Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Utility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council opens extensive debate on proposed stormwater utility fee after months of study; many residents ask for changes
Summary
Staff proposed a stormwater utility based on impervious-area billing to generate about $3.1 million annually; public commenters raised equity and technical concerns, and council left the ordinance on first reading while directing staff to continue outreach and refine credits and mapping before billing begins in mid-2025 if adopted.
City staff presented a proposed stormwater management utility (Chapter 52) that would create a new stormwater fund and bill customers on the city sewer rolls based on parcel impervious area. The proposed rate structure uses a $1.35 per billing-unit basis (one billing unit = 1,000 square feet) across six tiers; staff estimated the program would add roughly $3.1 million in annual stormwater funding on top of existing appropriations.
Staff described a credit framework for green stormwater practices and retrofits, and an appeals process that would let property owners seek adjustments for mapped impervious area errors. A public outreach billing tool and in-person sessions were launched to let residents view their calculated impervious area.
More than two dozen residents spoke in public comment. Common themes: requests to account for the ratio of impervious to total lot area rather than raw impervious footprint; concerns that gravel driveways and trails were misclassified as impervious; questions about whether senior citizens, low‑income households or owners of large, well-vegetated parcels would be unfairly charged; concerns that state and university properties would be excluded; and requests for clarity on the timing, appeals and refund processes. Several speakers suggested alternative billing formulas or flat fees.
Council members voiced differing views: some urged adoption to create predictable, dedicated stormwater funding and to allow staff time to finalize billing databases and credit applications; others said more community outreach and technical refinements were needed. Council directed staff to continue outreach, refine GIS exclusions (for trails/easements), finalize the credit application process and prepare to bring the ordinance back; the council left the measure on first reading and did not adopt the fee at this meeting.
