06/04/2007: "Guest Editorial"

(The following Guest Editorial is in response to a petition drive that will allow the voters to decide if an existing new fee for the stormwater utility should be approved, or rejected, by an election)

By Steve Hussey

I’m writing this as a private citizen responding to the claims made by various people who oppose the funding mechanism for the stormwater utility. In my professional capacity I am grant-funded by the state to promote stormwater management, particularly Low Impact Development. I was also a member of the advisory committee that determined how best to fund the county’s obligations. Before joining the committee I received EPA training on the legality and fairness of various funding mechanisms.

The process was entirely funded by grant money, was managed by an outside facilitator who determined the agenda and managed the process. The county staff member (Matt Zybas) did not direct any of content but was present to answer questions and provide data.

The committee was formed from representatives of the environment, conservationism, private home owners, business owners, and the builders association. These were all recognized as key stakeholders in the process.

All meetings were held at accessible locations, at convenient times and were advertised using display ads in the local press. All agenda and minutes were promptly published and made available through the county web site.

The funding mechanism was set up as a ‘fee for service’ for a specific reason - money raised by this mechanism can only be spent on the service that it was raised for - it cannot be used for any other purpose!

The revised mission statement that appears in the ordnance is word for word what the committee came up with - with the exception that the council in a later work session added ‘and economic development’ to reflect that businesses need to be part of the process. The techniques specifically used to protect water were dropped from the mission statement because the goals now reflect the specific techniques to be used.

The entire committee continuously assessed the fairness of what we were proposing, and factored in the minimum amount of funding that was needed to fix only the most serious issues that we face over the next 6 years. Then the ordnance sunsets (ends) and we can all decide what to do next. The rate is I believe the lowest in the state.

The entire committee unreservedly (bar one absent member) signed the letter of recommendation to the county. The recommendations were then proposed to the commissioners (and other county government). Issues were discussed and clarified. The final recommendations were then put to the new six-member council who unanimously adopted the recommendations to become law.

A citizen oversight committee will be formed as part of the ordnance. This will ensure that the utility spends its budget properly on the problems that have been identified.

This entire process has been one of the most open and professional that I have been involved in the last 20 years. However I should note that with the exception of Gordy Petersen who attended the public hearing I never saw any of the current critics at any of the public meetings. The county created an open process for citizen involvement - but you have to participate to influence the outcome.

Please take the time to consider the facts and visit the county web site and read all the documentation before forming your position. If you have questions feel free to email me at steve.hussey@gmail.com.

(Steve Hussey was a member of the advisory committee that recommended the current amount, and method, of collecting money to fund the stormwater utility)