SAN JUAN COUNTY COUNCIL

Related stories

Council advances plan to authorize stormwater loan

posted 04/25/2008
The County Council voted 5-1 on Tuesday to forward to public hearing a proposal to authorize the borrowing of up to $2 million to satisfy the Regional Growth Management Hearings Board that the County has assured funding for stormwater projects in Eastsound.

Last November voters rejected an ordinance which established a fee to pay for stormwater projects countywide, leaving the County facing potentially serious sanctions unless it took steps to show its commitment to fund a legally required six-year capital stormwater plan for Eastsound. The Eastsound plan was submitted to the Hearings Board in 2005 as part of its compliance with the state’s Growth Management Act.

Rich Peterson, who sympathized with the referendum which overturned the original funding scheme, called authorization of the loan "necessary." As head of the Council’s Stormwater Subcommittee, he is working with Council Chair Howie Rosenfeld and Council Member Gene Knapp to come up with a way to finance the Eastsound projects as well as stormwater projects countywide.

"If we work this right, we may not have to borrow anything," he said.

County Administrator Pete Rose submitted a draft ordinance to the Council that would authorize a short-term internal loan – either from the County Road Fund or a Land Bank Fund.

"This would be treated as an investment on their part," Rose said, "it would pay three-quarters of a percent more interest than they are currently receiving from the Local Government Investment Pool," where surplus funds are now invested.

Council Member Kevin Ranker expressed concern about borrowing from the Land Bank’s Stewardship Fund and – despite assurances that the transaction would require approval from the Land Bank’s finance committee, he withheld his support.

With the assent of the other five council members, the County Administrator was directed to bring a loan proposal back for public hearing and a Council vote at its May 20 meeting. To meet the Hearings Board’s requirements and avoid potential sanctions, the County must have funding assured for the Eastsound projects by June 4.

Council Member Peterson has said that he will present a Stormwater Utility Funding Ordinance to the Council in July. There is currently no public estimate of what the bottom line tab will be for stormwater projects countywide. Detailed plans were drawn for Eastsound as the part of a legal settlement.

Council Stormwater Subcommittee Says Immediate Action Required

The San Juan County Council’s three person stormwater subcommittee has effectively withdrawn its proposed Stormwater Utility funding ordinance and taken a different approach to addressing the problem in light of an immediate legal deadline to comply with a Growth Management Hearings Board Order.

Subcommittee Chair Rich Peterson told the Council Tuesday, that the County is facing a two-tiered problem. The first is an April 15 GMA Hearings Board deadline to explain how the County will fund approximately $2 million in capital expenditures for stormwater control in Eastsound over a six year period. The plan itself has to be in place no later than June 4th.

The deadline for the Eastsound capital plan grew out of legal action filed under the Growth Management Act in 2000 and has been extended several times.

Peterson said, “Basically, the Board has told us that its patience is at an end. If we don’t meet this deadline it could impose penalties, including a moratorium on issuing building permits. That would be disastrous for our local economy.”

Peterson described the Eastsound problem as a part of the larger problem of funding capital projects for stormwater control countywide.

“When San Juan County joined the GMA program in 1990, it committed to build the infrastructure required to support development as it occurs.” Peterson said. “The fact is, the County has not done that with stormwater and now we have to play catch up. We have no choice.”

The Growth Management Act specifically requires the County to have a 20-year plan to deal with stormwater county-wide and, each year, be able to demonstrate how it will fund the next six years of the plan. San Juan County has never been in compliance with that provision.

The Council’s Stormwater Subcommittee recommended that the Council proceed by authorizing a loan from another county fund or an external source to satisfy the GMA Hearings Board’s immediate deadline for funding the Eastsound capital projects. Meanwhile, the Subcommittee will continue to work on a means of funding the stormwater system and needed improvements countywide (ultimately including the Eastsound projects). The subcommittee has set the end of July as a target for presenting that proposal to the Council and the public for review and discussion.

"The bottom line is, we don’t have nearly as much time to deal with this as we initially thought," said Peterson. "Fortunately, with data from the first Stormwater Steering Committee, the input we received during the referendum process and in open Subcommittee meetings we held after the referendum, we are working with tremendous amount of good information."

"Now it is up to us to use that knowledge to craft an ordinance which clearly defines the tasks the Stormwater Utility needs to accomplish county-wide, the cost of accomplishing them and an effective and efficient means to finance it all – and we need to do it in time to get public comment and for the Council to adopt it this Fall."

Council Chair Howie Rosenfeld, also a member of the subcommittee added, "Despite the fact that it now looks as if this is just an Eastsound problem, it is not. Right now, Eastsound is the only area in which thorough studies have taken place. We have already identified numerous areas that require attention on Lopez and San Juan Island. We need to get started doing the detailed watershed studies and planning that will enable us to establish a long-range program to provide the infrastructure we need to catch up with the development that has already taken place and to provide for future growth."

CouncilMember Peterson asked the council to ask the County Administrator to prepare the necessary documents to authorize a loan that would satisfy the immediate requirements set by the GMA Hearings Board. The Council voted unanimously to grant the authorization. Peterson said the subcommittee would bring further issues concerning the Stormwater Utility before the Council in the near future.

The subcommittee has not offered an estimate of the total cost of funding a six year, countywide stormwater plan, but staff members have indicated that, when the studies are done more money may be required for projects on other Islands than has been committed to meet the needs of the Eastsound urban growth area.

Peterson: Draft stormwater ordinance not close to a finished product

posted 03/04/2008
San Juan County Councilmember Rich Peterson supported the citizens' referendum which when approved by voters last November eliminated the stormwater fee. Since then he has led a committee to write a new stormwater ordinance. Yesterday he told the county council, "I believe the draft ordinance (circulated during the past week) is not close to being a finished product and needs refining and modification."

Here are the ten things different in the new draft ordinance that weren't in the old one, that at least in my case forms the basis for why I supported the referendum:

1. Citizen advisory committee is included in new ordinance.
   
   
2. A flat fee is not the sole source of funding for improvements. A mechanism is provided for parcels on islands to receive improvements and, in specific UGAs to pay for their own improvements.
   
   
3. The means to charge vacant parcels in UGAs that will receive benefits to pay a proportionate share is provided for.
   
   
4. Incentives are provided for voluntary solutions to indifivual parcel problems.
   
   
5. Double jeopardy removed. New development doesn't have to pay for their own stormwater "fix" and then pay on an equivalent residential unit formula basis for someone else's.
   
   
6. Sunsetting is built in. (Although the reality is the Growth Management Act (GMA) will require continual renewals until it can be demonstrated that there are no more stormwater problems.)
   
   
7. The appeals procedure doesn't go to PW.
   
   
8. The problem as currently known is defined in numbers 1-9 in the draft ordinance. The totality of the problem is not known because some of the monitoring/analysis work has never been done. That is what the $6 or $9 per parcel fee is intended to pay for.
   
   
9. The fees will go into a special fund that cannot be merged with PW funds to supplement their budget.
   
   
10. The fee can be different from year to year based on what the costs are for the next set of improvements.

"I think that among the concerns some are having is the fee section which states that "the fee structure may have one of more tiers...and may include the following:" nine items are then listed.

"Presumably all of them could kick in which is not the intent. The intent is to provide for an array of possible funding options with the council choosing those that are appropriate for any projects in a given year. I see that much more work needs to be accomplished to limit and clarify what we intend in this area.

"The goal is to have the advisory committee recommend what should be done each year, how much it is expected to cost, and then we decide which of those items applies. (If it is all projects in Eastsound, then all Orcas parcels pay an extra fee and parcels in Eastsound pay even more.)

"I believe that the draft ordinance is not close to being a finished product and needs refining and modification. That's the point of circulating a draft with the intent of getting feedback.

There are the additional dynamics of staff and sub-committee trying to meet the deadline of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board extension to June 4, 2008. There is supposed to be a 6-year capital funding system in place by then. The ordinance draft may not meet that test.

"We additionally are exploring other options for funding to reduce (eliminate) some of the fee requirement. GMA doesn't require a funding ordinance specifically, but coming up with what may be as much as $12 million over 20 yaers without one, looks impossible without radically curtailing services or generating additional funds some other way.

"The current draft ordinance is a step toward replacing Ordinance 20-2006. It's nowhere near a final step in my opinion, and while some of the problems the old ordinance had have been remedied, others obviously remain. Hopefully the process will get us to a point where most of us can accept it.

"Putting an ordinance before the voters misses the Growth Management Hearings Board deadline by a lot. The risk of having a building moratorium imposed in Eastsound with the accompanying economic and social upheavals, makes that a very unappealing gamble."

Draft storm water ordinance unveiled

updated 02/28/2008 posted 02/26/2008
San Juan County Council introduced a draft stormwater ordinance during their Feb. 26 council meeting held on Lopez Island. The council plans to hold public hearings on all major islands before the ordinance is adopted. The ordinance calls for a $6 annual fee per parcel fee to be paid with property taxes except in urban growth areas where the fee would be an additional $3 per year.

The text of the draft proposal is posted below. The draft has two Section "2s". We were unable to find out what the correct number should be. We will make the correction when we obtain the information. There is also an introductory section which we did not post. It will be available on the county's Web site. We will provide a link when it is posted.

The text of the draft has been corrected and the entire document is now available in a PDF from the county's Web site

DRAFT SAN JUAN COUNTY STORM WATER ORDINANCE as of February 26, 2008

Section 2. NEW SECTION Citizens' Storm Water Advisory Committee A new section shall be added to SJCC Chapter 13.04 to read as follows:

1. Establishment: There is hereby created a citizens' storm water advisory committee.
   
   
2. Purpose: The purpose of the storm water advisory committee is to provide advice to the county Council and make recommendations on matters pertaining to storm water including capital facilities, projects, priorities of projects, fees and charges consistent with the guidelines provided by the county Council, provisions for the appeal, adjustment or remission of fees, and all other policy matters related to the establishment of an effective storm water utility.
   
   
3. Membership. The storm water advisory committee shall be composed of seven members, one from each council member district and one member at large. Each member shall be appointed for a term of four years, the dates of which shall coincide with the full term of the respective council member district. The term of the at large member shall coincide with the term of the council member in District 1.
   
   
4. Rules; In conducting its business, the citizens' storm water advisory committee shall follow the Uniform Business Rules, including the Rules of Procedure, unless other rules have been duly adopted by the County Council.

Section 3. NEW SECTION Guidelines for Storm Water Fees A new section shall be added to SJCC Chapter 13.04 to read as follows:

1. After January 1, 2009, all new storm water fees for the storm water utility shall be established by the county Council by ordinance after first considering the written recommendations of the citizens' storm water advisory committee and testimony from the public at a public hearing. The fee structure shall may have one or more tiers, shall consider the factors set out in RCW 36.89.080, and my include the following:
   
   
   1. A Basic Fee, which recognizes the benefit to every property owner from protection against flooding on county roads, protecting the quality of groundwater recharge, protection of the near shore marine environment and compliance with state law;
      
      
   2. an amount for areas located inside of unincorporated urban growth areas;
      
      
   3. An amount determined to be roughly proportionate to the benefit received;
      
      
   4. An amount determined to be roughly proportionate to the amount of impervious surfaces on the property relative to other property owners;
      
      
   5. An amount determined to be roughly proportionate to the presumed benefit based upon projected costs of projects/improvements on an island-by-island basis;
      
      
   6. The contribution to be made by the County Road Fund to reflect the off by county roads and right of ways;
      
      
   7. Consider reduction in the fee when a property owner shows that they have adopted measures to reduce water run off and improve water quality;
      
      
   8. Consider the nonprofit public benefit status, as defined in RCW 24.03.490 of the land user; and/or
      
      
   9. Income level of persons or provided benefits under this chapter, including senior citizens and disabled person.
   
   
   
2. In accordance with RCW.36.89.080, the rate charged and adopted shall be reduced by a minimum of ten percent for any new or remodeled commercial building that utilizes a permissive rainwater harvesting system. Rainwater harvesting systems shall be properly sized to utilize the available roof surface of the building. The fee structure shall consider rate reductions in excess of ten percent depending upon the amount of rainwater harvested.

Section 4. NEW SECTION Storm Water Fee A new section shall be added to SJCC Chapter 13.04 to read as follows:

1. Basic Feee. Each parcel in San Juan County, except for parcels taxed as forest land under chapter 84.33 RCW or as timber land under chapter 84.34, that exists on October 1 of each year shall be assessed annually, and the owner shall pay a Storm Water Fee, known as the "Basic Storm Water Fee."
   
   
2. Additional Fee. In addition to the Basic Storm Water Fee, each parcel in San Juan County, except for parcels taxed as forest land under chapter 84.33 RCW or as timber land under chapter 84.34, that exists on October 1 of each year and which parcel is located inside the exterior boundaries of Eastsound and Lopez Village urban growth areas shall be assessed annually, and the owners shall pay an additional fee, known as the "Additional Storm Water Fee."
   
   
3. The Basic Storm Water Fee and the Additional Storm Water Fee, when applicable, shall be included with the first half San Juan County property tax statements. Properties tat do not receive a property tax statement will receive a separate service charge billing statement. ;
   
   
4. The Basic Storm Water Fee and the Additional Storm Water Fee shall be due and payable on or before the 30th day of April, and shall be delinquent after that date; however, if one-half of such service charge is paid on or before the said 30th day of April, the remainder shall be due and payable on or before the 31st day of October and shall be delinquent after that: date, in the same manner as regular property taxes. Any delinquent amount shall be a lien on the property which lien may be foreclosed on the same manner as regular property tax levy.

Section 5. New Section. Amount of Storm Water Fee/Charge Fee. A new section shall be added to SJCC Chapter 13.04 to read as follows:

The amount of the Storm Water Fees beginning January 1, 2009 is as follows:

Basic Storm Water Fee	$6 per parcel
Additional Storm Water Fee	$3 per parcel

Section 6. New Section. Storm Water Fund Appropriation. A new section shall be added to SJCC Chapter 13.04 to read as follows:

1. The appropriation of revenues collected from the Basic Storm Water Fee and Additional Storm Water Fee will be made in the 2009 budget process, commencing in the summer 2008 and occur each year thereafter. The county Council will request a written proposal for use of the funds from the county Administrator after appropriate consideration by the Citizens' Advisory Storm Water Committee;
   
   
2. The fee collected shall be deposited in a special fund or funds in the county treasury to be used only for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost and expense of maintaining and operating storm water control facilities or any part of the cost or expense planning, designing, establishing, acquiring, developing, constructing and improving any or such facilities.
   
   
3. Such funds may be used for watershed basin planning, water quality monitoring, gathering data and measuring actual impermeable surface area for commercial, institutional and industrial properties, capital facilities, operations and staff time and materials, or such other items as proposed and approved by the county Council. ;

Section 7. New Section. Adjustment and Appeals of Charges. A new section shall be added to SJCC Chapter 13.04 to read as follows:

1. Any person billed for storm water fees may file a "Request for Service Charge Adjustment" with the county Auditor within thirty (30) days of the date of the bill. However, submittal of such a request does not extend the period for payment of the charge.
   
   
2. A request for service charge adjustment may be granted or approved by the Auditor only when the county Auditor finds that the fee has been applied in a manner inconsistent with the ordinance adopting the fee.
   
   
3. Service charge adjustments will only apply to the bill then due and payable, and bills subsequently issued. In the event that the county replaces estimated impervious surface area with measured impervious surface area, in the absence of an appeal, such actual impervious surface area will be used for future bills.
   
   
4. The property owner shall have the burden of proving that the service charge adjustment should be granted.
   
   
5. Decisions on requests for service charge adjustment shall be made by the county Auditor based on information submitted by the applicant and by the Public Works Department within thirty (30) days of the adjustment request, except when additional information is needed. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the county Auditor's decision. If an adjustment is granted which reduces the service charge for the current year, the applicant shall be refunded the amount overpaid in the current year.

Section 8 Severability: .

If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance of the application to other persons or circumstances will not be affected..

Section 9. Effective:.

This ordinance will become effective on the 10th working day after adoption.

Section 10. Expiration.

On December 31, 2014 the amount of the Basic Storm Water Fee and the Additional Storm Water Fee shall expire and be reduced to zero, unless action is taken by the county Council to readopt such fee. In the event additional funding of storm water capital projects and studies is needed after December 31, 2014, the county Council will need to readopt the fee or provide an alternative method of funding.

Council turns down stormwater ordinance

posted 12/19/2007

The San Juan County Council rejected a proposal to enact an interim fee to support research and planning activities for the County’s Stormwater Utility in 2008. Councilmembers Howie Rosenfeld and Gene Knapp supported the fee, Councilmember Rich Peterson, Alan Lichter and Chair Bob Myhr opposed.

The proposal, backed by Rosenfeld, would have assessed all property outside of the County’s Urban Growth Areas (UGA) $6 per parcel and those inside unincorporated UGAs $9, to raise an estimated $105,000. The proposed fee would have been collected in 2008 only.

Council Member Rich Peterson, who chairs the Council’s Stormwater Utility subcommittee put the proposal on the table during his subcommittee’s report, but expressed concern that it didn’t address shortcomings in the original funding ordinance that was voted down in a referendum election in November.

Rosenfeld argued that research and planning work needs to be done soon, for reasons including the need to project the funding needs of the Stormwater utility.

Peterson reported that his subcommittee will have a recommendation for a comprehensive Stormwater Utility funding ordinance ready early next year. He expects the subcommittee to propose that the new fees go into effect in 2009. The Dec. 18 meeting was the last opportunity the council had to initiate a fee in time to appear on the 2008 tax statements.

In response to questions, Public Works Director Jon Shannon told the Council that the utility has adequate funds to complete work on projects now underway, but "very little uncommitted money" in reserve for 2008.

Council Member Kevin Ranker was out of town on personal business and unable to attend the meeting.

Council considers temporary stormwater fee today

posted 12/18/2007
San Juan County Council will discuss a stormwater ordinance today which would raise $105,000 in 2008 by assessing each property owner $6 per year ($9 for parcels inside urban growth areas). The discussion is set to begin about 2:15 p.m.

The ordinance, as proposed by the three-member subcommittee, would end in one year. Property owners in the Town of Friday Harbor would not be included because they belong to the town's Stormwater Utility District.

The $105,000 would be used for:

• $60,000 - Watershed basin planning
• $20,000 - Water quality monitoring
• $20,000 - Gathering data and measuring actual impermeable surface area for commercial, institutional and industrial parcels
• $5,000 - Staff time and materials

The subcommittee, councilmembers Howie Rosenfeld, Rich Peterson, and Gene Knapp have been working on finding a way to finance stormwater solutions since voters approved a referendum which overturned a $3.46 per month stormwater utility fee.

The issue was not legally one that is subject to referendum. County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord told the council stormwater fees have been upheld by the state Supreme Court. The council backed down from taking the steps necessary to stop the issue from going on the ballot.

Funding for stormwater in Eastsound is one of the items needed to reach Growth Management Act (GMA) compliance for the Eastsound Urban Growth Area. Community Development and Planning Director Ron Henrickson said the proposed ordinance will not meet the need. The funding source has to be shown.

Council Sub-Committee to meet Monday on stormwater issue

posted 11/10/2007
A three-member subcommittee of the San Juan County Council will meet at 8:15 a.m. Monday, November 12, in the Council Conference room on the second floor of the courthouse to discuss Stormwater issues. (See note about public access at the end of this article.) The subcommittee was appointed during a special meeting of the Council via conference call at 10 a.m. this morning.

At this morning’s meeting, Council member Alan Lichter initially moved to establish a subcommittee to deal specifically with Stormwater Utility fees, which voters rejected earlier this week in the first referendum election held under the County’s new charter. However, with encouragement from Council Members Gene Knapp and Kevin Ranker, the purpose of the committee was expanded to include "exploring the best way to address the county’s Stormwater problems."

The committee voted unanimously to appoint Council Members Gene Knapp, Rich Peterson and Howie Rosenfeld to the subcommittee.

Council Chair Bob Myhr asked that the new Stormwater Subcommittee report to the full Council at its next regular meeting, on November 27.

After today’s conference call, Council and subcommittee Member Rich Peterson said he believed that the Council already has the information that it needs to fix the funding structure so that it will be acceptable to the community. "I feel like, if we don’t get mired down, we can come up with something fairly quickly," he said.

Treasurer Jan Sears has said that fee structures should be in place by mid-December, to guarantee they will appear on the tax bills her office will mail after the first of the year.

Meeting Access Note: Because the Courthouse will be closed for the Veterans Day holiday; members of the public who wish to attend the subcommittee meeting will need to come to the entrance on the East (water) side of the building before 8:15 a.m. to be assured of being admitted.

Council to hold conference call meeting
Friday on Stormwater Utility

posted 11/08/2007
In the wake of the voters’ decisive rejection of San Juan County’s Stormwater Utility Fee Ordinance on Tuesday, the County Council will hold a special meeting via conference call at 10 a.m. on Friday, November 9. The only item on the agenda will be the creation and appointment of a County Council Stormwater sub-committee, which will begin an immediate look at alternatives for funding the utility.

The public will be able to listen to the meeting via a speaker phone located in the Conference Room at the Community Development and Planning Department, 135 Rhone Street, Friday Harbor, WA 98250.

Concerning the failure to win voter approval of the fees, Council Chair Bob Myhr said, "I was disappointed, but not at all surprised by the rejection of the stormwater ordinance. We have to address this issue; and, as promised by the Council, we will now look at alternatives. Given my concerns about county revenues and expenditures for next year and over the next several years, I will be looking to find another fair and cost effective way to address stormwater management required by law.”

Nearly 62% of the voters who cast ballots opposed the ordinance. The turnout for the election was a relatively low 33.8%.

Referendum successful, overturns the stormwater fee

The county Council will need to find another way to fund solutions to stormwater problems such as this flooding on Bailer Hill Road in January 2006.

Top photo contributed by Maggie Danley, photo at left contributed by Kevin Bell

posted 11/06/2007
San Juan County voters rejected the referendum by a 62 to 37.84 percent margin. (2,201 to 1,340 votes). This means the citizens want the council to find a different way to fund the stormwater utility district. The ordinance which was overturned included a $46 annual fee.

There are still hundreds of ballots to be counted. Many voters dropped off their ballots on Tuesday and those haven't been counted yet. Auditor Milene Henley said, "It is a virtual impossibility for the outcome to change." She thinks the turnout "may hit 50 percent" by the time all the ballots are counted.

The turnout is 33.77 percent as of 8 p.m. Tuesday. There were 10,852 ballots sent out, 3,665 were returned and counted by the close of elections. More ballots still need to be counted. More results will be posted on Friday, Nov. 9 and Wednesday, Nov. 14.

Detailed results are available on the county's Web site.

Council backs stormwater ordinance, Discusses "tinkering"

COUNTY NEWS RELEASE: The San Juan County Council voted 5-1 Oct. 2, 2007 to support upholding the Stormwater Utility funding ordinance being challenged in the November election, but several members made it clear that they would consider some minor changes in the future.

Councilman Gene Knapp was a strong backer of the ordinance. "The citizens committee did an excellent job," he said, "No fee structure is going to be perfect, but I think the one proposed is well done."

Councilman Rich Peterson was the lone dissenter on the Council. He said he felt that the ordinance was "seriously flawed in about nine ways."

Residents in the unincorporated areas of the county pay $46.20 a year ($3.85 a month) per developed/improved parcel. Owners of non-residential parcels in urban growth areas (UGA) pay $69.30 a year ($5.78 a month). The funds are used to tackle stormwater problems based on a priority list. More information is available HERE

Town of Friday Harbor residents have paid stormwater utility fees for several years. The charge is $72 per year ($9 per month) for an equivalent residential unit (ERU). Businesses or other buildings which are larger pay more, for example the Friday Harbor Elementary School pays for 85 ERUs.

The Council’s debate followed a public meeting which opened the floor to public discussion of the Stormwater funding issue.

Ray Bigler of San Juan Island told the Council it should not take a position in the referendum, "You have already promised to revisit this [stormwater fee structure], so I’m not sure why we are here. "

Tina Whitman of Friends of the San Juans, who served on the Citizen’s Committee that studied the funding issue, said she came not to debate funding, but rather to urge the county to get moving on dealing with Stormwater management and coordinating the programs in its different departments.

Building contractor Peter Kilpatrick said that he supported the county’s efforts to deal with Stormwater run-off and that he felt the fee structure was set up through a good citizenbased process that was "well done and comprehensive."

Long-time Stormwater fee critic Gordy Petersen called the ordinance "hastily prepared" and criticized it for not incorporating all of the citizen committee’s recommendations, including "sunsetting" the capital construction part of the fee after six years.

After the public testimony Councilman Howie Rosenfeld said that he believed that the Council should support the ordinance, but that he thought it should consider "tinkering" with it to incorporate some ideas it has heard during the debate in recent months.

Councilman Ranker agreed that, if looked at, he would like to discuss adding a provision to give a financial incentive to people who take voluntary measures to reduce their Stormwater run-off and that he would like the council to create a Stormwater Advisory Committee to monitor the effectiveness and fairness of the County’s efforts to deal with Stormwater run-off. Chairman Bob Myhr wrapped up the substantive debate by saying, "The council needs to take a leadership position to address this issue and support this ordinance."

After much discussion, the Council members decided the motion would not include any reference to potential changes to the ordinance; however Councilman Rosenfeld received a nodding agreement from his fellow Councilmembers that if voters affirm the ordinance, they would be willing to consider minor changes.

The Council asked County Administrator Pete Rose to draft an appropriate resolution of support which they will formally adopt at its next meeting.

County Council Votes to Withdraw Lawsuit against Stormwater Referendum

COUNTY NEWS RELEASE: The San Juan County Council ordered County Prosecutor Randall Gaylord to withdraw its legal challenge to a referendum that seeks to invalidate the County’s Stormwater Utility fee. The issue, which was not on the Council’s agenda during their August 7, 2007 meeting, was raised by District Four Council Member Alan Lichter.

Lichter said that he had talked with outside attorneys who said that the issue might not be resolved by the October 1 ballot printing deadline. He said that if things dragged on so close to the election date, “We will have done a grievous injury to the people who signed that petition.” County Prosecutor Randall Gaylord had previously told the Council that he would make every effort to obtain a ruling by the end of September.

Lichter also expressed concern that he’d learned a similar case elsewhere had been resolved only after several timeconsuming appeals and that he found the idea of the county, "dragging a citizen through a possibly endless round of appeals, absolutely repugnant."

District Five Council Member Gene Knapp, who originally cast the deciding vote in favor of challenging the referendum, supported Lichter’s motion on the grounds that the petitioner, Alexandra Gavora, had not received any warning from the prosecutor or the County that there were legal issues until after petition supporters had gathered all of the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot.

However, Knapp expressed regret that the legal issue about what is and isn’t a proper subject for a referendum will remain unresolved. The state required the County Council to set up and fund a system to manage stormwater, he said, and cited a Washington Supreme Court ruling that he interprets to say, "If the state legislature directs someone to do something, then citizens of a local government can’t prevent them from doing it."

Nevertheless, both Knapp and Council Member Kevin Ranker supported the withdrawal of the lawsuit. Ranker suggested that the Council adopt a procedure for dealing with future petitions that requires the County Prosecutor to review the issue before signature gathering begins, and provide "fair warning" if there appears to be a legal problem. When the vote was called, only Council Chair Bob Myhr voted to continue the lawsuit. "There is a serious legal question here," he said. "If fees and taxes are subject to referendum, we need to know that."

The council had previously committed itself to reconsider the Stormwater Utility fee if it prevailed in the lawsuit. As things now stand, the referendum on the fee will appear on the November General Election ballot.

County council votes to ask court to decide legality of Stormwater referendum

posted 06/27/2007
In a 4-2 vote, San Juan County Council voted to "Ask the prosecutor to promptly obtain a court ruling" on whether the referendum filed by citizens asking for the repeal of the stormwater utility fees is legal. The second part of the motion was if the referendum is found to be invalid and therefore wouldn't appear on the ballot, the council would "promptly schedule public input" and reexamine the $3.87 per month per residence fee.

Councilmember Howie Rosenfeld and Rich Peterson voted against the motion. Rosenfeld said, "Once a citizen referendum is ratified, we shouldn't interfere."

Peterson said, "It is abhorrent to me that we would bring a lawsuit against a citizen."

Councilmember Gene Knapp made the motion and stressed the need to follow the law. He said county Prosecutor Randy Gaylord's advice was consistent with the state Supreme Court's. "If we don't do it," he said, "a clever attorney could twist it so we waive our right to ever challenge a referendum."

County council to reconsider vote on Stormwater referendum today

posted 06/27/2007
Two weeks ago, in a 3-1-1 vote, San Juan County Council decided not to follow the county Prosecutor's advice and decided not to ask for a court decision on whether the referendum on the stormwater utility fees is legal. Today at 9 a.m. the council will reconsider the decision. Councilmember Gene Knapp was absent when the original vote was taken.

Referendum not going to court...yet

By Sharon Kivisto

posted 06/27/2007
In a 3-1-1 vote, San Juan County Council decided not to follow the county Prosecutor's advice and voted not to ask for a court decision on whether the referendum on the stormwater utility fees is legal. At issue is whether the fee imposed by the county for the stormwater utility is revenue-based or part of a Growth Management Act decision.

Residents in the unincorporated areas of the county pay $46.20 a year ($3.85 a month) per developed/improved parcel. Owners of non-residential parcels in urban growth areas (UGA) pay $69.30 a year ($5.78 a month). The funds are used to tackle stormwater problems based on a priority list. More information is available HERE

Town of Friday Harbor residents have paid stormwater utility fees for several years. The charge is $72 per year ($9 per month) for an equivalent residential unit.

Councilmember Rich Peterson said, "I would like to not follow the recommendation. We have three outcomes." The court could rule the referendum legal and voters approve it in the election; the referendum isn't taken to court but challenged after the election leaving the council "with a moral obligation" to change it. The third option he said, " We go to court, they rule it can't happen. We have a legal impediment to the intent of the charter which is morally sacred at this point. It is damaging to charter."

Deputy Civil Prosecutor Karen Vedder said, "Rules are set up when the people have power to speak and when they don't. There is legislative authority. People don't have the power to overthrow that. To start from the beginning and misrepresent what the power of referendum is about is a dangerous precedent."

"We took an oath to uphold the law," said Councilmember Kevin Ranker. "It is absolutely critical we go to court."

Councilmember Howie Rosenfeld said if the council asks the court to rule, the campaign period is shortened and the election can't be postponed. He suggested, "If the court rules OK, council pull the storm water utility for reconsideration and redo it."

Councilmember Bob Myhr asked Vedder if that was possible. She replied that Rosenfeld was suggesting responding to the referendum in a political way.

Councilmember Alan Lichter made a motion to follow the recommendation of the prosecutor's office. Myhr seconded the motion.

Peterson said, "It will appear we stood in the way of a referendum properly supported."

Myhr responded, "We were elected to uphold the law."

Peterson said, "I believe strongly in the oath of office. I don't believe by voting no I am rescinding the oath of office I took.

Rosenfeld said, "I am torn. I kind of think we could wait to ask the question of legality. We don't need to rush into it. I have a feeling it will be overturned by the court. Do I save people from themselves? I have no problem waiting. I have no problem going forward."

The vote was Myhr, Lichter and Ranker for the motion. Peterson against. Rosenfeld abstained.

The issue was put on the next agenda when the sixth councilmember, Gene Knapp, will be back. The matter will be discussed again and Knapp, a former prosecutor, will be able to vote on whether to ask the court for a ruling.

First county referendum has enough signatures
but may not be legal

By Sharon Kivisto

posted 06/20/2007
Citizens unhappy with the stormwater fee collected per tax parcel circulated a petition and collected enough signatures for a referendum. In order to put the issue on the ballot, 1,522 signatures (15 percent of the number of voters in the most recent gubernatorial election) needed to be collected. The petitioners turned in 1,972, 1,565 were valid.

While there are enough signatures for the first county referendum to be placed on the ballot, it may not matter. Deputy Prosecutor Jonathan Cain told the county Council Tuesday, June 19, "It raises the question of whether this was a GMA (growth management act) enactment. If so, it would be inappropriate. The prosecutor's office is recommending the county take action right away and resolve the matter."

The county would ask the court to decide if was a GMA or a finance revenue enactment. Cain said there is a trio of case law which supports the GMA enactment argument. The cases were decided in the Washington State Supreme Court.

Councilmember Rich Peterson asked if the council had the option of not going to court and just allowing the referendum to go forward regardless of whether it was GMA-related or not. Cain said he would research the pros and cons and return with a full report.

In the meantime, the stormwater service charges collected in 2007 remain valid.

Information about the stormwater utility is available on the county's WEB SITE.

SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2008

news @sanjuanislander.com

ABOUT US | ADVERTISING INFO | CONTACT INFORMATION |