Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Utility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flower Mound studies shifting stormwater fee from lot size to measured impervious area
Summary
Consultants and staff presented a proposal to rebase the town's stormwater utility on measured impervious area (ERU) rather than the current lot-size tiers. The change could lower many residential bills while increasing bills for some commercial properties; the council directed more detailed impact analysis before any decision.
Consultants for the town of Flower Mound gave council members an early look at a proposed overhaul of the town's stormwater utility fee, moving from a lot-size tiered structure to charges based on measured impervious area.
The proposal, presented by Chris Eckert of NewGen Strategies and Solutions, would set an equivalent residential unit (ERU) — the average impervious area for a single-family property — at 5,285 square feet and charge customers by the number of ERUs their property contains. "A fee is a fraction. Dollars divided by units," Eckert said, explaining the analysis used to convert current revenues into a per-ERU charge.
Town Manager James (last name not specified) and NewGen staff said the change would preserve the town's current revenue level while shifting a greater share of the cost recovery to nonresidential properties with large parking lots and roofs. Using current data, NewGen estimated the implied ERU fee at $4.83 per month if the town kept total revenue constant; under that scenario residential bills could drop while many commercial accounts would see increases.
The presentation included revenue and impervious-area estimates: current annual stormwater revenue of about $2,193,722, roughly 24,000 residential accounts, and an estimated 13,192 nonresidential ERUs derived from a grossed-up impervious-area total of roughly 69.7 million square feet. Eckert said the team's impervious-area calculations are roughly 95% confident today and will be validated with town staff and account mapping before any customer bills are changed.
Council members asked about how multi-family properties would be treated (answered: typically as nonresidential), about an appeal process for parcel-level impervious estimates (staff will propose one), and whether every residence would be billed as a single ERU (staff recommended administrative simplicity by charging one ERU per single-family residence). James cautioned the council that potential near-term changes such as a study or adding a dedicated drainage crew could require additional fee increases (a $0.50 monthly increase to fund a study and roughly $3.00 for a new crew were discussed as illustrative figures).
The consultant said the impervious-area approach would rely on aerial imagery and machine-learning classification followed by staff validation for individual parcels. Council members requested a customer-specific impact analysis and a proposed appeals process before any ordinance or rate decision.
The council did not take action; staff and the consultant will return with refined parcel-level impacts, suggested customer-notification and appeals procedures, and options to phase changes to avoid rate shock.
