MA Thesis Presentation May 4th, 2012 Katherine O England

1. Rhode Island Stormwater Utilities and their Application in Improving Municipal Stormwater Management Programs MA Thesis Presentation May 4th, 2012 Katherine O England Brown University | Center for Environmental Studies

2. How did I get here? • Started looking for a way to increase the prevalence of green space in urban areas • Found Low Impact Development (LID), but was a few years late for a timely thesis • LID workshops made me aware that the new Stormwater Manual is primarily concerned with new construction and redevelopment, not providing incentives for voluntary retrofits • Became more familiar with stormwater issues addressed by LID and how stormwater utilities could increase the use of LID and green stormwater management

3. The Problem

4. Funding • Stormwater programs are primarily funded by municipal General Funds • General Funds are overburdened • Funding varies year to year based on decisions of the City/Town Council • Budget cuts to “less visible” programs

5. New Requirements and Regulations • RI TMDLs and associated requirements • Over 30 TMDLs completed state-wide • Revised Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual • Applies to new construction and redevelopment on sites with less than 40% existing impervious cover • Use of Low Impact Development (LID) “wherever practicable” • Phase II General Permit revisions

6. Infrastructure Insufficient | Aging | Outdated

7. Other Issues • Flooding • Beach Closures • Staffing • Tax-Exempt Properties

8. Stormwater Utilities

9. What is a Stormwater Utility? • Stable and reliable funding mechanism • Assesses fees based on impact to the problem • Funding is consistent and flexible based on need • Equitable way to pay for stormwater programs • All properties contribute (even tax-exempt) • Organizational tool • Allows municipalities to establish a proactive, sufficient and stable stormwater program • Driver for physical change • Motivate property owners to manage stormwater on-site

10. Why Create a Stormwater Utility? • Funding source to meet permit requirements and address TMDLs • Funding for unfunded mandates • Proactively address flooding and stormwater quality concerns • Better organize municipal stormwater programs • Hire a designated “stormwater manager” • Create a plan for the future • Provide incentives for properties to use LID in a retroactive capacity

11. Rhode IslandStormwater Utilities

12. RI Municipalities: Middletown and Westerly • Conducted preliminary feasibility studies • Compiled drivers, arguments and financials • Impervious cover/ERU/sample rate structure • ERU: Median of Single-Family properties • Middletown ERU: 3,668 sqft • Westerly ERU: 4,523.5 sqft • Rate Structure: “Equitable ERU” (proportional as opposed to a flat rate ERU - consistent with enabling legislation) • Workshops and Town Council Presentations

13. RI municipalities: Bristol, Cranston and Narragansett • Bristol • Preliminary feasibility study (minus financials) • Bristol ERU: 3,391 sqft • Cranston • Impervious cover analysis underway • Narragansett • First considered a stormwater utility in 2008 • Less comprehensive feasibility study completed • Political climate was unfavorable so pursuit was deferred

14. Noteworthy Findings

15. Polluter Pays and Progressive/Regressive • “Polluter Pays” paradigm created by stormwater utilities is highly desirable • Polluter Pays states: The [person] responsible for causing damage to the environment should pay for the mitigation of that damage and in so doing is discouraged from causing harm in the future.

16. Property tax is a progressive funding method • A non-linear curve to assign rates is ideal • Progressive and “pay to the extent to which runoff is contributed” • Labor intensive • Tiered rate structure is also progressive • Assign rates non-linearly to represent impact of IC • Tiers can contain wide range of total IC • Potentially difficult to justify in Rhode Island because of enabling legislation “pay to the extent to which runoff is contributed”

17. Stormwater utility rate structures Rhode Island municipalities are interested in are regressive • Fee/sqft and Fee/ERU • Regressive rate structures do not accurately assess fees based on “contribution” because impact is not linear

18. Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) in RI • ERU is widely used, practical, defensible • Residents often dislike flat rate ERU • Assesses the same rate to broad range of impervious cover (IC) • Assessing the same fee to a single-family property with 500 sqft of IC and 2,000 sqft of IC is not “pay[ing] to the extent to which runoff is contributed” • “Equitable” (proportional) ERU is the only acceptable use of ERU in Rhode Island, but is essentially assessing a fee/sqft

19. Fairness • Stormwater utility is more equitable than property taxes • Properties that contribute to the problem fund stormwater program • Tax-Exempt Properties (Middletown) • 2.4% of properties are tax-exempt • 18.1% of the total revenue from a fee/sqft utility

20. Incentives • Stormwater fee can promote: • Reductions in IC • Permeable/alternative paving • However, fee can’t be too high without a generous credit system • Must show that the needs of the utility are driving total revenue • Credit systems can offset fees, but only to a point

21. Incentives (continued) • Credit system can promote: • Low Impact Development (LID) on properties where it isn’t required • On-site stormwater detention and infiltration • Public education about stormwater issues

22. RIGL 45-61: Rhode Island Stormwater Management and Utility District Act of 2002 • State Exempt • Boundaries • “by itself or with other cities and towns, pursuant to chapter 45-43” • Reasonable and Equitable • “each contributor of runoff to the system shall pay to the extent to which runoff is contributed.” • No definition of how fees will be determined • total impervious cover, calculated runoff, lot size, land use, etc.

23. Rhode Island DRAFT Model Ordinance • Rhode Island enabling legislation has provided opportunities for municipal ordinances • DRAFT Model ordinance • Provides the opportunity for municipality specific definition of “system” and then states: • “The drainage system of…is comprised of all surface water bodies, including rivers, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, drainage ways, retention ponds or basins, channels, ditches, culverts, swales, storm sewers, inlets, catch basins, pipes, head walls or other natural or man-made structures and/or discharges within the jurisdiction that generate, control and/or convey stormwater and through which the <<City/ Town>> intentionally diverts stormwater runoff from its public streets and properties.” • Fees are determined by “the amount of impervious cover on a property.” • Requires a Stormwater Utility Fee Schedule to be passed separate of the stormwater utility ordinance

24. What’s Next for Rhode Island? • Middletown • Town Council resolution to accept RIDEM grant money for a consultant • Westerly • Town Council rejected Public Works Committee draft resolution to accept RIDEM grant money for a consultant • “The residents don’t want it. They don’t even want to understand it. They don’t even want to be educated on it.” - Diane Serra • Bristol • Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study in progress • Municipal staff hope to apply for additional RIDEM funding for a consultant • Narragansett • Comprehensive stormwater utility feasibility study budgeted for FY2013 • Cranston • IC analysis in progress. ERU/sample fee structure to be calculated

25. Questions