Ferguson Township farmers speak out against ‘unfair’ stormwater fee plan. Here’s what’s next
While enacting a fee to help pay for growing stormwater infrastructure costs has been a yearslong discussion in Ferguson Township, landowners say now is not the time to create more financial burden for residents.
“We’ve all had to do more with less, and the township should be no exception,” Dawn Harpster, a 60-year resident of the township, said.
Harpster was one of over a dozen residents who spoke against the proposed stormwater fee during Monday’s board of supervisors meeting.
“I’ve seen the struggles that our agribusiness community has persevered, and this additional fee would be a definite hardship for most people in this farming community,” she said.
The fee would help cover the price of managing the township stormwater program, which has become more expensive to maintain as its size and complexities have grown. Additionally, the township is working to reduce pollution generated from water runoff to improve water quality. The proposed fee, which has been in the works since 2017, would be based on the amount of impervious area on a property — surfaces that prevent water from absorbing into the ground: Rooftops, parking lots, driveways and sidewalks.
But residents — especially farmers — oppose the fee and described it as “ridiculous,” “unfair” and a “money-grab” at Monday’s virtual meeting.
Larry Harpster, a lifelong Ferguson Township resident and farmer, said the agricultural community contributes “very little” to the level of service needed to manage stormwater.
“By design and through management, the ag community keeps the water it gets from the sky on the farm property as part of its crop and animal farm management system,” he said. “We don’t send surface water to other surfaces. The ag community is already regulated by state and federal government through registered conservation plans, nutrient management and erosion control measures.”
The fee also includes a proposed credit program that could reduce a household’s bill, but those credits will not take the cost of the fee to zero.
“Many of us ... have constructed concrete feeding areas, manure storage areas to protect this groundwater, and now we’re going to be taxed even more for our good intentions and efforts,” Harpster said, adding that farms do not contribute to stormwater runoff. “There’s a huge difference between the ag community’s contribution to this problem and the contribution attributed to the primary growth area.”
Township landowners spoke for an hour in opposition of the stormwater fee, saying that it will place additional burden on residents who are already struggling amid the pandemic. In addition, Harpster, along with over 10 others, said the discussion should occur in-person when COVID-19 restrictions are lifted.
Tom Songer, township resident and developer, suggested using federal Transportation Improvement Program funds to cover the costs of the stormwater system or making a case for a tax increase.
Following public comment, the board approved an amendment to the plan that capped the fee for farmers at $102 per year.
“I understand that fixing the infrastructure now will save us money in the future so that we don’t have to go in and repair something which is even more broken,” Supervisor Prasenjit Mitra said. “I’m always for proactive maintenance as long as I can find some basis for doing that ... but I would also like for this to be as fair as possible.”
Mitra suggested looking at a different rate for rural areas that is commensurate to the amount of pollution and reflects any conservation features on a piece of land.
“If someone is not generating any stormwater, then they should not have to pay to clean it up,” he said.
But some board members said residents will be paying to maintain the stormwater system one way or another.
“Basically, I want to acknowledge when you get the bill, it doesn’t really matter whether we call it a fee or a tax,” board Chairman Steve Miller said. “It looks the same when the bill comes, but the difference is how that bill is calculated.”
A fee, Miller said, has more flexibility. For example, a fee allows for credits, but a tax does not.
“We have increasing costs for stormwater management, and we will continue to,” Miller said. “It can come from taxes or it can come from a stormwater fee, but ultimately, those costs are going to be there, and they’re going to be paid.”
The board of supervisors will continue to hear public comment on the fee at its Oct. 19 meeting prior to a scheduled vote on adopting the stormwater ordinance.
