The bills for the town’s new environmental fee have arrived in the mailboxes of residents, and now the questions are flooding into Town Hall.

Town Manager Grady Miller said the majority of the calls are questions about whether the bill is legitimate. The bill does not come directly from the town, but from a billing agency in Florida.

Miller said that it is encouraging that most people, once they hear it is money that will go to the town, appear willing to pay.

However, Miller said they are, and have been, hearing from people questioning why they are receiving more than one bill.

There are what Miller described as “anomalies” in the County Assessor’s records that result in the multiple billing. This has to do with how the assessor splits out parcels for taxing purposes.

Miller said that there is at least one situation with a downtown commercial building where several units are individual parcels, and even a bathroom was divided out as a separate parcel.

The assessor’s office bills all of these parcels separately for taxes, and the parcel listing is what the town is using to base its billing on.

Miller said next month staff will have a report for the Town Council and will ask how they should handle the anomalies that have been discovered.

“We will have some recommendations and ask for direction,” Miller said.

“To eliminate these problems we may have to go through the assessor’s records to address the issues.”

In the meantime, Miller is looking for a decent collection rate on the billing.

“This is an ordinance passed by the council and we expect people to abide,” he said.

“We do have tools at our disposal if we feel it is necessary.”

In some cases, persuading people to pay more than one bill may be difficult.

Citizen issues

James Villiers, a 93-year-old WWII veteran, lives in a condo with a detached garage. He received a bill for both the condo and garage.

In a letter to The Times, Villiers calls the environmental fee for the garage “ridiculous” and “unfair.”

“Million dollar homes with three car garages are charged a fee of $36,” Villiers said. “(We) small condo owners are assessed $72. We are being hoodwinked by the town finance department.”

Miller said he is willing to pay the single fee for the condo, but would want to pay that in 12 payments of $3 each.

“That is all I can afford,” Villiers said.

Villiers does indicate that he does pay the county separate annual taxes on the detached garage of $3.72.

William Wolf also wrote to The Times and he is challenging the decision to use parcel designation rather than street addresses for the billing purposes.

“There are residents who have small portions of their property platted and divided into two (and a few into three) parcels,” Wolf said.

“Does this mean that residents who pollute as much, and who live in condos or apartments which sit on one parcel pay nothing (property owner pays $36 for all tenants).

“If so, then the billing should have been based on address for fairness and increased revenue.”

Wolf’s description of the situation is accurate and points out the problems Miller said town staff would like to identify and correct with council direction.

Renters do not receive a bill; the fee would be paid by property owners. Also, there are condos and apartments, not just individual buildings, but entire complexes that sit on a single parcel.

Hands tied

To a large extent, when it came to determining how to bill the fee, the town’s hands were tied. State law prohibits the town from charging a fee based on individual property size or use; all fees have to be the same.

This stems from an effort several years ago by the Town of Paradise Valley to implement a fee for fire and emergency services based on property size. The legislature did not like the idea of municipalities charging such fees, and while Paradise Valley was able to implement its program, all other cities and towns are now prohibited.

One of the initial discussions the town had about the environmental or storm water fee took place several years ago, probably near the same time as the Paradise Valley fee discussion.

A plan at that time would have had the fee based on square footage of material where water runs off including roof, driveways and parking lots. That discussion became moot with the legislative action.

Also, the town talked with both the Sanitary District and EPCOR Water, which are separate entities from the town, and both declined to help with the billing program based on their individual customer addresses.

In November 2014 the council voted 4-3 to approve the plan to collect a fee of $3 per month from owners of each land parcel in Fountain Hills.

The revenue from the fee would be used to fund various requirements of the EPA, U.S. Clean Water Act and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) that the town must comply with.

Programs that could be covered under the fee include street sweeping, dust control, dam inspections (the town has six dams under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Water Resources it must maintain), and storm water management and wash drainage maintenance.

There are also needs for on-call storm damage clean-up and providing citizens with an option of household hazardous waste disposal (paint, household chemicals, etc.).