Stormwater Utility Fees are unconstitutional?
Ken MacKenzie
From Bob Deeds at City of Littleton (excerpted from STORMWATER magazine) –Ken.
Domino Effect
Posted By Janice Kaspersen Comments
As I mentioned last week, the Idaho Supreme Court has rejected the city of Lewiston’s stormwater fee, declaring it to be an unconstitutional tax.
That decision is having a couple of repercussions, both in Lewiston and beyond. First, FEMA had recently awarded the city a nearly $1.6 million Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive grant to improve its stormwater system and reduce flood risk. The FEMA grant represented 75% of the cost of the total improvement effort, and the remaining 25% was to come from fees collected through the city’s stormwater utility. The fate of the project, and possibly of the grant. is uncertain as the city looks to other measures—revenue bonds, increased reliance on property taxes, etc.—to pay for stormwater expenses.
Next, the Lewiston city council is pondering whether it must refund the stormwater fees already collected. (The state supreme court ruling does not mandate a return of the fees.)
And finally, spreading beyond the city itself, the court’s ruling has prompted another Idaho city to postpone collecting its own stormwater fees. Couer d’Alene’s fee structure is similar to Lewiston’s, and its city council has decided to wait for a review to see whether its utility needs changes or whether, based on the state supreme court ruling, it will also be considered unconstitutional. The city attorney expects to reach a decision by the end of the year.
***
Bill DeGroot
Idaho constitution or US? Must be Idaho only?
Bill DeGroot, PE
Manager, Floodplain Management Program
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UDFCD Computational Tools and USDCM Support" group.
To post to this group, send email to udfcd-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to udfcd-suppor...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/udfcd-support?hl=en.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6670 (20111129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6670 (20111129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com