The Stormwater Blogs

The Blogger

Janice Kaspersen Janice Kaspersen Stormwater Editor

More from this blogger

  1. Dam Breach in Iowa
  2. Two Weeks to StormCon
  3. Mosquitoes and Malaria
  4. More Mosquitoes
  5. Storms in the Gulf
  6. Seeking StormCon Moderators
  7. Never Flooded Before
  8. Storms in the Midwest
  9. Restoring the Penobscot
  10. Hurricanes and Oil
  11. The Uninvited
  12. Half of Our Trees Are Missing
  13. A Hairy Solution
  14. Oil in the Gulf
  15. A Multitalented Plant
  16. Where It Falls
  17. Floating BMPs
  18. Regulating Copper in Brake Pads
  19. EPA Addresses Water Contaminants
  20. Getting Along With the Neighbors
  21. Local Voices in Washington
  22. Out of Sight
  23. Sentinel Species
  24. Collection System
  25. Living Underground
  26. Keeping Stormwater Onsite in LA
  27. Appealing the New Flood Maps
  28. EPA Sets Nutrient Limits for Florida
  29. Some Like It Hot
  30. Skip the Bag, Save the River
  31. Maintenance The Unglamorous Necessity
  32. Put the LID on Stormwater
  33. Federal Responsibility for Katrina Flooding
  34. Certifying Performance
  35. EPA's Construction Effluent Guidelines Released
  36. StormCon Abstracts Due December 2
  37. Reclassified
  38. Reusing Runoff
  39. More Than Just Pipes
  40. Two Announcements from EPA
  41. Separation Anxiety
  42. Federal Funding for Local Projects
  43. Undoing Progress
  44. StormCon 2010 Call for Papers
  45. Lovely as a Tree
  46. Stimulus Funds and Stormwater
  47. Thanks to the StormCon Session Moderators!
  48. Live From StormCon..
  49. StormCon '09 More You Should Know About
  50. Counting Beach Closures
  51. Still Growing
  52. Density Done Well
  53. A Combination Problem
  54. One Driveway at a Time
  55. Underground
  56. Making Sure Infrastructure Doesn't Become a Hazard
  57. A Beach Comes Back
  58. With a Grain of Salt
  59. Blocking Out the Storm
  60. LID in Washington State
  61. Florida Gains Land in Public-Private Partnership
  62. A High-Density Debate
  63. Stormwater Management in Plain Sight
  64. Charging More for Potential Pollutants
  65. At Home in the Watershed
  66. We Have Met the Polluter - He Is Us
  67. Mobile Car Wash Runoff
  68. Red River Rising
  69. Summer School
  70. Rain Barrels, Anyone
  71. Getting Serious About the Weather
  72. Taking the Pulse of Utilities
  73. Not Your Ordinary Utility Debate
  74. How Dangerous Is Chitosan, Really Do We Need Certification
  75. Debating Dollars
  76. Demonstrating Green
  77. Paperless Stormwater
  78. Looking for Shovel-Ready Projects
  79. Online Erosion Control Training - Let Us Know What You Think
  80. No Relief Yet for the Northwest
  81. Happy Holidays From Stormwater
  82. Remedying Retention Pond Dangers
  83. New Funding on the Way
  84. The Case of the Missing Manhole Cover
  85. StormCon '09 Abstracts Are Due December 3
  86. A New Plan in the Everglades
  87. Down the Drain
  88. Gunk in the Ocean Our Problem
  89. Save the Date December 3 Is Closer Than You Think
  90. Watershed-Based Permitting
  91. Looking Outside Our Own Backyard
  92. The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
  93. Show Me the Money, If You Can Find It
  94. The Safety Issue
  95. StormCon '09 Call for Papers
  96. Worse Weather Or Does It Just Seem That Way
  97. Gustav a Reminder of What's Left To Do
  98. Recovering After the Storm
  99. Who Owns the Rain
  100. BMPs and the Bigger Picture
  101. How Are Your Pipes
  102. Regulations We've Got Those Covered, Too
  103. You Asked for BMPs - We've Got 'Em
  104. Simplifying Public Outreach
  105. New Terminology
  106. Buying Time and Space for the Everglades
  107. The Worst Is Over
  108. Midwest Flooding - Could This Have Happened Differently
  109. EPA's Message to Homebuilders
  110. StormCon '08 Is Less Than Two Months Away
  111. Welcome to our new Website!
  112. The State of Water Quality
view all

SW Editor's Blog

September 14th, 2009 7:30am PST

A Decimal Point Makes a Difference

Posted By Janice Kaspersen 2 Comments

Although stormwater utilities are more widely accepted and understood as revenue-generators for stormwater programs than they were a decade ago, there are still plenty of people who argue against them—fighting proposed new utilities and sometimes challenging new stormwater fees in court as illegal taxes.

That’s why an error recently discovered by the city of Dunedin, Florida, could be a setback for those who encourage stormwater fees as a fair and equitable—and necessary—way to fund drainage improvements, water quality treatment, and other program expenses.

Back in 2003, the city raised commercial and residential stormwater fees from $3 per month to $4.50. However, as reported in an article  in The Suncoast News, because of a clerical error—a mistake in the placement of a decimal point—the commercial rate was actually raised only $0.15 per month rather than $1.50. Rates were raised again in 2005, to $6 for both residential and commercial users, but that increase was actually implemented only on the residential side. Commercial users have been paying $3.15 per month since 2003, costing the city about $125,000 each year.

This raises two points for opponents of stormwater fees. First, the city’s residential customers will be understandably upset to learn they’ve been paying a higher rate for six years than their commercial counterparts. Secondly, the city apparently didn’t miss the money that wasn’t being collected; it discovered the two errors only when preparing for another fee increase, but it says ongoing program operations and capital improvements “have not been affected by the loss.” The logical question, then, for rate-payers: Is the new increase really necessary?

The city says the missing income wasn’t noticed earlier in part because of the declining economy—it seemed like just part of the normal ups and downs of yearly revenue—and it doesn’t plan at this point to make the commercial users pay the fees retroactively.

What Do You Think?

Post a Comment

blindogg

September 17th, 2009 1:23 PM PT

At first glance it may seem that the money wasn't missed, but it's entirely possible that other services were compromised because of that missing money. Unfortunately customers can not be expected to pay a retro-active fee because of a clerical error, but stormwater fees are used to pay for tangible services and the "you didn't miss it" excuse doesn't hold (storm) water. If the IRS told you that they had been overtaxing you the first question you'd ask is "Where's my refund."

cindyfindley

September 16th, 2009 8:48 AM PT

Great post. I think the city should give the residential customers a break for six years and charge them nothing while charging the commercial users. I have reposted your blog at http://www.EHSG.org and gave you credit with a link back to this site.

Post a Comment

Not a subscriber? Sign Up
 
 
*  
 




 

Get Stormwater E-mail Updates!

Get weekly news and updates through our Stormwater e-mail newsletter!