At the forefront of the meeting was a detailed examination of the stormwater utility fee structure, specifically focusing on how properties with varying impervious surfaces should be billed. The task force faced the challenge of ensuring equitable billing, particularly for multifamily and commercial properties. A participant highlighted the necessity of distinguishing between single-family residences and multifamily developments, recognizing the latter’s greater contribution to stormwater runoff. This differentiation would require a nuanced approach to billing, potentially establishing different categories or tiers for multifamily units to account for their larger impervious areas.

Members emphasized the need to verify classifications of 257 parcels identified as vacant but potentially containing impervious surfaces. A participant expressed a commitment to conducting further investigation to prevent erroneous billing. This careful approach reflects the task force’s dedication to ensuring fair billing for all properties, including those classified as vacant, multifamily, or commercial.

Further complicating the fee structure was the consideration of tier pricing for properties with significant impervious surfaces. For instance, the parking area at Lunenburg Crossing exceeded the current cap for tier 10, which applies to properties over 210,000 square feet. This prompted discussions about creating a new tier to accommodate larger properties, potentially starting at 400,000 square feet. Participants deliberated on whether to introduce a tier 11 or refine existing tiers to reflect the actual impervious area more accurately. The task force recognized the need for further analysis and discussion before finalizing any changes.

Another topic was the proposed $25 quarterly stormwater fee, which drew comparisons to similar charges in other municipalities, such as Amesbury. The task force debated whether to incorporate this fee into existing utility bills or place it on property tax bills, considering the broad range of properties affected. Additionally, there was contemplation on how property classifications, such as “vacant with improvement” or “vacant land potential,” might influence the fee structure. This prompted a call for clarity on property codes used within the tax system to accurately identify different types of properties.

The treatment of nonprofit organizations in the stormwater fee system also surfaced as a contentious issue. A participant argued that nonprofits, which already pay for other utilities, should contribute to stormwater management. However, there was uncertainty about whether churches and other nonprofits were tax-exempt or fee-exempt, necessitating further investigation. The task force aimed to clarify how these classifications impacted property taxes and potential stormwater fees.

Discussions extended to the possibility of exemptions from the proposed stormwater tax. Some members expressed skepticism about granting exemptions, citing the administrative burden of assessing individual properties and the potential for increased costs to other residents. The task force emphasized the shared benefit of town infrastructure. However, they acknowledged the need for a clear mechanism for exemptions if pursued, recognizing the complexities involved.

The meeting concluded with a strategic focus on public engagement. Members stressed the importance of soliciting feedback on the proposed fee structure and presenting a concrete proposal to the public before the next town meeting in November. The task force acknowledged the heightened awareness and urgency among residents regarding stormwater management, particularly following recent flooding events. They recognized the need for thorough analysis and community involvement in the fee development process.