Applied for stormwater credit, got a 50% fee increase

After going through the effort and cost of installing four raingardens (one on
each corner of my house), swales & dry wells, and taking the time to complete
the stormwater credit application which includes an inventory of all the
impervious area on my property, I was surprised to get a phone call from the
stormwater management department explaining that my fee would now be increased.
Say What?

Generally when you apply for a credit, and follow the required steps to the
letter you get that credit, but that is not the case with the Minneapolis
Stormwater credit. You might find this as surprising as I did to learn that my
800 sq foot home on a standard 40 x 120 lot is actually now considered to be in
the same category as a McMansion because I provided an accurate assessment of
all the impervious area on my lot. My house, no different from those on the
rest of my block, has a patio, a two car garage and a walkway to the
garage--all of these are enough to bump me into the maximum category.

You see, the formula the City used to calculate typical impervious area for my
property and most residential properties is apparently in error, so with the
data I provided on my stormwater credit application they took the opportunity
to reclassify me from .75 ESU to 1.25 ESU (how I can be more than one I'm not
sure exactly). So my charge which was now about 7 bucks a month will be
increased to $12.50 (5 bucks), with with the 22% stormwater credit it will only
result in a $3-$4 increase. I'm actually controlling over 45% of the
stormwater on my property but the City knocks that number in half unless you do
the quantitative study which requires employing a certified engineer and
conducting a formal survey of your property.

Sounds like I'm not the only one who has been put in this situation. I
attended the Minneapolis Blooms workshop and used the plant materials grant to
create one of the gardens two years ago and have installed a raingarden one for
every year--doing my part to contribute to stormwater reduction and meeting the
sustainability goals of the City. One of the sustainability indicators that the
City is measuring is number of raingardens installed, and now it turns out that
there is a huge disincentive to let the City know you have installed one.
Actually, there are at least 3 disincentives. The first is that installing a
raingardent takes hard work, design time, and money for the materials. Each of
mine cost about $200 in materials and countless hours to nuture through the
first year especially with droughts, etc... The second disincentive is, you
only get half of the credit you claim. The City has just arbitrarily
determined that if the homeowner does it themself that it can only control half
the stated amount unless you employ a certified engineer, conduct a survey, and
complete the "quantity" credit which could run you in the thousands to do for a
few dollars credit. The third, and this is the big one, is that if you apply
for the credit as I did they City may actually use that information against you
and increase your rate.

I have done more than the City has asked me too. I even use organic yard care
methods. The application and my use of stormwater controls was approved, but
yet I have to pay additional fees for doing something that benefits the City
environmentally and contributes to their sustainability goals! Why in the
world would anyone who learns of this go through the bother if they find out
that in the end there is no incentive and they will only be charged more!? The
process needs to be fixed to actually provide some type of incentive to people
who go through the trouble of installing raingardens as the City encourages.
Maybe the City can have people actually come out and verify the gardens and if
they do give more than 50% credit for the improvements. Maybe the City could
include the use of rainbarrels which they currently do not allow? I think it
is hard for the mayor and City Council to promote that there is a stormwater
credit for people to offset these new costs (which have risen for the third
time in two years) when it turns out there really is not one.

Justin Eibenholzl
Minneapolis Blooms Garden Award winner (2006, 2007)

Rest of post

Oh my gosh! Thanks for posting your story. It's outrageous.

http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/2g3e1DdQVA0pGOpDrMaD7S

Jim Hartmann
Linden Hills

At 1:51 PM -0600 2/21/08, Justin E. wrote:
>Actually, there are at least 3 disincentives. The first is that
>installing a raingardent takes hard work, design time, and money for
>the materials. Each of mine cost about $200 in materials and
>countless hours to nuture through the first year especially with
>droughts, etc... The second disincentive is, you only get half of
>the credit you claim. The City has just arbitrarily determined that
>if the homeowner does it themself that it can onl
> y control half the stated amount unless you employ a certified
>engineer, conduct a survey, and complete the "quantity" credit which
>could run you in the thousands to do for a few dollars credit. The
>third, and this is the big one, is that if you apply for the credit
>as I did they City may actually use that information against you and
>increase your rate.

This is where the rubber hits the road in Minneapolis officials'
much-touted "Sustainability" efforts: there's a lot of talk, a lot
of talk, a lot of self-congratulation by politicians, a spate of tiny
Green Grants to pay neighborhoods to print up and distribute fliers
on compact fluorescent lights, and silly City Council activities like
insisting on a "green roof" for the Target Center which may collapse
if they do it.

But there is a regulatory and strong bureaucratic force against
individuals who try their utmost to Do The Right Thing with
stormwater control. Why?

This issue has been on our list before. Has anyone done anything
about what seems to be among the City Council's crazier disincentives
to people who are trying, like Justin, to walk the walk?

Connie
Como, in Southeast Minneapolis

Rest of post

Why doesn't this surprise me ?

The credit began with (mostly) good intentions...encourage both residents and
businesses/institutions/apartments to do the right thing and/or save money.
The city had an interest in complying with Met Council mandates (read,
fines)....while Green is a big thing now, only a few council people were
predominantly green-motivated.

Many residents were upset with the new fees...residents were told this credit
would be a way to soften the blow. CUE and others ran rain garden
workshops...several years ago a neighbor signed up for 2...she was surprised
when I told her she'd need an engineer (that was not mentioned at either
workshop).

As far as I can remember at the time, only one council member questioned the
requirements for the credit. How many home owners and regular folk could
afford to hire an engineer to certify the work done met the city's standards?
That council member was very vocal.

Application guidelines are needed to avoid some from taking advantage of the
credit. If you make the process and standards too easy, the city loses
revenue.

Perhaps the council and public works needs to revisit the
ordinance/criteria/''forumula" and fee schedule. Maybe, the
Health/energy/environment committee needs to be a partner in the discussion.
And, maybe, the Mayor needs to provide direction and leadership on this.
Reality runs up against the Mayor's Green initiatives and the city's Comp Plan
for Sustainability 2030 goals and implementation. (hope ya all got your
comments in..environment has it's own section).

I'd be interested to know the dollar amounts spent on those teeny mini-grants
(which would be part of the city's funding source after NRP is eliminated)
versus revenue lost thru this credit system...and a cost:benefit analysis of
facilitating broader resident participation in this program.

Perhaps the consequences were not 'unintended'.

best wishes,
cheryl luger
nokomis east

Rest of post

The city should be downright embarrassed by this ridiculous situation.

And no one should have to hire an engineer to prove that water does not flow
uphill either.

Jim Hartmann
Linden Hills

While I agree that the engineer stuff is overkill and City Council should look
for ways to simplify the credit program for homeowners, I think that something
is being overlooked here with this storm water utility fee.

As Justin said, his property was initially classified as a 0.75 ESU and after
his application was reviewed, it was reclassified to 1.25 ESU. I guess what I'm
wondering is why was it so wrong in the first place? Had the initial
classification been done right, then Justin would have paid a $12.50 storm
water fee from the start and his credit would have been applied to that. He
might have been prompted to do even more.

It also begs the much larger question of how many other properties out there
are misclassified either too high or too low and whether the city is actually
receiving the revenue it's supposed to so that we can maintain our storm water
infrastructure. Additionally, as word gets out about this, folks like me who
have done some stuff in our yards are going to be less inclined to formally
participate in the credit program because we could end up getting shafted just
like Justin did.

I would say a hard look needs to be taken at the Transportation and Public
Works committee process that approved how this program was set up. It seems
like they did not place nearly as high a premium on accuracy as they should
have.

Mark Snyder
Windom Park

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 05:00:02 +1300 (NZDT), Mark Snyder wrote:

>As Justin said, his property was initially classified as a 0.75 ESU and after
his application was reviewed, it was reclassified to 1.25 ESU. I guess what I'm
wondering is why was it so wrong in the first place?

I don't know about anybody else, but when that fee was first announced,
I went out and paced off my lot to see what my permeable footage was.
Seemed like the prudent thing to do. It turned out to be pretty close
to the default.

I'm guessing the city set things the way they did because anything more
tailored would have required a lot of labor to accomplish.

The engineer thing is ludicrous (unless it's limited to lots of
substantial size, say an acre) and I'd like to invite a CM or city staff
to explain the justification of that. In most cases, any building
inspector or contractor should be able to eyeball things and provide a
"close-enough" estimate.

Dave

--- Mark Snyder <<email obscured>> wrote: <snip>

> It also begs the much larger question of how many
> other properties out there are misclassified either
> too high or too low and whether the city is actually
> receiving the revenue it's supposed to so that we
> can maintain our storm water infrastructure.
> Additionally, as word gets out about this, folks
> like me who have done some stuff in our yards are
> going to be less inclined to formally participate in
> the credit program because we could end up getting
> shafted just like Justin did.

Indeed. When this fee was first instituted, we owned
a vacant lot on the backside of our home. I was
initially charged as if a building and driveway still
existed on that lot, even though I'm pretty sure it
was the City of Minneapolis which had demolished it
all.

Ultimately I had to draw a map of the lot and indicate
all of the pervious/impervious area. I did so,
illustrating its use as a garden, and thankfully got
the fee waived.

Connie Nompelis
Central Neighborhood

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Connie Nompelis: "we owned a vacant lot on the backside of our home. I was
initially charged as if a building and driveway stillexisted on that lot, even
though I'm pretty sure it was the City of Minneapolis which had demolished it
all."

Squirreled away in the City of Lakes Building are a group of people who seem to
be computerizing every piece of land and every building in the city. (I think
it's called G.I.S., but maybe not.) They show the number of buildings on any
particular lot. Their information is incomplete. Buildings which once were on a
lot sometimes still show as existing, even though they were torn or burned down
years ago.

Oddly enough, the Census Bureau has the same problem. The Census taker door
knocked asking where an address was. I told him where the building had been,
but was no longer, having been demolished as an "attractive nuisance" two years
before year 2000 census. All this to keep anthropologists and archeologists
employed in the run up to the year 8000 census.

Virtually every city block in Minneapolis and St. Paul are photographed on
Googles "Streetscape' though they get addresses wrong quite a bit. That should
certainly and easily help property owners prove a point.

Jon Gorder
Cathedral Hill

WIZARD MARKS <<email obscured>> wrote: Connie Nompelis: "we owned a vacant lot
on the backside of our home. I was initially charged as if a building and
driveway stillexisted on that lot, even though I'm pretty sure it was the City
of Minneapolis which had demolished it all."

Squirreled away in the City of Lakes Building are a group of people who seem to
be computerizing every piece of land and every building in the city. (I think
it's called G.I.S., but maybe not.) They show the number of buildings on any
particular lot. Their information is incomplete. Buildings which once were on a
lot sometimes still show as existing, even though they were torn or burned down
years ago.

Oddly enough, the Census Bureau has the same problem. The Census taker door
knocked asking where an address was. I told him where the building had been,
but was no longer, having been demolished as an "attractive nuisance" two years
before year 2000 census. All this to keep anthropologists and archeologists
employed in the run up to the year 8000 census.
Wizard Marks
Central
Info about Wizard Marks: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/wizardmarks

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6EbLSHgImtC9ynaKacdaDc

Rest of post

Some good ideas and input. I spoke with a neighborhood leader about the issue
today and she had the suggestion that maybe people who have installed
raingardens or performed some other type of control measures (approved by the
City) should have their classification lowered to .48 ESU, for example.

That would eliminate a lot of the confusion and avoid my situation of applying
for a credit and receiving a fee. It would also be a straightforward way for
the City to acknowledge and reward efforts taken to control residential
stormwater whether you install one raingarden or 10. It would avoid the
cost/hassle of the City having to make case by case comparisons or arbritrary
judgements on the "quality" credit. No complicated formulas, no cutting in
half the number you submit, no engineers needed. You make an improvement in
line with the Sustainaiblity goal and city policy--you get the reclassification
credit--period.Jim wrote:> > The city should be downright embarrassed by this
ridiculous situation. > > And no one should have to hire an engineer to prove
that water does not flow uphill either.

I agree.

Justin Eibenholzl

Rest of post

Measurements of impervious surface area are totally meaningless without also
considering elevation. When your property is a bowl there's no place for water
to go but into the ground. If they aren't going to look at elevation then a
flat fee per home would be no more or less fair than the current system.

Issue update (I wish I didn't have to provide you this, really):

I got my water bill today and my new classification status and charge is there,
but no credit. Hmmm. So here's quick refresher. I applied for a stormwater
credit after installing 4 raingardens plus additional measures to control
stormwater from leaving the property. I was told, yes, I would get my credit
but my classification would jump two classifications increasing my fee $5 bucks
and decreasing about half that. As of today all I have on my water bill is the
$5 increase (annualized $60) since I applied for the credit--the thing that was
supposed to have reduced my water bill.

One other mathematical anomally is the fact that I am paying a total of $10.40
for water and sewer combined yet I have a stormwater fee of $12.83 which is
supposed to be tied somehow to my household water usage. I'm not sure how it
is possible that there is more cost for someone like me who is controlling my
stormwater in the manner I can on my property, but yet have to pay more for
this rain fee than for all the cost that the City has associated with filtering
the household water, delivering it to my house, and transporting/treating the
wastewater when it leaves. According to my bill, the rain (or snow this time
of year) has a higher cost associated with it.

The best part is that inside my water bill was a card promoting the Minneapolis
Blooms program, you know the the program you can participate in to learn how to
install raingarden so you can reduce your stormwater fee. I say "yes" install
the raingarden, just don't let the City know--unless you don't care about the
value of money and the labor you have to provide to earn it.

So if this is the type of financial management we can expect if we roll in the
currently independently managed NRP program into the City I think we should
collectively think twice about that.

Justin Eibenholzl
Shoveling my frozen rainwater in Armatage

Rest of post

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

Applied for stormwater credit, got a 50% fee increase

Already a member?

Not a member?

E-Democracy is 100% Donation Supported Contribute Today!