Committee reopens stormwater utility discussion; advisory group favored user fee of about $99/year for median home in 2022 estimate

Lee's Summit staff briefed the Public Works committee on April 14 on the need for a dedicated stormwater funding mechanism and next steps for evaluating a possible stormwater utility.

Background and advisory recommendation: City engineer George Binger traced decades of study and past citizen task forces and said the idea of a dedicated stormwater funding source has recurred in the city’s plans. A stormwater advisory committee (staff and citizen stakeholders) reviewed options and in 2022 recommended a stormwater user fee based on impervious area. The advisory group's 2022 estimate used a billing unit of 500 square feet of impervious area; the median Lee's Summit home (about 3,500 square feet of impervious area) equated to seven billing units and an estimated annual fee of about $99 under the staffing and operations assumptions used in that study.

Operational needs and scope: Staff framed the problem as threefold: repetitive stream and floodplain mapping changes (FEMA remapping of the Little Blue watershed), chronic erosion and sinkhole repairs tied to aging corrugated metal pipe (CMP), and MS4 (municipal stormwater) permit compliance and public education. Binger said the city maintains roughly 300 miles of pipe and structures, of which about 10 miles remain corrugated metal pipe; staff have replaced approximately 1.5 miles of metal pipe in recent years. He reported 18,000 stormwater structures in the system, 12 miles of city‑owned stream channel and about 20 city‑owned basins; most basins are privately owned and maintained.

Costs, consequences and preventive maintenance: Staff said the average cost to repair a single sinkhole event is about $53,000; one emergency repair described in the presentation cost about $600,000. The advisory group recommended funding two full‑time stormwater crews plus support staff and technical capacity; that scenario produced an annual operations estimate of roughly $4.7 million and an additional roughly $1 million in small capital programs in the 2022 study assumptions.

Billing options and governance: Staff described two common billing options — monthly utility billing on a consolidated bill or an annual charge on property tax — and listed pros/cons for collection and public communication. The advisory group recommended a user fee but the presentation flagged several policy questions for council: desired level of service (what the city will maintain and whether private basins/streambanks would be included), whether capital projects would be included in utility funding, how to phase any program, and whether a ballot measure is the appropriate route for voter approval.

Committee feedback and next steps: Council members asked for comparisons to peer cities, for a concise list of what a dedicated fund would buy (e.g., proactive inspection, cleaning, lining, relocation, public education) and for cost scenarios tied to concrete level‑of‑service choices. Staff proposed focusing next discussions on defining a clear level of service and then matching funding options to that service standard. Staff also recommended asking voters if council decides the fee approach is the preferred funding method.

Sources: George Binger and subsequent committee discussion at the April 14 Public Works committee meeting.