Creating a Stormwater Utility

For HOAs, it does not make any sense to tax the HOAs because the HOAs will simply pass the tax on to the homeowners by increasing the monthly assessments. Just divide up the HOAs' taxes and distribute it against the homeowners' property taxes. Each homeowner should be given credit for the HOAs' land that is not impervious as well.

City of FFX Resident - Thank you for the suggestion! We did consider dividing fees among the residents, however it introduced some issues. The fees are intended to go to the owner of record, which in this case would be the association and its representatives. If we were to divide up the fee among all the residences, we would be cutting out the community’s association representatives and their opportunity to review the fee in whole. We do understand that the association’s costs are borne by the community’s residents, however other utility bills such as water for common area irrigation would also go to the association and these costs would be considered in their budgeting process.

*A small number of property types are exempted from utility fees by law, such as public roads, municipal properties, and properties covered under their own municipal stormwater permits.

Have you seen your own map?

For HOAs - have you considered just dividing up the impervious space up and divide by the number of residences and then just charging that percentage to the residents rather than charging the HOA? When you charge the HOA they then need to administer this and raise assessments and the end result would be them dividing it up and charging each of the members the same amount. It's just adding an extra layer of HOA that isn't needed when the residents have to pay anyway.

Obviously, this is an important issue - however, rather than starting with a rather arbitrary fee to get landowners to address storm water runoff, I feel it would be better to use city resources to do outreach to those generating the largest runoff and provide information and assistance on how to reduce it. Communicating a phased implementation of any fees gives our fellow Fairfax City residents time to participate as part of a solution, rather than feel blindsided by another tax with opaque fee structures and plans.

The issue that I have with the Stormwater Tax and the standup of the utility is that the City already requires the homeowners where I live to maintain the stormwater drains. It is the only reason that the HOA exists and essentially forces the 6 homes that live on the cul-de-sac to have to administratively maintain an HOA to maintain the stormwater system for the 6 homes, plus the other homes surrounding the cul-de-sac that have runoff into our storm water system. So the additional tax that we are already paying as part of our real estate tax means that we (the 6 homeowners) are being taxed twice for the same service that everyone else is receiving and only taxed once. Shouldn't we (the 6 homeowners) be exempt from the additional stormwater tax that is already being collected?

I believe that a tax on the percentage of nonpermeable area would be equitable. That is if the current cost of the storm water program is removed from the real estate base. My concern and that of many people is creep in the real estate assessment after the storm water tax is removed. I fear that current real estate price increases are going to result in a much higher assessments and therefore taxes unless the City becomes more conservative in its management.

Other than tax for stormwater is there ANY proposals for the city to make more open areas for water drainage (gravel: in city parking lots, bike lanes, tear up low use sidewalks)?

Just like any politician these city leaders want to tax us but exempt themselves.
A little asterisk exempts municipal areas and streets, so now they want to create another bureaucracy to siphon our contribution to their support.
If the SWU calculates my fee based on the ratio of my impermiable area divided by the total street and government impermeable area then I could support another tax. Of course if such a calculation shows the current financing to be larger I will not support a change.

Agree with Tom and Jim. This is just another tax and spend bill. More and more $800,000 houses built in city and yet taxes still go up and up. Government allowed the flat spaces and now decide to pump extra taxes on them. Just does not seem right for a honest government.

This is a great article and initiative. The timing is perfect for me as I’m exploring ways to replace my asphalt driveway (that’s starting to break down) with a much more environmentally friendly options such as impervious pavers, gravel, or something else that may work. Please keep me informed on the incentives that will be available, as I hope to be able to utilize them.

No matter where the money comes from, stormwater management is a crucial issue which is not given the priority it requires, especially with our changing climate. I would like to see a focus on what the efforts of these funds are for, and how they are geared to address the issues caused by increased urbanization alongside new climate realities.

While this equitable plan sounds reasonable at first thought, I do wonder how equitable is it in practice? I would assume property that would produce the most runoff would be commercial property and larger residential buildings such as apartments. Those able to afford actual yards may end up paying less when they could afford to pay more, myself included. And would additional fees to apartment complexes be paid by the landlords, or filtered down to residents through fees? I don't know the answer but as I consider this new approach I would be curious who is expected to pay the costs with this new paradigm.

Certainly stormwater management is something we absolutely must invest in and plan for now.

Thank you for sharing your comments. There is no correlation between the proposed stormwater utility and the City’s 2013 decision to sell the Goose Creek Water Treatment Plant. The history of that decision is well-documented here: http://www.virginiaplaces.org/watersheds/fairfaxwater.html. Fairfax Water provides water service to city residents at a much lower rate than the City was able to provide.

From the Washington Post in Feb. 2013:
• Fairfax City was in a tough spot. Its 50-year-old treatment plant in Ashburn and 23-mile transmission pipe to Fairfax City need a $45 million upgrade, which would require a bond referendum, at additional cost to its customers. In 20 years, the plant would need to be replaced, at a further cost of an estimated $84 million.

• At present, Fairfax City is charging its residential customers $4.61 per 1,000 gallons, compared to Fairfax Water’s rate of $2.51. At an estimated use of 100,000 gallons per year, that’s $461 for city residents and $251 for county residents. With annual cost increases of seven percent plus the bond issue, the city’s annual cost was estimated to rise to $894 per residential customer, versus about $340 for Fairfax Water.

• In addition, Fairfax Water has already upgraded its treatment facilities, and any further costs would be spread over a much larger customer base than Fairfax City’s 11,500, of which about 1,300 are commercial users.

The City is responsible for the quality of its stormwater runoff. A stormwater utility would fund environmental projects to meet regulatory requirements. Billing would be based on the amount of impervious surfaces present on a property, and properties that do not currently contribute to the Stormwater Fund because of tax exemptions would be billed similarly.

The storm sewer system is well-maintained; however, additional funds are needed to meet increased demands to the stormwater program. The stormwater utility would also fund the new Urban Forestry Program, which is an important part of the City's strategy to manage stormwater.

Impervious surfaces are directly correlated to stormwater runoff. Since stormwater utility fees would be based on a property’s impervious surface, it provides an equitable way to distribute the program costs. The stormwater utility fee is proposed to be a line item on the real estate tax bill, and so would not create an additional bill for property owners to pay.

I don't want to get another monthly utility bill. Why was the drainage system allowed to deteriorate to this point, and not properly maintained annually using general funds? This sounds like how the Goose Creek water system was allowed to deteriorate until we could no longer afford to fix it. ???

For many reasons I do not concur with this new funding approach (call it what you want it is a new tax). The Storm Drain System behind my house has had no repairs since I bought my house in 1985. Seems more like mis-Management of the Stormwater System in Fairfax City similar to the lack of maintenance and mis-Management of the drinking water system. Now you want the City residence to pay an attentional tax for what appears is the same issue.