By Andrea Earnest | Bugle Staff
The village council of Downers Grove continued its discussion of possible changes to the village’s stormwater utility at its April 5 meeting.
Five options were presented at the discussion for possible changes to the stormwater utility. Option 1 is the current structure and plan of the stormwater utility, in which property owners are charged a monthly fee to cover stormwater management expenses. Those expenses include new stormwater storage, street sweeping, storm sewer replacement and several other expenses. For 2017, a typical home would in Downers Grove would pay $126 in fees.
Option 2a would continue to use the current work plan but fund stormwater projects using property taxes to pay for debt service. Property taxes would be used to pay only for the annual debt service payments on bond issuances supporting capital projects. All other stormwater expenses would still be funded by stormwater fees, according to village staff. The typical house would pay $91 in fees and $54 in taxes for 2017, with the stormwater fee increasing each year.
Option 2b would also use the current work plan but use property taxes to pay for all capital expenses, as well as debt service payments. Revenue from the stormwater fee would be used for operations and maintenance activities on the system. The typical house would pay $68 in fees and $89 in taxes for 2017, and the fee would be subject to an increase each year.
Option 3a would accelerate operations and maintenance activities, and use property taxes for debt service. Eighty percent of recommended operations and maintenance identified in the stormwater utility report would be completed by 2017, and would be fully complete by 2026. This would increase the stormwater fee, with the typical house paying $126 in fees and $54 in taxes in 2017. By 2026, the annual fee would be $184 for a typical home and taxes would be $129.
Option 3b has a similar structure but would accelerate operations and maintenance. Additionally, this option would use property taxes to pay for all capital expenses and debt service payments. This would cause an increase in taxes each year, while fees would still increase gradually until 2026.
Mayor Martin Tully said the council has to decide how much money should be spent on capital projects, as well as operations and maintenance. To complete recommended stormwater projects, the village estimates a cost of $6-8 million.
Due to the timeline associated with the options presented, commissioner William White said the council has to remember that it cannot commit to any other fiscal years besides 2017.
“The consensus has to come from the community,” he added.
White said he believes the stormwater utility is a top action item because the fee has never been raised to a level necessary to fully fund projects. That, he added, shows that council members aren’t entirely comfortable with the fee.
White said he would prefer options 2a or 2b for this fiscal year.
Tully went over reasons why the stormwater fee was initially adopted in 2013. The mayor said it was more logical than a tax, more equitable than a property tax, more reliable, and more responsible. Tully added that it made the village accountable, because residents could see where their money was being spent.
Tully said he thought the plan put in a few years ago was a good option, adding that the council should stick with it and see that it is properly funded.
He added that he wants to address stormwater problems, and if it isn’t addressed the exact way he believes is best, he’s OK with that.
After a discussion, White introduced a proposal to direct staff to prepare a motion to establish a stormwater utility referendum committee.
“The November 2016 election is expected to have large numbers of people show up,” White said. “It would be a unique opportunity to see public opinion.”
White requested that the mayor and council select two council members and one member of the stormwater and floodplain oversight committee for the new committee.
The committee would develop questions for one or more advisory referenda on whether to fund stormwater capital improvements with utility fees or with taxes.
“My initial reaction is that it sounds overly bureaucratic, and would be more cumbersome,” Tully said.
Several other commissioners agreed that the council, not the proposed committee, would be able to develop the questions and language for an advisory referendum.
White’s request didn’t move forward, as the council decided it would work on any future questions regarding stormwater management.
The council will continue to host public meetings to discuss the village’s stormwater system through September, and the village expects the chosen policy direction to be implemented in 2017.