Commission denies stormwater fee appeal from resident at 47 Whitefield Street

The Fall River City Civil Commission on June 3 denied an appeal from a resident at 47 Whitefield Street seeking exemption from the city’s stormwater fee.

At the hearing the resident, addressed in the meeting as Mister Raposa, said runoff from rain does not reach nearby catch basins and that water "stays in my yard because I live on top on top of the street." He argued the property should not be charged because surface runoff does not flow to the public stormwater system.

Paul (staff member) explained the city’s stormwater ordinance and the 2010 amendment that broadened the fee to include groundwater infiltration that ultimately feeds municipal stormwater infrastructure. "We amended the ordinance in 02/2010 to include water penetration through the ground that ultimately makes its way to waterways that we as a city have to... maintain," Paul told the commission.

Paul said the property had been exempt when the fee was first imposed in 2008 but that billing clerks recently identified the parcel as subject to the fee; staff applied the current fee prospectively and did not retroactively bill for prior years. "We do not go back and retroactively charge them. We just charge... moving forward," Paul said.

Why it matters: The ruling clarifies that the city applies its stormwater fee based on the ordinance language that includes groundwater infiltration and watershed contributions, not only visible surface runoff to nearby catch basins. The decision may affect other properties previously exempted in field reviews.

Formal action: A motion to deny Mister Raposa’s appeal was made, seconded and carried by voice vote; commissioners voted "Aye" and the motion passed.

Commission discussion and clarifications: Commissioners and staff walked through local drainage paths, describing multiple flow paths from Whitefield Street toward Cook Pond and downstream waterways. Staff noted the city treats stormwater infrastructure broadly — sewers, catch basins, swales, culverts, wetlands and detention ponds — and that the current billing reflected an administrative review that had added properties that were previously exempt in the city’s database.

Next steps and billing: Paul noted that the property had not been charged through the end of the previous year and that staff would apply the fee going forward. He estimated the city’s billing clerks continue to audit areas and said there are other neighborhoods the city has recently reviewed for fee implementation.

Comments from Mister Raposa included frustration about the fee and the perceived fairness of the charge; the commissioners did not reverse the staff’s determination.