Idaho Supreme Court - It Is A Tax!

Idaho Supreme Court ruled stormwater Lewiston illegally collected stormwater fees

Published: Feb 9, 2012 at 12:08 PM PDT
http://www.klewtv.com/news/local/Idaho-Supreme-Court-ruled-stormwater-Lewiston-illegally-collected-stormwater-fees-139031704.html

LEWISTON, ID - The Idaho Supreme Court ruled Lewiston illegally collected stormwater fees between 2009 and 2010.

The city plans to refund property owners their money. The question is how and when.

The Idaho Supreme court ruled the stormwater fee was instead a tax. As such, the city did not have the legal authority to levy the tax. Only the state legislature could do that.

The city spent the nearly $1.2 million collected to comply with the federal clean water act. The ruling did not force the city to return the money. However, Lewiston officials say they will.

"The council has reached a consensus, at least at this point, that they want to provide citizens with an opportunity to decide if they want a refund of the stormwater fees they paid, or if they want to forego that refund," said Jim Bennett, City Manager of Lewiston.

Many don't seem to have a problem with that approach. What seems to be the sticking point is asking citizens what they want to do before the city even cuts their checks.

"People should not have to ask for their money back," said Jim Kluss," former Lewiston councilor. "I believe it should just come automatically, and if somebody wants to contribute back to the city that's up to them."

Some are okay with the city's approach.

"I think in the sake of saving the city's administration time, I think they should go ahead and offer the alternative and let the residents make their choice," said Rick Tierney, a Lewiston resident.

Seven of eight who responded directly to the question on our Facebook page say they do want their money back. One person we ran into on the street was a little more charitable.

"I would probably donate it to the city," said Abbie Acuff, a Lewiston resident. "$54 in two years, I can afford do that."

Jim Kluss worries about the precedent set.

"If we continue to bring about ways to fund projects that are later determined to be illegal, the action we're taking now by making people ask for their money back creates a situation where down the road it will be much easier for councils to pass questionable fees, and I believe we need to stop it right now," said Kluss.

The council appears split four to three on whether to issue the refund checks before residents actually decide. The majority prefers to send out the literature first asking property owners to choose before any checks are cut. The decision should be made at the next council meeting on February 27th.

Former Councilor Jim Kluss did want to point out that while homeowners are due about $54 back, he said businesses are owed much more. He said some paid over a $1000 in stormwater fees.

 

Rain Tax Expanded To Public Roadways

Adams County Rain Tax Expanded To Public Roadways

Road

 

Despite major public pushback over a forced rain tax on residents in unincorporated Adams County, commissioners took it one step further last Tuesday, and are now taxing property owners for rain that falls on public roads.

Property owners pay a specific mill levy tax to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District that fund county storm water projects. Owners pay property taxes to the county’s general fund that help pay for storm water projects.  Many owners pay another mill levy tax through their special district to fund these projects.

Add in the new rain tax and property owners are now paying multiple taxes for the same service, yet most unincorporated residents receive absolutely no benefit from this service. 

The rain tax was originally designed to provide additional revenue for storm drainage projects, calculated and billed based on a properties square footage of impervious material (rooftop, concrete driveway, asphalt parking lot, etc). The county claims the more impervious material on a property, the more storm water runoff resulting in an increased burden and cost to their system.

If a property owner designs and builds a drainage system on their property completely eliminating all runoff from entering Adams County storm water system, shouldn’t that owner be entitled to an exemption from paying the rain tax?  After all, they spent their own money eliminating any burden to the county’s system.

     The county disagrees! They are now taxing that owner for rain that falls on public roads

In 2007, under the direction of then Public Works Director Lee Assay (who went to prison for the Quality Paving scandal), the county spent nearly $1 million consulting with an environmental company AMEC. AMEC advised the county on a scheme to extract an additional $5.1 million annually from taxpayers. Meeting minutes revealed AMEC recommended the county hide the fees on the tax bills so people would not notice it.

Ruth Kedzior, assistant county administrator told Watchdog.org that not establishing a stormwater utility or imposing the fees needed to run it would put the county in violation of the federal Clean Water Act, exposing the county to fines into the six figures. The EPA’s Clean Water Act is a federal water regulation in place to keep chemicals collected in rainwater from polluting the water table. This, in fact, is false; stormwater runoff from rural areas is not part of the regulation. 

The county showed a presentation to their advisory committee claiming the general fund was insufficient to cover the cost of their stormwater projects. Citizens reviewed the Consolidated Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and discovered over $151 million in reserve funds, which has amassed an incredible $34 million in interest over the past seven years. 

After residents held one of the largest demonstrations in Adams County history, commissioners responded by imposing a “no speech zone” in front of our brand new, multi-million-dollar taxpayer-funded government center, in an attempt to silence and intimidate them. When the Colorado ACLU threatened to sue, the restrictions were revoked.

Citizens filed a lawsuit attempting to protect our constitutional right to vote, citing the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) amendment, which states: governments cannot levy or raise taxes without voter approval.

In January, citizens received their second annual rain tax bill, but this time, it’s on an invoice (in lieu of hiding it on tax statements) along with a threat that owners will have liens placed on their property for non-payment.

The county has spent an additional $65,000 in tax dollars consulting with yet another out-of-state company, Raftels to devise yet another scheme bringing public roadways into the stormwater mix, claiming public roadways make up 40 percent of the total impervious area in the service area.

On June 22, the county announced their intent to tax property owners a minimum 40 percent of their rain tax bill regardless if they place no burden on the county’s stormwater system. Property owners must now pay an additional tax for the rain that falls on the public roadways. 

This is absurd. The county has gone from taxing us for rain that falls on our roofs, to taxing us for rain that falls on our public roads.

Where will this road end?


http://www.thebrightonblade.com/content/column-adams-county-rain-tax-expanded-public-roadways

NEW! Discovery Request To Defendants

Read Entire Discovery Request - Click Here

Discovery Request

 

Estes Park Trip $21,449 - With Your Tax Dollar!

 Today I am writing to you because I am beyond upset to learn our precious tax  
dollars have been spent on a trip to Estes Park which included 20 county  
employees and 1 out of state, no-bid vendor. This 3 day 2 night "retreat"  
cost the taxpayers $21,449.70.

I toured the new multimillion dollar Adams County government building and discovered  
the building has several newly furnished, comfortable, video and audio  
equipped conference rooms. Two conference rooms accommodate 48 people each  
and can be opened to accommodate 96 people. These conference rooms are FREE  
for the county to use. Instead of using the government building  for the  
"leadership" meeting the county once again went to Estes Park for what they  
referenced as a "retreat" and thousands of taxpayers dollars were spent on  
what I reference as a "mini-vacation". I say once again because the county  
made the same trip to Estes Park last year (2013) as well.

The "retreat" includes lake view rooms at $116 per night and expensive food  
including dinners for $36 per person.

The vendor that was invited is Novak Consulting. They are from another state  
and this is a no bid contract. I questioned Mr. Leoplold and brought up my  
concerns to the commissioners at a BOCC meeting on why we again are hiring an  
out of state company with no bids taken. It is my opinion that we should be  
hiring people within our own state. I refuted their position of the "one of a  
kind" service they offered. There are plenty of consulting firms here in  
Colorado. We paid this company $11,305.00 to participate in the "leadership retreat" in  
Estes Park.

Transparency? The county's favorite word. There was none concerning this  
trip. No mention of the trip by the media, no mention to the citizens, no  
mention on the Adams County website.

As you know the county government has threatened to place liens on our  
private property and send our homes to auction of we do not pay the  
"Stormwater fee". As you know Commissioner Henry publicly stated "WE NEED  
THE MONEY!" referring to the fee's and the county government "NEED" for  
additional money.
But the county government has plenty of money for trips to Estes Park and  
justifies them under the cloak of official business? I am not buying it.

People are struggling and our local government should not be wasting our hard earned money!

BRAVO to Treasurer Bridgett Grimm who opted NOT to attend.

Kathryn Lawrence
Resident of Unincorporated Adams County

PS - I have have all supporting documentation.

Statute 30-20-420

Colorado Revised Statute 30-20-420 (2013):

  • By no means are we attempting to provide legal advice, but we would like to give our interpretation of this statute.
  • Attached is a link providing the verbiage of this statute.
  • It is unfortunate the county is referencing this statute in an attempt to threaten and intimidate us.  Similar to how they told us the storm water utility was required by the EPA and they had no choice but to impose a tax on us without our vote.
  • This statute was written for “sewer and water systems”.  Water systems meaning the drinking water that comes into your house, not the God given water that is falling on our properties of which we have absolutely no control over.
  • This statute actually limits the power of government from shutting off your water or refusing the use of your sewer system.  These are “services” by definition.  Yes, sometimes citizens go through difficult financial times and cannot pay their water and sewer bills for a certain amount of time.  This statute keeps a bullying government from shutting off those services ultimately making things worse.
  • We will let a judge decide if we are receiving any kind of “service” for our fee.
  • Fees by definition are paid “voluntarily”.

 


 

Statute the county is threatening the citizens with. This statute was cited on the Stormwater bill for 2014.

C.R.S. 30-20-420  (Copy w/ Cite)

Pages: 1

C.R.S. 30-20-420

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

*** This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the First Regular Session

of the Sixty-Ninth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (2013) ***

TITLE 30. GOVERNMENT - COUNTY 

COUNTY POWERS AND FUNCTIONS 

ARTICLE 20. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 

PART 4. SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS

C.R.S. 30-20-420 (2013)

30-20-420. Failure to pay rates and charges - lien

In the event any user of the system neglects, fails, or refuses to pay the rates, fees, tolls, and charges fixed by the board of county commissioners for the connection with and use of the system, said user shall not be disconnected from said system or refused the use of said system unless the user is outside the boundaries of the county, but the rates, fees, tolls, and charges due therefor may be certified by the county clerk and recorder to the board of county commissioners of the county in which said delinquent user's property is located and shall become a lien upon the real property so served by said system and collected in the manner as though they were part of the taxes.

HISTORY: Source: L. 71: p. 365, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 36-29-20

 

Newsletters

Here are the latest Newsletters published by SSUA. Please download these PDFs and share!

Word of mouth information is very important. Not everyone knows about the illegal fee they are paying and did NOT vote on. Let people know we are fighting for our rights and there is something they can do!

 

August 3, 2014 

May 14, 2014 

February 5, 2014

December 4, 2013

November 13, 2013

September 4, 2013

July 16, 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still No Vote yet More Taxes

I believe it is fair and reasonable to question the integrity of any elected official who misuses and abuses their power to take money from its citizens without first asking permission.

In a few short days, 27,500 property owners in Adams County will get hit with round two of the controversial storm water tax.  A burdensome tax the citizens were denied the opportunity to vote on.  Only this time, it will bill separate from our property taxes, so be prepared to write Uncle Sam Adams yet another check from your hard earned savings or social security income.

Let us not forget, many of our neighbors and local businesses already struggle to make ends meet, provide food for their families, make mortgage payments, pay down debt, and the list goes on.  Taking additional money from our pockets and extracting over $2 million annually from our local economy is bad policy.  

Our two commissioners in favor of continuing this illegal tax (Eva Henry and Chaz Tedesco) must ask themselves, are we willing to file liens on properties and evict citizens who simply cannot afford this additional tax?

Obviously the answer is yes, and from the meetings I’ve attended, they act as if they are looking forward to it.

Fortunately, a group of concerned citizens has formed a grassroots organization and we are desperately fighting to defend everyone’s constitutional rights.  We are looking forward to our day in court.  Our trial has been set for August.

Will you please visit our website, educate yourself regarding these illegal taxes, sign up for our newsletter and help defend our citizen rights.  

A government too powerful and willing to take our money without first asking permission, is a government who lacks regards for its citizens.

Stan Martin

Task Force Urges $2.1M Refund

Panel pans stormwater fee
TASK FORCE ALSO URGES ADAMS COUNTY TO REFUND $2.1M

By Yesenia Robles
The Denver Post

After six months of debate, a citizens task force urged Adams County commissioners to discontinue a controversial stormwater fee and pay back the $2.1 million in fees already collected.

The recommendations were presented by staff to the commissioners during Monday's public hearing — almost two months past the Oct. 1 deadline commissioners had first set for the guidelines.

It's unclear when the board will take action.

"We do not know what the next steps will be nor what will happen with the program in the future," said Andrea Berg, the county's stormwater program manager.

The task force, which has about 20 members, has been meeting on the matter since May and has been divided. Its five recommendations were drafted Sept. 25 and presented Monday.

Some task force members have criticized the stormwater fee over billing errors, called it a tax and asked commissioners to take the issue to voters instead.

One recommendation — put there by mistake, according to member Thom Stanfield — contradicts the other guidelines by stating the stormwater utility should continue in a minimized capacity.

Commissioner Eva Henry said she hopes to implement some recommendations next month.

The fee, which is based on estimates of how much rain runs off of a property, started Jan. 1 for residents and businesses in unincorporated Adams. It was estimated at an average of $62.64 per year for a single-family home, but some reported bills as high as $900.

Funds collected were meant to pay for water quality and flood- mitigation systems, but projects are now on hold. The fee was capped in April when the task force was created after numerous complaints and threats of litigation. A lawsuit was eventually filed in August and is pending.

Adams County Lawsuit !!!!!!UPDATE!!!!!!!!

Lawsuit Update:

  • THE CITIZENS WILL GET OUR DAY IN COURT!
  • Our lawsuit continues to move forward.  By no means are we backing away from this legal challenge and we believe the misguided decisions from our elected officials has only strengthened our case.
  • Our trial date has been set for August 4th, 2014.
  • The lawsuit is now in the ‘discovery phase’.  Our attorneys have up until 7 weeks before the trial date to request discovery information and the county must respond to all discovery requests.
  • Once discovery info is collected, our attorneys will conduct several focused depositions leading into the trial.
  • This is a long, slow and tedious process and we are grateful for your patience as we continue moving forward protecting our constitutional rights.

 

Read Entire Complaint - Click Here

Boulder Road Fee Coming Our Way

Don’t let transportation ‘fee’ take us for a ride

 

 
By Angelique Espinosa and Elisabeth Patterson April 26, 2013

Angelique Espinosa and Elisabeth Patterson

The city of Boulder has launched a yearlong planning process for an update to its Transportation Master Plan, and simultaneously has been exploring the idea of a transportation maintenance fee. At first blush, the two have as much in common as grapes and gravel.

At a recent city council study session, however, staff linked the two because of a dearth of funding, at both the state and federal levels, and a concern that it will not be able to fund the “transportation vision” outlined in the master plan.

The city frames the funding problem by positing that the current sales-tax funding model erodes the system, impedes progress and diminishes buying power, resulting in a $3.2 million shortfall for transportation operations and maintenance. Enter the transportation maintenance fee as a proposed solution.

The fee, which would be charged as part of customers’ water and sewer utility bills, would be based on land use and vehicle trip generation based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The data is intended to approximate the burden that different properties impose on city streets.

But what is this fee exactly? What problems might it solve? And, what will it cost?

Is the TMF really a fee, or is it a tax? We would define a fee as a charge for use of a service or amenity, the amount of which is related to the cost of providing that service or amenity. A tax, on the other hand, while it may be applied to a particular good or service, is collected to raise general purpose revenue.

Taxes go into the general fund, and the city government can spend tax revenue on anything it wants. Some argue that without addressing the prioritization of how the city manages its budget overall, taxpayers have no assurance that revenue generated would go to needed road repair and maintenance.

We strongly support multimodal transportation as integral to the Transportation Master Plan and as an important asset in attracting and retaining employers and talent. However, we are concerned that the mundane basic safety expenses like asphalt repair may take a backseat to alternative-mode goodies such as universal Eco Passes and lighting for bike paths.

One problem a TMF solves for the city is TABOR, or Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights. By identifying this revenue stream as a fee, rather than a tax, the city could sidestep a vote of the people and could adjust the fee should costs increase.

At a study session in April, council members indicated that if they do opt for a fee, they would ask for an advisory vote on the initial amount, but we are left wondering what safeguards are in place for any future adjustments.

So, what will it cost? The city’s summary, maxing out at $6 monthly for the all-inclusive package, seems like a steal. What’s missing from their one-page summary is the cost for Boulder’s businesses, federal labs, BVSD and CU. This cost was disclosed in the city’s extensive community outreach to impacted organizations, including the Boulder Chamber, and we can tell you – it’s a big bite.

Rates for commercial and industrial properties would be considerably higher than those for residential properties. Based on the city’s proposed options, which range from $2.5 million to $5.6 million yearly, commercial and retail users would pay the highest rate, $16,000 to $20,480 annually, and warehouses the lowest, $525 to $672 annually. The federal labs would be charged $27,681 to $58,255, CU $70,536 to $158,000 and BVSD $93,599 to $209,662 per year.

If revenue must be raised for transportation purposes, we strongly recommend that the city put the question forward as a tax, subject to a vote of the people, with clear ballot language stating how the tax revenue will be spent. If passed, we ask for a regular and clear accounting on the measure and a restrained fiscal approach to managing the general fund overall, in accordance with the city’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue. That way, no one gets taken for a ride.

Angelique Espinoza is the public affairs manager, and Elisabeth Patterson is a public affairs associate for the Boulder Chamber. They can be reached at 303-938-2077 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
http://www.bcbr.com/article/20130426/EDITION0806/130429928&source=RSS

Michigan Wins Lawsuit - It is a TAX!

Additional information