Editor’s note: This commentary is by Stephen Groff, who grew up in Warren and is now a resident of Burlington.
While the concept of a “tea party” took on new meaning in the aftermath of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, our high school history class tells us its roots are far deeper — harkening back to December 1773, when colonialists (thought to be members of the Sons of Liberty) dumped hundreds of crates of tea in Boston Harbor in protest of Britain’s “taxation without representation.”
While much has happened in the nearly 250 years since that seminal event, unfortunately, the notion of taxation without representation is still with us — in St. Albans City at least.
Two weeks ago, some residents of St. Albans Town received a letter from the St. Albans City director of administration, along with their quarterly water and wastewater bill. This letter included a bill for an “Affiliation Fee for Water & Sewer.”
The director of administration indicates that the “affiliation fee is based on the taxable value of your property” and that this is “as per your contractual agreement with the city.”
Most recipients of the letter and invoice were stunned by this new “fee” and were even more surprised to hear of a “contractual agreement” they had with the City of St. Albans.
At this point, a little history may be helpful. Many may think of St. Albans as a single contiguous territory, but it actually consists of two separate administrative districts — St. Albans Town and St. Albans City — with a separate town selectboard and city council. St. Albans Town was chartered in 1763 and geographically surrounds St. Albans City, which was incorporated in 1859 and became a city in 1897. The city’s water treatment plant supplies water to both city residents and to many who reside in the Town.
Despite the common history and physical proximity, there is a long record of acrimony between the two jurisdictions — rancor that is documented in a footnote of a 2013 Vermont Superior Court decision where Judge Dennis Pearson writes that the town and city “seem to view the relationship as essentially parasitic, not symbiotic, but there is mutual disagreement (and years of mistrust and suspicion) over which is the host organism.”
As it happens, that court decision dismissed a claim from St. Albans Town related to water and sewer services from the city.
Eight years after this dismissal, we find the city of St. Albans presenting some residents of the town with annual bills for between $56 and $48,000 for a water and wastewater “fee” on top of the water and wastewater rates and charges they already pay.
Section 3(1) of Title 22 of the 2020 revised city ordinances defines the “affiliation fee” as “an annual fee charged to water and/or wastewater users not located within the city….” The ordinance became effective on Nov. 15, 2015, and the “fee” applies to “new construction or expansion of existing property” or “conversion of existing property” and is calculated based on the “appraised value” of the property.
Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute defines “fee” as “a payment or charge for services rendered,” and it defines “tax” as “any charge of money … imposed by a government upon individuals or entities that are within the government’s authority to collect.”
The definition elaborates that “most modern taxes are levied on the basis of economic measurements such as income, consumption, property, and wealth.” Given that the city’s “fee” is calculated on the affected property’s “appraised value,” and it is not clear what specific service is rendered, this sure seems a lot more like a tax. And as a tax, one can question what authority the City of St. Albans has to compel payment from residents of the town, given that the same don’t participate in city council elections.
Language in Section 9(6) of Title 22 of the city ordinances inadvertently supports this position by noting that “properties that qualify as tax-exempt properties are likewise exempt from the affiliation fee.” If a property is tax-exempt, why would it be exempt from a “fee” (representing a charge for a service rendered), unless that “fee” is actually a tax? This is particularly curious, given that the same exempt properties must still pay quarterly water and wastewater charges.
As noted previously, The director of administration’s letter also referred to a “contract” with the city. Presumably he is referring to Section 9(4) of Title 22 where it states that the “affiliation fee program shall be a direct contract between the property owner and the city of St. Albans.” This is a bit surprising, as none of the letter recipients has signed a contract with the city. Absent an enforceable contract or the power to assess taxes on people outside the city’s constituency, the legal basis for this “fee” seems pretty shaky.
As made clear in Title 22, the “fee” applies only to “users not located within the city.” Digging a bit deeper, it seems that the city is charging just 23 residents and businesses in the town — at least seven of whom are on a fixed income and for whom this “fee” comes as a complete shock.
Targeting such a small group and with limited legal grounds, the St. Albans city manager doesn’t hesitate to apply pressure. In response to an email from an affected property owner raising basic questions about the “fee,” the city manager resorts to hardball in his reply: “As you have indicated you have no intention of paying this fee, the city will initiate the water and wastewater disconnection process. This process will be outlined in further communication in writing delivered to your address.”
Without a contract or the power to impose a tax, the city’s response to simple questions is to threaten to shut off the service.
In his 2014 decision, Judge Pearson referred to the “years and years of wrangling as well as litigation” between the town and city. Unfortunately, there are now 23 businesses and residents of the town who are caught in the middle of this “mistrust and suspicion.”
Last I checked, King George doesn’t live in St. Albans City and, hopefully, some sanity will prevail before more lawsuits are filed and residents start dumping crates of tea in St. Albans Bay.
