stormwater utility would have:
• Generated $2 million in annual revenue.
• Applied a uniform fee for single family residences (approximately $7-8 dollars per month based
on average impermeable surface.
• Combined stormwater bills with water and sewer bills as a separate line item.
• Phased in stormwater fees over a six-year period.
The Committee also recommended development of a credit system offering up to a 50% reduction in
fees for onsite BMP implementation.
Program Adoption
The primary factors contributing to the City Council not adopting a stormwater utility were the public
opposition (as described above) and Council members' concern that more time was needed for the
public to understand the proposal, particularly in light of the fact that new MS4 permit requirements
were not yet in place.
The final feasibility study report included a section describing lessons learned and how the process could
be improved in the future to help support stormwater utility adoption. Taken verbatim from the study,
they were:
• Have the Ad Hoc Committee members attend the City Council meetings and public hearings and
talk in support of the committee's recommendation.
• Wait until the NPDES permit is finalized before going to the City Council again. With the permit
in draft form, the justification for the utility (i.e., increased permit requirements) was not a firm
mandate, which provided a reason to postpone the utility.
• Notify and secure attendance from representatives in favor of the utility at meetings, i.e., local
environmental organizations, local residents, etc.
• Consider specific barriers and adjust messages and timing (i.e., present difficult economic times,
little trust in government, opposition to taxes, no existing federal mandate to make changes).
• Consider including a tiered structure for the residential rate in order to be more equitable and
to address the feeling of subsidizing one's neighbor with a large house and driveway.
-------
• Provide more time between the presentation to the Council and the public hearing and use the
time to get more buy-in. (However, this may provide an opportunity for the opposition to garner
more support).
• Approach and meet with the newspaper ahead of time to get them to participate in the process
(however, the newspaper appeared to be against the utility from the start so it may not have
helped).
Program Implementation
Prospects for future implementation are uncertain. Committee participants noted that implementation
of the Phase II NPDES MS4 permit will force property taxes to increase; some of these tax increases have
already been assessed due to increased stormwater maintenance needs. One of the contacts familiar
with Dover's stormwater situation noted that further tax increases might make it clear that a
stormwater utility would have been less costly to implement. (During the committee process, it was
estimated that a residential household would pay approximately 40% more through property taxes than
through a utility fee). Another contact, however, predicted that the property tax base would absorb
increased utility maintenance costs without public opposition while leaving some stormwater
maintenance needs unfunded.
Legal Challenges
There were no legal challenges.
Reference Documents
1. Ad Hoc Stormwater Feasibility Study Committee website:
http://www.dover.nh.gov/subcomm out.htm?id=Ad-
Hoc%20Stormwater%20Study%20Committee. Accessed 7/31/2012.
2. "Dover Council Rejects Stormwater Utility Plan," Fosters, February 2011.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110210/GJNEWS 01/702109681&templ
ate=DoverRegion. Accessed 7/31/2012.
3. "Dover New Hampshire, Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study: Final Report," November 2011.
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/stormwater/documents/dover-final-report.pdf.
Accessed 7/31/2012.
4. MINUTES: New Hampshire Stormwater "Funding" Feasibility Study Grant Participant Meeting
(March 14, 2011).
5. Records of public meetings:
https://online.ci.dover.nh.us/energie/doverSearch2.php?cab=Public Meetings&index=subcom
mittee&autosearch=Ad-Hoc%20Stormwater%20Study%20Committee. Accessed 7/31/2012.
-------
Lewiston, Maine
Size of Community: Population 41,500 / 35 square miles
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
15-year agreement among Lewiston, the State of Maine, and EPA on CSO discharges.
Initial City Council briefings on CSOs and stormwater utility
Stormwater utility discussed during budget deliberation process
City Council approved amendments to Utility Ordinance to include stormwater utility
City Council gave final approval to stormwater amendments to Utility Ordinance
Citizen's Petition to require the "Rain Tax" be delayed and sent to the voters for approval
Citizen's Petition failed to get support
First utility bills sent out
Maine Supreme Court ruled that Lewiston fee is not a tax
Date
2000
2001-2002
March-June 2006
September 2006
October 2006
October 2006
January 2007
January 2007
2012
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
The principal driver for developing a funding source for stormwater was Lewiston's need for $40 million
to upgrade and operate its combined sewer overflow (CSO) system. These efforts were driven by a 15-
year agreement among Lewiston, the state of Maine, and U.S. EPA (signed in 2000) on how to address
Lewiston's CSO discharges to the Androscoggin River.54
Stormwater Funding Mechanism Development
With the CSO agreement in place in 2000 and the need for $40 million in upgrades, Lewiston's DPW (the
agency responsible for stormwater) brought a stormwater utility proposal to the City Council in 2001.
(Lewiston does not use a Town Meeting process.) The Council was not interested enough to pursue it.
At the time, the city split stormwater costs equally between property taxes and a sewer utility fund.
Around 2003-2004 a state-wide "tax revolt" increased pressure on the tax system in Lewiston, and the
City Council became interested in paying for stormwater through revenues other than taxes. The
Director of Public Works and the City Administrator suggested that a stormwater utility would provide
tax relief for city residents and create more equity in the tax system by capturing tax exempt properties.
According to the Director of Public Works, the Council's attitude toward a stormwater utility went from
"we don't want to do this" to "we really need to do this now."
City of Lewiston Stormwater Utility Brochure: http://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/89.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 102
-------
At the time, residential properties paid approximately 53% of the tax burden for stormwater despite
having less than 40% of total impervious surfaces. It was estimated that a typical single-family home
appraised at $80,000 paid $102 per year in property taxes to support stormwater services but would pay
only $30 per year under a utility. The stormwater fee would also include currently untaxed entities,
specifically non-profits such as churches and universities, which accounted for 12% of all impervious
surfaces.
The City Council sought a fast timeline for stormwater utility development (around six months).
Lewiston hired a consulting firm to assist with GIS analysis of impervious surfaces and to connect their
GIS analysis with the municipal billing system. The Director of Public Works drafted the city's
stormwater ordinance based on a model ordinance developed for Maine communities.55
During the spring of 2006, the City Council conducted a series of budget and public hearings on the
stormwater utility proposal. During the September 2006 City Council meeting, some local stakeholders
expressed concern that the requirements outlined under the proposed credit system were too stringent.
Another citizen noted that the stormwater fee was just an alternative means of taxing the people and
the combination of taxes and fees would make the city too expensive to live in. In October 2006, two
Lewiston citizens filed a petition to force a public referendum on a stormwater utility. The petition
required at least 1,000 signatures, but not enough signatures were obtained.
The City Council approved the utility in the fall of 2006. The first utility bills were sent out in January
2007. The City estimated that the utility fee avoided the need for a $1.9 million tax increase.
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
The Director of Public Works said the rapid program development timeline of six months didn't allow
time for public outreach. (In retrospect, he said that an 18-24 month timeline would have been much
more desirable and would have allowed for greater outreach.)
Open City Council meetings provided a means for public participation as the stormwater utility proposal
was being considered. In addition, the City Administrator reached out to specific businesses that would
pay higher fees under the new system in order for the businesses to know and understand how the fee
structure was proposed, and also to solicit feedback and any alternatives they might suggest. According
to the case contact, these businesses did not provide any feedback on program design. Although most
did not like the idea of the stormwater fee, they did not become involved in the Council's decision-
making process and took a "wait and see" attitude.
55 A Model Stormwater Utility for the State of Maine, See:
www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mcp/downloads/nonpoint/modelstormwaterutilitv junQ5.pdf.
-------
Program Adoption
In September 2006, the City Council preliminarily approved the proposed amendments to the city's
utility ordinance to include a stormwater utility by a five to one roll call vote. In October 2006, the City
Council passed final approval of the Utility Ordinance by a five to two roll call vote.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
Under the stormwater utility, each parcel in the City was charged a base rate of $50 (2012 figures) for
the first 2,900 square feet of impervious surface. Duplex residential properties were charged a flat rate
of $74 per year. Mixed-use residential properties were charged a 60/40 blend (i.e., 40% of the total
impervious surface was charged as a primary residence and assessed the residential fee; 60% of the
total impervious surface was assessed as business property). All other properties were charged a $50
flat rate for the first 2,900 square feet of impervious surface, and $0.054 for each additional square foot
of impervious surface.
Lewiston's credit policy provided varying levels of fee reductions based on several factors. These
included the volume of stormwater runoff reaching the stormwater collection system and the presence
of on-site collection discharge systems.
A stormwater utility bill, separate from the sewer and water bill, was sent to property owners.
Program Implementation
After the ordinance was adopted, the Director of Public Works met with individual property owners over
the next year to explain the new fee and how their impervious surface areas affected the entire
wastewater and stormwater sewer systems. The first stormwater utility bills were sent out in January
2007. As of 2011, 97% of stormwater utility accounts are paid on time.
The Director of Public Works said the City Council "took ownership" of the stormwater utility as it was
implemented. Lewiston took property owners who had not paid their user fees to small claims court and
pursued larger property owners through the legal system (see next section).
Legal Challenges
In 2011, Lewiston filed suit against the owner of a small strip mall to the Maine Superior Court seeking
payment of overdue stormwater utility fees. The Court issued a decision in favor of the city. In its
opinion, the Court backed the city's 2006 ordinance and fee structure, rejecting the property owner's
claims that the city had no legal right to impose or collect fees and that these fees constituted a tax.
Specifically, the Superior Court confirmed the legitimate purpose of the stormwater utility as funding
expenses necessary to provide stormwater management services to comply with federal and state water
quality requirements. (Unlike other New England states, Maine did not pass legislation specifically
-------
authorizing stormwater utilities. Instead, state courts ruled that utilities were authorized under existing
state law. The Court also upheld the city's use of impervious surface area as the basis for determining
the fee applied to a property. As a result, the Court issued a judgment in favor of the city for unpaid
fees, interest, penalties, and a portion of the city's attorney fees. The property owner appealed the
decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which, in 2012, affirmed the lower court's decision.
After the program was implemented, the University of Southern Maine paid its first two bills but then
took the position that the fee was a tax and stopped paying. After the Maine Supreme Court decision,
the University agreed to pay its fees.
Reference Documents
1. City of Lewiston Press Release, March 27, 2012:
http://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/archives/102/PRESS%20-%20STORMWATER%20FEES%20-
%20MAINE%20SUPREME%20COURT.pdf. Accessed 7/31/2012.
2. City of Lewiston: Minutes from September 19, 2006 City Council Meeting:
www.ci.lewiston.me.us/archives/74/CC-Mins-09-19-2006.pdf. Accessed 7/30/2012.
3. City of Lewiston: Minutes from October 3, 2006 City Council Meeting:
http://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/archives/74/CC-Mins-10-03-2006.pdf. Accessed 7/30/2012.
4. City of Lewiston Stormwater Ordinance: http://me-
lewiston.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/231. Accessed 7/31/2012.
5. City of Lewiston Stormwater Fee Schedule and Credit Policy:
http://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/545. Accessed 7/31/2012.
6. City of Lewiston Stormwater Utility Brochure.
http://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/89. Accessed 8/12/12.
7. "City Council Hears 'Rain Tax' Complaints", Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal, February 27, 2008.
http://www.suniournal.com/node/664066. Accessed 7/31/2012.
8. "City Wary About Tax", Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal, April 21, 2006.
http://www.sunjournal.com/node/696157. Accessed 7/31/2012.
9. Official website for City of Lewiston Stormwater Utility:
http://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/index.aspx?NID=199. Accessed 7/31/
10. "USM Won't Pay Rain Fee", Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal, July 23, 2008.
http://www.suniournal.com/node/660367. Accessed 7/31/2012.
-------
Newton, Massachusetts
Size of Community: 85,000 / 18.1 square miles
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
NPDES Phase II requirements issued
Newton received EPA administrative consent order to identify and eliminate suspected
illicit discharges impairing local water quality
DPW proposed stormwater utility
Stormwater utility adopted by Board of Aldermen by 18 to 4 vote
Stormwater utility fee went into effect for fiscal year 2007
Date
March 2003
2004
February 2006
May 2006
July 2006
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
The City of Newton had an extensive stormwater drainage system that suffered from poor maintenance
and failing infrastructure. The city experienced problems with poor water quality and flooding. Newton
was also subject to a 2004 administrative consent order issued by EPA to address illicit connections of
raw sewage to the stormwater drain system. The annual budget for stormwater projects and operations
was insufficient to meet these challenges, and there was no dedicated stormwater staff.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism Development
Faced with significant stormwater challenges and the need to fund system upgrades (including
complying with the 2004 consent order), the city's DPW identified a stormwater utility as the best
funding solution. (To fund the program through increased general revenues would have required a
politically untenable property tax over-ride).
DPW led program development. There was no public outreach or stakeholder engagement during
program development. DPW prepared a minimum needs assessment for a proposed stormwater
program and calculated the minimum budget necessary to carry it out. (Program funding at the time
was around half of what DPW estimated was needed for even a minimal program).
Initially, DPW proposed collecting all needed stormwater revenue through utility fees, but the
administration felt that it was important to keep fees low to increase the chances of getting the utility
enacted. The low fees were characterized as "seed money" to get a stormwater utility program in place.
In the winter and spring of 2006 the DPW made presentations to the Board of Aldermen and Public
Utilities Commission describing the city's current stormwater functions, local stormwater and drainage
issues, regulatory requirements, and the utility concept.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 106
-------
Over the course of two meetings in May 2006, the Board of Aldermen voted to adopt the stormwater
utility. DPW developed the program in only five months following its initial proposal in early 2006.
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
Newton conducted limited public outreach and education on its utility proposal. This included an insert
in property owners' water bills explaining the new utility and that more information was available on
the city's website. At the time, there was also a story on local cable TV produced by a college student, a
media alert by a local non-profit, and a few newspaper articles (the cable news story and media alert are
further described below).
Program Adoption
According to the city's stormwater staff, the Board of Aldermen required some convincing that a
stormwater utility was the best path forward due to sensitivities about new fees. The city had just
received national attention for spending $197 million to replace the Newton North High School. Cost
over-runs associated with the school sensitized the Board of Aldermen to new expenditures, it also
distracted the local Newton taxpayer association and deflected attention from the stormwater utility
effort. Moreover, the alternatives to raising revenue through a stormwater utility were unattractive: If a
utility wasn't established, the Board of Aldermen could either propose a property tax over-ride to pay
for its stormwater program or risk facing fines for noncompliance with its administrative consent order.
During the adoption process, the Charles River Watershed Association issued a media alert emphasizing
the need for a stormwater utility and encouraging citizens to call their Alderman. A Boston College
student developed a video about stormwater issues in Newton, which was aired on a local cable station
and highlighted the issue for residents. DPW staff credit both of these events with influencing the
decision by the Aldermen to adopt the utility.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
DPW staff analyzed a representative sample of residential and non-residential homes and determined
that the range of impervious area varied little within residential property types. They thus decided to
charge flat rates. Residential properties were charged a fee of $25 per year and commercial properties
were charged a fee of $150 per year.
Newton adopted a credit program to encourage the use of Best Management Practices, but only a small
percentage of property owners have applied for credits because stormwater fees were relatively low
compared to the cost of practices that would qualify properties for the credit. Elderly residents are
eligible for a fee discount.
The stormwater fee is billed quarterly in water bills, and everyone with a water meter is charged.
-------
Program Implementation
DPW staff said that the stormwater utility fee was so small that many people barely noticed it on their
water bills. The main complaints during early billing were from small commercial businesses that felt
that it was not equitable to be charged the same amount as larger businesses.
The city's antiquated water billing system had to be updated to accommodate the new stormwater fee,
which caused a two-month delay in the first billing.
The city intentionally chose to institute rates lower than needed to meet estimated stormwater costs.
This was done to facilitate adoption of the utility. However, the revenue generated by the stormwater
fee has been inadequate to meet Newton's ongoing stormwater management needs. Since the adoption
of the stormwater utility, DPW salaries and maintenance costs have increased, leaving little funding for
capital projects.
Major flooding in March 2010 strained available resources and staff; the flooding also spurred DPW to
analyze its stormwater infrastructure further. The DPW's analysis revealed new maintenance needs for
drainage and sanitary sewer systems. In addition, upcoming MS4 permits are expected to require
additional revenue to comply with their more stringent stormwater control requirements.
The current fee structure also contains inequities. For example, residential properties comprise 65% of
the city's impervious square footage but they pay 74% of all stormwater fees.
Newton DPW has been working with a consultant to revise the fee structure and move toward fees
based on each property's square footage of impervious surface; the city now has data that allows it to
make this calculation. Under a draft ordinance, single family homes would retain the flat $25 per year
fee, but two-family residences would see a 50% increase. Three-family and larger homes (e.g.,
condominiums, apartments, etc.) and all commercial, institutional, and manufacturing properties would
be charged $25 per 2,600 square feet of impervious surface. Under the new system, some property
owners would see increased fees, others would be charged less. For example, one apartment complex
currently paying $25 per year would have its fee increase to $1,653 per year. DPW has presented the
new proposed fee schedule to the Public Facilities Committee of the Board of Alderman and is now
developing an outreach and education plan to target property owners who will see the largest fee
increases. The outreach plan will include a brochure, information on the city's website, a press release,
and work with community groups. There will also likely be public meetings with invitations sent to
commercial, industrial and institutional landowners.
Legal Challenges
There have been no legal challenges. According to DPW staff, consultation with city and state lawyers
during program development prevented any legal difficulties in implementing the stormwater utility.
-------
Reference Documents
1. Charles River Watershed Association, "Assessment of Stormwater Financing Mechanisms in New
England: Final Case Study Report."
http://www.crwa.org/proiects/stormwater/Municipal%20SFM%20Case%20Studies%20Repo.pdf
. Accessed 7/31/2012.
2. City of Newton - Stormwater Website
http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/gov/dpw/water/stormwater.asp Accessed 8/10/12.
3. City of Newton Stormwater Ordinance.
http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BloblD=27364. Accessed 8/10/12.
4. City of Newton Stormwater Fee Announcement.
http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BloblD=27372 Accessed 8/10/12.
5. City of Newton FAQ Sheet for Stormwater.
http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BloblD=27361. Accessed 8/10/12.
-------
Warren County, Kentucky
Size of Community: Warren County Population 55,792 / 512 square miles.
Key Milestones and Dates
Milestone
Stormwater Advisory Committee meets
Stormwater management ordinance (the Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control
ordinance) signed by Warren County Judge Executive
Fee Setting and Agency Creation Ordinances signed by Warren County Judge Executive
Date
2002
March 2006
May 2007
Key Drivers for Stormwater Management
Anticipated MS4 permit requirements were the key drivers for an improved Stormwater management
program and sustainable funding source in Warren County.
Stormwater Financing Mechanism Development
In 2002, Warren County, the City of Plum Springs, and the City of Bowling Green explored developing a
joint strategy for Stormwater management and a utility. As part of this effort, the governments formed a
Stormwater Advisory Committee (SWAC) made up of stakeholder representatives to examine permit
requirements and the costs associated with addressing them. These costs included maintenance and
repair of existing infrastructure, water quality monitoring, and code enforcement. Bowling Green
decided, late in the process, to pursue its own Stormwater program.
After the departure of Bowling Green, the Warren County Judge-Executive—the highest public official in
the county—sought to address the requirements of a Stormwater program with the remaining partner,
Plum Springs.56
Over the next four years, Warren County and Plum Springs developed a joint Stormwater management
program. Most of the work was conducted by the Warren County Stormwater Management Division.
There was no public outreach or stakeholder engagement in program design. (According to the project
contact, when Bowling Green split from Warren County and Plum Springs, the earlier work of the SWAC
became largely irrelevant.)
The Judge-Executive signed the Warren County Stormwater ordinance in March 2006, authorizing an
improved Stormwater program. Warren County and Plum Springs identified the need for a Stormwater
fee to raise required revenue to pay for it. In May 2007, the Judge-Executive approved a Stormwater fee
and the creation of an agency to administer it: the joint Plum Springs-Warren County Stormwater Sewer
56 In Kentucky, counties may partner with a 6th class city, such as Plum Springs, to establish a Stormwater utility.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 110
-------
Agency. The utility was unanimously approved as a joint and local agency by a decision of Warren
County's six-member Board of Magistrates (of which the Judge-Executive is chairperson), the Mayor of
Plum Springs, and the Plum Springs City Council.
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
The development of the stormwater utility was largely conducted by agency staff without input from
stakeholders or the public. There was some limited public outreach at the time the stormwater utility
was being put in place, but it was a low-profile effort. Notices of the stormwater ordinances were placed
in the local paper. All customers received a postcard and fact sheet the same month that the first
stormwater bills were sent out. One editorial about the stormwater utility appeared in the local
newspaper but it was not the result of outreach to the editorial board.
Program Adoption
According to the Plum Springs-Warren County Joint Stormwater Sewer Agency Manager, a key factor in
program adoption was the leadership of the county's Judge-Executive. He acted as a "champion" for the
program because he understood the legal mandate to meet MS4 permit requirements. Timing was also
extremely important. The utility was created during a budget "crunch" and provided a new means to
collect revenue other than through property tax increases.
Stormwater Funding Mechanism
The Plum Springs-Warren County stormwater fee is based on the number of water meters per property
rather than on a calculation of impervious square footage. Warren County opted for the water meter
solution because the initial cost to the Agency to develop a system based on impervious surfaces was
deemed too expensive. The stormwater utility fee for commercial customers is currently $10 per month.
Residential properties pay $4 per month.
Commercial property owners can apply to reduce their fee to $4 per month based on site conditions
that reduce stormwater runoff. (In some cases, the county proactively identified properties eligible for
this lower rate, reduced their fee from $10 to $4, and refunded back payments.)
Stormwater bills are attached to monthly water bills.
Program Implementation
There were a few technical "glitches" when the first bills went out but relatively few complaints. Fees
were so small that many people didn't notice them. Everyone got a postcard with a fact sheet about the
fee the first month that a stormwater user fee was billed.
A small number of customers have refused to pay the fee, and the county has decided that it is not
worth the expense to take legal action.
-------
Legal Challenges
There were no legal challenges.
Reference Documents
1. Warren County Stormwater Services website: http://www.wceo.us/pages/Stormwater-
District.html. Accessed 8/9/12.
2. Warren County Fiscal Court Stormwater Management Ordinance:
http://warrencountvgov.com/sites/default/files/WC%2006-
17%20Stormwater%20Management%20%28EPSC%29.pdf. Accessed 8/9/12.
3. Warren County Fee Setting Ordinance:
http://warrencountygov.com/sites/default/files/WC%2007-
23%20Agency%20Setting%20Fees.pdf. Accessed 8/9/12.
4. "Stormwater Utility Being Considered", Bowling Green Daily News. April 17, 2002.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Ev4aAAAAIBAJ&siid=IEgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2929.1848275
&dq=stormwater+ordinance+warren+countv&hl=en. Accessed 8/9/12.
-------
Appendix C: Project Contacts
• Danny Bowden, Stormwater Manager, City of Raleigh, North Carolina
• C. Warren Campbell, Western Kentucky University
• Joseph Delaney, former Town Engineer, City of Reading, Massachusetts
• Thomas DiPietro, Stormwater Superintendent, South Burlington Stormwater Utility
• Francine Durso, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• Bethany Eisenberg, Director of Stormwater Services, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), Inc.
• Ann Gosline, Gosline and Reitman Dispute Resolution Services
• Juli Beth Hinds, Principal, Birchline Planning LLC
• Bill Holman, Director, State Policy Program, Duke University Nicholas Institute for Environmental
Policy Solutions
• David Jones, Director of Public Works, City of Lewiston, Maine
• S. Wayne Miles, Consultant, COM Smith
• Daniel F. Nason, former city employee, Ayer, Massachusetts
• Jan Nedelka, former City Councilor, City of Dover, New Hampshire
• Rich Niles, AMEC
• Dean Peschel, former Environmental Project Manager, City of Dover, New Hampshire
• Tamara Lee Pinard, Executive Director, Cumberland Soil and Water Conservation District
• J. David Rankin, Great Lakes Protection Fund
• Robert Robinson, City of Manchester, New Hampshire
• Maria Rose, Environmental Engineer, City of Newton, Massachusetts
• Robert M. Roseen, Director, UNH Stormwater Center Environmental Research Group,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Hampshire
• Sonia Shahnaj, Engineering Department, Berkeley County, South Carolina
• Wendy Warren, former Environmental Manager, City of Bangor, Maine
• Paul Wiebke, Assistant Stormwater Engineer, Engineering and Stormwater Division, Public
Works Department, Durham, North Carolina
• Jack Wright, Stormwater Management, Warren County, Kentucky
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 113
-------
Appendix D: New England Regional Stormwater
Program Funding Symposium
Overview
On October 18, 2012, US EPA sponsored a New England Regional Stormwater Program Funding
Symposium in Greenland, New Hampshire. The workshop was attended by Stormwater professionals
from the public and private sectors, staff from MS4 communities working on Stormwater issues, and
officials from EPA Region 1 and EPA Headquarters. Among other things, participants heard the initial
findings of this report and provided their observations about the role of stakeholder engagement in
utility adoption and implementation and unique factors for Stormwater utilities in New England. A
selection of their observations is set out below:
Key Themes and Discussion Points
Public Outreach & Education
Symposium participants discussed a variety of practices that municipalities should consider for effective
public outreach and education, as well as pitfalls to avoid. The discussion ranged from specific
suggestions to lay the groundwork for public acceptance of a Stormwater utility to general observations
on the role of public outreach and education.
Some participants said it is important to highlight stormwater-related public works projects. Visible
Stormwater control projects generate public support. This includes high visibility projects such as street
sweeping, rain gardens, drain cleaning, and capital construction projects. Participants noted that
messaging is critical and municipalities should emphasize that Stormwater control is not a new
responsibility. At the same time, Stormwater managers should avoid using technical/engineering jargon
when communicating with the public, whenever possible.
Targeted outreach should occur, participants said, but different stakeholders may require different
approaches that address their particular interests and concerns. For example, tax-exempt organizations
and/or non-profit organizations may need specific outreach; likewise for large commercial property
owners and farmers.
Other suggestions for municipalities seeking to build public support for a Stormwater utility included:
• Taking advantage of existing rivalries between municipalities (i.e., "The neighboring town is
cleaning up its creeks. Why aren't we doing the same?").
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 114
-------
• Training stakeholders to talk to other stakeholders, thereby expanding public outreach.
• Understanding that natural disasters are focusing events that could move public opinion on
stormwater infrastructure.
In general, public education on stormwater should illuminate the connection between stormwater and
water quality, participants said. For example, connecting recreation opportunities dependent on water
quality (such as fishing and swimming) to the need for stormwater control helps people understand the
value of stormwater management. As some participants noted, the general public is aware what the
"right thing to do" involves, and the role of public education and outreach is to remind them. Similarly,
some businesses want to do the right thing; they want to clean up the water because they understand it
is important for local economic development. On a similar note, participants suggested that
municipalities provide information on low impact development (LID) to engineers and developers as a
means of building awareness about using LID technologies in addition to traditional stormwater control
engineering applications among this group of professionals.
Participants noted that keeping local control of water resources is a powerful message in support of
municipal stormwater control. If a municipality becomes subject to federal residual designation
authority (RDA), for example, their only legal recourse is Federal Appeals Court. In other words, if the
opportunity for local control is lost, it is extremely difficult to regain.
Participants also noted that any public outreach campaign should make use of all available media,
including public service announcements, social media, and video clips. Messaging from neutral
organizations such as soil conservation districts has also proven to be an effective strategy.
Best Practices for Developing a Stormwater Program with Dedicated Funding
Symposium participants emphasized that stakeholder selection should be a rigorous process to produce
the appropriate mix of participants. Once selected, the municipality should avoid advocating a specific
solution and instead provide stakeholders with an array of options from which to choose. These options
should include specific rate forecasts for the various options, as stakeholders (and the public) are less
inclined to support a proposal if it lacks detailed cost estimates. During public discussions, which could
occur during or after the stakeholder engagement process, municipalities should make sure that
stakeholders and other program supporters participate. Symposium participants noted that even if the
public process does not result in a funding mechanism, it raises awareness of the issue among key
stakeholders (including elected officials) and may help make such efforts successful in the future.
Participants also advised utility proponents to get local officials' buy-in to the stormwater program
concept immediately following election (i.e., when the officials are least vulnerable).
Certain administrative and legislative strategies can ease the burden of stormwater requirements. For
example, the Massachusetts legislature passed a fertilizer phosphorus ban, which saved upper Charles
River watershed communities about $6 million per year in compliance costs. Municipalities can also
-------
think about how to change zoning ordinances to help businesses comply with stormwater requirements.
This could include changing required parking ratios for new development/redevelopment. Participants
noted one specific cost reduction strategy: pool resources for GIS flyovers with adjacent municipalities
or all municipalities in a watershed.
Barriers to Establishing Stormwater Utilities in New England
Participants discussed several unique New England characteristics that may discourage establishment of
stormwater utilities. One characteristic mentioned was home rule and small political units. Regional
parochial character was also mentioned as a negative factor; one participant cited a case of two New
England towns that could not even agree on an arrangement to share a librarian. A final factor
mentioned was the lack of similar local experience with fee-based stormwater programs.
Other barriers not necessarily unique to the New England region include prevailing negative economic
conditions, which are not conducive to enactment of a new fee, regardless of how well it is presented;
and a lack of resources both to properly estimate programmatic needs and to effectively illustrate the
cost differences between a tax and a dedicated fee. Another barrier is negativity toward spending local
money for what is perceived to be a federal mandate. Finally, for municipalities with largely residential
customer bases, the cost-savings to residents of paying for stormwater services through a fee rather
than through property taxes is less than in communities with a broader mix of residential, commercial,
and tax-exempt properties. For these mixed-use communities, stormwater fees tend to shift the cost
burden more to commercial and tax-exempt properties (which often have larger areas of impermeable
surface) when compared to paying for these services through property taxes. Because of this dynamic, it
can be more difficult to gain public support for stormwater fees in communities that are primarily
residential.
Opportunities for State, Federal, or Other Assistance
Given the various factors under consideration during the symposium, participants offered several
suggestions related to the role of state and federal government in encouraging the development and
adoption of stable financing for stormwater control programs. On the national level, participants noted
that because "stormwater is the same everywhere" U.S. EPA could begin by implementing a national
campaign to promote public awareness of the importance of stormwater control.
State and federal funding for technical assistance to municipalities is another area of exploration.
Participants suggested development of a circuit-rider type program for the New England region where
technical experts would travel to municipalities to provide assistance on stormwater program
development. State or federal government could also develop a searchable database of stormwater
utility case studies; municipalities could use the database to find cases similar to their own for guidance
as they develop a stormwater funding mechanism.
-------
The Natural Resource Conservation Service can offer limited funding (mainly through the EQUIP
program) to help with agricultural issues related to stormwater, but such funding mostly goes to larger
farms.
One participant suggested that a vehicle excise tax would be an equitable means to support a clean
water trust fund.
The Role of Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement In Stormwater Funding Decisions in New England O Page 117
------- |