Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects proposed stormwater drainage fee increase after public outcry and fiscal questions
Summary
A proposed increase to the city’s stormwater drainage utility charge failed at first reading after councilmembers and residents raised concerns about cost, fund balances and capital spending priorities.
City Council considered an ordinance to raise the residential drainage utility fee from $10.32 to $11.59 but the motion failed after public comment and a detailed staff presentation about lines of service and fund projections.
Interim Assistant City Manager and Public Works director Ernie Nunez De La Garza presented the proposal and explained how the fee supports a range of stormwater services: inlet cleaning and maintenance, minor and major channel work, vegetative maintenance along rights of way, street sweeping, flood control pump stations and environmental inspections tied to the city’s MS4 permit. Staff said the city maintains more than 20,000 inlets, hundreds of channel miles and thousands of acres of right‑of‑way and that current staffing and equipment cover a fraction of the total need.
Nunez told council that changing from the current estimated‑impervious methodology to measured impervious would require a multiyear project and roughly $600,000 in upfront cost. He also presented multi‑year fund projections showing a future shortfall driven by capital projects and debt service, and he said the proposed rate would help avoid a negative fund balance in later years.
Council members asked for more detail on debt service and how the drainage fund balance had grown; several members said fund projections were not aligning with the budget book figures and asked for a clearer explanation of upcoming CIP obligations and how Prop F (coastal resilience bond items) and other revenue sources intersect with stormwater needs. Some council members signaled that they were unwilling to approve the rate until staff reconciled those figures and provided a clearer capital‑project timeline and funding plan.
Public comment included residents who objected to higher monthly fees and noted fixed incomes; others asked for more clarity on what the stormwater fee paid for. After discussion, the council voted and the motion failed. Staff said they will return with additional analysis and reconciled numbers for the second reading.
