EPA-NE Briefing

Evaluation of the Role of Stakeholder Engagement in Municipal Stormwater

Funding Decisions: Lessons from Communities

Introduction

New England municipalities operating separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) face significant funding issues

Nationwide, about 2,000 MS4s had addressed their funding needs by establishing storm water utilities (SWUs) or other funding mechanisms

Many other MS4s tried and failed

1

Research Questions

Why did some communities reach consensus while others could not?

Did successful MS4s share strategies in common?

Did unsuccessful MS4s share strategies in common?

Did stakeholder (SH) involvement plans play a role?

Do NE MS4s face unique barriers to SWU adoption?

2

3

Source: Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2012

Research Method

4

4

• Using 11 MS4 case studies, evaluate whether specific strategies led to success or to failure

• Determine whether SH involvement/consensus-building programs influenced respective outcomes

• Identify a set of “lessons learned” for small MS4s considering SWU adoption

Realities & Conclusions SWU fees impose a new financial burden on voters

Elected officials must vote to impose these new fees

To vote “yes,” politicians must be certain that voters support SWU adoption

Thus, developing public support through a SH consensus process is critical

SHs must be convinced that SWU adoption serves their interests, and that the SWU must be established now

5

Findings

SH involvement protocols, based on consensus-based decision-making principles, were often the key factor leading to SWU adoption

The issues faced by MS4 decision-makers differed from town to town

However, MS4s that adopted SWUs were predominantly those that used some form of SH involvement process

6

Strategic Elements Leading to Success

MS4s identified and involved all SH groups-pros and cons

MS4s organized SHs into participatory advisory groups (SIGs)

SIGs reviewed design proposals; spotted potential conflicts and proposed solutions; kept SH group members and the public informed; and drafted a final evaluation of the proposal

Project designers and decision-makers responded to SIG input by addressing SH concerns

7

SIGs

8

Moderated SIGs served as a forum where SHs shared interests and concerns, and identified areas of potential agreement and conflict

SIG members communicated a full range of SH viewpoints and suggestions to program designers and decision-makers

SIGs often anticipated negotiation impasses and proposed consensus-based solutions

Final SIG project endorsements boosted public support

9

Adopted

• Long Creek, ME

• South Burlington, VT

• Reading, MA

• Raleigh, NC

• Lewiston, ME

• Newton, MA

• Warren County, KY

Rejected

• Huntsville

, AL

• Dover,

NH

• Manchest

er NH

• Berkeley

County,

SC

Eleven Case Studies

Special NE Challenges

• Failing/Inadequate SW Infrastructure

• Higher O&M costs

• Potentially higher construction costs

• Weak or non-existent county governments

• No “critical mass” of NE SWUs

• The NE Home Rule tradition: “Every Boat on its own Bottom”

MS4 Community Case Overview

The NE SW Program Funding Symposium

MS4 feedback:

SH involvement is critical, but it’s not clear that small MS4s have the resources to plan or implement such a process

Each SH plan must be tailored: One Size Will Not Fit All

MS4s have no in-house expertise to design or implement one

MS4s may not be able to afford a professional either

MS4s need a training tool; a design curriculum/guide to designing such a process on their own

11

Designing Town-Specific Consensus-Based Stakeholder Involvement Plans

In response, EPA and Horsley Witten are drafting a curriculum and pilot training program for small MS4s

Training will be delivered through moderated roundtable workgroup sessions, MS4 research assignments and technical presentations

The workgroup is composed of SW experts and small MS4s

At the project’s close, each MS4 will have designed a SH involvement plan that addresses its unique circumstances, ready to submit to their decision makers for community discussion

12

Process:

13

Training

SHIP Template

Curriculum ID

Technical Experts

ID Pilot MS4s

Community SHIP

Implementation

Trainees implement the

stakeholder involvement plan

in their community.

MS4 Stormwater

Funding Consensus

Success!

Elements of a SHIP Template Articulating the issues – simply

Identifying and organizing key stakeholders (supporters and opponents)

Homework: Discussing and recording all key SH concerns Advisory groups, neighborhood coffees, schools, sports, parent

networks, festivals/farmers markets, chamber of commerce, newspapers, social media, etc.

14

Elements of a SHIP Template The Critical Question-Why Now?

Why does our community need a dedicated SW funding program, and why now?

Identifying your town’s “drivers”, concerns and political realities

Facilitating open discussions/sharing respective concerns/hearing all viewpoints/ finding points of agreement

15

Curriculum & SHIP Design Elements Consensus-Building

Deliberative process design

Interviewing techniques

Identifying key stakeholders

Forming a SIG

Facilitation

Roles of mediators

Reaching consensus

Technical/Stormwater

Defining program levels of service

Calculating overall SW program costs

Evaluating funding mechanisms

Legal issues

User fee calculations and billing

16

MS4 Selection Criteria

Eligible communities must:

Be a “small” MS4 permittee

Have initiated or completed a feasibility study or DIMS

Identify a decision maker(s) advocating program funding

adoption

Ensure participation of relevant staff, decision makers or their

representatives

Agree to complete the training program; and

Commit to a “good faith” effort to implement its SH involvement

plan

17

Workgroup Sessions Six to eight workshops

MS4 participants will research their town’s specific “realities” to inform SHIP design

SHIPs will be drafted collaboratively based on MS4 research and input from fellow workgroup members

In addition to SH involvement design, workshops will include: Training on SW technical issues

Linking design and political “decision points” to the SH involvement process

Moderated Q&As analyzing MS4s’ ongoing experiences, possible solutions, and curriculum/SHIP adjustments

18

Desired Outcomes At the project’s close, each MS4 has designed a SHIP tailored to its political, economic and social realities

MS4 staff and decision makers are familiar with MPDR/SH consensus-building techniques and can apply their SHIP model to each step of the technical planning process

The workgroup continues to offer support “brainstorming” solutions to barriers during their respective implementation processes

The workgroup continues to refine the SHIP model and curriculum to assure maximum transferability based on MS4 experiences, outcomes and feedback

Project performance research and transferability evaluation

19

Project Planning Up to 12 MS4 communities may be selected

Looking for SW technical experts to serve on a curriculum design advisory workgroup and the workgroup itself

Projected start: fall/early winter 2015

Contact:

Ellie Baker, Senior Environmental Planner

Horsley Witten Group

978-499-0601

ebaker@horsleywitten.com

20

Thank You

21

Source: Clemson University