Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Berkeley County examines raising stormwater fee as fund runs a multimillion-dollar shortfall
Summary
Berkeley County officials discussed raising the $36-per-household stormwater fee and revising formulas for large nonresidential users after staff said the stormwater special fund is roughly $2.68 million underwater; staff presented revenue estimates for $48 and $60 rates and council members asked for residential vs. commercial breakdowns and phased options.
County officials considered changes to Berkeley County’s stormwater fee and how to allocate costs between homeowners and large nonresidential properties after staff reported the stormwater fund is running a multimillion-dollar deficit.
Staff began the discussion by reviewing the fee’s history and how the current single-family rate of $36 was derived through an ERU (equivalent residential unit) formula. The presentation compared Berkeley County’s rate to nearby jurisdictions and noted the county’s fee is among the lowest in the region. Staff said the stormwater fund currently has a shortfall of roughly $2.68 million and that prior fund balance accumulated when work lagged behind revenue collection.
Meeting participants pressed staff for concrete options. Staff presented two straightforward revenue examples: at $48 per single-family ERU the program would generate about $6.278 million; at $60 it would generate about $7.848 million. Council members and other participants urged caution and asked for a clearer breakdown of how much revenue is generated by residential accounts versus large warehouses and industrial sites. One council member suggested modest residential increases combined with formula changes to shift more of the burden onto large commercial properties.
"The stormwater fee should generate the stormwater expenses," said Meeting participant, summarizing the policy principle that fees should pay the program’s costs rather than relying on general-fund subsidies.
Council members raised equity and transparency concerns. Several requested the staff produce a residential-versus-nonresidential revenue breakdown, examples of a 50,000-square-foot warehouse’s bill, and options that would allow phased increases (to limit short-term homeowner impacts) or a commercial-only formula adjustment so small businesses are not unduly burdened.
Staff said some stormwater capital requests have been funded from general-fund capital this year to keep priority projects moving. They also signaled they would present more data and possible phased approaches at a subsequent meeting.
No formal vote or ordinance was adopted at the workshop. The county directed staff to prepare detailed revenue breakdowns and implementable fee scenarios for future consideration.
