03/16/2007: "Home Owners Want "Storm Water Tax" Refund"

Gordon & Lori Petersen of San Juan island have appealed a "Storm Water Tax" that showed up on their 2007 tax statement. In a letter to Jon Shannon, Director Public Works, the Petersen's questioned the validly of the charge, pointing out "that this arbitrary charge is a tax not a service charge or user fee and therefore cannot be assessed by the Storm Water Utility or by Public Works."

Mr. Petersen (who writes a column for The Island Guardian) was an elected Freeholder who helped draft the new Charter that changed county government, and one of the provisions in the Charter is now in play as citizens battle for relief from the new "fee" or "tax" that is being collected to fund the recently adopted Stormwater Ordinance (related story). As for the legal basis for the Petersen appeal, they cite sections of the ordinance which they contend require a service charge bill to be calculated in accordance with the terms of the ordinance; this they say, is not being done by the County.

Under the Section 3 of the Ordinance, service charges can only be based on a provided service, and in their appeal, the Petersen's state that:

"There is no evidence that runoff from any impervious surface on our parcel is collected or may be potentially collected in any facility created by this Storm Water Utility. In fact, according to materials provided by your department entitled, "San Juan County Storm Utility Capital Investment Plan, 2007, no projects are even planned anywhere near our parcel through the year 2027. Any facility that could even potentially provide service to our parcel has been constructed and maintained with property taxes already paid on past assessments of our parcel, collected and spent in previous road projects. Therefore we make no contribution to any storm water facilities created or planned in the future by this Utility."

The Petersen's maintain that since "A 'user fee' cannot be reasonably charged to a non-user of facilities that do not exist therefore this is a tax not a user fee or charge for services because no services exist. The fee was not calculated in accordance with the terms of this ordinance."

The letter to Shannon also raises and interesting question about the timing of the collection of the funds, given that "This ordinance is also subject to the referendum process. If and when the required number of signatures become validated, the ordinance creating this tax is no longer legally binding. If our appeal is denied we request that the charge be pro-rated for the 2007 tax year and the remainder of the tax credited and returned to every San Juan County taxpayer."

Petitions are currently being circulated in an attempt to place the referendum on the ballot for voter approval of the new fee, and according to those involved in the petition drive , they are encouraged by the response to their call for signatures.