Downers Grove Council Candidates Weigh in on Storm Water Utility

On March 4, Patch published its 2013 Downers Grove Council Election Hub, a complete guide to the April 9 consolidated election in the village of Downers Grove. There you'll find voter information, recent election news and complete candidate biographies.

Before voters head to the polls, Patch wants to give readers an opportunity to compare where candidates for the village council stand on key issues. 

Where do you stand on the village's newly implemented storm water utility? (No space limit.)

Bob Barnett

I remain opposed to it, and I voted against it when I had the opportunity. 

The storm water utility is a tax on our residents that is not deductible in the way property taxes are. Throughout the deliberations leading up to the implementation of this new tax, I argued that the loss of tax detectability was a mistake as it will have the effect of leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars in Washington D.C. that might otherwise be used here at home.

In addition, it represents a fundamental, and not completely contemplated, shift in tax policy, the way government is funded and the role of tax exempt organizations. Our local churches, in particular, will now shoulder responsibility for funding an activity that to this point has been funded through property taxes. As a country we have recognized the role in our society that our tax exempt organizations fulfill—roles that might otherwise be placed on government.

When it became apparent that I was in the minority and the storm water utility was indeed going to be approved by the Council, I worked with my colleagues to make several small changes which I suggest improve transparency of the system and spread the increase of the burden over a longer period of time.

Marilyn J. Schnell

After years of study on the issue, dating back to the early 2000s, it became clear that all aspects of our community needed to invest in our storm water needs. The utility spreads the cost of construction and maintenance across all the community—churches, schools,businesses, parks and residences—based upon the amount of impervious area on each parcel. Credits and incentives are available to offset some of the cost.

David S. Olsen

The newly implemented storm water utility is a new financial challenge for all property owners, including residents, businesses, and non-profits. It is important that these new funds be managed responsibly and that the fee is kept as low as possible. The incoming Council also needs to prioritize equitable distribution of storm water funding for all parts of town, as the fee is assessed to all properties across the village. Then, the Council must re-evaluate the fee frequently to see if it continues to be an effective way to fund necessary storm water improvements.

Susan Walaszek

There’s no question that the village’s storm water infrastructure is extensive, has been in need of repair, and will take a substantial investment of funds to repair and maintain.

As every resident, business and institution impacts and benefits from the storm water system, I support the approach that every resident, business and institution should be assessed a fee based on how much storm water runoff each property generates. I hope that by having a predictable and sustainable funding source, there will be greater transparency and sound financial decisions in storm water management. I’m also glad that the village continues to provide programs to educate property owners on ways to understand their assessed fee and reduce storm water runoff.

However, I am concerned with the plan to increase the fees each year by approximately 11 percent for 15 years, given the increase of so many other cost-of-living expenses. I’m also concerned with the decrease in property tax deductions a homeowner will be able to take as a result of the switch from using property-tax revenue to a fee-based storm water source of revenue. Finally, I question the fairness in providing a maximum credit of 100 percent of the storm water utility fee for educational institutions and partnerships for up to five years even though they impact and benefit from the storm water system.

Don Jankowski

As an economist, I believe that individuals or companies that benefit from public services should pay their fair share. This is easy to do with fresh water, because we just meter usage. So it all comes down to understanding how the storm water utility charge is calculated. The storm water fee is based on the total amount (in square footage) of impervious area on each parcel, including parking lots, roofs, driveways,patios and decks. The fee can be reduced by incentives that are available for qualifying rain barrels, rain gardens, permeable pavers and other projects that reduce the total volume or peak volume of storm water, and/or improve the quality of storm water leaving a parcel.

All of this makes sense to me. But one thing that is not considered is the amount of permeable surface relative to impermeable on a property. So if someone owns a 60-foot by 150-foot parcel and has 3,000 square feet of impermeable surface (or 33 pecent of the parcel), and another person with a 120-foot by 300-foot parcel also has 3,000 square feet of impermeable surface (or 8 percent of the parcel), the latter (with only 8 percent impermeable) has done more to mitigate storm water runoff than the former, yet each receive the same utility charge. If a rain barrel qualifies for a credit, which it does, those who keep more of their parcel permeable relative to impermeable should be eligible for a credit.

In short, I agree with the basic concept of the storm water utility, but think it needs some tweaking so that those who create more runoff pay more, and those that create less runoff pay less.

Greg Hosé

Flooding is a problem across Downers Grove in almost every neighborhood. Each of the current commissioners has gone on record to agree that our storm water abatement funding needed to be increased - the question was how. Only one of the commissioners who had voted in favor of the utility over a two-year period changed their vote prior to final approval. As was anticipated before that final vote, the utility has been politically unpopular. However, what storm water utility opponents often left unsaid was that the alternative funding source was raising property taxes to collect the same money.

According to the Village, moving to the utility has distinct financial advantages for most, if not all, residents. They have calculated that residents would have carried 76 percent of storm water costs as a property tax, but only 47 percent from a storm water utility. Rather than uniformly increase everyone’s property taxes – storm water runoff bears no rational relationship to the value of your property – the storm water utility was based on an objective assessment of the amount of space contributing to water runoff on a property.

On the council,  I will ensure assessments are made fairly and accurately. As the utility is new, the council must also monitor it for needed adjustments and be willing to make corrections. Residents must also see a real direct benefit for their own homes and neighborhoods. To protect our Village’s future, we must guarantee that all funds from the utility go into comprehensive storm water abatement projects that finally bring our flooding problems under control. The storm water utility needs to provide far more than anew revenue stream for village government or a convenient cost-shift that simply allows people to say that they lowered our taxes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

There are plenty of ways to keep up on Downers Grove news:

• Sign up for our daily email newsletter

• Like us on Facebook for a slightly different take