With Pierce County Council’s continuing discussions surrounding the formation of a countywide flood control zone district, the City of Milton seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. As one of only two cities appealing the formation, officials are most concerned about whether Milton residents will benefit from projects funded by the district’s tax levy of what is expected to be $.10 per $1,000 of assessed property value. This tax is expected to raise more than $8 million in revenue countywide.
Although the county has not yet adopted the $.10 per $1,000 rate, it has the authority to tax up to $.50 per $1,000.
“Council members have expressed their fears regarding the district, and our basis for the appeal is that we need to see exactly which projects these monies will fund,” City Administrator Subir Mukerjee said. “Until we know that, we are concerned that the citizens of Milton will be paying for projects that may not benefit them directly.”
The county argues that the lost economic output resulting from potential flooding on Interstate 5 could be devastating to residents in Milton and beyond. Officials estimate flood-related losses could exceed $725 million, and more than 11,000 jobs located in the flood plain could be impacted.
This is the county council’s second attempt at forming a flood control zone district, after the 2010 district was dissolved due in part to the appeal of several cities including Milton. The only other city joining the appeal this year is Gig Harbor.
Council members admit residents of Milton would be impacted along with the rest of the county if I-5 flooded, but many remain unsatisfied with the structure of the district.
“I do have sympathy toward the county’s argument, because we would be very much affected by flooding,” Councilmember Lois Zaroudny said. “Water may not flow through our doors, but commerce would certainly be slowed.”
Councilmember Bob Whalen believes the county should tax proportionally, requiring less of Milton residents than those located in the flood plain who would benefit most significantly from projects funded by the district. That is a sentiment shared with other cities in the county, namely Lakewood, DuPont and Steilacoom.
“Those who benefit the most should pay more,” Whalen said. “I would like to put more pressure on the county. I don’t mind contributing but not as much as someone [who would benefit more directly].”
Councilmember Aaron Jones hopes council sticks with the appeal, citing a lack of a confirmation from the county that the tax will not be raised in the future.
“I can’t see how it would make sense to tax our citizens who live on a hill,” he said. “I don’t believe the rate will stay at $.10, and if the county plans to raise the rate in the future, I think we’ll all suffer.”
The county can’t, however, “guarantee” the rate will never go up because state law does not allow such limits on future decision makers. All the county can do is form the district and set the current rate.
Although the city has not determined exactly how much it has spent on the matter in legal fees, it has spent between $8 million and $10 million in overall attorney fees since the appeal began, according to Public Works Director Letticia Neal.
Pierce County Council is set to schedule a public hearing on the matter during its Jan. 17 meeting. It is likely to vote on the district later this month.
