The city of Cedar Park is exploring different funding options to help alleviate city drainage and stormwater issues.
One option the city is considering is whether to add a stormwater utility fee as a line item on water bills for residential and nonresidential property owners. The fee would generate revenue to help pay for mitigation measures that could reduce flooding issues in Cedar Park, said Trey Shanks, stormwater manager with Freese and Nichols, the consultant firm working with the city on this project.
“There’s a lot of drainage needs that are ongoing in the city that are currently not being funded,” he said.
According to city documents, the fee options could range from $2.89-$11.16 per household per month. Shanks said the fee would be based on the amount of impervious cover—the amount of hard surface the property owner has that prevents water from soaking into the soil, such as rooftops, patios, driveways and parking lots—that is on each property.
The fee would pay for $350,000 in annual maintenance costs, $125,000 for annual regulation compliance with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and $120,000 each year to add one street sweeper vehicle and an operator. The fee would also cover about $300,000 annually in small infrastructure projects, such as design and construction of localized drainage channel improvements or repairs of flood-damaged infrastructure.
Shanks said the city has also identified $45 million in large infrastructure projects that would help mitigate some of the more severe flooding issues, including widening creeks and channels and improvements in neighborhoods without adequate drainage. Those projects would be funded through long-term bonds, Shanks said.
Cedar Park resident Tim Hudgeons went before council in June and spoke in favor of the fee.
“… We need to as a city come up with a solution that helps everybody,” he said.
Westside Preserve resident Maria Acosta went before council in May and said she was unhappy with how the city presented the information about the proposed fee.
“I realize that convincing citizens that they should be taxed on their rainwater might be a tough thing to sell,” she said. “..[But] $11 [million] to $45 million in new revenue for building infrastructure is a tax.”
Other options
For months the city received regular updates on stormwater utility solutions, but Mayor Matt Powell said he wants to make sure the fee is not the only option considered.
Council is also considering other options to alleviate stormwater issues, such as allocating monies in the general fund to pay for the maintenance, compliance and infrastructure improvements, Council Member Jon Lux said.
“The drawback with that is to keep a balanced budget, some other service would have to be given up, or we’d have to raise the tax rate, which we don’t particularly want to do,” he said.
The city could also hold a bond election or implement a spot fee, Lux said, which would allow residents to pay different amounts based on where they live.
The city is also looking into partnering with the Upper Brushy Creek Water Control and Improvement District to see if the two entities could share costs on certain projects. If the city did have to match funds, it would likely also have to allocate money from the general fund, Lux said.
Freese and Nichols will provide an updated report to the city by the end of July. Council will then evaluate it and seek additional feedback from residents prior to making a decision, he said.
