Lynchburg City Council tables contentious storm water fee proposal

In light of continuing disagreement among City Council, Lynchburg’s contentious storm water fee proposal was tabled Tuesday and will return in phases over the next few months.

The storm water fee, which city staff hopes to start billing by July, is designed to charge properties for impervious surfaces such as rooftops and parking lots that exacerbate pollution problems caused by storm water runoff. 

The proceeds would fund a more robust storm water management program and infrastructure projects needed to comply with a slew of tougher water quality standards being handed down by state and federal authorities. 

Under proposed formulas, an average Lynchburg homeowner would pay an initial storm water fee of $4 a month.  

Fees would ramp up over time as water quality regulations grow more demanding.

 Council has been debating the storm water issue all year and reached agreement on most points except perhaps the most critical — exactly how much to charge.

 “This is where I’m digging my heels in a little bit,” said Councilman Turner Perrow, who’s serving on a statewide storm water advisory committee and has been highly critical of the statistical models environmental regulators are basing their decisions on.

 “This is a mandate and we have to comply with it, but I’m going to comply kicking and screaming,” he said. “… Until we get correct information, I don’t want to expand (storm water management) service.”

 Perrow proposed they set the fee’s base rate at $3 a month — which would only allow officials to maintain current oversight levels — and that they initiate a corresponding reduction in real estate taxes so the shift would remain revenue-neutral for property owners.

 Tax-exempt organizations would still end up seeing an increase in costs, but council has agreed it’s fair, as those organizations are not currently charged equally for the runoff they create.

 Councilman Jeff Helgeson supported Perrow’s proposal and suggested they table the issue until next spring’s budget talks so the fee could be settled in concert with the tax rate.

 Following extended council debate, City Manager Kimball Payne proposed they approve the underlying idea of the fee but set the rate at a later date. He said staff needed at least six months lead time. If the fee isn’t approved until the budget talks start in March, the city won’t have enough time to implement all the required changes by July, Payne said.

 Council agreed to this approach and scheduled a vote on the underlying fee proposal for December.

 The rate will be revisited next year. To date, a majority of council has voiced support for the $4 rate, but few have commented on Perrow’s proposal to make it revenue-neutral by initiating a real estate tax rate cut.

 Turnout for a public hearing on the fee proposal was light Tuesday. Two people, including a representative for the James River Association, spoke in favor of the proposal. Two spoke against.