By This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Published: June 30, 2008

In the mid-1990s, Griffin, Ga., identified more than 10 sources to pay for a stormwater management program and improvements to its deteriorating infrastructure.  Not one of them involved using money from the city’s general fund, as Waynesboro is doing.  Since it doesn’t rain most of the time, stormwater can be a hidden problem, said Griffin Public Works Director Brant Keller.  However, Keller sold city residents and businesses on the need for an upgraded stormwater system and, through an enterprise fund and the creation of Georgia’s first utility fee, helped pave the way for a steady source of funding.  “We set up a stormwater utility because it establishes a dedicated funding stream and allows one to go to the revenue bond market as well.,” Keller said. “We knew that the general fund has its ups and downs and could be severely cut. Our ordinance allows for no stormwater funds to go anywhere but back to the stormwater program.”
Similar in size to Waynesboro, Griffin started the process toward a stormwater utility in the mid-1990s in the wake of a failing stormwater system, numerous flood-prone areas and a shortage of storm drains. The city was also a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II candidate.

According to Stormwater magazine, Keller also went to Griffin’s top 50 utility customers for one-on-one visits in an effort to convince them of the need for a utility.  Prior to establishing a stormwater management program, Keller said Griffin “didn’t handle the stormwater issues. That is why we established the program.”  Not until 1998 did the city create the utility, which currently produces about $1.7 million yearly, with residents paying anywhere from $30 to $45 yearly. Commercial property owners pay, on average, just over $300 yearly.  “Flooding concerns, and the ability to meet permit requirements,” Keller said, “were the driving force[s] to successful stormwater implementation.”

In the first three years of the program, Griffin completed $8 million on construction to address what Keller said were some of the most serious flooding issues.  “… There were no major challenges,” Keller said. “We spent 16 months educating the general public and branded the program.”
While there are no exceptions, there is a credit system similar to one that utility fee proponents in Waynesboro have proposed.  Non-residential customers in Griffin can apply for peak flow reduction credits of up to 50 percent.  Griffin also issued $5 million worth of bonds for key stormwater projects and has received matching – and non-matching – grants and loans to pay for various projects. 

The National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, in a 2006 report, said that “the most successful stormwater programs are supported by several sources of funding, enabling them to spend more money to elevate the visibility of the program and improve cost accountability of specific functions.”  The report noted Griffin’s own successes, saying it “was able to obtain more grant, loan and shared funding from federal, state and county sources during the first two years of its stormwater utility operation than was generated in service fees.”
A key to that, the report said, is that the city backed up grant and loan money with reliable funding.  The report did note, however, that even with the rise in the number of stormwater utilities, general fund money is the most common avenue to pay for stormwater management, and offers benefits to localities.  In most cases, a city’s general fund money is enough – not counting other demands – to support an effective stormwater management program, according to the report.  “The sources of general revenues are usually well-established, fully understood and well-accepted by citizens and business interests,” the report said. “They are relatively stable from year to year, though economic downturns tend to excessively impact jurisdictions whose general revenues are highly reliant on sales and other business taxes rather than property value, which is more stable.”
The report also offers counterpoints, citing some drawbacks of using the general fund, such as stormwater management’s “struggle to compete effectively against other needs” and, because money isn’t going to any one purpose, “annual appropriations of general revenues shift with elected officials’ and administrators’ perceived priorities.”

Griffin officials detail their stormwater efforts through a comprehensive Web site explaining the program, including a 2007 yearly report detailing the work. Officials also operate a best-management practices test site in the city, outline requirements for developers prior to the opening of their businesses and have a geographic information system (GIS) database of stormwater drainage structures and features.  The database includes all streams, ponds, lakes and manmade attributes, as well as tree roadways, water and sewer systems, and other aspects to help manage the city’s assets.  Griffin has nine people devoted to the operation and maintenance of its stormwater program – two environmental technicians; one Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) coordinator; three administrative staff; an engineering analyst; a GIS coordinator and Keller. “Preventative maintenance is quite important to keep the system operational,” Keller said. “But part of preventative maintenance begins with good design and additional support data to operate the department.”  Its FOG program – implemented in just a year, Keller said – has reduced 70 percent of the city’s sewer overflows.  Keller noted several causes of stormwater-related problems, including an uneducated public, lack of money to address water quality and quantity, as well as developers’ resistance to keeping sediments and pollutants on site.  “Many problems can be corrected, in some instances, by having stream buffers and staying out of them,” Keller said. “Sheet flow turning into concentrated flow has a major impact on the stormwater system. The keeping of vegetation on each site and reducing impervious area continues to be a challenge.”

Griffin, Ga.
Location: 45 miles south of Atlanta (in Spalding County)
Population: 24,000
Size of city: 14.6 square miles Funding sources 

Stormwater Management Program for Griffin, Ga.:
* Stormwater utility: $1.7 million/yearly
* Revenue bonds: $5 million for stormwater projects in city, sold in 2001
* Nonpoint source implementation grants: formula grants (60 percent federal/40 percent local)
* Special purpose local option sales tax (1 percent tax for designated projects): $1 million toward regional detention facility
* Hazardous mitigation grant program for state/local governments (75 percent federal/25 percent local): Based on need, city received $750,000 from Georgia Emergency Management Agency to pay for five projects to reduce drainage problems and repair damages due to flooding.
* Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund: $2.67 million loan from Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority’s revolving loan fund for five capital construction projects and a major piece of stormwater equipment
* Stream Restoration Mitigation Bank: allows localities to create a bank and then sell credits for development of a streambank program. Established in Griffin through public/private relationship with a private contractor developing and selling the credits. Over a 15-year period, Griffin will receive $6.6 million of restoration, preservation and enhancement of 84,129 feet of stream segments, with 10 percent of credits for use in future projects.
* TEA-21: Received $840,000 to evaluate pollutant removal systems along a state highway system – a two-year project designed to establish baseline data on a stream segment on the 303(d) list.
* Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division’s Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management grant program: $158,000 to pay for a portion of a stormwater quality demonstration project, including a wet detention pond to treat pollutants in stormwater runoff
* Section 319 Grant: $209,000 for retrofitting existing detention pond with water quality components OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCES
* System Development Charges (capital recovery charges): allows utilities or local governments to recover fair share of public monies previously spent in excess of the infrastructure capacities
* Impact fees: charges fee to developers based on development’s impact on stormwater system; highly litigated issue and must be justified with a quality model with proven numbers SOURCES: 1997 Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection; Directory of Funding Sources for Grassroots River and Watershed Conservation Groups from the River Network