Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Utility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee votes to forward stormwater ordinance and proposed utility fee to full board as separate items
Summary
After staff outlined mandatory five-year ordinance updates required by TDEC and proposed a non-mandatory stormwater utility, the committee voted to send the ordinance update and the proposed utility fee separately to the full board; staff gave an illustrative $3 base rate and an approximate first-year revenue estimate of $700,000.
Speaker 7 (Staff presenter) briefed the joint committee on a required five-year update to the city's stormwater ordinance to comply with TDEC requirements and introduced a recommended, but optional, stormwater utility. "We are required by the state to upgrade our ordinance every 5 years," Speaker 7 said, adding that the stormwater utility was included in the draft as a recommendation rather than a required element.
Speaker 7 described how a separate ordinance or resolution would later set specific fee rates and that the committee would see the fee structure and budget impacts after public notice and two readings. The staff example used a $3 base rate tied to impervious surface; Speaker 7 said most residences would pay about $1.50 per month (about $18 per year) and that commercial properties would pay more. On projected revenue, Speaker 7 described an estimate "close to $700,000 a year" at a $3 base rate and said the utility would be a special revenue fund limited to stormwater uses: "It can only be used for stormwater... It is its own bucket. It is separate from the general fund."
Committee members raised equity and implementation questions. Speaker 6, speaking from long experience with local flooding, warned that even small monthly fees can affect residents on fixed incomes and urged care in structuring relief or credits. "Imposing a utility fee on people if y'all don't know what a single, retired, widowed lady's retirement looks like..." Speaker 6 said. Speaker 7 replied that credits would be tied to impervious surface and that income-based exemptions would be legally difficult: "You can't discriminate... It's based off impervious surface." The staff also noted a credit manual under development that could provide up to a 20% reduction for qualifying green infrastructure measures.
Several committee members argued the ordinance updates (mandatory) and the proposed utility fee (optional) should be considered separately. Speaker 8 moved to send the ordinance and the fee to the full board as separate items; Speaker 2 seconded. The committee voted "Aye," and the motion carried to forward both items to the full board for separate consideration.
Next steps: staff will publish the required public notice (one month), accept public comment, and present fee schedules and projected budget impacts at subsequent readings before the full board considers the ordinance and the utility fee.
