The Stormwater Blogs

The Blogger

Janice Kaspersen Janice Kaspersen Stormwater Editor

More from this blogger

  1. Dead Zones
  2. Five Years On
  3. Closer Together
  4. Thanks to the StormCon Moderators!
  5. Dam Breach in Iowa
  6. Two Weeks to StormCon
  7. Mosquitoes and Malaria
  8. More Mosquitoes
  9. Storms in the Gulf
  10. Seeking StormCon Moderators
  11. Never Flooded Before
  12. Storms in the Midwest
  13. Restoring the Penobscot
  14. Hurricanes and Oil
  15. The Uninvited
  16. Half of Our Trees Are Missing
  17. A Hairy Solution
  18. Oil in the Gulf
  19. A Multitalented Plant
  20. Where It Falls
  21. Floating BMPs
  22. Regulating Copper in Brake Pads
  23. EPA Addresses Water Contaminants
  24. Getting Along With the Neighbors
  25. Local Voices in Washington
  26. Out of Sight
  27. Sentinel Species
  28. Collection System
  29. Living Underground
  30. Keeping Stormwater Onsite in LA
  31. Appealing the New Flood Maps
  32. EPA Sets Nutrient Limits for Florida
  33. Some Like It Hot
  34. Skip the Bag, Save the River
  35. Maintenance The Unglamorous Necessity
  36. Put the LID on Stormwater
  37. Federal Responsibility for Katrina Flooding
  38. Certifying Performance
  39. EPA's Construction Effluent Guidelines Released
  40. StormCon Abstracts Due December 2
  41. Reclassified
  42. Reusing Runoff
  43. More Than Just Pipes
  44. Two Announcements from EPA
  45. Separation Anxiety
  46. Federal Funding for Local Projects
  47. Undoing Progress
  48. StormCon 2010 Call for Papers
  49. Lovely as a Tree
  50. Stimulus Funds and Stormwater
  51. Thanks to the StormCon Session Moderators!
  52. Live From StormCon..
  53. StormCon '09 More You Should Know About
  54. Counting Beach Closures
  55. Still Growing
  56. Density Done Well
  57. A Combination Problem
  58. One Driveway at a Time
  59. Underground
  60. Making Sure Infrastructure Doesn't Become a Hazard
  61. A Beach Comes Back
  62. With a Grain of Salt
  63. Blocking Out the Storm
  64. LID in Washington State
  65. Florida Gains Land in Public-Private Partnership
  66. A High-Density Debate
  67. Stormwater Management in Plain Sight
  68. Charging More for Potential Pollutants
  69. At Home in the Watershed
  70. We Have Met the Polluter - He Is Us
  71. Mobile Car Wash Runoff
  72. Red River Rising
  73. Summer School
  74. Rain Barrels, Anyone
  75. Getting Serious About the Weather
  76. Taking the Pulse of Utilities
  77. Not Your Ordinary Utility Debate
  78. How Dangerous Is Chitosan, Really Do We Need Certification
  79. Debating Dollars
  80. Demonstrating Green
  81. Paperless Stormwater
  82. Looking for Shovel-Ready Projects
  83. Online Erosion Control Training - Let Us Know What You Think
  84. No Relief Yet for the Northwest
  85. Happy Holidays From Stormwater
  86. Remedying Retention Pond Dangers
  87. New Funding on the Way
  88. The Case of the Missing Manhole Cover
  89. StormCon '09 Abstracts Are Due December 3
  90. A New Plan in the Everglades
  91. Down the Drain
  92. Gunk in the Ocean Our Problem
  93. Save the Date December 3 Is Closer Than You Think
  94. Watershed-Based Permitting
  95. Looking Outside Our Own Backyard
  96. The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
  97. Show Me the Money, If You Can Find It
  98. The Safety Issue
  99. StormCon '09 Call for Papers
  100. Worse Weather Or Does It Just Seem That Way
  101. Gustav a Reminder of What's Left To Do
  102. Recovering After the Storm
  103. Who Owns the Rain
  104. BMPs and the Bigger Picture
  105. How Are Your Pipes
  106. Regulations We've Got Those Covered, Too
  107. You Asked for BMPs - We've Got 'Em
  108. Simplifying Public Outreach
  109. New Terminology
  110. Buying Time and Space for the Everglades
  111. The Worst Is Over
  112. Midwest Flooding - Could This Have Happened Differently
  113. EPA's Message to Homebuilders
  114. StormCon '08 Is Less Than Two Months Away
  115. Welcome to our new Website!
  116. 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!