Chamber seeks to give a voice

A familiar bogeyman is bubbling to the surface again, the form of the thing definable by perspective. Stormwater in the eyes of those tilting left is the kid with the flu symptoms who refused to stay home, a carrier of foul pollutants. Stormwater in the eyes of those tilting right is at least small parts phantom, a mechanism for prying more money, taxes in the form of fees, from businesses already scratching for a different kind of green than environmentalists care to consider.

The topic has been fetched from the fringes of local government consciousness by the Greater Augusta Regional Chamber of Commerce, the chairman of which has forwarded a letter to Staunton City Manager Steve Owen seeking a part for business in determining how much they’ll pay in fees. The City Council earlier this summer approved stormwater utility fees based on the amount of the dread impervious surface – read, pavement – on a given property.

That move, the product of a 4-3 vote, appeared to have settled the issue. But chamber Chairman Greg Godsey revives the debate, at least somewhat, with his Aug. 28 letter to Owen. “The storm water management program as proposed by City Council is a step in the right direction,” Godsey writes. “We also understand that the new program will mean higher utility fees for city residents and businesses. The question is ‘how much.’ ”

Complexity but not outright mystery surrounds the answer because of that blasted impervious surface. The hard stuff feeds the flow of stormwater rather than allowing it to soak into the earth, so the thinking is that owners of properties with plenty of pavement should shoulder a larger share of the cost. This is difficult to argue until the costs proceed on what strikes business owners as perpetual escalation.

Such a feeling prevailed in Waynesboro when fees were proposed two years ago, stirring a clamor in the business sector led, in part, by Invista, where officials estimated the cost could rise to $240,000 annually for the fibers maker. That led to a crumbling of support for the fee option and the eventual demise of a city stormwater management division that was to tackle $1.2 million in system repairs last fiscal year.

What Godsey urges now the Chamber also urged then – the formation of task force to study the issue on all of its sides, from the repairs to the funding, including alternatives. On the surface, which seems impervious, the Chamber appears to be coming to the game late. The vote has been taken, and the fees are to be imposed in slightly more than a few months.

Beyond this, though, the Chamber’s tack appears rational. “The Chamber appreciates the Staunton City Council’s efforts to begin addressing the issue of storm water runoff,” Godsey writes. “The storm water management program as proposed by City Council is a step in the right direction.” And finally: “The Chamber, along with the members of the business community is committed to being part of a well-reasoned and equitable solution ... .”

What the Chamber seeks for business is a place in the discussion. Fee proponents can respond credibly that the topic had been part of the public discussion for months before the July vote on fees, so where was business then? But a larger point should not be lost: if care is not taken to ensure that businesses are not saddled with burdens greater than they can bear, portions of Staunton’s vibrant private sector could be severely damaged if not crippled.

A flat dismissal of the Chamber’s request, in other words, might be justified but unwise.