|
 | |||
| Lopez Island | Orcas Island | Visitor's Guide | ||
| Email this page to a friend | ||
| ||||||||||||||||
GUEST COLUMN BY KEVIN RANKER - SAN JUAN COUNTY COUNCILMEMBER, DISTRICT 1 |
We’re all in this TogetherBy Kevin Ranker posted 08/29/2007
John Evans and seven other Islanders of all political stripes had spent months studying how to finance the Stormwater Utility last year, and after much discussion and research, unanimously agreed on what they thought was the best solution. It was simple, efficient and among the lowest rates in the state. However, there was a fatal flaw, Evans said, "The notion that we are all Islanders just doesn’t play anymore." He and five other members of Stormwater Utility Steering Committee presented to the County Council last Tuesday to remind us why they had decided that all owners of developed property should contribute toward solving the problems created by stormwater run-off. Those range from the contamination and erosion of our shoreline to reducing our supply of drinking water. Evans said that he now thinks that most San Juan County citizens don’t want any of the $3.85 a month they pay in Stormwater fees to be spent solving problems on other islands or in urban growth areas like Eastsound (where fees on non-residential property are 50 percent higher). Committee member Patty Miller, who owns property in Eastsound, had a different view, "We did not ask to be put in an Urban Growth Area, the County pressed it on us." She says it’s unfair to force population density and commercial activity into the Urban Areas to preserve the rural character of the rest of the island, then dump all of the extra costs on those areas as well. Those costs are substantial. The committee found that if Eastsound was forced to pay the entire cost of dealing with its stormwater runoff problems, each small business, school and even the airport could end up paying $624 per year for every 4400 square feet of parking lot, building and pavement on their property. That would be the highest rate in the state. The savings to those of us who live outside Urban Growth Areas? Less than 50 cents a month. "We are all in this together," Patty Miller said. I agree. When I was young, there was a strong sense that this was a community of islands, with breath-taking sunsets, orca whales and people who call themselves islanders. We fish in same waters, ride the same ferries, and we want to preserve the precious way of life that is unique to our islands. If $3.85 a month is going to help reduce flooding, the flow of contaminated water to our shorelines and the amount of saltwater encroaching on our wells, I’m in – even if a few cents more goes to another part of our community at first. This November we will vote whether the Stormwater fees should be repealed. My vote is, we are still a community of islands and we should support one another. Cooler Heads Behind StormwaterBy Kevin Ranker posted 08/27/07
In May of last year the County Council authorized the formation of a citizens committee to work with the county’s staff, study issues, consider alternatives and come back with recommendations on – among other things - how to fund a Stormwater Utility to deal with pollution, flooding and the other problems associated with stormwater run-off that the county is required by law to deal with. Between June and September of last year that committee held five widely-advertised and publicized public meetings to gather information and consider various aspects of the problem, including funding alternatives. An experienced financial consulting firm worked with them to help them review their options and an outside facilitator coordinated their efforts, to ensure the committee’s independence. The committee considered factors including how to spread the burden as fairly as possible while minimizing the inconvenience to property owners and the cost of calculating and collecting the fees. During the deliberations, the consultants ran financial projections so that the members could instantly see the cost and effectiveness of different fee and funding options. The committee members described the process as one of the best and most open they had ever participated in. In the end, the committee unanimously recommended a fee structure that adds no financial burden to the citizens of Friday Harbor (whose homeowners already pay $9 per month for their town’s stormwater utility), none to owners of undeveloped land, and costs the owners of 90% of the rest of the developed property in the county less than $4 per month. The proposed ordinance, including the fee structure, was published in the newspapers in the county and the County Council invited the public to offer comments in writing or in person before its vote. The Council’s unanimous public vote to approve the enabling ordinance last December was the conclusion of this comprehensive six-month process. Admittedly, even the best process cannot guarantee an ideal result, but as we move toward a vote on the Stormwater Utility fee issue, I hope everyone will honor the time and effort the members of this committee put in – without compensation – and carefully consider their thorough reasoning and solid conclusions. The members of that committee were: Brent Snow - Roche Harbor Resorts, Jim Nelson - Eastsound Water Association, John Evans - San Juan Builders Association, Rachel Dietzman - Engineer, Ralph Gutschmidt – Citizens for a Responsible Government, Steve Hussey SJC Conservation District, Tina Whitman - Friends of the San Juans, Patty Miller – Eastsound property owner. |
|
|
SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2008 |
|