Large parking lot owners may finally be forced to contribute to stormwater management costs. The first step is only a study of what the change would look like but many councillors are opposed despite staff pleas that it will increase both fairness and transparency.
It’s at least the third time that staff have argued for dedicated funding to deal with the impacts of climate change that has already hit Hamilton and other parts of southern Ontario with record flooding. Handling storm flows and retrofitting aging infrastructure to reduce flood risk is currently almost entirely paid for by water rates which are calculated on owners’ water use, not the amount of runoff generated by paved and other impervious areas on their property.
For malls and big box complexes water consumption and payment is minimal, but their parking lots generate huge flows to city pipes. Runoff costs from large institutions like McMaster and Mohawk are also subsidized by ratepayers, and there is currently no relation between the water fees collected from homeowners and tenants and the amount of impervious property surface.
Most municipalities pay stormwater costs out of property taxes, but a growing number have adopted or are moving to a stormwater fee including London, Waterloo, Kitchener, Mississauga, St Thomas, Guelph, Ottawa and Markham. Hamilton is the only Ontario city that uses water rates to fund stormwater management – a change adopted by council in 2004 to lower property taxes, even though it just shifted the costs to water rates.
Hamilton’s stormwater spending exceeds $22 million this year – about double what it was in 2004 – and “the backlog of stormwater projects has grown” according to staff. They argue that burying the costs in the water and sewer budget is neither transparent nor fair.
“There are many properties benefiting from stormwater service who currently are not being charged for wastewater services (for example, parking lots with no service connections),” notes the staff report debated last week. “There are properties such as those with large commercial enterprises, which receive the benefit of substantially higher levels of service as measured by runoff generation rates but given relatively lower water consumption are not proportionally supporting the stormwater program through their rate fees relative to the stormwater services the property receives.”
The staff-proposed study would map impermeable surfaces and offer options for council to consider, but it got a rough ride and was only approved 6-5 after a lengthy committee debate, suggesting that it may be rejected at the full council meeting.
Lloyd Ferguson spoke first against the proposal, declaring that “the people that have these large parking lots, paid for them and they have been in place and are operating quite satisfactorily.” Tom Jackson grilled staff and only voted in favour when he got assurances that the report will carry “no obligation whatsoever that we’re going to actually adopt a stormwater fee.”
Arlene Vanderbeek, Chad Collins and Brenda Johnson also questioned the study and voted against it along with Matthew Green who didn’t speak. Sam Merulla and Mayor Eisenberger spoke in favour, the latter extensively, and joined Jason Farr, Aidan Johnson and Doug Conley in voting in favour.
Eisenberger stressed that a fee, combined with incentives to reduce permeable surfaces, will help to reduce the stormwater flows faced by the city.
“Large paved properties are main contributors to the stormwater runoff that we’re dealing with,” noted the mayor, “so if we can provide them incentives of avoiding costs and reducing their stormwater discharge that’s a benefit to everyone including our treatment system.”
Possible separate fees for stormwater costs were raised by staff at the last term of council and shot down. A proposal to look at alternatives was also rejected by councillors – led by Ferguson and Brad Clark with the latter branding it a “rain tax”.
The ratification vote is scheduled for Wednesday evening’s council meeting.