New structure will shift fees away for individual homeowners to commercial, industrial, and multifamily properties
After many a spurt and start, Burlington’s elected leaders have released the nozzle on a new rate structure for a municipal fee that pays for the city’s efforts to curb rain runoff and flooding.
The city council reached a consensus on Monday to replace the city’s current flat structure for this so-called “rain tax,” or stormwater fee, with one that will bill commercial, industrial, and multifamily properties more than single-family homes to account for their relatively higher contribution to the city’s problem with runoff.
Under this new structure, properties other than single-family homes will be charged a new rate based on “impervious surface” – a term of art for things like concrete and roofs which prevent rain from naturally soaking into the ground. For each of its non-residential customers, the city has calculated these surfaces using a base unit that corresponds to the amount of roofing and paving of a typical single-family home. The council has now agreed to assess these non-residential customers a sum that’s commensurate with the “equivalent residential units” it has.
But perhaps most significant from the perspective of homeowners is that the council has decided to trim $1 from the city’s base stormwater fee as part of the shift to a new rate structure. As a result, the owners of each single-family home will see their stormwater bill go from $7 to $6 a month once the change takes effect in January of 2027.
- Advertisement -
This $1 cut emerged out of a particularly fertile conversation that the council had about the proposed rate structure when it came up for consideration at a monthly work session on Monday.
Prior to Monday’s discussion, the council had engaged in an interminable number of debates over the stormwater fee ever since its members first decided to pursue a new rate structure in 2019. In recent months, these chats have focused on a prospective cap for the rejiggered fee, the potential impact this charge will have on churches and other nonprofits, and the possibility of a “stormwater credit” for property owners who install runoff controls at their expenses.
As a prelude to Monday’s back-and-forth, Amy Barber, the city’s water resources director, reminded the city’s elected leaders just why a previous council had resolved to revamp the city’s one-size-fits-all stormwater fee nearly seven years ago.
“What’s really driving this proposal is that residents bear a lot of the burden of flooding and aging infrastructure but most of the impervious area in the city comes from non-single family residential property.”
– Amy Barber, Burlington’s water resources director
“What’s really driving this proposal,” Barber explained during the work session, “is that residents bear a lot of the burden of flooding and aging infrastructure but most of the impervious area in the city comes from non-single family residential property.”
Barber said that another advantage of a graduated stormwater fee is that it would generate more revenue for infrastructure improvements to control flooding in different parts of the city. According to her calculations, a rate structure based on impervious surface would bring in nearly $5 million a year, in contrast to the roughly $2 million a year that the city receives from its current flat fee of $7 a month.
In order to help the council reach a decision, Barber offered its members several options for the implementation of the graduated fee, which she proposed based on intervals of the existing rate of $7 a month.
Barber said that, for example, she and her colleagues could finetune a proposed credit program that would enable non-residential property owners to save up to 40 percent on their stormwater charges. She also told the council that it could place a cap on the proposed assessment to prevent any single utility customer from having to pay more than the equivalent of 100 single-family homes. Barber added that only about 50 parcels would qualify for this proposed limit, although she noted that the total cost to the city would approach $500,000 a year if the council decided to go with the cap.
Barber went on to recommend a five-year phase-in period for the proposed stormwater fee that would ramp up the amount due from each non-residential customers by 20 percent per annum.
The assistant water resources director also tossed out the idea of a “stair-step” approach to the base fee itself. Under this option, the phased implementation would begin by reducing the monthly fee for each homeowner, as well as the per-unit cost for every non-residential customer, to $5 for the first two years of the period. It would then rise to $6 in the third year of the phase-in before regaining its current level of $7 a month in year five.
Barber conceded that the city’s stormwater program would see a reduction in revenue if the council was to begin the stair-step proposal with a base rate of $5 a month.
Yet, a “stair-step” proposal that began at the $6 rung seemed to capture the imagination of city council member Dejuana Bigelow.
Burlington city council member Dejuana Bigelow
“Initially, I thought that $5 would reduce the sticker shock. But after thinking about it, reading the materials, and doing the figures on it, I’m leaning toward six dollars.”
– Burlington city council member Dejuana Bigelow
“Initially, I thought that $5 would reduce the sticker shock,” Bigelow told her colleagues during the work session. “But after thinking about it, reading the materials, and doing the figures on it, I’m leaning toward six dollars.”
The rest of the council initially embraced Bigelow’s proposal before they resolved to simply reduce the base rate to $6 for the entirety of the phase-in period.
“I would argue that we go $6 across the board until we get to 100 percent. Then, we reassess and look at the math.”
– Burlington city councilman Jeff Smythe
“I would argue that we go $6 across the board until we get to 100 percent,” elaborated councilman Jeff Smythe. “Then, we reassess and look at the math.”
According to the city’s water resources staff, a base rate of $6 a month, with no cap on the total assessment, would generate over $3.5 million by the fifth year of the phase-in period.
The council proceeded to bestow its collective blessing on this $6 rate – with no cap on the maximum monthly payment. Its members left it to the water resources staff to iron out a credit program for property owners who invest in their own flooding controls. With that, they gave Barber the go-ahead to work toward a proposed implementation date of January 1, 2027.
A majority of Alamance County’s commissioners have approved two applicants endorsed by the local chamber of commerce to serve as industry representatives on the...
