[Previous entry: "Pacific Northwesterner Returns To Roots After 17 Yrs"] [Next entry: "Ranker Appointed to Puget Sound Ecosystem Board"]

10/03/2007: "Council Debates Stormwater Fee, Reaffirms Support"

(Ray Bigler signs up to speak as Tina Whitman waits to sign)

After a long and confusing debate that ranged from “why are we even talking about this,” to “Do we vote ‘No’ or ‘Yes’ on the referendum if were against it?”, the County Council voted five-to-one to, in effect, become active in defeating a referendum that would require the council to re-write an existing stormwater funding ordinance. The entire text of the referendum in question reads as follows:

Ord 20-2006
The San Juan County Council adopted ordinance 20-2006 amending existing laws regarding storm water utility services. Ordinance 20-2006 redefines the public purpose of storm water systems, adds definitions, and imposes a flat rate service charge of $46.20 for each parcel with a single family residence and a service charge on other improved parcels with a graduated rate based upon the amount of impervious surface area.

The Tuesday debate resulted from a previous decision by the council to hold a (“public meeting”) “for the purpose of considering a position on Referendum 2007-1.” The petition to place the referendum on the ballot was signed by over 2,000 voters ( related story ), and this did not go unnoticed by the council members, some of whom decided they needed to get proactive in defeating the referendum.

County Administrator Pete Rose and Prosecutor Randy Gaylord warned the council members that state law prohibits them from taking a position on a ballot measure unless they first hold a public meeting that allows both sides to give input to the council.

As Councilman Alan Lichter said after the close of public input, “the public knows where we stand on this -we passed the ordinance- so why does this council need to take a position on the referendum?’; but in the end, he voted to do just that. Only Councilman Rich Peterson voted against it.



Councilman Bob Myhr summed up the feelings of the rest of the Council when he responded Lichter’s question by stating that “we were elected to take a position…we want to reiterate our support for this ordinance.” Councilman Gene Knapp agreed, and said in his opinion “ninety per cent of the citizens of this county have no idea what this is about, and we have an obligation to inform them.”

Only a handful of citizens had shown up, and even fewer expressed their opinion, but then the meeting was understood to be a formality that the Council had been told they must go through in order to produce a “fact sheet” on the stormwater; and the question of the hour on how best to fund a Stormwater Utility to deal with it.

Former Planning Commission Chairman, and a former Freeholder, Gordy Petersen, read a long list of issues that he believed showed the current funding ordinance to be unfair and illustrated the need for the council to re-write it.

Councilman Rich Peterson agreed with Mr. Petersen, and said he had identified nine areas that indicated to him the council should revisit the ordinance, so he would not be voting to educate the voters as to why they should defeat a voters referendum that would require the council to take a second look at the ordinance.

Former County Council candidate Ray Bigler asked the council “why are you holding a hearing, when you have already said you will revisit the issue of funding?’

This resulted in what appeared to be a disagreement between Councilman Knapp and Rosenfeld, but like much of the meeting, it was not clear where lines were drawn: Knapp said that the council had agreed to revisit the ordinance “only if the Judge threw it out, and the Judge did not do that”. But Rosenfeld told Bigler “you do have it correct” that some of the members did say they wanted to take a second look at the ordinance, since so many voters had signed the petition to place the referendum on the ballot.

Peter Kilpatrick spoke in favor of the funding ordinance, and said it was “appropriate for the Council to take a position on this”, and noted that his construction company needed leadership from Public Works, and that there was a need for consistence in the regulations.

Tina Whitman of the Friends of the San Juans said the Friends were not taking a stand on the referendum, but did ask the County to work toward coordinating the existing programs in the different departments.

After a number of attempts to pass a motion -including one to pass the funding ordinance that already existed- failed, a vote was called on a motion for San Juan County to take a position re-stating it’s approval and support of Ordinance 20-2006” In other words, and as predicted by Councilman Lichter, the council was telling the public that the Council was not in favor of the referendum.

With the passing of the motion the Council will now publish a fact sheet on the funding ordinance (that is already written); which was the whole point of the meeting and the vote.