Consultant outlines stormwater funding options as town faces Chesapeake Bay TMDL deadline

A consultant told the Leesburg Town Council at its Oct. 6 work session that the town’s stormwater system is large and aging, that state and federal stormwater rules and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL impose retrofit and reporting requirements, and that the council must decide both a level of service and how to fund it.

The presentation, delivered by the consultant identified in the meeting as Mr. Boliva, said the town has nearly 200 linear miles of conveyance pipe, about 21 linear miles of improved channels, more than 8,000 storm-drain inlets, roughly 1,000 pipe ends and 426 regulated stormwater outfalls. He said the inventory also includes 85 publicly owned stormwater management facilities and about 373 privately maintained facilities. “It’s all about public safety — preventing flood damage — and it’s also about protecting your local water quality and your local ecosystems,” Boliva said when describing the regulatory drivers including the Virginia erosion and stormwater management rules, the town’s MS4 permit and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.

Why this matters: the council must meet MS4 permit obligations and a hard TMDL deadline in 2028 while an increasing share of the town’s stormwater infrastructure reaches the end of its useful life, the consultant said. He warned that parts of the system — notably corrugated metal pipe and manufactured treatment devices — may require near-term attention. He described a range of program and funding choices that lead to very different operating and capital budgets.

Key findings and costs - System size and condition: consultant presentation cited nearly 200 linear miles of conveyance pipe and more than 8,000 inlets. He said many components are approaching end-of-life: “stormwater BMPs typically have a lifespan of about 20 years” and corrugated metal pipe may have a life of 20–50 years depending on exposure and condition. (presentation by Mr. Boliva) - Inspection cadence: current town inspection cycle for the full conveyance system is roughly 40 years; pipe-end inspection cycle ~12 years; inlets are inspected on complaint. Boliva emphasized proactive maintenance is less expensive than emergency repairs and cited data showing emergency repairs can be roughly nine times costlier than proactive work. - TMDL gap and credits: staff and the consultant said the remaining gap to meet the town’s Bay nitrogen target is about 2,100 pounds; councilmember questions confirmed the town could purchase permanent or temporary nitrogen credits as an option. “The 2,100 pounds of nitrogen is the balance of what would get us to our goal for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL,” Boliva said. - Program-scale spending: the consultant presented order-of-magnitude ranges for a town-wide stormwater program, saying a fully funded program could range in the millions annually; he cited multi‑million-dollar capital infusions already reflected in the FY27 CIP and suggested ongoing program costs could be in the $5 million–$8 million per year range depending on chosen level of service. - Specific near-term items and recurring costs noted in the presentation include: an estimated $150,000 every five years for cartridge replacements on manufactured treatment devices; an estimated incremental $40,000 per year by 2028 to operate new BMPs and stream restoration installed for the Bay TMDL; and a 5-year inspection and maintenance need for many public BMP rehabilitations.

Private facilities and enforcement Council members pressed staff on privately maintained BMPs (about 373 in the inventory). Staff explained the MS4 permit requires the town to ensure maintenance agreements are in force and that the town can compel maintenance if owners do not comply. Staff said the town currently requires annual certification from private owners, inspects about 20% of private facilities each year and will follow enforcement steps — ranging from notices and attorney involvement to the town performing maintenance and back‑billing owners — if noncompliance continues. “We require annual certification and we also inspect 20% of the privately held inventory every year,” a town staff member said during the Q&A.

Council questions and next steps Council members asked technical and program questions about credits, cartridge maintenance, staffing and the timeframe to have a “solid picture” of costs. The consultant and staff repeatedly framed the decision as two questions for council direction: what level of service (basic, medium or high) should Leesburg adopt, and how should the program be funded — by general-fund real property tax revenue or a stormwater utility fee based on impervious area. Boliva summarized the distributional difference: under property-tax funding the residential share was higher (he cited roughly 65% borne by single-family detached/attached under an ad valorem model) while an impervious-area fee would shift costs toward more-impervious commercial and institutional properties.

Council direction: councilmembers asked staff to return with more detailed, budget-ready scenarios that define the basic, medium and high levels of service and show the cost and revenue effects of (a) continuing to fund stormwater from the general fund and (b) establishing a stormwater utility based on impervious cover. Multiple councilmembers expressed support for staff-led recommendations and follow-up work sessions to refine levels of service and rate/rule design.

Quotes - “It’s all about public safety — preventing flood damage — and it’s also about protecting your local water quality and your local ecosystems,” Mr. Boliva (consultant) said during the presentation. - “The 2,100 pounds of nitrogen is the balance of what would get us to our goal for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL,” Boliva said in answer to a council question about purchasing credits. - A town staff member said of private BMPs: “We require annual certification and we also inspect 20% of the privately held inventory every year.”

Ending Staff will return with costed scenarios (basic, medium, high) and with proposed next steps for community engagement, ordinance options and a possible rate model for an impervious‑area stormwater utility. Council members indicated they would hold further work sessions and expected staff to include the legal and enforcement implications of different funding approaches in that follow-up material.