An Analysis of Patterns and Trends in United States Stormwater Utility Systems

Kea, Kandace; Dymond, Randel L.; Campbell, Warren

doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12462

Cited by 29 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SUFs are charged to consumers as a flat rate or a variable rate based on the consumers' use of stormwater management services [25].…”

Section: Sufs Rate Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Under a flat fee, consumers pay the same fee amount. The use of flat fees is more common for residential properties [33] and has been the funding mechanism in small towns and popular in municipalities with lower home values [25]. In 2018, 236 SUFs were identified in the U.S. using the flat fee method with fees ranging from less than $0.001 to $69.25 monthly, based on stormwater needs and local political realities [15].…”

Section: Sufs Rate Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…To determine the number of billable ERUs for non-residential parcels, their impervious areas are divided by the impervious area of a typical residential parcel [18]. This method has been the most prevalent funding mechanism in the U.S., particularly in larger cities with high population densities [25]. According to Campbell [15], there were 786 ERU utilities identified in the country in 2018.…”

Section: Sufs Rate Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stormwater Utility Fees and Credits: A Funding Strategy for Sustainability

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lack of stable and dedicated funding has been a primary challenge for municipalities in the United States to implement effective stormwater management programs. Stormwater utility fees (SUFs), as user fees, are an alternative dedicated revenue source to fund stormwater management. When complemented with stormwater utility credits or discounts, SUFs provide greater flexibility to adopting best management practices and reducing stormwater runoff at a lower overall cost to the community. While SUFs have been increasingly used, there is little systematic research on this topic. This paper reviews literature on how SUFs work, discusses the mechanisms for setting the fees, and provides examples of different rate structures from across the U.S. Then, we use the findings of the literature to evaluate SUFs as a funding strategy for stormwater management based on four revenue evaluation criteria of efficiency, equity, revenue adequacy, and feasibility. Overall, the literature indicates that stormwater utility fees are a more efficient and environmentally sustainable source of revenue that allows for long-range planning of capital improvements and operations, but their high political visibility and legal obstacles can affect their effective implementation. However, more empirical research is needed to assess these propositions. There is a lack of literature on effective SUF designs, equitable fee types, the extent to which SUFs lead to change in public behavior and their impact on business and stormwater management investments in a municipality.

show abstract

“…SUFs are charged to consumers as a flat rate or a variable rate based on the consumers' use of stormwater management services [25].…”

Section: Sufs Rate Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sufs Rate Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sufs Rate Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stormwater Utility Fees and Credits: A Funding Strategy for Sustainability

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Common types of SUF fees include Flat, Tier, Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), Residential Equivalence Factor (REF), Dual, and Parcel Area. Many others, including by water meter size, water usage, and number of parking spaces, also exist, but are not as prevalent (Kea et al, 2016). Each fee type is calculated based on different attributes of the parcels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Description of Common Fee Types and Number of Municipalities Using Each(Kea et al, 2016).Equivalent residential unit Charges based on average impervious area of residential parcels 709 Tier fee Charged by classifying parcels into categories based on impervious area, land use, etc.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Financial Impact of Different Stormwater Fee Types: A Case Study of Two Municipalities in Virginia

Fedorchak

Dymond

Campbell

2017

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eight stormwater user fees (SUFs) were applied to the City of Roanoke and the Town of Blacksburg, Virginia, to determine the effect each has on how land use type impacts the sources of revenue. Roanoke is larger and includes more industrial areas, but less multifamily impervious areas than Blacksburg, which translates differently in the SUFs. Residential parcels comprise the highest percentage of the revenue in all eight SUFs in Blacksburg and four in Roanoke. For both municipalities, two specific SUFs consistently comprised the highest percentage burden for residential homeowners while three other SUFs demonstrated the highest burden for commercial parcels. Open space parcels contain little impervious area, yet account for up to 27% of the revenue in the Blacksburg Area fee structure. Industrial parcels comprise more revenue in Roanoke, averaging 10.1-4.5% in Blacksburg. Fee types that are easier to administer (e.g., Flat fees) may not fully represent the stormwater contribution from the parcels. SUF types that more accurately represent the stormwater burden on the municipality are also more administratively intensive and are more variable with fee factors.(KEY TERMS: stormwater; stormwater utility; stormwater management program; stormwater user fees; urban areas.) Fedorchak, Amanda, Randel Dymond, and Warren Campbell, 2017. The Financial Impact of Different Stormwater Fee Types: A Case Study of Two Municipalities in Virginia. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 53 (6):

show abstract