An independent committee for the City Council looking at water quality fees presented a $10 million revenue-only budget Tuesday, and it now is up to the council to pick that plan or a city administration one.
“We didn’t run into a single person in support of the current structure,” said Bill Raines, chairman of the committee.
The independent committee handed over a half-inch-thick report to the council filled with recommendations on what it thinks the city could do to help alleviate concerns from the water quality, or stormwater, fee increase.
PDF: BR Final Report
The report included slashing the city’s current $21.5 million budget to $10 million and upping the amount of maximum credits a property owner can receive from 50 percent off the bill to 75 percent off the bill.
Mayor Ron Littlefield, who was absent from the meeting, said Tuesday his staff planned to give its own presentation to the council, showing that a $21.5 million budget is needed to satisfy federal and state regulators.
He said he did not like the dynamics of the committee’s budget.
“I can not recommend a two-tier system where residents are paying more,” he said.
He said his staff would give a budget that would give some relief to industries, businesses and institutions on the front end, but they quickly would ramp up to the same rate as residential taxpayers within four to five years.
“We can’t have a two-pier system permanently,” he said.
STATE ACTIONSeveral Hamilton County legislators said Tuesday they intend to give local religious groups a break on water quality, or stormwater, fees. The lawmakers have introduced House Bill 2579/Senate Bill 2604 that would affect cities with populations of 150,000 or more.”Basically it would freeze what the city can charge churches for their stormwater fees,” said Rep. Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga, the House prime sponsor. “It would also force them to do a payment program for past fees that they haven’t collected already.””I don’t believe the policies of city or state government or anybody else should run a church out of business,” he said. Several churches within the city have expressed dissatisfaction with the city’s new stormwater fee because their bills have shot up in past months.Rep. Vince Dean, R-East Ridge, is a cosponsor. Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, is sponsoring the Senate version.
The committee’s recommendation would require residents to pay $115.20 annually the first year, decreasing to $102 the second year. Nonresidential users, which can qualify as multiple residences, would pay $60 per equivalent residential unit.
The council set up the committee nine weeks ago after a number of complaints about the stormwater fee hike. The council approved upping the fee from $36 annually to $115.20 annually to help pay for a revamped water quality program.
But city industries, businesses and institutions reacted negatively to the increase because their bills went up substantially higher.
Council members peppered the committee Tuesday about whether it was equitable to charge a different fee to residential users than nonresidential users.
Councilwoman Carol Berz asked if residences pay more because they “demand or command more services.”
Committee member Mike Price said the rate was not equitable because those businesses can qualify at a higher rate.
Dr. Berz countered that a lawn was far better for water quality than a paved parking lot.
“I still haven’t heard a rational reasoning,” she said.
Water quality fees, unless on appeal, are due Monday. Mr. Price urged council members to push the due date back to June 1. He said many businesses and institutions could be placed in an “onerous” position if they have to pay by next week.
The council took no action and will hear the city administration’s proposal next Tuesday. Mr. Raines urged the council to act quickly.
“We strongly recommend these recommendations go through as quickly as possible,” he said.