The lamentations and prayers of some local churches have managed to waylay a nearly seven-year effort to recalibrate a fee that the city of Burlington uses to fund its stormwater management program.
Over the past couple of months, concerns about the plight of the city’s smaller congregations have effectively halted the proposed overhaul of this so-called “rain tax,” which bankrolls infrastructure improvements and other measures that address erosion and flooding caused by rainwater runoff.
The city currently exacts a flat fee of $7 a month from all of its utility customers to bankroll this program, regardless of how much each customer contributes to the problems with runoff in Burlington.
In order to distribute this cost burden more equitably, city officials hired Raftelis Consulting in 2019 to develop a new rate structure for the stormwater fee. The latest version of the firm’s recommended rate structure would continue to charge homeowners the same flat rate of $7 a month.
In the meantime, the owners of commercial, industrial, and multifamily properties would be assessed a graduated fee based on “impervious surfaces,” like buildings and pavement, which prevent rainwater from naturally draining into the soil.
As part of this overhaul, Raftelis has calculated the amount of impervious surface on a typical residential parcel. The firm has used this “estimated residential unit,” or ERU, as the basis for measuring the impervious surface of non-residential properties. A property owner with an ERU of 10, for example, has the equivalent of 10 single-family homes worth of pavement and buildings, and under Raftelis’ proposed fee structure, their monthly stormwater fee would 10 times the residential standard of $7 a month.
As a concession to the city’s nonresidential property owners, city staff members have proposed to phase in this graduated fee over a period of five years. They’ve also agreed to cap the total amount billed to any one parcel at $700 a month, or the equivalent of 100 ERU. According to Amy Barber, the city’s assistant water resources director, some 63 utility customers would benefit from this ceiling if the council implements it as part of the modified fee structure.
The cup runneth over; not the collection plate
In spite of these considerations, Burlington’s adjusted stormwater fee hasn’t been uniformly welcomed by the city’s nonresidential utility customers. Even so, Barber has informed the city council that she and her colleagues received a relatively modest 16 replies when they issued notices to these 2,500 customers about the potential fee change.
“[Some of them] wanted to know when the public comment period is because they wanted to voice their opinions,” Barber went on to recall during a city council work session on Monday. “We had five who were concerned about the increased monthly bill or who wanted to know if there was a credit program. Four requested clarity on the calculation and the timeline of the proposed change, and two asked about nonprofits and churches.”
The fee’s impact on churches and other nonprofits received some additional exposure when Barber first pitched the details of the proposed rate structure to Burlington’s city council in January. At the time, councilmember Dejuana Bigelow expressed some concerns that her own church would see its utility bill go up by several hundred dollars a year under the modified fee structure.
These same objections were later echoed by area resident Jack Brewer, who approached the city council in February on behalf of Fellowship Baptist Church. Brewer told the council that, by the end of the five-year implementation period, the church would see the overall fee for the two parcels it owns skyrocket from $14 to $217 a month.
“It’s such a prohibitive increase for a small church,” Brewer went on to implore. “On a good Sunday, we have 50 people. So, I come before you pleading for mercy.”
Credit where due
In response to these concerns, Barber came back before the council on Monday to propose a stormwater “credits” program that would let nonresidential property owners claim discounts on their fees in return for retention ponds and other runoff controls. Barber added that Burlington already contains 377 runoff controls that could qualify for these credits, while other property owners could develop new structures to lower their stormwater fees.
Barber noted that 11 cities in North Carolina currently offer similar credits that can save eligible property owners between 25 and 50 percent on their stormwater fees. She went on to acknowledge that these credits would inevitably reduce the amount of revenue flowing into the city’s stormwater fund, although its income would still greatly exceed what the current, flat monthly fee is able to generate.
Barber told the city council that the extant $7 surcharge brings in about $1.7 million a year to fund a four-person staff, which includes one part-time employee, whose responsibilities range from street sweeping and the maintenance of city-owned infrastructure to the rectification of flooding and drainage issues that residents report to the city. The city’s stormwater program also bankrolls projects on private property based on a cost-sharing model that requires property owners to foot 20 percent of the bill.
Barber said that the additional revenue from a graduate stormwater fee would enable the city to expand its existing stormwater staff and take on infrastructure improvements that are presently beyond the means of the program. She noted that the list of these potential projects includes the replacement of a culvert along Virginia Avenue, drainage upgrades along Chandler Avenue, and $7.2 million in structural improvements to divert runoff along North Main and Ireland streets.
Separation of church and rate structure
Barber’s hopes for an injection of funds to expand this program hit the proverbial gutter on Monday when members of the city council resurrected the aforementioned concerns about churches and other nonprofits.
During the council’s monthly work session that evening, Burlington’s mayor Beth Kennett added her own voice to the choir of misgivings about the proposed rate structure.
“What are the possibilities,” inquired the mayor, who is an ordained minister in her own right, “when a church with a dwindling congregation and dwindling finances approaches that $700 fee?”
In response to Kennett’s query, Barber referred back to the proposed stormwater credits and discouraged any attempt to carve out a special exemption for churches and other nonprofits in the modified stormwater fee. Her objections were reiterated by city attorney David Huffman, who insisted that religious institutions have no immunity from the stormwater surcharge since it’s legally defined as a “fee” instead of a “tax.”
These staff-level assurances did little to placate the skeptics, however. Bigelow continued to call on her colleagues to investigate various ways to offset the fee’s potential financial impact on churches. Kennett was also inclined to keep the discussion going, notwithstanding an appeal from councilman Ian Baltutis to act on the proposed fee structure sooner rather than later.
“I don’t want to keep kicking the can down the road,” he insisted. “I would like to see us move to implement a fee change fairly timely…while guidelines for credits can be an addendum to this.”
In the end, the council agreed to let Barber continue to tinker with the proposed credits program before rendering a final decision on a modified fee.
Setting priorities
The council was nevertheless willing to take action on another aspect of the city’s stormwater program this week.
At Barber’s behest, its members signed off on a “prioritization” policy for infrastructure improvements that residents ask the city to make on private property.
This new protocol will require the city’s stormwater staff to grade any requested improvements based on their “public benefit,” the “severity” of any property damage, the spillover onto the city’s own infrastructure, and the values of “community and equity.” According to Barber, this final criterion would be assessed using a standard established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Barber told the council that this scoring system will enable the city’s stormwater staff to work their way through the six applications for upgrades that they currently have in the queue. They’ll also be able to use these scores to adjust the city’s share of each project’s cost. Under Barber’s proposal, the city could pick up 100 percent of a project’s expense, opt for the traditional 80/20 split, or go 50/50 with the property owner depending on the score that the project receives.
The council voted 5-to-0 in favor of this prioritization policy when its members convened their next regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday.
