RECENT COMMENTS
Stormwater Assessments are making the rounds
Got your new-for-2009 Stormwater Assessment statement yet? Like it says, THIS IS NOT A BILL, but is perhaps your introduction to the new Stormwater Utility Fee:
Just like water, sewer, gas, and other vital utility services, users are charged a fee for the service of controlling stormwater. The stormwater management fee would apply to all developed properties, including homes, businesses, and non-profit organizations. These fees would be a dedicated revenue stream, which would be restricted for use only on stormwater system maintenance and operations of stormwater management devices, for stormwater systems planning and construction.
The city site includes an informative (if not also frustrating) set of Frequently Asked Questions. Interestingly, the city also links to How to Build a Rain Barrel, even though there is no provision for credits or fee reductions if you take steps to reduce the runoff from your property. [via]
Copied from my 7th District comment as this is a more appropriate forum.
Aw yes….the new storm water assessment fee. The same fees that have, for years, jacked up your water and sewer bills is now presented to you as yet another fee!
As a taxpayer, the real problem with this is that it is NOT deductible on your personal tax returns. The City has gone the path of least resistance and started levying fees on everything to get around the “tax exempt†status of those that should be paying their fair share. (VCU, state office buildings, non-profits, etc)
From utility fees to car decal fees, the taxpayer gets hit up-but it’s not a “taxâ€- it’s a “feeâ€â€¦..get it?
The misleading part of this whole charade is that the “real estate†tax rate is kept artificially low to make the City look good compared to the counties. Fees don’t show up as taxes, but they sure are mandatory. In the end, the taxpayer gets screwed by losing these deductions on their federal and state returns.
You can bet the money will never be “fully†spent on ‘drainage and water quality improvement’ as it is promised. (A social security-like lock box anyone?) It will be co-mingled with other funds like roads and curbs. “We have this new street we have to build-let’s use part of the storm water assessment fee to pay for the drainage under the roadâ€.
I hear a “view taxâ€, I mean “fee†is in the works for houses and properties that have a view. The money for this would go towards buying up land to “preserve the viewâ€. I wonder how much blind people will need to pay?
Sigh.
WTF? When did this happen?
Stormwater fee = bullshit.
Q1: How much did the city SPEND in order to determine the amount of “impervious square feet” that exists on each an every parcel within the city limits?
Q2: As for the “view tax” -er- fee, will the folks in Mosby Court and owners of the subsidized Jefferson Townhomes pay their fair share for the spectacular skyline views they enjoy?
“The misleading part of this whole charade is that the “real estate†tax rate is kept artificially low to make the City look good compared to the counties.”
WHa??? artificially low? Our tax rate is nearly twice the counties.
Water and sewer rates are going up as well. (Gotta pay for the Mayor’s police protection team.)
Until you complain to the proper people, please put yourself in the “sheep” category.
and my ‘so called’ impervious square footage is realistically cut in half due to the rain barrel i have attached to my gutter… but where’s the incentive for being a conservationist?!
no where…
re #6:
This is what irritates me the most about this fee. Say it’s an environmental concern, then refuse to acknowledge that people can mitigate their own impact.
Why are multifamily units more? My apartment building has hardly any impervious square footage. Can’t wait to get this in the mail!
Current state law does not permit a reduced fee for private residential homeowners, who mitigate the amount of runoff. City hopes to address that before the General Assembly next year. Shockoe, your apartment building has “hardly any” impervious surface? It doesn’t have a roof, sidewalks, paved parking? All of those are impervious, in virtually every case.
I got mine earlier this week. The covered SF was remarkably accurate and within 10%. (I measured mine to see if I fell into a lower rate category.)
Guess they paid the boys in the GIS department overtime to do this.
What they don’t say is what happens if you don’t pay it. Do they turn off the rain?
Jennifer-
you’re so right! and when we’re having drouts and water restrictions- there are no financial benefits/rewards to conserving water! why can’t we just pay for what we use? that way, those who water their lawn for an hour a day will start to feel the pinch! and those of use who NEVER use their allotted 30 ccfs of water won’t have to pay for water they’re not using!
ooops, sorry droughts!
Received my assessment in the mail. Apparently, they calculated my large, straw covered garden in as part of impermiable surfaces. I’m appealing.
Wait till you download the Appeal Form from the City Website! It requires you have to have a certified engineer’s drawing to make your case for a revised fee/reduced impervious area.
I called DPU yesterday, b/c my roof is a catchment for the Tricycle Garden cistern next door. You can see the diverted gutter and the piping (all external) leading into the above ground cistern.
Also, I have a drain in my driveway that is no longer connected to the city storm sewer system. The old “drain” allows for the ground under the concrete to absorb the rain water.
When I called DPU, I and have asked for a DPU inspector to visit my address, bring a tape measure and a ladder, and let him/her certify my request for an reduced “impervious area”.
No word back from DPU on when/if this will happen. What a pain in the neck!
Looks like the City of Richmond is the only one that will be smiling on a rainy day.
Shockoe, from reading it over it looks like the bill will be going to the apartment building owner, not you – The fee will be sent as a separate bill mailed directly to the property owner on an annual basis. If you’re in a Condo your “fee” for services may go up slightly and rent rates may be affected too in the long run.
I do believe that a provision should be implimented for Senior Citizens.
The way the site reads it looks like a huge undertaking – Because Virginia is a Dillon Rule State, if the provision is not expressly stated in the law then a locality of that state cannot implement it. City charter would have to be changed through the General assembly in order to offer residential credits.
The City Charter COULD be amended to grant a exemption or credit to Senior Citizen residential property owners.
I love it when my family of four (plus dog), which uses 3CCFs per month including watering the plants, gets to pay this kind of fee. Can I factor in the big-ass trees in my yard? They’re bound to soak up a lot of that runoff.
I’ve seen the form and, while designed to be helpful, it is also designed to be rather intimidating. I went to one of the presentations by DPU. Only 4 citizens were there. Sad.
This is over and above what is part of your water and sewer bill so what you use has no impact on it. This is addressing rain type storm water and related runoff. What you use to water your yard is minimal in relation to runoff.
And yes, this goes to property owners of record, not tenants unless the tenant pays all taxes as a pass-through. It could certainly trigger a rent increase upon renewal.
With all due respect to seniors, I don’t understand why they should be exempt from this fee. Just as I don’t understand why people who have made a decision to have children should get tax credits and tax deductions. I don’t have kids, but I certainly pay for the schools in the City.
So when you hear your council members say they “cut the tax rate”, keep in mind they knew this was coming.
Remember years ago when trash was picked up as part of your taxes? Not anymore. It’s on your water bill as a “fee”. Anyone wonder why you should have to pay a fee to recycle? Again, (now) all non-deductible as your property taxes are.
Richmond really does need to do something about the build-up of stormwater and flooding in certain areas of town. If the fee is not exorbiant and the monies go towards improving infrastructure used to manage storm water, I don’t mind paying for it. However, I would expect large entities such as VCU to also have to pay their fair share.
We got our “not a bill” too (had to wonder how much they spent on the shiny brochure that went with it). If I read it correctly, the new fee is 25-50 dollars a year for most home owners. Not enough to inspire many people to really complain. Certainly not when compared to the precipitous jacking-up of home values of recent years. Nor when compared with the ridiculous cost of water – our bill is comparable to what our bills were in California, famous for its water battles, and is much more than I paid in Arizona – a desert.
I do think this could be a good jumping-off place to talk about rewarding people for their conservation of resources. Seems to me that Richmond is a decade behind in giving incentives/disincentives to using less/more than ones share of everything. From water to electricity, the bigger users get lower rates.
PCP, I am aware of what the stormwater runoff fee is for, given that it’s called a stormwater runoff fee. My comment was more in line with what the other Jennifer is saying, which is that the city is jacking us on our water bills.
JenniferC,
No argument there. I’m amazed that my water bill for two people is so high and we are very frugal.
A few years ago they jacked our sewer bills sky high to pay for the same things the new “fee” is paying for. Where did that money go?
Tiny- Sure it is a small amount-at first glance. Maybe the cost of a dinner out? My point is the City is constantly asking for more and more money and what we get in return is less and less. So why can’t they simply say “we are increasing your taxes” to cover this?
Do the math….if you are in the 30% tax bracket, then a $100 storm water bill means you have to earn $130 in salary to pay the bill. (Don’t forget SSI, and state taxes have to be paid.) If you paid $100 for this AND you could deduct it on your taxes, you would save $30 of the $100. It’s a $60 swing in costs that you pay.
Politicians (all of them!) need to step up to the plate and have testicular fortitude to say that they are “raising your taxes and here is why”. It might make them think twice about all the money that is wasted.
I have to admit, I thought the new mayor system would work. All it has done is added another level of bureaucracy and lack of accountability. (See my post last night on the new gravel streets.)
Have you noticed that when the City takes up an old brick sidewalk- (which allows water to be absorbed in the ground) it replaces the sidewalk with a concrete pad with bricks placed over the pad. (which is an impervious surface and directly contributes to the amount of stormwater runoff.
While the concrete pad may reduce maintenance costs of the brick sidewalks- it doesnt make sense to add yet another impervious surface to the urban infrastructure. There has to be a better way.
PCP,
They have been telling you they were proposing this fee…for four years. And they are telling you in detail why and how the money is to be spent. One virtue of the utility is that all property owners will have to pay the fee, including non-profits and governmental entities. Right now, 52% of real estate in the city is exempt from RE taxes, thus living the costs of the city to the other 48%. At least with the utility, everybody pays.
I do think you are right about your tax calculation however.
You can object to the fee, you can blame city administrators for spending money. But you can’t say they did this in the dark. It has been the most widely discusses city venture since 2005..
Bill-
the city has a better way: you’ll be getting a not-a-bill in the mail.
I don’t for a second think they really care about improving the way their projects drain. Everything will get done at the usual rock-bottom low-bid standards, and to make up for it, Council will pass crap like this to push the costs off on the taxpayers. You wait and see if any new structures the city puts up have cisterns or anything else that might appear on the same page as the term “LEED.”
As an environmentalist, I am not against the stormwater utility. As I have said all along, I demand that it is applied fairly (senior exempt is b.s., VCU exempt is EXTREME b.s.), and that the money raised goes to actually preventing stormwater runoff (that means more than putting giant pipes in the ground that just moves more water around).
This has been a long time coming…
http://www.oregonhill.net/?s=stormwater
Scott,
They are not saying that VCU gets a free ride – if they have measures set up to control the quality and quantity of stormwater run-off they may apply for a full or partial credit, up to 50% of the stormwater fee that is assessed. Why should an entity be billed if it is already paying to control the run-off?
If they don’t then 100% is fair.
City of Richmond owned properties are excluded from paying the stormwater fee -I disagree.
$45-$70 may not be a lot to you, perhaps a loss of a meal out, but someone on a ridgid fixed income, living on a reverse mortgage, or Social Security, experiencing high medical bills and the rising costs of meds, are on a different level.
I was a bit shocked at my first water bill here. In Fairfax County it was high if it went over $35 a quarter.
Scott, I notice from your linked post in #27 that you thought VCU would be exempt as state property, but that was back in April and you were going to confirm it. Did you ever find out for sure? If so, I think that’s truly terrible, particularly since that would also mean a good number of downtown state office buildings are also exempt, along with the MCV campus.
David,
I know the trial balloons were floated a long time ago. 2-3 years ago, when everyone was making money hand over fist, it probably wouldn’t have even raised an eyebrow. It does now.
I also understand that the non-profits and gov’t organizations don’t pay their fair share. Why not deal with that issue directly instead of what they did? I just don’t see why the hardworking people who actually have to pay this fee should be penalized twice by not having it on their property tax bill as I reasoned above. Businesses? Yeah, it’s just another deduction off of the top. Corporations will pass it onto the consumer. Taxpaying residents get stuck.
The state has sucked on the teat of the taxpayer for years and with their record surpluses year after year, they spent every penny. None of it was ever returned to the taxpayers. (The notable exception was Gilmore’s No Car Tax. A stroke of genius on his part.) Like drunken sailors on shore leave, the legislators spent it all. Now the bar tab is due, they’ll look to us to pony up for the bill.
As I have said on the Hills and Heights discussion on this, it’s unclear if VCU will be exempt.
Myself, the Richmond Greens, and many of my neigbors have been asking questions about the utility and water rates for a while now.
David,
You probably know the answer to these. I’m trying to get a handle on the actual effectiveness of the fees:
How many bills will be sent out?
How much annual revenue will be generated?
What happens to properties that don’t pay the bill?
Are there projects in the que that this money will be used for? If so, what are they?
What is the value, in today’s dollars, of this work?
Will the money generated from the increases in water and sewer bills that was supposed to go to CSO upgrades be co-mingled with the storm water utility fees or will that simply go back into the City’s general budget.
There is $10 billion of stimulus money available for “shovel ready” public projects. Is the City applying for any of this money?
Stormwater information, speakers, Q&A at 1201 Oliver Hill Way, at 10 a.m., Saturday, June 27