Centerville business owners press council to delay storm-drain fee increase, dispute four‑year backbilling

Business owners and property owners told the Centerville City Council on Jan. 7 that a recent recalculation of storm‑drain utility fees, a request that some pay four years of retroactive charges and a 50% citywide fee increase implemented Dec. 26 have produced unexpected, large bills for commercial accounts and warrant more public outreach and a staff review.

The complaints began during the meeting’s open‑session public comment period, where multiple speakers described heavy commercial impacts and urged the council to hold a public hearing or work session before enforcing the full backbilling and new rate. “It’s just not right, folks. It’s not right,” said Rick, a Centerville resident and business owner who said he had served on the city council when the storm‑drain fund was first initiated.

Why it matters: The recalculation affects both the city’s short‑term revenues and businesses’ multi‑year budgets. Commenters said some commercial accounts face thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in retroactive charges and that many businesses had no advance notice to budget for the change.

What speakers said: Rick summarized several points that he said emerged from the city’s audit (which he called a self‑evaluation): 319 commercial accounts were adjusted, producing what he described as a $150,769 aggregate correction to the ongoing fee calculation. He said the city will need to refund about $102,000 to accounts that were overcharged for four years, and that collecting four years of retroactive charges from businesses would total roughly $603,000 (figures Rick presented to the council and provided in documents he said he would distribute to council members). “That 50% increase would bring in every year $745,000,” Rick said of the new citywide rate, an amount he said many commercial property owners would not have expected. Other business speakers echoed the request for more notice and an appeal process for impervious‑surface calculations.

City staff and council response: City Manager Bridal said staff had delayed an earlier implementation date and is willing to delay the recent increase further to allow an open‑house or work‑session discussion. “I’m not opposed to us delaying it, so we can have that open house,” Bridal said. Staff member Brandon told the council the request for an explanatory summary was “a fair ask,” and said staff can provide a pointed summary of the fiscal and statutory factors that led to the revisions.

Next steps and council direction: Council members agreed to schedule additional public outreach and to ask staff to prepare summary materials. Council discussion settled on holding a work session and at least one public meeting or open house to provide residents and businesses the details of the audit, the rate calculation and options. Staff was asked to return with a draft resolution or agenda item to delay the rate increase so the meetings can occur and to present rate and refund scenarios for council review. The council did not adopt a formal ordinance or vote on a change to the fee during the Jan. 7 meeting.

What the record shows and what it does not: Multiple speakers asserted numerical totals and impacts; those were presented as figures from the city’s recalculation and the commenter’s tabulation of audit documents. The council discussion reflected a direction to staff to produce explanatory materials and schedule outreach, not a final policy reversal or a formal vote to cancel retroactive billing. The transcript does not show a motion or vote that rescinded the four‑year backbilling or the 50% increase; the council instead asked staff to prepare materials and a possible resolution for a future meeting.

Outlook: Staff said they will prepare written materials and options for council review. The council and staff indicated they will hold targeted outreach with businesses and a public open house before any final changes are adopted or enforced.