Comments on: Storm Water Assessments mailed to citizens

By: Scott Burger

Scott Burger — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:47:09 +0000

Brad, now you are the one bringing in apples and oranges. There’s been some reform and there is a connection to connection fees, but the fact is we still have the highest minimum water rate in the country while the counties still buy water from us and sell it more cheaply to their residents.

By: PlumboJumbo

PlumboJumbo — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:14:06 +0000

This is just plain dumb! I know that city had meetins about this but I couldn’t attend. I had to get my big gulp on. Now I gotta pay? Thanks city council!

By: Sundagger

Sundagger — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:53:54 +0000

Scott,
Apples and oranges again. The counties subsidize the per gallon rate with a high connection fee. The city has had historically a low connection fee and a higher per gallon fee. That’e changing as the city is moving toward a lower rate schedule for small users, and an increased connection fee. On top of that though are the requirements of a city agreement with DEQ/EPA to increase investment in water/sewer treatment.

By: Scott Burger

Scott Burger — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:58:00 +0000

You are right, Brad, I accidently mixed some apples and oranges there. But the exemptions are notable- we need to get closer to paying for what we use/have- stormwater and water in general. I will also note that Richmond City continues to have the highest minimum water rates in the country while the counties buy water from the City and sell it more cheaply to their residents.

By: Brad

Brad — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:29:30 +0000

Though I agree with the sentiment expressed in #14, it appears that the link provided in #17 is an exemption (appropriate or not) to water and sewer bills, not the stormwater management fee. From the one public meeting I attended regarding the fee (hosted by the Sierra Club – thank you!), no property owner is exempt from paying the fee (no matter the type of institution, land use, income level, etc. All non-profits, religious institutions, VCU, MCV and all other state buildings and parking lots must pay the fee). Our bill was $25, which is the minimum for residential units. I think there is a lot of storm water management improvements needed in the City and doing this work properly and a timely manner will only help to improve the health of the James River and the Chesapeake Bay. $25 a year seems a fair price to pay to be a responsible property owner in the James River and Bay watershed.

By: Tamara Smith

Tamara Smith — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:26:58 +0000

I cannot see one storm sewer in visible sight of my property, the rainwater goes right through the groud. If it actually went through a sewer drain nearby I might understand why I am being taxed. Who are these assessors? where is this money going?

By: Scott Burger

Scott Burger — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:04:51 +0000

exemptions:

http://richmond-telegraph.blogspot.com/2009/06/city-council-meeting-june-22-2009-how.html

By: Brandon

Brandon — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:12:26 +0000

I also noticed that, included in the envelope with the assessment bill, was a pamphlet noting the City is boostering its replacement of some of the historic cobblestone alley materials in the city with porous paving – if the cobblestones are set in sand or gravel, isn’t that a porous surface treatment? Seems like its stupid and a massive waste to remove a 200-year old paving material. Also, if this is done in an O&H district (where the cobblestone alleys may be contributing features), isn’t that a change that could be a violation of the guidelnes? And could possibly result in the removal of the district from the National Register?

#14: Where can I get more info on these West End neighborhoods that may have received exemptions? How is that legal?

By: Shannon

Shannon — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:32:48 +0000

The thing is this – the choices about allocation of the funds already available are, and have always been, questionable. And as long as people are feeling like the basic needs of citizens are not being met with the money already there, there will naturally be some resentment about giving more.

By: Scott Burger

Scott Burger — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:04:56 +0000

This also goes back to when Rudy McCullom was Mayor. Remember his ‘lemonade from lemons’ when it cam to correcting sewer overflow problems and the Canal Walk? Part of our utility bill surcharges went into Canal Walk construction as part of sewer overflow fixing. I always wondered how much was legitimate, and how much was more corporate welfare scheming. After that came the $50 million loan to Cordish for the ‘Power Plant’ development on Brown’s Island. How many of those new buildings are still vacant? I know some people regard me as a nonstop nag as far as this downtown corporate welfare issue goes, but citizens need to make the connections and see how much they ultimately costs us.

PointCounterPoint and Sundagger are right, at least the stormwater fee is supposed to cost everyone (yes, even you , VCU) and not just residents. As citizens we need to make sure that the fees are correctly collected (there have already been some questionable exemptions for certain West End neighborhoods- I am looking at you, Bruce Tyler) and the money is used exclusively for alieviating stormwater issues.

Again, ultimately, we all do have a responsibility to bring the Chesapeake Bay back to life. There are lots of things that can be done to help stormwater in Richmond, porous sidewalks and parking lot materials (look at old cobblestones as well as new materials like like the green pavers at Cheswick Park in Henrico County), green roofs and alleys, rainwater gutter barrels, rain gardens, cleaner and more open streams (hello Shockoe Creek), MORE TREES (hello Urban Forestry), etc.

By: Sundagger

Sundagger — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:26:21 +0000

#12 is close. For more than 25 years, the city ignored its physical infrastructure and spent its money on the social infrastructure. Drainage was always the last thing funded in the GF budget. By the middle of this decade, the EPA and the DEQ were getting restive at Richmond’s lack of progress in meeting environmental goals. Deadlines set years ago come due in the next couple of years. The utility is an attempt to “depoliticize” the funding process for stormwater manzgement. No longer must it compete with social programs, schools, streets and policing for funding. Now there is a revenue stream that pays for annual maintenance programs, and a guaranteed revenue stream that permits bonding to pay for stormwater infrastructure programs. And now there is a plan to show that Richmond is serious about its obligations. Remember, only about 48% of Richmond property pays real estate taxes. Everybody pays the stormwater utility fee.

By: Paul Hammond

Paul Hammond — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:21:09 +0000

My understanding is this is at least partially mandated by the Feds as part of the clean up of Chesapeake Bay. Anybody know more about this?

By: Shannon

Shannon — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:29:17 +0000

Wrote my $45 check last night, and fantasized the whole time about doing something disgusting to it before I put it in the envelope. I know – it’s not the envelope-opener’s fault. Just saying, this seems real ridiculous.

Interesting question about the lein, because I don’t think that would really even matter until you go to sell.

By: Alice

Alice — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:27:56 +0000

I am upset about the fee. It will be collected every year. I have lived in the same place in Richmond for 20 years. There has never been a flood near my home. When hurricane Isabelle came, I was out of my house for 2 wks. because there were no street lights and no electricity in the house. Also, no shelters were available. In red letters the notice threatens to put a lien on your house if you do not pay. Can a lien legally be brought about for $45? This sounds like a hoax – stormwater. Next they will charge a fee because the sun shines. I would rather pay a fee for shelters in times of weather emergencies.

By: Gordo

Gordo — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:49:56 +0000

It is a stupid tax being levied to protect those dumb enough to locate their busineses in flood prone shockhoe bottom.

Since I was smart enough to live on top of church hill instead of below it, I should not have to pay for their stupidity.

By: john_m

john_m — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:47:26 +0000

It’s a yearly hit.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:41:31 +0000

Is this a monthly fee? I remember the intial mailing but did not give it a second thought.

By: PointCounterPoint

PointCounterPoint — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:00:26 +0000

The reason this is a “fee” is that it can be passed onto all normally tax exempt properties like VCU and churches. So finally, they get to pay their share.

As a residential taxpayers, we get stuck as this is a “fee”, not a real estate tax and is, technically, not deductible on our tax returns.

It is interesting they only allow 2 weeks to pay the bill. I would have thought it would have been a month.

By: Scott Burger

Scott Burger — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:17:55 +0000

http://www.oregonhill.net/2009/07/09/the-spigot-is-turning/

Now we need some FOIA’s to fact check….

By: Brandon

Brandon — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:51:47 +0000

I wonder how much VCU will be paying to the City for all their impermeable surfaces?

By: Bezo

Bezo — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:24:59 +0000

If we refuse to pay, will they leave the water on our property?

By: ann

ann — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:16:20 +0000

I certainly agree with #1…hitting city residents for a tax against impermeable roofs and patios while constantly installing impermeable sidewalks is the epitome of DUMB and dumber…but is the way any government entity works.

By: Bullwinkle

Bullwinkle — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:37:36 +0000

If this is really such a huge problem that each and every citizen has to be billed for it, then maybe the city should stop replacing our gravel lined (under the bricks) sidewalks with solid concrete ones. The new walks sure ain’t permeable.

Kinda seems like this one is just a city run scam, plain and simple.