The Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) has a tax or price increase on the April ballot in St. Louis City and County. The question is not whether your taxes or fees are going up. They are. The question is in what manner they are increasing and by how much.
There are two different questions on the ballot. One is whether to issue $750 million in bonds for sewer system improvements. The other is whether or not to increase property taxes on residential property and approve a charge on commercial properties based on the amount of impervious area a property has—for example, how much of the land is a parking lot.
MSD is going to spend the money. It has to according to a lawsuit settlement with the EPA from years ago. If the bonds are approved, monthly prices for property owners will go up less rapidly in the short term, but more in the long run as the cost of bond financing will be added to the total cost. If the bonds are rejected, monthly prices will go up dramatically in the short run but will come down somewhat over time. The total cost will be lower due to no bond financing charges, but the immediate sticker shock will be substantial.
The impervious area charge for commercial property is the most interesting change. MSD tried to do something similar several years ago for more types of properties, but had to change after fierce resistance and lawsuits. I think basing part of your stormwater charges on how much of your property is grass and how much is asphalt (or other substances) is a great idea. Properties with more impervious areas like asphalt or concrete absorb less stormwater and create more stress on the overall stormwater management system. In a sense, this is a user fee. I would like to see MSD do that, in part, for residential property too.
The most troubling part of the proposal is how MSD intends to spend the money if the tax increase and impervious land fee are approved. Instead of spending the revenues based entirely on need, ten percent of the money will be used to create an “environmental justice fund.” It seems fair to wonder if money in an “environmental justice fund” will be spent based on engineering and science instead of social justice priorities. The justice fund is enough to make me hope the whole proposal fails. Another ten percent of the money will be spent based on decisions from a “regional advisory committee.” Given that these sorts of committees are often based on political power and influence trading instead of engineering needs, you could wonder if this is another example of other priorities superseding engineering needs.
As Homer wrote and The Police sang, voters’ choices here are caught between Scylla and Charybdis. Sewer and stormwater rates are increasing no matter what. The vote feels like you are voting for General Secretary of the Politburo and there is only one choice on the ballot. Either way, your best hope is that the new pick dies quickly.
