03/04/2008: "New Stormwater Ord Needs Work -Rich Peterson"

The draft of the stormwater funding ordinance was described on Monday as “not close to being a finished product and needs refining and modification.”

The statement was made by the chair of the Council Stormwater Subcommittee, Councilman Rich Peterson, as he handed out a copy of his report listing some of his objections to the draft. The report included an itemized list of how the draft responded to objections about the original ordinance; objections that generated a voter’s referendum against it. (Related Story)

Peterson submitted that there are ”ten things different in the new DRAFT ordinance that weren’t in the old one; and at least in my case forms the basis for why I supported the referendum:

.
(continued from front page)

1. Citizen advisory committee is included in new ordinance.

2. A flat fee is not the sole source of funding for improvements. A mechanism is provided for parcels on islands to receive improvements and, in specific UGAs to pay for their own improvements.

3. The means to charge vacant parcels in UGAs that will receive benefits to pay a proportionate share is provided for.

4. Incentives are provided for voluntary solutions to individual parcel problems.

5. Double jeopardy removed. New development doesn't have to pay for their own stormwater "fix" and then pay on an equivalent residential unit formula basis for someone else's.

6. Sun-setting is built in. ((Although the reality is the Growth Management Act (GMA) will require continual renewals until it can be demonstrated that there are no more stormwater problems.))

7. The appeals procedure doesn't go to PW.

8. The problem as currently known is defined in numbers 1-9 in the draft ordinance . The totality of the problem is not known because some of the monitoring/analysis work has never been done. That is what the $6 or $9 per parcel fee is intended to pay for.

9. The fees will go into a special fund that cannot be merged with PW funds to supplement their budget.

10. The fee can be different from year to year based on what the costs are for the next set of improvements.

Peterson acknowledged that the way the fee structure is set up needs to be redone, because “Presumably all of them could kick in which is not the intent. The intent is to provide for an array of possible funding options with the council choosing those that are appropriate for any projects in a given year. I see that much more work needs to be accomplished to limit and clarify what we intend in this area.”

For former County Councilman candidate Ray Bigler, one of the weakness of the Draft is the lack of certainty for the property owner, which may be illustrated by Peterson’s statement that “"The goal is to have the advisory committee recommend what should be done each year, how much it is expected to cost, and then we decide which of those items applies. (If it is all projects in Eastsound, then all Orcas parcels pay an extra fee and parcels in Eastsound pay even more.)

Bigler and others may have a point, given that the word “may” shows up eight times in the Draft. Most notably in the fee schedule, where a small monetary amount of $6.00 has been listed, but then the ordinance explains the real fee will be recommended by a committee to the Council, which will then set the actual fee- which may or may not be only $6.00 a year.

Peterson’s report states "I believe that the draft ordinance is not close to being a finished product and needs refining and modification. That's the point of circulating a draft with the intent of getting feedback.” The feed back has already begun, and if the early responses to the Draft are in anyway predictive, the desired feed back has a potential to become a feeding frenzy against the Draft as presented.

Peterson said he is mindful of the concerns about the Draft, and seems to have addressed the issue in his report when he states "We additionally are exploring other options for funding to reduce (eliminate) some of the fee requirement. GMA doesn't require a funding ordinance specifically, but coming up with what may be as much as $12 million over 20 years without one, looks impossible without radically curtailing services or generating additional funds some other way.

Bigler has suggested in a Letter to Editor that the final Draft be put to a public vote. This would forestall another citizen Initiative move to put the measure on the ballot, but Peterson points out that “Putting an ordinance before the voters misses the Growth Management Hearings Board deadline by a lot. The risk of having a building moratorium imposed in Eastsound with the accompanying economic and social upheavals, makes that a very unappealing gamble."

Bigler point out that “This funding vehicle is NOT mandated by the GMA. There are many other funding options that this Council simply refuses to address.”