The Town Council is puzzling once again over how it should cover the costs of complying with federal clean water mandates as they apply to storm water runoff.
At its recent session on Oct. 2, the council directed staff to develop specific proposals along with costs to implement for presentation at a future work study session.
The storm water issue has been discussed at the council level numerous times over the past decade, but no action has ever been taken to implement such a fee.
You must be a member to read this story.
Join our family of readers starting at $5 for your first month and support local, unbiased journalism.
The Town Council is puzzling once again over how it should cover the costs of complying with federal clean water mandates as they apply to storm water runoff.
At its recent session on Oct. 2, the council directed staff to develop specific proposals along with costs to implement for presentation at a future work study session.
The storm water issue has been discussed at the council level numerous times over the past decade, but no action has ever been taken to implement such a fee.
Currently any costs incurred in complying with storm water regulations come out of the General Fund and Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF).
The annual costs can vary depending on any efforts that include capital projects. Staff is looking at a fee that would generate $486,000 annually. That is $3 per month for each water meter (approximately 13,500 as of 2012).
Mayor Linda Kavanagh does not like the idea of a new fee for residents, viewing it as a tax. She noted that residents face the potential of water rates increasing as much as 43 percent over the next five years. That number is based on calculations by the Residential Utilities Consumer Office.
Kavanagh said she does not want to add to the financial burden of citizens.
“We are moving forward in the direction we want to in economic development,” Kavanagh said. “I’d much rather go that way than add more taxes.”
“I don’t like the idea,” Vice Mayor Cecil Yates said. “If (each household) spent an additional $450 per year, sales taxes would cover these costs.”
“This discussion started in 2007,” Councilman Henry Leger said. “Every year we have been optimistic about economic improvement, when in reality there continues to be a shortfall for the town.
“This economic development silver bullet needs to generate $45 million in sales for the town to realize about $1 million in new revenue.
“Meanwhile our systems degrade, we lose money from state (shared revenues) and always have unfunded mandates.
“This is worth at least taking a new look at in a work study session. At the end of the day we need to determine what kind of town we want.”
The town is required to have a Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit, (MS4) a federal permit administered by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. The town is also required to have an active Storm Water Management Plan.
Currently the ongoing costs that could be covered under the fee include street sweeping and wash maintenance. Town Manager Ken Buchanan said they would look at a fee of approximately $3 per month per household.
The fees could also cover costs for reclaimed water discharge permits, Arizona Department of Water Resources dam inspections and maintenance (the town has about six ADWR jurisdiction dams), as well as such things as household hazardous waste recycling events and storm debris cleanup.
Recent council discussion also brought to light the need for storm drain and culvert inspections and cleaning and also major projects such as the Ashbrook Wash culvert improvements at Saguaro Boulevard and Bayfield Drive.
Future culvert projects on Ashbrook such as Del Cambre Avenue and El Pueblo Boulevard could also be covered by the fees.
One of the challenges related to such a fee has been a billing system. The town does not handle services such as water, trash collection or sewer, which would typically have billing systems. It would need to develop one from scratch or depend on another entity for assistance.
“Billing systems are expensive,” Buchanan said.
The council has discussed the storm water fee as many as 16 times since 2007. This has occurred in various forums including regular meetings, special sessions and work study sessions.
The council voted 5-1 to take it up at another work study. Kavanagh was the “no” vote and Councilwoman Cassie Hansen was absent.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here