I say no for both. Glad to hear commissioners recognize a stormwater property tax is dumb.

Stltoday - MSD rate commission backs $900M bond issue, property tax hike

The commission also backed MSD’s call for a uniform 12-cent property tax to fund stormwater services. But it made clear it would prefer an impervious surface charge because nonprofit entities like hospitals, universities and school districts would be exempt from a property tax for stormwater services.Multistory buildings with high tax assessments but that take up less space and cause less runoff than big box stores and parking lots also could pay more under a tax mechanism.“I can go along with an ad valorem tax, but it has a bad taste to it,” Commissioner John Stein said.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 4f4a9.html

skyscraper to Jupiter.....no, Saturn.....no, Dione or Pluto,....scratch that
wide skyscraper to moon

problem solved

^ agree, why it is so difficult for people to understand. I consider myself fiscally conservative but the idea that you are not willing to pay for the new infrastructure needed for the desired lifestyle let alone replace or maintain what is already built is mind boggling to me.

I'm also at a complete loss for those who spout and favor user fees are not behind a stormwater payment scaled based on the amount of impervious surface in this day and age of digital/satellite photos that anyone can pull up on google earth. Furthermore, this would also provide a means to make better life cycle choices on infrastructure. For one, as an home owner in Shrewsbury I would seriously consider paying a little more for different drive way surface if it reduce the long term stormwater bill. It would be a win win for both, less storm water even how minor the amount into MSD and smaller bill on my end. Heck, it might even convince the Save a Lot in Shrewsbury to rip up a chunk of the huge amount of underutilize surface parking for some grass and trees until it can better utilized.

dredger wrote:For one, as an home owner in Shrewsbury I would seriously consider paying a little more for different drive way surface if it reduce the long term stormwater bill. It would be a win win for both, less storm water even how minor the amount into MSD and smaller bill on my end. Heck, it might even convince the Save a Lot in Shrewsbury to rip up a chunk of the huge amount of underutilize surface parking for some grass and trees until it can better utilized.

Good points Dredger. The externalities of such a policy could be pretty significant.

Another MSD bond issue?! $500M. I thought we were done with these.
Thanks for kicking the can previous generations!
Any federal money in the ARP or the upcoming infrastructure bill for this?

Much of MSDs infrastructure is VERY old, and well past it's use-by date. Nothing wrong with them re-building and updating their systems. They have to pay for it one way or another, and I think it's only fair of them to ask their customers how that should be done. 

Imagine if transit spilled literal sh*t into your drinking water

I'm not suggesting not fixing the sewer system nor shifting these moneys to transit. Just pointing out the contrast in scale and ease of this funding wherein we go on and on about wanting more transit and how to fund it and spending money on it is controversial and political, while very low key we've passed 4? big bond issues for MSD.

I am miffed that previous generations kicked the can for decades and are leaving us holding the bag. I am also miffed that previous generations spent tons of infrastructure money spreading out the region at the opportunity cost of taking care the existing infrastructure. I am also miffed at how much we'll be spending on bond interest and fees, though rates are low. We have this big acute expense now because of avoiding dealing with it in the past over a longer period so in order to make it less painful now, we're bonding.

Metros 25 year budget is about $2,000,000,000 more then this 25 year msd effort.

You're mixing up operating budgets and capital expenditures.

imran wrote: ↑

Mar 29, 2021

Rather than issuing bonds and adding interest cost over time, maybe we should just bite the bullet and face up to the real cost of fixing/upgrading the sprawled-out system we’ve gotten ourselves into.

I know bills would go up but in general I lean towards realizing and paying the actual cost of things.
Maybe it would further disincentivize low-value impervious land use.

monthly bills would go from $52 to 56 by 2024 with bonding and from $52 to $84 with pay as you go. 

From the sltpublicradio article: 

Under Proposition Y, monthly rates would go from the current $56.40 to $62.59 by 2024. If the bonding measure does not pass, rates would be $86.12 in 2024, and according to a chart by MSD, could rise above $100 a month in 2035. But around 2036, the rates without borrowing would drop much faster than the rates with borrowing.

I keep thinking about getting a water meter. The amount of water they assume I use because they charge based on number of rooms, toilets, showers/baths, is over 300 gal a day. That basement bathroom I rarely use ends up costing a lot.

Pay as you go is pretty much out of the question. I often wonder how many low-income residents are able to afford utilities at current rates. 

Might assisting low-income rate payers be cheaper than the interest on the bonds?

wabash wrote: ↑

Mar 29, 2021

From the sltpublicradio article: 

Under Proposition Y, monthly rates would go from the current $56.40 to $62.59 by 2024. If the bonding measure does not pass, rates would be $86.12 in 2024, and according to a chart by MSD, could rise above $100 a month in 2035. But around 2036, the rates without borrowing would drop much faster than the rates with borrowing.

Wait what? My monthly MSD bill at current is $93...

^That is probably the rate for some type of average home. Your actual rate depends on how many bathrooms and rooms your home has.

Stltoday - Amid flood damage across St. Louis region, MSD plans to ask voters for the authority to help

"She said the stormwater and wastewater utility plans to put the question to voters once again next year, which would cost owners of typical residential properties $25 per year."

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... fa003.html