The first storm-water utility meeting for Peachtree City was held Oct. 19, 2005. The following is a breakdown of what was discussed followed by why this is not fair to the citizens of Peachtree City.

1. Mayor Brown stated that Integrated Science & Engineering started with nothing and put this plan together from their research. This cannot be true because all developments are required to submit civil engineering plans complete with hydrology studies and topography maps showing drainage.

2. The residents of this meeting were demanding the city do something to rectify these problems. The majority of the problems brought to them were drainage issues from other private commercial and residential areas.

Mayor Brown stated this group would be able to receive help if they got the word out and convinced people to e-mail city council in support of this proposition. Private property issues are a civil matter between property owners and should remain that way.

3. Integrated Science & Engineering stated this is a fair and equitable plan because it charges according to impervious surface. Homeowners would pay a monthly fee for this program. Peachtree City and the Board of Education would even have to pay for their impervious surfaces.

This is a triple tax to city residents. First, the fee to the homeowner. Then, higher tax rates from the city and the Board of Education to cover these expenses. The residents are the only revenue source for these entities.

4. Integrated Science & Engineering stated the guy at the top of the hill is responsible for helping with the problem since they are at the beginning of the runoff. If the property drains according to the topography map on the civil engineering plans, he is not responsible because that is how it was intended to drain. If this property owner changes the topography and causes a problem, it becomes a civil matter between property owners and should remain that way.

5. David Borkowski made this statement in the Oct. 12, 2005, issue of The Citizen: “Most of the problems relating to storm-water are due to poor engineering, poor grading or poor construction.” Just as current city staff and council do not want to be held accountable for these mistakes from a previous staff and council, it is our position that we do not want to be held accountable for these mistakes as well.

6. A franchise fee was discussed as an option for charging garbage services and adding storm-water fees to this bill. The storm-water fee will not be necessary and will be explained at the end of this statement.

If a franchise fee is established for garbage, we will have two large problems. First, there will be lousy customer service because the chosen company knows you have no choice in providers and they get paid regardless of level of service. Second, these complaints will have to be handled by an already overburdened city staff. This idea needs to be eliminated.

7. Mayor Brown stated at the Oct. 19, 2005, meeting that the creation of this storm-water utility would help keep the needed funds for storm-water projects out of the general fund where they can only be used for storm-water projects. The following two comments are a proposed solution to this problem.

8. Create the storm-water utility account and transfer the allotted money to this account at the beginning of the fiscal year so they cannot be used for other purposes. Mayor Brown stated that money is allotted from tax dollars already collected for this purpose yearly, so it could be funded as early as the next fiscal year. SPLOST tax dollars could also be earmarked for this purpose since drainage from public streets would fall under road improvements. This yields no tax increase to the citizens of Peachtree City.

9. When new developments are proposed, anticipated volume runoff information should be taken and downstream studies of existing properties should be conducted at the cost of the developer to determine if it will adversely affect the downstream properties. If the study shows potential adverse conditions, modifications to the existing drainage structures should be a requirement of that developer so we do not create more situations of potential failure for our drainage system. This also yields no tax increase to the citizens of Peachtree City.

10. We agree that problems exist within Peachtree City regarding drainage issues. We also acknowledge that there are structures that were not built to code when they were constructed (the code when it was constructed, not current code). Are we going to create a fund to deal with this problem as well?

If public funds are used for private property issues, does this mean that property becomes available for public use (fishing, leisure, etc.)? The proposal by Integrated Science & Engineering and city staff would raise many legal questions and legal ramifications. The proposal from this statement would alleviate this problem because this money is already budgeted for this purpose.

11. The Storm-water Management Manual (The Blue Book) is a guide for improving water quality. This is achieved with well-planned structural and vegetative measures replacing current public structures and a requirement for new construction. Examples would be integrating bio-retention ponds into landscape islands and replacing concrete flumes with vegetated waterways. The manual is not requiring a utility be created; it merely states we must take steps in the future to reduce pollutants in storm-water runoff. Better site design will be the key to successful pollutant removal.

12. If you would like this in electronic form, send an e-mail to ptcswu@yahoo.com with Storm-water Utility in the subject line.

13. If you support this proposal, [contact] City Hall, any council member, or send via e-mail to council@peachtree-city.org. This will reach all members of City Council. Thanks for your support.

Barbara Zimmerman
Peachtree City, Ga.