Gig Harbor questions why it's in proposed flood taxing district

Gig Harbor officials question why their city is included in Pierce County’s proposed taxing district to pay for flood control when the county’s flood management plan has no projects in the peninsula area.

The dispute is once again threatening to derail the creation of a flood control zone district, nearly a year after it helped sink it the first time.

Elected county leaders will re-launch the process of forming the district Monday. The average homeowner would likely pay around $25 in additional taxes per year, based on assessed property value.

Some cities that aren’t prone to flooding don’t want to subsidize river valley communities without getting a direct benefit.

“The reason we don’t have projects is we don’t have a big river running through the peninsula,” said Gig Harbor City Administrator Rob Karlinsey. “We just happen to be in the same county as the county that’s trying to fix the problem.”

Last month, the cities of Gig Harbor and Milton filed an appeal challenging a step that Pierce County took toward forming the flood district. A senior county planner had determined creating a countywide flood control district would have no significant environmental impacts.

The two cities’ appeal of that determination could delay creation of the flood district. If successful, it could force the process to reset once again, Karlinsey said.

Pierce County’s second attempt to create a taxing district to pay for flood control officially begins Monday. A Pierce County Council committee will consider an ordinance initiating creation of the district and setting a public hearing for Jan. 31, when the council could vote to form the district.

The County Council in May 2010 approved forming a flood control district to address the potential for catastrophic flooding along the Puyallup, Nisqually, White and Carbon rivers. But eight months later, it voted to dissolve the district in the face of litigation from several cities, including Lakewood, Gig Harbor and Milton.

This time around, county officials stepped up outreach to cities and towns. Despite those efforts, Gig Harbor and Milton – acting independently of each other – appealed.

Subir Mukerjee, Milton’s city administrator, said his city appealed to preserve options for Milton, which like Gig Harbor isn’t scheduled for flood projects.

Mukerjee said the county is considering an option that would give back 10 percent of the money raised by the district to cities for dealing with stormwater. That option “would be of real interest to us and other communities,” he said.

Karlinsey said Gig Harbor’s preference is not having any flood control district.

“It’s a nonvoter-approved tax increase,” he said.

Last time around, the County Council approved a $5 per-parcel annual fee for the purpose of establishing a $1.4 million annual budget.

This time, county officials propose collecting more money. Under state law, the district could collect up to 50 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. County Council member Joyce McDonald and County Executive Pat McCarthy say they wouldn’t want to go higher than 10 cents per $1,000 of assessed value.

That’s $25 a year for a $250,000 home, resulting in $8.5 million annually in revenue collected countywide. Property owners would start paying in 2013 at the earliest.

McDonald said the county needs to move forward and create the district to protect the entire county.

“To me, this is really the best option we have for dealing with flooding issues in Pierce County and the best way to protect the economic well-being in our county,” said McDonald, who represents the Puyallup Valley.

The appeal by Gig Harbor and Milton links the flood control district with the county’s Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Gig Harbor and Milton say an environmental study should analyze the flood control zone as well as the updated management plan, which includes proposed projects to prevent flooding.

“We presume the way they’re going to fund the flood control plan is via the flood control district,” Karlinsey said.

Gig Harbor City Council member Derek Young said he hopes the appeal shows that Gig Harbor residents would get no direct benefit from the tax they would pay, and that it leads to concessions for Gig Harbor.

McDonald said the flood control plan and district are separate.

“It’s not linked at all,” she said. “There’s no way all of those projects could be funded.”

Pierce County’s position is that state law permits the county’s determination of nonsignificance for the flood control district to be separate from the environmental review of the flood control plan, said Pierce County deputy prosecutor Cort O’Connor.

Public works and utilities director Brian Ziegler said the county has been using a variety of funds, fees and taxes to fund projects in the current flood plan for the last 20 years.

A hearings examiner will hold a hearing and rule on the appeal. No hearing date has been scheduled.

Karlinsey said one option is having areas receiving less direct benefit from a flood control district pay a lesser tax. But he concedes: “It’s a bureaucratic nightmare.”

The county maintains the district must be countywide because the benefit will be widespread. Officials say a major flood could do more than $725 million in damage, shutting down Interstate 5 and other roadways, disrupting the Port of Tacoma and damaging sewage treatment plants along the Puyallup River, sending raw sewage into Puget Sound.

McDonald said the process of creating the district so that projects can be selected and funded is just the beginning.

“We just have to do something,” McDonald said. If a major flood catastrophe occurs, he added, “we don’t want to look back and have to say we should have done something.”

Steve Maynard: 253-597-8647

steve.maynard@thenewstribune.com

blog.thenewstribune.com/polibuzz