Clean Air Agency Asks Court for Clarity on I-695.

Business Editors

SEATTLE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 24, 2000

Do permit fees that apply to only 50 businesses have to be approved by voters? That's a question the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is asking in a lawsuit  filed today in King County Superior Court, seeking clarity on the intent of Initiative 695.

&uot;We are seeking guidance from the courts about the applicability of I-695 to our business fees,&uot; said Dennis McLerran, the agency's executive director. &uot;These fees apply only to certain businesses, but the language of I-695 makes it unclear whether we must go to the voters or even have the authority to go to the voters on these fees.&uot;

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is responsible for air quality planning and management, under the state and federal Clean Air Acts, in King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties. One of its responsibilities is managing at the local level an Air Operating Permit Program mandated under the federal Clean Air Act for certain large businesses. In the Puget Sound region, operating permit businesses include companies like Boeing, Paccar and Ash Grove Cement.

&uot;We've been delegated this federal program, and federal and state law require that we cover our costs through fees assessed to the businesses,&uot; McLerran said. &uot;We hear from our business customers that they count on us to make the program a success at the local level, instead of having the Environmental Protection Agency manage it. We need to ensure that we have the necessary resources to do so.&uot;

McLerran said his agency also wants clarification from the court on the fees it charges about 4,000 other businesses that are required by law to register with the agency each year.

&uot;Policy direction from our Board of Directors requires that we recover costs for our business regulatory programs from user fees, not from general taxpayers,&uot; he said, &uot;but as we read I-695, it would require us to seek voter approval to raise these fees that don't affect them.&uot;

The agency does not have general taxing authority, so it is not set up to hold elections like cities and counties. Even so, holding elections in the four counties and 83 cities in its jurisdiction would be very expensive.

Another issue, McLerran said, is how to make sense of election results where some cities or counties vote &uot;yes&uot; on an increase but others vote &uot;no.&uot; Could an increase then be applied equally across all four counties, or would each county or city stand alone?

The agency's Board of Directors unanimously approved filing the lawsuit last week, after hearing options for seeking clarification on the business fees issue. Among the options considered was joining lawsuits already filed against I-695, but the agency's questions about operating permit and other business fees are much more narrowly focused than the questions raised by other litigation.

&uot;It's unfortunate that the initiative raises questions that require answers from the court. But that's what happens with a measure that is so broadly worded,&uot; said Seattle City Council President Margaret Pageler, who also serves as chair of the agency's Board of Directors.

&uot;Seeking legal clarification is the right thing to do,&uot; said David Nemens, vice chair of the agency's Advisory Council, which includes representatives on business, environmental and health organizations and other stakeholder groups. &uot;The agency has worked hard to establish solid working relationships with businesses, and those businesses have the opportunity to comment every time fee changes are considered. This issue shouldn't have to go before voters who are not affected.&uot;