Arlington reviews proposed $265 million stormwater plan, adds staffing and property acquisitions

Arlington County staff presented the proposed fiscal 2027–2036 stormwater capital improvement plan on Tuesday, highlighting a focus on climate resiliency, regulatory compliance and long-term risk reduction. The plan totals $265 million before a 20% implementation adjustment that reduces the projected cash flow to about $212 million.

The presentation, led by Jason Papakosma, emphasized three program areas: maintenance capital, capacity and infrastructure improvements, and streams and water quality projects. Papakosma said the county’s approach is driven by risk, condition and opportunity and framed by the 2014 stormwater master plan, a 2023 risk assessment and the requirements of the county’s MS4 permit.

Why this matters: the CIP funds projects designed to reduce repetitive flood damage in high‑risk watersheds and to keep Arlington in compliance with Chesapeake Bay and state water quality goals. Jennifer Schultz, who walked board members through recent accomplishments, noted that the county has completed stream restorations and a wetland restoration at Sparrow Pond and has acquired 13 properties for overland relief, with roughly $14 million in acquisition and closing costs accrued to date for 12 of those properties.

Staff also proposed adding five full‑time positions over FY28–29—two for the Office of Sustainability and Environmental Management (OSEM) and three for the engineering bureau—to increase project delivery capacity. Schultz said the new positions are expected to spend more than half their time on capital work and would be funded from the stormwater fund.

Board members asked detailed questions about costs and timelines. One board member pressed staff on why culvert replacements cost about $5 million each; Papakosma and staff replied that projects often require rebuilding the roadway and utilities in addition to installing larger, reinforced concrete structures designed to last 50–75 years. On voluntary property acquisitions, staff said the purchases are targeted to create contiguous overland relief corridors where pipe upsizing alone cannot solve flood risks.

On water quality, staff reported exceeding second‑cycle MS4 targets for phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment through FY25 and said the county can borrow nutrient credits from its wastewater treatment plant to help meet near‑term nitrogen obligations. Papakosma cautioned that measuring direct cause and effect for water quality improvements is challenging; the county focuses on designing projects based on scientific crediting studies and investing in post‑construction maintenance to preserve those benefits.

Funding and timing: bonds—both authorized but unissued and new issuance—are the largest funding source (about 80%) followed by stormwater utility fee revenue and grants. Staff told the board they are not seeking a bond referendum in 2026 and are applying a 20% implementation adjustment across the program to reflect typical delays in easements, design, procurement and construction. That adjustment reduces the 10‑year cash flow forecast to roughly $212 million.

What comes next: staff said the CIP will be refined during the budget process, with more detail on specific projects and formal requests for proposed FTEs. The board signaled interest in additional public outreach about the utility fee and more visible reporting on what past CIP cycles achieved in communities that benefited from previous investments.