A smarter approach to a stormwater fee

Infrastructure is a buzzword for all levels of government. Peterborough’s current infrastructure debate is focused on flood control and managing storm runoff. It’s been a sensitive topic since the $100-million flood of 2004 that decimated downtown.

Since then the city has spent well over $100 million on flood control. The next big project is a $27-million overhaul of storm sewers under Bethune St.

Another $18 million a year goes to upgrading and maintaining stormwater control and sewer systems.

But all that money isn’t enough. City engineers are asking for more and city council isn’t certain how to react.

Part of the difficulty is that the engineers started with a bold proposal that caught many councillors by surprise: a dedicated stormwater fee charged to every home, business and institution in the city.

The fee would generate $620,000 in the first year then increase every year for 10 years until it was bringing in $6.2 million a year.

Ten years of increases to the existing sewer surcharge everyone already pays would eventually generate an extra $3.5 million a year.

An average homeowner would end up paying an extra $265 a year in new fees.

The upside would be an infusion of enough money to catch up on all the flood control work the engineers believe is necessary. Flood protection is hard to argue against.

And while a dedicated anti-flood fee is new to Peterborough, several cities are already charging similar fees.

The downside is that budgeting for such large amounts 10 years into the future ties council’s hands. Whether the money is termed a tax or a fee it comes out of people’s pockets and shows up in the calculation of their tax bill. Another $9.7 million a year in flood control spending would require either offsetting spending cuts or tax increases.

Several councillors, including Mayor Daryl Bennett and budget chairman Henry Clarke, expressed serious concerns about committing so much spending for so many years to a single project.

Recognizing their bold strategy was about to be rejected, engineering staff retreated. The new proposal is to ask for annual stormwater funding during budget talks. Increases will be less than $620,000.

That effectively reverts back to the old way of doing business.

There should be some room for change. A stormwater fee has the advantage of providing incentives to reduce runoff. It would be based on the amount of paved or “hard” surface on a property that causes runoff.

Switching to one of the many alternative paving materials that reduce runoff would reduce fees, and lessen the need for stormwater runoff ponds and other expensive control methods.

Keep the fee but reduce the projected increase and review it annually. That should be an acceptable formula.