Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee Review of Recommendations July 12, 2016 1 Purpose The Board requested that the Committee reconvene to decide if its recommendations would change due to updates to the County s TMDL program and cost assumptions. Agenda update on TMDL program briefing on May 11 Board meeting review key policy issues committee discussion and preferences wrap up Meeting Outcome Affirm or revise Committee s recommendations. 2 1
Review of Committee Recommendations Recommendations CONSENSUS NARROW MAJORITY MAJORITY Adopt a program that fully meets both regulatory requirements and long-term needs and responsibilities in a cost-efficient manner. Adopt a stormwater utility having a fee structure that relates the fee to a property s contribution to stormwater runoff and pollution discharges. Utilize a single funding strategy as opposed to a hybrid, or combination, approach to provide for program fairness and ease of implementation. Apply a County-wide rate structure with no differentiation between urban and rural MAJORITY areas. CONSENSUS Adopt a billing unit of 500 square feet of impervious surface area. CONSENSUS Ensure that the fee to the extent possible reflects a property s contribution to water pollution by effectively lowering the rate per billing unit through a credit or rate adjustment for properties: having a low density of imperviousness maintaining beneficial land cover conditions providing onsite stormwater runoff management or pollutant controls CONSENSUS CONSENSUS Include within the fee structure strong financial incentives for private investments that reduce stormwater impacts. Allocate funding for technical assistance to help landowners determine how to implement practices to reduce their fee amount and improve water quality. 3 Recommended 10-yr Program Plan Budget $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,196,700 $2,446,700 $2,446,700 $2,446,700 $2,446,700 $2,446,700 $2,446,700 $2,446,700 $2,446,700 $2,446,700 TMDL $2,000,000 $1,000,000 current annual appropriations $- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 other (operating) TMDL grey infrastructure green infrastructure 4 2
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Requirements: 3 pollutant of concern (POC) phosphorus nitrogen sediment incremental, increasing targets reach 5% of total reductions by 2018 reach 40% of total reductions by 2023 reach 5% of total reductions by 2028 Status: Chesapeake Bay Action Plan approved by DEQ on December 30, 2015 (Local Action Plans draft completed; due October 1, 2016) 5 Chesapeake Bay TMDL 2018 2023 2028 32% remaining 0.8% remaining 6 3
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Chesapeake Bay -Credits Towards Required Phosphorus Reductions 32% remaining Total Reductions Remaining, 243.0 Stream Restorations, 81.7 Structural BMPs, 70.4 BMPs installed after January 1, 2006 and prior to July 1, 2009, 253.3 New and Grandfathered Sources, 109.4 credit from private projects (one time) credit from past County projects 7 Chesapeake Bay TMDL cost estimate for Chesapeake Bay TMDL under current assumptions: former: $2.2M to $2.5M/year revised: $0.5M/year other program elements remain; several were delayed to accommodate TMDL costs 8 4
Recommended 10-yr Program Plan Budget (Revised) $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 portion covered by current revenues $- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 other (operating) TMDL grey infrastructure green infrastructure 9 Challenges and Uncertainties Ahead current and next permit cycle goals are met but reaching the 100% target could still be challenging working on action plans for local TMDLs (to be submitted to DEQ by October 1, 2016); impact not great at this point but could change if DEQ requires greater accountability the County has benefitted by almost $400K from DEQ Stormwater Local Assistance Fund (SLAF); continued funding is not guaranteed changing pollutant removal rates (even for stormwater controls not employed by the County) could affect Virginia s overall progress 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL mid-point assessment could change pollutant reduction targets 10 5
2017 Mid-Point Assessment Process the Chesapeake Bay model is being updated; completion in June 2017 New high resolution (1 meter) land use data Updated monitoring data Updated stormwater control efficiencies Virginia will adopt a new Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) based on the update model timing allows the results to be integrated into next round of MS4 permits (2018 for Albemarle) 11 2017 Mid-Point Assessment Process - Implications looking good for Virginia to meet 2017 targets wastewater hit it out of the park agriculture is starting to ramp up stormwater is moving along, but Virginia allows credit for items not accepted by Bay program unregulated urban land area greater than anticipated; needs to be made up somewhere while 2017 benchmarks are for the total load, final targets must be met by sector bottom line targets are likely to shift and it is likely that this will increase pressure on stormwater 12 6
May 11 Board Meeting Highlights acknowledged the TMDL progress made by County yet, recognized prevalence of local stream impairments concern about addressing pollutants from rural areas question about whether governments pay fees concern by some about taxing places of worship recognized relatively modest credit for onsite BMPs questions about scale of administrative costs (overhead) of utility believes utility would result in more customer questions and complaints question about the need to improve mapping elements 13 Review of Key Policy Issues assuming the Committee remains committed to the entire program (TMDL, gray infrastructure, and green infrastructure), what is the best way for Albemarle to generate the revenue? decisions will shift the cost burden among sectors and individual property owners 14 7
description basis of rate Funding Mechanisms localities using this system comparison correlation between charge per property and need for services administrative burden General Fund Service District Stormwater Utility real property value (land use value), other local taxes and fees - real property value (land use value) 3 total: Arlington County, Fairfax County, City of Alexandria physical metric, such as impervious area 21 total: including Cities: Charlottesville, Staunton, Lynchburg Counties:Prince William and Chesterfield weak weak strong lower lower higher can different rates be applied to different parts of the County? no yes yes can credits (lowering of rate) be offered for onsite improvements? can incentives (i.e., cost sharing) be offered for private improvements? no no (not allowable) yes (required) yes yes yes are funds protected from diversion to other programs? no yes yes do tax-exempt owners pay? no no yes canrates apply to state and federal property? no no yes(if not an MS4) 15 Specific Concerns administrative cost - cost of stormwater utility to establish and maintain - enhanced GIS data will help with other parts of the program impact on large rural parcels - issue of long driveways and private roads - deal with issue through credits or rate adjustments - issue of whether current parcel boundaries in GIS are accurate tax exempt properties - tend to be fiscally stressed - exempting shifts burden to other properties that may also be financially stressed transparency - does being separate make the fund more or less transparent and subject to scrutiny? 16 8
Committee Discussion focus on larger picture general fund vs. service district vs. stormwater utility think about characteristics that attracted you to your funding mechanism of choice two key questions: - does the reduced program cost change how the overall program should be funded? - does the different program mix change how the overall program should be funded? 17 Committee Recommendation preferred funding mechanism what caveats come with your decision? if you changed your mind, what was the deciding factor? what else do you want the Board to know? 18 9