Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks staff to study impervious-surface stormwater fee modeled on Ithaca
Summary
Council member Kaye proposed evaluating a stormwater fee tied to impervious surface area (an ERU model used in Ithaca), asking staff to study feasibility, mapping requirements, credits for runoff reduction, and possible consultant needs; council members raised classification, rollout, and budget questions.
Council member Kaye on June 17 asked the New Rochelle City Council to direct staff to study replacing the city’s flat stormwater fee with a charge tied to a property’s impervious surface area, using a model based on Ithaca’s equivalent residential unit (ERU) approach.
The proposal and why it matters: Kaye said New Rochelle’s current flat fee places roughly 93% of stormwater costs on residential properties while large commercial properties pay comparatively less. She proposed an ERU-based system that would bill properties according to impervious surface area and offer credits to property owners who install runoff-reducing measures such as rain gardens. Kaye said the city is already committed to roughly 170 flood-mitigation projects costing an estimated $350,000,000, and that a revised fee structure would better align revenue responsibility with runoff contributions and incentivize private mitigation.
Details and examples: Kaye described Ithaca’s model, which uses an ERU defined as 2,300 square feet of impervious surface and a credit program allowing fee reductions for approved on-site stormwater practices. “Under their system, these are based on a property's impervious surface area using a standard unit called the equivalent residential unit,” Kaye said. She asked staff to examine mapping impervious surfaces with GIS, design a credit program, run stakeholder outreach, and determine whether consultants are needed for data work.
Council questions and clarifications: Council member Washington Lane supported the approach, noting industrial sites and commercial surfaces affect nearby homes. Councilor McEntee asked how large residential complexes and universities (Harbor House, Iona University were discussed as examples) would be classified; Kaye replied that under Ithaca’s model some universities were treated as nonresidential and that classification details should be resolved in the study. Council member Stern urged a phased rollout and a strong communications plan so residents have time to adapt. Staff said they would evaluate whether an outside consultant is necessary and, if so, would report likely costs so council can consider funding in upcoming budgets.
Council action and next steps: The council did not adopt an ordinance. Instead members asked staff to conduct a feasibility review and return with a proposed plan that would include mapping options, credit program design, stakeholder outreach, and cost estimates (including any consultant fees). The direction was recorded as a staff study request rather than a legislative change.
What remains open: The council did not set a timeline for final adoption. Several classification questions remain (how to treat large residential complexes, universities, and mixed-use parcels) and staff said those are among the issues the feasibility study would address.
