Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McAlester council hears detailed case for preserving $5 stormwater fee, asks staff for options on caps and indexing
Summary
Consultants and staff told the council that McAlester charges a $5 monthly stormwater fee per residential equivalent service unit and that lifting or capping commercial charges would shift costs to residents; council requested scenarios for CPI indexing and revenue-offsets before any change.
Councilors spent the bulk of a workshop hearing a technical briefing on the city’s stormwater utility and its fee structure, with WSB consultants and staff outlining why the fee exists, how it is calculated and what would happen if the council capped large commercial bills.
WSB presenter Morgan explained the billing method: "In McAlester, each ESU is a $5 stormwater utility fee. So, every residential house location will have a flat $5 fee." The ESU (equivalent service unit) is calculated as 2,650 square feet of impervious area; commercial accounts are divided by that figure to arrive at the number of ESUs and then multiplied by $5. Staff said the method was first developed using GIS mapping in 2015.
The presentation traced the program’s history: a 2012 drainage study identified about $3 million in needs for one tributary area and consultants extrapolated a $15 million planning need for the whole city; separate capital projects identified at roughly $35 million would require substantially more revenue to address in a 30-year window.
Consultants warned councilors that capping commercial bills would shift costs to residents. Staff cited an example: a $500 annual cap on nonresidential fees could reduce nonresidential revenue by roughly $139,000 per year and lower the nonresidential share from about 67% of stormwater revenue to about 63%. Finance staff also answered an accounting question about a large one-time payment, explaining that a recent $175,000 payment from a local institution offset receivables rather than appearing as new, double-counted revenue.
Council members questioned why the fee’s increases are not tied to CPI and whether automatic 3% yearly raises are appropriate. Several members said they want to avoid a future scenario that forces a large, abrupt fee jump for residents. One councilor urged staff to return with indexation options and revenue-offset scenarios and to consider potential sales-tax tradeoffs that might affect economic development.
A local business representative warned that uncapped, very large monthly bills could deter employers from locating in the city; councilors acknowledged economic-development concerns and asked staff to analyze possible mitigations.
Council did not take a vote to change rates at the meeting; members asked staff to return with written scenarios comparing caps, CPI indexing and other options at a future workshop.
