City Preparing Storm Water Fee

Powder Springs homeowners will soon see the introduction of a monthly storm water fee, which, as discussed at April’s town hall meeting, will likely be between $2 and $4.

For owners of potentially larger properties like businesses, that fee would go up depending on the amount of square feet of impervious surface—basically areas like asphalted ground that water can’t penetrate and must “run off”—each establishment has.

The City Council approved at last Monday’s meeting the first reading of an ordinance that creates in the Code of Ordinances a new chapter for storm water management. The money would be put into a separate fund devoted solely for that purpose.

A second public reading of the ordinance must still take place and be voted on by the council.

The ordinance does not include the exact monthly fee; that fee must later be instituted instead by a resolution, which would require one public reading.

At the previous work session, Director Pam Conner explained that the average runoff contribution of Powder Springs households—called one ERU or Equivalent Residential Unit—is 2,840 square feet.

That average is what will be used to figure what other properties must pay monthly. For example, if a business has 5,680 square feet of impervious surface, it must pay twice the monthly rate a homeowner would pay. So if the rate was $2 for homeowners, the business would have to pay $4 a month.

The rate stays consistent for homeowners regardless of the total square footage of impervious surfaces.

 A brochure distributed at the town hall meeting says the fees will go to:

• Drainage system assessments
• Inspections, maintenance and repair of the city’s storm sewer system
• Storm sewer system inventory and mapping
• Roadside and trail litter pickup
• Business inspection and education programs
• Public education and outreach programs
• Minor flood reduction projects
• Watershed monitoring
• The stabilization of stream banks
• And more

“For example,” Conner said at the work session, “whenever you’re cleaning out storm drains, that is a storm water-related function. Whenever you are putting in replacement piping, that would be a storm water management function.”

Currently, storm water issues are being taken care of through the general fund. If the money in the storm water account can’t cover a project, the city can still dip into the general fund, City Manager Rick Eckert said. But “certainly a large portion of what we’re spending now would be shifted over to” the storm water account, he added.

Conner and Eckert said they would look into if general fund money that backs up storm water funding could be replenished through money collected from the fee.

Conner noted that some Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) money has been designated to storm water projects.

So with the storm water fee, “there would be an opportunity to leverage some other funds that might be available or some grants that might be available,” she said.

Conner said that the city will be required to establish a prioritized list of capital improvements, like replacing pipes, that storm water fees would go toward.

Councilman Al Thurman asked City Attorney Richard Calhoun if the city could run into problems about what it's using storm water money for.

“From a legal standpoint, could the question arise regarding what we’re using the money for and if it’s a legitimate storm water project?” he asked.

“I don’t think that’s going to be a problem,” Calhoun said. “This is the rain tax—that’s the popular name for it.”

Thurman asked for clarification that storm water money would be used solely for storm water piping and not directly for drinking water and sewer.

“I just wanted to be sure we’re all on the same page,” Thurman said to the agreement of other present officials at the work session.

It was estimated at the town hall meeting that the fee could be implemented sometime between July and October. With the council still needing to set the fee’s exact dollar amount, members discussed where they should set it. 

 “I just don’t want to start on the high end and put people who are already going through economical distress … if we don’t have to,” Thurman said.

Councilwoman Rosalyn Neal added: “That’s what I was worried about. … Groceries are up, gas is up—they can’t afford it.”