Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carmel council introduces ordinance to raise stormwater user fee, sends measure to committees after heated debate
Summary
Council President Snyder introduced an ordinance to amend stormwater user fees (proposing a $10 monthly ERU and removing an automatic COLA); residents and councilors debated equity, data and timing and the ordinance was routed to land use and finance for further study and public engagement.
President Snyder opened a prolonged discussion on stormwater policy July 6, introducing ordinance D-2836-26 to amend monthly stormwater user fees and remove an automatic cost-of-living escalator. Snyder said moving the residential ERU to $10 per month represents a $3.15 monthly increase for many households and described the proposal as a citywide effort to address aging and failing storm infrastructure.
Snyder framed the measure as a user fee rather than a tax: "This is not a tax increase. This is a stormwater user fee," he said, adding that decades of deferred maintenance had left older neighborhoods with failing pipes, open ditches and recurrent flooding. Snyder said anecdotal and submitted evidence — including a resident’s 55-page packet of photos and correspondence — constituted data that justified starting the program.
Residents and councilors responded with detailed questions and differing perspectives. Ally Missler, speaking for her neighborhood, said she "strongly support[s] the proposed stormwater rate increase of approximately $3.15 per month," describing repeated flooding, failed septic impacts and long‑running correspondence with the city. Denny Breedlove and other West‑side residents described septic backups and yards that remain swampy after storms, urging action and investment.
Other councilors urged caution and a data‑driven process. Councilor Worrell and others asked for a thorough engineering and rate analysis, highlighted the formal role of the Department of Stormwater Management (BPW) in setting fees, and requested that bond details, bidding approaches and rating impacts be vetted in committee before any final vote. Worrell said he had scheduled a public technical presentation by engineering and consultants on July 14 so residents and councilors could review the evidence and methodology.
Council members agreed to send the ordinance concurrently to land use and finance committees to identify problem locations, prioritize projects, and run a rate study and capital plan. Snyder and multiple colleagues emphasized that a final rate and package would take months to refine, and there was no immediate vote.
What’s next: Council routed D-2836-26 to land use and finance for concurrent study, scheduled committee briefings and a public town hall; staff and the stormwater board were asked to provide shared facts, project lists and cost estimates before any levy decision.
Sources: Comments and exchanges on the record during the July 6 Common Council meeting, including President Snyder, Ally Missler and multiple councilors.
