From their position on a Plateau, it is difficult for the city of Bonney Lake to see any benefit to its inclusion into the Pierce County Flood Control Zone District.
Because the city was included as part of the countywide district at the same tax rate as cities in the valley, City Council voted Dec. 7 to appeal the inclusion.
The action came following a 30-minute executive session to discuss potential litigation and was passed unanimously by the council.
“There’s no benefit at all,” Mayor Neil Johnson said the following day, asking why his city should be taxed while getting nothing in return.
Johnson characterized the decision to include Bonney Lake and other cities that not located in flood zones at a full tax rate as the “wrong approach.”
“That doesn’t sound very fair,” he said.
Councilman Donn Lewis, who made the motion to appeal the Boundary Review Board’s decision, agreed.
“The people who bought here knew the valley could flood and the people that bought up here bought up here for a reason,” he said. “I don’t think it’s fair for people on the high area to pay the same as the people in the low area.”
According to City Administrator Don Morrison, the Flood Control Zone District will give the county the capacity to collect more than $1 million in taxes from Bonney Lake residents.
“The burden on Bonney Lake taxpayers will be about $1.2 million for what we see as no direct benefit and some indirect benefit,” Morrison said. “Obviously, if you own a place along the Puyallup River that’s flood prone you’d think you’d be taxed more than someone up on a hill.”
According to the county’s Flood Control Zone website, the entire county was included as part of the flood zone control district because “major floods affect the entire region.”
Both Johnson and Morrison agreed there is some benefit to the city of Bonney Lake in making sure roads and shipping routes through the valley do not flood, but again said taxing hill cities at the same rate was unfair.
“Nobody denies there’s a problem that needs to be fixed,” Morrison said, adding, “The benefit, we think, should be proportional.”
Morrison also said the creation of a zone district, something that can be done with a council vote, as opposed to a full countywide district, which requires a vote of the people, allows the county council to tax different areas, or “zones” at different rates, depending on their benefits.
“Our preference is they actually do zones,” Morrison said.
Johnson said even when there have been floods, there are still at least five ways to get off the Plateau if necessary.
“When it’s flooded in past years, I’ve always been able to get to work,” he said.
Johnson said the city faces challenges of wind and snow removal due to its geography that low-lying areas do not worry about and asked why there’s not a countywide “snow district” or “wind district” that would require residents in non-affected areas to help pay for the clean-up in cities that deal with those issues.
Lewis said he was also opposed to the flood zone district because it would create a new tax that could go on forever.
“To saddle future children with that burden is unfair,” he said.
Lewis and Johnson also cited “poor planning practices” on the part of the county and valley towns to allow building and development within the flood plain of the river. Both said before the area was developed, it was farmland that would flood nearly every year.
“Why do we continually want to build density in these areas?” Johnson asked.
Lakewood and Gig Harbor have also appealed their inclusion in the district.
All involved said they hope the appeal will start a dialogue with the county council that should have taken place earlier.
“Our hope is to engage the county council in a discussion of this,” Morrison said.
“If nothing else, it will cause some pause,” Lewis said.
Johnson said he hopes the incoming county council will hear their request and look to repeal or change the district.
“We’re not going to go away. We’re going to fight this,” Johnson said. “We have the money to fight it and we will fight it.”
