Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables decision on how far back to reimburse stormwater fees after exemption for Blue at Abernethy Creek
Summary
The commission agreed that staff correctly granted a stormwater-fee exemption for a property that discharges directly to Abernethy Creek but voted to table a request to set a reimbursement look-back period until staff returns with more information.
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Oregon City Commission on Sept. 17 voted to table a policy decision on how far back an owner may be reimbursed after staff grants a stormwater-fee exemption, while leaving the exemption itself intact.
Public Works Director Dana Webb told commissioners that staff had approved a stormwater-fee exemption for the property known as the Blue at Abernethy Creek after engineering review confirmed on-site drainage discharged directly to Abernethy Creek and did not enter city storm facilities. Staff applied the exemption effective to the date the property owner submitted the exemption application; the owner requested reconsideration to make the exemption effective as of the property-acquisition date.
Webb said the municipal code section governing stormwater exemptions, reductions and appeals does not specify whether an exemption should be effective to the application date or to an earlier date such as the property purchase date. She noted inconsistency with other city codes: the pavement maintenance utility fee code explicitly limits look-back adjustments to the bill then due and bills subsequently issued, while prior staff practice on a different case (a church) had resulted in a 30-month reimbursement in 2021, but that time frame was not codified.
Applicant John Miller (Lake Oswego) told the commission the property had been incorrectly billed for stormwater despite discharging directly to Abernethy Creek and asked that the commission treat his case similarly to the prior church matter and reimburse fees back to the acquisition date. Miller referenced the need for accurate municipal billing practices.
Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to the applicant’s argument but raised concerns about setting an unbounded precedent for look-back periods. Commissioners asked staff for records from the prior Living Hope Church matter, examples of any consistent look-back practice (including a reported six-month practice), and guidance on how the city handles underbilling in other utilities before making a policy change. Commissioner Adam Morrow moved to table the item pending additional information; the commission voted unanimously to table.
Outcome: Exemption granted by staff remains in place effective to the application date; the commission tabled the question of whether and how far to reimburse prior fees and asked staff to return with additional documentation and recommendations.

