Council declines to waive $3,000 stormwater balance for resident; discussion highlights ordinance process and funding options

The East Point City Council on Oct. 20 considered but did not approve a motion to waive a $3,000 balance for stormwater repairs at a resident’s property, a case that prompted extended council discussion about the city’s stormwater community assistance program and funding sources.

Councilmember Shropshire initially moved that the council waive the administrative appeal requirement and approve payment of $3,000 in favor of resident Willie Jackson for stormwater repairs at 2424 Greenwood Circle. That motion was amended during discussion to reflect the city manager’s recommendation and then put to a roll‑call vote; the motion failed.

Council discussion established these facts presented during the meeting: an investigation and engineering report had been completed; the total estimated cost for the repair was cited at about $9,000; the water and sewer director previously indicated the city would cover approximately $6,000 of the cost, leaving a $3,000 balance. Staff said the original proposed solution combined two programs—stormwater community assistance plus a utilities assistance program administered through the Office of Equity, Inclusion and Empowerment—to resolve the balance without the property owner paying out of pocket. Councilmembers and staff said follow‑up was needed because the work had not yet been completed as previously expected.

City Attorney Wiggin walked council through the ordinance provisions (section 8‑24‑30 and related code sections) that govern stormwater claims and the community assistance program. He explained the process: the public‑works director investigates claims, estimates the proportion of damage attributable to city stormwater systems, forwards findings to the city manager, and the city manager may recommend that council participate pro rata in approved improvements; funds used by the program are drawn from the stormwater utility fee. Any participation requires a signed release from the property owner and an escrow deposit of the property owner’s pro rata share as determined by city staff, unless council approves an alternate arrangement. Wiggin confirmed council has authority to approve payment outside the standard appeal pathway, but the ordinance creates a procedural checklist that staff must follow.

Several councilmembers said they were concerned about setting a precedent of waiving required matches for other property owners; others argued the resident had waited a long time and litigation risk justified resolving the matter. The council asked staff to confirm which department would carry out the repairs, the status of prior work, and to identify the fund source should council decide to pay. The city manager and city attorney both said the stormwater utility fee bucket exists and is the typical funding source for community assistance; they also confirmed the council has discretion to authorize payment.

After discussion, the council took a roll‑call vote and the motion to waive the requirement and pay the $3,000 balance failed. Councilmembers debating the matter directed staff to follow the ordinance process, provide a status update on repairs and confirm funding options and the breakdown of pro‑rata shares for similar future claims.