HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-687 (3)
CityClerk
From:Williams, Kit
Sent:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:44 AM
To:Robert Williams; Hertzberg, Holly; Turk, Teresa; Stafford, Bob; Jones, D'Andre; Moore,
Sarah; Wiederkehr, Mike; Berna, Scott; Bunch, Sarah
Cc:CityClerk; Norton, Susan; Brown, Chris; Pugh, Alan; Pennington, Blake
Subject:RE: Proposed Stormwater Fees
Robert,
Thank you for your latest email. I will try to explain why the proposed Stormwater Management Utility Fee
ordinance has been presented to the City Council for its consideration in its current form.
I placed gravel in the definition of impervious surface or area because our Engineering Department informed
me that graveled areas are usually likely to be impervious. I believe that I need to listen to our experts and so placed
gravel in the definition. I believe that you still would have the right to appeal to the Public Works Director and City
Council to show that your graveled area is not compacted nor impervious. I will let Public Works Director Chris Brown or
Stormwater Engineer Alan Pugh make any further explanation that might be necessary.
The 3% annual increase in rates would be applied annually unless changed by the Council.
As City Attorney, I believe that I should include all possible supporting reasons for the enactment of the
Stormwater Management Utility Fee Code section. I believe that presenting the increased danger of large and damaging
flooding events that most scientists believe are likely from global warming would be helpful in any court case
challenging the need for this Stormwater Management Utility Fee Code Section. This would be only one of many
reasons that improved drainage facilities and their maintenance are needed. I would argue every possible reason to
support the need for the increased revenue for stormwater management if the City is challenged in court. It would be
legally helpful that all these reasons be noted in the enacting ordinance passed by the City Council.
I do believe that the City and Citizens of Fayetteville have endured more frequent damaging flooding during the
last decade despite improved new drainage requirements for new development and improved drainage projects in our
older and more endangered areas. Our stormwater engineer can certainly provide again the data supporting the need
for increased stormwater management funding. I should note that it is not the average monthly rainfall that causes
flooding, but significant 1 to 3 day deluges (sometimes relatively short and localized storms) that cause flooding issues.
Kit
From: Robert Williams <robertwilliams51@att.net>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:40 PM
To: Hertzberg, Holly <holly.hertzberg@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Turk, Teresa <teresa.turk@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Stafford, Bob
<bob.stafford@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Jones, D'Andre <dandre.jones@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Moore, Sarah
<sarah.moore@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Wiederkehr, Mike <mike.wiederkehr@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Berna, Scott
<scott.berna@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Bunch, Sarah <sarah.bunch@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Williams, Kit
<kwilliams@fayetteville-ar.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Norton, Susan <snorton@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Brown, Chris
<cbrown@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Pugh, Alan <apugh@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Pennington, Blake <bpennington@fayetteville-
ar.gov>
Subject: Re: Proposed Stormwater Fees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Williams,
1
This version is much better. It is obvious you put a lot of work into this and I appreciate it. It looks like you were coming up with the
solutions before I even finished reading the Agenda Packet. The deadline for the credit is helpful. It would be nice if the enactment of
the fee was tied to that last step in case the Council was not able to complete this task on time. Also, the first automatic increase is
listed at 3%, but the yearly increases after that until 2031 are not specified. Are they 3% as well? That would make Tier 1 pricing as
follows: 2025-$1.69, 2026-$1.74, 2027-$1.79, 2028-$1.85, 2029-$1.90, 2030-$1.96 and 2031-$2.02. Correct?
I have one objection. In the Definitions, gravel is defined as impervious. A lot of my landscaping is with creek gravel, which is 100%
permeable, that's why we use it. And it does not break down or wash away like mulch. I am sure I am not the only one in Fayetteville
either. I think Walmart is changing out their parking lot islands from mulch to gravel. This is not the same as compacted Class 7
gravel base, which I believe is the intent. The way it is written, I would be denied an appeal as the ordinance is clear, gravel is defined
as impervious, no exceptions are provided. There should be a distinction between landscaping gravel and compacted gravel
parking/walks/drives, etc. as they are not the same thing. This would eliminate unnecessary appeals.
Also, there is a design trend to use decomposed granite for walkways and paths because it is considered permeable. If owners are
going to be charged the same as sidewalk for this material, I can see the trend stopping and going back to concrete, at least in
Fayetteville. Concrete is stronger, longer lasting, and less maintenance. Since decomposed granite is basically compacted gravel, I
can see an appeal losing. The goal here is to encourage less impervious surface. Maybe this should be a distinction as well.
As it turns out, the National Weather Service has rainfall records for Fayetteville by month all the way back to 1950. Fayetteville is
not, and has not had abnormally high rain fall in the last four years. I was going to go through all the data and get more specific, but it
is probably a waste of time. I just hoped that instead of using climate change as a boogeyman, that we could just be honest. As you
pointed out, many areas of the city do not have any infrastructure. Most of the existing infrastructure has not been
maintained. Therefore, it is not reasonable to say that every time it rains hard and floods, climate change is the problem. This is not a
climate problem, it is clearly a money problem. I was just hoping to keep the political hot button out of this and get to the real
problem of building new infrastructure and maintaining what we have. It is getting done nonetheless, I guess that is the most
important thing.
I am normally not in favor of new taxes/fees, but this one is necessary. The problem is too large to ignore any longer, I am sure this
will be passed by the Council and we can get some help to the areas that need it the most.
Thank you for your time.
Robert Williams
Ward 4 Resident
On Monday, December 16, 2024 at 09:55:08 AM CST, Williams, Kit <kwilliams@fayetteville-ar.gov> wrote:
Mr. Robert Williams,
Thank you for your comments on the proposed Stormwater Management Utility Fee ordinance. The
Amendment we presented to the Council last week addresses most of your concerns. Attached is that memo
and the proposed final code subchapter for the Stormwater Management Utility Fee. As you can see, the
appeal procedure is now spelled out in the code with the City Council being the final deciding body. The new
definition of “impervious surface or area” removes the chance that city sidewalks, trails, and drainage
structures on city right-of-way could be counted against the property owner.
City councils like other legislative bodies can apply their common sense, judgment and common
knowledge to support their general regulatory legislation. Although some may still try to deny climate change
a/k/a global warming, it is clear that warmer air can carry more water vapor which can result in increased
severe flooding storms. With continuing increases in the amount of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, it
is prudent for the City Council and citizens to prepare for the likely increased flooding storms by investing more
resources into our drainage infrastructure and maintenance of existing infrastructure.
The City Council through the years have improved and increased the required infrastructure to reduce
damaging flooding. However, much of Fayetteville was built and developed prior our most recent drainage
requirements. So new requirements will not solve these drainage problems by themselves. That is why the
2
Administration and Council are considering an additional dedicated revenue source to improve, enlarge and
enhance drainage structures and their maintenance.
Thank you for your insights and suggestions, many of which are being proposed in the latest ordinance.
Kit Williams
From: Robert Williams <robertwilliams51@att.net>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 4:53 PM
To: Hertzberg, Holly <holly.hertzberg@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Turk, Teresa <teresa.turk@fayetteville-ar.gov>;
Stafford, Bob <bob.stafford@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Jones, D'Andre <dandre.jones@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Moore,
Sarah <sarah.moore@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Wiederkehr, Mike <mike.wiederkehr@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Berna,
Scott <scott.berna@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Bunch, Sarah <sarah.bunch@fayetteville-ar.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Williams, Kit <kwilliams@fayetteville-ar.gov>
Subject: Proposed Stormwater Fees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon Council Members,
I have a few comments on the proposed stormwater fees (Item B.1) that are going to be determined/assessed by the
amount of impervious surface on each property.
1. The appeals process needs to be codified in the ordinance and not left up to the City Engineer. The City Council is
accountable to the citizens, city employees are not. The current version leaves the appeal process up to the City
Engineer, this is not acceptable. As a representative of the citizens, you don't have any idea what you are approving by
adopting the ordinance as is. The Council should not surrender it's authority on this matter.
2. Attached is the assessment for my property. I see that I am going to be assessed for the City's sidewalk as an
impervious surface. It is highly unlikely, the City would let me pull out the impervious concrete sidewalk and replace it with
a permeable surface. Therefore since a citizen does not control that decision or material, we should not be penalized for
it. The ordinance should be revised to exclude City sidewalks and approaches in the right of way that are required to be
concrete or other hard surface since a property owner has/had no choice in the matter.
3. The appeal process is important to me because my assessment is wrong. There are several large areas of gravel in
my yard that are shown to be impervious surface. See notes 2, 3, and 4 on the attachment. Also, note 5 is a wood deck
that is porous and allows water into the space below, which is not an impervious surface. These areas should not be
considered impervious. Again, when the ordinance is adopted, the appeals process should be part of it.
3
4. If we had time to figure out what we are going to charge the property owners, than we have time to figure out what the
credit amounts are going to be for any desirable changes to the property. I would request the ordinance be sent back to
the city staff to put dollar values to any proposed credit for the "Sustainable Credit" before the fees are approved. Any
future establishment may never happen. When the ordinance is adopted, any credit for desirable changes should be part
of it.
5. The opening statement of the legislation makes a broad claim about "frequency and intensity of major rain storms
striking Fayetteville has continued to increase dramatically". Further into the document these claims are blamed on
"global warming". Nowhere in the packet, are these claims quantified with scientific data, which should actually be very
easily obtained. I would like to see the unfounded and inflammatory claims removed in favor of more generic language. I
went to a few of the early stormwater fee meetings and don't recall this data ever supplied.
6. Fayetteville does have a stormwater problem, but it is doubtful that it is caused by "global warming". Much more likely
is the maintenance of the existing stormwater conveyance systems. For example, for years each new housing
subdivision has been built with detention or retention ponds. These ponds are designed to hold a prescribed amount of
stormwater. Over time, silt makes it's way into these ponds and reduces the capacity forcing more excess water into the
overflow. These ponds are never checked or maintained. How much capacity is being lost and forced on the City's
stormwater system? They are on private property, but they are the critical first step in stormwater planning. There needs
to be an enforcement mechanism here, since the developments were approved with the stormwater calculations
performed at 100% capacity.
7. If the City feels like this is going to be a growing problem, the development codes should be adjusted to mandate in
increase in capacity at each new development to help reduce overflow.
In general, I am in support of this ordinance. There is just more work/maintenance than there is money. However, to fully
support this ordinance, it needs to be completely written with the property owner protections discussed above included
before it is adopted. Thank you for your time.
Robert Williams
Ward 4 Resident
4