SAN JUAN COUNTY COUNCIL

Related stories

Stormwater funding used to fund part of communication manager's salary

By Sharon Kivisto

posted 12/06/2008
Stormwater management is mandated by the state. The proposed 2009 budget cuts the stormwater technician's position from full-time to half-time and uses revenue from the new stormwater utility fee to cover part of the former communication manager's salary.

The communication manager's position was kept off the chopping block by redefining his role and finding revenue through a variety of funds. It will be funded 50 percent from Central Services (Web Site maintenance), 25 percent from Administration office (Public records requests) and 25 percent from two Public Works Departments. One of the PW departments is the stormwater utility, the other one could not be identified as calls weren't returned by deadline.

The technician had been working in the Public Works Department before being transferred to the Community Development and Planning Department in 2008. CD&P Director Ron Henrickson told the council revenue from the stormwater permit fees will cover half of the position. San Juan County's stormwater permit fees are significantly lower than other countys' stormwater permit fees. Stormwater permits are issued from CD&P dept.

The county's Stormwater Utility is in the county Public Works Department. There is a Utility Manager and an engineer in the department. The Public Works department covers the cost of the stormwater technician's vehicle although she is in the CD&P department.

The county has provided extensive training for the stormwater technician during her three years of employment since she moved to Lopez Island from Iowa to take the job. Since the new stormwater utility ordinance adopted in November 2008 requires education and outreach, it looked like her job would be safe from cutbacks. She has been doing outreach and education in addition to the plan reviews, she says.

After the ordinance was passed, she was told her position was going to be cut back. Funding was being used to cover the former communication manager's position.

The council has made rewriting the stormwater regulations to better fit with San Juan County's rural character, a top priority, something the technician been working with other staff members on.

Asked if it didn't make sense to utilize the technician's expertise and technical skills by funding the other half of her position from the stormwater utility fee which will be collected from every property owner in the county beginning in 2009, county Administrator Pete Rose said, "It is still a possibility. She would be a resource definitely."

The decision will be up to Public Works Director Jon Shannon, Rose said. It will be up to Shannon to determine how the mandated education and outreach will be done, said Rose. "He's gaming it all out. Identifying outreach, whether it is technical or informational, that's the driver of who is doing that."

Meanwhile, the stormwater technician will see her hours cut back to half-time and it's unknown whether she will be able to afford to remain in the county.

Stormwater fee will appear on 2009 tax bills

Nearly a year after San Juan County¡¦s first referendum overturned an ordinance providing funding for a countywide Stormwater Utility, the San Juan County Council unanimously approved a replacement ordinance with greatly reduced first year fees.

In deliberations at its November 4, 2008 meeting, Council Member Rich Peterson, chair of the sub-committee that drafted the new ordinance establishing a base service charge plus a fee to fund capital projects, suggested that the capital portion of the fee be slashed drastically. "Given the economic downtown . . . the idea that we would be laying really heavy fees on individuals throughout our communities at this time seems really counter-productive," Peterson said.

The ordinance provides that the cost of each capital project be divided equally between fees charged to land parcels countywide and fees charged to parcels on the island where the project is built. Those fees are to be revised annually based on the average annual cost of the projects planned for the following five years. Only land classified as forest or timberland is exempted.

However, at the suggestion of Council Member Bob Myhr, the Council agreed that, given the current economic climate, the capital fee should be reduced to 10 percent of the proposed rate for the first year - 2009.

Public Works Director Jon Shannon told the Council that "even with the reduced first year revenue, the Utility would be able to proceed with all essential projects planned for 2009, using grant funds and money produced by the original Stormwater Utility fee, before it was repealed."

The 2009 Stormwater Utility fees as adopted are:

The Washington Growth Management Act requires the County to develop and implement a stormwater plan and the Western Regional Growth Management Hearings Board has publicly expressed impatience with the County's non-compliance that could lead to sanctions.

Council Chair Howie Rosenfeld summed up the Council¡¦s feelings after the vote by saying, "We hate to be doing this at a time of economic stress, but the reason we are doing this is that since 1998 it was neglected and now we are at the end of our rope."

Council Member Gene Knapp added that by getting into compliance with the Growth Management Act the County would qualify for grants and low interest loans it cannot currently receive, potentially reducing the overall cost of the Stormwater Utility.

The Stormwater Utility fee will appear on the 2009 County Statements, which will be mailed by the County Treasurer in February.

The ordinance as adopted by the Council is available on the at: County Web site #

Stormwater Public Meeting Scheduled October 7, 8 & 9

posted 10/06/2008 The San Juan County Council's Stormwater Subcommittee has scheduled meetings on Orcas, Lopez and San Juan Islands to gather public input on the proposed Stormwater Utility Ordinance, including fees which would be charged to landowners countywide. The announced schedule:

• San Juan Island Tuesday, October 7, 4:30-6 p.m. at the Mullis Center, 589 Nash St, Friday Harbor
  
  
• Lopez Island ¡V Wednesday, October 8, 4:00- 5:30 pm, Lopez Island Public Library
  
  
• Orcas Island Thursday, October 9, 4:30 pm-6 pm, Orcas Island Senior Center, 62 Henry Road, Eastsound.
  
  

The Stormwater Subcommittee, which is chaired by Council Member Rich Peterson and includes Council Members Howie Rosenfeld and Gene Knapp, was formed shortly after voters overturned the previous Stormwater Utility Ordinance in November of 2007. It met regularly over the past nine months, examining different funding methods and structures and responsibilities for the utility.

The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board has found San County not in compliance with the Growth Management Act for its failure to develop a funding plan to assure storm water management facilities are completed in Eastsound and Lopez Village. The County Council earlier this year avoided threatened sanctions by approving authority to borrow up to $2 million from the County road fund to finance capital stormwater projects in Eastsound.

At the time that authority was approved, the sense of the Council was that a stormwater fee structure would be in place before money had to be borrowed. The legal text of the proposed ordinance is currently being revised by the County Prosecutor; however excerpts representing the essential elements of the ordinance follow. Additional information about the proposal and the need to manage surface and stormwater is available on the county website at: sanjuanco.com/docs/stormwater_proposal.pdf.

The County Treasurer's office has advised the Council that it needs to adopt the fee structure by early-to-mid-November in order for the fees to appear on the County's 2009 property tax bills.

A. Establishment. There is hereby created a citizens' storm water advisory committee.

B. 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.

C. 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.

Guidelines for Storm Water Fees:

A. 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 . . . may include one or more of 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;

1. An amount for areas located inside of unincorporated urban growth areas;
   
   
2. An amount determined to be roughly proportionate to the benefit received;
   
   
3. An amount determined to be roughly proportionate to the amount of impervious surfaces on the property relative to other property owners;
   
   
4. An amount determined to be roughly proportionate to the presumed benefit based upon projected costs of projects/improvements on an island-by-island basis;
   
   
5. The contribution to be made by the County Road Fund to reflect the run off by county roads and right of ways;
   
   
6. Consider reduction in the fee when a property owner shows that they have adopted measures to reduce water run off and improve water quality.

Storm Water Fees

1. Basic Fee. Each parcel in San Juan County, except for parcels taxed as forest land . . . or as timber land, 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 or timber land 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 hall 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 that do not receive a property tax statement will receive a separate service charge billing statement.

Storm Water Fund Appropriation

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 of 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 of 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.

Adjustment and Appeals of Charges

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 of payment for 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 when due and payable, and bills subsequently issued. In the even 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. 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.

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 a fee. In the event additional funding of storm water capital projects and studies is needed after December 31, 20014, the County Council will need to readopt the fee or provide an alternative method of funding.

* The above is excerpted from the draft Storm Water Utility ordinance which is currently undergoing legal review during which changes may be made. Some citations of statutes have been left out for brevity. The structure of the Utility and storm water fees will be refined after public input is received. The ordinance will be available for review prior to a Public Hearing before the full County Council now scheduled for November 4, 2008.

Stormwater fee has multiple components

By Sharon Kivisto

posted 08/19/2008
Yesterday, the San Juan County Council stormwater sub-committee invited reporters into their meeting to hear the results of eight months of behind closed door meetings. The proposed ordinance contains a county-wide base fee and up to three additional fees depending on where you live.

The three committee members - Rich Petersen, Gene Knapp and Howie Rosenfeld - worked with county Auditor Milene Henley, Administrator Pete Rose and other county staff members to find a replacement for the stormwater fee in the ordinance rejected by voters in November 2007. The old ordinance had a flat county-wide fee with a higher fee for commercial property in the Eastsound Urban Growth Area.

The base fee of approximately $24, would cover maintenance and studies of what needs to be done. Each year projects would be chosen. Once the projects were selected, the fees would be set so: 50 percent of the cost would be paid county-wide; 25 percent would be paid by the property owners on the island involved; 25 percent by the property owners in the UGA involved.

For example, if in 2009 the county council selected projects in Eastsound UGA, the costs would be calculated. County property owners except for Orcas island would pay the base fee plus the 50 percent fee. Orcas Island property owners outside the UGA would pay the base fee, the 50 percent fee and the 25 percent fee. Orcas Island property owners outside the UGA would pay the base fee, the 50 percent fee and the 25 percent island fee. Eastsound UGA property owners would pay all four fees.

The county council will take the proposed ordinance on a "road show" to get public input before holding formal public hearings. At this point it is still a proposal. The amount of money which needs to be raised for the estimated projects is $3.9 million. This is higher than expected when the former ordinance was enacted.

Stormwater ordinance pulled back

The draft stormwater ordinance introduced Feb. 26 was pulled back after the council became aware of the need to create an ordinance which would gain compliance with the Growth Management Act for the Eastsound Urban Growth Area.

Draft storm water ordinance unveiled

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.

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 2. 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 5. 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 6. 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 7. 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 8. 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 9 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 10. Effective:.

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

Section 11. 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 © 2009

editor@sanjuanislander.com

About Us | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Privacy Policy