INSIDE
Board declines to join tax revolt

by Meg Olson

The Point Roberts water commissioners wouldn’t go as far as to join the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District (BBWSD) tax revolt against county flood fees, but they did voice their disapproval. In a letter to county executive Pete Kremen, commissioners questioned the fairness of local taxpayers contributing $106,715 in flood fees last year, half of which will be used for watershed planning. “This area seems unlikely to receive much benefit from the planning that is supported with these revenues,” commissioners wrote in a June 11 letter.

At the July 9 Point Roberts water district meeting BBWSD manager Roger Brown said the county flood fee was more than unfair. “We believe it’s illegal,” he said, adding his district had not paid the fees for 2002. “At some point it’s going to be challenged and it’s all going to have to be refunded,” Brown said, pointing to a similar outcome when a street fee in the Seattle area was challenged in court.

The county’s flood fee was first established in 1993, following severe flooding of the Nooksack River. “The funds were to be used for abatement of flood damage,” Brown explained. The fee was halved in 1995 but raised back to its original level in 1999. “The county began to use it for an entirely different set of programs,” Brown said. Half of the money collected was earmarked for water resource planning and protection.

Brown said the issue was not whether flood fees could be used for water resource planning, allowable under state law, or whether watershed planning was an important county function. Rather, it was the amount of money involved and how the county was collecting and spending it.

In 2003 $4.1 million in flood fees were collected countywide, and roughly half transferred to the water resources fund, which pays for watershed planning and projects. “That’s a large program in Whatcom County,” Brown said. “There’s a lot of momentum behind watershed planning. Eight to 10 million dollars have already been spent.”

One concern is that the joint board overseeing spending was established by an agreement between the county, the city of Bellingham, Public Utility District #1 and the Nooksack and Lummi tribes which means other smaller government agencies are not represented. “They operate by consensus which means each one of them has a veto. We don’t,” Brown said. “To have an equal voice we need equal access to decision making.”

While the funds are collected through a fee, not a tax, that fee is based on property valuation. “It’s a bigger issue if it’s a fee and not a tax because it’s supposed to be proportional to the benefit you receive,” Brown said, explaining state laws set different rules for fees and taxes. “With a fee there has to be a systematic relationship between what you pay and what you get.” Brown added the fee was set on abating damage, not watershed planning, and that therefore there was no clear limit to how much money would be collected to develop and implement such a plan. “What makes you think planning is going to stop?” he asked.

Another concern is that the funds are primarily used for watershed planning in an area which basically covers the Nooksack River drainage basin, but the flood fee is collected from all Whatcom County properties. Relying on water from Canada, for Point Roberts the disconnection between the fee collected and its benefit to the community is even greater than elsewhere in the county. “Point Roberts has paid half a million dollars into a program they get no benefit from except for things like protecting salmon, which is a human thing,” said Point Roberts water commissioner Art Wilkowski. “Watershed planning is about defined areas and the burden should go to the people who benefit from it.”

Brown said representatives from his district met with county executive Pete Kremen last year. “We were hoping they would be working on developing a funding system that withstood legal scrutiny,” he said. “So far nothing has happened. My board has a concern that this is wrong and should be fixed. When these kinds of things come out it brings discredit on government in general.” BBWSD has not paid the flood fee on district property for 2003.

“I’m more concerned than I was before and I’m starting to get mad,” said Point Roberts water district commission president Madeleine Anderson, adding “It’s a cash cow.” Commissioners all expressed concern but felt it wasn’t their mandate to take action on fees set by other agencies. ‘We’re not the governmental watchdog,” Wilkowski said.“I am hoping this does bring greater attention to the problem.”

County senior civil deputy prosecuting attorney Dan Gibson said in a later interview that the county was reviewing how money was collected to fund flood control and watershed planning, but the issue was more one of wording than policy. “The county looks at how much money is going to be collected, no matter what we call it,” he said. “If it’s a tax or a fee people pay the same amount.” He said the county council, acting as the governing body for the flood control zone, was given a lot of latitude under state law as far as how they collected money and what they could do with it. “The code provides a very elastic view of flood control zone powers,” Gibson said, which includes stormwater management, water quality programs, watershed planning and most issues dealing with water. “The county council can exercise a wide variety of powers through the flood control zone or if it chooses do it through the general fund,” Gibson said. “It’s really a matter of nomenclature. We are in the midst of a process of watershed planning and implementation. There is a vague but realistic understanding it will take more money to finish the process.”

Gibson said the county is now looking at how the money will be collected when the assessment schedule for the flood control fee sunsets next year. “What we have now is a bit of a hybrid ­ an assessed fee based on valuation. There’s an intent to switch to a tax as I understand it,” he said. “We intend to continue with the best program we can on the soundest footing we can and if changes need to be made, so be it.”

Gibson said he understood why an area like Point Roberts would feel they weren’t getting their money’s worth. “It’s legitimate to ask what you’re paying for and there are pockets in the county less directly affected than others,” he said. If water resource problems in Point Roberts needed to be addressed, from a clean source of drinking water to groundwater pollution, Gibson said the Point may yet benefit directly from the program. It also paid for a greater good. “The general purpose is that good water resource planning is something we all benefit from,” he said. “Point Roberts’ ability to thrive is dependent in part on a healthy county.”

BACK TO TOP