[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
                                                               APPENDIX 62


        STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

                FINANCING STRATEGY

                                 FOR

               HAMPTON ROADS VIRGINIA




                  p    :lt2-g*of I Y VO-0  fv1 R *   et N i Nt X'k    f lX  sn l- 




                                                 v:,;












                              PREPARED BY
             HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
      TD
      657
      oS75
                             FEBRUARY 1991
         I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`:i!ï¿½ 
       I~~~~~~~~~~~~~a-r '
               ,11PI~~I?198h~~p Ae.rï¿½- 
                              ï¿½c-    tJ~~~~~rrL~~~~jtX~~~jt:~~~t~~;3~~~ -~~    b~
         .~~~ ~ ~ C-              i

         I~~~~~~   r

  *r~:ï¿½r
  I~~~~~    yrI
I            e~rï¿½ ~           ~    ~     ci. t ï¿½
       I~~~~~~~ï¿½ï¿½i" .                                 ï¿½c
                                   PREPARED BY~~~~~~.
I  ï¿½ï¿½       HAPO  ROD  PLNNN  DITIC  OMISO
        657 -e ~ 4~








 I~ ~~HMTNRASPANN  ITITCMISO
I~~T








   HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION

CHESAPEAKE                                POQUOSON
I ROBERT G BAGLEY                           L CORNELL BURCHER
 DR ALAN KRASNOFF             I             ROBERT M. MURPHY
 JAMESW REIN
                                           PORTSMOUTH
FRANKLIN                                     L LOUISE LUCAS
 ROBERT E. HARRELL                       . V WAYNE ORTON
I JOHN J JACKSON                            GLORIA O. WEBB

HAMPTON                                   SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY
 T. MELVIN BUTLER                         X ROWLANDL. TAYLOR
 JAMES L. EASON                             C. HARRELL TURNER
ï¿½ ROBERT J. O'NEILL, JR
                                           SUFFOLK
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY                        S CHRIS JONES
ï¿½ MYLES E. STANDISH                       , THOMAS G. UNDERWOOD
 RICHARD L TURNER
                                           VIRGINIA BEACH
JAMES CITY COUNTY                            JOHN A BAUM
 PERRY M DEPUE                              ROBERT E. FENTRESS
 DAVID B NORMAN                             HAROLD HEISCHOBER
                                              WALTER E MATHER
NEWPORT NEWS                               ) REBA S. MCCLANAN
 JOE S. FRANK                               MEYERA E. OBERNDORF
 DR VINCENT T JOSEPH                        AUBREY V. WATTS, JR
ï¿½ EDGAR E. MARONEY
                                           WILLIAMSBURG
NORFOLK                                                                            I
 MASON C ANDREWS, M D                       JOHN HODGES
 PAUL D. FRAIM
 JOSEPH A. LEAFE                          YORK COUNTY
 JAMES B. OLIVER, JR                        SANDRA M. LUBBERS
 G CONOLY PHILLIPS                        t DANIEL M. STUCK
   PEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER

                             PROJECT STAFF
   ARTHUR L COLLINS                       EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY
   JOHN M. CARLOCK                        DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL AND
                                           ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
 ) WILLIAM P. WICKHAM                     PHYSICAL PLANNER

   JOYCE M. COOK                          SECRETARIAL SUPERVISOR
   FRANCES D. HUGHEY                      WORD PROCESSING OPERATOR

   ROBERT C. JACOBS                       CHIEF OF GRAPHICS
   JEANNE L. MUNDEN                       GRAPHICS TECHNICIAN II
   MICHAEL R. LONG                        GRAPHICS TECHNICIAN
   RACHAEL V PATCHETT                     REPRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
                                             TECHNICIAN
   IPRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

             Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
                       The Regional Building
                        723 Woodlake Drive
                    Chesapeake, Virgiv,,a 23320
                          (804) 420-8300


                                                                                    I












           STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING STRATEGY


                                      FOR

                         HAMPTON ROADS VIRGINIA









              This report was produced, in part, through financial support
               from the Virginia Council on the Environment pursuant to
                Coastal Resources Program Grant No. NA90AA-H-C2796
              from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                and from the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
                     Department pursuant to Contract No.91-42.





                     Preparation of this report was included in the
               HRPDC Program for 1990-91, approved by the Commission
                 at its Executive Committee Meeting of March 21, 1990


                                           Property of CSC Library



                             Prepared by the Staff of the
*                     Hampton Roads Planning District Commission

     U. D .~                        February 1991
                                                    . ~S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
 :_                                                  COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
- r-r,                                                2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                                    CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413









       I                              ~~~~~~~ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 I            ~~~The Staff of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission wishes to
         acknowledge the cooperation and assistance extended by the following individuals.

*        ~~CHESAPEAKE

               Suzanne P. Allan, Senior Planner, Department of Planning (through 1191)
               D. Ray Stout, City Engineer, Department of Public Works
         FRANKLIN

               Molly Bass, Assistant City Manager
               Robert Hinson, Director, Personnel and Community Programs
*        ~HAMPTON

               Pat Thomas, Chief Planner, Department of Planning
               Fred Whitley, City Engineer, Department of Public Works and Engineering

          ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY

               R. Bryan David, Environmental Planner

          JAMES CITY COUNTY

               Wayland Bass, County Engineer

          NEWPORT NEWS

 I           ~~~Robert Gardner, Planning Services Manager, Department of Planning and
                 Development
               Edwin P. Wrightson, Assistant Director of Engineering/Design, Department of
  I            ~ ~~~Engineering
          NORFOLK
  I           ~~~~W. Keith Cannady, Environmental Engineer, Division of Environmental Affairs
               Chris L. Chambers, Design Engineer, Department of Public Works

3       ~POQUOSON

               Robert Goumnas, Director, Department of Planning
  3           ~~~~Kristen Lawrence, Director, Department of Engineering and Utilities

          PORTSMOUTH

  3           ~~~~Michael Kelly, Planner, Department of Planning
               Judy Duffy, Assistant to the Director, Department of Public Works








                      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (Continued)

SMITHFIELD

     Kenneth McLawhon, Assistant Town Manager/Planner

SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY

     Michael W. Johnson, Director, Department of Community Development

SUFFOLK

     Robert A. Baldwin, Assistant Director, Department of Community Development
     Scott Mills, Environmental Planner, Department of Community Development

VIRGINIA BEACH

     H. Clayton Bernick, III, Director, Office of Environmental Management
     Mary R.Morris, Environmental Programs Coordinator, Office of Environmental
       Management
     John Fowler, Civil Engineer, Department of Public Works
     Betty Jean Meyer, Budget Analyst, Office of Budget and Evaluation

WILLIAMSBURG

     Reed Nester, Director, Department of Planning

YORK COUNTY

     Cindy Taylor, Planner I1, Department of Community Development
     Blair Wilson, Engineer II, Department of Community Development

NORTHERN VIRGINIA PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION

     Kimberly V. Davis, Director of Environmental Services

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE

     John P. Hartigan, Senior Associate








                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... ii

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................... ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... iii
INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1
CURRENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN HAMPTON ROADS ..... 3
    Drainage and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Programs ............. 3
    Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Programs ........................... 3
OVERVIEW AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT STATE AND
    FEDERAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ................... 5
    The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act............  5
    State Stormwater mana.ement Regulations .......................... 10
    EPA NPDES Stormwater Permitting egulations ....................... 11
SURVEY OF LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING NEEDS ........ 16
     Local Stormwater Management Organization and Functions ........... 16
     Local Stormwater Management Financing Needs ...................... 17
OPTIONS FOR MEETING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
    FINANCING NEEDS ................................................. 23
     Non-proportionate Funding Alternatives ............................. 23
     Proportionate Funding Alternatives ................................. 32
RECOMMENDED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING STRATEGY ...... 40
IMPLEMENTATION OF A STORMWATER UTILITY ............................ 42
     General Procedure for Development and Implementation .............. 42
     Establishing a Rate Structure ........................................ 43
     Billing ............................................................. 45
     Administration ..................................................... 46
     Implementation Costs .............................................. 47
     Pu blic Acceptance .................................................. 47
     Regional Implementation ........................................... 48
REVENUE POTENTIAL OF STORMWATER UTILITIES .......................... 49
STORMWATER UTILITY ORDINANCE ....................................... 51
     Model Ordinance .................................................. 51
CONCLUSION ........................................................... 61
END NOTES ............................................................. 63
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................... 65
APPENDICES
A  HRPDC STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING SURVEY ............ 69
B  U.S. COMMUNITIES WITH STORMWATER UTILITIES .................... 81








                               LIST OF TABLES

I  1    Comparison of State and Federal Stormwater
        Management Regulations .......................................6

I  2    Estimated FY 1991 CBPA Implementation Costs
        for Hampton Roads Planning District Localities ....................9

3  Summary of Local Stormwater Management Activities ............... 19

4    Current and Projected Stormwater Management Financing
        Needs Compared to Budget Allocations ......................... 21

5  Funding Alternatives for Stormwater Management .................. 24

6 Utility Charges and Revenues ...................................... 50



                               LIST OF FIGURES

I   1    Stormwater Management Needs and Actual Budget
        Allocations for Selected Localities ............................... 22
2 Stormwater Utility Rate Structure .................................. 44








                            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


     In recent years, there has been increasing concern for the water quality impacts
associated with urban runoff. As a result, a variety of state and federal programs
promoting the incorporation of nonpoint source pollution (NPS) control into local
stormwater management activities have been developed.  Programs having the
greatest potential for impact on local governments include the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act, the State Stormwater Management regulations and the EPA
stormwater discharge permitting regulations. Although these programs represent
considerable progress in achieving water quality management objectives, securing
the funds necessary for local compliance poses a major challenge for local
governments.

     State and federal NPS pollution control mandates are proving to be costly and
have come at a time when Hampton Roads localities are facing difficult economic
times. Local budget deficits, cuts in federal and state funding, and declining tax
revenues make it unlikely that localities can fund these mandates while continuing
to address ongoing stormwater management needs.

     In light of increasing costs and decreasing availability of funds for stormwater
 management, this study documents current and projected stormwater management
funding needs and recommends financing strategies which could assist local
governments in meeting those needs.

CURRENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN HAMPTON ROADS

     All communities in the Hampton Roads Planning District have long been
involved in the management of stormwater to prevent flooding, and to control
erosion and sedimentation resulting from development activities. In recent years,
local governments have implemented programs which address the water quality
impacts of urban runoff.

     Hampton Roads communities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed have
recently adopted programs implementing the 1988 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
(CBPA). State regulations developed to implement the CBPA require local
governments to designate Preservation Areas and to incorporate site-specific
stormwater management performance criteria into their land use controls to meet
specific NPS control objectives.

     Several localities have implemented or are developing stormwater
management ordinances which establish site-specific performance standards for the
control of both the quantity and quality of runoff from new development. These
ordinances serve to supplement local CBPA programs by requiring additional
stormwater quantity controls in Preservation Areas, and ensuring that both quantity
and quality controls are implemented outside of Preservation Areas. The State has



                                      iii









recently finalized regulations which establish minimum acceptable criteria for such
ordinances.

     Some localities have adopted ordinances to control NPS pollution in
watersheds surrounding public water supply reservoirs. These ordinances typically
require the implementation of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs),
shoreline buffers and stormwater diversion projects to prevent NPS pollutants from
reaching reservoirs.

OVERVIEW AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT STATE AND FEDERAL
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act

     The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is to maintain or restore
water quality in the Bay and its tributaries through the identification and protection
of Preservation Areas. To meet this goal, local governments are required to
implement stormwater management performance criteria within Preservation
Areas.

     Direct costs to localities to implement the stormwater management provisions
vary significantly depending on the size of a locality, the proportion of a locality
designated as a Preservation Area, the nature and volume of development activity,
and the amount of State funding assistance provided. In October, 1990, the HRPDC
conducted a survey of its member jurisdictions to determine local costs associated
with implementing various State mandates, including the CBPA. It was found that
the cost of implementing all aspects of a local CBPA program will average slightly
more than $84,000 per locality during Fiscal Year 1991.

State Stormwater Management Regulations

     Under the 1989 Stormwater Management Act, localities may establish, by
ordinance, stormwater management programs which require submission and
approval of stormwater management plans prior to undertaking any non-exempt
development activities. State regulations establishing minimum acceptable
technical criteria and administrative procedures for these programs became
effective on December 5, 1990.

     To date, there has been no attempt to estimate the costs associated with the
development and administration of local stormwater management programs that
meet the State regulations. It is expected that program administration costs will
greatly exceed ordinance development costs. Administration costs include such
activities as plan review, site inspection, maintenance, enforcement, staff training
and public education. The ongoing implementation costs of Virginia Beach's
existing stormwater management ordinance are estimated to be $117,000 per year
over the next decade.


                                      iv









EPA NPDES Stormwater Permitting Regulations

    To implement Section 405 of the 1987 Water Quality Act (WQA), the
Environmental Protection Agency has developed regulations requiring National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for industrial and municipal
stormwater discharges. Final regulations were issued on November 16, 1990.

     As required by the WQA, the EPA regulations address five categories of
stormwater discharges:

     ï¿½ discharges already permitted prior to the 1987 WQA;

     *   discharges associated with industrial activities;

     * ï¿½   discharges from municipal storm sewers serving populations greater than
         100,000; and,

         other discharge as designated by the EPA Administrator or the state.

By October 1, 1992, the EPA is required to issue regulations for stormwater
discharges, other than those listed above. These regulations are currently being
developed.

     The EPA regulations for municipal storm sewer systems are intended to
promote the development of community-specific stormwater management
programs consisting of locally appropriate measures which control, to the maximum
extent practical, NPS pollution from both new and existing development. These
local programs must address four types of pollutant sources which typically
discharge to municipal storm sewer systems. They include commercial and
residential areas, industrial areas, construction sites, and illicit, non-stormwater
discharges.

     The regulations require a two-part application process.  Part one requires
existing information on a municipality's stormwater management facilities and
activities. Part two requires additional information, including proposals for
stormwater management programs needed for implementing permit conditions for
a five year term.

     The EPA regulations also require permits for stormwater discharges associated
with a wide range of industrial facilities including municipal wastewater treatment
plants, wastewater sludge disposal facilities, landfills, waste-to-energy facilities,
airports, and vehicle maintenance facilities. These facilities are regulated under an
industrial permitting process which is separate from and has different application
requirements than the municipal permitting process. Applications for such facilities
are due no later than November 16, 1991.



                                       v









     Another provision of the industrial stormwater discharge regulations that will
apply to many development projects undertaken by local governments is the
requirement that all construction sites greater than five acres and not part of a
larger common plan of development must apply for NPDES permits.

     According to estimates developed by the EPA in 1989, the average costs for
preparing permit applications range from $1,007 for an average industrial facility to
$76,681 for large municipal storm sewer systems. These estimates do not reflect
costs required to comply with permit conditions.

     Several studies indicate that EPA may have greatly under-estimated the costs of
applying for municipal permits.  The firm of Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) has
projected the cost of submitting a municipal permit application to be $1,000,000 for
a municipality with a population of approximately 250,000, and $600,000 for a
municipality with a population of 100,000. In a separate analysis, the City of Virginia
Beach estimated that the permitting process will cost the City $1.7 million over a two
year period.

     CDM  estimates of the costs involved in developing the stormwater
management programs required by the permitting regulations are $2,000,000 for a
system serving 100,000 people, and $5,000,000 for a system serving 250,000 people.

SURVEY OF LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING NEEDS

     To gain a better understanding of local stormwater management efforts and
to determine the magnitude of local stormwater management financing needs,
local public works departments were surveyed.

     The survey found that many localities do not have formal, comprehensive
stormwater management programs. In the more rural communities, development
has not occurred to the extent that stormwater management programs are required.
In other localities, the approach to stormwater management is typically fragmented
with responsibility residing in several departments. The lack of comprehensive local
stormwater management planning is illustrated by the fact that, of the thirteen
localities responding to the survey, only Franklin and Virginia Beach have
stormwater master plans and ordinances (i.e. other than CBPA ordinances).
Moreover, only Virginia Beach's plan and ordinance specifically addresses NPS
pollution control. Awareness of the benefits of comprehensive stormwater
management may be increasing, however.  Many localities have indicated that
master plans and/or ordinances are either planned or in progress.

     Most localities were unable to provide complete financing needs data.
However, the data that were provided indicate that stormwater management costs
are anticipated to increase while budget allocations are not likely to keep pace. The
increasing costs of stormwater management are also evidenced by past local
expenditures. Data from the responding localities indicate that increases in annual


                                       vi








stormwater management expenditures ranged from 16% to 38% between 1984 and
1989.

     The survey also found that, as expected, all localities depend heavily on general
fund revenues and the capital improvement budget. Other lesser used sources
include general obligation bonds, Community Development Block Grants, and cost-
share agreements with developers.

OPTIONS FOR MEETING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING NEEDS

     In formulating a sto'rmwater management financing strategy that addresses
existing and future needs, consideration should be given to a variety of funding
alternatives. The most effective financing solution will most likely consist of a mix of
alternatives that reflects a locality's specific needs. This report describes and
evaluates a number of non-proportionate and proportionate stormwater
management financing alternatives. Non-proportionate funding methods are those
that do not require the costs to be allocated according to the amount of services
received while a proportionate method requires that fees or taxes be assessed in
proportion to services received. The alternatives evaluated in this report are as
follows:

Non-Proportionate Fundinq Alternatives

    IG   General Fund Allocations
     =   General Obligation Bonds
     *   Grants and Loans

Proportionate Fundinq Alternatives

    I   Revenue Bonds
     a Double Barrel Bonds
     *   Land Development Fees for Construction
     *   Land Development Fees for Maintenance
     *   Participation and Reimbursement Agreements
     ï¿½   Assessments for Local Improvements
    I   Special Service Districts
     ï¿½   Watershed Improvement Districts
     * Potable Water Volume Use Tax and Potable Water Surcharge
    I   Recreation Fees
     *   Stormwater Utilities
     ï¿½   Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Fee








                                      vii








RECOMMENDED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING STRATEGY

     Based on the analysis presented in this report, a strategy combining several
financing techniques which have the potential for efficiently and equitably meeting
existing and anticipated local stormwater financing needs is recommended. The
core of this approach would be a stormwater management utility. A utility could,
depending on the content of state enabling legislation and the structure of local
utility programs, equitably meet the costs associated with both federal and state
mandates and ongoing stormwater management needs. A utility could ultimately
be used to support the issue of revenue bonds which would provide funds for certain
large-scale capital improvements that exceed the capacity of the utility fund.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of a stormwater utility is that it can provide stability
and self-sufficiency to a stormwater management program. This allows for more
long-term, comprehensive planning to occur.

     Developing localities are also encouraged to establish a pro-rata share
payment program through which developers in developing areas would pay their
proportionate share of regional stormwater management facilities. Such a program
is currently allowed under State law and would provide up-front construction money
which could eventually be supplemented by stormwater utility revenues.

     Central to any stormwater management financing strategy is a stormwater
management master plan which (1) guides both the immediate and long-term
construction, operation and maintenance of stormwater management facilities; (2)
establishes structural and non-structural programs that control both the quantity
and quality of runoff; and (3) addresses state and federal stormwater management
and NPS pollution control mandates.

IMPLEMENTATION OF A STORMWATER UTILITY

    The report presents a recommended planning procedure and a brief overview
of the factors to be considered in implementing a stormwater utility. The
recommended planning procedure is a nine- step process which includes the analyses
needed to ensure the feasibility, proper design, public acceptance and effective
implementation of a utility. Factors that deserve careful consideration when
designing a utility include establishment of a rate structure and billing system,
administrative responsibilities, implementation costs, public education, and the
possibility of regional implementation.

REVENUE POTENTIAL OF STORMWATER UTILITIES

     By implementing a utility, it is not uncommon for local stormwater
management programs to experience a three to five fold increase in revenues over
previous general fund appropriations. A study conducted by the Maryland
Department of the Environment estimated that a stormwater utility, depending on
its structure, could generate from $4.9 to $23.0 million per year in Prince Georges


                                     viii








County, Maryland. A 1989 CDM study estimated that a utility serving a locality with
a population of between 100,000 and 250,000 could, with a moderate fee based on
$2.00 per month for each single family residential unit, meet the cost of submitting
an NPDES permit application and increase the area served by new regional BMPs by
one to two square miles per year.

STORMWATER UTILITY ORDINANCE

     A local ordinance developed to establish a stormwater utility would specify the
scope, administration, rate structure, billing system and other aspects of a utility. To
provide general guidance to localities, this report includes a model stormwater
utility ordinance. This model ordinance will have to be revised and supplemented to
suit local stormwater control needs, financing needs, administrative functions and
political philosophies. Also, the content of local ordinances will be governed by
state enabling legislation, assuming such legislation is passed by the 1991 Virginia
General Assembly.

     In some cases, a stand alone ordinance may not be necessary.  Stormwater
utility regulations may be incorporated in existing stormwater management
ordinances or in other ordinances that address the collection of user charges.

CONCLUSION

     The study recommends a financing approach that centers on use of a
stormwater utility. A stormwater utility offers a solution that, if properly
implemented, is fair and equitable and provides a continual and secure source of
revenue that can be used for the full range of stormwater management activities.
Furthermore, once established, a utility can be used to leverage funds for other
financing mechanisms such as revenue bonds or matching grants.

     Crucial to the successful implementation of a stormwater utility is a stormwater
master plan. Such a plan will justify the need for additional revenues, guide the
establishment of a utility rate structure, and provide a means of ensuring efficient
expenditure of utility revenues. Also important to the establishment of a utility is a
thorough and ongoing public information program that is initiated well in advance
of the start up of a utility. Only with such a program is public acceptance of this
potentially controversial funding mechanism possible.

     Stormwater utilities offer the most effective means of financing both ongoing
drainage needs and state and federal NPS control mandates. It is, therefore,
imperative that local governments have this financing tool at their disposal. In
Virginia, however, localities do not have the statutory authority to implement
stormwater utilities. A number of Hampton Roads localities, as well as many other
localities throughout the state, have formally requested that the 1991 Virginia
General Assembly pass legislation granting local governments this authority. Such
legislation has also been formally endorsed by the Virginia Municipal League, the


                                        ix







Virginia Asociation of Counties and the Virginia Association of Planning District
Commissions.

     Without stormwater utility legislation, many local governments will be
confronted with the impossible task of attempting to meet existing backlogs of
drainage needs with a declining revenue base, while at the same time attempting to
address new and costly NPS pollution control requirements.




















I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~








                                INTRODUCTION


     Historically, the focus of municipal stormwater management efforts has been
twofold: the provision of drainage infrastructure to prevent flooding, and the
control of erosion and sedimentation (E&S) resulting from construction activities. In
recent years, however, there has been increasing concern for water quality impacts
associated with urban runoff. This has resulted in the development of a variety of
regulatory and non-regulatory state and federal programs which promote the
incorporation of nonpoint source pollution (NPS) control into local stormwater
management activities. Although these programs represent considerable progress
in achieving water quality management objectives, securing the funds necessary for
local compliance while still keeping pace with ongoing drainage and E&S control
needs poses a major challenge for local governments.

     As will be documented later in this report, state and federal NPS pollution
control mandates are proving to be extremely costly. They have also come at a time
when local governments can least afford them. Current federal and state fiscal crises
make it highly unlikely that adequate amounts of funding will be made available to
local governments to implement these programs. Also, localities are still trying to
cope with a severe backlog of stormwater management needs generated by the
rapid growth of the 1980s. Most importantly, continued reliance on general fund
revenues, the traditional means of financing stormwater management, may no
longer be practical for several reasons:

         Local governments are currently experiencing severe declines in tax
         revenues due to a general economic slowdown which is exacerbated in
         Hampton Roads by the deployment of large numbers of military personnel
         to the Middle East.

     *   Significant property tax hikes to fund such low profile programs as
         stormwater management may be unpopular in light of growing public
         resistance to tax increases.

     ï¿½ Declining tax revenues and cuts in federal and state funding assistance
         may persuade local governments to shift general fund revenues away from
         stormwater management to activities that are viewed as having higher
         priorities such as education, police protection and transportation.

     In light of increasing costs and decreasing availability of funds for stormwater
management, it is clear that an investigation of alternative financing approaches is
needed. The purpose of this study is to document current and projected stormwater
management funding needs and to recommend financing strategies which would
assist local governments in meeting those needs.




                                        ~1








    This study builds upon the findings of two reports prepared by the
Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission (SVPDC) in 1989.* The Regional
Stormwater ManaQement Strateclï¿½ for Southeastern Virqinia and the Elizabeth River
Basin Environmental Manaclement Procram recommended various local and
regional nonpoint source pollution controls that would satisfy the requirements of
recent state and federal regulatory programs.



































 *The SVPDC merged with the Peninsula Planning District Commission in 1990 to
form the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission.
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~








 I           ~~~CURRENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN HAMPTON ROADS

         DRAINAGE AND EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PROGRAMS

              All communities in the Hampton Roads Planning District have long been
I      ~ ~involved in the management of stormwater to prevent flooding.  There is wide
         variability, however, in the scope of local flood control activities. In rural, less
         developed communities, drainage facilities are generally developed on an ad-hoc
I      ~ ~basis, often to control nuisance flooding or as incidental components of roadway
         improvement projects. The greater amount of impervious area found in urban
         communities usually means there is a greater potential for flooding. Therefore,
I      ~ ~these communities are required to take a more comprehensive approach to flood
         control. Many urban localities have developed and implemented stormwater
         management master plans. These plans provide a basis for determining drainage
I      ~ ~priorities in the local capital improvement programs by identifying the most cost
         effective means for mitigating current drainage problems and preventing flooding
         from future development. Stormwater management master plans typically address
I      ~ ~drainage on a watershed-specific basis and are often guided by computer models
         which simulate impacts of future development on existing and proposed drainage
         facilities.

              All communities in Hampton Roads have also complied with the 1973 Erosion
         and Virginia Sediment Control Law (ESCL) by adopting ordinances which establish
I      ~ ~local erosion and sediment control programs. These programs require that any party
         engaging in any non-exempt land disturbing activity submit a project-specific
         erosion and sediment (E&S) control plan to the local government. Until recently,
I      ~ ~local E&S programs were only required to adhere to State guidelines contained in
         the Virciinia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. In 1988, in response to
         inadequate and poorly enforced local E&S programs, the Virginia General Assembly
I      ~ ~passed a bill amending the ESCL to require the promulgation of official regulations
         which require localities to meet minimum E&S standards. These regulations became
         effective in September, 1990.

         NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS

  I           ~~~~In addition to traditional flood prevention and E&S control activities, Hampton
          Roads communities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed have recently adopted
          programs to implement the 1988 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA). The goal
 I      ~ ~of this Act is to prevent significant water quality degradation of the Chesapeake Bay
         and its tributaries through the protection of certain environmentally sensitive lands
          known as Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. State regulations developed to
 I      ~ ~implement the Act require local governments to designate Preservation Areas and to
          incorporate site-specific performance criteria into their land use controls which
          ensure that certain NPS control objectives are met within Preservation Areas. These
          objectives, the stormwater management performance criteria established to meet


                                                 3








them, and the potential fiscal impacts of the CBPA on local governments will be
discussed in the next chapter of this report.

     Several localities have implemented or are developing stormwater
management ordinances which establish site-specific performance standards for the
control of both the quantity and quality of runoff from new development. These
-ordinances serve to supplement local CBPA programs by requiring additional
stormwater quantity controls in Preservation Areas, and ensuring that both quantity
and quality controls are implemented in development activities occurring outside of
 Preservation Areas. The State has recently finalized regulations to implement the
 1988 Stormwater Management Act. These regulations, which establish minimum
 acceptable criteria for local stormwater management ordinances, became effective
 on December 5, 1990 and are discussed in more detail in the next chapter. To date,
 only Franklin and Virginia Beach have adopted a stormwater management
 ordinance. The two cities intend to revise their ordinances to comply with the State
 regulations. A number of Hampton Roads localities are considering or have begun
 development of stormwater management ordinances.

      Several localities have adopted ordinances specifically aimed at controlling NPS
 pollution in watersheds surrounding public water supply reservoirs. These
 ordinances typically require the implementation of stormwater Best Management
 Practices (BMPs), shoreline buffers and stormwater diversion projects to prevent NPS
 pollutants from reaching water supplies. These programs are generally funded by
 water sales revenues and contributions from developers-_. Localities with reservoir
 protection programs include Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, James City
 County and York County.























                                        4








         OVERVIEW AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT STATE
          AND FEDERAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

    The following section briefly summarizes and discusses potential fiscal impacts
of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, the State Stormwater Management
regulations and the EPA stormwater permitting regulations. Table 1 compares these
three programs. Little information exists on the fiscal impacts of these programs on
local governments. The information that does exist addresses each program
separately and does not account for combined costs, or the possible economies of
scale that may be realized through coordinated implementation of the three
programs atthe local or regional level.

THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION ACT

     As previously mentioned, the goal of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is to
maintain or restore water quality in the Bay and its tributaries through the
identification and protection of Preservation Areas. To meet this goal, local
governments are required to implement stormwater management programs which
would achieve the following NPS pollution control performance criteria within
Preservation Areas:

         prevent a net increase in NPS pollution from new development;

     I   achieve a ten percent reduction in NPS pollution from redevelopment;
         and,

     I   achieve a forty percent reduction in NPS pollution from agricultural and
         silvicultural uses.

In general, these performance criteria are designed to minimize erosion and
sedimentation potential, reduce land application of nutrients and toxics, maximize
rainwater infiltration, and ensure the long-term performance of the measures
employed to meet the criteria. The CBPA regulations require localities to employ
one of the following options in meeting the performance criteria:

         The use of on-site best management practices;

     *   adoption of a regional stormwater management program which
         incorporates pro-rata share payments by developers pursuant to Section
         15.1-466(j) of the Virginia Code, and results in achievement of equivalent
         water quality protection;

     *   compliance with EPA NPDES stormwater permitting regulations pursuant
         to Section 402 (p) of the federal 1987 Water Quality Act;

     *   for redevelopment sites that are completely impervious, restoring a
         minimum 20% of the site to vegetated open space.


                                      I5









                                                    TABLE 1
                             COMPARISON OF STATE AND FEDERAL STORMWATER
                                         MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS



                                                              CHESAPEAKE
              PROVISION                       NPDES                 BAY                   STORMWATER
                                                             MANAGEMENT                 MANAGEMENT

1. LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE
   A. Administrative Agency           EPA*                  CBLAB              Conservation and Recreation
   B. Deadlines                       11/92: > 250k         11/91              State Agencies: 1/91
                                      5/93: 1 00K - 250K                      Municipal: 7/90
   C. Mandatory                       Yes                   Yes                State Agencies: Yes
                                                                              Municipal: No
   D. Localities                      Localities > 100K    Tidewater Va        State Agencies;
                                                                              Municipalities
    E. Annual Compliance Report        Yes                  No                  Yes
2. AREA OF COVERAGE
   A. Geographical                    Entire Jurisdiction   Local Discretion    Entire Jurisdiction
                                                           (RPA & RMA)
   B. Development Type                Existing/New          New                New
   C. Land Use Classes                1. Commercial         1. RPA             All Urban Land Uses
                                       + Residential       2. RMA
                                      2. Industrial
                                      3. Construction
                                      4. Illicit Connection

* The Virginia State Water Control Board is currently evaluating the feasibility of assuming administrative responsibility for the NPDES
   stormwater permitting program.









                                           TABLE I (Continued)
                           COMPARISON OF STATE AND FEDERAL STORMWATER
                                       MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS



                                                            CHESAPEAKE                STORMWATER
                                                         BAY MANAGEMENT               MANAGEMENT

3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
   A. Water Quality Goal             Maximum Extent    1. Prevent Loading   Inhibit Water Quality
                                    Practicable (MEP)     Increase (New       Deterioration (MEP)
                                                           Dev.)
                                                        2. Reduce Existing
                                                           Loadings (Redev.)
   B. Loading Standard               MEP                  1. Post = Pre         BMP- Based Standard (MEP)
                                                        2. Redev = 90% Pre
   C. Pollutants                     Approx. 140          Keystone: Total P     N/A
                                                        - Nutrients
                                                        - Sediment
                                                         - Toxics

   D. Water Quality Monitoring       Yes                  No                    No
   E. Runoff Quantity Control        No                   No                   Yes (Erosion/Flooding)
4. BMPs
   A. Structural                     Yes                  Yes                   Yes
   B. Nonstructural                  Yes                  Yes                  Yes
   C. Onsite/Regional                    Either           Regional Mentioned  Regional Encouraged
                                    (Based on Outfall)

Source: Camp Dresser & McKee. 1990 Clean Water Act Seminar, 1990.








     All localities in Hampton Roads subject to the CBPA have elected to pursue the
use of on-site best management practices to satisfy the required stormwater
management performance criteria. Localities have not found the implementation of
regional stormwater management programs to be a viable option due to the lack of
a reliable funding mechanism. The pro-rata share option allowed under state law,
though potentially helpful, would not provide sufficient funding for such programs.
Also, highly urbanized localities typically lack the land area necessary for regional
stormwater management facilities. The third option, compliance with the EPA
NPDES stormwater permitting regulations, was also not considered to be a viable
option because (1) the regulations only apply to the six cities in Hampton Roads with
populations greater than 100,000, and (2) the final regulations were not issued until
after most local CBPA programs had been adopted.

     Direct costs to localities to implement and administer on-site stormwater
management programs required by the CBPA regulations will vary significantly
depending on the size of a locality, the proportion of a locality designated as a
Preservation Area, the nature and volume of development activity, and the amount
of State funding assistance provided.  In October, 1990, the HRPDC conducted a
survey of its member jurisdictions to determine local costs associated with
implementing various State mandates, including the CBPA. It was found that the
cost of implementing all aspects of a local CBPA program will average slightly more
than $84,000 per locality during Fiscal Year 1991. A breakdown of the costs specific
to the stormwater management requirements of the CBPA requirements was not
included in these estimates. The anticipated FY 1991 CBPA implementation costs for
each HRPDC locality are shown in Table 2. Because localities used a variety of
approaches in developing these estimates, caution should be exercised in drawing
comparisons among the localities.

     Similar results were obtained by a 1988 SDN Market Research survey of
Tidewater localities.1 This survey, to which more than fifty percent of cities and
counties and one-seventh of incorporated towns in Tidewater responded,
attempted to determine the average estimated cost to local governments to start-up
and annually implement CBPA programs. Although the survey yielded a wide range
of estimates, the average annual cost to implement local CBPA program was
projected to be $89,000.














                                       8









                                  TABLE 2

           ESTIMATED FY 1991 CBPA IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR

              HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT LOCALITIES


         Southside                                $672,313

              Chesapeake                           $95,350
              Franklin                                  NA
              Isle of Wight County                 $68,660
              Norfolk                             $100,273
              Portsmouth                          $120,000
              Southampton County                        NA
              Suffolk                             $143,485
              Virginia Beach                      $144,545

         Peninsula                                $341,735

               Hampton                             $100,000
              James City County                    $30,000
               Newport News                         $53,200
               Poquoson                             $25,535
              Williamsburg                        $13,000
               York County                         $130,000

          Hampton Roads                           $1,014,048


Note: In some cases, State grants partially offset local costs.

Source:   Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, 1990.




















                                      9








STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

    The 1989 Virginia General Assembly passed the Stormwater Management Act
enabling local governments to establish, by ordinance, stormwater management
programs. Under this legislation, localities may implement stormwater
management programs which would require submission and approval of a
stormwater management plan prior to any non-exempt development activity. State
regulations establishing minimum acceptable technical criteria and administrative
procedures for these programs were recently finalized and became effective on
December 5, 1990. These regulations require that local stormwater management
ordinances do the following:

     *   require regulated development activities to maintain post-development
         peak runoff rates at or below pre-development runoff rates;

     *   establish minimum technical criteria to control nonpoint source pollution
         and localized flooding;

     *   require the provision of long-term responsibility for and maintenance of
         stormwater managementfacilities; and,

     *   require local programs to include certain minimum administrative
         procedures.

     These regulations provide localities with considerable flexibility. Pursuant to
the Stormwater Management Act, the implementation of local stormwater
management programs is voluntary.  Consequently, the purpose of the State
regulations is to establish minimum requirements which must be met, but may be
exceeded, only when a locality opts to develop a program. Furthermore, the
regulations do not mandate specific management practices to achieve the required
technical criteria. Instead, the criteria are performance standards which give
localities the latitude to require stormwater management practices which are found
to be suitable for local conditions.

     To date, there has been no attempt to estimate the costs associated with the
development and administration of local stormwater management programs that
meet the State regulations. It is expected that administration costs will greatly
exceed ordinance development costs. Administration costs would include such
activities as plan review, site inspection, maintenance, enforcement, staff training
and public education.

     As mentioned, the City of Virginia Beach developed and implemented a
stormwater management ordinance prior to passage of the Stormwater
Management Act. Development of this ordinance was accomplished entirely in-
house within the existing budget, although initial implementation required the
hiring of one additional planner.2 Though similar in structure to the program


                                     10








outlined by the Stormwater Management Act regulations, some components of the
City's program exceed the State's requirements while other components need
revision to achieve full compliance. Costs associated with implementing the City's
program provide a general indication of what it may cost other localities to
implement similar programs that meet the State requirements. According to the
City Office of Budget and Evaluation, ongoing implementation costs are estimated
to be nearly $117,000 per year over the next decade.3 This estimate includes
administrative as well as operations and maintenance costs. The extent to which this
estimate is applicable to other localities will depend on levels of development
activity, the scopes of the local ordinances, and existing staffing and funding levels.

EPA NPDES STORMWATER PERMITTING REGULATIONS

Stormwater Permitting Provisions of the 1987 Water Quality Act

     The 1987 Water Quality Act (WQA) significantly increased federal involvement
in NPS pollution control. The Act's most far-reaching stormwater provision is Section
405. This section directs the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop
regulations which extend the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting program to cover industrial and municipal stormwater
discharges.  Draft regulations for this program were published in 1988 and
underwent an extensive two-year public review. Final regulations were issued on
November 16, 1990.

     The 1987 WQA required that the EPA NPDES permitting regulations address
the following five categories of stormwater discharges:

     *   stormwater discharges already permitted prior to the 1987 WQA;

         stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities;

     ï¿½ discharges from municipal storm sewers serving populations greater than
          250,000;

     *   discharges from municipal storm sewers serving populations of 100,000 to
          250,000; and

     ï¿½   any discharge which, based on the determination of the EPA Administrator
          or the state, contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a
          significant contributor of pollutants to the waters of the United States.4

In addition, the WQA requires that, by October 1, 1992, the EPA issue regulations
which will (1) designate stormwater discharges, other than those listed above, which
need to be regulated to protect water quality, and (2) establish a comprehensive
program to regulate such discharges.



                                       11








     The WQA also established the following general provisions for the permitting
of municipal stormwater discharges:

     *   Permits may be issued on a system or jurisdiction-wide basis, rather than
         for individual outfalls.

     *   Permits shall include a requirement to effectively prohibit non-stormwater
         discharges into storm sewers.

     *   Permits shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the
         maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control
         techniques, system design and engineering methods, and such other
         provisions as the EPA Administrator or the State determines appropriate
         for the control of such pollutants.5

EPA Regulations to Implement the Municipal Storm Sewer Permitting Provisions of
the 1987 WQA

     The intent of the recently issued EPA permitting regulations for municipal
storm sewer systems is to promote the development of community-specific
stormwater management programs consisting of locally appropriate pollution
control measures. These regulations are particularly significant from a water quality
management perspective in that, unlike the CBPA and the State stormwater
management regulations, the EPA stormwater permitting process will require NPS
pollution controls in areas of both new and existing development.

     The EPA stormwater permitting regulations require a two-part application
process. In general, part one of the application requires existing information on a
municipality's stormwater management facilities and activities. Part two requests
additional information, including proposed stormwater management programs,
needed for implementing permit conditions for a five year term. The entire permit
application is structured to address four key issues. These include (1) the viability of
local institutional mechanisms for controlling pollutants in stormwater discharges,
(2) an identification of the sources of pollutants in stormwater discharges, (3) a
characterization of stormwater discharges, and (4) the development of a
comprehensive stormwater management program. The regulations require that, for
systems serving populations greater than 250,000, the first part of the permit
application be submitted by November 16, 1991 and the second part be submitted
by November 16, 1992. For systems serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people,
the first part of the application must be submitted by May 16, 1992 and the second
part must be submitted by May 16, 1993.

     The stormwater management program required in the second part of the
application must address four types of pollutant sources which typically discharge to
municipal storm sewer systems. These sources include commercial and residential
areas, industrial areas, construction sites, and illicit, non-stormwater discharges. The


                                       12








application is designed to encourage the applicant to propose measures that would
control NPS pollution from these sources to the maximum extent practical.

     In developing stormwater management programs to control non-stormwater
discharges, municipalities are not expected to adopt a literal interpretation of the
WQA  provision requiring permits to "effectively prohibit" non-stormwater
discharges into municipal storm sewers. Instead, the regulations permit non-
stormwater discharges to municipal systems as long as they are covered by separate
NPDES permits. Municipalities will be required to implement a screening analysis
and monitoring plan to identify non-stormwater discharges and ensure either their
removal or their coverage by a NPDES permit.

     In accordance with the WQA, the EPA regulations encourage municipalities to
apply for system-wide permits. A system-wide permitting process would promote
comprehensive stormwater management programs which target controls based on
an evaluation of priorities. The regulations also encourage multiple entities with
stormwater management responsibilities within the same system to be co-applicants
for a single system-wide permit. Possible combinations of co-permittees include two
localities sharing a storm sewer system, a locality and a large private development in
that locality with its own storm sewer system, or a locality and the State Department
of Transportation. This approach will provide a basis for coordinated stormwater
management planning and will spread, among the co-applicants, the burden of
monitoring discharges, assessing water quality impacts, and developing and
implementing controls. Stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities
will require separate permits which would have to be obtained by the industrial
facility responsible for the discharge.

     At present, the EPA has administrative responsibility for implementing the
stormwater permitting regulations in Virginia. However, the Virginia State Water
Control  Board is currently studying the feasibility of assuming this responsibility.
Although the VWCB does not yet have permitting authority, permit applications
must still be submitted to the VWCB where they will be forwarded to EPA.6

EPA Regulations to Implement the Industrial Storm Sewer Permitting Provisions of
the 1987 WQA

     The EPA regulations also call for the permitting of stormwater discharges
associated with a wide range of industrial activities. Included in the definition of
industrial activities are such municipal facilities as wastewater treatment plants,
wastewater sludge disposal facilities, landfills, waste-to-energy facilities, airports,
and vehicle maintenance facilities. These facilities are regulated under an industrial
permitting process which is separate from and has different application
requirements than the municipal permitting process. Furthermore, all localities
which own and operate industrial facilities, including those with populations less
than 100,000, will be required to apply for industrial stormwater discharge permits.



                                        13








     Another provision of the industrial stormwater discharge regulations that may
apply to any local government is the requirement that all construction sites greater
than five acres and not part of a larger plan of development must apply for NPDES
permits. This requirement may add additional time and expense to the planning and
development of large capital improvement projects.

     For more details on the industrial stormwater permitting regulations, the
reader is referred to 55 Federal Reqister 47990, November 16, 1990.

Fiscal Impacts of the EPA NPDES Stormwater Permitting Program

     The actual costs incurred by a locality, in money and time, in complying the EPA
NPDES stormwater permitting regulations could vary significantly depending on a
variety of factors including:

     * The size of a system;

     *   The physical characteristics of a locality (i.e. topography, hydrology, land
         use, etc.);

         The availability of information required by the permitting regulations;

     *   The necessity of applying for permits with co-applicants;

     *   The degree to which a municipal system receives illicit non-stormwater
         discharges, or stormwater associated with industrial activity;

     *   The number of municipal facilities that could be defined as industrial
         activities under the permitting regulations;

     *   The availability of resources needed to fulfil the proposed permit
          application requirements (i.e., money, manpower, expertise, sampling and
          testing equipment, and so forth); and

     *   The adequacy of local legal authority and administrative capabilities
          needed to implement a stormwater management program that meets EPA
          permitting criteria.

     According to estimates developed by the EPA in 1989, the average permit
application for discharges from a municipal storm sewer system serving a population
greater than 250,000 will require $76,681 and 4,534 hours to prepare. A permit
application for discharges from a municipal system serving between 100,000 and
250,000 people would take an estimated $49,249 and 2,912 hours to prepare.7
These estimates only reflect the costs to prepare an application and do not include
costs that would be incurred in the implementation of the required stormwater
management programs.


                                        14








     An average industrial permit application was estimated by the EPA to require
$1,007 and 28.6 hours to prepare. This estimate does not include the costs required
to comply with permit conditions.

     Several studies have been conducted which indicate that EPA may have greatly
under-estimated the costs of applying for municipal permits.  Independent cost
estimates for the preparation of industrial permits are not available. The firm of
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) has projected that the cost of preparing a municipal
permit application could be $1,000,000 dollars for a municipality with a population
of approximately 250,000, and $600,000 for a municipality with a population of
100,000.8 In a separate analysis conducted by the City of Virginia Beach, it was
estimated that the permitting process will cost the City $1.7 million over a two year
period.9 The cost estimates developed by EPA, CDM and others are based on
population to conform to the stormwater permitting requirements which apply to
communities of different sizes.  It is important to remember that actual costs
incurred by municipalities will differ significantly as a result of the variables noted on
the previous page.

     CDM has also prepared estimates of the costs involved in preparing the
stormwater management programs required by the permitting regulations. They
estimate that preparation of a citywide or countywide plan for a system serving
250,000 people could cost as much as $5,000,000, and a plan for a system serving a
population of 100,000 could cost more than $2,000,000.10

     It should be noted that the CDM and Virginia Beach cost estimates contained in
the preceding discussion were based on EPA's draft regulations. Similar estimates
based on the final regulations do not exist.  EPA's cost estimates for the final
regulations are considerably less than those prepared for the draft regulations.





















                                       15








       SURVEY OF LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING NEEDS

     To gain a better understanding of local stormwater management efforts and
to determine the magnitude of local stormwater management financing needs, the
HRPDC staff surveyed local public works departments. Thirteen of the Planning
District's fourteen member localities responded in some fashion. Two of the rural
counties responded with unanswered questionnaires because they do not
administer stormwater management activities. Other localities responded with
partially answered questionnaires due to the unavailability of data. One locality did
not return a completed questionnaire, but responded by providing data that answer
many of the survey questions.

     The survey was designed to gather information on a number of items including
the organization and responsibilities of local stormwater management programs;
the extent and nature of past stormwater management expenditures; current and
projected stormwater management budget allocations as compared to actual needs;
existing and planned regulatory programs; and existing funding sources. A copy of
the survey instrument used can be found in Appendix A.

LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS

     The survey found that many localities do not have formal, comprehensive
stormwater-management programs.  In the more rural communities, this can be
attributed to the fact that development has not occurred to the extent that
stormwater management programs are required. Rural stormwater management
activities are usually conducted by the State during road projects, conducted by
towns to correct nuisance flooding problems, or implemented in conjunction with
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. In other localities stormwater management is
typically fragmented. Stormwater management activities are integrated into several
departments with no one department or individual having total responsibility. Due
to these situations, many localities have not established systems to account for
stormwater management needs and expenditures and, therefore, were unable to
fully complete the survey questionnaire.

     The lack of comprehensive stormwater management planning at the local level
is illustrated in the summary of local stormwater management activities found in
Table 3. Of the thirteen responding localities, only Franklin and Virginia Beach have
stormwater master plans and ordinances (i.e. other than CBPA ordinances).
Moreover, only Virginia Beach's plan and ordinance specifically addresses NPS
pollution control. A realization of the benefits of a more comprehensive approach
to stormwater management may be on the increase, however. Two localities have
indicated that stormwater master plans are in progress and six localities have
indicated that the preparation of stormwater management ordinances is either
planned or in progress. To be in conformance with the recent State stormwater
management regulations, these ordinances will be required to address stormwater
quality.


                                      16









     As shown in Table 3, each locality approaches the delegation of stormwater
management responsibility differently. Public works and engineering departments
generally have the broadest scope of responsibilities.  In most localities these
departments are involved, to varying degrees, in all aspects of stormwater
management. Planning departments may also be involved, but their responsibilities
are usually limited to administration, master planning, regulation and enforcement,
and water quality management.

LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING NEEDS

     Table 4 shows a five-year projection of local stormwater financing needs as
compared to expected budget allocations. It is evident from this table that, due to
the fragmentation or lack of local programs, most localities were unable to provide
complete financing needs data. It is also important to note-that localities used
differing accounting procedures in estimating needs and budget allocations.
Consequently, this table should not be relied on to make comparisons among
localities.

     Despite the incompleteness of the data, it is clear from Table 4 that, overall,
stormwater management costs are anticipated to increase while budget allocations
are not likely to keep pace. The increasing costs of stormwater management are also
evidenced by past local expenditures. The survey questionnaire asked localities for
annual expenditures between 1984 and 1989. Because only a few respondents were
able to provide this information, it was decided not to present the data in tabular
form. However, data from the responding localities indicate that increases in annual
stormwater management expenditures ranged from 16% to 38% during this period.

     Figure 1 illustrates the magnitude of the anticipated disparity between
stormwater management needs and budget allocations for the communities of
Virginia Beach, Poqouson and York County. These localities were selected for this
illustration because (1) they were able to provide complete needs/budget data, and
(2) they represent three distinctly different communities. Virginia Beach is a large
suburban city with moderate development potential, Poquoson is a small suburban
city with low to moderate development potential, and York County is a primarily
rural locality which is experiencing significant development pressures. It can be seen
that regardless of the size or the anticipated development trends of a community,
localities will find it difficult to meet their stormwater financing needs.

     Hampton Roads communities are not alone in their inability to adaquately
fund stormwater management, In 1990, the firm of Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton
and Tilton conducted a nationwide stormwater management survey to which fifty-
two localities responded. When asked to rank eight stormwater management issues
in terms of relative importance, "obtaining more money to perform needed
actions" was given the highest overall ranking.




                                       17








              A summary of funding sources that are currently used by Hampton Roads
         localities to finance stormwater management can be found in Table 3. As would be
I      ~~expected, all localities depend heavily on general fund revenues and the capital
         improvement budget. Three localities, Newport News, Norfolk and Virginia Beach,
         indicated that they have issued general obligation bonds to fund stormwater
I      ~~management. Only Hampton cited the use of Community Development Block Grant
         funds, and only Williamsburg indicated the use of cost-share agreements with
*       ~~developers.















                                                                     TABLE 3

                                          SUMMARY OF LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

                                                                                       EPA NPDES
                               Agencies with                SWM            SWM          Permit         CBPA
      Locality              SWM Responsibilities         Master Plan    Ordinance     Required       Program        Existing Funding Sources

SOUTHSIDE
Chesapeake                            NR                     NR             No           Yes          Not yet                   NR
                                                                                                     adopted

Franklin              City Manager's Office 1,2,5,6                    Yes, quantity                             General Fund 1,2,3,4,5,
                       Public Works 1,2,3,4,5,6,7            Yes           only           No       Not required Capital Improvements Budget 5,6
                                                                                                                 Stormwater Permit Fees 5

Norfolk                                                                                                          General Fund 2,3,4,5,7
                                      NR                     No          Planned         Yes           Yes       General Obligation Bonds 2,3,6,7
                                                                                                                 Sewer Utility 4

Portsmouth            Public Works 1,2,3,4,5,6               No            No            Yes            Yes                     NR
                       Planning 2,5
Suffolk                Planning 1,7                                                                              General Fund 1,4,5,6
                      Public Works- Downtown Only 4,5,6      No            No            No            Yes      General ImprovementBudget 3,4,6
                      City Engineer 1,7
Virginia Beach                        NR                     Yes       Yes, quantity     Yes            Yes      General Fund 3,4,5,6,7
                                                                        and quality                              General Obligation Bonds 3,6

Isle of Wight County                  NA                     No            No             No            Yes                     NA
Southampton County                    NA                     No            No             No       Not required                 NA














                                                                    TABLE 3 (Continued)

                                              SUMMARY OF LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

                                                                                           EPA NPDES
                                Agencies with                 SWM             SWM          Permit          CBPA
      Locality                SWM Responsibilities          Master Plan    Ordinance      Required        Program        Existing Funding Sources

PENINSULA
Hampton                                                                                                                General Fund 1,2,3,4,5,6
                         Public Works 1,2,3,4,5,6,7          In progress      Planned          Yes            Yes       CDBG Funds 6
                                                                                                                        General Obligation Bonds 6
Newport News            Engineering 1,2,3,5,6,7                                                             Not yet    General Fund 1,2,4,5,
                         Public Worksd 4                         No           Planned          Yes          adopted    General Obligation Bonds 2,3,6
                         Planning 7
Poquoson                Engineering and Public                                                              Not yet
                           Utilities 1,2,3,4,5,6,7               No              No             No          adopted    General Fund 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
                         Public Works 4
Williamsburg            Planning 1,2,5,7                        No            Under            No            Yes       General Fund 1,2,4,5
                         Public Works 1,2,3,4,5,6,7                        consideration                                Cost Sharing w/ Developers 3,6,7
James City County       Code Compliance 1,2,3,4,5,7             For                                                    General Fund 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
                         Development Management 2,3,6,7   developing    In progress            No             Yes
                                                             watersheds
                                                                 only
York County             Community Development 1,2,3,5,6,7  In progress       Planned           No            Yes       General Fund 1,3,4,5
                         Environmental Services 1,3,4,6                                                                 Capital Improvement Budget 2,4,6

1Administration                                                    6Capital Improvement
2Master Planning                                                   7Water Quality Management
3Design and Engineering                                            NR - Not Reported
40perations and Maintenance                                        NA- Not Applicable
5Regulation and Enforcement

Source: Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, 1990.

















                                                                                      TABLE 4

                     CURRENT AND PROJECTED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING NEEDS COMPARED TO BUDGET ALLOCATIONS

                                         FY 1989-90                    FY 1990-91                     FY 1991-92                    FY 1992-93                      FY 1993-94
       Locality                    Needed         Budgeted        Needed         Budgeted       Needed          Budgeted    Needed            Budgeted        Needed         Budgeted
 SOUTHSIDE
 Chesapeake1                       $1,915,000             NR      $2,228,000             NR     $2,776,000              NR       $128,000             NR       $165,000              NR
 Franklin                                  NR       $105,338       $144,100         $41,500       $167,600         $41,500        $61,340        $41,500        $65,330         $41,500
 Norfolk1                          $2,400,000             NR     $3,000,000              NR     $3,000,000              NR     $5,000,000             NR      $5,000,000             NR
 Portsmouth2                              NA      $2,359,500             NA      $3,964,150             NA     $4,593,000             NA      $3,543,100             NA      $1,450,000
 Suffolk                                  NA              NA             NA             NA              NA             NA              NA             NA             NA             NA
 Virginia Beach3                   $7,380,400     $7,300,488    $7,616,910    $7,616,910        $8,334,942     $3,675,456   $10,183,697       $5,391,051    $10,243,157      $5,423,876
 Isle of Wight County                     NA              NA             NA             NA              NA             NA             NA              NA             NA             NA
 Southampton County                       NA              NA             NA             NA              NA             NA             NA              NA             NA             NA

 PENINSULA
 Hampton                          $4,287,000    $1,287,000    $3,120,000                NA      $3,130,000             NA      $3,155,000             NA     $3,155,000             NA
 Newport News                     $1,112,000    $1,112,000       $2,632,000    $2,077,000    $5,367,000                NA      $4,746,000             NA     $3,957,000             NA
 Poquoson                           $606,400        $322,400       $846,155       $294,100        $681,000       $300,173        $731,670       $342,850       $784,300       $345,580
 Williamsburg                             NA              NA             NA             NA              NA             NA             NA              NA             NA             NA
 James City County                        NA              NA             NA             NA              NA             NA              NA             NA             NA             NA
 York County                        $376,750        $343,750       $564,000       $472,500        $408,650       $369,000        $491,200       $367,100       $456,700        $299,200

NOTES:
1 Data were obtained from the State Commission Studying Local Infrastructure Needs and Revenue Resources. Cost figures represent capital improvements only.

2Portsmouth data only include the total costs of drainage projects listed in the Capital Improvement Budget. Cost figures may include some costs not attributable to drainage (street
improvements, utilities, etc.)

3Virginia Beach Office of Budget and Evaluation, 1990.

NR - Not Reported
NA - Not Available

Source: Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, 1990.







                                       FIGURElI
               STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NEEDS AND ACTUAL BUDGET
 *                     ~~~~~~ALLOCATIONS FOR SELECTED LOCALITIES




I                ~~~~~$12,000,000     ::                              --
                                     -    BUDGETED VIRGINIA REACH -
                  $10,000,000

                   $8,000,000-

I                ~~~~~~$6,000,000L

                   $4,000,000-        t-:X:
       I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... .... .
                   $2,000,000  - 


                                   FY 89-90  FY 90-91  FY 9 1-92  FY 92-93  FY 93-94


I                ~~~~~~$1,000,000   POQUOSON      BUDGETED

                    $800,000 -NE -

                    $600,000- -

                    $400,000

                    $200,000           *iI

  I                     ~~~~~~~~0
                                  FY 89-90  FY 90-91   FY 9 1-92  FY 92-93  FY 93-94

                    $700,000
                         $600,000 -   YORK COUNTY               IBUDGETED  ~  __
                                                                 INEEDED .
                    $500,000-                                                  _
                    $400,000  -.. ....
 I                 ~~~~~$300,000-           .

 U                 ~~~~~~~$200,000  -~                  - 
                    $100,000-
            I              0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W.t

                                   FY 89-90  FY 90-91  FY 9 1-92  FY 92-93  FY 93-94

       *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 22








     OPTIONS FOR MEETING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING NEEDS


     As discussed in the previous chapter, local governments report a wide disparity
between stormwater management financing needs and the funds actually allocated
to address these needs. It is evident that stormwater management financing
programs which provide an adequate and dependable source of funding are
needed. In formulating a stormwater management financing program that would
remedy existing and future needs, consideration should be given to a variety of
funding alternatives. The most effective financing solution will most likely consist of
a mix of alternatives that reflects a locality's specific situation.

     This chapter describes and evaluates a number of non-proportionate and
proportionate stormwater management financing alternatives. A non-
proportionate funding method does not require that costs be allocated according to
the amount of services received. Most localities in Hampton Roads currently depend
on non-proportionate stormwater management financing strategies. The
proportionate financing alternatives operate by assessing fees or taxes in proportion
to the amount of service received. With respect to stormwater management,
assessment of these fees and taxes would be based on the potential for increased
 runoff contribution which is usually a function of the amount of impervious surface.
 It is important to note that not all stormwater management financing options
discussed below are currently allowed under Virginia law. Many would require the
 approval of the Virginia General Assembly before they can be implemented by local
 governments.

      Most of the information presented in this chapter was obtained form a report
 prepared in 1990 by the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC)
 entitled Evaluation of Reqional BMPs in the Occoquan Watershed. Table 5, which
 was adapted from the NVPDC report, provides a summary of the advantages and
 disadvantages associated with each of the alternatives.

 NON-PROPORTIONATE FUNDING ALTERNATIVES

 General Fund Allocations

      The general fund is a locality's primary operating fund. It finances the day-to-
 day operations of a local government and accounts for all revenues and
 expenditures which are not included in specific purpose funds. The general fund is
 comprised of revenues from a variety of sources including property taxes, other local
 taxes (sales, utilities, meals, hotels, etc.), permitting and licensing fees, charges for
 services, and state and federal aid. Most local stormwater management programs
 are either partially or entirely funded through the general fund. Additional funding
 might be raised for stormwater management by reallocation of existing general
 fund expenditures or by increasing general fund revenues through property or sales
 tax hikes.


                                       23













                                                                 TABLE 5
                                        FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
                                                                                                                           Related State
                          Potential for Administrative                                                                     Enabling Legislation
  Funding Alternatives      Revenue        Burden              Advantages                      Disadvantages (VA Code)
General Fund Allocations    High        Low            ï¿½  Can finance all aspectsofSWM  *  Allocations are subject to      Sect. 58.1-3000
                                                        program since general fund is    shifting budget priorities and   to 3016
                                                        unrestrictive for municipal      fluctuations in the economy.
                                                        purposes.           a            Little flexibility for unexpected
                                                        Easy to administer.              capital expenses.
                                                        Avoids inconvenience of       ï¿½  Not all contributors are
                                                        borrowing.                       benefited directly.
                                                                                      ï¿½ Politically unfavorable.

General Obligation Bonds   High        High            *  Substantial funding can be    ï¿½  Requires vote approval by       Sect. 15.1-170
                                                        secured in a short time.          public.                       Sect. 15.1-185
                                                     *  Bonds may be reimbursed       ï¿½  Payoutsexceed bond value.      Sect. 58.1-3245
                                                        throug hthe general fund or   ï¿½  Obligates general funds for an
                                                        other local monies.              extended time and therefore
                                                     *  Low interest rate.               local spending power may be
                                                     *  Can finance all aspects of a     limited or existing services may
                                                        SWM program.                     be cut.
                                                                                      * May be limited by local
                                                                                         bonding capacity.

Grants and Loans           Low to      Low       a        New monies in addition to base ï¿½  Grants and loans are in high           NA
                          Moderate                      revenue. demand and awarded on a
                                                     a Interest paid on loans is usually    competitive basis.
                                                        below market rate.            *  Application costs cannot be
                                                                                         recovered.
                                                                                      ï¿½ Funding unstable.
                                                                                      * Conditions accompanying
                                                                                          rants and loans may be
                                                                                         burdensome.












                                                              TABLE 5 (Continued)
                                          FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
                                                                                                                              Related State
                           Potential for  Administrative                                                                     Enabling Legislation
    Funding Alternatives    Revenue          Burden              Advantages                      Disadvantages                    (VA Code)
Revenue Bonds              High         High      a       Substantial funding can be     *  Payout exceeds bond value.    Sect. 15.1-170
                                                          secured in a short time.      *  Interest rate paid out is higher  Sect. 15.1-185
                                                       *  Can finance all aspects of a     than with general obligation   Sect. 15.1- 1239 to 1270
                                                          SWM program.                     bonds.                         Sect. 58.1-3245
                                                      *  Local bonding capacity is     *  SWM facilities do not generate
                                                          unaffected.                      revenue (unless combined with
                                                                                           utility program).
Double Barrel Bonds        High        High            ï¿½  Substantial funding can be     ï¿½  Payout exceeds bond value.     Sect. 15.1-170
                                                          secured in a short time.      ï¿½  Interest rate paid out is higher  Sect. 15.1-185
                                                      ï¿½  Can finance all aspects of a     than general obligation bonds. Sect. 15.1-1239 to 1270
                                                          SWM program.                  *  SWM facilities do not generate Sect. 58.1-3245
                                                      *  Interest rate paid out is lower   revenue (unless combined with
                                                         than with revenue bonds.         a utility program).
                                                                                        0  Are subject to voter approval.
Land Development Fee       Low to      Moderate   ï¿½    Fees may be assessed to new    *  Cannot assess fee until a        Sect. 15.1-466(d)
for Construction           Moderate                       developments within the           general water, sewer, and     Sect. 15.1-466(j)
                                                         drainage area of the off site    drainage improvement plan is  Sect. 10.1-603.1
                                                         facility. adopted.
                                                      ï¿½  Developers contribute funds in ï¿½  Can only be assessed to and
                                                         proportion to proposed runoff    used for new development.
                                                         volume.            a             Funds can only be used for
                                                      a Encourages developers to use      construction/upgrade of
                                                         regional facilities. regional SWM facilities.
                                                      a May be used in lieu of an on-   ï¿½  Locality responsible for O&M.
                                                         site program in complying with *  Most regional SWM facilities
                                                         CBPA.                            need to be constructed in
                                                                                           advance of development.
Land Development Fees      Low to       Moderate   a    Maintenance funding available a  Politically unpopular.               Enabling legislation
for Maintenance            Moderate                       in advance.                    *  Difficult to determine future     required
                                                      *  Promotes preventative            maintenance costs.
                                                         maintenance.                  *  Funds will eventually run out.













                                                                TABLE 5 (Continued)
                                            FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

                                                                                                                                 Related State
                             Potential for Administrative                                                                        Enabling Legislation
    Funding Alternatives      Revenue         Burden              Advantages                       Disadvantages                     (VA Code)
Participation/              Moderate   High              *  Construction financed up-front *  See land development fees.    Sect. 10.1-614
Reimbursement               to High                         by developer.                  *  Rely on developer willing to    Sect. 21.112-1
Agreements                                                                                     participate.                   Sect. 15.1-466
                                                                                          *  Local governments need
                                                                                             additional staff to administer
                                                                                             fee follection and
                                                                                              reimbursement.
                                                                                          * Reimbursement may be
                                                                                             delayed if development activity
                                                                                             slows.
Assessments for Local       Low          Moderate        ï¿½  Equitable                      *  Onlyapplicableinverylimited  Sect. 15.1-239
Improvements                                             ï¿½  Provide up-front construction     circumstances.
                                                           funds.                         *  Residents must request
                                                                                             assessments.
Special Service District    High         Low (After      ï¿½  Localitycan assesstaxesto      *  Citizens within the district must Sect. 15.1-18.2
                                        established)      property owners within the         make a petition to the circuit   Sect. 15.1-18.3
                                                           district to construct and         court in order to create a
                                                           maintain facilities needed to     district.
                                                           provide the desired            *  May be unfeasibble to set up in
                                                           governmental service.             undeveloped watersheds.
                                                        *  Ability to structure tax schedule *  Separate districts would need
                                                           to relate addition of             to be set up for each watershed
                                                           imperviousness to increases in    and therefore this option is not
                                                           runoff and NPS pollition.         easy to implement community-
                                                                                             wide.














                                                                TABLE 5 (Continued)
                                            FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

                                                                                                                                 Related State
                             Potential for Administrative                                                                        Enabling Legislation
    Funding Alternatives      Revenue         Burden               Advantages                       Disadvantages                    (VA Code)
Watershed Improvement    High            Low             *  Bonds, grants and loans may be *  No local govt. oversight.       Sect. 21-112.1
District                                                    used to cover all costs.       ï¿½  Requires special petition,      Sect. 10.1-614-647
                                                        *  The Board elected by the soil      referendum vote passed by 2/3
                                                           and water conservation district    vote in proposed district.
                                                           may assess land owners fees to  *  Set up and running of program
                                                           finance stormwater program.       could be costly unless
                                                        *  Can be used in multi-              landowners with skills are
                                                           jurisdictional watersheds.        willing to volunteer theirtime.
Public Water Volume use    Moderate   Moderate          *  Promotes protection of      a       May be cumbersome for a        Will require enabling
Tax and Surcharge           to High      To High            drinking water supply and          private water purveyor to      legislation to allow
                                                           reduction of water treatment      transfer its income to a locality. localities to levy a tax.
                                                           costs through SWM programs.  *  Since water use is variable,
                                                        *  Easy for locality to administer. funding from taxes will be       Surcharg es are
                                                        a Relates tax to volume used.         variable. allowedunder
                                                                                          *  Disregard runoff from property Sect. 15.1-1260.
                                                                                             owners with private wells.
Recreation Fees             Variable    High            ï¿½  Places cost of improving water  *  Does not assess generators of   Sect 15.1-1281
                                                           quality with beneficiaries. runoff.
                                                                                          *  Discourages use of recreation   Will require enabling
                                                                                             facilities resources and licenses. legislation to permit
                                                                                          a Would not generate significant use of fees for
                                                                                             revenue.                       BMP/SWM facilities
                                                                                                                            which do not protect
                                                                                                                            designated recreation
                                                                                                                            facilities.














                                                                          TABLE 5 (Continued)
                                                     FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
                                                                                                                                                Related State
                                      Potential for Administrative                                                                            Enabling LegiVslation
           Funding Alternatives       Revenue          Burden               Advantages                         Disadvantages                      (A Coe)
       Stormwater Utilities          High         Low             *  A guaranteed continuing          *  Initial start-up costs high.      Enabing legislation is
                                                  (after             revenue base is created to                                           needed to clarify
                                                  established)       finance regional BMP/SWM                                             and/or confirm local
                                                                      programs.                                                            authority to implement
                                                                  *  Can finance all aspects of a                                         stormwater utilities.
                                                                      SWM program.
                                                                  * Equitable since it relates
                                                                      addition of impervious surface
                                                                      to increase in runoff volume.
                                                                  *  May be assessed to owners of
                                                                      new and existing sites.

IQ Nonpoint Source Pollution   High               High            *  Places costs of stormwater       *  Assessments are inequitable    Will require enabling
Cw     Control Fee                                                   quality management with              because all property owners    legislation.
                                                                      generators of NPS pollution.        pay some fee.
                                                                  *  Provides financial incentive to  *  The cost of the certification
                                                                      control NPS pollution.              required for avoiding surcharge
                                                                                                          might be excessive.
                                                                                                         Politically unfavorable.

      SOURCES:  Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, Evaluation of Recional BMPs In the Occoauan Watershed, (Annandale, Virginia: NVPDC, 1990), pp.3.6- 3.7.
                Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, 1990.








U           ~~~Continued reliance on general fund allocations has a relative minor
        administrative burden since revenue generating programs are already in place. Also,
        relying on general fund allocations to finance stormwater management activities
        allows a locality to avoid the costs and the inconveniences associated with
        borrowing. There are, however, a number of significant disadvantages to using the
        general fund to finance stormwater management. These disadvantages are as
        follows:

             a Stormwater management is rarely a high priority for general fund
                  appropriations. Moreover, since general fund revenues cannot be
                  obligated in the long term to any particular purpose, allocations for
 I             ~ ~~~~stormwater management could be subject to shifting priorities during the
                  annual budget process.

                * The stormwater management budgeting process would be subject to
                  fluctuations in general fund revenues.

                * Little flexibility is provided for dealing with unexpected capital expenses.

                * A financial burden is placed on current residents while future residents,
 I             ~ ~~~~who will also enjoy the benefits of the expenditures, are subsidized.
                * Advantages of inflation, i.e. buying at today's prices and paying back over
                  a period of years as the value of the dollar decreases, cannot be realized.
                * The use of the general fund for stormwater management is inequitable.
                  Since payments made to the general fund are not based on the potential
                  for increased runoff, there would be a disparity between the taxes paid for
  *              ~~~~~and the benefits received.

                * Most general funds currently do not have the resources to implement a
                  comprehensive stormwater management program. Raising local taxes for
  I             ~ ~~~any purpose, including stormwater management, would most likely be
                  politically unpopular. Furthermore, convincing state legislators to earmark
                  portions of sales and fuel tax revenues for specific local purposes would
                  undoubtedly meet with resistance.
*       ~~General Obligation Bonds

              General obligation bonds are long-term borrowing mechanisms which are
         commonly sold by local governments to finance major non-revenue producing
I      ~ ~capital improvements such as roads, schools, recreational facilities and so forth.
         These bonds have traditionally been one of the most popular means of financing
         stormwater management projects. Through this method, the taxing power of a
I      ~ ~locality is pledged, through the general fund or other local money, to pay interest
         upon and retire debt on bond issues.


                                                29







         Property tax increases are often required to assure bond repayment. The
         advantages of general obligation bonds are that they carry low interests rates, they
I      ~ ~can be used to finance both the short and long-term costs of a stormwater
         management program, and they can secure substantial funding in a relatively short
         time.

              The prime disadvantage of general obligation bonds is that localities are
         subject to specific debt restrictions under the Code of Virginia. A locality's
I      ~ ~outstanding debt obligation is limited to no more that ten percent of the assessed
         value of taxable real estate. In addition, the State Code requires counties to hold
         referenda on local general obligation bond issues unless a county chooses to be a
I      ~ ~city for the purpose of issuing general obligation bonds. Cities and towns may issue
         general obligation bonds without voter approval unless the local char-ter provides
         otherwise. In Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, bonds may, be issued without
I      ~ ~referenda as long as specific annual debt limitations are not exceeded. Annual debt
         limitations in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake are $10 million and $8.5 million
         respectively plus any principal amount retired during the year. In both cities, bond
I      ~ ~referenda have been passed which have significantly increased general obligation
         debt. Although there have not been any referendum bonds issued specifically for
         stormwater management, bonds have been issued for street and highway
         improvements which have stormwater management components.
              Another disadvantage of generalI obligation bonds is that bond installments
I      ~ ~paid from the general fund over a long period of time could reduce a locality's
         ability to fund other activities that are not supported by obligated funds. Timing
         may also be a constraint in the issue of general obligation bonds. Localities may be
I      ~ ~unable to handle the long-term debt associated with bonds issued when interest
         rates are high.

I       ~~Grants and Loans

              There are a number of federal and state grants-in-aid and low- cost loan
         programs which may be used to help finance local stormwater management
         programs. Most of the grant programs are implemented on a competitive or
         matching fund basis. Most of the loan programs offer below market 'interest rates.
I      ~ ~Many of these programs are targeted at problems other than stormwater
         management, but local stormwater management projects may benefit if they are
         consistent with the grantlloan regulations and contribute to overall program goals.
         Some possible federal grant programs are listed below.
              0   Community Development Block Grants. This program has funds available
  I             ~ ~~~~for the planning and construction of water, sewer and/or housing projects.
                  These projects must meet an urgent or immediate need to assist a
                  community in providing a suitable living environment. This program has




                                               30








        funded drainage improvements, usually as part of the comprehensive
        renovation of a blighted neighborhood. The Virginia Department of
        Housing and Community Development administers this program for non-
        entitlement communities only. Other communities must apply directly to
        the U.S Department of Housing and Community Development.

    *   EPA Section 319 Funds. Under Section 319 of the 1987 Water Quality Act,
        the EPA is authorized to grant funds to states for controlling NPS pollution
        problems. The Commonwealth of Virginia has used a portion of its annual
        appropriation to provide competitive grants for projects which
        demonstrate innovative BMP technologies. Local governments are eligible
        to compete for these funds. This program is administered by the Division
        of Soil and Water Conservation, Department of Conservation and
         Recreation.

    *   EPA Clean Lakes Program.  This EPA-administered program makes
         competitive grants available on a 70 percent cost share basis for the
         purpose of making urban lakes more usable and healthful. Initial grants
         can only be used forthe planning of water quality projects. Once planning
         has been completed, projects are eligible for fifty percent cost-sharing
         grants to finance actual clean-up work.

     State grant and loan programs that might be used to finance stormwater
management are listed below.

     * The Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Loan Fund. Under Section 601 of
         the 1987 Water Quality Act, the federal wastewater treatment
         construction grant program is to be gradually phased out and matching
         funds are appropriated to states to capitalize state revolving loan funds.
         The Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Loan Fund was established under
         this provision and is administered by the Virginia Resources Authority. In
         Virginia and throughout the country, revolving loan funds are principally
         used for the construction of publicly-owned wastewater treatment systems
         to ensure that federal water quality standards are met. To date, very few
         stormwater management projects have been funded by this program.
         Localities which have financed stormwater management projects through
         state revolving loan funds include Fresno, California and Jefferson County,
         Washington.11,12

     *   Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Program Grants. The Chesapeake Bay
         Local Assistance Department administers this competitive grant program
         to assist Tidewater localities and planning district commissions (PDCs) in
         implementing the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

         Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program. Through this program,
         the Virginia Council on the Environment allocates federal Coastal Resource


                                      31







                  Management funds to state agencies, PDCs and local governments for the
                  purpose of providing coastal resource planning and technical assistance.
  I              ~ ~~~~Both localities and PDCs are eligible for competitive grants. These grants
                  might be used for local planning projects which address the water quality
                  aspects of stormwater runoff. in addition to the competitive grant
  I              ~ ~~~program, PDCs are eligible for formula grants to be used in providing
                  technical assistance to localities.

 *            ~~~Federal and state grants and loans offer distinct advantages to local
         governments. Grants are often used to offset federal or state mandates and, except
         for the local match, can be obtained at little or no cost to localities. Interest paid on
I      ~ ~loans is usually much less than the debt service paid on general obligation or
         revenue bonds. A disadvantage of federal and state grants and loans is that they
         usually have to be reapplied for on an annual basis and are usually extremely
I      ~ ~competitive. Therefore, funds from these sources cannot always be counted on in
         the stormwater management budgeting process. Also, costs associated with
         preliminary planning and engineering and application preparation are not
I      ~ ~~recoverable if a grant or loan applicant is unsuccessful. Finally, grants and loans may
         come with conditions that may threaten local autonomy over local projects.

*       *~PROPORTIONATE FUNDING

*        ~~Revenue Bonds

               Revenue bonds are generally sold for revenue projects like water or sewer
         systems. Revenues from such projects are used to pay annual dividends to bond
I      ~ ~holders. These bonds are a type of proportionate funding because debt is retired
         from the revenues produced by a particular enterprise, a stormwater utility for
*       ~~example, rather than from the general fund. A prime advantage of revenue bonds is
*       ~~that, because they are not backed by the full faith and credit of the local jurisdiction,
          local bonding capacity is not reduced. Also, voter approval is seldom required. A
         disadvantage is that interest rates for revenue bonds are higher than general
I      ~ ~obligation bonds and are, therefore, more expensive to issue. Also, stormnwater
          management facilities do not generate revenue, unless combined with a utility
*       ~~program.

          Double Barrel Bonds

 I           ~~~One long-term borrowing mechanism that combines the benefits of both
          general obligation and revenue bonds is the "double barrel" bond. Double barrel
          bonds function as revenue bonds as long as revenues are sufficient to meet debt
I      ~ ~obligations. if, however, a drop in revenue results in the debt obligation not being
          met, allocations would be made from the general fund to cover debt payments.
          Double barrel bonds are generally used to finance water and sewer projects. The
I      ~ ~City of Virginia Beach is using these bonds to finance the Lake Gaston water supply
          proj ect.


                                                 32








     Because they are ultimately backed by the full faith and credit of the local
government, double barrel bonds generally have lower interest rates than revenue
bonds. Further more, they are not subject to the annual debt limitations established
by city charters. They do, however, require voter approval and they are subject to
the state-imposed debt ceiling of ten percent of assessed real estate value.


Land Development Fees for Construction

     In accordance with Section 15.1-466(d) of the Virginia Code, local governments
are required to provide adequate provisions for drainage and flood control. This
requirement is supported by Section 15.1-466(j) which enables localities to assess
fees to developers based on the pro-rata share of runoff contributed by new
development. These fees can only be assessed if a locality has a comprehensive
drainage master plan in place. Also, fees can only be used for offsite facilities which
would serve the developer's project. These fees, which are usually assessed on a per
acre basis, could be based on imperviousness, land use or contribution to peak flow.
A locality may elect to give credits where on-site control is provided.

     Localities unable or unwilling to implement pro-rata share payment programs
under Section 15.1-466(j) may decide to work with individual developers to elicit
voluntary payments for offsite stormwater management improvements.

     The main advantage of this funding alternative is that it encourages the
development of regional stormwater management facilities because most
developers would prefer to pay a one-time fee for publicly constructed off-site
facilities than to contend with the design and construction of multiple on-site
facilities. In addition, under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations, a
locality may implement this alternative in lieu of a program which requires on-site
controls. On-site control programs are generally less effective and more difficult to
administer than regional stormwater management programs. Finally, this
alternative is relatively equitable in that developers will recoup these fees from the
ultimate beneficiaries of new stormwater management facilities through higher
home costs.

     There are a number of disadvantages to the pro-rata share payment program
as provided for under state law.

         Fees can only be assessed on new development. Costs cannot be recovered
          from existing landowners in the watershed.

         Fees can only be used for the construction of facilities that serve new
          development.





                                       33








              ï¿½   Facilities must be constructed in advance of development and before
                  receipt of pro-rata share contributions. Typically, bond issues or general
                  fund allocations are used for these front-end construction costs.
              *   Funds cannot be used for operation and maintenance,

              *   A locality must have a master drainage plan in place. Such plans do not
  *              ~~~~~exist for most Hampton Roads localities.

              ï¿½    Fees can only be used to construct regional stormwater management
                  facilities. In some localities, such facilities are impractical due to the lack of
                   large tracts of undeveloped land.
3       ~~Land Development Fees for Maintenance

              Under this option, developers would be required to make a lump sumn
         payment, usually prior to construction, to pay for ten to fifteen years of
I      ~ ~maintenance to publicly maintained facilities serving residential areas. It may also
         be possible to use a variation of this alternative to require owners of privately
         maintained basins to make a front-end payment to cover maintenance inspection
         costs.
              An advantage to this approach is that localities would have maintenance
I      ~ ~funding in advance which would facilitate effective planning and budgeting. in
         addition, this option promotes preventative maintenance, and is equitable in that
         fees would undoubtedly be passed on to the benefitting property owners through
         higher home prices.
              The assessment of these fees is likely to be unpopular with developers.
I      ~ ~Another disadvantage is that a fee might underestimate the cost of future
         maintenance and funds might run out sooner than expected. Also, this option only
3       ~~buys time for a locality. Once the up-front funds run out, maintenance costs will
         become the sole responsibility of the locality. Finally, enabling legislation is required
         to allow the assessment of up-front fees for the maintenance of public stormwater
         management facilities.

         Participation and Reimbursement Agreements

 I           ~~~~Another proportionate funding alternative is the use of voluntary participation
         and reimbursement agreements with developers. Through this technique, a
         developer agrees to finance and construct a regional stormwater management
I      ~ ~facility to the specifications of a locality and to be reimbursed over time as new
         development occurs in the same watershed. The benefit of this approach is that a
I       ~~locality does not have to have the up-front capital to construct a facility.




                                                 34








 N            ~~~Disadvantages to this option are similar to those associated with land
         development fees. Additionally, it may be difficult to encourage a developer to
3        ~~participate in such agreements because the rate of reimbursement is dependent
         upon the level of development. Full reimbursement could be significantly delayed if
         there is a significant slowdown in development activity in the watershed.

         Assessments for Local Improvements

 3           ~~~~Section 15.1-239 of the Code of Virginia permits localities to assess abutting
          property owners who benefit from public stormwater management improvements.
         This special tax assessment must be in proportion to the benefits received from the
3        ~~improvement. Up to 50% of the cost of the project can be charged to an abutting
          property owner who would have up to ten years repay the debt through his
         assessments. Special assessments can be implemented either by a request from 75%
3      ~ ~of the abutting landowners, or by a request from a majority of landowners and a
         two-thirds vote by the city council or board of supervisors.

               This option has applicability in very limited circumstances. It is not likely to
          provide revenues for most stormwater management projects.

          Special Service Districts

               Special service. stormwater management districts can be established in
          designated areas, usually watersheds. Property owners in~such districts would be
          taxed by the locality to provide funds for the construction and maintenance of local
          stormwater management facilities. To ensure equitable taxation, a locality may
          decide to develop a tax rate based on the imperviousness of each property.
               The establishment of a special stormwater management district may be very
         diff icult because its formation is contingent upon the approval of f ifty percent of the
          proposed district's voters. Consequently, this alternative is probably only practical in
          developed areas where chronic flooding problems are so severe that residents are
I      ~ ~willing to tax themselves to obtain relief. It is highly unlikely that residents of a
          sparsely developed watershed without existing stormnwater problems would create a
          district in anticipation of future development. It is also unlikely that a locality could
3      ~ ~garner enough community support to establish service districts to cover its entire
          jurisdiction.

3       ~~Watershed Improvement Districts

               Section 21-112.1 of the Virginia Code allows property owners within a specific
          watershed to establish a special Watershed Improvement District (WID) which is
          administered not by the local government, but by the local Soil and Water
          Conservation District (SWCD). Establishment of a WID requires a special petition,
 I      ~ ~public hearings and a referendum approved by two-thirds of the property owners
          representing at least two-thirds of the land area within the proposed WID. Once the


                                                  35







         referendum is passed, the SWCD appoints a board of directors. This board could
         issue bonds, apply for federal and state grants and loans, and assess fees in order to
         finance the construction, operation and maintenance of stormwater management
         projects. An advantage of WIDs is that they can be used in watersheds that include
         more than onejuidcon

              A potential disadvantage of WIDs is that the development and administration
         of a WID stormwater management program would be outside the control of the
I      ~ ~locality.  This could seriously undermine a locality's comprehensive stormwater
         management efforts. Another disadvantage is that it is highly unlikely that WIDs
         could obtain approval in every watershed within a locality. Also, it is doubtful that a
I      ~ ~WID could raise the funds necessary to hire the staff required to develop and
         implement a successful stormwater management program. One possible solution to
         these problems would be to enact enabling legislation which would allow localities
         some control in WIDs in return for administrative services.
         Potable Water Volume Use Tax and Potable Water Surcharge

              Water consumers have a direct interest in protecting their water supply from
         NPS pollution. If stormwater management techniques can be used to reduce the
I      ~ ~amount of NPS pollution entering a water supply, then the cost of water treatment
         can be reduced. By linking NPS pollution control to water supply protection, it is
         reasonable to assess water supply users a potable water tax or surcharge to finance
I      ~ ~the implementation of stormwater management programs within water supply
         drainage basins. A water volume tax is based on the amount of water used by each
         customer, while a water surcharge is a flat fee assessed to each customer regardless
         of the volume used. Both types of assessments could be added to water bills.
              One disadvantage of this technique is that it can only be used to finance
I      ~ ~stormwater management activities in water supply drainage basins.  Also, it
         disregards runoff from property with private wells. In Hampton Roads, many water
         supply reservoirs are located outside of the jurisdictions that own them. In these
I      ~ ~cases, there may be political and administrative obstacles to developing a process
         through which a locality owning a water supply transfers a portion of its Income to
         the locality in which the water supply is located for the purpose of stormwater
         management.
              A disadvantage specific to the water volume use tax is that, due to fluctuations
I      ~ ~in annual rainfall, the amount of water used, and therefore tax revenues, Is
         unpredictable. This would result in considerable uncertainty in the stormwater
         management budgeting process. Another disadvantage to use taxes is that enabling
I      ~ ~legislation does not currently exist to allow water utilities to assess such taxes for
         water quality improvements.





                                                36









Recreation Fees

     Since the control of NPS pollution enhances water-based recreation, a
recreational users fee for stormwater management might be considered. This fee
could be collected at public water access facilities. A problem with this approach is
that it would probably not generate sufficient revenue to adequately address
stormwater management problems. Furthermore, the equity of this approach is
questionable since generators of runoff would not be assessed a fee. Another
disadvantage is that such a fee may discourage the use of recreational facilities and
licenses. Finally, state enabling legislation would be required to allow the use of
recreation fees for water quality improvement.

Stormwater Utilities

     A stormwater utility is perhaps the most promising option for the financing of
stormwater management programs in Hampton Roads. Many localities throughout
the United States are using stormwater utilities in combination with bonds and
other programs to finance all aspects of local stormwater management. A listing of
U.S. communities known to have stormwater utilities can be found in Appendix B.
The 1990 Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton and Tilton survey found that there is
considerable interest throughout the country in establishing stormwater utiltities.
Of the fifty-two responding localities, six (12%) have a stormwater utility in place,
fourteen (27%) are currently developing utilities and 23 (44%) expressed interest in
the stormwater utility concept.  In Hampton Roads, both Hampton and Virginia
Beach are studying the feasibility of stormwater utilities.

     A stormwater utility is similar to a water or sewer utility in that it is a local
government enterprise, financially separate from other municipal functions, and it is
financed by user fees placed into restricted accounts that can be used only for one
purpose. A significant advantage of a stormwater utility is that revenues can be
generated without impacting the general fund. These revenues can be used to
support the issue of revenue bonds, or to provide the up-front costs for facilities that
will ultimately be paid for through development fees.

      Stormwater utilities should be nonexclusive with fees assessed to all generators
of runoff located in areas where runoff is managed through publicly owned systems.
Stormwater utility fees should be assessed to individual parcel owners and should be
related to the amount of runoff generated in excess of that contributed by land in a
natural, undeveloped state. In some cases, credits for onsite control are given. The
following briefly describes three techniques for assessing stormwater utility fees.

      *   The "rational method" bases the fee on the rational runoff coefficients
          corresponding to different land use designations.

      I   A fee can be based on the amount of impervious surface which is either
          measured, estimated or assumed for each parcel of land. One common


                                        37









         approach is to base a fee on the number of "equivalent residential units",
         or ERUs, associated with a site. An ERU is commonly defined as the area of
         impervious surface corresponding to a typical single family detached
         residential unit.

        An administratively simple but potentially inequitable approach is to assess
         a flat charge to each property owner.

     Stormwater utilities have a number of advantages.  Most importantly, they
represent a stable and secure funding source for both short and long term
stormwater management activities. Moreover, utilities would be relatively easy to
administer because the charges can be attached to other municipal billings or be
included as a line item on the annual property tax bill.

     The prime disadvantage of stormwater utilities is that there is no clear
authorization under Virginia law to establish stormwater utilities. CDM has
suggested that the following sections of the Code of Virginia might be pieced
together to provide sufficient local authority to implement stormwater utilities:

     *   Section 15.1-283: Provision of Adequate Drainage

     * Section 15.1-170: Public Finance Act

         Section 15.1-446(j): Pro-rata Share Provisions of Subdivision Ordinance

     Although adequate authority might be derived from these sections, CDM has
concluded that the ability to issue bonds may be compromised without enabling
legislation that specifically allows localities to establish stormwater utilities. 13 Other
sources have reached a similar conclusion. A bill that would authorize stormwater
utilities was considered and rejected by the 1990 Virginia General Assembly. Given
stormwater financing needs throughout the state, the 1991 General Assembly is
considering similar legislation.

     Once established, stormwater utilities are relatively simple to administer.
Setting up a utility may prove to be difficult, however. The process of defining a
service boundary, identifying exemptions, and developing an equitable rate
structure and billing system will be expensive, and may be subject to citizen
resistance.

     In general, it appears that stormwater utilities throughout the country have
been successful. In 1988, the Maryland Department of the Environment surveyed
nineteen stormwater utilities nationwide.14 Representives of these utilities were
asked to rank their operations as to whether they are very successful, successful,
somewhat successful or not successful. Of the sixteen utilities that answered this
question, seven utilities were ranked as very successful, seven were ranked successful



                                        38







         and only two were ranked somewhat successful. None of the responding utilities
         were ranked as not successful.

         Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Fee

 3           ~~~The nonpoint source pollution control fee is a financing technique that has
         been proposed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). This
         approach is similar to a stormwater utility in that a base fee is assessed to most
I     ~ ~property owners. It differs from a utility in that it is administered by the state and
         revenues are used solely for NPS pollution control, and not for drainage control.
         Another difference is that this technique imposes a financial disincentive on
         landowners that are causing significant NPS pollution.
              Under the Washington DOE scheme, most property owners would pay a $12
I      ~ ~per year fee that would be collected via special assessments on property tax
         statements. These revenues would be used to finance local and state NPS control
         programs. A $75 per year avoidable surcharge would be assessed to landowners
I     ~ ~with onsite septic systems or livestock operations. This surcharge could be avoided if
         landowners can certify that septic systems are in good working order and that BMVPs
         are used to control animal waste. In addition, an annual $6 per parcel surcharge
         would be assessed to urban landowners which could be avoided if stormwater
         stormwater management program, this surcharge would be removed. Although this
            proramisproposed to be implemented on the state level. in Washington, it may be
           feaibl toimplement such a program at the local level.

              Because this strategy Is still in the development stage in Washington state, its
         feasibility remains to be seen. A foreseeable problem with this approach is that it is
         inequitable. All property owners with similar land uses would pay the same base fee
I     ~ ~regardless of parcel size or intensity of land use. For this reason, this approach is
         likely to be politically unacceptable.  It is likely that the cost of conducting the
         certiification required for avoiding the $75 per year surcharge will exceed the
I     ~ ~surcharge itself. This would offer little incentive for compliance. Another problem
         with this approach is that, in Virginia, it would require state enabling legislation.













                                                39








      RECOMMENDED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING STRATEGY

     There is no single stormwater management financing strategy that could
comprehensively address the specific needs of all local governments. Localities have
differing stormwater management approaches and financial needs. They also have
differing drainage infrastructures, mixes and intensities of land uses, and political
considerations. They may also be subject to different state and federal stormwater
management regulations. All of these variables will dictate the most appropriate
type of financing strategy. However, based on the analysis presented in this report,
HRPDC staff recommends a strategy which combines several financing techniques
which appear to have the greatest potential for efficiently and equitably meeting
local stormwater financing needs. Although wholesale adoption of this strategy
may not be appropriate for most localities, it should be considered as a starting point
for the development of community-specific approaches. This recommendation is
consistent with stormwater financing strategies developed by CDM for the City of
Virginia Beach and by the Northern Virginia Planning District for the Occoquan
watershed. 15,16

     Central to any stormwater management financing strategy is a stormwater
management master plan which accomplishes the following:

         guides both the immediate and long-term construction, operations and
         maintenance of stormwater management facilities;

         establishes structural and non-structural programs that control both the
         quantity and quality of runoff; and,

         addresses state and federal stormwater management and NPS pollution
         control mandates.

Such a plan is crucial to the development of a financing strategy as well as a budget
which accurately reflect current and long-term stormwater management costs. In
addition, contested stormwater management financing strategies are more likely to
be upheld if they are based on a master plan.

     The HRPDC staff recommends the use of a combination of financing
mechanisms to meet both existing and anticipated stormwater management needs.
The core of this approach would be a stormwater management utility. A utility
could, depending on the content of state enabling legislation and the structure of
local utility programs, meet the costs associated with federal and state NPS pollution
control mandates as well as ongoing stormwater management needs. It can also be
a relatively equitable approach as long as the selected rate'structure provides a
defensible means of proportionately allocating costs to the contributors of runoff. A
utility would ultimately be used to support the issuance of revenue bonds which
would provide funds for certain large-scale capital improvements that exceed the
capacity of the utility fund. Perhaps the greatest advantage of a stormwater utility is


                                      40








that it can provide stability and self-sufficiency to a stormwater management
program. This allows for more long-term, comprehensive planning to occur.

     During the time required for a utility to be developed and, once a utility is
implemented, to entirely phase out general fund contributions, a locality will
continue to depend on the general fund and general obligation bonds to fund
stormwater management activities. Stormwater utilities designed for several
municipalities in Florida were set up to phase out general fund contributions in two
to five years. 17

     Developing localities are also encouraged to establish a pro-rata share
payment program through which developers in developing areas would pay their
proportionate share of regional stormwater management facilities. Such a program
is currently allowed under State law and would provide up-front construction money
which could eventually be supplemented by stormwater utility revenues.



































                                      41








  U                    ~~~~~IMPLEMENTATION OF A STORMWATER UTILITY

             This section provides a brief overview of the procedure to be followed and the
        factors to be considered in implementing a stormwater utility. It is important to
        note that, in Virginia, the structure and functions of local stormwater utilities will be
        dependent on the content of enabling legislation. The bibliography cites a number
        of additional publications that provide further information on stormwater utility
        implementation.

        GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

*           ~~~The following recommended planning procedure should be followed in
        conjunction with an overall master planning process to develop and implement a
        stormwater utility:

              1 . Document the need for additional revenues to finance stormwater
                  management.

              2.  Determine present and estimate future financing needs and determine
                  which needs can be realistically met by a stormwater utility.

              3.  identify and resolve legal constraints which may impede development of a
                  utility.

              4.  Evaluate alternative rate structures and select a simple but equitable rate
                  structure that is appropriate for the locality.

              5.  Develop a strategic plan which will guide the expenditure of funds
                  collected through the utility.

              6.  Develop an effective public relations program to facilitate public
  *              ~~~~~acceptance of a utility.

              7.  Develop a billing system.

 *           ~~~~8.  Determine organization and staffing needs.

              9.  Prepare an ordinances) which will establish the utility.

              Although the time required to implement the above planning process will vary
         depending on the community, the experience of existing utilities indicates that a
I      ~ ~stormwater utility can be implemented in twelve to eighteen months.  Many
         communities retain consultants to assist in the development of a utility. Consultant
         services are most often required for master planning and the development of billing

         systems.


                                                42








     Once implemented, a utility program should be evaluated after a year or two,
and adjustments should be made to ensure that the rate structure is fair and that it
generates the revenues necessary to meet stormwater management needs.

ESTABLISHING A RATE STRUCTURE

     Stormwater utilities have been implemented in numerous communities
throughout the United States. These utilities finance a range of activities and use a
variety of rate structures. Selection of an appropriate rate structure for a utility will
depend on local conditions and policies, and a careful evaluation of options that are
being employed elsewhere. Ideally, a rate structure will be designed so that the sum
of the charges for all parcels plus other sources of revenues to a utility will equal
calculated revenue requirements.

     The following is a discussion of typical approaches to developing rate
structures. For more information on establishing utility rate structures, the reader is
referred to the documents cited in the bibliography, especially those published by
CDM and the Maryland Department of the Environment.

     Stormwater utility charges are typically based on a rate factor that expresses a
parcel's runoff potential and its consequent burden on a municipal drainage system.
In reality, runoff potential is a function of a combination of many factors including
total site area, imperviousness, soil, slope, etc. However, in developing stormwater
utility rate structures, imperviousness is the only factor that can be used with any
practicality. Rate factors are usually derived in two basic ways: (1) the application of
Rational Method runoff coefficients developed for discrete land use categories, or
(2) the measurement or estimation of impervious area for each parcel. The second
approach is the most commonly used and is discussed below. However, a number of
existing utilities use a combination of both approaches. An alternative would be to
link rates to the amount of a particular pollutant, such as sediment, generated on a
parcel. This approach would seem to be impractical due to the lack of reliable data
and the difficulty and expense associated with obtaining such data.

     In estimating runoff potential as a function of measured or estimated
impervious area, estimates may be based on either total parcel imperviousness or
solely on the directly connected impervious area (DCIA). The DCIA includes those
areas, such as driveways, which drain directly to the municipal drainage system.
Rooftops and patios are not generally included in DCIAs because they drain to
pervious surface (i.e., the lawn)

     The amount of impervious area on a parcel is usually expressed in terms of
"equivalent residential units" (ERUs).18 One ERU represents the average total
imperviousness, or the average DCIA, for residential parcels within a service area.
These averages are generally obtained by digitizing a random sample of residential
parcels from property maps or aerial photos.  Average residential parcel
imperviousness or DCIA can be calculated for single family unit parcels only, or for all


                                        43







                                 FIGURE 2
                 STORMWATER UTILITY RATE STRUCTURE



    * BASE UNIT: FLAT RATE ($/MONTH) FOR EACH
                       "EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT" (ERU)

              * ERU - AVERAGE IMPERVIOUS AREA (SQ. FT.)
                      OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS

     , OTHER LAND USES:
              0 NO. OF ERUS = (IMPERVIOUS AREA) / ERU)



    * EXAMPLE:
              *ERU = 2,500 SQ. FT.
              * FLAT RATE = $2.00 / MONTH /ERU

    SINGLE
    FAMILY               INDUSTRIAL SITE
     UNIT                IMPERVIOUS AREA

    1.0 ERU               1.0 ERU    0.8  Total = 1.8 ERU
                                     ERU   Rate = (1.8 ERU)x($2.00) = $3.00/Month
     /2,500 Sq. FT.


                     COMMERCIAL SITE
                     IMPERVIOUS AREA

                      1.0 ERU 1.0 ERU 0.5
                                    ERU
                                         Total = 5.0 ERU
                                          Rate = (5.0 ERU) X( $2.00) = $10.00 /MONTH
                      1.0 ERU 1.0 ERU 0.5
                                    ERU


Source:   Hartigan, John P. Use of Stormwater Utility to Meet New Water Quality
         Requirements, (Virginia Beach, Virginia: Camp Dresser & McKee, 1989), p. 3.


                                     44                    REVISED: 2/19/91








U        ~~residential parcels (i.e., single family, multi-family, condominiums and mobile
         homes).18 Based on this approach, every single family unit parcel, or every
         residential parcel, is considered to have one ERU and is charged a flat rate. Most
         utilities choose to standardize charges for residential properties because, in most
         communities, the majority of parcels are classified as residential, the intensity of
         development of these parcels is generally similar, and it would be excessively
         -expensive to determine precisely the percentage of impervious area on each parcel.
         Surveys of existing utilities have found that ERU values generally range from $1.00 to
         $4.50.20, 21, 22

               A utility fee for non-residential parcels is based on the number of ERUs on that
         parcel. This is obtained by dividing the measured total impervious area or DCIA of
         that parcel by the assumed average total imperviousness or DCIA for all residential
          parcels. This procedure is illustrated in Figure 2 which outlines an ERU-based rate
3        ~~structure and provides examples of how fees might be assessed for industrial and
         commercial sites. Initially, the imperviousness for each non-residential property will
          have to be measured using property maps and/or aerial photos. Eventually,
3       ~~however, a data base can be built that would facilitate this process by requiring
          impervious area measurements on building permit applications. The calculation of
          impervious area is already required for development occuring within Chesapeake
          Bay Preseration Areas.

            - Some localities have incorporated a fee for undeveloped land in their
I      ~ ~stormwater utility. This fee is generally based on soil characteristics, water table
          depth and, if applicable, type of agricultural use. Fees for undeveloped land are
          generally used in communities with large tracts of undeveloped property or a large
U      ~ ~number of vacant parcels.  This practice is controversial, however.  Owners of
          undeveloped land have argued successfully in court that they should not be charged
          because they have not altered natural conditions.

          BILLING

               Developing a fair and equitable billing system is likely to be the most expensive
          and time consuming process in developing a stormwater utility. The development of
          a billing system includes identifying the customers of a utility, establishing an
I      ~ ~appropriate per unit charge, and generating the standard data necessary to
          calculate, print, mail and collect payment on bills. This process can be particularly
          expensive if parcels have to be mapped or digitized to determine impervious area.
 I      ~ ~Since it is not within the scope of this report to fully investigate the many issues
          associated with the development a utility billing system, only a brief overview of
          some of the major issues is provided. For a more detailed discussion, the reader is
          referred to a 1987 URS report entitled Surface Water Manaclement: The Utility
          Approach.

  3           ~~~To reduce administrative costs and facilitate implementation, a stormwater
          utility bill Is typically "piggybacked" on an existing utility billing system (e.g., water,


                                                  45








sewer, electric and so forth). Other options, which are usually less efficient, include
adding stormwater charges to property tax bills or creating a new, separate billing
system. The type of billing device used will depend on the service areas and the
billing systems of other utilities, the costs associated with the various options, public
perceptions, and the regulations of the State Corporation Commission.

     Existing utilities use a wide variety of billing frequencies. The 1988 Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) survey and a 1990 survey of utilities
conducted by the City of Virginia Beach report that monthly, bimonthly, quarterly,
semiannual and annual billing cycles are commonly used.23 In general, less frequent
billings will result in lower billing costs.

     In order for a stormwater utility to be fair and equitable, all land uses
contributing runoff to a public drainage system should be included in the program.
Utilities often charge properties that are normally exempt from user charges such as
government, church and school properties. It is not uncommon, however, for a
utility to exempt these uses for political reasons. Street rights-of-way are usually
exempt, although some utilities in Washington state have begun charging limited
access highways.24 In some cases, utilities exempt parcels which drain directly to
receiving waters and do not make use of public drainage systems.

     A feature that is common to most utility billing systems is the issuance of credits
or the addition of surcharges to utility fees depending on the characteristics of a
parcel. Credits may be issued to properties that provide on-site stormwater
management. A surcharge may be imposed on parcels located in a floodplain
because they receive additional benefits. Surcharges may also be levied in specific
watersheds which have a greater need for the maintenance of existing facilities or
for the construction of new facilities.

ADMINISTRATION

     The MDE survey found that stormwater utilities are most often administered by
utility departments.25 In most cases, however, it was found that utility department
administrators report to the directors of public works which implies some
management responsibility by public works departments. Other agencies with
direct utility management responsibilities include public works, environmental
services, engineering, public services, the city manager's office, and new
departments that were specifically formed to administer stormwater utilities.

     A locality may elect to establish a Stormwater Management Board to oversee
the utility program. Specific responsibilities of this Board would include identifying
stormwater management problems, developing long range master plans,
determining utility charges, and hearing any petitions or appeals. Such boards are
typically comprised of five to seven members who are appointed by the governing
body.



                                       46









IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

     The 1988 MDE survey found that total costs to implement a utility ranged from
$15,000 to $785,000, while per capita implementation costs ranged from $0.44 to
$6.67.26 The reported estimated costs were developed in different ways and, in
some cases, are over ten years old. Therefore, the MDE cautions that they should be
used only as rough approximations of the costs to implement a utility.

PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE

     There are several obstacles to public acceptance of local stormwater utilities.
Securing public acceptance will depend on a locality's ability to adequately educate
citizens about the problem and convince them of the merits of the proposed
solution. A well designed stormwater utility program is also essential for public
acceptance. A utility rate structure and billing system must be fair and reasonable
and bear a clear relationship to the costs of services and facilities. Excessive user
charges will, more than any other factor, kill a utility proposal.

     The general public is always wary of local government proposals to increase
revenues. Raising money specifically for drainage and NPS pollution control may be
particularly difficult due to common public perceptions regarding stormwater
management. Some of the perceptions are summarized as follows:

     0   Most people view stormwater management as~a-government service to
         solve a public problem, not a service that they use to manage runoff that
         they themselves generate.

     0   In semi-rural developing areas, the natural system has been traditionally
         used to convey, store and discharge stormwater runoff. Citizens may
         question the funding of stormwater quality control facilities when it seems
         that the natural system is adequately handling runoff.

     a Upstream landowners may question the funding of downstream
         improvements when they do not benefit. Conversely, downstream
         landowners may object to paying for improvements when it is upstream
         properties that are causing the problems.

     *   Existing property owners may object to paying for stormwater
         management facilities that are required as a result of new development.

     These perceptions can be countered by emphasizing the importance of a
comprehensive stormwater management program in assuring a high quality of life
for all residents, regardless of how long they have lived in a community or where
they live in a watershed. Community-wide stormwater management benefits
include the following:



                                       47







              *   Maintaining adequate water quality in receiving streams to protect the
                  viability of aquatic resources and to protect the aesthetic and recreational
                  qualities of waterways.

                * Keeping streets open to emergency vehicle traffic, and for the conduct of
                  business.

              ï¿½ Maintaining stormwater management facilities so they do not become
  I             ~ ~~~~health or safety hazards.
              *   Promoting the use of stormwater management facilities for recreational
                  purposes.
              A number of techniques can be employed to promote and educate citizens
I      ~ ~about stormwater utilities. These include public meetings, the creation of citizen
         advisory boards, the mailing of information brochures to property owners, and the
         purchase of advertisements in newspapers or on radio and television.

         REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION

 3           ~~~One long-term option deserving consideration is the implementation of a
         regional stormwater utility. Utilities serving multiple jurisdictions have been
         implemented successfully in several areas of the country.27 Existing regional utilities
I      ~ ~typically serve a city and the urbanized portion of an adjacentcounties. In Hampton
         Roads, regional service agencies that might have the capability to develop and
         implement a stormwater utility for all or part of the region include the Hampton
I      ~ ~Roads Sanitation District, the Southeastern Public Service Authority, of the Virginia
         Peninsula Public Service Authority.

 I           ~~~The formation of a regional stormwater utility might be of value in several
         situations. Two or more localities sharing a common watershed might form a utility
         to address mutual flooding problems or to manage the water quality of the
I      ~ ~receiving stream.  A regional utility may also be of benefit in meeting certain
         requirements that are common to all localities required to comply with state and
         federal mandates. For example, significant economies of scale might be achieved by
I      ~ ~conducting the sampling, analysis and illicit connection screening requirements of
         the EPA NPDES stormwater permitting regulations on a regional basis. Master
         planning, the development of region-wide stormwater management standards and
          gidelines, technical assistance in complying with state and federal mandates, and
         public education are other activities that might be undertaken by a regional utility.

 *           ~~~~A disadvantage to a regional approach is that there are currently no utilities
         that serve the entire region so that it is likely that a new billing system would have to
*       ~~be created.




                                                48








                REVENUE POTENTIAL OF STORMWATER UTILITIES

     The revenues generated by a stormwater utility can be significant.  By
implementing a utility, it is not uncommon for local stormwater management
programs to experience a three to five fold increase in revenues over previous
general fund appropriations.28 A study conducted by the MDE estimated that a
stormwater utility, depending on its structure, could generate from $4.9 to $23.0
million per year in Prince Georges County, Maryland. This revenue would greatly
benefit the County's stormwater management program which currently costs
approximately $11 million annually.29

     A 1989 CDM study estimated that a $2.00 per ERU per month utility charge
assessed by a locality with a population of between 100,000 and 250,000 can fund all
local programs required by new water quality management regulations.
Specifically, it was estimated that this rate structure could not only meet the cost of
submitting an NPDES permit application, but could also increase the area served by
new regional BMPs by one to two square miles per year.30

     Table 6, which is adapted from the MDE survey, shows utility charges and
revenues for twenty-one existing utilities. It includes number of accounts, the typical
monthly utility charge for a single family residence, and the revenues solely from
user charges as well as the total utility revenues derived from all sources. Most
utilities depend on revenues from sources other than user charges. These sources
may include regulatory and development fees, speci~al benefit assessments,
interfund transfers, interest from investments, and state and federal grants. As can
be seen from Table 6, user charges can account for anywhere from 82% to 100% of
total utility revenues.























                                      49









                                                TABLE 6

                                 UTILITY CHARGES AND REVENUES1

                                                                                                 Charges
                                      Typical         Utility         SFR                       As Percent
                                      Monthly        Revenue       Charges          Total         of Total
                    Number of           SFR 2          From        as Percent       Utility        Utility
     Utility         Accounts          Charge         Charges       of Charges      Revenues      Revenues

Ann Arbor, MI          21,175           $1.52         $932,244          NA          $932,244        100%

Auburn, WA              7,000           $2.00        $820,000          15%          $820,000        100%

Austin, TX           203,000            $1.30       $4,300,000        63%         $4,300,000        100%

Bellevue, WA          24,000            $7.45       $4,100,000        46%         $4,100,000        100%

Billings, MT          26,000           $1.74       $1,302,815           NA        $1,302,815        100%

Boulder, CO             25,00          $4.03        $1,536,000          NA        $1,536,000        100%

Cincinnati, OH       100,000            $1.28       $4,300,000          NA        $4,480,000        95%

Corvallis, OR          11,000           $2.15        $560,000         50%           $560,000        100%

 Everett, WA           60,000           $1.83       $1,925,000           NA        $1,925,000       100%

Ft. Collins, CO       25,000           $1.80       $4,600,000           NA        $4,750,000        96%

 Kent, WA                6,000          $2.50       $2,500,000           NA        $2,500,000       100%

 Louisville, KY       184,571           $1.75       $8,200,000           NA        $8,337,000        98%

 Medford, OR            15,600          $2.95       $1,200,000           NA        $1,460,000        82%

Montpelier, VT          1,700           $3.00          $75,000        78%            $75,000        100%

Portland, OR         157,370            $3.45     $10,471,000         37%        $10,471,000        100%

Renton, WA             10,282          $2.50       $1,200,000         21%         $1,200,000        100%

Roseville, MN          10,000           $1.07        $532,342           NA          $594,257        89%

Seattle, WA           178,000           $2.64       $8,500,000        50%         $8,700,000        97%

Tacoma, WA             62,450           $2.30       $2,231,400          NA        $2,400,000        92%

Vancouver, WA          21,000           $1.40         $482,500          NA          $482,500        100%

Wooster, OH               NA            $2.90               NA          NA                NA         NA

1 Results of telephone survey conducted by the Maryland Department of the Environment in June 1990.
2SFR = Single Family Residential, also know as Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU).
NA - Not Available

Source: Maryland Department of Environment, Stormwater Management Administration, 1990.






                                                    50








                      STORMWATER UTILITY ORDINANCE

     The previous chapter outlines a planning procedure for developing a
stormwater utility. This procedure concludes with the development of an ordinance
to implement a utility. Such an ordinance would specify the scope, administration,
rate structure, billing system and other aspects of a utility.

     The following model ordinance has been developed to guide local
governments in establishing stormwater utilities.  Because of the wide diversity
among communities with respect to stormwater control needs, financing needs,
administrative functions and political philosophies, this ordinance does not
recommend a specific rate structure or billing system. The model ordinance will have
to be revised and supplemented to suit local needs. Also, the content of the
ordinance will be governed by state enabling legislation, assuming such legislation is
passed by the 1991 Virginia General Assembly. Under no circumstances should the
model ordinance be adopted verbatim.

     In some cases, a stand alone ordinance may not be necessary. Stormwater
utility regulations may be incorporated in existing stormwater management
ordinances or in other ordinances that address the collection of user charges.

     The following was adapted from a model ordinance prepared by the Maryland
Department of-the Environment in 1988. The MDE ordinance was based on twenty
stormwater utility ordinances used in communities throughout the country.

MODEL ORDINANCE

Sec. 1.    FINDINGS, INTENT AND AUTHORITY

Sec. 1.1.  Findings. The (local Cgovernment council/board) finds that:

      (a) The (local qovernment) maintains a system of stormwater management
          facilities which includes inlets, conduits, manholes, channels, ditches,
          drainage easements, retention and detention basins, infiltration facilities,
          and other components as well as all natural waterways.
      (b) The stormwater system has received inadequate maintenance and is in a
          state of disrepair.
      (c) Water quality is degrading due to erosion and the discharge of pollutants
           into and through the stormwater system.
      (d) The (local Covernment) is faced with a variety of state and federal
           mandates to control nonpoint source pollution.
      (e) The public health, safety and welfare is adversely affected by poor water
           quality and flooding that results from inadequate management of both
           the quantity and quality of stormwater.
      (f) The (local covernment) is exposed to the possibility of costly litigation
           due to the state of disrepair of the existing system and the potential for


                                       51








         floods that can cause property damage, personal injury, and impede the
         movement of emergency vehicles.
     (g) Every parcel of real property, both public and private, either uses or
         benefits from the maintenance of the stormwater system.
     (h) Current and anticipated growth in the (local government) will contribute
         to and increase the need for improvement and maintenance of the
         stormwater system.
     (i) The extent of use of the stormwater system by each property is
         dependent on factors that influence runoff including land use and
         intensity of development, amount of impervious surface, and location of
          property within a watershed.
     (j)  Property owners should finance stormwater. management to the extent
         that they contribute to the need for it.
     (k) The (local government) needs to better define responsibilities for
         stormwater management, to improve planning for stormwater
          management, and to ensure that the true costs of stormwater
          management are reflected in the capital improvements program and the
          operating budget.
      (I) Management of the stormwater system to protect the public health,
          safety and welfare will require increased revenues.
      (m) It is in the interest of the public to consolidate responsibility for
          management of the stormwater system within a single agency, to initiate
          long range master planning, to undertake water quality management
          and stormwater facility maintenance activities, and to finance
          stormwater management adequately with a user charge system that is
          reasonable and equitable so that each user of the system pays to the
          extent to which he contributes to the need for it.

Sec. 1.2.  Intent. With the passage of this ordinance, it is the intent of the (local
          Government board/council) to promote the health, safety and welfare by:

      (a) Creating a stormwater management utility to manage the stormwater
          system.
      (b) Consolidating responsibility for all stormwater management activities in
          the (local government aqency).
      (c) Preparing long range plans for stormwater management for each water
          basin in the (local government).
      (d) Undertaking regular maintenance for all public stormwater management
          facilities and requiring annual inspections of all private facilities.
      (e) Financing stormwater management through imposition of user charges
          for each piece of real property that uses the stormwater system.
      (f) Setting charges such that the fees paid be each user reflect the extent to
          which the user creates a need for the system and such that the fees bear a
          substantial relationship to the cost of service.
      (g) Creating a rate structure based on the intensity of land use and the
          amount of impervious area on each property that is fair and equitable, is


                                      52







          simple to understand and can be administered easily, will generate
          sufficient revenues.

Sec. 1.3.  Authority.  Authority for creation of this stormwater utility and the
          imposition of charges to finance stormwater management is conferred in
          (State Code provision) which states:

                           (Insert State Code Citation)

          The provisions of this Ordinance are adopted under the authority of the
          (local cGovernment) Code and shall apply to all real properties within the
          area of the (local qovernment). The application of this Ordinance and the
          provisions expressed herein shall not be deemed a limitation or a repeal
          of any other powers granted by State statute.

Sec. 2.    DEFINITIONS

          For the Purposes of this Ordinance, the following definitions are
          adopted:

         (Insert Definitions of Key Words and Phrases Found in Ordinance)

Sec. 3.    CREATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF UTILITY

Sec. 3.1.  Establishment of Stormwater Management Utility. In accordance with all
          applicable laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the (local qovernment
          council/board) hereby establishes a Stormwater Management Utility with
          the authority to determine and levy charges for stormwater
          management. The Utility will be in the (local qovernment aqencv) under
          the control of the (local qovernment aqencv administrator).

Sec. 3.2.  Boundaries and Jurisdiction.  The boundaries of the Utility will be
          (boundaries of local iurisdiction(s)) or (such watersheds within the
          boundaries of the local jurisdiction as identified by the local aqency
          administrator and approved by the local covernment council/board).

Sec. 3.3.  Creation of Stormwater Management Board (optional). To assist with
          management of the Utility, the (local covernment council/board) hereby
          establishes a Stormwater Management Board to provide advice to the
          (local Covernment council/board) concerning all aspects of the program.
          The board shall consist of from five to seven members as determined by
          the (local covernment council/board). The (local covernment
          council/board) shall appoint all members. Terms of members shall be
          four years, except that initial appointments shall be made in such a way
          that terms overlap.



                                      53








Sec. 3.4.  Duties of the Board (optional).  The Board shall provide advice and
          recommendations on all aspects of the management and operation of the
          Utility including:

      (a) Identification of stormwater management problems.
      (b) Development of a long range master plan for stormwater management,
          including priorities for implementation of capital improvements.
      (c) Determination of Utility charges.
      (d) Any petitions or appeals by users of the system who contest levels of
          charges or request waivers or exemptions from charges.

Sec. 3.5.  Utility Administration. The (local government acency administrator) shall
          have responsibility for implementing all aspects of the Utility including
          long range planning, plan implementation, capital improvements,
          maintenance of stormwater facilities, determination of Utility charges,
          billing, enforcement of applicable stormwater management ordinances,
          and hearing of appeals and petitions. The (local covernment aqencï¿½
          administrator) will also have responsibility for providing staff support to
          the (local covernment council/board) and the Stormwater Management
          Board. Such responsibility will be delegated to those agencies and staff
          within the (local Clovernment) administration best equipped to perform a
          particular task. In the event that an agency or department other than the
          one in which the Utility is located is best equipped to undertake a
          particular task, the (local qovernment aqency administrator) shall ensure
          that appropriate interagency charges are determined such that all costs
          of stormwater management are reflected in the Utility budget and that
           Utility charges finance all aspects of stormwater management.

Sec. 3.6.  Scope of Utility Responsibility.  The (local qovernment council/board)
           hereby transfers all components of the stormwater system presently
           maintained by other agencies within the (local covernment)
           administration to the Utility. The Utility shall have responsibility for
           planning, development, and maintenance of the stormwater system. The
           Utility shall be responsible for all additions to the stormwater system
           constructed with public funds.

           With respect to new stormwater management facilities constructed by
           private entities, the (local qovernment aqencv administrator) shall
           develop criteria for use in determining whether facilities will be
           maintained by the Utility, by the private entity that constructed them or
           by property owners. In general, preferences shall be given to public
           maintenance of new facilities, particularly for those facilities designed to
           provide water quality benefits. In situations where it is determined that
           public maintenance is not preferable, standards shall be developed to
           ensure that the inspection and maintenance of facilities occurs as needed.



                                        54









Sec. 4.    MASTER STORMWATER PLAN (optional)

          The (local government council/board) hereby requires the (local
          government agency administrator) to prepare a Master Stormwater
          Management Plan for each water basin in the (local government). The
          Plan shall establish goals for stormwater management and shall be the
          basis for determining all future activities, including capital improvements
          and maintenance activities, which are undertaken by the Utility. The
          Utility shall not undertake any activities that are not recommended in the
          Plan.

          In general, the Plan shall include an inventory of all existing stormwater
          management facilities an identification of alternative actions that the
          Utility can undertake to achieve stormwater quality and quantity goals,
          and the costs of such alternatives. The Plan shall include such maps as
          necessary to show the locations of facilities and alternatives by basin.
          Projects or facilities that are proposed should clearly be linked to
          projected improvements in water quality and flooding and shall reflect
          State and federal regulations and guidelines. The Plan shall include
          benefit cost analyses and cost-effectiveness criteria which can be used to
          compare alternatives. Where they exist, existing planning documents for
          individual basins may be consolidated as part of the Master Plan.

          The Plan shall be submitted to the (local government council/board) for
          approval not more than one year following establishment of the Utility.
          The (local government aclencv administrator) shall periodically update
          the Plan at intervals established by the (local government council/board).

Sec. 5 .   STORMWATER USER CHARGES

Sec. 5.1    Creation and Purpose of Stormwater Charges.  The (local government
           council/board) hereby establishes stormwater user charges to finance all
           Utility activities. Necessary activities generally are those identified in the
           Master Plan and at minimum shall be identified as administrative,
           operations and maintenance, and capital improvements. Such charges
           shall be paid by each user of the stormwater system and will reflect the
           extent to which the user creates a need for the system. The charges will
           bear a substantial relationship to the cost of service for the property. The
           rate structure shall be fair and equitable, simple and easy to administer,
           and generate sufficient revenues to fund necessary Utility activities.

           Use of charges is limited to those purposes for which the Utility has been
           established, including but not limited to: planning; acquisition of
           interests in land and real property, including easements; design and
           construction of facilities including debt service and related financing
           expenses; maintenance of the stormwater system; billing and


                                        55








  U               ~~~~administration; and water quality management, including monitoring,
                   surveillance, private maintenance Inspection, construction inspection,
  I              ~ ~~~~and any other activities. If the (local government agencv administrator)
                   determines that capital charges shall differ among basins, it shall be
                   required that capital expenditures from the Utility fund relate to the
  3               ~~~~particular basin from which the fees were collected.  It shall not be
                   required, however, that expenditures for administration, and operations
                   and maintenance relate to the particular basin from which the fees were
  3               ~~~~~collected.

                   Such charges may be increased periodically, if, in the judgement of the
                   (local government councillboard), increases are needed to achieve
                   stormwater management goals. Updates of the Master Plan shall include
                   estimates of the magnitude of increases in charges that would result from
                   implementation of the Plan.

         Sec. 5.2. Calculation of Fees in General. The (local government agency
                   administrator) shall establish a method of calculating charges and a rate
                   structure based on land use and impervious surface on each property.
                   Prior to implementation of the Utility, the (local government aglency
                   administrator) shall submit the proposed rate structure to the (local
                   government council/board) for approval.

                    (Insert Description of Locally Derived Fee Calculation Formula)


3       ~~Sec. 5.3.  Standardized Residential Charges. The (local government council/board)
                   finds that most parcels of real property are classified as single family
                   residential, that the intensity of development of these parcels is similar,
  3               ~~~~~and that it would be excessively and unnecessarily expensive to determine
                   precisely the percentage of impervious area on each parcel. Therefore,
                   the (local glovernment councilfboard) directs the (local government
  I             ~ ~~~agency administrator) to standardize charges for all single family
                   residential parcels. The standard single family residential charge will be a
                   flat fee based on average imperviousness derived from a representative
  I             ~ ~~~~sample of single family residential parcels. The (local government agencv
                   administrator) may establish classes of single family residential users
                   based on total parcel area if doing so would better reflect contribution to
  I             ~ ~~~~runoff and would result in more equitable charges.
         S ec. 5.4. Charges in the Event of Multiple Owners. In the case of multiple owners
  3               ~~~~~or occupants of proper-ties where each owner/occupant receives utility
                   services from his own meter, such as condominiums and supermarkets,
                   the mathematical average of the number of owners/occupants and the
                   size of the parcel of land will be used to calculate each stormwater utility
                   charge. If there are significant differences in the total area owned or


                                                 56








          occupied by any owner or occupant, the (local covernment aqency
          administrator) shall consider the relative contributions to runoff in
          determining the allocation of the total charge to the owners/occupants.

Sec. 5.5.  Charges for Public Properties. The (local government council/board) finds
          that all real property owned and maintained by various local, state and
          federal governmental units contributes to runoff and the stormwater
          management problem. Public properties, including streets and rights-of-
          way and properties owned by other local units such as school districts, are
          to be charged as if they were private properties. In the case of properties
          owned by the (local covernment), such charges will be paid from the
          general fund and deposited in the Stormwater Utility Fund. In the case of
          properties owned by other local governments, or state and federal
          governments, intergovernmental charges will be levied.

Sec. 5.6.  Watershed Management Areas. If in the Plan, significant differences in
          capital requirements are found to exist in different water basins, and the
          (local qovernment aqencv administrator) determines that different
          capital fees should be established for each basin, he shall designate such
          basins as Watershed Management Areas and conduct public hearings to
          inform basin residents of the designation and of the intent to impose
          differential charges.

Sec. 6.    STORMWATER FUND

Sec. 6.1.  New Stormwater Fund.  The (local covernment council/board) hereby
          directs the (local Clovernment aqencv administrator) to establish a
          separate enterprise fund called the Stormwater Utility Fund to be used
          exclusively for the purpose of the Utility. All revenues received by the
           Utility shall be deposited into the Fund. All disbursements from the Fund
          will be for expenditures for stormwater management authorized by (local
          qovernment aqencï¿½ administrator) in accordance with all applicable laws,
           regulations and policies.

Sec. 6.2.  Interagency Charges.  As is necessary, the (local government agency
           administrator) shall develop a procedure for implementing and
           accounting for interagency charges such that all expenditures for the
           purpose of stormwater management are paid for by revenues from Utility
           charges. Examples of the types of expenditures that should be accounted
           for by interagency charges, and paid for by Utility revenues, include legal
           fees, billing expenses, and general administrative and accounting
           expenses.  In addition, the procedure shall include provisions to insure
           that charges to the general fund for runoff from public properties are
           credited to the Utility Fund.




                                       57









Sec. 7 .   CREDITS, EXEMPTIONS AND SURCHARGES

Sec. 7.1   Credits for On-site Management.  The (local covernment aqency
          administrator) shall develop and administer procedures whereby users of
          the stormwater system can receive credit for on-site control of
          stormwater runoff. Such credit will consist of partial exemption from user
          charges. Precise determination of the magnitude of the credit will
          depend in part on calculations made by the (local qovernment aqencï¿½
          administrator) on the extent of the control provided by the user. The
          (local government acencv administrator) shall consider the degree of
          control of both quantity and quality of stormwater when determining
          credits. In addition, the (local covernment aclency administrator) shall
          consider future responsibility for maintenance when determining credits
          (see Section 3.6). In no case, shall the user charges be reduced to the
          amount less than the standard single family residential charge.

          Such credits shall remain in effect so long as the owner of such systems
          has obtained the proper permits and constructed the facilities in
          accordance with plans approved by the (local qovernment acgency), the
          owner remains responsible for all costs of operation and maintenance of
          the system, and the (local qovernment aqencv administrator) has access
          for inspection of the system to determine if it is in compliance with the
          system's design and maintenance standards and functioning properly

Sec. 7.2.  Exemptions from Charges (optional).  Notwithstanding any local
          ordinances which exempt certain parcels from having to implement
          stormwater controls, all properties except those listed below will be liable
          for payment of stormwater charges.

      (a) Wetlands, ponds, and other natural water courses that serve as
          components of the stormwater management system.
      (b) Public parks that have been developed to include no impervious area and
          are predominantly in their natural state.
      (c) Agricultural land.
      (d) Undeveloped land.

Sec. 7.3.  Surcharges for Parcels in Floodplains (optional). Properties lying within
          the historical 100 year floodplain may be flooded despite activities
          undertaken by the Utility. Costs to serve and protect such properties
          generally will exceed costs to serve and protect other properties. Because
          costs to protect these parcels will be greater, a surcharge shall be levied
          on them. The (local covernment aqencv administrator) shall undertake
          studies to determine the increase in costs necessary to serve and protect
          these properties and shall recommend to the (local government
          council/board) a surcharge stated in terms of the percentage of the
          general Utility charge fora similar parcel not in the 100yearfloodplain.


                                       58









Sec. 8. BILLING

              (Insert Description of Locally Developed Billing System)

Sec. 9.    ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES

Sec. 9.1.  Enforcement. The (local qovernment agency administrator) is authorized
          to use the full powers of the (local government) to enforce provisions of
          this ordinance. In the event that any user fails to pay the charges
          specified herein, the (local government agency administrator) shall take
          whatever legal steps necessary to collect such charges. Unpaid charges
          shall constitute a lien against the property affected. Charges which have
          not been paid for a period of six months prior to (date of issuance of
          property taxes) of any year may, after notice to the property owner and
          by resolution of the (local covernment council/board), be certified to the
          (local government assessor), who shall place the charges on the next tax
          bill. Alternatively, the (local government council/board) may direct the
          (local government attorney) to file suit and to collect unpaid charges.

Sec. 9.2.  Penalties (optional). Any persons convicted of violating the provisions of
          this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
          thereof, shall be subject to a fine of (specify amount) or imprisonment not
           exceeding (specify period), or both. In addition, the (local government
           council/board) may institute injunctive relief, mandamus or other
           appropriate action or proceedings at law or equity for the enforcement
           of this Ordinance or to correct violations of this Ordinance, and any court
           of competent jurisdiction shall have the right to issue restraining orders,
           temporary or permanent, injunctions, or mandamus or other appropriate
           forms of remedy or relief.

Sec. 10.   APPEALS

           Any person aggrieved by an action of the (local government agency
           administrator), who believes that stormwater charges have been imposed
           without basis or have been determined incorrectly, shall have the right of
           appeal and may petition the (local hearing examiner) for a hearing to
           contest such charges. The appeal shall be filed in writing within (time
           frame) of the date of official notification or transmittal of the contested
          -determination by the (local government agency administrator).  The
           petitioner shall state clearly the grounds on which the appeal is based.
           The appeal shall be processed in the manner prescribed for hearing
           administrative appeals under (local or state code provision).






                                        59








Sec. 11.   SEVERABILITY

          If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
          Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court
          of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
          distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the
          validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance.

Sec. 12.   FLOODS AND LIABILITY

          Floods from stormwater runoff may occasionally occur which exceed the
          capacity of the stormwater system maintained and financed with Utility
          charges. This Ordinance does not imply that properties subject to charges
          shall always be free from flooding or flood damage, or that all flood
          control projects to control runoff can be constructed cost-effectively.
          Nothing whatsoever in this Ordinance shall deem the (local covernment,
          local qovernment council/board, local government aqency administrator,
          or local covernment aqency staff) liable for any damage incurred in a
          flood or from adverse water quality. Nothing in this Ordinance purports
          to reduce the need or necessity for flood insurance.






























                                       60








                                 CONCLUSION


     In the 1990s, local governments will be faced with new stormwater
management responsibilities and challenges. Not only must they continue to
develop and maintain facilities to ensure adequate storm drainage, but they must
also comply with state and federal mandates to manage nonpoint source pollution.
There is little argument that local NPS control programs are needed. The water
quality impacts of urban runoff are well documented.  Unfortunately, these
mandates have been passed on to local governments at a time when all levels of
government are experiencing severe fiscal problems. Consequently, little or no
funding assistance has been made available to implement the state and federal
requirements. Not only must local governments make up for the lack of state and
federal funding assistance, but, due to their own fiscal crises, localities are under
pressured to shift general fund revenues away from stormwater management to
other public services that are viewed as having a higher priority.

     It is evident that local governments must develop new strategies for financing
stormwater management. The HRPDC staff has recommended an approach that
centers on the implementation of a stormwater utility. A stormwater utility offers a
solution that, if properly implemented, is fair and equitable and provides a continual
and secure source of revenue that can be used for the full range of stormwater
management activities. Once established a utility can be used to leverage funds for
other financing mechanisms such as revenue bonds or matching grants.

     Crucial to the successful implementation of a stormwater utility is a stormwater
master plan. Such a plan will justify the need for additional revenues, help establish
a utility rate structure, and provide a means of ensuring efficient expenditure of
funds generated by a utility. Also important to the establishment of a utility is a
thorough and ongoing public information program that is initiated well in advance
of the start up of a utility. Only with such a program is public acceptance of this
potentially controversial funding mechanism possible.

     Stormwater utilities offer the most effective means of financing both ongoing
drainage needs and state and federal NPS pollution control mandates. It is,
therefore, imperative that local governments have this financing tool at their
disposal. In Virginia, however, localities do not have clear statutory authority to
implement stormwater utilities. A number of Hampton Roads localities, as well as
many other localities throughout the state, have formally requested that the 1991
Virginia General Assembly pass legislation granting local governments this
authority. Such legislation has also been formally endorsed by the Virginia
Municipal League, the Virginia Assocation of Counties and the Virginia Association
of Planning District Commissions.






                                       61







 I            ~~~Without stormwater utility legislation, many local governments will be
         confronted            wihteimpossible task of attempting to meet existing backlogs of
I      ~ ~drainage needs with a declining revenue base, while at the same time attempting to
         address new and costly NPS pollution control requirements.


















          I~~~~~~~~~~~~~6









                              ENDNOTES

1. SDN Market Research, Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of the
    Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act on Tidewater Virqinia Localities, Prepared
    for the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, (Hampton, Virginia:
    SDN, 1989).

2. Telephone conversation with Clay Bernick, Director, Virginia Beach Office of
    Environmental Management.

3. Virginia Beach Office of Budget and Evaluation, 1990.

4.  Sec. 405 (p) (2), Clean Water Act of 1987.

5.  Id. Sec. 405 (p) (3) (B).

6. Telephone Conversation with Fred Holtz, Virginia State Water Control Board,
    January 31, 1991.

7.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR, parts 122, 123, 124, and 504,
    "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application
    Regulations for Stormwater Discharges; Final Rules", Federal Reqclister 49990,
    November 16, 1990, p.48061.

8.  Hartigan, John P., The Use of a Stormwater Utility to Meet New Water
    Quality Requirements, (Virginia Beach, Virginia: Camp Dresser & McKee,
    1989), p.7.

9.  Meyer, BettyJean, Presentation to the Local and State Government
    Infrastructure and Revenue Resources Commission, October 25, 1990.

10. Hartigan, P.7.

11. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Assessment and
    Watershed Protection Division, "California Approves $20 Million SRF Loan
    for Fresno Area Stormwater Management" in EPA Nonpoint Source News-
    Notes, January-February, 1991, No. 10, p. 14.

12.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Assessment and
    Watershed Protection Division, "Jefferson County, WA: First in the Nation to
    Use State Revolving Loan Fund for NPS Management" in EPA Nonpoint
    Source News-Notes, October 1990, No. 8, p. 10-11.

13. Camp Dresser & McKee, Stormwater Manaqement Plan;
    Institutional/Financial/Requlatory Analyses, Prepared for the City of Virginia
    Beach: CDM, 1989), pp. 1-36.


                                   63







14.  Lindsey, Greg, A Survey of Stormwater Utilities, (Dundalk, Maryland:
    Stormwater Management Administration, Maryland Department of the
    Environment, 1988), p. 37.

15.  Camp Dresser & McKee, pp. 1-40 - 1-42

16.  Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, Evaluation of Reqional BMPs
    in the Occoquan Watershed, Prepared for the Occoquan Technical Advisory
    Committee, State Water Control Board, (Annandale, Virginia: NVPDC, 1990),
    pp. 318-3.19.

17.  Hartigan, p. 2.

18. The names of the units used to assess stormwater utility vary widely in the
    literature. A Maryland Department of the Environment survey found the
    term "single family equivalents" to be commonly used by utilities
    throughout the country. Another commonly used term is "equivalent
    residential units".

19. A Camp Dresser & McKee study of 35 stormwater utilities nationwide found
    that the average single family unit contains approximately 2,460 square feet
    of impervious area, and only 30% to 40% is directly connected.

20.  Hartigan, p. 2.

21.  Lindsey, p. 22.

22.  Priede, Nilo, Financinq Stormwater Manaciement in the 1990s and Beyond,
    Jacksonville, Florida: Camp Dresser & McKee, undated, p. 12.

23.  Lindsey, p.14, and the Virginia Beach Office of Budget and Evaluation, 1990.

24.  URS Corporation, Surface Water Manaqement: The Utility Approach, URS
    White Paper, 1987, p. 4.

25.  Lindsey, p. 5.

26.  Lindsey, p. 10.

27. Three in Washington  state (Everett, Seattle/King County  and
    Vancouver/Clark County) and one in Kentucky (Louisville/Jefferson County).

28.  Priede, p. 11.

29.  Lindsey, Greg, Financinq Stormwater Manaqement:  The Utility Approach,
    (Dundalk, Maryland: Stormwater Management Administration, Maryland
    Department of the Environment, 1988), p. 5.

30.  Hartigan, p. 7.


                                   64









                               BIBLIOGRAPHY

Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. Stormwater Manaclement Plan: Executive Summary.
       Prepared for the Department of Public Works, City of Virginia Beach.
       Virginia Beach, Virginia: CDM, 1988.

                Stormwater Manacement Plan: Institutional/Financial/Requlatorv
       Analyses. Prepared for the Department of Public Works, City of Virginia
       Beach. Virginia Beach, Virginia: CDM, 1988.

                  Usinq User Fees to Finance Stormwater Utilities. CDM report.
       Cambridge, Massachusetts: CDM, 1989.

Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. Local Assistance Manual: A Guide for
       the Development of Local Proqrams in Order to Comply with the Chesapeake
       Bay Preservation Act. Richmond, Virginia: CBLAD, 1989.

Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee.  Local Proqrams Survey.
       Washington, D.C.: LGAC, 1990.

Commonwealth of Virginia. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Desicnation and
       Manacement Requlations. Richmond, Virginia: The Commonwealth, 1989.

Dean, Lillian F., Peggy B. Johnson and Phyllis W. Ross. Understandinq Stormwater
       Manaqement: A Primer for Citizens and Local Government Officials.
       Prepared for the Clint River Watershed Council. Utica, Michigan: CRWC,
       1984.

Debo, Thomas N.  "Rapid Urbanization? Don't Forget Storm Drainage" in Public
       Works. March, 1984, pp. 58-60.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
       Protection Division. "Jefferson County, WA: First in the Nation to Use State
       Revolving Loan Fund for NPS Management" in EPA Nonpoint Source News-
       Notes. October, 1990, No. 8, pp. 10-11.

Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton and Tilton, Inc. "Stormwater Questionnaire Summary
       -Transmittal," 1990.

Fletcher, Jeff. "Localities Need Billions for Clean-Up" in Environmental Decisions.
       October, 1990, pp. 17-18.

George, Thomas S., III, John P. Hartigan and Kelly A. Cave. "Water Supply
       Management Plans: Framework for New Federal Stormwater Permitting
       Regulations" in Proceedinqs of the 63rd Annual Water Pollution Control
       Federation Conference. Washington, D.C., 1990.


                                      65









Hartigan, John P. "Regional BMP Master Plans" in Urban Runoff Quality, undated.

                 The Use of a Stormwater Utility to Meet New Water Quality
      Requirements. Virginia Beach, Virginia: Camp Dresser & McKee, 1989.

Johnson, Peggy B. and Lillian F. Dean. Stormwater Manaqement Guidebook for
       Michican Communities. Prepared for the Clint River Watershed Council.
       Utica, Michigan: CRWC, 1987

Lindsey, Greg. A Survey of Stormwater Utilities. Dundalk, Maryland: Maryland
       Department of the Environment, Water Resources Administration, Sediment
       and Stormwater Administration, 1988.

                  Financinq Stormwater Manacement: The Utility Approach.
       Dundalk, Maryland: Maryland Department of the Environment, Water
       Resources Administration, Sediment and Stormwater Administration, 1988.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration,
       Sediment and Stormwater Division. Maintenance of Stormwater
       Manaqement Structures, A Departmental Survey. Dundalk, Maryland: MDE,
       1986.

Maryland Department of the Environment, Sediment and Stormwater
       Administration.  Sample Stormwater Utility Ordinance.  Baltimore,
       Maryland: MDE, 1988.

Morandi, Larry and Tony Huchison.  "Financing Water Quality: Nonpoint Source
       Legislative Options" in State Leqislative Report. Vol. 14, No. 12. September,
       1989.

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. Evaluation of Reqional BMPs in the
       Occoauan Watershed. Prepared for the Occoquan Technical Advisory
       Committee, State Water Control Board. Annandale, Virginia: NVPDC, 1990.

Priede, Nilo. Financinc Stormwater Manaqement in the 1990s and Beyond.
       Jacksonville, Florida: Camp, Dresser & Mckee, updated.

Public Law 100-4. "Water Quality Act of 1987".

Roesner, Larry and Robert Mathews. "Stormwater Management for the 1990s" in
       American City & County. February 1990, 44-54.

URS Corporation. Surface Water Manaqement: The Utility Approach. URS White
       Paper. URS, 1987.





                                     66









SDN Market Research. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Chesapeake Bay
       Preservation Act on Tidewater Virginia Localities.  Prepared for the
       Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department.  Hampton, Virginia: SDN,
       1989.

                .Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
       Act on the Virginia Peninsula. Prepared for the Virginia Peninsula Chamber
       of Commerce. Hampton, Virginia: SDN, 1990.

Smith, Merrill G. "Storm Drainage Utility: What is It?" in Ohio Cities and Villaqes.
       1985, pp. 21-22.

Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning Commission. Stormwater
       Management. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Transportation,
       Division of Water Resources.

Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission.  Regional Stormwater
       Management Strategy for Southeastern Virqinia. Chesapeake, Virginia:
       SVPDC, 1989.

URS Consultants, Inc. Summary of the NPDES Permit Application Requlations for
       Stormwater Discharqes. Virginia Beach, Virginia: URS, 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts, 122, 123 and 124. "National
       Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application Regulation for
       Stormwater Discharges; Final Rule." Federal Register 47990, November 16,
       1990.

U.S. Environmental protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Permits. Notice of
       Proposed Rulemakinq (NPRM) for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
       System (NPDES) permit Application Requirements for Storm Water
       Discharges. Washington, D.C.: EPA, 1988.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water
       Conservation.  Statement on Proposed Stormwater Manacement
       Regulations. Richmond, Virginia: DSWC, undated.

                   Virqinia Nonpoint Source Pollution Manaqement Proqram.
       Richmond, Virginia: DSWC, 1989.


                . VR 215-02-00. "Stormwater Management Regulations." Virginia
       Register, Volume 7, Issue 3, November 5, 1990, p. 363.






                                      67








Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, Office of Local
      Development Programs. Capital Improvement Proqramminq: A Practical
      Guide for Local Governments. Richmond, Virginia: VDHCD, 1986.

Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
       Management Program, Shellfish Unit. A Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
       Fee Proposal. Olympia, WA: WDE, 1990.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Urban Tarqetincl and BMP Selection. Prepared for
      the Environmental Protection Agency (Region V Water Division, Watershed
       Management Unit and the Office of Water Regulations and Standards and
       Permits, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits). Oakland, California:
      Woodward- Clyde Consultants, 1990.





































                                     68



I
I
I
I
I
I
I                                    APPENDIX A
I HRPDC STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING SURVEY

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I












1.   Using the chart below, please list those agencies within your government that are involved in stormwater management and
     indicate their responsibilities by checking the appropriate box(es).


 Administrative                   Master    Design and   Operations &   Regulation &      Capital    Water Quality        Other
    Agency      Administration   Planning   Engineering   Maintenance   Enforcement   Improvements   Management   (Briefly Describe)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.












2.  Using the chart below, please provide a five year history of actual spending for stormwater management activities.



                                        FY 1984-85  FY 1985-86  FY 1986-87  FY 1987-88  FY 1988-89

        ADMINISTRATION

        PLANNING

        DESIGN AND ENGINEERING

        OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

        REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

        CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

        WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT

        OTHER

        TOTAL













3a. Using the chart below, please provide a five year projection of stormwater management needs and actual budget allocations
     for each stormwater management activity.


                                     FY 1989-90        FY 1990-91        FY 1991-92        FY 1992-93        FY 1993-94

                                   Needed  Budgeted  Needed  Budgeted  Needed  Budgeted  Needed  Budgeted  Needed  Budgeted

  ADMINISTRATION

  PLANNING

  DESIGN AND ENGINEERING

  OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

  REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

  CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

  WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT

  OTHER

  TOTAL

 NOTE: The 1989-90 fiscal year is included in this table to maintain consistency with a recent State survey on local infrastructure needs and revenue
        resources.

 3b. Please note the source(s) for the dollar estimates provided in the above chart (e.g. stormwater management plans, CIP,
       etc.).












4.   Please indicate the approximate historic and projected expenditures for stormwater management consultants and
     contracto rs.


                                                              HISTORIC

                             FY 1984-85      FY 1985-86      FY 1986-87     FY 1987-88      FY 1988-89








                                                             PROJECTED

                             FY 1989-90      FY 1990-91     FY 1991-92      FY 1992-93      FY 1993-94





                           Note: The 1989-90 fiscal year is included in the Projected table to maintain consistency with
                                 a recent State survey on local infrastructure needs and revenue resources.











5.  Using the chart below, please provide a five year history of staffing levels for stormwater management activities. Please
    indicate the number of staff positions (or portions of positions) assigned to each activity.



                                     FY 1984-85      FY 1985-86     FY 1986-87      FY 1987-88      FY 1988-89

  ADMINISTRATION

  PLANNING

  DESIGN AND ENGINEERING

  OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

  REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

  CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

  WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT

  OTHER

  TOTAL















6a. Using the chart below, please provide a five year projection of the number of needed and budgeted staff positions for each
     stormwater management activity.


                                      FY 1989-90        FY 1990-91        FY 1991-92         FY 1992-93        FY 1993-94

                                    Needed  Budgeted  Needed  Budgeted  Needed  Budgeted  Needed  Budgeted  Needed  Budgeted

  ADMINISTRATION

  PLANNING

  DESIGN AND ENGINEERING

  OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

  REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

  CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

  WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT

  OTHER

  TOTAL

 NOTE: The 1989-90 fiscal year is included in this table to maintain consistency with a recent State survey on local infrastructure needs and revenue
        resources.

 6b. Please note the source(s) of the staffing level estimates provided in the above chart (e.g. stormwater management plans,
       CIP, etc.).















7.    Please indicate the number of historic and future budgeted stormwater management staff positions by type.




                    FY 1984-85  FY 1985-86  FY 1986-87  FY 1987-88  FY 1988-89  FY 1989-90  FY 1990-91  FY 1991-92  FY 1992-93  FY 1993-94

 Administrators

 Engineers

 Planners

 Surveyors

 Construction and
 Maintenance Staff

 Clerical

 Other

 Other

 Total








3          ~~~8.   Please describe the funding sources and/or financing mechanisms which
                    currently support the stormwater management activities listed below. If
                    more than one source/mechanism is used for a specific activity, please
  3               ~~~~~indicate the percentage of the total expenditure for that activity attributable
                    to each sourcelmechanism.

  3               ~~~~~Administration





  3               ~~~~~Master Planning





  3               ~~~~~Design and Engineering





  3               ~~~~Operations and Maintenance





   *               ~~~~Regulation and Enforcement





   3               ~~~~~Capital Improvements





   3              ~~~~Water Quality Management








           1                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~77









I  9.  Does your community have a stormwater management master plan? If so,
       indicate status (e.g. current, outdated, update in progress). Please send copy
       with completed questionnaire.





















 10. Does your community have programs in place which require developers to
        provide either on- or off-site stormwater management facilities? If so, please
        provide a brief description.
























                                         78








11.    Briefly describe your current stormwater operations and maintenance
      program.






















12.    Has your community addressed the upcoming EPA NPDES Stormwater
       Permitting Regulations in your stormwater management planning process?
       If yes, please provide program details, if known, or your preliminary
       approach to addressing these regulations. (This question only applies to
       localities with populations greater than 100,000).




















                                      79








13.    Does your community intend to develop and implement a stormwater
       management program as authorized by the State's upcoming Stormwater
       Management Regulations? If yes, please provide program details, if known,
       or your preliminary approach to addressing these regulations.



I
I
I
I
I
I
I                                      APPENDIX B
                       U.S. COMMUNITIES WITH STORMWATER UTILITIES
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
  I
  I
  I
  I








               U.S. COMMUNITIES WITH STORMWATER UTILITIES


COLORADO:                 Aurora                   Littleton
                         Boulder                  Loveland
                         Denver
                         Fort Collins

FLORIDA:                  Cape Coral               Port St. Lucie
                         Daytona Beach            Sarasota County
                         Deland                   Tallahassee/Leon County
                         Gainesville              Tampa
                         Hillsboro County         Tavares
                         Manatee County           Winter Park
                         Miami
                         Oakland Park
                         Ocala

KENTUCKY:                Jefferson County/Louisville

MICHIGAN:                Ann Arbor

MINNESOTA:                Roseville

MONTANA:                  Billings

OHIO:                     Cincinnati
                         Wooster

OKLAHOMA:                Tulsa

OREGON:                  Corvallis
                         Medford
                         Portland

TEXAS:                    Austin
                         Bedford

WASHINGTON:               Auburn                   Seattle
                         Bellevue                 Steilacoom
                          Everett                  Tacoma
                          Kent                     Vancover
                         Renton


Source: Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, 1991.



                                       82