Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables bill seeking credit for sediment basins and reduce cash requirement for early‑grading securities
Summary
House Bill 2132 would allow developers to receive credit for sediment basins posted as securities during early‑grading plans when final stormwater facilities are bonded, and would reduce required cash/letter‑of‑credit to 25% for early basins; the subcommittee tabled the bill 6‑4 after mixed testimony.
Delegate Milley described House Bill 2132 as an effort to avoid ‘‘double bonding’’ developers must sometimes post when early‑grading sediment basins are later incorporated into final stormwater management ponds. The bill would require localities to credit existing securities posted for sediment basins against required securities for final stormwater facilities when the two structures are the same or substantially similar; the measure would also lower the statutory option that localities may require at least 50% of securities in cash/letter‑of‑credit for sediment basins to a 25% minimum.
Supporters including the Home Builders Association and engineering proponents said double‑bonding can impose unnecessary cash‑flow burdens and that the bill is meant to ensure credits for identical work. Localities, municipal associations and stormwater officials expressed concern that reducing the cash/letter‑of‑credit portion could slow or complicate the locality’s ability to act quickly if a developer defaults, pointing to past experiences where immediate funds were needed to address erosion or public‑safety issues.
The administration’s DEQ representative said the proposal would reduce development costs and could modestly ease housing affordability pressures, but local government witnesses and the Virginia Municipal Stormwater Association urged caution and recommended existing statutory reasonableness limits be applied where double counting occurs. After public testimony for and against the bill, the subcommittee voted to table the measure 6‑4.
Provenance: Sponsor presentation at block starting 4437.3647; committee action tabling at block starting 5946.32.
