Stormwater Showdown Becomes A Numbers Duel

City official Rob Smuts boasted that a new Stormwater Authority would save residential taxpayers $600,000 a year. Skeptical aldermen rebutted that City Hall has already spent a couple hundred thousand dollars on consultants to arrive at that figure.

The exchange came during a special meeting of the Board of Aldermen in City Hall Thursday night, where lawmakers considered a controversial plan to have the city start charging fees for stormwater removal — for handling the runoff that comes from your roof onto your driveway or the sidewalk.

Aldermen met as a ​“committee of the whole” for over four hours to hold a hearing on an ordinance amendment that would create the Stormwater Authority for New Haven. City Chief Administrative Officer Smuts (pictured above) was in the hot seat.

At the end of the marathon meeting, a quorum of aldermen was no longer present. So Board President Carl Goldfield continued the meeting to Monday, Jan. 31. The committee of the whole will then vote on the proposal and send it to the full board, or not.

Meanwhile, backers and critics of the plan dived into the details and sparred about the finances. The question: Who, if anyone, will save money on the deal?

Under the stormwater authority plan, all property owners in New Haven would see a new bill from the city representing their share of the cost of stormwater runoff removal. Right now, the cost of removing that water is paid by property taxes. Proponents of the new plan say that it would be more equitable, since even owners of tax-exempt property — like Yale University — would have to pay up. That means homeowners would no longer pay the full cost of handling runoff in New Haven. Cities across the country are turning or considering turning to this idea as one way to avoid cutting taxes or city services more, by spreading costs to not-for-profits.

Opponents have raised concern about paying an additional fee without seeing a corresponding decrease in their property taxes.

Most homeowners would pay a predicted fee of about $40 or $50 to the new Stormwater Authority. Owners of larger properties would pay significantly more. The annual cost of city stormwater removal is estimated to be almost $3 million. That includes maintenance of the drainage system as well as meeting state and federal environmental requirements.

See background on the plan here.

Wednesday night, one night before Thursday’s aldermanic hearing, the City Plan Commission voted to recommend aldermanic approval of the authority. But commissioners also requested more details about the plan: How will properties be assessed for impermeable-surface area, which determines the size of the bill? Will there be an appeals process?

Outside Experts Hired

One alderman, West Rock’s Darnell Goldson (pictured), came to Thursday night’s hearing armed with seven amendments to the proposal. Read them here and here.

Goldson’s proposed amendments would ensure that, among other things, taxpayers see their tax bills reduces by an amount equivalent to their stormwater fee; that aldermen make four of the seven appointments to the authority’s board; that the board hear taxpayer complaints at least three times per year; that fees not be raised without a two-thirds majority vote by the Board of Aldermen; and that no entity be granted exemption from the fees.

Thursday night in the aldermanic chamber, lawmakers discussed those and other details. Smuts (at center in photo) was on hand to sell aldermen on the plan. He sat to speak with aldermen flanked by several out-of-town consultants, including one from New Jersey and another from Michigan, and a lawyer from Hartford.

Smuts told aldermen that the creation of a authority would reduce cost of stormwater removal paid by residential property owners from $1.7 million to $1.1 million.

When Alderman Goldson asked for details about the legality of the authority, he was answered by Keisha Palmer, a Hartford lawyer with the firm Robinson and Cole. Goldson asked why she was answering instead of the city’s in-house lawyers, and how much the city paid to hire her.

Smuts answered that the law firm was hired for its special expertise. The city paid ​“about 70” thousand dollars for Palmer’s assistance, said City Engineer Dick Miller.

Goldson then inquired about the two consultants from out of state. He was told they were hired through a $300,000 state grant to do an initial study on the implementation of a stormwater authority. That was supplemented by another $60,000 from the city’s capital fund, Miller said. Then they were hired for a follow-up analysis at a cost of $98,000, he said.

Hill Alderman Jorge Perez later picked up on Goldson’s line of questioning. The capital fund is usually used to pay for ​“things you can touch” and their associated expenses, he said. How does the administration justify using money from that fund to hire consultants? he asked.

We consulted with corporation counsel, who signed off on it, Smuts replied.

Was there a bidding process? Perez asked.

No; the contracts were for less than $100,000, Miller said.

After the meeting, Smuts stood behind the administration’s choice to spend what it did on consultants. The state paid for the cost of initial study, he said. The other outlays were important for preparing for an authority, he said. ​“It’s well worth it.”

Costs Passed On?

Smuts also responded to another set of pointed inquiries by Perez, who questioned the claim that a stormwater authority would save residential taxpayers money. The new fees would just cause businesses to jack up their prices and pass their new expenses back onto city residents, he said. ​“The savings are not as straightforward as have been presented.”

After the meeting Smuts sought to rebut that argument. The ​“major players” in New Haven, Yale and Yale-New Haven Hospital, are not businesses that have New Haveners paying their bills, he said. Even if they raise prices, it won’t be city taxpayers paying more, he said. Overall the passing on of costs will be negligible, he said.

“I’d round it down to no effect.”

$1 Million More For What We’ve Got Now?

When it came time for public testimony, one budget watchdog, Harry David, took issue with some of City Hall’s numbers. According to city calculations, the cost of stormwater services is now $2.9 million. The total cost to run the stormwater authority is projected to be as much as $3.9 million. According to the administration, nothing is changing and no services are being added, David said. So why would the city sign on to pay $1 million more to do the same thing? he asked.

“It is the cockamamiest proposal I have ever heard,” he said. ​“It just makes no sense.”

After the meeting Smuts explained the numbers. First of all, it might not cost $1 million more with an authority; that’s the high end of the projection, he said. The extra costs come from billing, credits, accounts receivable, and building a reserve fund. The first two of those factors will be permanent, but the second two will taper down to nothing after the first year or several, he said.

Here’s how it would work, according to Smuts:

Billing costs, the added expense of sending out bills for a new fee, will not go away. Credits, the cost of giving people a break on their fees if they mitigate their run-off, won’t go away either. But they’re a good thing, because they encourage people to pollute less and use the system less.

Accounts receivable, the cost of the bills that people don’t pay, will be a bigger expense the first year. But in subsequent years, as the authority collects both current and back fees, it will taper down to a negligible amount. Similarly, building a reserve fund will require setting aside some money for a few years; once that’s done it will no longer be a cost factor each year.

Overall, Smuts said, the extra costs are worth it. That’s because, as he repeated throughout the night, the average residential taxpayer will end up paying a smaller percentage of the cost of storm removal.

Live Blog

The Independent reported live from City Hall on Thursday night. Read on for all the nitty-gritty blow-by-blow stormwater action.

6:33 p.m.: Things are gearing up here. About 14 aldermen are seated at the conference table at the front of the chamber. Some 20 staffers and citizens are in the audience. It looks like Chief Administrative Officer Rob Smuts will be testifying first, laying out the details of the plan. He’ll be going through a PowerPoint printout. You can follow along by downloading it here.

6:36: Board of Aldermen President Carl Goldfield is calling the meeting to order by reading the legal notice of the meeting. Fifteen aldermen introduce themselves. That’s half the full board. Goldfield notes that it’s not a quorum.

6:39: Smuts takes a seat at the table, he’s joined by Larry Smith, assistant city engineer, Dick Miller, city engineer, and two others (consultants).

6:42: Smuts: This would be the first stormwater authority in the state, but they are common in the rest of the country. … An authority would basically take a service currently paid for by taxes and pay for it with fees. … Aldermen would retain complete control over the authority. You all will approve the rate and rebate structure annually and could abolish the authority at any point. … An authority can sometimes be its own ​“quasi-independent” entity or an independent, regional authority. (That’s not what is being proposed, yet.)

Smuts: How it works. All properties would be assessed for their impermeable property. We’ll take a representative sample of houses and create what’s called an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU).

(Smuts is joined by an attorney who was delayed in traffic. More aldermen have arrived. A quorum is present.)

Smuts: Other properties would be measured in ERU. We estimate an ERU will be about $40 or $50 ​“under the current service level.” Credits would be given out for run-off mitigation. There will be no initial change of services.

[Much of this is a reprise from Smuts’ briefing to aldermen two weeks ago. I’ll summarize Smuts repeat comments only briefly here. Click here. for the details.]

Smuts: There are four main categories of benefits. First, operational. Second, environmental. Third, it spreads the financial burden more equitably. Fourth, financial. … New info: The city will have to pay the user fee as well.

Smuts: Currently residential taxpayers are paying $1.7 million of the total needed for stormwater removal. Under an authority, residential taxpayers would pay $615,000 less per year.

6:55: Smuts is running through some numbers on what the city spends on catchbasin cleaning, street sweeping for stormwater, and debt service on the effort to separate sewers in the city. That means we have stormwater and sewage in separate pipes so that sewage doesn’t get flushed into the Sound during big storms. That’s been an ongoing project for 20 years.

Smuts: Under the authority, the city itself would pay about $350,000 in fees for the property it owns. In sum, the fees would bring in a net of $2.5 million. The stormwater authority would need between $150,000 to $300,000 to pay for billing.

Smuts says the authority will not probably have the same fee collection rate as the city does for property taxes. The city collects 98 percent of property taxes; the authority will likely have a lower success rate than that.

7:03: Smuts moves on to answering questions that were sent to him:

How will delinquent ratepayers be handled?

Smuts: We’ll likely use a collection agency.

Will we collect less than the 98 percent we now do in taxes?

Smuts: Yes, but we have a more equitable system.

What cost-containment measures are in place?

Smuts: It will be under the scrutiny of the Board of Aldermen. ​“It’s basically you guys.”

What about undeveloped land that’s totally permeable?

Smuts: We’re not going to charge for undeveloped land. However, people are paying for the collective costs as well. Use of the roads, for example?

Why a New Haven authority, not a regional one?

Smuts: We can’t consider a regional authority right now. You lose a little control when you have a regional authority. It could happen down the line.

Why standard ERU for residential properties? Why not individual assessments?

Smuts: It’s too much work otherwise. Not worth it.

How will the assessment be done?

Smuts: Aerial mapping, not satellite imagery. I misspoke before.

Is a new board needed?

Smuts: We think a new board is important and needed.

Is the BOA the appropriate body to determine rates?

Smuts: The Stormwater Authority will set the rates; the BOA will see if they are appropriate.

What about deducting this from federal taxes?

Smuts: Can’t be done. But it would be pretty minimal anyway for residential property owners.

7:13:Goldfield opens it up to questions from aldermen. Migdalia Castro is first.

Castro: You said taxpayers now pay 59 percent and that will be reduced to 23 percent of total stormwater removal costs. But the city pays $350,000 on its property, so who pays that? The taxpayers.

Smuts: Correct.

Castro: So the savings you mentioned wouldn’t be as great as you said.

Smuts: No, I already took the $350,000 into account. … ​“If this were the only variable in the budget, this would mean the mill rate would go down by $2.5 million. … We all know this isn’t the only variable we’re facing.” ​“The current system is basically having residential taxpayers subsidize everyone else.”

7:18:Goldson (pictured) is next.

Goldson: You keep mentioning that the taxpayers will see a savings. How exactly will the taxpayers see a savings?

Smuts: If you broke out what the taxpayers are now paying for stormwater, that amount will be more than what you will pay next year under an authority, with a fee.

Goldson: But taxpayers will only see a savings if the budget is reduced by that amount.

Smuts: You can do that. The Board of Aldermen can do that.

Goldson: But the administration brings the budget to us. Are you going to bring a budget to us that’s $2.9 million less?

Smuts: The budget sections that I’m in charge of will be reduced by much more than that.

Goldson: So the answer is no.

Smuts: If the state reduces our money, then obviously we may not be able to give you a lower budget.

Goldson: You’re selling this as a savings to the taxpayers. But how can we sell that to our constituents?

Smuts: If I could, for example, cut the parks department costs in half, shouldn’t I do that?

Goldson: But that’s not what you’re doing. … What authority do you have to do all this?

Keisha Palmer (at center in photo), a ]lawyer with Robinson and Cole representing the Stormwater Authority: I’ve looked at litigation around the country on stormwater authorities. One case cited all around the country is in Florida. The state challenged a city’s authority, which wanted the state to pay for property it owned in the city. The state lost. All property owners must pay.

Goldson: Why didn’t we hire corp counsel to look into this?

Smuts: Their expertise.

Goldson: How much did this cost us?

Miller: ​“About 70.”

Goldson: Who’s in charge of collections? Why would we hire outside?

Smuts: Sometimes outside agencies can do it better.

Goldson: Are we sure this would withstand a court challenge from Yale and churches in the city?

Palmer: Around the country, in similar cases, such challenges have lost.

Goldson: Are we spending more than we’re taking in the first year? [He’s looking at numbers that Smuts handed out.]

Smuts: No.

Goldson: You two are from out of town? [He points to consultants.]

The consultants: Isabella Schroeder, with the firm that did the initial study. She’s from New Jersey. And Malcolm Scholl (sp?), from Michigan.

Goldson: Your travel cost was part of the contract with the city? How much was the contract for?

Miller: $98,000 for a first study on the impervious areas. That’s ongoing. Then another fee for help planning the authority. I think that was around the same amount.

Goldson: So two $98,000 contracts?

Miller: There was a grant from the state for about $300,000 to pay for an original study. That was amended by $60,000 in capital fund money. Another $98,000 contract, ongoing, is for a study on impervious.

Goldson: Then $70,000 for the lawyer, from capital funds?

Smuts: Yes.

7:34: Alderwoman Jacquelin James-Evans (pictured) asks: Why not a regional authority?

Smuts: It’d be very difficult to do that at this point, because of bonding complications and a lack of a track record of success.

James-Evans: In light of all issues with tax assessor’s office, what is the appeals process for people who feel they’re being overcharged?

Smuts: For most properties it will be the averaged one ERU rate. There is an appeals process included in the proposal.

James-Evans again asks Goldson’s question: Where is the savings to taxpayers?

Smuts gives a similar answer: That depends on the budget process.

James-Evans: Is this legally required?

MIller and Smuts: It’s not legally required that we form an authority, but the authority will allow us to fulfill our legal obligations to environmental regulators.

James-Evans: Will the authority be foreclosing on the homes of people who do not pay the fee?

Smuts: Not without aldermanic say-so.

Miller (at left in photo below): The authority would not be able to put liens on property.

7:48:Alderman Greg Dildine asks about the fees and how much of the fees will go toward shared costs. He’s not satisfied with the answer. Next he wants some projections on what this will cost in future years.

Smuts: The costs are shared by the feds and the state, and the WPCA; so it depends on other variables.

Dildine: We still haven’t gotten any numbers. In order to convince us, we need to know more about future liability.

Schroeder speaks about the difficulty of predicting the costs of the operation to separate the sewer (sewage and stormwater, mentioned above).

Miller talks about environmental costs.

Smuts: As federal and state environmental mandates increase, costs will go up. Do you want your constituents to pay a smaller percentage of that?

8:04: Alderman Joey Rodriguez: What’s the fee going to be for non-profits and churches?

Smuts: It depends on their size. If it’s the size of an average house, it will be $40 to $50. If a church is on a ​“triple lot,” they’ll pay three times the amount of a house.

8:06: Alderwoman Maureen O’Sullivan-Best: Have you been able to break down the tax-exempt to non-profits, and state and federal properties, as I asked?

Schroeder: I don’t have it with me.

O’Sullivan-Best: You shouldn’t lump in federal and state property into the non-residential portion, because the taxpayers will end up paying that anyway.

Schroeder: It would be about 50 percent.

O’Sullivan-Best: I don’t want a guess. I want the numbers.

O’Sullivan-Best objects to an inaccurate map. She’s speaking pretty forcefully about the need to do this right if we’re the first in the state to do it. Then she lays into Smuts et al for not having an accurate count of catch-basins.

Miller: Some of the catch-basins have been paved over, which complicates things.

8:14: Alderman Matt Smith: What are the actual EPA regulations that require us to treat our stormwater? How is this the best plan to meet that?

Smuts: The Clean Water Act and associated regulations. … The regulations evolve, probably on a monthly basis, definitely annual. That’s really what we have to respond to.

Smith and Smuts discuss the technical details of a separated sewer.

8:21: Alderman Jorge Perez: This says street sweeping for stormwater removal costs $500,000 a year. Where does that number come from?

Miller: That’s for twice a year.

Perez: I think you’re paying too much. … The other question I had was about capital projects. We normally use that for things you can touch, and their associated costs. How did we come to the conclusion that capital funds was appropriate for this when we’re not building anything? How do we justify that from an accounting perspective?

Smuts: We were concerned about that and did disuss that with corp counsel, who determined it was legal.

[A couple of aldermen snicker. Goldson smirks.]

Perez: Did you talk to an accountant?

Miller: The money came from an engineering line item.

Perez: OK. Was there a bidding process for the consultants?

Miller: It was less than $100,000 initially. And the second contract was also less than $100,000. [So, no.]

Perez: Sounds to me that those two were similar. Did you go to corp counsel for justification? … I don’t see how this is going to help us. We’re still having all the same people doing the stormwater work.

Smuts: There is an environmental benefit: tying the use to the cost. That will create an incentive for people to mitigate run-off into our system. They will get credits, if there is no longer a big run-off. That’s the benefit of a user fee.

Perez: But they’ll pass those costs off to the end user. A supermarket, for instance, will simply jack up the prices for the cost of their big parking lot. ​“I’m going to pay for that. It has to be intellectually honest. … The savings are not as straightforward as have been presented.” You think Yale-New Haven Hospital is not going to jack up prices?

Smuts: The prevailing theory in this country is supply and demand, for setting prices.

Perez: So they’re going to eat it?

Smuts: Yeah.

Perez: It’s not fair to say the cost is pure savings. Some of the cost is going to come back to us. … Why doesn’t it make sense to simply have the WPCA do this?

Smuts: I don’t think we could do that at this point.

Perez: The current law would not allow it? … Can it legally be done?

Palmer: The simple answer is no. It would require changes to the laws covering WPCA. Statute 22a-500 to 540.

8:38: Alderman Gerald Antunes: What about the parking authority, which has multi-level garages of impervious surfaces? How would you assess their property?

Smuts: It would probably just be the lot size.

8:40: Castro asks about catch-basin replacement. Miller gives a technical answer. Then Smuts jumps on to say that the cost of that is now paid by taxpayers. Under the new system, it would be shared more equitably. But aldermen need to scrutinize the new authority’s budget closely to ensure there is not waste.

8:47: James-Evans: What would mitigation cost for the average homeowner?

Smuts: Rain barrels, what do they cost?

Smith: Anywhere from $70 to $200.

Smuts: Or cheaper. My mom made her own.

James-Evans: Is it going to be cost effective for our constituents?

Smuts: Probably not in the short term.

Schroeder: You need to deal with the water collected. It’s not as simple as just getting a barrel.

Other consultant: The larger properties have bigger opportunities for mitigation. That’s where most of the credits will come in.

Smuts: An individual residential property is contributing such a small amount that mitigation is not very cost effective. But the good news about that is that the fee will also be small, relative to other properties.

James-Evans: Do we need to do this now?

Smuts: It’s easier to do this now, with regard to making a budget.

8:55: Goldson: In terms of the timing, why wouldn’t this be a part of the overall budget presentation? Come to us in April, done by June. Why in February?

Smuts: So that we could have the green light to create the authority budget to add to the city budget.

Goldson: Why couldn’t the city administration do that now?

Smuts: There will be requirements for public hearings, setting fees. The authority board would have to do that, and it can’t do that until it’s established through ordinance.

9:00: Goldfield suggests that the general public now testify, although aldermanic questions remain.

Gary Doyens (pictured), outspoken budget watchdog, is first to sit down. Goldfield asks him to limit his testimony to five minutes. He sets a timer.

Doyens: ​“My name is Carl Goldfield.” [Laughter.] … ​“We can call this a fee. At my house, it’s a tax. … It’s just a back door way to get money out of the nonprofits” and out of my family. ​“It’s just about the money. The environmental stuff is a bunch of hooey.” It will be years and years before it makes a difference in the quality of the water in the Sound. Every year, WPCA and water authority fees go high. … The fee won’t stay at $40. It’s going to go up to $150 and beyond. … ​“We have a spending problem here. … We spend too much money.” This board just approved over a million dollars in pay raises to the top paid employees in city. Then there’s the benefit plan that pays cops more to sit at home than to be on the streets. … ​“We’ve got authorities out the ying. We don’t need more. What we need is real cost controls.” If you wanted to charge my family $100 a year to go right to debt service, I’m fine with that. But this ​“nickel and diming” is ​“gobbledy-gook.” ​“These numbers in here are squishy as hell. “[Timer goes off. Doyens ignores it. Goldfield lets it beep for a little while.] It’s about the money. Anyone tells you anything else, they’re lying. [Goldfield asks him to wrap up.] Go slow. Get all the details. Don’t rush into this.

Castro: What about the argument that this will reduce the burden on residential taxpayers?

Doyens: Businesses are already paying through taxes. You’re going to get some pushback from Yale and others. Yale is already paying in the millions in PILOT. It’s the number one tax payer in the city. ​“I don’t have a particular affinity for Yale, I’m just saying.”

Next up is Harry David, another budget watchdog.

David: I believe, to put it mildly, ​“this proposal has zero merit. It is the cockamamiest proposal I have ever heard.” It ranks up there with the parking meter monetization plan. It will cost 30 percent more to do what we are already doing. … It just makes no sense. … To Castro’s question: The costs get passed on to the consumer, like Perez said. ​“You’re going to tax the public ultimately.”

9:16: Ken Joyner, another watchdog, sits.

Joyner: I would like to share an observation as I was coming here. Every surface I passed was impermeable. We cannot escape that. … This proposal offers taxpayers a saving of $600,000. That’s an insult. Out of a $470 million budget? The mayor predicts an $8 million shortfall this year and $57 million next year. I’m offered a savings plan of $600,000. I don’t think I want to talk about it. It’s an insult. … Section 22a-500 does not preclude WPCA doing this, as was claimed. … In 2014, it’s projected that the stormwater authority will cost over $5 million, and half of that is administration. Plus, it duplicates the work of the WPCA. … 

[Joyner goes way over time. After repeated interruptions, Goldfield eventually gets him to stop. Joyner asks to put his name back on the list.]

Joyner: There’s no point having a public testimony if you’re not going to let the public speak.

Goldfield calls a recess to ​“use the bathroom.” He says he hopes that Joyner will ​“show some consideration to the people who have been waiting to speak.”

9:28: We’re back. Joyner has left, along with David and Doyens. Chris Ozyck (pictured) is next. He’s a tree guy and an environmentalist.

Ozyck: This makes sense. We’ll be paying less as residential taxpayers. … Stormwater is really about re-charging the ground. … We’re trying to pay for the pollution the rainwater picks up when it runs off your property. ​“It’s really more like a pollution tax.” I talk to people about how they can make their property more like sponges. … This authority will make the city greener. It will transform paved parking lots, which are currently ​“heat islands,” reflecting a lot of heat back. … One entity will streamline calls for service. … The savings is going to come.

Perez: I agree about the environmental benefits. But how is creating this fund, without changing the people doing this, going to change things? My question is, is this the best mechanism to do this?

Ozyck: The fee structure is a disincentive to create more parking.

[Looks like we lost some aldermen during the break. We’re down to 13 at the table. I think others are floating around.]

9:36: Next is Leah Schmalz, a staffer for Save the Sound.

Schmaltz: We’re in strong support of this. … Stormwater can carry a lot of pollution into the Sound. [She distributes some maps on sewage pollution as it relates to areas where the city has separated its sewers, or not.] An authority would help mitigate. [She says this at length, and very articulately.] New Haven is uniquely situated to address increased federal mandates and clean up the water. This sets up the financial wherewithall to comply with the regulations. And protect shellfish beds.

9:44: Alan Felder is next.

Felder: This was supposed to be a public hearing. You allowed the executive branch to take up to three hours, then cut off public testimony. This was very disrespectful to democracy. ​“Within in one atom all the elements are found.” Within one drop of water all the secrets of the ocean are found. Water is a molecule. The city wants to charge us for a molecule. If that’s the case, why don’t they charge us for snow? … As for the environmentalists, no disrespect, ​“but they’re a joke to me.” There were 24 deaths by gun last year. … You’ve got to get rid of the gasoline engines. It’s so inefficient. Until we go to electric cars, we’re not going to solve the problem. Green technology is nothing but rhetoric. The three major companies — oil, gas, and coal — lobby down on K Street. Until they’re gone, environmentalists are a joke. … It’s a tax. It’s nothing but a tax. It’s not a fee. … The root of the budget gap is the police and fire departments. … ​“We, as the proletarians in the city can no longer take the Machiavellian” work of the government. It’s ​“Orwellian.”

9:50: Frank Thomas is next to testify. He says he lives on Front Street.

Thomas: This may or may not be good for the taxpayer. It does look good for the environment. … When will the sewer separation project be done? Will that result in a reduction of fees? … Collection agencies usually only get you pennies back on the dollar.

9:56: Martha Smith sits to testify.

Smith: I am for the stormwater authority. I think it’s a good thing, despite the cost. Stormwater is a pollutant. As a homeowner, I shouldn’t have to pay when others don’t. ​“This is another way we can gradually move to cleaner water. … I think it’s a worthwhile investment for our future.”

9:59: Smuts et al are back up, to address amendment proposals.

Smuts: On Goldson’s first proposed amendment, which would require that taxes be reduced by the same amount as fees go up. You can’t do that. You can’t make a binding resolution on the budget like that. You could make a statement of intent. You can’t bind yourselves in terms of future action.

Goldson: Our ordinances do that all the time. … Can you give us a legal opinion on this.

Smuts: ​“I will offer to resign if I am false.” That’s how certain I am.

Aldermen assure Smuts that his resignation is not necessary.

Perez: What about the elderly tax credit? Couldn’t we do something like that to make sure fees are offset with tax credits?

Smuts: It can’t be set for certain in the future…

Goldson: If the stormwater authority were in existence, could we do this amendment?

Smuts: If it were a separate corporate entity, you could bind that entity, but not yourself.

Smuts: Next amendment. The proposal here would mean that a rain barrel reduces your bill to zero. This would make the authority’s function impossible.

Goldson: So this amendment will not work because you would not be able to raise money …

Smuts: Yes.

Goldson: So the environmental benefits would not be enough.

Smuts: The mechanism would not work. The principle is admirable.

Smuts: Third amendment. It would change who appoints the members of the board …

Goldfield: We don’t need your expertise on that.

Smuts: Next amendment, on the authority board hearing disputes. The board would hear disputes.

Goldson: I don’t see that in the ordinance proposal.

Palmer points out language that covers reviews.

Goldson: It only says a written review, not a hearing. Plus, my amendment says that people can appeal to the Board of Aldermen next.

Smuts: We believe what’s there is sufficient. As to the BOA appeal, I don’t know if that’s legal.

O’Sullivan-Best: ​“This is not a well-worded customer bill of rights.” … I don’t think it’s appropriate that the board deal with complaints.

Goldfield: Most of these complaints won’t be coming from residents. It’s just an ERU. The disputes are going to be coming from places like IKEA.

Goldson: We don’t know where this is going to be in five years.

Goldfield: We do know, because we’ll be approving the fees.

Goldson: I just went through eight months of tax assessment appeals hearings, so I want to see more strength to this.

Smuts: Amendment six: Fees raised only by a two-thirds vote of BOA. I don’t think you can do that. Amendment Seven: Authority becomes void if any exemptions are given. Maybe this could just be a rule that exemptions will automatically come back to the board…

Palmer: On Amendment five, which covers the right for inspectors to enter property: This is legal for the city to do. If the city could only enter with the permission of the taxpayer, what would happen if the taxpayer refused?

Smuts: I would suggest this be limited to residential taxpayers… It might mean that if you don’t let city on property then the higher assessment obtains.

Goldson: That could be fine. I just don’t think the city should be able to go on property without permission.

Smuts: There are three more amendments. One of these, a requirement that the authority send out a newsletter, would be an additional cost.

Goldfield: One thing I haven’t understood is there is a seeming desire for regionalization, but this seems like something we don’t want to regionalize. Why do we want to deal with anyone else’s stormwater.

Smuts: It would spread administrative costs, and we’re downriver from many others.

[…]

10:33:[We’re four hours into this meeting. The audience is gone, save a handful of die-hards. We’re down to only 13 aldermen in the chamber. There may be a couple more around here, but it looks like the committee is now short of a quorum…]

10:37:Goldfield is asking some technical questions about meters on building water supplies and other details.

10:47:Goldfield: We’ve lost our quorum. We’ll continue this to a week from Monday. We can’t vote.

Smuts: ​“Well it’s been a lot of fun.”

Fin.