Citizens In Support of Useless Bay Community
P.O. Box 531
Clinton, WA 98236
3/1/2009
Island County Treasurer’s Office
P.O. Box 669
Coupeville, WA 98239
To Whom It May Concern:
I write on behalf of Citizens in Support of Useless Bay Community. As of Friday, February 20, 2009, the treasurer’s office was unable to provide the amount of any Diking District No. 1 tax submitted by Ray Gabelein and Steve Arnold, to be imposed in 2009 by the county on individual Diking District No.1 property owners. Tax statements for the general property taxes were sent without including a tax for the diking district. Without notice, Mr. Gabelein and Mr. Arnold held a special meeting on February 20, 2009, and “certified” the diking district taxes. The county then mailed the diking district taxes separately, after the general property taxes had already been sent out. On Thursday, February 26, 2009, the treasurer’s office still was still unable to provide a list of the benefited properties showing the amount each of the benefited properties is being taxed for the diking district.
The legality of any assessed taxes to be delegated to Diking District No. 1 is contested for reasons including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Ray Gabelein and Steve Arnold both claim to be legally elected Diking District No. 1 Commissioners. However, they failed to notify diking district voters of their right to participate in elections for the positions of Diking District No.1 Commissioner, as required by law. In addition, diking district voters were not notified of any mid-term vacancies available for appointment by county commissioners, or apprised of special mid-term elections to replace an expired appointee. Special District notices in the paper were not specific in identifying any Diking District No.1 positions as being up for either ‘general’ or ‘special midterm’ elections. General notices of special elections for Island County are not proper notice for diking district elections, since they do not name the specific position open for filing or the names of candidates who have filed to run for an election. Accordingly, Diking District voters were disenfranchised by being prevented from electing their public officials. Taxation without representation is unconstitutional.
(2) Furthermore, the county auditor reports it is not the county’s responsibility, but rather that of the diking district, to ensure that these elections were qualified. Since the diking district voters were not informed of diking district open positions, elections, appointments, or qualifications, there were never any qualified diking officials. Even if Mr. Arnold and Mr. Gabelein were “elected” through an un-noticed appointment by former county commissioners, an elected official who does not post a bond and register with the county, never assumes office. Therefore, the positions remain vacant. Diking district voters have submitted affidavits to county commissioners regarding the lack of notice to no avail.
(3) The proposed assessments submitted to the county by Mr. Gabelein do not include a dollar amount per acre as required for a benefit assessment under RCW 85.05, 85.18 and Superior Court Judgment 1184. The most recent submission, apparently made after the “special meeting” still appears to be improperly based on current market value for most properties and $1,100 per acre for a few, including those owned by Mr. Gabelein. Diking district assessments under RCW 85.18 are not ad valorem. Hence, the Assessor’s office has no involvement in determining the amount of a diking district assessment. Likewise, the Treasurer has no authority to calculate a benefit assessment under RCW 85.18. Nor does the Treasurer have the authority to delegate this calculation to the county’s Central Services office. The maximum benefits per acre to be assessed must have been properly certified and recorded with the Auditor by the Clerk of the Court. To simply apply an ad valorem (assessed value) tax to reach the $90,000 sought by Mr. Gabelein and Mr. Arnold is not a benefit assessment and, therefore, violates both the Washington State Constitution and the United States Constitution.
(4) A substantial amount of the taxes Mr. Arnold and Mr. Gabelein are attempting to assess for annual dike maintenance is actually for payment on a loan from Whidbey Island Bank for the purchase of a 6,000 per minute pump and drainage project. RCW 85.18 prevents annual maintenance assessments from being used to pay debt.
(5) Under the contract between Diking District No.1, Island County, and Useless Bay Golf and Country Club, Inc., the purpose of the pump was to drain freshwater run off from contributing watershed areas as well as wetlands in the drainage basin. This project is not a lawfully authorized diking district activity, and was not known to, or approved by, diking district voters prior to its implementation. This clearly is not maintenance, but a capitol improvement project which requires a special levy under RCW 85.38. Moreover, the purpose of the contract for the pumping project appears to be illegal.
(6) Sunlight Beach lots 1-42 and Sunlight Beach Addition lots 58-67 were never determined by a jury from outside the district to be benefited by the dike as required by RCW 85.05.
(7) A 1931 Diking District Resolution found that Sunlight Beach lots 1-42 and Sunlight Beach Addition lots 58-67 received no benefit and were, therefore, not taxable.
(8) The roll for the basis of the levy was not properly certified or filed with the auditor. RCW 85.18.070, 85.18.080. The levy is to be part of the general taxes. The budget for annual maintenance of the dike was submitted after the November 1st, 2008 deadline. (RCW 85.18.160.) Therefore, voters were clearly deprived of notice and their right to appeal. (RCW 85.18.020, 85.18.030, 85.18.040.)
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Derrig
Citizens in Support of Useless Bay Community
Cc: Helen Price Johnson (district1@co.island.wa.us )
Angie Homola (district2@co.island.wa.us )
John Dean (district3@co.island.wa.us )
