Storm-water management, once given little local-government attention compared with sanitary-sewer and drinking-water issues, has turned into a $120 million-plus concern in Spokane County, and officials soon may be looking to businesses here to cover a big part of the cost of dealing with it.


County commissioners are considering a proposal that would boost storm-water fees substantiallyand would have the heaviest impact on businesses with properties that have large impervious surfaces, such as paved areas and rooftops.


The added money would be used to construct and operate regional storm-water facilitiesbasically a backbone systemfor storing, conveying, and disposing of storm water. The projected cost of the system, which likely would take 20 years or longer to develop and include everything from pipes and ponds to natural drainage channels and grass-lined ditches, is $62.4 million. That figure doesnt include the unknown cost, also no doubt substantial, of connecting individual neighborhoods into the system.


Meanwhile, the city of Spokane is in the final stages of developing its own 20-year, storm-water management plan thats expected to cost roughly the same amount as the proposed county plan.


To pay for the work, the city and county each could begin collecting feesor additional fees, in the countys caseas early as next year, if City Council and County Commission members approve the plans.


Its just a matter that we cant delay it any more, argues Brenda Sims, the countys storm-water utility manager, of the need for some sort of action.


Over the years, increased development in the Spokane metropolitan area has created more streets, driveways, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces, resulting in more storm-water runoff and an increase in flooding complaints, she says. Also, development has spread from the relatively porous Spokane Valley floor into surrounding hillsides and other areas where filtration is problematic due to underlying basalt rock, clay deposits, high ground water, or other physical constraints, thus adding to the storm-water runoff problem, she says.


In 1983, a county citizens committee began looking at the problem amid increasing storm-water complaints in the unincorporated area of the county. Nine years later, the county commissioners established a county storm-water utility. Part of the purpose of the utility was to prepare plans for construction of regional storm-water facilities in a designated Stormwater Service Area. That area covers virtually all of the developed or developing unincorporated areas surrounding the city of Spokane, extending east to the Idaho state line, west to Airway Heights, north about to Colbert, and south to Mica.


As part of the formation of the utility, the county also began collecting a charge of $10 a year for single-family residential lots and the same amount from businesses and owners of other non-residential properties for every 3,160 square feet of hard space, or equivalent residential unit. Those fees, which generate about $1.37 million a year, have been used to pay mostly for storm-water management planning and for inventorying current storm-water facilities. They werent expected to pay for major capital improvements.


Some planning work is done


The county storm-water utility has completed storm-water management plans for three drainage basinsGlenrose, Chester, and Central Parkfor which the projected storm-water system construction costs are $14.9 million, $3.5 million, and $3.4 million, respectively, Sims says. It currently is working on plans for a fourth basin, in North Spokane.


The utility has divided the unincorporated parts of the county into about 15 planning areas, some of which include multiple basins, or watersheds, Sims says, and she estimates it will take 10 years or longer to complete the storm-water plans for all of those areas. As funding becomes available, though, construction of storm-water management systems likely would begin right away in basins where the plans have been completed, she says. Some limited work already has been doneusing available utility fundsin the Chester Creek area of the south Spokane Valley, where residents were eager to alleviate flooding problems, she says.


The study of a long-term, storm-water financing solution moved forward recently when commissioners reviewed several financing options formulated by storm-water utility staff members, based partly on input gleaned from four public hearings held in April and responses to distributed questionnaires.


The option that the commissioners appear to favor, Sims says, would allow construction of a comprehensive storm-water system to correct current problems and accommodate new development. It calls for the following:


Extending the capital-improvement program over 20 years.


Raising base storm-water charges by $20 per equivalent residential unit per yearin other words, tripling the current fee that virtually everyone paysto cover operation and maintenance and to help subsidize capital expenses.


Imposing basin-specific charges to cover the additional costs of constructing storm-water management facilities. Thus, rather than spreading capital-improvement costs equally among all property owners within the Stormwater Service Area, the utility would charge residents and businesses according to the specific construction costs for the drainage basin that handles their storm-water runoff.


Use system-development charges in the basins where storm-water management plans have been completed. Such impact fees, which have been established by some other utilities around the state, are designed to allocate proportionate shares of new storm-water facility capacity costs to new growth. In essence, they would require developers to pay one-time charges, per equivalent residential unit, into the storm-water utilitys capital improvement fund, based on the estimated impact of their new projects on the storm-water management system.


Providing credits for owners of non-residential developed properties who install storm-water management facilities that reduce the utilitys cost of providing those services. In other words, businesses could get their storm-water charges lowered by putting in storm-water management facilities on their sites that help shrink the demand on the overall county system.


Providing for low-income assistance.


Using revenue bonds.


Little business input


Sims says commissioners asked staff members to review the details of the plan one more time with a county water-quality advisory committee, after which the matter could go to a public hearing on July 20. The commissioners then may decide whether to move ahead with a rate-setting process.


Sims says there has been relatively little business input on the storm-water management issue at public hearings held to date. Of the people who testified, she says, some questioned the existence of a storm-water problem, some blamed the problem on new developments and questioned why all ratepayers should have to pay for it, and others voiced concern about the potential impacts of rate increases on low-income residents.


Sims says she sympathizes in particular with the latter concern and would like to see provisions for low-income assistance. As a county employee who has worked with citizens studying the issue for many years, she says theres no doubt storm water-management is a growing problem, and she adds, I believe we need to address it. If we dont deal with this issue and start building these facilities now, Im concerned about the future.


She says she knows, though, due to the substantial costs involved, that it will be a tough issue politically.


Gale Ulrich, the citys director of waste-water management, says the city is looking at a charge of $36 a year for the typical home owner, or equivalent residential unit, and a utility that would operate similarly in many respects to the countys.


The citys capital-improvement program would extend over 17 years, rather than the 20 years or longer envisioned by the county, because of state deadlines the city is under to complete the separation of storm water from its sanitary sewer system, he says. For that reason, the city also likely will have to issue revenue bonds within the next couple of years to pay for much of the capital improvements, rather than using a more protracted pay-as-you-go type of system such as the county is considering, he adds.


Sims and Ulrich say their departments likely will be working together to come up with financing arrangements for capital improvements in a number of drainage basins that are located partly in each jurisdiction.