Washington Tax: County Council closer to potential vote on reducing flood tax

By Sam Taylor, 29 May 2010 -- A cut to the county's flood taxes could be coming this year if one official gets his way, but it could limit money available for water projects.

Whatcom County Councilman Sam Crawford said he's called for a vote on whether to rescind a Flood Control Zone District property tax increase passed in 2008 that brought in nearly $1 million to the county's flood fund.

A decision could come as early as July, when council members meet again to discuss priorities on how to manage their budget for surface-water related projects.

Those projects include work to protect Lake Whatcom, river levee repairs, salmon and shellfish recovery planning and working toward compliance with federal mandates on controlling stormwater pollution.

The 2008 tax increase of 3 cents per $1,000 of assessed home value was approved by a more liberal council majority, with Councilman Carl Weimer as the main proponent.

The impact amounted to about a $9 increase for the owner of a $300,000 home.

Crawford and other members of the council disagreed with the increase, however, and believe voters should have more say about increases for the flood fund.

"I believe that when we go and actually do a tax increase, we actually have a presentation to the voters of specifically what they're going to get so there is widespread public knowledge of what they're getting for that tax increase," Crawford said.

He also said his effort is in response to what he believed was a strong public reaction against the 2008 flood tax increase.

That council's approval of the increase inspired a mini-initiative by anti-tax activist Brett Bonner that would require advisory votes by county residents as to whether or not the council could tap banked capacity.

That capacity is property taxing authority the council decided not to take but reserved the right to do so in the future. At the time, the council voted down Bonner's proposal in a narrow vote.

Crawford, however, took up the banner of Bonner's proposal this year, and the council passed a law that requires nonbinding votes if the county wants to take banked capacity if it doesn't reduce other taxing authority by an equal amount.

County Councilman Carl Weimer said he believes reducing the flood tax is irresponsible.

He pointed to the fact that money previously used for water projects is dwindling due to the recession, and taking away another $1 million will severely restrict what projects the county can do to protect public safety and the environment.

In the 2009-10 biennial budget the council used $750,000 in real estate excise tax money - cash collected from property sales - as well as grant funding to pay for the county's surface water division's $6.8 million budget over the current two-year period.

Both pots of money are severely reduced due to the recession, said Assistant Public Works Director Jon Hutchings.

Hutchings said that one key point council members will need to take into account, aside from the pace of getting projects done with the reduction in funding, is that the more local dollars available, the more the county can leverage funding from the state or federal government. That's because the county often has to match grant funding with local money.

For every $1 the county spends on water projects, it is able to bring in 50 cents of outside money, Hutchings said, and reducing local funding would probably mean a "substantial" reduction in outside cash.

The combination of rescinding the flood tax increase, losing some grant money and not using real estate excise taxes could cut the money available for water projects roughly in half, Hutchings said.

But Crawford believes that the county needs to better prioritize the money it has now, and by doing so the additional tax money is likely not needed.

"For my part, I will live with whatever the (July tax) vote is," he said. "But I don't think too many people can tell me what specifically that additional (money) was used for."