Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff recommend expanding stormwater utility to entire unincorporated county to fund drainage and road repairs
Summary
Public works presented a rate study and boundary change proposing countywide stormwater coverage and phased monthly fees to pay for ditching, culvert repairs and preservation funding; commissioners were briefed and staff will take the proposal to a public hearing.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane County Public Works presented a stormwater utility study on April 15 proposing to expand the current service area countywide and adopt phased monthly fees to fund drainage repairs, culvert replacements and road preservation.
"If we don't move forward with something like this, it's going to be difficult to address the $2 million in repairs we've already had this year," the presenter told commissioners, summarizing recent storm damage and the backlog of needed culvert and ditch work.
Nut graf: Public Works showed maps of the current stormwater boundary (focused on built-up areas) and the proposed countywide boundary; the county would use monthly fees to pay for inventory and cleaning of storm structures, ditching and shoulder work, culvert replacements, and to preserve road pavement by getting water away from roadbeds.
Public Works emphasized that current law limits spending of existing stormwater-utility revenues to the current service area; expanding the boundary would allow money collected throughout the unincorporated county to be spent countywide on drainage and road preservation. Staff proposed stepping in rates over several years and noted the county's median proposed fee fits with comparable city rates.
Why it matters: The county has a large culvert inventory (tens of thousands of assets) and growing rural drainage demands that Public Works says cannot be addressed with existing preservation money without shifting funds away from planned pavement preservation. Presenters said ditching and targeted storm repairs prevent larger preservation costs later.
Board reaction and next steps: Commissioners asked technical and policy questions about where fees may be spent, how the proposed boundary relates to the Aquifer Protection Area (APA) and how monthly rates translate to annual cost per household. Staff said the existing code restricts expenditures inside the current boundary and that a successful expansion would free stormwater funds to address countywide problems; staff told the board they would present the proposal to the public and that a formal vote or ordinance would follow scheduled public outreach and hearings.
What residents would see: Presenters showed before-and-after photos of damaged roadways and examples of cleaned ditches and replaced culverts; they said additional sweeping, debris removal and targeted culvert work would reduce gravel- and pavement-related potholing and protect planned preservation projects.
Timeline: The Public Works team signaled intent to seek public hearings and community outreach; the board must adopt any boundary change and fee schedule by ordinance or resolution following required public notice.

