More on storm water fee

Not moron storm water fee.  As Bill Lewis said so eloquently at Monday's public hearing, HE understands the end result the commissioners are trying to reach, but I think the means holds no water. [sic]  For the record, the suggestions I offered at the hearing came from this blog, and aren't MY suggestions, as listed in the Trib. Another point that I would like to make is that there were only twenty three respondents for the storm water fee poll, but forty votes for a "pay to play" fee with twenty votes saying a fee wasn't fair. Weren't there only three of us who spoke at the public hearing? The public may not be aware of this, but we are paying, based on average monthly residential water consumption of 4,000 gallons, about $40/ mo. in sanitary sewer surcharge fees tacked onto our monthly PAWC bills. This includes Mt. Lebanon and Alcosan surcharge fees, both of which will be increasing again next year.
What about properties surrounding our boundaries? Those on higher elevations? Should they be charged?  And for those who said that it is only $8 a month, this sounds like the high school project only costing us $18 a month more, or Netflix raising their rates only $5 a month.  Do we really feel better when we compare increases to lattes or just $xx a month more? Should I have included a "pay to play" fee, in some districts only costing $8 a month per student, while costing the rest of the residents zero a month?  As it was pointed out to me, the twenty who responded, and were against the fee, may have been the parents of students who would be charged.
I don't have a solution to this "rain tax," but there has to be a more equitable solution.  Perhaps the residents should be offered a 50% reduction in incentives, as well.  Or only offer a one time $25 discount to everyone.  I don't know.