11/28/2007: "Stormwater Sub-Committee Reports Disagreement"

The SJC Council Sub-Committee has reported back to the full committee that, while they were unable to reach full agreement on what to do, they did amass a large amount of material, and received valuable input from the two public meetings ; out of which they were able to draw the following conclusions.

• A flat rate alone is not appropriate for funding capital projects.
• Significant vegetation removal or altering the natural landscape should be considered development.
• A standing Citizen's Advisory Committee should be part of any new funding ordinance. The Committee should make recommendations with respect to which projects should be accomplished annually. Members of the original Stormwater Advisory Committee should be invited to continue with the new Committee. Consideration of a broader county-wide representation should be made when creating the new Committee.
• A sun setting clause should be part of any new ordinance.
• The current system for evaluating storm water problems on new development is problematic and needs to be examined.
• The utility should be county-wide with specific problem area emphasis.
• Credit for self mitigation should be given, perhaps as a percentage discount off the utility fee, but not the base rate.
• Undeveloped property should be charged a base rate.
• The storm water drainage plan for the Eastsound UGA needs to show how the storm drainage facilities will be provided over the 20 year planning period.

Committee member Howard Rosenfeld submitted a draft of a “Stormwater Basic Fee Concept for ‘08’” that would, if adopted, set a basic fee amount of $10.00 to be levied against all properties in the county -unless on an island without county roads.

Rosenfeld’s proposal would run for only one year, and the fee would be used to fund another Stormwater Advisory Committee; do an evaluation of 1800 commercial, industrial, and institutional properties to determine how much impermeable surface they contained and associated impacts; do planning studies of watershed basins, and performed water quality monitoring.

None of the money would be used for capital improvements or maintenance of existing improvements.

If there were to be support for Rosenfeld’s proposal, the first thing some members of the Council wanted to know, was there enough time to hold public hearings and pass a new ordinance this year -whatever it might end up looking like- in order to start collecting money again in 2008.

Randy Gaylord laid out the time lines, and said it was tight, but “doable.”

Councilman Peterson asked “Do we wish to meet a timetable, or do we take more time?” At a previous council meeting, Public Works Director Jon Shannon and County Administrator Pete Rose had counseled the council to take the necessary time to draft a new ordinance.

This was first time the full council has had an opportunity to look at the storm water funding issue since the ordinance was struck down by the voters in a landslide rejection of the previous funding ordinance, and Councilman Alan Lichter said “it does not make sense to rush this through” and cautioned against “a quick fix”.

Lichter said he was “very concerned, and more than disappointed” with the progress of the sub-committee report. He said it seemed to be sending them back to the drawing board, and questioned why they would need a new advisory committee.

In response to Ronsenfeld’s proposal, Peterson said that he would support a base fee, but only if those who gained some benefit also paid additional for the gain. Both Councilman Myhr and Gene Knapp cautioned against singling out individual projects, and this momentary raised again the social philosophical question of the group approach to funding vs. the “you use it, you pay for it” method of funding.

Lichter said that based on the money the county has already collected ($700,000 +/-) “we have enough to take care of [projects] this year” and suggested “we give our citizens a ‘freebie’ this year; and then take our time” to daft a new ordinance.

Knapp said he was against delaying action for a year, citing concerns about possible watershed contamination, this presumably again related to Eastsound concerns.; but said the council should not launch off with another citizens committee. We need the professionals that Howie’s idea would fund”.

Peterson responded that the county is already engaged in doing some studies of watersheds.

Lichter again cautioned that “we need to be very careful we don’t start a new landslide” of opposition against whatever the council ends up doing.

At this point Rosenfeld said “I agree with paying more for direct benefit.” This seemed to indicate that it was possible for the degrees of differences among the council to be balanced, and Councilman Ranker said “the question of the day is do we want to meet the January deadline” to pass a new ordinance.

Council Chair Bob Myhr responded that it would be a “huge mistake to rush” Lichter suggested the sub-committee continue their work and come back with a recommended direction for the council to take.

With that, the council ran out of scheduled agenda time, and moved on to a public hearing on urban growth areas.