- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Stolen from the OT: Broome FOS on stormwater NDA
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:55 pm
For the non-Baton-Rougians and/or non-OTers: a small synopsis.
For those not wanting to click the link, the Mayor has been pushing a new fee for paying for things to defray stormwater buildup (cleaning ditches, bayous, etc). The Mayor and her spokesgroupies have been cagey on specifics. Currently it appears there's no sunset clause nor is there any mention of a specific project for which this money could go to (it's all generalities).
WBRZ apparently didn't feel the need to actually contact the EPA, I guess they feel the Mayor's word is simply good enough. Garrett Graves did though...
Unfiltered with Kiran
For those not wanting to click the link, the Mayor has been pushing a new fee for paying for things to defray stormwater buildup (cleaning ditches, bayous, etc). The Mayor and her spokesgroupies have been cagey on specifics. Currently it appears there's no sunset clause nor is there any mention of a specific project for which this money could go to (it's all generalities).
quote:
The mayor formally introduced the proposal last week, which would add a new "stormwater utility fee" to residents' property tax bills. A decision whether to approve the new fee — which the city estimates would come out to roughly $10 a month per property owner — will be left up to the metro council, which is set to vote on the measure Oct. 26.
quote:
During a press conference last week, the mayor said the fee was a necessary step to keep the federal government from seizing control of the city-parish's drainage plan.
quote:
Federal regulators asked East Baton Rouge leaders to sign a non-disclosure agreement blocking them from discussing certain aspects of a proposed drainage plan that would create a new fee for property owners.
WBRZ learned Monday that the EPA asked members of the East Baton Rouge Metro Council and the mayor's office to sign the NDA, though it wasn't clear what kind of information was being kept secret. It's unknown who signed the agreement so far, but a city-parish spokesperson said members of the mayor's office had signed.
At least one council member told WBRZ they were asked to sign the NDA but did not plan to do so.
WBRZ apparently didn't feel the need to actually contact the EPA, I guess they feel the Mayor's word is simply good enough. Garrett Graves did though...
Unfiltered with Kiran
quote:
Congressman Graves sent a letter late last week to the U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) & EPA questioning the non-disclosure agreement.
quote:
Now though, Congressman Graves said after a call to the EPA, he has learned that “No non-disclosure agreement is in place or required by the EPA or the Department of Justice regarding the storm water fee in Baton Rouge.”
Congressman Graves said the EPA further told him “No deadline in place required by EPA that would force the new tax to be imposed by the parish by the end of the month.”
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:58 pm to Bard
It sounds like she's trying to create a slush fund for herself and her cronies. Looks like you have a Jackson, MS in the making.
This post was edited on 10/18/22 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 10/18/22 at 4:05 pm to Bard
I think we have a flooding issue.
I would support a fee to help pay for it.
But this seems shady. Why an NDA? That doesn't make any sense?
I would support a fee to help pay for it.
But this seems shady. Why an NDA? That doesn't make any sense?
Posted on 10/18/22 at 4:10 pm to Bard
Dallas has had the “storm water fee” for years now & it’s a crock of shite. On a 3 acre property I pay $302 a month & yet there are no functioning drains on the property! Supposedly the fee is to “process” the water. Then on a 10 acre lot I pay $936 a month. Fight it if you can cuz it’s HIGH!
Posted on 10/18/22 at 4:13 pm to Bard
quote:which will quickly balloon to $100/prop/month
which the city estimates would come out to roughly $10 a month per property owner
Never trust these crooks.
Income tax was passed under guise it would be only 1-2% tops and only on the super wealthy who can afford it
Posted on 10/18/22 at 4:24 pm to TxRan2020
quote:
Bard
Dallas has had the “storm water fee” for years now & it’s a crock of shite. On a 3 acre property I pay $302 a month & yet there are no functioning drains on the property! Supposedly the fee is to “process” the water. Then on a 10 acre lot I pay $936 a month. Fight it if you can cuz it’s HIGH!
I would like to opt out of the drainage.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 4:30 pm to BigJim
quote:
would support a fee to help pay for it.
Not a fee
It’s a tax.
If Jennifer Racca votes for this shady shite I’m going to run against her.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 4:34 pm to Wednesday
I have a hunch that she will. Might want to start getting your paperwork ready.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 4:38 pm to TxRan2020
quote:
Dallas has had the “storm water fee” for years now & it’s a crock of shite.
Florida was the first state to do this. They used the money to put trash separators and filters in the storm water drainage system so that the trash runoff wouldn't be transported by the storm water to the wetlands, where it settles on the bottom and chokes the drainage system. The result in Florida is very much cleaner surface water, reduced need for dredging and a more robust storm water drainage system that has prevented the kind of common flooding that we get.
There is no reason why if this is what the mayor is trying to emulate, they come right out front and say it. All public money should be watched and accounted for. If this is for storm water filters, then just use it on storm water filters so that everyone can see where the money is going.
If they won't do this, they should be on notice of arrest for misuse of public funds.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 4:39 pm to LSUSkip
quote:
have a hunch that she will. Might want to start getting your paperwork ready.
Yep. Racca is terrible, like Loupe and Freiburg before her.
This post was edited on 10/18/22 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 10/18/22 at 4:53 pm to Indefatigable
What has Racca done? I’m not too familiar with her.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 5:11 pm to Townedrunkard
quote:
Now they reporting Broome was caught lying.
LINK
Funny how in that entire article they avoid saying "the Mayor lied". Instead they say she "admit(s)" something. There's a big difference in reporting "Mayor admits there's no NDA with feds tied to stormwater proposal" vs "Mayor lied about there being an NDA with feds tied to stormwater proposal".
Posted on 10/18/22 at 5:44 pm to Wednesday
I talked to my Metro council member 30 minutes ago. No way this passes. I doubt it gets any votes after today’s news.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 6:00 pm to Bard
Good job Congressman Graves. I look forward to the day you become the governor of this state. He’s the future of the Louisiana GOP.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 7:47 pm to TxRan2020
Are your properties 100% impervious? I'm not familiar with Dallas or Texas, but those are some outrageous monthly storm water utility fees. Generally it should based on % of impervious area or % increase in runoff versus natural conditions. It should be a pretty small monthly fee for homeowners. Large industrial and commercial complexes get the brunt of it.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 7:55 pm to LSUSkip
quote:
I would like to opt out of the drainage.
Build a detention pond that attenuates peak flow runoff from the property to the natural conditions peak flow runoff of the property.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 8:15 pm to BigJim
quote:
I think we have a flooding issue. I would support a fee to help pay for it.
Pay for what? No one knows anything except they want a tax to raise 38 million dollars a year to maintain our system.
Unlike MovEBR where they put out a ton of information about what they were going to do with our taxes, they have done little to show us where the money would go.
Administrations have cut back on drainage maintenance 50% since 2010. All if s sudden it’s become a crisis and we need 38 million dollars more? I don’t buy it.
Especially since the parish is sitting on several hundred million of federal grant dollars which the administration has failed to use for flood prevention.
Now the woman has been caught in a fraud to deceive citizens and those asking questions. Her efforts to control the message were exposed today. You can’t believe anything she says.
And on a side note, you gotta know she lied about SG too.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 8:26 pm to BigJim
quote:
I think we have a flooding issue. I would support a fee to help pay for it.
frick you.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 8:46 pm to TBoy
quote:
Florida was the first state to do this. They used the money to put trash separators and filters in the storm water drainage system so that the trash runoff wouldn't be transported by the storm water to the wetlands, where it settles on the bottom and chokes the drainage system. The result in Florida is very much cleaner surface water, reduced need for dredging and a more robust storm water drainage system that has prevented the kind of common flooding that we get.
There is no reason why if this is what the mayor is trying to emulate, they come right out front and say it. All public money should be watched and accounted for. If this is for storm water filters, then just use it on storm water filters so that everyone can see where the money is going.
If they won't do this, they should be on notice of arrest for misuse of public funds.
Florida designs for a 100 yr storm, BR is only 10.
These separators are a part of new developments in BR, this money grab isn't about those devices.
That is the problem with the plan, nobody knows what the $38MM/yr is for and how it is supposed to be spent and this BS story of an NDA and a pending consent decree from the EPA was a lie.
And now, we're supposed to trust the people that ignored this supposed "$38MM/yr" problem to now take your money and now they will fix it.
It's a money grab, pure and simple.
If they feel there is a need for taxpayer money they should develop a comprehensive plan and put it before the voters.
This creation of a "Utility District" is a means to circumvent the public vote process.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News