Sewer Connection Fee Could Go Sharply Higher

Most homeowners would pay significantly more for sewers, while owners of large lots would pay far less, if Spokane County adopts all the changes recommended in a new study.

The effect on commercial customers is more muddied. The new system would leave some paying dramatically lower bills than they would otherwise. Others would pay far less.

The plan would not affect current sewer customers.

Starting in 1997, the county would sell revenue bonds to finance sewer work, rather than forming Utility Local Improvement Districts (ULIDs).

But even if the funding method isn’t changed, Seattle-based Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., which wrote the report, recommends charging residential customers far more than they now pay for sewers.

If the county sticks with ULIDs, EES says it should charge $5,000 for each new residential sewer connection, rather than $3,500.

That rate increase would leave new customers paying 75 percent of the cost of building sewers, rather than 60 percent. State and county taxpayers cover whatever customers don’t pay.

Residents in many Western Washington counties pay the entire cost of sewer construction.

John Maxwell, vice president of EES, said reducing the subsidy and changing the financing method would allow the county to build sewers in most suburban neighborhoods within 20 years.

As things stand, it will take about 50 years to do the work. Meanwhile, costs rise with inflation and public health officials worry that Spokane’s underground water supply may become polluted from the 30,000 septic tanks above it.

Bond financing would cut county administrative costs, Maxwell said. In the process, it would eliminate some opportunities for county residents to oppose sewer construction.

Currently, neighborhoods circulate petitions to form a ULID. That gets them on a waiting list, with a wait of three or four years.

In the meantime, neighbors opposed to the sewers - and those who think their assessments are too high - can file time-consuming protests with county commissioners. Some take their protests to court.

With revenue bonds, county officials would decide when and where to build sewers, based on a number of factors, including whether septic systems are failing in the neighborhood. There would be few opportunities for protests.

EES based the proposed changes on the comments of 1,100 county residents who attended public hearings last year. About 500 people completed a written survey, with 60 percent saying they’d rather pay for sewers with revenue bonds than with the ULIDs.

Slightly more than half said they want sewers as soon as possible, while 22 percent do not think the county needs sewers anytime soon.

The county planning commission endorsed the changes last week. County commissioners will consider them next month.

Here’s how the changes would affect various groups:

Owners of houses with lots smaller than half an acre.

Under either system, they would pay about $8,400 over 20 years, assuming a 7.25 interest rate.

Under the ULID system, customers would make 20 annual payments on the $5,000 assessment. (Few can afford to pay the assessment up front, an option that lets them avoid paying interest.)

Under the proposed new system, customers would pay $34.50 monthly to cover their share of the bonds. There would be no option of making a single, large payment up front.

In either case, customers also pay $17.50 a month toward the cost of operating the regional sewage treatment plant. And, they pay about $1,000 to $2,000 to contractors who connect home plumbing systems to public sewer lines.

Homeowners with large lots.

In the past, Valley orchardists and others with large lots faced assessments of $50,000 or more. Under the ULID system, state law requires county officials to base the bill on the “highest and best use” for the land.

For instance, if a five-acre parcel could be subdivided into 30 residential lots, the sewer bill reflected that potential, even if the landowner had no desire to develop the land.

Under the proposed new funding plan, the bill would be based on current land use - one house, in the case of an orchard.

Commercial customers.

As with farm land, commercial bills no longer would be based on the most valuable use for the land. Instead, the criteria would be existing uses and the amount of sewage generated. That means rates would vary greatly, even within the same industry.

For instance, Maxwell found that the owner of a 69,000-square-foot apartment complex in the Valley would pay $137 a month less if sewers were funded with revenue bonds. That complex includes a lot of vacant land.

But the owner of a 26,000 square-foot complex would pay an additional $41 a month. The buildings cover nearly all available land.

One insurance agency cited by Maxwell would pay $24 less each month. An upholstery shop would pay $4 less, while one real estate office he visited would pay $37 more.

The report did not name any of the businesses it cited as examples.

, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Photo