Ruston Opposes Countywide Flood District

UPDATE, October 14, 2010: The News Tribune has an article on this issue today, which even includes a quote from our town attorney...
_______________________________________________

Town officials joined several other jurisdictions today to testify against the county's proposal to make all of Pierce County a flood control district. There are several taxing options included in the proposal that Ruston argued against in front of the Boundary Review Board.

Town attorney Dave Britton gave this explanation:

Based on the unanimous resolution of the Town Council, I was directed by Mayor Hopkins to join city attorneys from several Pierce County jurisdictions, including Bonney Lake, Gig Harbor, Lakewood, University Place, Eatonville, Edgewood, Milton and Fircrest, in opposing the County's formation of a countywide flood control district that would include (and of course tax) all citizens of the county, including citizens of Ruston. The Town of Ruston is classified by FEMA as being in a "Flood Control Zone C", meaning there is virtually no risk of flooding here. Ruston residents already pay for their own surface water control, through updgrades to our storm sewers. Now, we are being told by the County that, in addition to paying for our own storm sewers (at no small expense to Town residents), we will also be force to pay for flood control for the three percent of County residents who have elected to live in the 100-year floodplain along the Puyallup, White, Carbon and Nisqually Rivers. In effect, the County if forming a special-purpose taxing district where 100% will pay, but only 3% will benefit.

While Pierce County has argued that it has not decided on which of several taxing alternatives it would use to finance its new flood control district, you can be sure the tax will not be voluntary. One of the tax alternatives available is a $0.50 tax on every $1000.00 of assessed value of property.

In a hearing before the Pierce County Boundary review Board today, the Town asked the Board to exercise its power to review the boundaries of the newly-formed special purpose districts to reject the County's proposed countywide flood control district, or to restrict its borders to a more logical service area (i.e., one in which the residents who benefit are also the residents who pay). Taxing the 97% of County residents who do not live on the 100-year floodplain, for the benefit of the 3% who do, is neither logical or fair.