Fees, credits the right tack for stormwater management

The News Virginian / News Virginian
Published: April 6, 2008

With the election now in plain view and the chasm between them still widening, the City Council's feuding factions are preparing to begin work on next fiscal year's budget amid acutely challenging economic circumstances. Among the primary considerations are what to do about stormwater and whether to cut spending or increase taxes to balance the budget.

On the former, the tilt of the council favors including in the general fund the $1.2 million ticketed for the city's stormwater management program. The three council members supporting that move make up a rare configuration: Mayor Tom Reynolds is aligned with the minority pairing of Frank Lucente and Tim Williams. Lucente's position represents a change and one of the sundry points of contention between him and Councilwoman Lorie Smith of the majority contingent.

Those two have reached the place where a discussion of the time of day is likely to kindle a dispute, but they were in accord last year on the subject of how to pay for stormwater, or more precisely, how not to pay for it. Both concurred that the money should not come from the general fund.

Lucente worried that adding the spending to the city budget might lead to increased taxes. Smith argued that general fund money would fall under political sway - making it subject to potential cuts in future years - while utility fees would produce consistent, reliable annual revenue streams for the stormwater program.

Both positions are correct. But, typically, two of the council's most influential voices drifted into disharmony, this time over how to structure fees. Lucente feared the impact of a proposal that would have had businesses shouldering roughly three fourths of the fees' cost. Smith countered that an alternative structure would have unduly burdened homeowners by splitting the fees evenly between them and businesses.

She has offered a solution that Lucente rejects. She wants to offer credits to businesses that meet criteria for reducing stormwater runoff. Officials at the city's largest employer, Invista, which would have been hit with six-figure fees under the initial proposal, have said the fibers maker likely would accept a program that provides credits, since the plant has in place already its own stormwater management system.

Lucente objects to the credit approach because of concerns about where money would be found to replace revenues lost to credits. Other businesses surely would be forced to pay more.

But the general fund option poses dilemmas of its own that Lucente acknowledges. Principally, the discretionary nature of the general fund would translate to an annual tug-of-war over the amount devoted to stormwater management. It also draws into the discussion the subject of the property tax rate, currently $70 per $100 of assessed value.

Keeping taxes level is an objective we support, especially during these tight economic times. We can trust Lucente to wage a spirited fight on that front with Reynolds having identified a rate increase as a possibility. But stormwater spending should not be a tool in the battle, not this year or in any other.

The council's task, as we see it, is to establish an equitable fee structure with credits taken into account. Lucente's concerns notwithstanding, the mission we describe is not an impossible one. Other cities impose stormwater fees and offer credits.

We support using money from the general fund only as a one-time, stopgap measure. In the meantime, fees should be kept in clear view as the permanent fix and one that should be in place by the time next spring's budget cycle begins. Sooner would be better, but later would be preferable to never.