&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency

EPA/600/R-18/213
July 2018
www.epa.gov/ord
Getting Community Buy-in for
Stormwater Funding
A FOUR-SESSION PARTICIPATORY WORKSHOP




4 * M
•*riShs ' >
pf-t **f
gjj2|
p «*

V#M imp
"M-v*. *
£
, jUt Uftu "*>""1
'A'' ^ 'StTm****'
N yuYttf T*
£L5La	<*?
W m i p	^
nnHt' rto-»1 P"* r ~h:
\.„ „,U.H«»I T"«. «'
Kta (*#¦** «
uw «t M iv< *M *
^ »>y Vt»«»SMtW «iK5
tiHifikrftix find)
HW isstfs 6n guto**/
& gg
> wtown ^'i; -fm
ffAl
(*"KUf Mft ftf ^Mt|V
'«lfr to- w, j*i'~
A Vf At f-v' btrtfai cJ ft
^  v\ AViC otoiw
swi»n ¦fln
k> « IWw» Wc*<
\jjp* wncfeee- ~Ve o
aflj Mivttie*, -Wxfr \wc<
AW,	VMoi
-------
Cover photo:
Participants planning stakeholder interviews. Photo credit: Marilyn Buchholtz ten Brink, 2017

-------
EPA/600/R-18/213
July 2018
www.epa.gov/ord
Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding:
A Four-Session Participatory Workshop
Participant Workbook
by
Julia H. Twichell
Kate K. Mulvaney
Marilyn Buchholtz ten Brink
Atlantic Ecology Division
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
Carri Hulet
Consensus Building Institute
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
Joshua Secunda
Anne Leiby
Region 1
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882

-------
Notice and Disclaimer
This multi-session, participatory workshop is intended solely to support municipalities in
securing stable funding for stormwater, and does not endorse any particular funding
solution. The materials presented in this Participant Workbook are for agencies or
organizations who work with communities facing stormwater problems to implement a
workshop series focused on the technical needs for effectively engaging stakeholders to
develop potential funding solutions. This Participant Workbook is a paired resource with
the Facilitator Manual for this workshop (Twichell et al. 2018, EPA/600/R-18/214). This
document was subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and was
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. While this
workbook describes a method through which municipalities can work toward funding
solutions for stormwater management, it does not substitute for CWA or EPA
regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding
requirements on EPA, states, territories, tribes, or the regulated community and might
not apply to a particular situation or circumstance. EPA may change this guidance in the
future. This is a contribution to the EPA Office of Research and Development's Safe and
Sustainable Water Resources Research Program.
The appropriate citation for this workbook is:
Twichell JH, Mulvaney KK, Hulet C, Secunda J, Leiby A, Buchholtz ten Brink M. 2018.
"Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding, A Four-Session Participatory
Workshop: Participant Workbook." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, Rl. EPA/600/R-18/213.
This document can be downloaded from:
www.epa.gov/water-research/water-research-publications-science-inventory
ii | Participant Workbook

-------
Acknowledgements
This workshop was inspired by the earlier work of U.S. EPA Region 1, which identified
key barriers to stormwater funding adoption in New England, including stakeholder
opposition and a lack of quality stakeholder engagement on these topics. This work was
funded through the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development and Region 1,
including the Healthy Communities Grant Program and the Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources Research Program.
Peer reviewers Walter Berry of U.S. EPA Atlantic Ecology Division, Elise Simons of U.S.
EPA Region 1, and Kathleen Williams of U.S. EPA Mid-Continent Ecology Division
carefully read through this document and provided thoughtful comments. The
municipalities who participated in the first two rounds of the workshop (Massachusetts:
Ashland, Lexington, Woburn, Watertown, Quincy, Framingham, Newton, Palmer,
Somerville, Tewksbury, Wellesley, and West Bridgewater; and New Hampshire:
Concord), Fred Civian of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
and Barbara McMillan of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
provided valuable feedback and insights that were used to improve the delivery and
transferability of this workshop. Guest speakers Joe Delaney of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (former Engineer, Reading, Massachusetts)
and Ed Suslovic of New England Environmental Finance Center (former council member,
Portland, Maine) contributed key firsthand insights that augmented the curriculum.
Jennifer West of the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Coastal
Training Program, Abigail Lyon of Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership, and Kerry
Snyder of Neponset River Watershed Association, who participated in the Trainers-in-
Training program, shared additional facilitator feedback. Their plans to replicate the
series will help to spread this approach to stormwater programs throughout New
England.
Acknowledgements | iii

-------
Foreword
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to
support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing
data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a
science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely,
understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks
in the future.
The National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) within
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducts systems-based, effects
research needed to achieve sustainable health and wellbeing. Research encompasses
both human and ecosystem health, in that they are inextricably linked. One of the
Laboratory's strategic goals in its research program is to advance research and tools for
achieving sustainable and resilient watersheds and water resources. To that end, this
Participant Workbook and its paired resource, "Getting Community Buy-in for
Stormwater Funding: Facilitator Manual," (Twichell et al. 2018, EPA/600/R-18/214) are
designed as publicly available tools to implement a multi-session, participatory
workshop that guides and supports communities in developing community support for
sustainable funding solutions for their stormwater management programs.
Wayne R. Munns, Jr., Director
Atlantic Ecology Division
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
iv | Participant Workbook

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER										 II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	iii
FOREWORD	iv
ABSTRACT	vi
INTRODUCTION	1
CASE STUDY: OVERVIEW	3
WORKSHOP SESSIONS SYNOPSIS	4
SESSION ONE	5
CASE STUDY: BERKELEY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA	6
TOOLS & RESOURCES INVENTORYING STORMWATER PROGRAM NEEDS & COSTS	7
PRIMARY LEARNING: NEGOTIATION THEORY	8
PRIMARY LEARNING: STAKEHOLDER MAPPING	11
TOOLS & RESOURCES: STAKEHOLDER INVENTORY WORKSHEET		12
TOOLS & RESOURCES: STAKEHOLDER MAP WORKSHEET......................			13
FIELDWORK: IDENTIFY KEY STAKEHOLDERS & DRAFT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS	14
SESSION TWO	17
CASE STUDY: SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT	18
PRIMARY LEARNING: CRAFTING A GREAT STORMWATER FINANCING INTERVIEW	19
TOOLS & RESOURCES: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS:-A TO Z	22
TOOLS & RESOURCES INTERVIEWTEMPLATE - SAMPLE	24
TOOLS & RESOURCES: SETTING UP INTERVIEWS - SAMPLE COMMUNICATIONS	27
PRIMARY LEARNING: ACTIVE LISTENING FOR KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS	29
PRIMARY LEARNING: SEPARATING STORMWATER INTERESTS FROM POSITIONS	32
FIELDWORK: MUNICIPAL INTERVIEW PLANNING	35
SESSION THREE	37
CASE STUDY: RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA	38
PRIMARY LEARNING: CONTENT ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS	39
TOOLS & RESOURCES INTERVIEW ANALYSIS WORKSHEET	41
TOOLS & RESOURCES: STORMWATER FUNDING & STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT SUMMARY	45
FIELDWORK: INSTRUCTIONS - MUNICIPAL STORMWATER PRESENTATIONS	51
SESSION FOUR	53
CASE STUDY: SOUTH PORTLAND/LONG CREEK, MAINE	54
PRIMARY LEARNING: PRESENTATION CRITIQUES	55
TOOLS & RESOURCES USING TOOLS TO PLAN FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT....................	57
TOOLS & RESOURCES DESIGNING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT	60
TOOLS & RESOURCES PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE	61
CASE STUDY: NEWTON, MASSACHUSETTS	66
APPENDIX A: LIST OF RESOURCES	67
Table of Contents \ v

-------
Abstract
This Participant Workbook is a process tool for an agency or
organization to use to implement a multi-session, participatory
workshop for municipalities to engage their communities in the
development of stormwater funding solutions. The workbook is a
paired resource with a Facilitator Manual (Twichell et al. 2018,
EPA/60Q/R-18/214). The workshop was designed by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and
Development (ORD) Atlantic Ecology Division (AED) and New England
Office (EPA Region 1) with input from the Consensus Building
Institute. This project is part of EPA's national Safe and Sustainable
Water Resources Research Program in ORD, which aims to protect
and sustain water resources via research in green and built water
infrastructure, as well as increase understanding of community
decision making for the use and financing of sustainable water
infrastructure. In earlier research, EPA found that a lack of quality
stakeholder engagement in stormwater funding and management is a
key barrier to successful adoption of sustainable funding solutions in
New England and elsewhere in the United States. Designed to meet
a need for technical training on these topics, the workshop engages
participants to apply a consensus-building approach to stormwater
funding decisions. This approach reflects the best practices identified
through past research in stakeholder engagement processes and
decision making. In the four sessions, municipal staff are trained to
use a set of well-established tools, techniques, and processes to
develop community support for stormwater funding solutions in their
towns. The process presented in this workbook was piloted in two
separate rounds of the workshop sessions, but the components of
this workshop are modular, and the series could be modified
depending on the needs and resources of the implementing agency or
organization.
vi | Participant Workbook

-------
Participant Workbook | Introduction
INTRODUCTION
WHY STORMWATER FUNDING MATTERS
As urban areas spread, open land is increasingly converted to parking lots, buildings, sidewalks,
and roads. These impervious surfaces prevent precipitation from soaking into the ground.
Redirected stormwater can alter local hydrology, resulting in flooding, aquifer depletion, and
habitat degradation or loss. Stormwater runoff also collects pollutants as it flows over impervious
surfaces; thus, it is one of the primary causes of water quality impairment to our lakes, rivers,
streams and coastal waters. Hydrologic modification and contaminated stormwater can foul
drinking water, cause health problems, degrade habitat, close recreational areas to fishing and
swimming, and impact local and regional economies.
Many communities have worked to address some of these challenges and other communities
have launched stormwater programs because of more stringent stormwater control permits to
municipalities operating "municipal separate storm sewer systems" (MS4s). Complying with
these tougher requirements and protecting communities from the impacts of stormwater runoff
can be expensive. There are a number of mechanisms that communities use to finance their
stormwater programs. One of the most commonly considered mechanisms is a stormwater utility
(also referred to as an enterprise fund). To date, approximately 1600 communities with MS4s
across the United States have addressed funding challenges by establishing stormwater utilities.
U.S. EPA-NEW ENGLAND'S EVALUATION OF MUNICIPAL STORMWATER FUNDING
While some communities have not yet sought to establish stormwater utilities or other dedicated
funding streams, other communities have tried and failed. U.S. EPA-New England conducted a
comparative case study analysis to better understand why some municipalities succeeded in
adopting funding solutions while others did not.
P.:t
Mori tor

South OoHcle
M CiliS an
Stormwater
Utilities

~~

Wcvu Ms»C9
Source: Western Kentucky
University Stormwater
Utility Survey 2016
Page | 1

-------
Participant Workbook | Introduction
U.S. EPA-New England's 2013 study, Evaluation of the role of public outreach and stakeholder
engagement in stormwater funding decisions in New England: Lessons from communities can
be accessed online at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/eval-sw-funding-new-england.pdf
U.S. EPA-New England found that stakeholder engagement and public outreach processes
contributed to the development and adoption of adequate and sustainable stormwater program
funding. This finding was reinforced by examples of communities whose efforts to adopt funding
mechanisms failed after they did not involve stakeholders in program development. Case studies
suggested that stakeholder engagement and public outreach:
¦	Provided 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
¦	Gave opportunities to test and refine funding proposals using stakeholder feedback
¦	Enabled collaboration with stakeholders to develop innovative solutions that provided balance
between the costs and services the community could support
¦	Facilitated access to local knowledge and expertise
¦	Built support and momentum for a consensus-based solution
Stormwater program funding proponents tailored funding proposals to their community's
environmental, fiscal, and political contexts. Many of the municipalities that successfully
implemented stormwater funding proposals, built support by proactively involving key
stakeholders early in proposal development and decision making, using a variety of strategies.
The table below highlights key lessons from municipal engagement and outreach efforts.
Key Lessons for Stakeholder Engagement
Key Lessons for Public Outreach
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.
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.
¦	Make a compelling case that a
stormwater funding program meets local
critical needs.
¦	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.
Relevant findings condensed from: U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Evaluation of the role of public
outreach and stakeholder engagement in stormwater funding decisions in New England: Lessons from communities. EPA 100-
K-l 3-0004. U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Washington, DC. 117p.
2 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Introduction
CASE STUDY: OVERVIEW
From U.S. EPA-New England's comparative case study analysis, below are four local
jurisdictions that employed extensive public outreach and stakeholder engagement
efforts. 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:
~~~ South Portland/Long Creek (Maine) used 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 (North Carolina) 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 (Vermont) 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.
~~~ Reading (Massachusetts) designed and adopted a stormwater utility program by
working with two stakeholder advisory committees and through engagement with the
town's Town Meeting process.
The benefits of public outreach and stakeholder engagement are reinforced by the stories
of two other communities that did not involve stakeholders in program development.
These communities failed to adopt a stormwater funding mechanism:
~~~ Manchester (New Hampshire) pursued a funding proposal that was developed by city
staff, but never brought to a vote because of opposition from local elected officials
based on their perception of economic conditions.
~~~ Berkeley County (South Carolina) sought approval for a funding proposal developed
by county staff but it was subsequently rejected by the County Council when significant
stakeholder opposition to the proposal emerged.
All case studies in this Participant Workbook have been adapted from: U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency). 2013. Evaluation of the role of public outreach and stakeholder engagement in stormwater funding
decisions in New England: Lessons from communities. EPA 100-K-13-0004. U.S. EPA Office of Policy,
Washington, DC. pp. 21-22.
Page | 3

-------
Participant Workbook | Introduction
WORKSHOP SESSIONS SYNOPSIS
¦	Key Stormwater Application: Stormwater funding proposals
must be anchored to municipal needs—if not, they may fail. It
takes skill, preparation, and effort to identify your town's key
stakeholders and discover their interests.
¦	Tools/Skills/Knowledge: Stormwater costs inventory;
negotiation basics; stakeholder maps
¦	Fieldwork: Complete a stakeholder map with colleagues and
brainstorm interview questions. Purpose: Map your
stakeholder landscape.
¦	Key Stormwater Application: Key stakeholder interviews will
help you to uncover stakeholder interests that inform
stormwater funding proposal development—you must ask the
right people the right questions in the right way, and then
LISTEN and LEARN.
¦	Tools/Skills/Knowledge: Develop questions for an interview
template; active listening; separating interests from positions
¦	Fieldwork: Interview several key stakeholders in your
municipality. Purpose: Build relationships and determine key
stakeholders' interests.
¦	Key Stormwater Application: Content analysis will help you
understand what you have heard in interviews so you can apply
this information to your design of a stormwater funding
proposal.
¦	Tools/Skills/Knowledge: Content analysis; stormwater
funding and stakeholder self-assessment
¦	Fieldwork: Prepare to present on key themes from interviews
and what they mean for your stormwater program. Purpose:
Synthesize what you have learned, translate your key
stakeholders' interests into next steps, communicate progress,
and develop messaging.
¦	Key Stormwater Application: To take the next steps in your
community, you will need to develop and effectively
communicate a locally-compelling approach and messaging
based on information from key stakeholders. Designing an
acceptable stormwater funding proposal also requires
implementing a tailored, community-wide outreach campaign.
¦	Tools/Skills/Knowledge: Professional critiques; group learning;
public engagement tools; draft public engagement plan.
SESSION ONE
Anchoring programs to
stakeholder interests
I	J
SESSION TWO
Designing interviews to
uncover interests
SESSION THREE
Making sense of what you
learn from interviews
SESSION FOUR
Synthesis and public
outreach program design
4 | P a g e

-------
SESSION ONE
ANCHORING FUNDING PROPOSALS TO
STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS AND MUNICIPAL NEEDS
Stakeholders need to know what problems you are trying to fix, what questions
you have, and what you estimate costs to be, They want to be assured of the cost-
effectiveness of a funding approach. Although this is not a "how-to-fund-a-
stormwater-management-program" workshop, Session One provides you with
some valuable stormwater planning and development resources. This
information will better equip you to begin engagement with stakeholders in your
community about developing a stormwater funding proposal.
Session One also introduces the basic concepts of negotiation theory as a valuable
foundation for all stakeholder engagement. You will apply these concepts in later
sessions as you interview key players in your municipality. Ultimately, you will
work towards reaching agreement on stormwater finding solutions that meet
both stormwater management needs and your stakeholders' interests. Although
negotiation techniques can be used at any point in a consensus-building process,
they are particularly useful early on to resolve potential conflicts before they
result in an impasse or a major breakdown of your process.
Your fieldwork to identify and analyze stakeholders in your municipality will
initiate the first step in this process.

-------
Participant Workbook | Session One | Case Study
CASE STUDY: BERKELEY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Overlooking Stakeholder Concerns Can Lead to Eleventh Hour Opposition
Berkeley County sought a new source of revenue to comply with its anticipated MS4 revisions.
The county's Engineering Department, working with a consultant, developed the utility concept
and its initial design. They conducted no public outreach activities or stakeholder engagement
efforts during program development. They proposed a flat fee based on land use because they
didn't have sufficient data to calculate the impervious surface areas of residential and non-
residential properties. The Department saw this fee structure as an "interim step" that would
allow them to raise sufficient funds to calculate impervious surface areas later and develop a
variable fee structure based more closely on actual site conditions.
In Berkeley County, proposed ordinances must be read at three meetings of the Committee on
Public Works and Purchasing. After the third reading, the County Council votes on the measure.
To prepare the Council for consideration of the stormwater funding 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 for stormwater management
to achieve regulatory compliance. 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 Public Works between July and September 2011,
County Council members and stakeholders began to voice concerns. A small but active citizens'
group appeared at these meetings to oppose a stormwater fee. Council members also voiced
increasing concerns about the utility concept. Issues raised included:
•	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 account for differences in impervious surface areas
among properties.
•	The county didn't need more money; it was 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.
Adapted from: U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Evaluation of the role of public outreach and
stakeholder engagement in stormwater funding decisions in New England: Lessons from communities. EPA 100-K-13-0004.
U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Washington, DC. pp. 87-90.
6 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session One | Tools & Resources
INVENTORYING STORMWATER PROGRAM NEEDS & COSTS
Understanding your existing and anticipated future costs will help you to be prepared for
better collaboration with your stakeholders. There are many tools and resources available
to help municipalities plan for their stormwater expenditures. One helpful tool is the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council "Stormwater Financing/Utility Starter Kit."
Metropolitan Area Planning Council Stormwater Financing/Utility Starter Kit
https://www.mapc.org/resource-librarv/stormwater-financing-utility-starter-kit/
¦	"Module 1: Needs Assessment" Table 1.1 - Potential Expenditures: Review existing
and potential stormwater-related needs/expenditures for your municipality.
¦	"Existing Stormwater Activities and Expenditures": Use template to succinctly
demonstrate existing costs relating to stormwater management.
¦	"Introduction/Overview" Table 0.2 - What Fees Can Be Used For: If considering a
fee, this reference indicates what programs can be funded through fee revenues.
See complete references in Appendix A, pages 67-70.
Although these workshops are not primarily focused on the financial or operational
aspects of building a stormwater utility, your work with stakeholders and the community
will be grounded in the components of a stormwater funding program. Participants in
these sessions will have different levels of familiarity with these components, and so
these resources were selected to provide basic guidance if you are less familiar with some
of the basic elements of stormwater financing.
Engaging your community in stormwater funding starts with
understanding the problemyou are trying to fix.
Exercise: Using your own knowledge and the resources provided, work with your
municipal colleagues to answer the following questions:
What are the strengths and weaknesses of our
stormwater management program ?
Where are our knowledge gaps?
If we had to present "The State of our Stormwater
Program, and Why We Need a Dedicated Source
of Funding" to our elected officials or town
administration in two months, what two or three
things would we have to do to be ready for that
presentation?
Page | 7

-------
Participant Workbook | Session One | Primary Learning
NEGOTIATION THEORY
HOW DOES NEGOTIATION THEORY HELP ME WITH STORMWATER FUNDING?
Developing a stormwater funding mechanism that suits your community requires
knowing what your community cares about relative to stormwater. To address these
interests, you will need to collaborate with others to craft solutions that meet both a wide
range of community interests and your stormwater management needs.
In this section, we introduce fundamental principles of negotiation theory, which provide
a valuable foundation for all stakeholder engagement. Negotiation techniques can help
you work toward a consensus that everyone can live with. You will use negotiation
techniques in your key stakeholder interviews to explore alternatives, understand the full
range of stakeholders' interests in your municipality, and develop fair approaches.
WHAT IS NEGOTIATION?
Negotiation: Any decision-making process that requires agreement
between two or more people.
The type of negotiation we will teach you in this course is focused on building
relationships while achieving what you want. Relationship-building negotiation is not an
exercise in force or manipulation. Rather, it is "mutual gains" negotiation where the focus
is on learning what each party needs and wants so you can invent solutions to meet
multiple needs, including your own.
Negotiation is not about forcing people to agree with you or
manipulating them to do whatyou want. It is about developing solutions that
meet both your interests and theirs.
COMMON HARMFUL ASSUMPTIONS
Negotiation is a zero-sum game; someone wins and someone loses.
It is natural to have a competitive, "fixed-pie" mindset about negotiation, but people who
approach negotiation as a creative process that should result in mutual gains for all parties
end up with better results for themselves, and better long-term relationships with others.
Good negotiators are tough self-advocates.
People who go into negotiations expecting to overwhelm their counterparts (or
opposition, as they see it) with demands, arguments in favor of those demands, and
unyielding self-advocacy often find their counterparts reacting in kind with equal or
greater pressure. Negotiation becomes a "race to the bottom" as parties trade back and
8 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session One | Primary Learning
forth for less and less value overall, thus limiting what is possible for each party to gain
from the other.
Negotiation is inherently stressful.
We tend to associate negotiation with conflict. Most people do not enjoy conflict, partly
because it can bring out our worst sides. One of the challenges with negotiation is to get
past the emotional and psychological blocks that one might associate with conflict. One
way to do this is to think of your negotiation counterpart as a partner in solving a joint
problem, rather than an opponent in a fight or conflict.
ELEMENTS OF NEGOTIATION
There are three elements to every negotiation (substance, process, and relationship).
Negotiating the substance—and ignoring the other elements—is a common mistake.
Substance: What the negotiated issues are. Examples include a budget proposal, a
teenager's curfew, or where a country's borders are drawn.
Process: How a negotiation is carried out. Who participates? Does the negotiation take
place in one meeting or over multiple interactions over time? How will decisions be made
(for example, majority vote versus unanimity)? These are all process matters. Studies
show that people report more satisfaction with outcomes if they trust that the
negotiation process was open and fair, even if the outcomes were substantively worse
than those from arbitrary or unfair processes (Hollander-Blumoff and Tyler 2008).
Relationship: Who is negotiating with whom. The purely transactional negotiation, such
as bartering over the price of a souvenir in an open market, is a rare type of negotiation
relative to the thousands of negotiations that make up your day-to-day life with people
you will see over and over again. Trust, respect, empathy, and similar relational dynamics
have tremendous impact on the outcomes of negotiations. Building, rather than
destroying relationships, should drive your negotiation strategies.
FUNDAMENTAL "MUTUAL GAINS" NEGOTIATION TECHNIQUES
Using negotiation techniques in a successful consensus-building process requires (1)
building positive relationships and (2) collaboratively problem-solving for "mutual gains."
Below we provide three basic strategies to help you succeed.
Know your alternatives: A common pitfall in negotiation is comparing the offer on the
table to your ideal outcome, or your aspirations, rather than your realistic alternatives.
This pitfall occurs because people tend to think a lot about what they want and what
arguments they will make to justify their demands, but very little time thinking about
what they will do if they are unsuccessful in the attempt. The best negotiators have
learned to realistically compare the offer on the table to the best they can do, or the best
Page | 9

-------
Participant Workbook | Session One | Primary Learning
they can get, if they make NO AGREEMENT with their counterparts. Fisher and Ury (1991)
call your preferred "second choice" your BATNA, or "Best Alternative To a Negotiated
Agreement."
BATNA is an acronym for your "Best Alternative To a Negotiated
Agreement." Simply put, your BATNA is what you get if you and your
negotiation counterpart(s) DO NOT agree to a solution.
Having a strong BATNA is powerful because it gives you good reason to say no to any deal
that is less attractive than your BATNA. Spending time assessing your realistic
alternative(s) and improving them before attempting to find a negotiated agreement is
critical. Also, if your counterpart in a negotiation has a very unappealing BATNA, she or
he is more likely to find a satisfactory agreement with you because your alternative will
be better than their "walk-away" alternative.
Work with interests, not positions: Your stakeholders are people first. They have needs,
desires, concerns, and fears that underlie their demands. So do you. The problem is that
most of us express our interests in the form of positions. For example, let's say your
spouse proposes to build a fence around your property because they are interested in
increasing your family's safety from intruders. This underlying interest matters because
positions usually set up a binary response: "Yes, we can build a fence," or "No, we can't."
Knowing interests provides opportunity to explore if the fence is the best way to achieve
safety and protection. Another solution, such as an alarm system or a guard, may be
preferable. Positions are also vulnerable to misinterpretation. You might assume your
spouse is interested in privacy and propose to install window shades instead. Window
shades will do nothing to meet their underlying interests in preventing people or animals
from entering your property. Your most important job as a negotiator is to discover
interests and develop solutions that meet the true needs, not the stated positions. To
uncover interests, you must ask questions like, "Why is that important to you?", "What
problem are you trying to solve?", "How does that help you?" To be an effective
negotiator, you must first identify interests and then craft solutions that meet them.
Be fair: A desire for fairness is hard-wired in us and no one wants to agree to a deal that
is unfair, especially if they perceive that it is unfair to them. Fairness is also hard to assess
because people have different ideas about what constitutes fairness. It is important to
establish criteria for fairness that all parties can agree to, and then to evaluate proposed
solutions using objective criteria.
For additional negotiation and consensus-building resources, see Appendix A, page 67-70
10 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session One | Primary Learning
STAKEHOLDER MAPPING
A stakeholder is any person with an interest or stake in the outcome
of a decision, policy, or action
Each municipality hasa unique landscape of stakeholders, requiring place-based solutions
that work within that context. Stakeholder maps are a tool to help identify whom to
engage and how. They can be used to guide a tailored approach to developing community
support. Today, you will build a map of all stakeholders, organized by their relative
power/influence and interest/stake in outcome in stormwater program funding decisions.
Power/Influence describes the degree of influence each stakeholder has in the
decision-making process relative to other stakeholders on your map
Interest/Stake in Outcome describes the extent that each stakeholder cares about
and/or is affected by the outcome relative to other stakeholders on your map
This mapping exercise helps you better determine (1) which stakeholder groups must
participate to ensure lasting consensus and (2) how to engage each stakeholder group so
their concerns are heard and appropriately represented. Notice that this particular map
(with power and interest as the axes) is agnostic on stakeholders' positions on stormwater
funding. You will need to engage all stakeholders with a certain degree of power and
interest, including both proponents or opponents.
How to Use a Stakeholder Map:
1.	Stakeholder Inventory Worksheet (page 12): List all stakeholders (individuals or
organizations) in stormwater funding decisions.
2.	Stakeholder Map Worksheet (page 13): Plot this stakeholder list along the power and
interest axes on the map (example below). The stakeholders in the upper right
quadrant of the map are your key stakeholders, that is, those with high power and
high interest in your decision-making process. Consult trusted colleagues about your
map.
Town manager
Your stakeholder map is a "living" document.
Plot new players as you think of them or as they
emerge throughout your process. Be aware that
stakeholders may move on the map during your
process. We will revisit your map periodically
over the course of this workshop series.
o
Q.
Residents
Watershed
association
Interest
Page | 11

-------
Participant Workbook | Session One | Tools & Resources
STAKEHOLDER INVENTORY WORKSHEET
Begin to brainstorm all possible stakeholders in your municipality's stormwater funding
decisions, using names, positions, or groups. To ensure you capture everybody, think about
the broad sectors of stakeholders, and who best represents each sector. The below list is
not exhaustive and may not apply to every town, but may help direct your thinking.
Government
•Town/City
•State/Federal
•	Leadership
•	Departments
•Advisory bodies
(committees,
boards,
commissions)
Non-profits
•	Religious
organizations
•	Hospitals
•	Universities/
schools
•	Environmental
organizations/
groups
Residents
•Types of
residents
• Homeowners/
condo
associations
•Community
advocacy &
activist groups
Business/Industry
•	Development
•	Real estate
•Small business
•Large
businesses/
corporations
•Television
• Newspapers
Another way to make sure you capture everybody is to consider four types of stakeholders.
Consider who (1) gains or (2) loses from different stormwater funding options, who (3) has
responsibility for making stormwater funding decisions, and who (4) perpetrates
stormwater problems (e.g., by maintaining impervious cover).
1.
16.
2.
17.
3.
18.
4.
19.
5.
20.
6.
21.
7.
22.
8.
23.
9.
24.
10.
25.
11.
26.
12.
27.
13.
28.
14.
29.
15.
30.
12 | P a g e

-------
STAKEHOLDER MAP WORKSHEET
*
*
a>
u
c
a>
_3
M-
c

-------
Participant Workbook | Session One | Fieldwork
IDENTIFY KEY STAKEHOLDERS & DRAFT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Draft interview questions with your key stakeholders in mind to help you probe for concerns and
interests. The goal is to create a customizable interview template that you can tailor for each key
stakeholder interview.
Using your stakeholder map, create a "wish list" of 5-10 individuals or small groups (2-3 people) to interview.
1.
6.
2.
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
Craft three interest-seeking auestions that are individually tailored for vour 5-10 interviews. Consider what
you can learn from them. Ask questions that probe for interests and encourage explanation, such as:
¦	"What concerns do you have about [X]?"
¦	"How do you think we should go about solving [Y]?"
¦	"What do you think of [A] versus [B] as options? Why would you go with that one?"
INTERVIEW 1:
1.

2.

3.

INTERVIEW 2:
1.

2.

3.

INTERVIEW 3:
1.

2.

3.

INTERVIEW 4:
1.

2.

3.

14 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session One | Fieldwork
INTERVIEW 5:
1.
2.
3.
INTERVIEW 6:
1.
2.
3.
INTERVIEW 7:
1.
2.
3.
INTERVIEW 8:
1.
2.
3.
INTERVIEW 9:
1.
2.
3.
INTERVIEW 10:
1.
2.
3.
Page | 15

-------

-------
Each stakeholder and stakeholder group may have different interests, concerns,
and desired outcomes regarding stormwater funding solutions. Targeted
interviews will enable you to gather information that will help you to identify
funding alternatives that may be acceptable to your community at large and to
design a broader public engagement plan. By the end of Session Two, you will
have the tools you need to prepare and conduct interviews with the key
stakeholders identified in Session One.
This session focuses on HOW to conduct effective interviews. You will work with
colleagues to draft appropriate interview questions. You will be trained in the
practice of good interviewing, including active listening and techniques for
eliciting your stakeholders' interests and concerns. Finally, you will plan the
logistics for setting up interviews with key stakeholders. Our goal is that you leave
today with an understanding of how key stakeholder interviews are an invaluable
strategy for building consensus around challenging issues, including stormwater
funding.

SESSION TWO
DESIGNING INTERVIEWS TO UNCOVER STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Case Study
CASE STUDY: SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Gaining Insights Through an Engagement Process and Stakeholder Meetings
The City of South Burlington faced several stormwater-related issues including
compliance with new MS4 and TMDL regulatory requirements, a number of highly visible
deteriorated stormwater systems, beach closures, localized flooding, erosion, and
sedimentation. Hundreds of required stormwater discharge permits had expired for
properties in the city, creating uncertainties about real estate transactions. Finally, there
was a threat of a development moratorium to disallow any new discharges to impaired
waters due to legal challenges brought by the Conservation Law Foundation under the
Clean Water Act. Homeowner associations, developers and others pressured the city to
develop a solution.
The city established a stormwater advisory committee (SWAC) to help develop a
stormwater program and funding mechanism proposal. The SWAC was composed of
homeowners, developers, local business owners, environmental organizations, technical
experts and members of the education community. City staff and consultants also spent
significant time and effort educating homeowners associations about how stormwater
fees would be calculated and charged, as well as discussing the associations' needs,
concerns and perceptions. Eighty commercial property owners who would receive bills of
over $1,000 per year were invited to breakfast meetings. These discussions of impending
fees were framed as opportunities to provide input on how the proposed stormwater
program could provide value for them. Insights from the SWAC process and stakeholder
meetings included:
•	The importance of helping large ratepayers navigate the permitting process.
•	The importance of the city working with property owners during program
implementation to resolve compliance issues before enforcement action was taken.
•	Inclusion of a stormwater fee credit program.
•	Identifying the correct balance between stormwater fees and service levels.
The city also conducted broad public outreach, including public information brochures
and public presentations describing problem areas, benefits, the differences between a
tax and a utility, and information on how rates would be structured.
The proposal was presented twice to the City Council with an overview of stormwater,
problem areas, the proposed utility structure and its benefits, and possible projects that
the utility would fund. In March 2005, the City Council adopted the proposed stormwater
program and established a utility with no significant public controversy.
Adapted from: U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Evaluation of the role ofpublic outreach and
stakeholder engagement in stormwater funding decisions in New England: Lessons from communities. EPA 100-K-
13-0004. U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Washington, DC. pp. 69-72.
18 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Primary Learning
CRAFTING A GREAT STORMWATER FINANCING INTERVIEW
KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ARE A POWERFUL TOOL
Key stakeholder interviews are a valuable method for eliciting stakeholder interests and
concerns. This information will guide you to more collaboratively design solutions for
everyone's benefit. The purpose of interviews is not to step on toes, alarm constituents,
or push stakeholders in one direction or another. Instead, the goal is to simply to learn
what people care about and why. You may prefer to call interviews "conversations," "one-
on-one stakeholder meetings," or something different—it is up to you.
Think about key stakeholder interviews as "investigations." You simply want to
collect as much information as possible.
As an interviewer, you must put aside your own agenda. Your goal is to use negotiation
techniques to explore each stakeholder group's views, gather useful information, and
discuss possible alternatives. Express interest in their perspective. Build rapport. Afteryou
have built trust, there will be later opportunities to educate and change minds.
WHOM SHOULD I INTERVIEW?
Aim to interview the key stakeholders in the upper right quadrant of your stakeholder
map as well as those with diverse or unique perspectives from other quadrants of the
map. Be sure to interview both proponents and opponents. Key stakeholders have both
high power or influence in your community (at least
relative to this topic) and high interest in the outcome.
They require high intensity, one-on-one engagement.
Stakeholder group representatives with unique
perspectives from other parts of your map will provide
you with the full range of views in town, since you likely
will not have the capacity to talk to the vast majority of
people. Remember to ask your interviewees who else
they would recommend you talk to in order to keep
your map up-to-date and accurate.
Set realistic expectations about what you can accomplish based on your local knowledge
of your municipality. Doing interviews is time-consuming, but rewarding. These
interviews will bring you closer to capturing and understanding the range of your
stakeholders' respective concerns and identifying potential areas of mutual gain. You do
not need to interview everyone in town. Typically, after 20 or 30 interviews (not 100!)
you will find additional interviews are no longer garnering any new information.
k
Diverse
perspective
Key
Stakeholders
Diverse
perspective
P
Diverse
erspective
Interest
Page | 19

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Primary Learning
WHAT ARE THE "RIGHT" QUESTIONS AND HOW SHOULD I ASK THEM?
Ease in by eliciting local knowledge and experience
People love to share their history and play the role of local expert. By asking interviewees
to share their insights, you can avoid creating an atmosphere of interrogation. Start with
an easy question about your interviewee's experience and feelings about a topic to build
rapport and make them more comfortable sharing their ideas and interests. These stories
also help you determine what people care about and thus provide compelling fodder for
developing a more robust stormwater program.
In your lifetime, how has the
condition changed in streams
where you live?
Has beach attendance
changed while you have lived
in this town ?
Have you ever experienced
flooding?
As you discover what people care about, focus the interview on those topics
Many stormwater issues are highly related. For example, flooding can impact water
quality, which in turn can impact public health, aquatic life, the cost of public services,
and so on. Some issues that you may deal with, like water quality, will not always be visible
to others. Others, like flooding orthe cost of public services, will be highly visible. Use the
interview to learn what each stakeholder group cares about, then help them connect it
to other stormwater issues. All are effective lenses through which stakeholders can
become invested in collaboratively developing stormwater solutions.
Aquatic
life
Public
health
Economy
Combined
sewer
overflows
Recreation
Water
quality
Business
costs
Flooding
Lawn
fertilizer
runoff
Property
values
Pet waste
runoff
Natural
disasters
Aesthetics
Keep questions general and open-ended
Asking very specific questions can limit the responses you receive. Designing more general
and open-ended questions means that anyone can answer them and allows you to use
them for multiple stakeholders. For instance, instead of asking "Would you be willing to
create a covenant that will charge a fee for failed maintenance of stormwater systems?"
rephrase the question to, "How do you think we should pay for maintaining our failing
stormwater systems?" You can always ask follow-up questions that require higher-level
expertise to some stakeholders, but start with more open-ended, general questions.
20 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Primary Learning
Doing interviews is a chance to educate, but your timing is important
Asking sensitive questions or overloading interviewees with too much technical
information can put them on defense. It is always tempting to share what we know;
however, steer emphasis away from your own agenda and knowledge base. Focus on
learning what your interviewee knows and what their perspective is. Use data or
information strategically and sparingly. Only offer information to help them contextualize
their experiences and the issues that they value.
Now introduce
stormwater
data.

Can you tell me
about flooding in
your town?
Should the town
be doing better?
O
How does this
data resonate
with your
experience?
<1

Do you see failed
infrastructure in
town (e.g., roads,
pipes) ?
o
Are you familiar
with what
stormwater is?
\A
If stormwater is
misunderstood
explain the
basics briefly.
How do you think
the town should
manage and pay
for this?
Use neutral language
Words can have baggage. Terms such as "funding mechanism" or "enterprise fund" may
be less controversial than "stormwater utility," "stormwater fee" or "stormwater tax." It
may be more appropriate to start by exploring general ideas about funding, for example,
ask "What is the best way to pay for stormwater issues?" rather than discussing specific
funding mechanisms. Pay attention to local and individual trigger points and adapt your
interviews as needed.
INTERVIEW CHEAT-SHEETS
Stakeholder Interviews: A to Z, page 22-23 - Quick guide to your interview process, from
planning to analysis.
Interview Template - Sample, page 24-26 - Create your own interview templates (10-12
questions per 1-hour interview) by selecting from a large list of sample questions and
modifying language from a sample introductory statement.
Setting up Interviews - Sample Communications, page 27-28 - Use or modify sample
language to craft appropriately-worded meeting invitations to interviewees.
Page | 21

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Tools & Resources
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS: A TO Z
SUMMARY
This resource is a quick guide to your interview process. For great stakeholder interviews:
1.	Select the right people to interview
2.	Prepare an interview template (see Interview Template - Sample, page 24-26)
3.	Set up the interviews and prepare the interviewees (see Setting up Interviews - Sample
Communications, page 27-28)
4.	Listen and learn
5.	Take good notes
6.	Synthesize and analyze what you have learned
7.	Share your results and confirm understanding
DETAIL
1.	Select the right people to interview
¦	Use a tool or established process to generate a starting list (Stakeholder Mapping, page 11;
Stakeholder Inventory Worksheet, page 12; Stakeholder Map Worksheet, page 13)
¦	Check your list with people whose knowledge of stakeholders is different from yours.
¦	Check your list with people whose assumptions about the metrics in your tool (i.e., who has
power and who has influence) might be different from yours.
¦	Start with your key stakeholders, that is those who have the most power and influence. Also,
think about those who represent unique perspectives in your community. Determine how many
one-on-one conversations you need to have and how many interviews could be done in small
groups of two or three people. Challenge yourself to talk with opponents and proponents.
¦	Select a manageable number of total interviews, given your time constraints and resources.
¦	Assume that your list will evolve as you go along.
2.	Prepare an interview template (see Interview Template - Sample, page 24-26)
¦	To start, assess what you need to know in order to achieve your goal.
¦ Possible areas to consider: history/context, scientific or other technical data, relationships
or dynamics among stakeholders, stakeholder opinions and interests, stakeholders'
resources (including dollars, intellect, network of support, media contacts, etc.)
¦	Consider how much of the information that you need you already have and what you lack.
¦	Question your own assumptions about what you know already. If you have any doubt,
assume you lack something and it is worth asking about. It is better to ask and have your
knowledge confirmed than to fail to ask and miss an opportunity to learn something useful.
¦	Draft some introductory language that explains in a brief paragraph about why you are
holding interviews, what you hope to achieve, the approximate number of people you
expect to interview, and what the interviewee needs to do to prepare. Explain that the
interviews are confidential and briefly describe how you plan to aggregate and use the
information you learn from the interviews. State how long you expect the interview to last.
State that you would like to take notes.
22 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Tools & Resources
¦	Draft questions that would help you get the information you sketched out above.
¦	Revise/reframe questions to be open-ended, neutral, and to demonstrate maximum curiosity.
¦	Reorder the questions so the flow eases people into the interview. Start with a few
"softballs" to get conversation flowing.
¦	Reduce the number of questions to a manageable set for the time you expect to have.
Assume 10 - 12 rigorous questions per hour.
¦	Make any necessary adjustments to "customize" the interview to each individual (rephrase
questions, plan to provide some context/background, delete/add 1-2 tailored questions, etc.).
3.	Set up the interviews and prepare the interviewees (see Setting up Interviews - Sample
Communications, page 27-28)
¦	Decide how to make the initial request. Email, call, or ask in person depending on your
relationship with the person and the level of convenience afforded by any option.
¦	Prepare a short spiel inviting them to meet with you and why.
¦	Find a mutually-agreeable time and place to meet. It is always preferable to meet on the
most comfortable turf for the interviewee (their office, home, neutral location, etc.).
¦	Send the interviewees your customized Interview Template and any instructions to prepare
(usually they just need to read through it, but sometimes they may have to gather some data
or other information based on what you would like to talk about with them).
4.	Listen and learn
¦	Create a comfortable, informal physical space to the extent you can.
¦	Get in the mindset of investigation. You are not there to explain/educate. You are there to learn.
¦	Use active listening techniques to maximize learning and relationship/trust building (Crafting
a Great Stormwater Financing Interview, page 19-21; Active Listening for Key Stakeholder
Interviews, page 29-31; Separating Stormwater Interests from Positions, page 32-34).
5.	Take good notes
¦	Confirm they are okay with you taking notes (if not, record key ideas directly following).
¦	If you can have a note taker join you without making things awkward, that is best. It allows
you to focus on listening and asking good follow-up questions.
¦	Notes should seek to capture the key ideas from the interviewee's perspective. Verbatim
notes are not necessary, but minimal interpretation should be done by the note
taker/interviewer.
¦	Taking notes on paper or on a computer is fine, but try to make the tool as unobtrusive as
possible (i.e., set the laptop to the side so the interviewee feels like they're talking to a person,
not the back of a computer) and try to look at the person more than your paper or computer.
¦	Feel free to pause for a moment if you need more time to finish a thought in your notes.
6.	Synthesize and analyze what you have learned (to be discussed in Session Three)
¦	Read through your interview notes to identify positions and interests.
¦	Synthesize common positions and interests across interviews to understand themes.
¦	Determine what questions you still have for future interviews or past interviewees.
7.	Share your results and confirm understanding
¦	Share your draft synthesis with all interviewees and ask whether you have mischaracterized
anything from their perspective or missed anything (remove identifying information).
¦	Invite interviewees to provide you with more information or to refine what they said before.
Page | 23

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Tools & Resources
INTERVIEW TEMPLATE - SAMPLE
This template should be adjusted for each interview. Select 10-12 questions per hour that
you plan to ask all of your interviewees, and an additional 1-2 questions that are tailored
for each interview. Share this template with your interviewee(s) in advance of the
interview. It will help them feel prepared, serve to clarify any assumptions about your
agenda, and demonstrate your intention to learn about their perspective. Having
questions prepared will also help you to be more systematic and avoid inserting your own
views.
EXAMPLE (INFORMAL) STATEMENT AT TOP OF INTERVIEW TEMPLATE
Thank you for your willingness to speak with us about [flooding and water quality in our
town]. We are hoping to talk with [an approximate number of] stakeholders about their
views on these topics so we can understand what people care about and how we can
better serve the town. We will probably not get to all questions, but we wanted to give
you an idea of the kinds of things we'll be asking you.
We will take notes during our conversation and share them with you to ensure accuracy.
We will write up and share a summary of what we learn in all these conversations. It will
list the names of the people we spoke with, but the content will be aggregated and none
of it will be attributed. In that sense, these conversations are confidential and we hope
you feel you can speak freely.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions before we meet.
[Here you might insert an additional paragraph to orient your stakeholders to some basics
of stormwater management or vocabulary, the MS4 permit, or any other orientation to
the issue that you think would be necessary or helpful. You may also choose to include a
relevant fact sheet or article for some additional background information].
QUESTIONS
INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS
Start with a very easy question to make the interviewee comfortable talking. Make sure
you know how to spell their name and title correctly.
¦ [If you are not intimately familiar with their work, ask] Tell me a little about your [job],
[role in X organization].
¦	What are the biggest challenges you face in your work?
¦	Who are your constituents, or to whom do you feel accountable?
¦	Do you work with any other organizations with specific connections to these
issues?
24 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Tools & Resources
¦	Aside from your formal work with [X organization], do you have any unique personal
connection to flooding or water quality in our town?
¦	[If you provided some background information] Do you have any questions or
comments about the summary information I provided about stormwater
management?
FOUNDATION QUESTIONS
¦	What do you like most about living/working in this town? Why?
¦	What does our town government do best?
¦	Where does our town government have the most opportunity to improve?
BASIC FLOODING/WATER QUALITY QUESTIONS
¦	Describe our town's flooding situation from your perspective.
¦	Where are the trouble spots?
¦	What is the cause of these problem areas?
¦	What do you think some of the solutions might be to address these issues?
¦	Describe our town's water quality situation from your perspective.
¦	What are the key issues that need to be addressed?
¦	What kinds of things should be done, or done better, to address them?
¦	Who is responsible for managing flooding and water quality in our town? If this is
several groups of people, what is each group's role?
¦	How important are stormwater issues relative to other town needs or issues?
¦	For example, how does flooding/water quality rank against schools, public safety,
zoning, etc.?
¦	Do you think folks in our town care about stormwater? Do they even know what it is?
¦	What problems that are caused by stormwater in our town bug people the most?
¦	Let's wave a magic wand and say that we have all the money in the world for
stormwater management in our town. Now pretend it's ten years from now and
you're being interviewed for a local news story on the success of our innovative
stormwater management efforts over the past decade. What do you highlight?
¦	20 years from now, what would you hope to see going on in town relative to water
quality/flooding/public safety/community revitalization/etc. efforts?
FUNDING QUESTIONS
¦	Do you have any idea how expensive some of the solutions you proposed above might
be? Or what kind of resources they might take?
¦	Where do you think the money should come from?
¦	What are some pros/cons of getting money from those sources?
¦	If we were to explore the option of an independent fee or enterprise fund to manage
stormwater, what kind of questions or pushback should we anticipate? And why?
¦	Where would we find proponents for an independent fee? And why?
Page | 25

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Tools & Resources
¦	Why is it so hard to fund stormwater management in our town?
¦	What would make it easier?
¦	We know people don't like taxes or fees. They would rather not pay them at all, but if
they're going to pay them, we know the fees at least need to be affordable and fair.
¦	What do you think qualifies as "affordable" on this issue?
¦	What factors do you think people take into account when they judge a fee to be
"fair" or "not fair?"
¦	Aside from affordability and fairness, what else do you think people care about
when it comes to supporting public expenditures?
¦	If we were to start charging a fee for stormwater, what do you think would be the
fairest way to do it?
¦	Under what circumstances would you be willing to help pay for stormwater?
¦	Do you see these issues differently as a business owner versus a homeowner?
¦	What concerns do you have about setting up another fee structure in our town for
dealing with stormwater? Are there pros and cons that you can articulate?
¦	There are various mechanisms through which stormwater management might be
funded (explain, perhaps with a graphic or resource of some kind).
¦	What is your opinion of the feasibility of any of these options in our town (and
why?)
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONS
¦	What are the key misconceptions about stormwater that would need to be addressed
in order for more people to understand and appreciate the importance of good
stormwater management?
¦	What needs to happen to raise the level of knowledge and interest in stormwater in
our town?
¦	Do you think we could get anyone in town to rally around a new approach to funding
the management of stormwater? Who, and why them?
¦	What are some good ways to increase education about stormwater?
¦	Who is going to be most opposed to stormwater funding? Why?
¦	Who is the most critical to involve in future efforts?
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
¦	What data or other information do we not have that we would need in order to
develop a healthy stormwater funding program?
CLOSING QUESTIONS
¦	What did I not ask you about today that I should have?
¦	Who else should I be talking to?
26 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Tools & Resources
SETTING UP INTERVIEWS - SAMPLE COMMUNICATIONS
Between Sessions 2 and 3, your fieldwork is to schedule and conduct 5-10 initial
interviews. Challenge yourself to interview both proponents and opponents among:
•	Key stakeholders in the upper right quadrant of your stakeholder map
•	Stakeholders with unique perspectives from other quadrants of the map
You can conduct interviews with individuals or with small groups (2-3 people maximum).
SAMPLE INITIAL INVITATIONS
It may take some time to set up meetings, so you should get started as soon as possible.
Send invitations to meet by email, phone, or in person, depending on your relationship
with your interviewee. We have prepared a few sample spiels to make this easier for
you—use your best judgement to communicate about these topics appropriately.
The following sample applies to those with little OR a lot of familiarity with
stormwater issues or funding. The language is indirect and works for
opponents and proponents.
We're participating in a stormwater workshop, and we're looking to hear what
you think about [some of the challenges you face in managing these issues/ our
town's flooding situation from your perspective / our town's water quality
situation from your perspective]. As part of this workshop, we are reaching out
to a range of stakeholders in town about their views on [flooding and water
quality topics] so we can understand what people care about and how we can
better serve the town. We're looking to collect and summarize how a variety of
stakeholders in town feel about these issues. At your convenience, would you
be open to sitting down with us for an hour or two in the next few weeks at
[their office or a neutral location] so we can get a handle on your perspective?
The following sample is more direct. It works for opponents and proponents,
but is aimed to those with greater familiarity with stormwater issues or
funding.
We're trying to get our hands around how best to approach stormwater-related
issues in town and some of the challenges associated with funding stormwater-
related projects. We'd value your perspective on these topics and would
appreciate getting some help to think about how we can better serve the town.
In fact, we're aiming to hold a number of one-on-one stakeholder meetings, to
get a sense of the range of perspectives in town. Can we find an hour to come
by [their office or a neutral location] in the next few weeks?
Page | 27

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Tools & Resources
It may be helpful to share a thought-provoking article or fact sheet in advance.
Remember, most people will be relatively unfamiliar with stormwater topics compared
to you. Providing background information may help them feel more prepared to talk with
you. Use good judgement in selecting resources and avoid resources that use jargon
heavily.
SAMPLE FOLLOW-UP ONCE THEY HAVE AGREED TO MEET
The following sample uses indirect language. It works for opponents and
proponents, and applies to those with a little OR a lot of familiarity with
stormwater issues or funding.
Thank you very much for your willingness to sit down with us—we're looking
forward to hearing your perspective on how best to work through how we
might better serve the town in tackling [water quality and flooding issues /
revitalization and remediation projects / flooding and public safety issues /
something else that might appeal to your interviewee without directly using
the term "stormwater"]. Would [propose 2-3 times and dates] be a convenient
time for us to come by [their office or a neutral location]? We have attached
a template [attach your version of the Interview Template - Sample, pages
24-26] that we'll be using with a number of stakeholders in town to give you
an idea of the range of topics and discussion points we're hoping to cover
during our conversation. We would like to take notes during these
conversations, unless you'd prefer otherwise. Please let us know if you have
any questions, or if we can provide you with any additional resources. We look
forward to talking with you.
After the interview, follow up with a thank you. Send a copy of your notes to them and
ask them to verify your understanding of the conversation. This will increase transparency
around your conversations.
Ultimately, the goal is to create and share a summary of what you learned from interviews
in the form of a presentation, memo, report, or other format. You will work to synthesize
what you have learned in Sessions Three and Four.
28 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Primary Learning
ACTIVE LISTENING FOR KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
WHAT IS IT AND WHY DO I NEED IT?
Now that you are ready logistically for key stakeholder interviews, this section will focus
on HOW to conduct better interviews. Active listening is a technique for strengthening
your interviews. At a basic level, active listening helps you to more fully understand each
stakeholder groups' interests and values, including their relative importance. More
crucially, active listening allows you to identify potential areas of mutual gain.
Active listening is both a skill and an intention. We can teach you the skill, as it is a
technique that can be learned and practiced. Your intention to actively listen must come
from you. Interviews are only effective when you are interested and prepared to
genuinely listen and learn.
There are multiple benefits to active listening:
1.	Learn new information (for example, data, stories, interests, opportunities)
2.	Meet a basic human need to be heard and treated with respect
3.	Model the behavior you expect from stakeholders
4.	Help identify and address emotions, so you can talk more productively
HOW DO I DO IT?
Negotiations tend to be high stress situations. You must juggle many separate concerns
at once, such as how your body language appears and how to respond to new
information. As you listen to someone speak, you are likely to be hearing two voices. The
first is the other party's voice and the second is your internal voice. Most of us tend think
about our response even before the other person has stopped talking. Consider a
classroom in which every student has their hand raised while another is speaking. Most
likely, none of the students are listening to their classmate because they are crafting a
response in their head. This tendency makes it impossible to listen effectively. Although
we may think we can, it is impossible to listen to two things at once.
To actively listen, we need to quiet our internal voice and focus on learning. Active
listening is not "being nice" or agreeing. It is not simply nodding or saying stereotypical
listening phrases such as "uh huh" and "I know how you feel." Active listening takes work.
We must put aside our internal judgements and respond outwardly with genuine and
open-minded interest.
Page | 29

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Primary Learning
It is important to be aware of the assumptions we make while listening. These affect our
internal commentary and our ability to accurately understand our stakeholders' concerns.
Limiting Assumptions
Helpful Assumptions
"There's no point. I've heard it all
before." AND "What they have to say is
90% nonsense."
"If 1 listen carefully, 1 may learn useful
information that will help me change
their choice."
"1 won't persuade them by listening -
1 need to make arguments."
"If 1 listen effectively 1 can satisfy their
interest in being understood and build
my credibility."
"If 1 demonstrate good listening, it
makes it easier for them to reciprocate
by listening to me at a future time."
"Listening conveys agreement, and 1
don't agree with them."
"1 can listen without agreeing."
You cannot get rid of your internal voice, but you can make an effort to refocus it:
¦	Allow yourself to be curious and let the thread of conversation go where it goes
¦	Focus on learning: listen to WHAT is being said as well as HOW it is being said
(listening for emotions can help you interpret what you hear)
¦	Resist the urge to judge, defend, educate, or give advice
¦	Remind yourself why understanding their view is important
¦	Turn off your thoughts while you are listening (for example, thinking of a response)
Active listening requires effort to change your own behavior as well. Too often, we forget
that our words may trigger reactions in others. Good listening depends not only on the
questions we ask, but also on how we, as interviewers, respond. By mastering active
listening techniques, we can signal to interviewees that we are interested in hearing their
perspectives, building relationships, and learning.
1.	Paraphrase: Restate what you heard without necessarily agreeing (for example,
"Let me make sure I get this right...Have I got it?")
2.	Inquire: Test your understanding by clarifying specifics (for example, "Can you
explain what you meant by...?" OR "Why...?" OR "Can you help me
understand...?")
3.	Acknowledge: Listen for underlying feelings and demonstrate understanding,
sincerity, and empathy through acknowledging statements, (for example, "That
must have been concerning to you..." OR "You must be very proud of....")
30 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Primary Learning
Be careful of "Hot" inquiry. This is when you phrase something as a question, but it is
really an argument in favor of what you want.
Examples of "Hot" Inquiry.
j "But don't you think we'd be better off using the other strategy?"
- "Do you really think that would work?"
Q "Seriously?"
In a cross examination, a good lawyer never asks questions without already knowing the
answers. Essentially "Hot" inquiry, their questions are designed to elicit specific answers
or conclusions. With active listening, it is the opposite. A good listener never assumes to
know the answers. They only ask questions with the purpose of understanding what they
do not know. To avoid "Hot" inquiry, ask yourself: What is the purpose of this question?
If the purpose is not to learn something, then you should not ask it.
For additional active listening resources, see Appendix A, page 67-70.
APPLYING ACTIVE LISTENING IN YOUR INTERVIEWS
Be prepared to do very little talking during your interviews. Even if people tend to come
to you for information in your day-to-day job, resist the urge to educate! Encourage your
interviewee to talk for the majority of the time. Plan 10-
12 questions (per hour) in advance to help discipline your
tendency to insert your own view in the conversation.
Document your interviews by taking a complete set of
notes. Afterwards, share your notes with your interviewee
to confirm that you have accurately recorded their
responses and understand them. This way, stakeholders
know they were listened to and can verify that you
interpreted their views correctly.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRATEGIES THAT COMPLEMENT ACTIVE LISTENING
¦	Some people might ask a question over and over but may not want to listen to your
response. One strategy is to keep them talking—you are here to learn! As much as
possible resist trying to answer their questions. Try to answer a question with a
question: "I'm hearing in your questions that you're concerned about [X] and I'd like
know more about why you feel that way. Can you break that down for me?"
¦	Some people need to vent until they start to run out of steam. Be empathetic. Listen
and learn. Meet their need to be heard. At that point, you can start asking questions.
90%
you listening
to them
Page | 31

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Primary Learning
SEPARATING STORMWATER INTERESTS FROM POSITIONS
In Session One, we learned that a fundamental technique used in good negotiation is
probing for the interests that underlie your stakeholders' positions. Here, we will discuss
WHY negotiating interests and not positions is so important and HOW to uncover
interests in your key stakeholder interviews.
POSITIONS VS. INTERESTS
Position	«
A definitive suggestion or demand
that can only be solved in one way:
W "I want [X] to happen"
W "For this to be successful, we
have to do [X]."
Q "If we don't go with [X],
I'm out of here."	i.
v	 yv
Interest
Underlying needs that can be met
with multiple objectives:
W "I want [X] to happen
because (a) it is fair and (b)
it will reduce flooding."
There are multiple ways to solve an
issue with interests (a) and (b).
SATISFYING POSITIONS RARELY LEADS TO LASTING CONSENSUS
1.	Positions may be mutually exclusive. If two positions cannot be satisfied at the
same time, it will appear that no solution is possible.
2.	Solutions based on positions are fragile. If you meet one stakeholder group's
position at the expense of your own or others' interests, it can damage
relationships and/or the solution may not be durable.
3.	Solutions based on positions often waste valuable time. Such solutions are likely
to ultimately fail because they do not address root problems. Failure can degrade
trust and it can be a setback when you have limited time to identify a solution.
4.	Satisfying positions rarely solves the real problem or meets the real need.
We are not always very good at knowing what we really need or asking for it.
Satisfying under-informed positions is unlikely to result in the best solution.
5.	Some positions are taken without sufficient knowledge. If a stakeholder's
position on an issue is under-informed, the problem will not be solvable until they
become informed. Stakeholder interviews are a valuable tool to gather
information to inform education and outreach.
32 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Primary Learning
Angela and John both want the same whole orange. If you give the orange to Angela,
only she will be satisfied. If you compromise by splitting the orange in half neither John
nor Angela will be satisfied. Based on positions alone, neither solution satisfies both
people. When you inquire WHY each wants one whole orange, it turns out that John
wants the orange to make orange juice and Angela wants the orange for its zest. You
can meet both interests by giving Angela the zest and John the juice. Compromise is not
always a good solution if it is based on positions. The solution that fully satisfied both
John and Angela became clear only after you elicited their underlying interests.
NEGOTIATING BASED ON INTERESTS
When you learn what needs, concerns, and hopes underlie people's decisions, you can
develop solutions that meet both their interests and those of your stormwater program.
First, you need to know how to identify interests in interviews. There are two basic levels
of interests: fundamental and secondary. Both are important. Fundamental interests tend
to be universally shared. Secondary interests are more tangible and more context-
dependent. Secondary interests can help you to shape potential solutions to suit local
context, and fundamental interests anchor them in what everyone cares about.

Examples of
Secondary Interests
Clean water
Strong economy
High property value
Recreational opportunity
Beautiful views
Good amenities

Toxin-free environment
Examples of
Fundamental Interests
Equity
Fairness
Community
Health & Safety
Legacy
Quality of life
Stability
In interviews, you will need to dig deeper to identify the fundamental interests that
underlie your interviewee's secondary interests. For example, if a stakeholder's
secondary interest is clean water, their fundamental interest may be health and safety
for their children OR it may be that they are more interested in quality of life, because
water quality affects their recreational opportunities. The best rule of thumb is to keep
asking "Why do you care about that?" until you learn their core concerns. Fundamental
interests will help you to best identify areas of potential agreement and mutual gain.
Page | 33

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Primary Learning
APPLYING ACTIVE LISTENING SKILLS TO GET FROM POSITIONS TO INTERESTS
It is not as difficult as it may sound to dig further into a stakeholder's interests. For the
most part, people want to talk about issues that concern them. The key is to actively
listen. Genuine interest makes interviewees feel more comfortable, respected, and that
their views are important to you. The following techniques can help you encourage this
dynamic while more systematically investigating interests:
First, get an overview, then go back for additional layers of information. Your
interviewee will feel comfortable talking about what they know while you listen for topics
to learn more about. If you delve too quickly into one issue without learning the big
picture, you may miss important topics that would help you to better craft potential
funding options. You can always go back to each topic and dig deeper.
Dig deeper by asking for more detail and clarification. Keep asking "What else?" Find out
how they feel and why their view is important to them. Learn their fundamental interests.
Sample Question Lead-ins:
Q "Why...?"
Q "Any other reasons for...?"
W "Tell me more about why you want what you do?"
W "What is it about [X] that bugs you the most?"
W "When that happens, how do you feel?"
W "Let's say you could just wave a magic wand and things would
be different. Would you? Why?"
Recognize all assumptions you bring to the conversation. Use paraphrasing and
clarification questions to ensure that you have heard and understood your interviewee's
interests. This technique demonstrates your willingness to problem solve with them and
other stakeholder groups to craft potential solutions for everyone's mutual gain.
Sample Questions:
W "So, is the reason you're asking for [X position] because it will
help you satisfy [Y interest]?"
W "From your perspective, is [X position] the best way to meet
[Y interest]?"
Q "I understand that you want [X position], but if you could meet
your underlying concern of [Y interest] another way, would that
be okay?"
34 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Two | Fieldwork
MUNICIPAL INTERVIEW PLANNING
From the key players that are on your wish list to interview (Session One fieldwork), identify whom
you think you can feasibly interview before the next session. Talk with your municipal partners about
setting realistic interview goals.
Whom do you think you can feasibly interview (one-on-one conversations or small groups)
between this session and the next?
Are there any tasks you need to complete before the interviews can happen? (for example,
finalize stakeholder interview template, revisit stakeholder mapping)
What interview timeline will work for you and your town partners?
Scheduling window (provide dates)
Interview window (provide dates)
Which municipal partner should do which task?
Page | 35

-------

-------

—¦r •
SESSION THREE
MAKING SENSE OF WHAT YOU LEARN FROM INTERVIEWS
Developing support for your storm water financing proposal depends upon
satisfying your stakeholders' interests as well as meeting your stormwater
program needs (for example, fairness; co-benefits, clean water, budget
transparency, etc.). Session Three provides a methodology (content analysis) for
analyzing stakeholder interview responses to identify their full range of
interests.
Content analysis can help to remove you, as much as possible, from your own
lens of interpretation. We will employ strategies to systematically extract
information and condense key interests. This method of analysis will help you
take a systematic approach to assessing stakeholder interests. In Session Three,
there will be multiple opportunities to discuss your colleagues' insights and
approaches as you develop your own. You will discuss interview responses and
themes with colleagues from other municipalities as you deliberate possible
solutions that address common interests.
This session gives you the skills to piece together the landscape of stakeholder
interests in your municipality and in similar communities. Using this
information, you can bestformulate the next steps in crafting a consensus-based
funding proposal supported by an effective public engagement strategy
(discussed in Session Four).

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Case Study
CASE STUDY: RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Developing a Menu of Alternatives for Collaborative Decision Making
Development of a stormwater utility in Raleigh, North Carolina, was led by the
Department of Public Works' Stormwater Division. The City Council supported the
concept and created a Stormwater Utility Stakeholder Group to advise it on program
design and funding options.
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 stakeholder group members would be more comfortable
speaking freely.
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). 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).
Level of
Service
Annual
O&M
Annual Management,
Compliance and
Implementation Cost
Annual Capital
Improvement
Project
Annual
Program
Cost
Estimated User
Fee($/SFU/
month)
Equivalent
Tax Rate
($/$100)
A
$6 million
$5 million
$6 million
$17
million
$5.76
$0,067
Fully Preventative/
100% Routine
Comprehensive Planning
+ Compliance + Full
Implementation
16-year
program
B
$4.8 million
$3 million
$4 million
$11.8
million
$4.00
$0,046
Mixture of Routine
and Inspection-
Based
Proactive Planning +
Compliance + Systematic
Implementation
25-year
program
C
$3 million
$2 million
$3 million
$8.0
million
$2.71
$0,032
Inspection-Based
Only
Priority Planning +
Compliance + Partial
Implementation
33-year
program
D
$2 million
n/a
Responsive Only
$2 million
$6.0
million
$2.03
$0,024
~ = Consultant
estimate of current
City of Raleigh
levels of service
Source: City of
Raleigh Stormwater
Management
Funding Study:
Final Report,
March 2003
Adapted from: U.S. EPA(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Evaluation of the role ofpublic outreach and
stakeholder engagement in stormwater funding decisions in New England: Lessons from communities. EPA 100-K-
13-0004. U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Washington, DC. pp. 79-83.
38 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Primary Learning
CONTENT ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
WHAT IS CONTENT ANALYSIS AND WHY DO I NEED IT?
Now that you have done some interviews, you will need to accurately distill key interests,
positions, and themes to inform potential funding solutions. If you simply listen to
interview responses or read an interview transcript, you will tend to interpret what you
hear and read through your own filters. You will see the themes you want to see. It is
human nature that we impose our own opinions and ideas on what we see and hear.
Content analysis is a technique for interpreting interviews using a methodology that
enforces discipline on your thinking and helps to remove your own opinions. It entails
reading through interviews systematically and objectively to:
1.	Extract key stormwater financing positions and interests
2.	Identify questions, i.e., subject areas where you need to follow up with your
interviewees
3.	Synthesize recurring themes across multiple interviews that will become the
backbone for your stormwater financing public engagement strategy
HOW DO I UNDERTAKE CONTENT ANALYSIS METHODS?
1. Extract key stormwater financing positions and interests using content analysis
As you read through the transcripts or notes of each key stakeholder interview, use the
worksheet provided (pages 41-44) to inventory positions and interests. We recommend
that you first read through each transcript to identify positions and then re-read it to
identify interests. This will help you focus on extracting all information that meets each
criterion, and steer you away from looking only for subject matter that appeals to you.
Sample Interview Excerpt: Content Analysis of Interview Transcripts
(^Everyone should pa^)for stormwater programs, bu^they shouldn't pay equally^)
C^The fee should be based on square footage of impervious surfaces^It is an \
equity issue?) It alsjTconnects the costs borne by residents to the impactjheir 1
property-h-a-s on the town. Also^stormwater costs should be separate)and
independent from other budget items. The way we do it now, which i^paying
for stormwater costs using the general fund, isn't ideat)because there isn't
enough money inth gfgeneral fund^and it means thatpeople have no direct
connection to their impact7] ;
		-r	Question B: If there was enouqh
¦4-"'			. , .
Positions
money,
should the general fund cover
Question A: What impacts should residents be
stormwater programs?
connected to?
Page | 39

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Primary Learning
Ask your colleagues to review the transcripts as well. They may interpret information
differently. The content they extract can help you to test your analysis of stakeholder
responses against theirs.
2. Identify additional questions
In many cases, you will identify areas where more information is needed. You may need
to probe further to uncover a stakeholder group's underlying interests in follow-up
conversations. You will be more likely to satisfy multiple viewpoints if you learn why each
stakeholder group holds its positions and if you avoid making false assumptions about
what your stakeholders' positions are based on. Identifying these areas as you go along
allows you to fill in your knowledge gaps through additional or follow-up interviews.
In the Sample Interview Excerpt (page 39), some discussion topics remain unclear
and must be clarified further.
Question A: What impacts should residents be connected to? The
interviewee mentions twice that residents should be connected to their
impacts. What impacts (for example, flooding, severe weather events,
water pollution) is the speaker referring to? Are certain impacts more
important to the interviewee than others? It is best to find out now so
that you can develop your stormwater engagement strategy to more
directly appeal to their interests.
Question B: If there was enough money, should the general fund cover
stormwater programs? The interviewee indicates the it is not ideal to pay
for stormwater costs using the general fund because there is not enough
money. However, they also mention concerns about equity and
community responsibility. What would they do if the general fund had
enough money? We need to probe a little deeper to better understand
the interviewee's values.
3. Synthesize themes from content analysis
Once you have interviewed enough key stakeholders, you will begin to hear recurring
themes. By systematically extracting interests as you proceed through several interviews,
it becomes possible to synthesize overarching themes that are shared among your
stakeholder groups. These themes represent what people care about. They will be critical
for helping you to develop elements of a funding proposal that can potentially meet
multiple stakeholder groups' interests. They will also become the backbone of your
outreach and engagement strategy. We will return to this topic in Session Four.
40 | P a g e

-------
INTERVIEW ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
IDENTIFYING KEY INTERESTS AND THEMES
Exercise Directions:
¦	Read through the notes or transcripts from municipal interviews and extract positions, interests, key themes, and open questions.
¦	First look through to systematically find positions. Next, re-read to identify interests and enter those into the worksheet below.
¦	Use the worksheet to list stakeholders who share interests and to organize a list of potential strategies and/or components to avoid.
Criteria Quick Reference:
Positions: Suggestions or demands that can only be solved one way, i.e., you have to say "yes" or "no."
Interests: Underlying needs that can be met with multiple objectives. There are multiple ways to solve an issue with interests. What do
they really care about?
Questions: Lingering questions in your mind, or questions that would invite your stakeholders to share more or become more invested.
Themes: "BIG" commonalities that emerge throughout interviews. Step back and consider all interviews—what interests do multiple
stakeholders share? Themes are not person-specific. What do a lot of people seem to care about?
Stakeholder
(individual or group)
Position(s)
Key interests
Further questions?
List other stakeholders
who share this view











-------
Stakeholder
(individual or group)
Position(s)
Key interests
Further questions?
List other stakeholders
who share this view


























-------
Stakeholder
(individual or group)
Position(s)
Key interests
Further questions?
List other stakeholders
who share this view


























-------
Stakeholder
(individual or group)
Position(s)
Key interests
Further questions?
List other stakeholders
who share this view


























-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Tools & Resources
STORMWATER FUNDING & STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
PURPOSE
This worksheet is designed to help translate information from interviews into a full stormwater
funding and stakeholder assessment. This assessment is designed to help you frame a presentation or
report on this information. Not all questions may be appropriate for every municipality—you are all at
different stages. You should feel free to alter or add questions to better assist self-assessment.
SECTION I: WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR
Review your stakeholder map now that you have done some interviews (page 13):
1. Are there any
changes 1 would make
now to my initial
stakeholder map?
Why?
Does anyone need to be moved to another spot on the map because they have
more or less influence or interest than you thought?
2. Whom have 1 not
yet talked with that 1
should (and why)?
Consider a few different reasons: different point of view, different/additional point
of influence, could become an ally, etc.
3. Did my
interviewees mention
someone 1 had not
yet thought of? If so,
should they be
included on my map?

4. Who are the most
critical stakeholders 1
need to satisfy to
continue stormwater
fund planning?

Page | 45

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Tools & Resources
STORMWATER FUNDING & STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Review and synthesize your Interview Analysis Worksheet {pages 41-44):
5. What key themes
emerged during
interviews?

6. What do your key
stakeholders care
about the most
based on what you
heard?
Indicate who has which key interests.
7. Based on
stakeholder
feedback, what
critical elements of a
funding program
must be included in
any future design
proposal?
Examples: credit systems, user fee limits, separate bills, etc.
46 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Tools & Resources
STORMWATER FUNDING & STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
8. Based on stakeholder
feedback, what
elements of a funding
program must be
resolved or avoided in
any future design
proposal?

9. Looking over any
program assessment 1
prepared before 1
started the workshop
series, are there
changes 1 would make
now?
Note the changes here or make the changes to the original documents. Reflect on
why you would make those changes and what prompted them.
10. What do 1 still need
to investigate? Who can
1 get that information
from?

11. Who from this
workshop could help
you in the future with
questions about
stormwater funding or
management?
Note the name(s)/contact information of other participants and how they might
be helpful to you.
Page | 47

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Tools & Resources
STORMWATER FUNDING & STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
SECTION II: NEXT STEPS FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH A STORMWATER FUNDING PROPOSAL
1. What is my ultimate
stormwater funding
goal and when would 1
like to achieve it?

2. Breaking down my
goal into four equal
timeframes, what are
the kev objectives 1
need to achieve in
each timeframe in
terms of stakeholder
engagement and
technical analysis?
Example: You want a dedicated s
must be achieved each year regai
Stormwater Stakeholders
ource of funding for stormwater in 4 years. What
'ding both stakeholders and technical needs?
Stormwater Program Nuts and Bolts
48 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Tools & Resources
STORMWATER FUNDING & STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Example: "1 need to have a full-fledged economic analysis done by Year 2, but 1 don't

have anyone on staff with that skillset." or "There is one Selectwoman who is going

to be very hard to convince and 1 will need her support in order to get other elected

officials on board."
3. Potential barriers:

Which of the

objectives noted

above in #2 concern

me the most, and

why?


Note the missing information and how you think you can get it.
4. Am 1 missing

information that 1

need in order to

achieve the objectives

noted above in #2?

What are my next

steps to fill those

gaps?

Page | 49

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Tools & Resources
STORMWATER FUNDING & STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
5. What next steps
have 1 identified to
develop consensus
among my key
stakeholders?
Examples: Form a Stormwater Funding Advisory Committee, launch an education
campaign, conduct more key stakeholder interviews, etc. Session Four provides
resources that will help you dig approach this topic more systematically.
6. What three best
next steps overall
(stakeholder-related
or technical) would 1
recommended to my
department or
municipality to
achieve the objectives
stated in #2?
Consider what could keep you from taking these three next steps and what you plan
to do to overcome the potential challenges.
50 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Fieldwork
INSTRUCTIONS - MUNICIPAL STORMWATER PRESENTATIONS
GUIDELINES
For Session Four, develop a pitch that you can use in the future. Practicing this
presentation in front of colleagues provides an opportunity to receive professional
critiques about your messaging and your proposed approach towards achieving your
long-term goals.
Each municipality will present for 5 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of discussion
Pick a hypothetical audience from below and give the presentation as if to them:
Council / Board
Members
Appropriation
Committee
Interest Group
Use the Stormwater Funding and Stakeholder Assessment Summary (pages 45-50)
as a guide. Aim to communicate the following:
1.	What have you accomplished? What do you know now that you did not know
before this workshop?
2.	Where are you now? What information do you have and what do you still need?
3.	What's next? What are your recommendations for elements of a stormwater
funding proposal that might be acceptable to your community? What feasible
next steps do you propose?
PRESENTATION TIPS FROM PILOT SERIES PARTICIPANTS
PROVIDE A QUICK INTRODUCTION USING VISUAL STORMWATER OUTREACH RESOURCES
¦	U.S. EPA Soak Up the Rain (https://www.epa.gov/soakuptherain)
¦	Stormwater Duck Ads from Think Blue Maine (http://www.thinkbluemaine.org/)
¦	Online stormwater pictures/diagrams/cartoons
USE PICTURES TO COMMUNICATE YOUR MAIN POINTS & LIMIT TEXT
¦	Pictures can illustrate local issues and/or impacts to familiar places in town: e.g.,
flooding, pollution impacts on local waterbodies
¦	Pictures can demonstrate program costs: e.g., street sweepers, catch basin cleaning
¦	Pictures to show accomplishments and activities: completed projects, stormwater
best management practices (BMPs) in town
¦	Before and after pictures are highly effective - hire a local artist to render an "after"
¦	Jargon and wordy slides will not grab your audiences' imagination and attention
Page | 51

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Three | Fieldwork
ILLUSTRATE YOUR POINTS BY TELLING A LOCAL STORY
¦	Local stories will anchor your message
¦	'It cost X dollars to fix the broken pipe on Main Street and we could have saved X
dollars if we had done X, Y, or Z'
¦	"I talked to Joe Resident, and he told me...'
USE A CARROT OR A STICK - OR BOTH
¦	Stick: Anticipated penalties or costs from federal or state mandates may motivate
action
¦	Carrot: Focus your message on what people care about: children swimming in clean
waters, reducing flooding, safe roads and sidewalks, healthy trees, increased
property values, etc.
¦	Carrot: Include costs of BMPs to increase public knowledge about how little BMPs
can cost compared to other options
¦	Carrot: Highlight co-benefits, that is, quality of life improvements that come with
your projects, such as a stream reconstruction with an added pedestrian bridge
PAY ATTENTION TO LANGUAGE AND FRAMING
¦	Make sure you do not blame your audience for being polluters - focus on positive
language, for example, we all want to live in a clean place
¦	In interviews, ask what different terminology means to key stakeholders so you can
decide what language people respond positively or negatively to (for example,
"stormwater utility," "drainage fee," "enterprise fund," or "redistribution of funds")
BE STRATEGIC IN WHAT NEXT STEPS YOU ADVOCATE FOR
¦	Consider timing: It may not be good timing to promote any particular funding
solution, but advocating for stormwater issues is still important. At first, you might
focus more on the need for outreach and education about stormwater impacts, how
stormwater management benefits people, and raising awareness about co-benefits
from stormwater improvements.
¦	Focus on feasible waypoints: There is a difference between pursuing a funding
mechanism versus pursuing a monetary goal. You might find that a lower cost
mechanism that will only allow you to pursue some of your management needs is
more appropriate for your community now. Later, you might engage stakeholders
about increasing the dollar amount to better achieve your longer-term goals.
BE BRIEF
¦	You may not get more than five minutes in front of city council / your board of
selectman / an elected official. Focus on:
¦	Sparking interest with compelling stories, visuals, and recommendations
¦	Eliciting good questions by introducing the kind of information you can follow-up
with at a later time
52 | P a g e

-------
SESSION FOUR
SYNTHESIS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM DESIGN
In Session Four, you will present what you have learned about funding
stormwater in your community and what you plan to do next. In this low-stakes
learning setting, you will give a draft presentation to your counterparts in other
communities and then receive feedback from them. This will help you develop
your approach and your messaging. We hope it also gives you motivation to
con tinueyour stakeholder engagement efforts for stormwater funding.
Furthermore, this session helps you think more broadly about public engagement
and helps you get started on the development of a public engagement plan. While
we have focused primarily on key stakeholders in the first several sessions, in this
session we look beyond that critical circle to the broader public. We will show you
how to think about different types of stakeholders and then help you match the
appropriate engagement effort based on the interests of each individual\ group
or public sector. We will also provide guidance on writing and refining key
messages.

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Case Study
CASE STUDY: SOUTH PORTLAND/LONG CREEK, MAINE
Increasing Knowledge and Positive Perceptions Through Stakeholder Engagement
A neutral facilitator designed the stakeholder engagement and public outreach strategy
in South Portland/Long Creek, Maine. 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 Conservation Law Foundation (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.
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 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 [U.S.] EPA as requiring a stormwater discharge permit
made a preliminary election to participate in the collaborative program
Adapted from: U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Evaluation of the role of public outreach and
stakeholder engagement in stormwater funding decisions in New England: Lessons from communities. EPA 100-K-
13-0004. U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Washington, DC. pp. 63-68.
54 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Primary Learning
PRESENTATION CRITIQUES
Please use this space to write in any comments/reactions/ideas for discussion as you
listen to the presentations. You are invited to use the following questions as prompts:
1.	What do you think the presenter did well and why was it effective?
2.	How can the presenter(s) improve their message?
Page | 55

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Primary Learning
Presentation notes continued...
56 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Tools & Resources
USING TOOLS TO PLAN FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
You spent a majority of this course identifying and reaching out to key stakeholders.
Interviewing key stakeholders allows you to set the agenda for a broader public
engagement process. By doing these interviews, you ensured that key individuals were
engaged early in the process. This helps to build political capital moving forward. This also
helps you to identify the range of interests among the different sectors in your community
so that you can get a sense of the funding possibilities that might be acceptable to them
and deal with possible roadblocks through broader public outreach.
Regardless of where you stand in moving forward with a funding proposal, your
stakeholder research will enable you to develop an effective public outreach campaign so
that you and your community have the right information to take the next steps.
KEY ELEMENTS OF A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN
A public engagement plan can be very simple or quite detailed. You should design your
plan according to what is right for your municipality in terms of capacity, time, and money.
Use the Public Engagement Plan Template (pages 61-65) to get started.
The most critical items that any Public Engagement Plan should tackle are:
1)	Who? (which stakeholders and/or public sectors are your engaging?)
2)	How? (what type of engagement techniques will you use?)
3)	When? (what is your timeline for undertaking different stages of your public
process?)
4)	What? (what principles, goals, or objectives will you be meeting by undertaking
these processes?)
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS NOT ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL
Look at your stakeholder map (Stakeholder Map Worksheet, page 13). Your stakeholders
and the broader public sectors in different quadrants of the map will have different levels
of interest and influence in decision making. In addition, your engagement of different
groups will depend on your objectives, time, capacity, and resources.
Consider the implications of providing the same engagement strategy to, for example,
your mayor and an opinionated resident. These two people have different levels of
influence. Not only is it impossible to engage everybody individually, such as through an
interview, it is also unlikely that you could appropriately engage everyone using just one
technique. You need very different things from these people in your consensus-building
process, and you can identify those needs through a variety of outreach mechanisms.
Page | 57

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Tools & Resources
Different types of public engagement strategies are designed to extend your ability to
engage different sectors effectively and efficiently. The reason you need to use a variety
of public engagement strategies is so you can feasibly include all stakeholder groups
and/or public sectors in your consensus-building process and appropriately account for
their unique viewpoints and concerns. You will likely undertake a variety of engagement
techniques in parallel among many different stakeholder groups.
TOOLS FOR PLANNING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
There are a variety of tools available to assist public engagement planning. Below are links
to publicly available tools that will help you (1) tailor your approach for different groups
and (2) sequence different strategies over the course of your process.
IAP2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SPECTRUM
WHAT IS IT? The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Public
Participation Spectrum describes levels of impact on decision making, with
increasing give-and-take of information as decision power increases.
HOW TO USE IT: Use the tool after analyzing your stakeholders to identify how
much interest and influence different sectors of the public have. The spectrum will
help you define each sector's role in your public process and what they need from
you.
WHERE TO FIND IT: https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-
participation-guide-internet-resources-public-participation
International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). (2014). IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum. IAP2
International Federation.
SPECTRUM OF PROCESSES FOR COLLABORATION AND CONSENSUS-
BUILDING IN PUBLIC DECISIONS
WHAT IS IT? The Spectrum of Processes for Collaboration and Consensus-Building
in Public Decisions is a framework for designing a public process overtime. It focuses
on how much collaboration is feasible and effective among different sectors and
what the resulting outcomes might be throughout a process.
HOW TO USE IT: Use the tool to determine which engagement strategies are most
appropriate at different points in in your public process. By selecting your desired
outcomes first, you can use the schematic to find 1) sample processes, 2) when to
use those processes, and 3) what the conditions for success in those processes are.
WHERE TO FIND IT: http://ncdd.org/rc/item/4441
Orenstein, S., Moore, L., & Sherry, S. (2010). Spectrum of processes for collaboration and consensus-building
inpublic decisions. National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation.
58 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Tools & Resources
USING TOOLS TO DEVELOP AN EFFECTIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN
You can use both public engagement planning tools and the stakeholder map to develop
your public engagement plan. The stakeholder map can be used to identify specific
individuals or groups to engage using different strategies. For example:
*
s—
CD
5
o
CL
KEEP SATISFIED
Intergroup Dialogue
Advisory committee
Focus Groups
Website
Social Media Outreach
MANAGE CLOSELY
Periodic 1-on-l meetings/calls
Focus Groups
Advisory committee
Multi-stakeholder dialogue
Website
Social media outreach
MONITOR
KEEP INFORMED

Website
Public Meetings
Social media outreach
Email updates via self-selected listserv
Newsletters
Website
Email updates
Newsletters
Public Meetings
Public media coverage
Interest
These tools can also be used to plan the variety of strategies you might employ over the
lifetime of your public process. You can develop multiple maps that correspond to:
1.	Different stages of your process, for example:
Yearl, Year 2, Year 3...
Phase I, Phase II, Phase III...
2.	Different goals, objectives, or issues, for example:
Goal 1: Increase partnerships and participation in funding mechanism design
Goal 2: Energize the public to reduce stormwater impacts on private property
You can also use the spectrum to help communicate your comprehensive strategy. For
example, the above map illustrates a tailored approach that relies on key stakeholder
group representatives working to develop agreed-upon outcomes while keeping the
broader public informed and up-to-date.
Page | 59

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Tools & Resources
DESIGNING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Brainstorm public engagement techniques that you believe would be effective for
stakeholders and/or public sectors in each quadrant of the stakeholder map. You may
want to further tailor your public engagement plan by creating different versions of this
worksheet for different stages of your process or using different goals (see page 59).
Compare side-by-side with your original stakeholder map.
1.	What might you want from people in the different zones?
2.	What might people in the different zones want from you?
3.	What can you reasonably commit to the people in this zone (i.e., what would be
both effective and feasible)?
*
CD
5
o
CL
KEEP SATISFIED
MANAGE CLOSELY
MONITOR
KEEP INFORMED
Interest
60 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Tools & Resources
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE
You will need to demonstrate internally the kind of support, resources, and capacity that you need
for public engagement. Whether simple or complex, a public engagement plan is useful because
clearly lays out what needs to be done and demonstrates that you know how to do it. It also
highlights what you do not know or have. For example, it may be used to demonstrate that you need
to hire a new staff person or form a new committee. This is a "living" document, and you should
expect to revisit it multiple times over the course of your process.
Problem statement (What problem you are trying to solve and why you are doing this now.
Goals/Purpose (What you want to achieve through public engagement and how this plan will help you
get there)
Page | 61

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Tools & Resources
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE
Guiding Principles (broad ideas like "transparency" or "public accountability" might be drawn from a
town mission statement or other existing document)
Audiences:	
Key stakeholders by name (and what makes them "key")
Other stakeholders by name (individuals or specific organizations)
Broad categories of "publics" (businesses, non-profits, institutions, residents, etc.)
62 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Tools & Resources
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE
Information "In" (What you need to know from any of the stakeholders or publics above)
Information "Out" (What you need to share with any of the stakeholders or publics above)
Key Milestones
Objective
Deadline
Page | 63

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Tools & Resources
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE
Key Milestones (continued)
Objective
Deadline








Outreach Activities
Stakeholder/Public
(group, individual, category)
Activity(ies)
Timing





















64 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Tools & Resources
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE
Outreach Activities (continued)
Stakeholder/Public
(group, individual, category)
Activity(ies)
Timing

































Other sections of your public engagement plan might include funding/ resources, challenges,
leadership, roles, etc.
Page | 65

-------
Participant Workbook | Session Four | Case Study
CASE STUDY: NEWTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Stormwater funding proposals can continue to evolve, accompanied by
public outreach and engagement
The initial implemented stormwater utility fee in Newton, Massachusetts, 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 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. Further, since the adoption of the stormwater
utility, Department of Public Works (DPW) salaries and maintenance costs have
increased, leaving little funding for capital projects. 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 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.
Adapted from: U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Evaluation of the role of public outreach and
stakeholder engagement in stormwater funding decisions in New England: Lessons from communities. EPA 100-K-
13-0004. U.S. EPA Office ofPolicy, Washington, DC. pp. 106-109.
66 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Appendix A | List of Resources
APPENDIX A: LIST OF RESOURCES
RESOURCES AND OUTREACH MATERIALS FOR DEVELOPING AND FUNDING A
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The below resource list contains curated resource lists from U.S. EPA and other
organizations, how-to or informational resources for municipal staff and outreach
materials that can be used as is or adapted. Stars (*) indicate resources that are
referenced for use in the workbook.
Central Massachusetts Regional Stormwater Coalition, http://centralmastormwater.org/
Charles River Watershed Association (CWRA). 2016. Stormwater Management
Workshop Resources, http://www.crwa.org/education/stormwater-management-
workshop
Executive Office or Energy and Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
2007. Smart Growth /Smart Energy Toolkit. Horsley Witten Group, Inc.
https://www.mass.gov/smart-growth-smart-energy-toolkit-information-and-
resources
Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 2015. A Quick Guide to Defining and Funding Your Municipal
Stormwater Program (PowerPoint). Prepared for Merrimack Valley Stormwater
Collaborative, http://www.merrimackvalleystormwater.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/01/Quick-Guide-Defin ing-Funding-Stormwater-Programs.pdf
Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 2015. A Quick Reference for Defining and Funding Your
Municipal Stormwater Program. Prepared for Merrimack Valley Stormwater
Collaborative c/o Merrimack Valley Planning Commission.
http://www.merrimackvalleystormwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MVPC-
Guide-to-Defining-Funding-SW-Program-2.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. MS4 Public Education
Documents, https://www.mass.gov/guides/stormwater-outreach-materials-to-help-
towns-comply-with-the-ms4-permit
Massachusetts Rivers Alliance. 2016. Stormwater Funding Resources v.2.
http://massriversalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/StormwaterFunding
ResourcesHhandout04-16.pdf
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). 2014. Low Impact Development Toolkit.
https://www.mapc.org/resource-library/low-impact-development-toolkit/
Page | 67

-------
Participant Workbook | Appendix A | List of Resources
*Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). 2014. Stormwater Financing/Utility
Starter Kit. https://www.mapc.org/resource-librarv/stormwater-financing-utility-
starter-kit/ [all links (blue underlined) below are also embedded in the site's landing
page]
¦	Module 1: Needs Assessment. Table 1.1 - Potential Expenditures, pages 1-3 to 1-5
http://www.mapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/SW financing-
utility kit modi needs.pdf
¦	Existing Stormwater Activities and Expenditures http://www.mapc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Existing Expenses.pdf
¦	Introduction/Overview. Table 0.2 - What Fees Can Be Used For, pages 0-9 to
0-10 http://www.mapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/SW financing-
utility kit intro.pdf
National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (Under grant
provided by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Guidance for Municipal
Stormwater Funding, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
10/documents/guidance-ma nual-version-2x-2.pdf
New England Environmental Finance Center, www.neefc.org
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC). 1999. How to Create a Stormwater Utility
(or Stormwater Management Program), http://www.pvpc.org/content/how-create-
stormwater-utility
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC). 1999. Understanding Stormwater Utilities.
http://www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/files/PVPC-Stormwater%20Utilities.pdf
Southeast Watershed Alliance (prepared by the University of New Hampshire
Stormwater Center and The Rockingham Planning Commission). 2012. Model
Stormwater Standards for Coastal Watershed Communities.
https://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/Final SWA SWStandards D
ec 20121 O.pdf
Think Blue Maine, www.thinkbluemaine.org
Think Blue Massachusetts, www.thinkbluemassachusetts.org
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Evaluation of the Role of Public
Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement in Stormwater Funding Decisions in New
England: Lessons from Communities. EPA-100-K-13-0004.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/eval-sw-funding-
new-england.pdf
68 | P a g e

-------
Participant Workbook | Appendix A | List of Resources
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) New England. 2009. Funding
Stormwater Programs (Fact Sheet). EPA 901-F-09-004.
https://www3.epa.gov/regionl/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/FunclingStormwater
.pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) New England. Soak up the Rain.
https://www.epa.gov/soakuptherain
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Water Infrastructure and Resiliency
Finance Center, https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter
RESOURCES FOR MUTUAL GAINS NEGOTIATION AND CONSENSUS BUILDING
The below resource list was curated by the Consensus Building Institute in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Stars (*) indicate resources that are referenced for use in the
workbook.
Carpenter, S. & W. Kennedy. 2001. Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guide for
Government, Business, and Citizen's Groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dialogue Designer, https://dialoguedesigner.dialoguebydesign.net/
Fisher, R. and D. Shapiro. 2005. Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate.
New York: Viking.
Fisher, R. and W. Ury. 1991. Getting to Yes. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Hollander-Blumoff, R. and T.R. Tyler. 2008. Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural
fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential. Law & Social Inquiry, 33:
473-500.
international Association for Public Participation (IAP2). 2014. IAP2 Public Participation
Spectrum. IAP2 International Federation.
Metroquest. 2017. The Beginner's Guide to Online Engagement.
http://metroquest.com/beginners-guide-to-effective-online-engagement/
Movius, H. 2016. Resolve: Negotiating Life's Conflicts with Greater Confidence.
Vancouver, BC: LifeTree Media.
National Center for Dialogue and Deliberation. Engagement Streams Framework.
http://www.ncdd.org/files/rc/2014 Engagement Streams Guide Print.pdf
Page | 69

-------
Participant Workbook | Appendix A | List of Resources
National Center for Dialogue and Deliberation. Resource Center.
http://ncdd.org/rc/best-of-the-best-resources
*Orenstein, S., Moore, L., & Sherry, S. 2010. Spectrum of processes for collaboration and
consensus-building in public decisions. National Coalition for Dialogue and
Deliberation.
Orton Family Foundation. Resource Library, https://www.orton.org/resource-library/
Shell, G.R. 2006. Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable
People. 2nd Edition. New York: Penguin.
Stone, D., B. Patton and S. Heen. 2000. Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What
Matters Most. New York: Penguin Books.
Susskind, L., S. McKearnan & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds. 1999. The Consensus Building
Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ury, W. 2007. The Power of a Positive No: Save The Deal, Save the Relationship and Still
Say No. New York: Bantam.
Ury, W. 1993. Getting Past No, New York: Bantam.
Wondolleck, J. M., & S.L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
70 | P a g e

-------

-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Official Business
Penalty for Private use
$300
EPA/600/R-18/213 | July 2018
www.epa.gov/ord
w
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that
contains a minimum of 50% post-consumer fiber
and is processed chlorine free

-------