[Previous entry: "Council Not Pleased With MRC Actions"] [Next entry: "Crime Victims’ Rights Week"]

04/09/2008: "Council Takes First Step Toward $2M Commitment For Eastsound Stormwater"

A Council agenda item on Tuesday was for a “Discussion: Stormwater Subcommittee Report,” but in a surprise move the County Council did more than just discuss when they voted to approve a motion by Councilman Rich Peterson, and seconded by Howard Rosenfeld, to “direct the County Administrator to prepare the documents necessary to authorize inter-fund borrowing of up to two million dollars for Eastsound stormwater capital facilities.”

Peterson is the chairman of the Council Subcommittee on Stormwater, with Rosenfeld and Councilman Gene Knapp as members.

In his introductive remarks, Peterson explained to the other council members that the subcommittee had decided to divide the problem of strormwater funding into two parts, one part to meet the GMA deadline of April 15 requiring them to show a six year funding plan for Eastsound stormwater projects. Peterson said the County is required to “have a plan in place to pay for these projects”.

The second part will come later, and will address a listing of projects the County gave to the Growth Management Board for a twenty year period. Peterson said the subcommittee will present an “overall county wide plan” by July of 2008.

.

While the funding plan will explain how to pay for countywide stormwater projects, they had yet to make recommendations as to how they will in fact fund it, but did list some of the possible sources of funding as: Fees & charges; special assessments; impact fees; property tax; voluntary assessments; a new REET (real estate excise tax-a REET 2; a 0.09 Rural Sales & Use Tax; Utility local improvement district (ULID), and “other grant sources.”

In a press release that was written before the meeting was held, Peterson is quoted as saying “Now it is up to us to …craft an ordinance which clearly defined the tasks the Stormwater Utility needs to accomplish county-wide, the cost of accomplishing them and an effective and efficient means to finance it all”,

As the council discussed the presentation, both Councilman Alan Lichter and Bob Myhr asked for more details, but were told by County Administrator Pete Rose and County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord that it was not necessary to pin it down at this point, as they were only voting to do it, not how they would do it.

County Admistrator Pete Rose said “The way I see it, Your guarantee is.. you have REET (Real Estate Excise Tax) one…that is currently ending up being spent on capital building facilities, but if you have to guarantee it, that is the logical place for us to turn”; and then added “something else would fall off of the funded list;” if the REET 1 was used.

Alan Lichter asked what happens if the they go to a bond, and the subsequent ordinance goes forward to the citizens, and is rejected -again- how do we pay that 2 million dollar bond”?

Pete Rose said it was his understanding the “loan, or bond, would be responding to a Growth Management Hearings Board requirement, so it would not be subject to referendum”.

Gaylord agree that an ordinance or a resolution would not be subject to referendum “since it is of a temporary nature.. for a temporary period of time”. As for where the money would come from ,“the source of funds does not need to be specified,” he said. “We will cross that bridge when we come to it.” Gaylord added.

San Juan County Auditor Milene Henley said that “the one source we can rely on is the capital improvement fund, but it would be to severe determent of other capital projects”. Henley said that “I for one would not concur with incurring this debt unless we could point to a single pot of money and say ‘In the worse of circumstances we can pay for it”.

Rose told Lichter that the yearly cost of debt service on a $2 million bond would be roughly $160,000 a year for a 15 year bond”, and the Real Estate Tax fund generally hits $750 to $800 thousand a year.

Bob Myhr asked Rose if he was comfortable with the Peterson motion. Rose responded: “Very”; and added the motion was only to bring an action item to the Council for a vote, so if “you don’t like the way it is going to be paid back, you can jump off of the ‘Yea’ votes. Rose noted that “ultimately you have to balance your budget”.