Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff proposes small, phased stormwater fee increase to cover near‑term projects
Summary
Staff reviewed an 18‑year history of the $3.25/month stormwater fee and a fund balance maintained near $4.0 million, and proposed raising the fee to $3.50 in FY26 and $3.75 in FY27 to help pay for near‑term projects (Town Creek conveyance ~$2.25M; Small Circle Drive ~$1.1M) without drawing reserves below the policy minimum.
Darren, a staff member, presented the history, current status and options for the stormwater fund. He said the stormwater fee was set at $3.25 per residential equivalent unit in February 2008 and has not changed since. Revenues have averaged roughly $70,000–$75,000 annually; the fund balance has been held near $4.0 million in recent years.
Darren explained the board changed the reserve policy around 2018–2019 from 12 months to three months of operating reserves; three months equates to about $800,000. With the near‑term projects on the capital plan — Town Creek conveyance (~$2.25 million) and Small Circle Drive renovations (~$1.1 million) — the fund could fall below the three‑month policy if those projects proceed without additional revenue.
To avoid an abrupt shortfall, staff proposed an incremental approach: raise the residential fee to $3.50/month in FY26 (expected to generate about $340,000) and to $3.75/month in FY27 (expected to generate about $350,000), yielding approximately $770,000 additional revenue across the two years based on current growth assumptions. Darren said the total 5‑year stormwater CIP currently lists about $9.3 million in projects, though the board has discretion to defer or reprioritize projects if reserves require it.
Board members discussed alternatives, including using general fund contributions, allowing the stormwater fund to incur debt, partial cost‑sharing on specific projects, or reducing the list of projects. Staff noted the fund is used for neighborhood drainage repairs and water‑quality projects that demonstrate visible results for residents paying the fee. Members emphasized the importance of showing value through neighborhood improvements.
No formal rate change was adopted at the meeting; staff indicated the increases would be proposed through the upcoming budget process and said they wanted to pursue a measured, incremental approach rather than a large one‑time increase.
