Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Philomath asks staff to draft storm‑drain fee framework based on impervious surface
Summary
At a brief Philomath work session, participants agreed to ask staff to draft an example utility rate framework that would calculate storm‑drain fees by impervious surface square footage and include several rate adjustments; staff will return with numbers at the next meeting.
Philomath work session participants asked staff to develop an example utility rate framework that would calculate storm‑drain fees based on a property’s impervious surface square footage and include related adjustments, the meeting transcript shows.
Supporters said basing the fee on square footage would align the fee with the amount of runoff a property generates and bring Philomath’s charges closer to prevailing industry practice. A participant raised a question about whether new development could cause some property owners to pay substantially more than others; staff said the city’s current charges are substantially below industry standards and the change would move rates toward parity.
At the meeting a participant summarized the proposed calculations as “just how many square feet of the service you have, that's how we calculate your storm drain fee,” and asked whether the method could make some development types pay more. The participant also noted the city is currently “substantially under industry” and that the update would close that gap.
Council participants then asked staff to prepare a written example framework showing how revenue would be recovered and how different customer classes would be treated. The framework the group requested should include: a fixed‑charge revenue recovery component; adjusted charges for multi‑residential accounts; an elevation surcharge; volumetric rates; and an impervious‑surface storm‑drain service charge. Staff were asked to return at the next meeting with that framework and sample numbers so the council can consider where to set final rates.
There was no roll call vote recorded in the transcript; the chair asked whether anyone opposed moving forward and, when no opposition was voiced, the group directed staff to proceed. The work session was then adjourned and the regular session began.
Meeting details recorded in the transcript indicate the discussion was brief and procedural: the group elected to move to the next step of preparing a rate model rather than deciding specific rates during the work session.
