Stormwater plans could be consolidated, officials say

Two budgets presented to the City Council on water quality, or stormwater, fees likely could be blended, officials said Tuesday.

“I feel like we’re not too far apart on things,” said council Chairman Jack Benson.

The City Council met for a little over an hour Tuesday afternoon to ask questions and deliberate on the direction of the city’s water quality program. The council is considering several options: one presented by the City Council’s independent committee on water quality, an alternate plan from the city administration, the current water quality plan or a blend of the new plans.

By the end of Tuesday’s meeting, Mr. Benson suggested that members of the independent committee and members of the city’s Public Works staff be locked in a “rubber-padded room” and work out the differences between the two new proposals over the next week.

“I think we are very close,” he said.

Other members of the council by the end of the meeting said they hope council members come up with a plan quickly because the business community is waiting on answers.

“This is getting out of control,” said Councilwoman Pam Ladd. “We need to be more decisive.”

Mayor Ron Littlefield could not be reached for comment Tuesday because he was out of town. But he said in statements last week that he could work with whatever the council proposed. He warned there would be “a cost” if the council chose a route lesser than the one he proposed.

That cost would mean some things may not get done under the program, he said.

Controversy on the city’s water quality fee began in October when the council approved hiking the rate from $36 a year to $115.20 a year annually for residences. Businesses, churches and institutions could pay more because they can qualify as multiple residences under the program.

Some of those businesses, churches and institutions lashed out Tuesday by placing a full-page advertisement in the Chattanooga Times Free Press that compared the city administration’s new program to the independent committee’s budget.

The ad was paid for by area businesses, faith-based organizations and nonprofit organizations. Robin Derryberry, owner of Derryberry Public Relations, said she took out the ad for the responsible parties. She said she and others took information from the Times Free Press and wanted to present facts to the council and public.

“It’s not to take on the city,” she said. “It’s which one is going to cost you more, which is going to cost you less.”

The city administration’s budget calls for a $12 million water quality program budget the first year, going up to $16.7 million by the fifth year. The independent committee’s budget sets a flat $10 million budget.

But council members have questioned whether the committee’s budget would be enough to stave off any fines or penalties expected from federal and state regulators as the city negotiates with those agencies later this year.

Councilwoman Deborah Scott asked Public Works officials point-blank Tuesday if their downgraded budget would comply with the city’s permit.

Lee Norris, deputy administrator of Public Works, said it would.

“To get this a little more palatable to the public, we deferred some of the costs,” he said.

Council members also brought up members of the independent committee and asked about their credits program. Members of the city administration peppered them with questions about how they came up with giving a maximum of 75 percent off the water quality bill to businesses and institutions as an incentive.

The city has proposed giving a maximum 75 percent credit on water-quality bills the first year with 50 percent off the bill in subsequent years.

“The blue-ribbon committee’s program is better,” said Councilman Peter Murphy. “But it’s within spitting distance.”

The council will meet again next Tuesday and deliberate on the water quality fee. The council also could have an ordinance drafted that it could vote to approve or defer, officials said.

Follow this link to continue reading