Upload
vukhanh
View
219
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
20
Thank You
21
Source: Clemson University