On November 7 OpenCdA reported the Idaho Supreme Court had ruled Lewiston’s stormwater utility fee was in fact an unconstitutional tax. Today the Coeur d’Alene Press reports that at last night’s City Council meeting, the Council decided to suspend the illegal tax collection until it could figure out a way to get around the Court’s ruling.
Embedded in the City’s press release and the newspaper article was this rather innocuous-appearing statement: “Because the City of Coeur d’Alene’s fee structure/utility is very similar to Lewiston’s, the City Attorney’s office is reviewing the court’s decision to determine its impact on the city.”
It appears that some organization puts out these boilerplate ordinances to help cities collect fees. It might be a good idea if our City Attorney actually reviewed the templates for legality and constitutionality before rushing to get them in front of our rubber-stamp Council for approval.
Will the city refund the storm water fees they’ve already collected?
Comment by mary — November 16, 2011 @ 12:04 pm
Yeah, sure it will. When Kennedy can high-jump over a two-foot bar using the Fosbury Flop.
Comment by Bill — November 16, 2011 @ 12:13 pm
City Attorneys are historically underpaid, undervalued and under-talented near volunteers. Expecting much more than boilerplate is expecting too much.
Comment by justinian — November 16, 2011 @ 7:13 pm
I attended the meeting and have a copy of the agenda handed out at the meeting. The issue of the ordinance is not mentioned. I can only a assume that this issue was discussed in Executive Session and voted on when they reconvened – after the audience had left. I would like to have heard the discussion; however, I was denied same due to not having cable. By the way, the city pays for leaf pick up from stormwater fees collected.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — November 16, 2011 @ 7:15 pm
Justinian, your description is probably applicable in many communities but I can assure you that in Coeur d’Alene with Mike “$125,000” Gridley, City Attorney the application doesn’t apply. I have been told he is paid more than the governor.
Comment by Ancientemplar — November 16, 2011 @ 7:31 pm
I knew I missed the beginning, but I tuned into Channel 19 catch part of the meeting last night. Missed it entirely. It was over and done before 7:00. Less than one hour.
Comment by mary — November 16, 2011 @ 7:32 pm
Ancientemplar if you ask Mr. Gridley he will assure you he is underpaid and under-appreciated. Every so-called “civil servant” feels that way.
🙂
Comment by justinian — November 16, 2011 @ 7:38 pm
Susie, doesn’t the agenda of executive session have to be published prior to the session? Gary?
Comment by Ancientemplar — November 16, 2011 @ 7:45 pm
They simply list a number of letter possibilities. They then chose one. I missed the letter. Why the issue wan’t simply discussed openly is a mystery to me unless Gridley thought that litigation was in the very near future.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — November 17, 2011 @ 9:11 pm
Hopefully they get rid of the ordinance. We can take our leaves to the transfer station for free. We don’t need to be taxed just so the city can do it. That could eliminate a job or two right there. Councilman elect Adams might appreciate that.
Comment by pu — November 18, 2011 @ 7:16 am