Does I-695 repeal local MVETs? I note that I-695 does not repeal (directly) RCW 35.58.273, 81.104.160, or 81.100.060. However, these sections refer to sections that I-695 would repeal. Art

-- Arthur Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), July 31, 1999

Answers

It's my opinion that the RCW's that refer to chapter 82.44 as a reference to levying a tax based on value will be repealed. However those that reference sales and use taxes that do not reference chapter 82.44 will still be the law of Washington.

There are 2 laws currently in effect that will not be affected by I- 695 that allow transit districts to levy additional taxes (with voter approval). So if the loss of the MVET is so critical to their operation, they can take their message directly to the voter without bothering the state or dipping into the state surplus. Here are the specifics.

Currently the transit districts can (with voter approval) levy a local sales tax up to 0.6 of 1 %. (see RCW 82.14.045) King and Snohomish counties currently levy the full 0.6 of 1%. Kitsap county levy's 0.5% of 1%. Grant, Mason, and the Skagit County PTBA levy 0.2% and Cowlitz and Lewis Counties levy 0.1%. The remaining 14 districts levy 0.3% (Benton-Franklin, Callam, Clark,Everett, Yakima, Grays Harbor, Pacific, Island, Jefferson, Pierce, Spokane, Thurston, Walla Walla, Whatcom).

Ben-Franklin transit has a $12.3 million surplus (verified by their financial summary) and the Clark county has a $70 million (according to one of the posts on this forum). I would ask that those living in other transit districts look at the "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report" for 1998 for their "investment money". Please then report it so that it can be posted on the site.

(as a special note: the Ben-Franklin Transit could operate for two more years without MVET funds by merely using up their $12.3 million reserve.)

Finally! Most of the transit districts can ask for up to 0.6% of a percent of 1% of the sales tax to support their function. That would be 7,2% of all the sales tax collected in their service area (assuming a total sales tax of 8.3%).

Voters can also levy an additional 2.3 cents a gallon tax on gasoline for local transportation purposes (RCW 82.80.010).

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), July 31, 1999.

I'm surprised none of you understand why transit surpluses are so "large". What is their business? Running buses. The average bus costs anywhere from $175,000 to $225,000. For even a small system with 50 buses, that's over $11 million. Then there's the paratransit minibuses for people with disabilities @ $80,000. If they purchase 40 minibuses, that's over $3 mill. Then there are transit facilities to build and maintain. The population of this state is exploding, and they have to plan for future growth, too. Of course, some systems may receive federal grants to pay for a portion of capital costs, and vehicles are typically replaced on a staggered schedule and not all at once, but the point is that they MUST keep large reserves to pay for future infrastructure. If they don't, they are irresponsible stewards of the taxpayer's money and lax in their charge to provide reliable transportation service to the public.

Privatization? Sure. I'd like to see the safeguards a bus system in Mexico has in place to 1) train their drivers 2) do criminal background checks 3) screen for alcohol and drug abuse 4) maintain buses in safe working order 5) provide insurance 6) provide equal access to people with disabilities, etc., etc.

-- Elizabeth Smith (lsmith@nas.com), August 02, 1999.

I appreciate the numbers provided by Elizabeth. As the source of the $70 Million figure for Clark County's reserve (a number that seems to go up every year) I would ask you: How much of a disaster will/can a $2.9 million dollar hit be?

C-Trans runs 37 routes, their spokesman said. He also said that if 695 passes, C-TRANS INTENDS TO ELIMINATE 22 ROUTES, AND REDUCE NINE OTHERS!!!! And all THAT from a cut that represents less then FIVE percent of it's on-hand reserve?

Please. With irresponsible statements like that from our appointed officials, is it any wonder that we have such a climate of resentment and distrust towards our governments and its agencies?

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 03, 1999.

...but the bus routes eliminated will only be the ones that run near where the pro-695 voters live and work - right?

-- Dean Ekman (deanekman@msn.com), August 03, 1999.

Dean,

Your sad excuse for logic is not even worth making a fool out of myself in public over. Hypocrisy? Hey, I'M the one here who is being restrained and thinks rationally. YOU are the emotion, garbage-brained idiot. Anyway, I don't even take the bus, so why show I pay Uncle Sam so other freeloaders can drink cheap wine in the back instead of driving like me. Yes, I drive an SUV. That I paid for with money that I EARNED instead of pickpocketing the American Public. What is it with you whiny cheesy liberals and SUV's anyway? The hole in the ozone layer isn't that big yet! Get a life and stop being redundant and repeating yourselfs and talk about something that matters. Like what hypocritical idiots you are.

P.S. I repeat: Stay out of my wallet!!!

-- Best Western (savant@tonto.com), August 03, 1999.

Best Western -

Chill, baby.

What makes you think I'm a liberal?

You're getting all worked up over nothing, pal - I only suggested in an ironic way (sorry if it was over your head) that the government will surely do everything they can to GET BACK at the people they suspect voted against I-695; they'll be able to see precinct-by- precinct results, and come up with creative things (like putting orange cones up on 520 to close a general traffic lane, while leaving the favored HOV vehicles alone) to get even; they may even announce something outragous, like having to close a hospital.

By the way - I've been driving SUV's for the past ten years. Wouldn't live in western Washngton without one.

Another by the way - easy on the bad words, buddy. This is a family forum.

-- Dean Ekman (deanekman@msn.com), August 04, 1999.