Council hears plan to shift stormwater fee to impervious‑area ERU model

City council members on Aug. 26 heard a detailed presentation proposing a change to how the city charges for stormwater services.

Chris Eckert of NewGen Strategies told the council the current ordinance charges stormwater as a percentage of utility bills (about 7 percent, with a residential cap of about $25 per month and a commercial cap of about $208.33). He recommended changing the billing basis to impervious area, using an equivalent residential unit (ERU) of 3,454 square feet and a fee of $4.90 per ERU, effective Jan. 1. "We have established that $4.90 fee to generate approximately $3,900,000 over the entire fiscal year," Eckert said during the presentation (SEG 211–215; SEG 312–316).

Eckert described the mechanics: residential parcels would be charged in whole ERUs (a minimum of one ERU), with rounding rules to ease administration; nonresidential customers would be charged based on measured ERUs. He said the median residential customer would see a slight decrease (about $0.83 per month) while the median nonresidential customer would see an increase of about $4.45 per month (SEG 226–231; SEG 246–249).

The consultant walked the council through parcel‑level examples of large increases and decreases, naming particular properties (a train site that currently pays $250 per month under the old system that could increase by over $2,000 per month, Broadway Square, The Village at Cumberland Park, Walmart and Delac Refining) and noted the system shifts revenue generation from residential to nonresidential customers because commercial properties typically generate more runoff (SEG 337–377; SEG 343–371).

Council members asked about credits and exemptions. Eckert said exemptions are possible but represent foregone revenue and recommended a retention/detention credit be developed in the ordinance for properties that can demonstrate retained runoff; he said the city would need an ordinance and administrative method to grant those credits (SEG 275–279; SEG 395–404). He also said the consultant had modeled the zoo as a nonprofit example but had not surveyed all nonprofit properties across the city (SEG 263–276; SEG 574–582).

Council discussion covered protest and appeal procedures for disputed impervious-area measurements, timing of annual fee reevaluation, and options to phase or cap high increases for large institutional or nonprofit customers. Eckert said the fee could be revisited annually and that some municipalities adopt maximum bills and phase increases to ease transitions (SEG 498–513; SEG 591–599).

The presentation provided the staff and council a set of policy choices — whether to adopt retention credits, phase in caps for certain customers, or grant targeted exemptions — and council members said they wanted to preserve the rational nexus between runoff and fees while being mindful of affordability for some property owners.