Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burleson council leans toward creating a stormwater utility fee after long debate; street fee tabled
Summary
After a detailed consultant presentation and extended council debate, Burleson staff and the infrastructure committee recommended a tiered stormwater utility (ERU‑based) and a staff‑crafted hybrid scenario around $8 per median ERU; council favored moving forward with the stormwater approach with outreach and deferred the street‑maintenance fee for later.
The council spent extensive time reviewing a study from Friese Nichols on two possible new dedicated fees: a stormwater utility and a street‑maintenance fee. Staff framed the stormwater fee as a user charge tied to impervious area (an equivalent residential unit, ERU, set at about 3,500 sq ft in the analysis) and showed scenarios that would fund existing stormwater costs, add a dedicated drainage crew, and/or seed a capital program to address known problem areas.
Trey Shanks of Friese Nichols summarized options: a flat residential rate that covers current storm‑related general‑fund spending (~$6.80/ERU per month), a scenario adding a drainage crew (~$7.90/ERU), and a capital‑only scenario to support about $25M in projects via debt (~$3.97/ERU). Based on infrastructure‑committee feedback, staff modeled a committee “hybrid” scenario targeting roughly $8 per median ERU that would fund a portion of existing general‑fund stormwater expenditures, a proactive drainage crew and begin capital work, and recommended a three‑tier residential structure (small/mid/large) so smaller homes pay less and large parcels pay more.
Council debate was lengthy and detailed. Supporters said the fee enables proactive maintenance, timely cleanup of channels and debris, and a separate, dedicated funding stream so that general‑fund dollars can be reallocated; one councilmember argued the city needs visible early results to justify the fee to residents. Opponents and cautious members raised optics (Burleson’s rate relative to peer cities), the political difficulty of adding a new monthly line on utility bills, and asked staff to prioritize outreach and to consider phased implementation or a lower starting scenario.
On the street‑maintenance fee, staff presented trip/mileage‑based scenarios but the infrastructure committee recommended tabling that proposal and considering it later. Several councilmembers agreed: the recommendation was to proceed first with the stormwater utility conversation and outreach, and revisit a street fee only after the budget and stormwater choices are better established.
Next steps: staff will refine the hybrid stormwater scenario, prepare public outreach and educational materials, fine‑tune modeling of exemptions (staff recommended no exemptions as a baseline) and return with a draft ordinance and implementation timeline; staff estimated ordinance introduction later this calendar year with billing beginning in early 2026 if adopted.
