New stormwater fee justifiable only as replacement, not add-on

Three years ago, McMinnville began assessing the need to follow the path of most cities its size and larger in establishing a separate stormwater utility operation with its own fee structure. To that end, the city is now at the point of considering adoption of a package of recommendations, developed by a committee working with a consultant.

McMinnville relies on a network of catch basins, open channels and buried lines to drain almost 11,000 acres in a wet climate. Complicating the task, that acreage now supports about 10,000 houses, and they cover an average of 3,500 square feet apiece their accompanying patios, porches, driveways and such.

The function is already being carried out, of course. But untangling it from the city’s existing sewer and water programs would foster greater accountability in weighing costs against benefits and assessing costs equitably.

In most respects, the plan the city has come up with seems well thought out. It reflects costs comparable to those of other Willamette Valley communities our size, including neighboring Newberg.

However, if we are already getting the job done, why do we need a new annual fee source starting at $2 million and rising to $4 million over a three-year period?

Why can’t the money we’re currently committing simply be transferred from the old commingled account to the new dedicated account?

The fact the city is facing a $3 million general fund shortfall this year, just two years after plugging a like shortfall with a new $13 a month utility surcharge, doesn’t set the table very well for layering on another new utility fee again this year.

What’s more, the city went down a wrong road last time by imposing a charge not only lacking any purpose relating to the delivery of utility services, but in fact any dedicated purpose at all. A vocal portion of the population still feels like it’s being taken for a ride on that one, with more than a little justification.

As we said at the time, and have reiterated since, we have no problem with imposing utility fees carefully tailored to meet specific, well-documented utility-related needs. However, we have a big problem with tacking on unrelated fees onto utility bills simply because it represents an easy way to avoid having to seek voter approval.

We think that opinion is shared widely enough in the community to jeopardize approval of worthy civic ventures critical to sustaining quality of life in these parts. That being the case, we don’t see ourselves supporting a new utility fee unless it served to replace the one the city imposed two years ago.

That would right a wrong. Imposing it on top of the existing fee would not. That would serve simply to add insult to injury.

While the two fees are not an exact match, they dovetail well enough to make a direct swap workable. That would seem the more palatable course for the people we elect to positions of city stewardship.

Such an approach would, however, carry an imposing downside of its own. Eliminating the $13 surcharge would presumably swell the city’s general fund gap to an even more daunting $5 million, and the new stormwater fee would be off limits to agencies relying on general fund dollars.

We see three options here: Carve out a new stormwater runoff program without an immediate infusion of new dollars. Put off action on the stormwater issue entirely for now, as nothing is currently forcing the city’s hand. Face up to the recurring general fund shortfall issue the old-fashioned way — by putting a plea to voters for additional money and letting the chips fall where they may.

In our view, simply imposing another utility fee on an electorate still up in arms over the last one would be pure folly.