|
 | |||
| Lopez Island | Orcas Island | Visitor's Guide | ||
| Email this page to a friend | ||
| ||||||||||||||||
|
RESPONSE TO STORIES |
Related pagesStories about Stormwater Utility Fee GUEST COLUMNS BY STEVE HUSSEY: Everything you wanted to know about stormwater funding but were afraid to ask... BY RALPH HAHN, president of Friends of the San Juans BY JOHN EVANS: Council left out key provisions when stormwater ordinance implemented
| |
|
Supports Chris Wolf for Town CouncilDear Editor: posted 10/29/2007 His opponent, Steve Wehrly, recently showed up late to the League of Women Voters' candidate forum. He stated publicly that he had been off the island during the previous month and would likely not be around much in the coming month due to his work as a lobbyist in Washington, DC. He also stated publicly in that forum that the Town Council job is "very part-time," and, although he said it is not in his budget at this time, he made it clear that he could easily hold the job with the town council while running for and serving as a state legislator. Is this the type of candidate we want on our Town Council? Some observers have commented that neither of the candidates has attended meetings of the Town Council in preparation for taking on the office. Presumably this is because Mr. Wehrly was lobbying for special interest groups while Mr. Wolf was teaching our middle school children. I heartily support Chris Wolf for Town Council and look forward to his fresh perspective. He is the new blood this community desperately needs.
David Bentley Response to John Evans Guest ColumnDear Editor, posted 10/30/2007
John believes that the steering committee's recommendations in its September 22 2006 report to the County Council included creation of a citizen's oversight committee. In fact, the recommendation was for an advisory committee, an important distinction. The steering committee's final report makes no mention of citizen oversight. John also believes that the steering committee recommended a "sunset provision" which would require the County to evaluate funding and progress after three or six years. Sunset provisions normally require that legislation lapse unless it is passed anew. There is no mention of a sunset provision in the report that John signed. What the committee recommended was that the utility budget and rates be set for an initial six-year period, but with a review of the rate structure after three years. The stormwater steering committee worked hard and produced a excellent report, signed by every committee member, including John. It would be a pity if such an excellent example of citizen consensus were undermined by one person's memory lapses. Roger Collier Letter about changing requirement for Super Majority for school leviesLetter to the Editor: posted 10/23/2007
Why is this important? Local levies provide basic needs for schools, including smaller class sizes, computers and other technology, and needed building maintenance and repair. Washington State’s Basic Educational Allotment is simply not adequate to meet the educational needs of our children. Local school districts depend upon the funds provided through local levies. San Juan County voters have consistently approved our local levies, meeting the 60% supermajority requirement, and our schools are indebted to the generous support of our communities. However, other communities in our state have not been so fortunate. Last year 31 school levies received a majority vote, but failed because they fell short of the supermajority. No other tax levies require supermajority approval. Public hospital districts, metropolitan park districts, and other taxing jurisdictions can pass levies to operate hospitals, parks, and other facilities with a simple majority vote. School districts are held to the supermajority standard to pass a local levy. Levy failure disrupts school operations and causes costly re-votes. Levy success allows schools to focus on what they are supposed to do – educating our kids. San Juan County’s mail-in ballot, which will be arriving later this week, must be delivered to election drop boxes or postmarked by 3pm on November 6th. Please vote to approve EHJR 4204, Simple Majority for Our Local Schools. Tony Ghazel Chair, Board of Directors Orcas Island School District #137 Letter about changing requirement for Super Majority for school leviesLetter to the Editor: posted 10/23/2007
Why is this important? Local levies provide basic needs for schools, including smaller class sizes, computers and other technology, and needed building maintenance and repair. Washington State’s Basic Educational Allotment is simply not adequate to meet the educational needs of our children. Local school districts depend upon the funds provided through local levies. San Juan County voters have consistently approved our local levies, meeting the 60% supermajority requirement, and our schools are indebted to the generous support of our communities. However, other communities in our state have not been so fortunate. Last year 31 school levies received a majority vote, but failed because they fell short of the supermajority. No other tax levies require supermajority approval. Public hospital districts, metropolitan park districts, and other taxing jurisdictions can pass levies to operate hospitals, parks, and other facilities with a simple majority vote. School districts are held to the supermajority standard to pass a local levy. Levy failure disrupts school operations and causes costly re-votes. Levy success allows schools to focus on what they are supposed to do – educating our kids. San Juan County’s mail-in ballot, which will be arriving later this week, must be delivered to election drop boxes or postmarked by 3pm on November 6th. Please vote to approve EHJR 4204, Simple Majority for Our Local Schools. Boyd C. Pratt Chair, Board of Directors San Juan Island School District #149Letter about ReferendumDear Editor, posted 10/23/2007
Most recently is Councilman Rosenfeld’s letter to the editor dated October 21st:
Just because the County Council has stated that the Ordinance has some problems does not mean that They will do anything about it. Merely the fact that you all, save one, agreed to support your own ordinance and not fix it now tells me all I need to know. There has been ample opportunity to repair the flaws in this Ordinance and the Council stubbornly ignored the almost 2000 voters that signed the petition and refused to amend it. Now we must REJECT ORDINANCE 20-2006 so that it can be fixed. This vote is not about Stormwater, it as about the unfair Tax/Fee that was added to our property taxes and the flaws in that Ordinance.
Ray Bigler Letter about changing requirement for Super Majority for school leviesDear Editor, posted 10/23/2007
Here in San Juan County we should be proud that we are blessed with great support for our levies even beyond the required 60%. But in other communities they are not as fortunate. As voters we approve levies for jails, hospitals, parks and other tax facilities with a simple majority vote (50%+1). But we can¹t do the same for our schools. This amendment EHJR 4204 will correct this inequity by amending the constitution to provide for a simple majority of voters (50%+1) to approve local school district levies. Let's level the playing field for all Washington children to have an equal opportunity for the essentials that these levies provide. Please support this amendment EHJR 4204, Simple Majority for Our Local Schools, and vote YES on your November 6th ballot. Sharon Fishaut Letter about ReferendumTo The Editor: There are solid reasons to support the Stormwater Ordinance and reject the Referendum. The County’s stormwater funding is State mandated. Rejecting the Stormwater Ordinance will not make it go away. We have to do it one way or another. The Ordinance might need some tweaking and the Council has agreed to do this. However, if the Referendum is rejected and we have to start over with another citizen committee, there will be significant cost to the County. And because there just aren’t that many choices, we’re bound to end up with something very close to what we have now. Even the Stormwater Ordinance opponents admit the original committee did a good job. The Council will look the issues important to the opponents: the administrative overhead; the appeal process; a 3-5 year review process and sunset clause: reduced fee for islands without County roads; credits for stormwater mitigations; special consideration for farms; and UGA assessments. Island specific funding has been suggested. Aren’t we all in this together? The projects, over time, will be fairly spread throughout the County. Do we want island specific road and park funds too? Also, the argument that this is a tax, not a fee, is false. There are many court tests backing this as a fee, and the existing fee is low compared to other counties. Approve the Referendum which will support the existing County Stormwater Ordinance. Please contact me (378-5788) if you have questions.
Howard Howie Rosenfeld Letter about ReferendumTo The Editor: Among other morbidly amusing county activities, it's interesting that our primary flood water problem last winter, Bailer Hill Road, which may need only some drainage cleaning or a few feet of fill to raise the grade, remains untouched. Well, at least they're on top of global warming, the Iraq war, and the protection of whales.The slick voters "information" mailing on the upcoming referendum on the new fee was as vague and misleading as the one a few months ago on the "need" for a new transfer station on San Juan. The council should try to stop embarrassing themselves. You're embarrassing those you represent too. Vote against the fee. Steve Hudson Letter about ReferendumDear Editor, In a few days, we will receive ballots giving all San Juan County voters an opportunity to decide whether to approve or reject the ordinance that sets the County’s Stormwater Utility Fees. I urge you to mark the “approved” box on your ballot on this extremely important issue. The ordinance sets up a simple, fair and affordable fee system to deal with storm water required by law. Proper management of stormwater run-off can increase our supply of drinking water, prevent flooding on our roads and property, and reduce pollutants entering our marine waters. Even opponents of the ordinance that funds the Stormwater Utility acknowledge the importance of dealing with these problems. Their contention is that there must be a better way to raise the money to do it. I disagree with the opponents. The stormwater ordinance is based on the recommendations of an advisory committee comprised of citizens from a broad cross-section of our community. And I am convinced that this ordinance is the best starting point: The fees are low – all homeowners and 90% of all property owners pay just $3.85 per month, less than half of what residents of Friday Harbor pay to their Stormwater Utility. The fee structure is fair – It assesses fees only on developed property-- property that contributes to stormwater run-off, may benefit from stormwater management, and whose residents use our roads, business districts, and urban areas. The cost of calculating and collecting the fees is low -- The County Assessor, Treasurer, and County Administrator do not have to hire additional people, collect additional information, or create new systems to calculate the fees, thereby keeping the administrative costs low. The fee structure is based on a detailed investigation of alternatives-- A diverse and dedicated group of citizens worked with consultants over a period of five months to develop this fee structure. They tested many different and more costly ways to apportion the fees. After much study, the committee members unanimously recommended the fee structure we adopted. The County Council has the authority to adjust the Stormwater Utility fee structure. I can assure you that, as we gain additional information and experience from the Stormwater Utility, the Council will re-examine the fees in keeping with the recommendations of the citizens' advisory committee. We need to deal with our storm water run-off now as required by law. By choosing “Approved” on the Referendum 2007-1 ballot item, we can ensure that the Stormwater Utility has a simple, fair, and affordable fee structure to fund its work.
Bob Myhr
Letter about Referendumposted 10/16/2007
Background Please join us in voting to APPROVE the Stormwater Ordinance. A vote to APPROVE the Stormwater Ordinance is a vote for the environment and responsible stewardship. Why does this matter? We need a comprehensive, affordable and manageable approach to managing Stormwater in this County. We need to protect property, drinking water, and wildlife habitat. A consequence of development is that we create more impervious surfaces (roofs, driveways, and parking lots) which transport pollutants such as petroleum products, heavy metals, animal waste and sediments into nearby creeks and marine waters. A vote to APPROVE the Stormwater Ordinance is a solid step in the right direction for managing stormwater in San Juan County. Your vote to APPROVE the Stormwater Ordinance will help solve the stormwater issue by laying the foundation for a Stormwater Utility District. Your vote to APPROVE the Stormwater Ordinance is a vote against the referendum which would invalidate the ordinance. Your vote to APPROVE the Stormwater Ordinance will help protect property from damage and protect drinking water in San Juan County.
Stephanie Buffum Field Letter about ReferendumDear Editor, posted 10/16/2007
Referendum 2007-1 was signed by almost 2000 voters in order to give the citizens an opportunity to REJECT Ordinance 20-2006. This would repeal the unfair tax/fee that was added to our property taxes and send the funding issue back to the County Council to find a more equitable method of funding. Some argue that this was the method recommended by a committee of citizens. That is only partially true. There were other methods that were also recommended by this committee and they were rejected. There are also other items that were recommended by this committee that were ignored. One of those was a Sunset Clause or a time specific date that this Ordinance would run before it terminated or came up for review. THERE IS NO SUNSET CLAUSE OR ENDING DATE IN THIS ORDINANCE. Some of the misinformation being spread around would have you believe that the Ordinance ends or comes up for review in three or six years. NOT TRUE. This is not stated anywhere in the funding ordinance. The way it is worded, this Ordinance can run forever. There is also no limit on how much they can raise this tax/fee to. A promise to review is like a campaign promise, hollow, empty and worthless. If you still believe campaign promises, call me, I have some Ocean front property in Kansas I would like to sell you. Public works has always taken care of the ditches along our county roads and used existing road funds to do so. Now all of a sudden, according to some, we must have a new tax/fee imposed on property owners in order to accomplish this or all of our waters are going to be polluted. GET REAL. These scare tactics are getting old and tiresome. If you look closely you will find that a "Road Levy Shift" was done to balance the County budget. That means road funds were shifted and used for something other than roads, yet we need a new tax/fee to keep our ditches clean? Now just think about that for a second. VOTE TO REJECT ORDINANCE 20-2006 Ray BiglerSan Juan County Letter about ReferendumDear Editor, posted 10/10/2007 Make no mistake, this Referendum is not about Stormwater, it is however about the funding ordinance that the County Council passed to fund their stormwater projects. The bottom line, taxpayers of San Juan County will be paying approximately another $800,000.00 per year into Public Works. I for one do not believe that this Council will do anything unless pressure from the voters forces them to act. By rejecting the Ordinance 20-2006 they will be forced to revisit this issue and maybe, just maybe, find a solution that is fair and equitable to everyone. Don’t be fooled into believing that this is against stormwater control. It is not. It is only about the method of funding. VOTE TO REJECT Ordinance 20-2006 when you receive your ballot. Force our Council to take another look at how they fund our stormwater projects.
Ray Bigler Letter about ReferendumDear Editor, posted 10/10/2007
Hanna Arendt defines a revolution as "a change so radical that the subjects become the rulers themselves." America had one of those once, and subjects did rule for a few years. Since then, however, we've again settled for tyranny, which people living in the metaphorical Green Zone like to call "leadership." Next election day we have a chance at a second revolution, an opportunity to prove that we are not the servile cash cows that our "leaders" would like us to be, that we will not drop to our knees at the sound of the old lie "growth is inevitable." Of course SJC needs to control and treat stormwater, but ord.20-2006 will only benifit a few developers by aiding the County's efforts to make Eastsound an Urban Growth Area. The people harmed by that "leadership" decision didn't get to vote on it, but now they can.
Steve Ludwig |
|
|
SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2008 |
|