[Previous entry: "CC Tells Rose Not To Attend State Meeting Of Officials"] [Next entry: "Petition On Ferry Fare Increases"]

01/29/2007: "Charter Bites Back On New Tax"

(SJC Auditor Henley and Recording Deputy Diane Timm receive a referendum filing from Alexandra Gavora)
San Juan County citizens may have an opportunity to vote on a new tax. The County Council has authorized a new tax assessment to address storm water impacts (Related Story), and last Friday, San Juan resident Alexandra Gavora filed paperwork with the Auditor that will start the process of allowing the voters to decide if the new tax should go into effect.

The filing by Gavora "orders that Ordinance NO.20-2006, dated December 12, 2006, entitled, AMENDING SECTION 13 OF THE SAN JUAN COUNTY CODE REGARDING THE COUNTY STORM WATER UTILITY, shall be referred to the people in the next general election to enact or reject in its entirety.". If Gavora can obtain the necessary signatures, the question the voters will have to answer is if they agree with the County Council, that all developed parcels in San Juan County should pay a "tax" to support a Storm Water Utility, even while paying for their own systems.



Gavora told The Island Guardian that "My first objective is simply to find out if anyone cares. The referendum process is all about finding a base of support for your issue, and I hope to find that base through a dialog on the funding issue".

The funding issue, that seems to be at the heart of this issue, is that the tax will be assessed on all developed property in San Juan County (even if there is not a building on it, but only a driveway); and even though owners of developed property are already required to install and pay for stormwater mitigation. Under the ordinance passed by the Council, these property owners will pay a tax that assumes they have a minimum of 4.400 Sq Feet of impermeable surface.

Based on complaints and general grumblings about the new tax, Gavora may find some help in gathering the necessary signatures to put the referendum to a vote of the people. The complaints seem to result from two undisputed facts about the new tax.

The first is that all new home owners have been required to install and pay for storm water infrastructure on their property to negate the negative impacts of storm water; and Public Works has been responsible for maintaining road ditches and drainage on county roads and property.

The second is that the County Council has stated the new tax will first be used to provide stormwater infrastructure for Eastsound at no additional cost to the property owners of Eastsound -a large number of whom are business owners.

So the question being asked is: "Is that fair to the rest of us"? Some property owners are exempt, while others shoulder the entire burden. Some commercial property owners in activity centers profit at the expense of others who have already paid the price for their own storm water systems. People who live in small homes are assessed at the same rate as those living in houses with over 4400 sq. ft. of "impervious surface area".

Gavora, a tax attorney who is a member of the bar in three western states, stated that "Stormwater is a fact of life and something that I think all reasonable people can agree must be addressed" but she added "This referendum does not attack stormwater, or the Utility that was established in 2005. It is the funding of major, discrete projects through the creation of a perpetual, county-wide tax slush fund for Public Works that is the issue."

Former County Commissioner John Evans was appointed by the County Council to the committee that was charged with drafting an ordinance that would fund the storm water utility. Evans voted with the rest of the committee to fund the utility with a new tax, and so we asked him his view about the referendum. Evans said that "I believe that taxpayers should always have the right to approve or reject new taxes. Several of us who served on the Public Works Storm Water Committee suggested the Council should put the proposed tax package before the voters." According to Evans, "The suggestion did not get the full Committee's support at the time". But he added that "It appears that under the new Charter, taxpayers will have that chance, thanks to the referendum paperwork that was filed on Friday."

Former Freeholder Gordy Petersen was an outspoken critic of the Charter as it was passed, and so we asked his opinion about the filing of the first referendum under the Charter. Petersen said, "When people voted overwhelmingly for the Charter, we adopted a form of government where any voting citizen is free to make a proposal or put an ordinance to a vote of the people independent of the Council". While Petersen has had some complaints about the Charter, he added that "This is a good example of what �Home Rule' is all about."