Logansport’s Quiet Charge

Logansport businesses are currently paying stormwater fees that equal approximately 50% of their entire electric bill and often exceed their annual property taxes.

LOGANSPORT IN--For most people in Logansport, stormwater is the part of the utility bill they do not think much about. They notice the total, they know bills keep going up, but “stormwater” sounds technical, easy to skim past, and hard to picture. That may be why the fee has stayed In the background for so long.

A closer look at how it works is starting to change that.

Under Logansport’s current system, a large commercial parcel can top out at the highest monthly stormwater charge while much smaller properties pay far more relative to their size. Homeowners face a similar question; A modest house with a smaller roof and driveway can pay the same monthly stormwater charge as a much larger home with far more hard surface. That has put a basic issue on the table: is Logansport charging for stormwater in a way that matches runoff, or simply in a way that is easy to bill?

One comparison illustrates why the issue is getting attention. The Logansport Walmart parcel is estimated at roughly 25 acres, or about 1.1 million square feet, if local parcel estimates are correct. Under the public stormwater rate schedule, the top commercial monthly fee is listed at $744.66. That comparison alone does not prove the city is doing anything unlawful. But it does expose the core issue. When fees are grouped into broad categories, the biggest properties can benefit from the spread while much smaller ones carry a heavier burden relative to their size.

What stormwater is, in plain English

Stormwater is just rain or snowmelt that cannot soak into the ground because it lands on hard surfaces including roofs, driveways, patios, parking lots, streets, sidewalks, and garage pads.

When water hits those surfaces, it runs off. The city has to collect it, move it, and keep it from creating flooding and drainage problems. Logansport Utilities says the stormwater fee helps pay for the infrastructure that handles that runoff, including drains, ditches, ponds, pipes, and related systems. It also says the charge appears on the monthly utility bill.

This part is not controversial, stormwater systems cost money. The real question citizens should be asking is exactly how the city is diving the cost.

The increase in question

A public copy of Logansport’s stormwater rate resolution shows the residential stormwater fee rising in phases from $16.74 per month to $31.38 per month by 2026. The same public materials show the lowest commercial tier rising from $99.28 to $186.10 per month over the same period.

What people are now asking is whether the structure behind that increase makes sense.

Put it in gallons, and the problem gets easier to see

The U.S. Geological Survey says 1 inch of rain on 1 acre equals about 27,154 gallons of water. Broken down further, that comes out to about 623 gallons on 1,000 square feet of hard surface, which makes the homeowner question much easier to picture.

A smaller home setup with about 1,200 square feet of roof and driveway sheds about 748 gallons in a 1-inch rain and about 1,496 gallons in a 2-inch rain. A larger setup with about 4,000 square feet of hard surface sheds about 2,493 gallons in a 1-inch rain and about 4,987 gallons in a 2-inch rain.

In other words, one property can put more than three times as much water into the system during the same storm.

That is why this issue is not just a technical debate, but is a common-sense one. If two properties shed very different amounts of water, why are they paying the same monthly stormwater fee?

If a small older house with a narrow driveway and limited hard surface pays the same stormwater charge as a much larger home with a bigger roofline, wider driveway, attached garage, and more pavement, then somebody is paying more than their fair share relative to the burden they place on the system. This does not automatically mean the structure is illegal, but does mean the city should be able to explain why it is fair.

By 2026, the residential stormwater fee is listed at $31.38 per month, or $376.56 per year. For some households, that may sound manageable. For others, especially retirees on fixed incomes, working families already stretched thin, and homeowners trying to keep up with insurance, groceries, repairs, and taxes, it is one more charge that keeps rising and never seems to go away.

And once a fee like this becomes part of how the city finances major projects, it usually sticks.

That is why homeowners should care now, not later.

Why the system is drawing scrutiny

National stormwater guidance prepared with EPA support says the goal of a stormwater utility is equity and that fees are generally supposed to reflect the impact a property has on the system. The guidance discusses common approaches built around impervious area and Equivalent Residential Units, often called ERUs.

That matters because other Indiana communities use more specific systems.

Monroe County charges residential properties annually and uses a formula for non-residential properties based on impervious surface.

Fishers uses ERUs for non-residential property. Carmel calculates non-residential charges by impervious area. Fort Wayne also uses ERUs.

That does not automatically mean those cities are right and Logansport is wrong. But it does beg the question, if other Indiana communities are using formulas tied more closely to hard surface, why is Logansport relying on a broader structure that can treat very different properties as roughly the same?

Why businesses feel it faster

The commercial side of the issue is where the weakness in the structure becomes easiest to spot.

Public rate materials show that commercial properties from 0 to 15,000 square feet are grouped in the same lowest tier and charged $186.10 per month in 2026. That means a very small business can be billed in the same category as a much larger one. A small repair shop, barber shop, office, or neighborhood storefront does not have the same hard-surface footprint as the upper end of that tier, yet under a broad category, they can still be billed alike.

Big businesses can survive awkward fee structures more easily than small businesses can. A small local operator usually does not. This is important because small businesses are the places that keep money local, fill empty storefronts, sponsor local causes, and give a town its own identity instead of a row of interchangeable signs.

A city cannot honestly say it supports small business while also ignoring fee structures that may punish being small.

Why the city may have built it this way

There is an obvious reason city leaders may prefer a broad system. It is simpler.

Public materials and local reporting tie the rate increases to major infrastructure obligations, including stormwater, sewer separation, and long-term control plan work driven by EPA and IDEM requirements. The city has been dealing with large and expensive utility projects. When that kind of financial pressure exists, broad billing categories can look attractive. They are easier to administer, easier to forecast, and easier to count on when major costs are sitting in the background.

That may make sense from the city’s point of view.

But just because something is easier for City Hall does not mean it is fair for the people paying the bill. A system can be simple to run and still be badly out of balance.

The questions city leaders need to answer

At this point, the public deserves direct answers.

• Why is the residential fee flat if runoff burden is clearly not?

• Why should a small house with a smaller roof and driveway pay the same as a much larger property with far more hard surface?

• Why are commercial categories drawn as broadly as 0 to 15,000 square feet?

• Does the city already have parcel data or impervious-surface data that could support a more precise system?

• If it does, why is it not using it?

• If it does not, why were rates increased before that better measurement system was built?

• Was the current structure chosen because it was the fairest available model, or because it was the easiest way to produce stable revenue?

• And if the system is fair, why does it become harder to explain once ordinary people start looking at it in gallons and dollars instead of government language?

Those are not partisan questions. They are the basic questions any homeowner or business owner should ask when a fee keeps rising and the answer never seems to get clearer.

When fees are rising and residents are trying to understand whether the system makes sense, they should not have to chase scattered documents, vague explanations, and public materials that only make sense if you already know the answer. If city officials believe the structure is fair, they should be able to explain it simply, with public numbers, in a way an ordinary homeowner can understand at the kitchen table. If they cannot do that, people are going to assume the answer is not good enough.

And once that distrust sets in, the issue stops being just about runoff. It becomes a question of whether the city is governing clearly and honestly, or just hoping most people never look too closely.

The bottom line

Nobody is saying stormwater systems should be free. Nobody is saying infrastructure is cheap. And nobody is saying Logansport can ignore environmental obligations and hope the problem goes away.

The issue is whether the city is charging people in a way that reasonably matches the burden their property places on the system, or whether it has adopted a broad, easy-to-run structure that pushes too much cost onto the smallest homes and smallest businesses because they are easier to bill than to defend.

That is the quiet charge inside the utility bill, and until city leaders answer for it in plain English, with real numbers, more people in Logansport are going to keep asking the same question:

Why am I paying this much, and who exactly am I paying for?