[Previous entry: "SWAC & Lichter Tour Some Dump Sites"] [Next entry: "Ballot Tracking System Derailed"]

07/18/2007: "CC Upholds PW On Stormwater Appeal"

(Left to right: Gordon & Lori Petersen, & Karen Vedder Listen As CC Discusses Appeal)

The County Council (Council) has denied a “request for relief from storm water utility fees” that had been filed by Gordon & Lori Petersen. (Past story)

The Council held what was billed as a “Public Hearing” on Tuesday to hear arguments that a stormwater “fee” imposed on all developed property in San Juan County should not be collected from property owners unless there is a “service” provided to the property owner.

The “Public Hearing” label turned out to incorrect, since it was an appeal of a decision, and not a public hearing, so members of the public who had hoped to testify were barred from dong so; and were not informed of such until the meeting was closed by Chairman Bob Myhr

But if that came as a surprise at the end of the meeting, the big surprise was at the beginning, when Deputy Prosecutor Karen Vedder informed the Council that because the Petersen’s had submitted a brief (i.e. their arguments) to the Council on July 9, but failed to send a copy of the brief to the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, the information and arguments in the brief should not be allowed to appear in the record. This was the first time the Council had knowledge of this objection, and it was also news to the Petersens’.

Vedder said she had been on vacation, and when she returned on July 16th no brief had been received by her office, and that the Jon Cain -acting attorney for he County Council- told her the Council had not received a brief. Vedder said she only learned that morning that one had been submitted to the Council on the 9th, and therefore had not had time to read it.

Councilman Gene Knapp, a former County Prosecutor (and Vedder’s boss at the time), suggested to the Council that the information be allowed, since the Petersen’s were not attorneys, and did not know that all parties were required to be served, and anyway “there was nothing new in the information”. The Council voted to allow the information into the record.




At this point Mr. Petersen was allowed to make his arguments to the Council. He explained that they had “requested a service charge adjustment based upon the fact that we are not receiving ‘services’ from the county with regard to storm water, that no storm water facility exists to perform services, and that the fee is a disguised tax”.

Both of the Petersen’s made the argument that because the money collected was to be used to install a stormwater system on Orcas in Eastsound, “is it fair that people on the outer rural islands should pay for curbs and gutters on Prune Alley?” and “shouldn't property owners in Eastsound shoulder the majority of the burden when the new infrastructure increases their property values?”

The town of Friday Harbor was used as an example by Petersen as how the system should work: those who benefit should be the ones that pay. Councilman Howard Rosenfeld said that when people come into Friday Harbor, they too benefit from the improvements, so we are all “in the same boat..so to speak”. Lori Petersen argued in a written comment that “I would not consider it appropriate to send the folks on Stuart Island, or any other rural section of the county, a bill for improving the value of my land.”.

Having failed to restrict some of the Peterson’s arguments, Vedder then argued that the Petersen’s did not have the right to be heard by the Council, because none of the three criterion in the ordinance had been met, as required for the Council to hear an appeal.

Councilman Alan Lichter asked Vedder “What issues can we use to make a decision”? Vedder replied that none of the criteria have been met. This resulted in a give-and-take between the Council, Vedder and Deputy Prosecutor Jon Cain on legal procedures; and then the Council returned to the matter at hand, and continued the discussion of the merits of the appeal.

Knapp quoted from a Supreme Court decision that he believed to be on point, and said based on the content of the case, it was his opinion that the appeal should be denied. Mr. Petersen listed the differences between the case and their case, and said there were more differences than similarities.

In the end, several of the Council members thanked the Petersens’ for bringing the matter of equity to the attention of the Council, and all of them seemed to agree with Knapp’s point that no matter the outcome of the Petersen case, or the upcoming law suit on the underlying stormwater ordinance, the Council would be opening up the whole funding issue to public comment and council review.