I just talked to one of my fire commissioners tonight. Well, okay, he's my father, but still. I started asking him what he thought about 695.

It's interesting, I was against this initiative, but I never even realized how massive it was in scope until I talked to my dad. Let me try to explain. This is me paraphrasing, so I'm not sure if everything is exactly correct. It was explained to me much better than I'll likely explain it to you, but try and bear with me. It's still slightly jumbled up in my brain. If somebody could post the RCW's that I'm talking about, I'd owe you.

If I understood correctly what I was told, fire districts (and other special districts; water, hospital, sewer, etc.) are allowed to collect up to 106% of the previous year's total AV. So if a certain district collects $1,000,000 one year, the most it can collect the next year is $1,060,000. These increases are pretty much always necessary because of this region's growth, which places a larger burden on fire departments.

Now let's say a district decides one year that they only need to collect 102% of the previous year's total. If they decide to do that, they can never again collect more than 102% of the previous year's AV. So no fire district ever collects less than 106%, because they never know if they'll need the extra money in case of some huge disaster that runs up extra money in OT or something.

Where does 695 impact all this? If a fire district decides to collect 106% of the previous year's AV, which they routinely do, it is apparently subject to a public vote. If this vote fails, the budget stays steady. Which in itself might not be so bad.

But if the budget stays steady, it must stay steady PERMANENTLY. That means that these fire districts can't collect a greater percentage of the AV because of current state law. So one no vote in one particular fire district means that they are screwed forever.

This is why 695 is so short sighted. Quite frankly I'm a big believer in giving essential services (such as the fire department and cops) almost anything they want, as long as it's within reason. If you know anything about fire departments, you'll realize that the more money you spend on them, the more likely your fire insurance rate will go down. It's a good investment. Usually the decrease in insurance rates ends up saving millions of dollars for people who spent thousands of dollars on their fire department.

What's the point of all this rambling? As I said, 695 could cut fire service budgets and raise fire insurance rates. And because fire departments in this state pretty much universally provide emergency medical care, it's likely that this aspect of our medical system will suffer as well.

Think carefully before you vote yes on this issue. There's more at stake than car tabs.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999

Answers

You're breaking my heart here, BB.

The FACT is that if those same commissioners prove to their electorate that they need more money, then they'll get it... just like they almost always do now.

There is nothing short-sighted about 695. What's short-sighted is the cumulative effect of the whining and sniveling bureaucrats that are bitching and moaning about it.

Even YOU mentioned that they always went with the 106% level, even if they DIDN'T need it.

So, contrary to YOUR conclusion, your recitation of the conversation actually provides even MORE reason to vote FOR this initiative.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 04, 1999.

BB...

Your point is well made and shows exactly why we should vote for I-695.

A long time ago, 25 yrs., I worked for a County Dept. on the westside. Our fiscal yr. ended in June, so about Feb. the department head (sheriff) would look over his budget and attempt to see where he would be at the end of the funding year. If it appeared that he would have money left at the end of the year, he would post a list of schools that we could go to. This was just to spend the money so he could show that he needed all the money he was given and would need more the next year to make ends meet.

At that time I did not mind, I just took my two weeks in South Lake Tahoe for three years running. I did go to school while there and did learn a bit. But in retrospect it was not a good deal for the county or the tax payer.

My point being that this is bureaucratic mentality and continues to this day at all levels of govt. If govt would spend wisely I-695 would not be an issue today.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 04, 1999.

Westin writes:

"You're breaking my heart here, BB. The FACT is that if those same commissioners prove to their electorate that they need more money, then they'll get it... just like they almost always do now."

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying here, Westin. If a special district gets their usual 106% increase voted down, they can't EVER raise 106% again! That means if one year people vote down an increase for some reason, and there is later explosive growth in a fire district, they can't raise the money to fund it. So when you say that they can easily vote a tax increase if they need it, THIS ISN'T TRUE.

The only thing most disticts could do is vote in a benefit service charge, which lifts their lotal levying lid up to $1.50 per $10,000 AV, rather than a limit of $1.25 (if I remember correctly). So your alternative will require people to pay MORE MONEY!

"Even YOU mentioned that they always went with the 106% level, even if they DIDN'T need it."

First of all, probably 90% of the time the extra money is needed. Secondly, what choice do they have? A well intentioned state law that limits excessive tax increases basically forces every tax district to levy the 106% level. Westin, you obviously have no understanding of the way emergency services work.

Fire districts in particular need to make sure they have money in reserve in case there is some sort of natural disaster. Usually a large fire, plane crash, disaster, etc. will cause LARGE amounts of overtime to be spent on the employees and equipment. These events cannot be predicted in a FY budget.

There needs to be some leeway in the budget to make sure that there's money available for this sort of thing. If you don't want there to be leeway, I hope you're ready for the consequences. Labor laws say that you have to pay people overtime if they come back to work, even if it's a natural disaster or something. You HAVE to pay them. Where's the money going to come from?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

rons writes:

"Our fiscal yr. ended in June, so about Feb. the department head (sheriff) would look over his budget and attempt to see where he would be at the end of the funding year. If it appeared that he would have money left at the end of the year, he would post a list of schools that we could go to. This was just to spend the money so he could show that he needed all the money he was given and would need more the next year to make ends meet.

At that time I did not mind, I just took my two weeks in South Lake Tahoe for three years running. I did go to school while there and did learn a bit. But in retrospect it was not a good deal for the county or the tax payer."

Considering how horribly funded most law enforcement training programs are, as a taxpayer I'd be glad that my LEO's got to have some. I don't see anything wrong with giving people more training if you have the money.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

HELLO !!! B.B.

Wake up and smell the coffee.... You have spent too much time in the fog, please understand that the schools that were offered were used to spend the money that was left in the budget so there was none left at the end of the year, he could then justify more money next year. The fact that we went to school and learned something was not the reason for going.

But I must compliment you on your attempt to confuse the issue as any good bureaucrat must do.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 04, 1999.

BB, don't you see?

You write: "You obviously don't understand what I'm saying here, Westin. If a special district gets their usual 106% increase voted down, they can't EVER raise 106% again! That means if one year people vote down an increase for some reason, and there is later explosive growth in a fire district, they can't raise the money to fund it. So when you say that they can easily vote a tax increase if they need it, THIS ISN'T TRUE."

Of COURSE I understand it... but this "explosive growth" in the district in question ALSO brings "explosive growth" and corresponding growth in the tax BASE. Budgets will increase regardless, and the turbocharged method used to keep revenue up is a major reason to vote for 695.

The more people that show up, the broader the tax BASE; the more money that's out there for revenue. The dollar amounts would increase if they NEVER voted for 106% again, if for no other reason then the fact that there are MORE people PAYING.

And you write it as if this fact(?) is justification for this fire district to take MORE money then they need, simply as a hedge, to enable them to make sure they can GET the money THEY THINK they need at every election?

A fire district's administrative problems are not my concern. What *I* want to have is the CONFIDENCE that when I'm considering their request, that they are asking ONLY for what they need. No less... but certainly no more.

Presuming your interpretation about these requests are correct (for example, nothing like that exists for school levies, to my knowledge) then after 695 passes, the fire commissioners across this state can work together to change the limiting aspect of the law.

But the idea that a bureaucrat is going to come to me, and say: "Look... we HAVE to ask to tax you at the highest possible rate; because if we don't, we won't be able to tax you this high again, EVER," provides no justification to the bureaucrat in question; and no reason to vote against 695.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 04, 1999.

Westin: You may want to review some of the posts in "How does the 'VoterApproval' requirement work?" thread, for opinions about property taxes. The following has some bearing on this discussion:

The regular property tax is not a rate, it is an amount. In fact, the rate floats as a result of the maximum amount that can be levied (under the statutory limits of 106% above last year or the IPD limit), and the total assessed valuation of taxable property determined by the assessor. The rate comes into play if the calculated rate would exceed the statutory limit for the specific type of local government, or the totol of all regular levies would exceed the statutory maximum. Cities can levy up to $3.60/ $1000, library districts $.50/$1000, fire districts $1.50/$1000, etc. etc. All together, regular levies are not to exceed $9.50/$1000; except that some special levies are authorized above $9.50, such as an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) levy that requires 60% approval. If the maximum would be exceeded, the state law has a pecking order of which local government gets its levy rate reduced, and by how much, until it is back to $9.50. If the legislature tried to change the upper limit, the constitution has a 1% limit ($10.00/$1000) on regular levies. But my property tax rate is more than $10.00/ $1000. The excess above the regular levy results from excess levies that were approved by vote of a super majority (60%) for bonds, etc. It is a complicated system, with a lot of potential for unintended consequences when you tinker with it. That is my greatest concern about I-695. The intended consequences are significant enough, and difficult to manage. The unintended and perhaps unknown consequences could be worse. And no one really knows.

And as for getting voter approval of the increase every year, what that would mean is that the normal increase in the cost of operation would be unfunded each year, until the votes were counted. Employee contracts have CPI based adjustments in them, and supplies, services and employee benefits all go up with inflation. If the revenue does not go up, personnel and service levels must be cut; and for many local governments the cuts would be into meat and muscle immediately. If a 3% CPI increase in operating costs and wages is not funded by a revenue increase, 3% of the staff need to be cut so those that are still working maintain the same buying power.

While we are on buying power, if taxes go up with the rate of inflation is that really a tax increase? If I make $40,000 one year and pay $16,000 in taxes, and the next year inflation is 5% so I make $42,000 and pay $16,800 in taxes. Adjusted for inflation it is not a tax increase. As a share of my income it is not a tax increase. In terms of buying power it is not a tax increase. By the definintion in the initiative it IS a tax increase. It is an $800 "monetary increase" in the tax. That, multiplied by all the residents in a city or district, is what we are talking about when we limit the amount of the tax in such absolute terms.

The 106% levy limit currently applies each year, and does not require voter approval. Approval is needed to exceed 106% of the prior year. That is what would change if I-695 is approved, since each year the property tax would be acted on by the government to approve a "monetary increase", even if the rate did not change; and because adding to the tax base because of new construction value and inflation is probably an "expansion of the legal definition" of the tax base, both of which are limited by the initiative if it is approved.

The IPD limit is an inflation indicator that is different, and so far lower, than the area CPI; and the legislative authority of a government can exceed the IPD and levy up to 106% if they find a compelling need that requires it. The main problem with the IPD limit is that government expenses to maintain the same services and staff actually go up more closely following the CPI, because that is what pay and benefits are tied to and that is most of the budget for many governments

Lifting the 106% limit currently requires voter approval. The next year the 106% limit is back in force, and is applied against the new base revenue amount. It is NOT true that defeat of a 106% lid lift proposition means that government can never raise their levy by 6% again. What it means is that they could not exceed 6% in the year it failed, and that remains the case if they don't run it again in the next year or the year after, etc.

What I-695 appears to do, is replace the 106% and IPD limits with a zero increase limit, so that every year any revenue increase to any local government must get voter approval. It appears it would prohibit both these normal increases, and revenue due to new construction. I used "appears" because it is very unclear how all that would work.

Westin wrote: "Of COURSE I understand it... but this "explosive growth" in the district in question ALSO brings "explosive growth" and corresponding growth in the tax BASE. Budgets will increase regardless, and the turbocharged method used to keep revenue up is a major reason to vote for 695."

How will budgets increase when revenue can't? The initiative prohibits expanding a tax by expansion of the legal definition of the tax base, and prohibits a monetary increase, without a vote. Are you advocating deficit spending by local government? Sorry, its against the constitution. Only the federal government gets to do that.

As I have stated before, if a government does no more than it did last year, it still needs a "monetary increase" in the tax revenue just to keep up with inflation in the cost of doing business. That does not cover the cost of providing servics for the new people, homes, and businesses that are added each year. Both a CPI based adjustment in the operating budget for existing services, and a "new construction" increase in the operating budget for the new service needs, are necessary just to keep up with maintaining a constant level of service. And then, sometimes people want the government to do something new, or address a problem that has been ignored too long. How much more than CPI that is needed, depends on how fast the community is growing and what the community wants in terms of new services. Finally, government needs some funding stability so a reserve fund is often established to cover the unexpected. You seem to want governments to budget at the edge, so anything unexpected would cause layoffs and service cuts. Not smart. Your position seems to be, "don't worry, be happy". Thats simple- minded, but you have been consistent.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 04, 1999.

DB,

Never use 100 well-chosen words when a 1000 will do, eh?

Your explanation of tax rates and statutory limits was wonderful, but not, I believe, relevant to the issue at hand.

BB effectively tells us that his fire district ALWAYS charges the 106%, EVEN WHEN THEY DONT NEED IT. That is a recipe rife with probability that the departments budget wonks will work to fill the budget to arrive at the 106% requirement based ENTIRELY on that requirement (when I was running the budget for Oakland Army Base, the Command Group repeatedly would call to remind me of the use it or lose it rule, expecting me to spend the ENTIRE budget... even if I DIDNT need it.)

How often have any of us heard of agencies at any level of government returning money? How many agencies at any level have you ever heard of saying, Gee, you know, my budget is TOO big; or this one: I simply have too many people, I need to transfer some or (HORRORS!) lay some off?

Does it happen? Of course. But so do total eclipses of the sun, and with the same relative frequency. (One example: Tens of thousands off the welfare roles how many caseworkers have been laid off to reflect that reduction?)

You write:

>That is my greatest concern about I-695. The intended consequences are significant enough, and difficult to manage. The unintended and perhaps unknown consequences could be worse. And no one really knows.

That may be the main difference between us. Im a believer of the Patton School of Management: Never take counsel of your fears. The banner of unknown consequences can be raised at ANY time, for ANY issue. Unfortunately, it always seems to be raised whenever government risks serious reductions in their revenue.

I believe that WHATEVER those unknown consequences may be (which few in the opposition will allow could ALSO be positive) that we, The People, will adjust, fix, modify or what have you. Government at every level has heard the pleas. Democrats increased taxes at an ungodly rate. The Republican slaughter of 1994 was at least a result of that fact. They were given control of both Houses in this state with a simple mission statement: cut our taxes and cut them fast. They, too, turned essentially a deaf ear, cutting little to nothing under the banner of just slowing the rate of the budget increase. That such didnt get it done is obvious by this initiative, and also obvious by the 98 election returns.

My faith is in the people. Those in the opposition seem to be motivated by a belief in government a bridge seemingly impossible to build.

You write:

>And as for getting voter approval of the increase every year, what that would mean is that the normal increase in the cost of operation would be unfunded each year, until the votes were counted.

Absolutely. That is the heart of Section 2.

>Employee contracts have CPI based adjustments in them, and supplies, services and employee benefits all go up with inflation. If the revenue does not go up, personnel and service levels must be cut; and for many local governments the cuts would be into meat and muscle immediately.

Meat and muscle like < million dollar millenium parties? If that is the will of the people, then so be it. I dont forget for a minute what the nature of the relationship is between us and out government. It will become governments job to adjust to the demands of the people. I freely admit, regardless of the outcome of THIS initiative (you know there are more coming, dont you? Some of them will make this one look like a scratch comparatively speaking) that we have the government we deserve. And if muscle gets cut in this operation, then so be it.

You go on:

>If a 3% CPI increase in operating costs and wages is not funded by a revenue increase, 3% of the staff need to be cut so those that are still working maintain the same buying power.

Or, in the alternative, they can take a 3% pay-cut. Six of one, half a dozen of the other and totally acceptable either way

>While we are on buying power, if taxes go up with the rate of inflation is that really a tax increase?

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it; does it make a sound?

To answer your question directly, Yes.

The problem with most tax increases are that theyre kinda like a bullet, or a bomb: Neither one gives a damn who they hit once theyre fired. When a tax goes up for someone on a fixed income, has it gone up for them? Or doesnt their buying power figure in to your equation?

You go on:

>If I make $40,000 one year and pay $16,000 in taxes, and the next year inflation is 5% so I make $42,000 and pay $16,800 in taxes. Adjusted for inflation it is not a tax increase.

Except, of course, for one tiny detail: Taxes rarely limit themselves to the rate of inflation do they?

Many estimates are that we pay in excess of 50% of what we make on taxes and those poor bastards that live in this state but work in Idaho or Oregon get to pay 9% or so more then either of us.

THAT IS TOO DAMNED HIGH!

>As a share of my income it is not a tax increase.

Perhaps, as a share of YOUR income, it isnt. But then, that brushes aside the fact that taxes are already too high to begin with, right? And if youre on a fixed income? Forget it.

>In terms of buying power it is not a tax increase.

Of course it is. Lets say youre trying to put a kid through college tuition skyrockets, your pay goes up, and much of that is taken with taxes it is DEFINITELY a buying power reducer.

Property taxes, particularly in my neck of the woods, take off like a guided missile sometimes doubling in a single year. Do we disregard what happens to those folks?

We do, apparently in your narrow view.

>By the definintion in the initiative it IS a tax increase.

Well, that may be that because, by ANY definition it IS a tax increase. Those things DO follow.

>It is an $800 "monetary increase" in the tax. That, multiplied by all the residents in a city or district, is what we are talking about when we limit the amount of the tax in such absolute terms.

OK what about it?

>The 106% levy limit currently applies each year, and does not require voter approval. Approval is needed to exceed 106% of the prior year. That is what would change if I-695 is approved, since each year the property tax would be acted on by the government to approve a "monetary increase", even if the rate did not change; and because adding to the tax base because of new construction value and inflation is probably an "expansion of the legal definition" of the tax base, both of which are limited by the initiative if it is approved.

I repeat: what about it? Government will have to stop making assumptions, and start justifying their expenditures. At this point, I have no problem with any of this.

>The IPD limit is an inflation indicator that is different, and so far lower, than the area CPI; and the legislative authority of a government can exceed the IPD and levy up to 106% if they find a compelling need that requires it. The main problem with the IPD limit is that government expenses to maintain the same services and staff actually go up more closely following the CPI, because that is what pay and benefits are tied to and that is most of the budget for many governments.

OK

>Lifting the 106% limit currently requires voter approval. The next year the 106% limit is back in force, and is applied against the new base revenue amount. It is NOT true that defeat of a 106% lid lift proposition means that government can never raise their levy by 6% again.

Then we can take it that, as I suspected, BB sort of disconnected on the issue?

>What it means is that they could not exceed 6% in the year it failed, and that remains the case if they don't run it again in the next year or the year after, etc.

Just so.

>What I-695 appears to do, is replace the 106% and IPD limits with a zero increase limit, so that every year any revenue increase to any local government must get voter approval. It appears it would prohibit both these normal increases, and revenue due to new construction. I used "appears" because it is very unclear how all that would work.

That is one interpretation and one I support. But I ALSO support implementing such a plan.

You see, I could possibly get on board with your perspective except for two factors:

1. Government has known for years, maybe even decades, that the people are pissed about the MVET. They knew we hated it possibly as far back as when they implemented it, yet have taken no substantive effort to respond to the demands of the people; an obvious factor that played a major role in the success of this initiatives signature drive.

2. TAXES ARE WAY TOO HIGH OBSCENELY high to me. And government does nothing about it because they have no incentive to do so.

Westin wrote: "Of COURSE I understand it... but this "explosive growth" in the district in question ALSO brings "explosive growth" and corresponding growth in the tax BASE. Budgets will increase regardless, and the turbocharged method used to keep revenue up is a major reason to vote for 695."

>How will budgets increase when revenue can't?

Revenue, of course, CAN increase, even under 695.

Case in point: sales taxes.

In around 1990, I think it was, Clark County had a population of around 200,000. The current estimate is closer to around 335,000. If 695 had been in effect, for example since 1990, do you think that the amount of revenue for sales tax collected would have remained the same as it was when 200,000 people lived here? Of course not. The amounts of sales tax collected have increased at least in direct proportion with the population, other factors (such as the unemployment rate) notwithstanding.

So, the more people you have AVAILABLE to pay a tax, even if their rate never increases, the more revenue will be collected. The more money taken in, the bigger the budgets to spend it.

Thats how.

>The initiative prohibits expanding a tax by expansion of the legal definition of the tax base, and prohibits a monetary increase, without a vote.

My reference to a tax base was limited to numbers of population not base in the sense of either increasing rates or types of things/activities to be taxed. The more people you get to pay taxes, the more tax revenue you will collect as a function of availability.

>Are you advocating deficit spending by local government? Sorry, its against the constitution. Only the federal government gets to do that.

Wouldnt think of it.

>As I have stated before, if a government does no more than it did last year, it still needs a "monetary increase" in the tax revenue just to keep up with inflation in the cost of doing business.

1. First of all, We may not WANT the government to do as much as it did last year.

2. Secondly, if government makes a compelling case to increase revenue, then well vote to support that. Clearly, the record in Colorado suggests that government will get what government NEEDS, which may NOT be the same thing as what government WANTS.

>That does not cover the cost of providing servics for the new people, homes, and businesses that are added each year.

But the fact that those categories of people will be here, paying taxes and the outrageous impact fees they pay will, naturally, offset most of that.

>Both a CPI based adjustment in the operating budget for existing services, and a "new construction" increase in the operating budget for the new service needs, are necessary just to keep up with maintaining a constant level of service.

Fine. If We are convinced that its necessary, then Well vote for it. Its not really all THAT hard.

>And then, sometimes people want the government to do something new, or address a problem that has been ignored too long. How much more than CPI that is needed, depends on how fast the community is growing and what the community wants in terms of new services.

Again, if Were convinced of the need, Well support it.

>Finally, government needs some funding stability so a reserve fund is often established to cover the unexpected.

Bully. All they have to do is come to me and ASK for it. If they DONT ask for it, then they shouldnt be upset when a serious effort is made to take it back.

>You seem to want governments to budget at the edge, so anything unexpected would cause layoffs and service cuts.

Sorry, DB. I want nothing of the sort. What I WANT, is for my government to ASK me before they tighten the screws further. And if government cant cope with that, then theyre incompetent and need to be layed off anyway.

>Not smart.

Well, one of us believes in the judgment of the people, and one doesnt. What say that its smart enough for government work.

>Your position seems to be, "don't worry, be happy".

Perhaps a course in reading comprehension is not out of the question for you?

MY position is that ALL political power in this state comes from The People. MY position is that government is OUR servant, and not the other way around.

>Thats simple- minded, but you have been consistent.

I apologize for lacking your innate superiority. I pity you, however, for lacking the ability to understand that We are the master of government; that sometimes we will make demands on government that they dont like, or which may inconvenience them. If thats being simple minded, then, so be it. But you know what?

Thats just too damned bad both for them and for you.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 04, 1999.

Amazing post Westin, Not quite 'War and Peace', but close. I think it addressed all the issues with complete clarity, but the ability for the people in opposition to utilize clarity is what I think we are striving for right now.

It has ALWAYS been a government policy to insure that the account is zeroed out at the end of the year so they can justify and increase in their budget the next year. Some people just can't understand that such a policy is a scam.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 05, 1999.

Craig, I think the real problem in privatizing things in Washington is that we are just not quite as intelligent and lack a certain business sense that is prevalent in the rest of the world.

We should let Olympia take over every facet of our daily lives so we can be assured of total security.

And Again I'll point at Laidlaw.. A private transit company which our government hires to move our school children around among hundreds of other things.. And they don't even pay road taxes to maintain the roads they tear down!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 05, 1999.

Westin:

Some of your comments seem to represent that the "state" is a single government that can just deal with the loss of MVET and the annual elections. You respond to the difficulties with a "so what" attitude that seems to be the answer to every concern raised about the initiative. I believe the government is created of, by and for the people too; and believe that the institutions of government work very well if people work with them instead of against them. The checks and balances, protection of individual rights against the majority will, division of responsibility at different levels of government, opportunities to elect and recall representatives, etc.; all work when the people use them. Unfortunately, a majortiy of voters don't vote, and often those that complain the loudest about a decision they disagree with did nothing to make their position known or influence the decision. Silence implies consent. The present tax structure wasn't imposed yesterday. We have had several elections I can remember, in which reasonable proposals to add or reduce taxes were proposed and decided. If taxes are high, we did that or consented that it be done. Not you personally, of course. But "we" did.

You made some comments that need to be addressed:

1. "Except, of course, for one tiny detail: Taxes rarely limit themselves to the rate of inflation do they?" and "Property taxes, particularly in my neck of the woods, take off like a guided missile sometimes doubling in a single year. Do we disregard what happens to those folks?"

Actually, that was what the 106% and IPD limit were designed to do, for property taxes. Government tax increases are limited, but the tax bill on individual property owners may not be. The property tax is based on property value, so if the value increases the tax increases - perhaps even doubles. Is that fair? YES! If my neighbor has property worth $200,000 and he is paying taxes on a value of $100,000, I am paying a share of what should be his tax bill. He is getting a sweet deal it my expense, and that of every other tax payer in the county. If the assessor corrects the value to actual value, he begins paying his fair share. At least they don't go back 5 years and make him pay what he should have been paying all along. His tax may double, to restore a more fair distribution of the total tax load, but the total tax load is limited by the 106% and IPD limits. What should be done? Pay the tax, and appreciate the deal you were getting when the property was undervalued.

2. "When a tax goes up for someone on a fixed income, has it gone up for them? Or doesnt their buying power figure in to your equation?"

Fixed income is always used as a justification for tax cuts, and programs for low income seniors that include tax breaks and credits are created to deal with that situation. Unforunately, as our population gets older and people retire younger, this will become a greater problem. The world does not stop, or even slow down, when someone retires; and I can hardly expect my taxes to freeze or reduce when I retire, when my need for government services is likely to increase. I am nearing retirement myself, and my plans include cutting my expenses by elimination of as much debt as possible and the expenses that result from work itself, and using up the resources accumulated during the work years. I need to plan for an increasing income for retirement; because a fixed income is a reduction in buying power every year, for the retiree or the governemnt or the government worker. Tax relief programs for low income retirees make sense to me, but they do not justify a no-growth rule for everyone.

3. "Of course it is. Lets say youre trying to put a kid through college tuition skyrockets, your pay goes up, and much of that is taken with taxes it is DEFINITELY a buying power reducer."

No, its not. If taxes remain the same proportion of your income and match inflation, your buying power remains constant. Your example is an increase in expenses. Thats something else entirely.

4. "Revenue, of course, CAN increase, even under 695. Case in point: sales taxes." and "So, the more people you have AVAILABLE to pay a tax, even if their rate never increases, the more revenue will be collected. The more money taken in, the bigger the budgets to spend it. Thats how." and "But the fact that those categories of people will be here, paying taxes and the outrageous impact fees they pay will, naturally, offset most of that."

I agree that increases in sales tax revenue will probably be able to increase under 695 without a vote, as you described. The issue I have raised several times is that many local governments get no sales tax. All they have is a property tax, that does not increase without a governmental action to approve a monetary increase in the tax amount; even if the population in the hospital district, or the fire district, or the library district, etc. were to double. These local governments get no MVET at all, which was supposed to be the primary target of the initiative; but they will be the most seriously effected by the zero growth in revenue it will cause for them.

5. "Fine. If We are convinced that its necessary, then Well vote for it. Its not really all THAT hard." and "Again, if Were convinced of the need, Well support it" and "Sorry, DB. I want nothing of the sort. What I WANT, is for my government to ASK me before they tighten the screws further. And if government cant cope with that, then theyre incompetent and need to be layed off anyway."

No problem with the concept, just the execution as it will work under 695. Voters ARE asked and approve a service level from a local government, and set up an authorized tax rate and rules that limit growth. 695 requires that every year the voters need to agree that they meant it, they still want that level of service, and they are still willing to pay for it with the property tax. You don't mind that sales tax can grow with inflation and new population, but the property tax is provided no such mechanism. Those governments that only have the property tax for revenue, are not in a no-growth situation. They are in a staff and service cut situation every year, if revenue does not increase with inflation and new construction. All I get when I point this out is, a "so what" and "ask the voters" response. They can run an election every year to approve the tax; but why, when voters have already established and approved the funding system and no one has proposed to change it? The funding questions were asked, and voters approved the last levy rate proposition and Referendum 47. Can't we take "yes" for an answer?

6. "I apologize for lacking your innate superiority. I pity you, however, for lacking the ability to understand that We are the master of government; that sometimes we will make demands on government that they dont like, or which may inconvenience them. If thats being simple minded, then, so be it. But you know what? Thats just too damned bad both for them and for you."

I apologize for what looks like a personal attack. What I mean by "simple-minded" is that the initiative has failed to address several implementation issues that will become big problems for many local governments - governments I feel some responsibility to "preserve, protect, and defend." You seem intent on supporting it, no matter what the problems may be. If it passes, and I am afraid it may, we will deal with the problems it creates and the sky will not fall. In about 450 words it changes the nature of government in Washington, or it will if the courts let it stand. If these problems are all discussed, perhaps the next initiative will address them with greater care. Changes in the MVET may be needed, but this initiative is not the right tool to get that done.

As for the length of my post, I think yours was longer. Sometimes you need an explanation to go along with a statement of opinion. Example: Initiative 695. It provides a statement, or position; but no explanation of how it should work. A few well chosen words would have helped.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 05, 1999.

Westin writes:

"BB effectively tells us that his fire district ALWAYS charges the 106%, EVEN WHEN THEY DONT NEED IT."

Not exactly. I said that they raise the money because they can never be sure if they'll need it in case of a disaster that causes huge expenses. What's your alternative?

Westin's world: A 747 augers into your neighborhood and your fire department says, "well, you know, we'd like to call back our guys that aren't working today, but they get paid overtime for that and we really don't know if the public will approve the increase in our budget at the end of the year."

What should they do? If they have no money in reserve, they have two choices: 1. Call out extra guys to put out the fire and pick up the bodies, but then close a station towards the end of the fiscal year. 2. Don't call out more guys, let the fires burn longer because of a lack of manpower, and leave the bodies laying around your neighborhood. But that fire station down the street will at least be open in November and December.

But at least we'll get to vote on their budget!

By the way, as an addendum to my earlier post, if a particular district didn't need the money that particular year, it gets put into a capital expense fund. Usually the first thing to be cut out of the budget is this sort of fund when money is tight. So when capital expendatures are necessary, special districts often have to ask for a bond issue, which increases everybody's taxes. I'd rather have them save a little year by year.

And all this talk doesn't even take into account the rate of inflation and cost of living around here, which usually is way over the 106% cap. That's why lots of fire districts are forced to implement a benefit service charge to pay for their expenses, increasing taxes even more.

So again, it's your choice. Levy the 106% in preparation for a disaster (which is their JOB) and put the money towards capital expenses if it's not needed (which will decrease your taxes later) or don't levy the max, run out of money when a disaster happens, and have no money for capital expenses.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

B.B.

Fire districts are an interesting case. They have No incentive to spend all their budget in any one year, because whatever is left at the end of the year is just more for next year. It will not get diverted to some other city department or some other state agency. That is one of the distinctive things about the Washington system of special purpose districts. What is collected for that purpose must be spent on that purpose, and nothing else.

Your point about them needing reserve funds for a disaster is a good one, but that has its limits. A resonable reserve is fine; but after that I believe that taxes collected from residents in a district should be returned in the form of services to those residents. If they bank a lot of money, that may benefit future residents but not those that paid the taxes.

Regarding capital purchases by fire districts or any other local government: At least with a bond issue, the payments on a major purchase are AFTER the item is delivered, and not before; so those that are benefiting by that purchase are the ones that pay for it. A bond issue can be non-voted (paid out of the regular operating budget) or voted (paid by an excess levy). One of the issues with I- 695 is that non-voted bonds, backed by the operating budget of a government, will be harder to sell because of the reduced security of that revenue. Harder to sell means higher interest rates.

One other thing about a fire district, that you can check with your father about: As I understand it, the benefit charge you mentioned has been ruled "not a tax" by a court, in a case involving the King County Housing Authority. I-695 defines this kind of monetary charge by government to be a tax, but the court said it is not. Is the court going to overrule itself when that issue gets challenged about November 3? I doubt it. More than likely it will make the language of the initiative conform to the established definitions, which could substantially alter what it will actually do. Once again, no one knows.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 06, 1999.

BB, . Please don't rely on that "it all depends on what your definition of is, is," BS here. . >>"BB effectively tells us that his fire district ALWAYS charges the 106%, EVEN WHEN THEY DONT NEED IT." . >"Not exactly." . "Not exactly?" . In your original post, you told us, and I'm quoting here, EXACTLY this: "But if the budget stays steady, it must stay steady PERMANENTLY. That means that these fire districts can't collect a greater percentage of the AV because of current state law. So one no vote in one particular fire district means that they are screwed forever." . In my response, I doubted that such was the case (meaning you either misunderstood; your father misunderstood, or somebody lied to somebody) and dbvz directly contradicted your assertion. . So, your initial post in this thread started off on a false premise. Another the "sky-is-falling" approach by yet another uninformed opponent. . >"I said that they raise the money because they can never be sure if they'll need it in case of a disaster that causes huge expenses." . Well, then, using the ol' "huge expenses" dodge, why do we limit it to 106%? Why don't we equip the La Center Fire Department with all the equipment and personnel needed to fight a blaze the size of downtown Seattle? . Where do you draw the line? How much is too much with you? Is there ANY limit on taxes that could be exceeded in your world? I believe in just enough taxation to get the job done. You believe in "solar eclipse" taxation; the variety necessary to prepare an agency for that once-a-millenia event. . Under 695, if such an event WERE to happen, it would be well within the rights and intent of the initiative to (A.) ASK the people to (B.) pay MORE. Clearly, the way you see it, you want to get to B. without first bothering with A. . That's an unsolvable gap, one where a bridge cannot be built. There is NO need for ANY agency that can superceed the RIGHT of the people to control that angency... or control it's money. Never lose sight, as you obviously have, of who is here to serve who. . >"What's your alternative?" . *MY* alternative is that disaster preparedness be included in the 100% of the budget they get now. . >Westin's world: A 747 augers into your neighborhood and your fire department says, "well, you know, we'd like to call back our guys that aren't working today, but they get paid overtime for that and we really don't know if the public will approve the increase in our budget at the end of the year." . Yeah? And? . BB's world: 747's are dropping out of the sky like dead flies... why, we've had dozens of them nail Mercer Island JUST THIS WEEK. . Again, that's the difference between us. You have a FAR greater chance of winning a $200,000,000 powerball lottery then you do of seeing a 747 "auger in to your neighborhood." . Unless, of course, you can show us this listing of the hundreds, if not thousands of 747 crashes-into-neighborhoods necessary to support your position? . >"What should they do? If they have no money in reserve, they have two choices: 1. Call out extra guys to put out the fire and pick up the bodies, but then close a station towards the end of the fiscal year. 2. Don't call out more guys, let the fires burn longer because of a lack of manpower, and leave the bodies laying around your neighborhood. But that fire station down the street will at least be open in November and December." . Exclusive of the absurdity that the idea of paying overtime for say, a couple of days, would result in the shut-down of a firehouse for *TWO* months, you mean? Did you deliberately leave out "choice 3?" GO TO THE PEOPLE ON THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED BALLOT AND *ASK* THEM FOR MORE MONEY? . Using the results of Colorado, there is a 76% chance that the request will be approved. . BB, I urge you to use examples that have some basis in reality. Clearly, your opposition to this initiative is based on how you "feel," or certainly, you would have presented something akin to facts; both on the false premise concerning the 106%, "ask now, or forever hold your peace presentation;" and the absurdity of two days overtime shuting down firestations for two months. I ask you again, try and remain focused, OK? . >"Why you seem incapable of understanding that is, quite simply, beyond me." . As clearly, most of this initiative and its effects are also "beyond you." . I absolutely understand what you're TRYING (but miserably failing) to say. The problem is that your positions are not based on reality; they are, instead, based on your emotional fantasy of how you believe things are, instead of the reality of the way these things *actually* are. . Since you asked. . >"But at least we'll get to vote on their budget!" . Exactly as it should be. But that is a difficult concept to grasp for one who obviously thinks that the taxpayers of this state exist to serve the agencies, providing WHATEVER funding the AGENCIES want, for whatever reason the AGENCIES want it. . That era is about to end. . And "Why you seem incapable of understanding that is, quite simply," obvious. . Since you asked. . >"By the way, as an addendum to my earlier post, if a particular district didn't need the money that particular year, it gets put into a capital expense fund. Usually the first thing to be cut out of the budget is this sort of fund when money is tight. So when capital expendatures are necessary, special districts often have to ask for a bond issue, which increases everybody's taxes. I'd rather have them save a little year by year." . Nice try, stud. (at least you paid attention to SOMEONE) . The idea of a reserve as you have outlined it is wonderful! Idyllic! Splendiferous! . *I'D* rather that they come and ASK ME REGARDLESS. If the fire district wants a reserve... ASK me. If there is money left over, I WANT IT BACK. THAT IS *MY* MONEY THEY HAVE, and the only reason they have it is because SOMEONE sandbagged the request in the first place. . The ONLY time a bond issue raises taxes is, and should be, WHEN WE SAY SO. . So, your addendum notwithstanding, that provides zero reason to vote against 695. Nor, for that matter, has anything else you've written in this post. . >"And all this talk doesn't even take into account the rate of inflation and cost of living around here, which usually is way over the 106% cap. That's why lots of fire districts are forced to implement a benefit service charge to pay for their expenses, increasing taxes even more." . So, you're admitting that in many instances, what we have NOW doesn't work EITHER, but you'll defend THIS system to the day you die? . Guess what. Under 695, fire districts won't be "forced to implement" any charge... unless the people they're serving want them to. . >"So again, it's your choice." . Oh, BB... thank you, thank you, thank you... It's MY choice. . So let it be written, so let it be done. . Heh. . >"Levy the 106% in preparation for a disaster (which is their JOB) and put the money towards capital expenses if it's not needed (which will decrease your taxes later) or don't levy the max, run out of money when a disaster happens, and have no money for capital expenses." . Absolutely wrong. But then, we've discussed that at length, haven't we? . I have come to the conclusion that many in the opposition are genetically incapable of understanding and accepting the third option. They routinely tell us, its a choice between this: current system, all sweetness and light; or this: the Dark Ages, where the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have free reign. . I have yet to see anyone in the opposition even acknowledge that there is a third possibility; that of successfully securing the permission of the people to raise taxes, even exists. . Sad, really. . Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 11, 1999.

Westin:

I will acknowledge that some local governments will successfully get voter approval of tax increases, and fire districts are probably among those that will not have much trouble doing it. Happy?

The current system was given voter approval, in a way that does not require a re-authorization each year. I live in a fire district, and voted on a lid lift proposition several years ago that authorized a levy rate of $1.50/$1000, which would thereafter be subject to other applicable statutory limits. That means the 106% limit, and after referendum 47 the IPD limit, as well as the ongoing limit of $1.50. The voters of the district approved the levy, and the normal increase in the amount of the tax, and the expansion of the legal definition of the tax base that occurs when property is revalued and new construction is added to the tax rolls. Voters gave their voter approval, and will likely do so again if the fire district is required to ask every year. The limit on the levy rate, and the limits on the increases in spending (106% or IPD) simply maintain the service level authorized when the $1.50 rate was proposed, as the district grows through new construction, and as the cost of providing that service increases through inflation.

I-695 ends a process that works, and will replace it with one that will cause some problems. As the proponent for the proposed change, you have the burden of proof on the question of whether the new system is better than the system we know works. I just know you will pick on this and assert that it does not work to your satisfaction, but it works to provide funding for the services authorized and required to be provided by government within the expense limits set by the people. The people authorized the system we have, and it works as designed.

I-695 seems to require that local governments waste valuable time and money asking voters over and over; if they really meant it, if they still want the level of service they approved last time, and if they still want to pay for it. As I asked before, can't local governments take "Yes" for an answer?

A re-authorization every year, even if approval is almost certain, puts a lot of uncertainty into organizations. Short range plans that are now a few years, will become plans for a few months; and long range planning for how service should be provided in 10 years will become impossible. How service will be provided will depend on 10 annual votes on the funding. Hiring will become more difficult, since no one wants to be the lowest in seniority if a funding vote fails. Reserve funds will need to be increased to cover expenses if a funding vote fails, in order to cover the costs of the transition to fewer staff and a cut of planned expenses. Even one discharge can lead to an expensive law suit, even if the employee eventually loses.

What IS better about an annual vote to approve a tax ammount, as opposed to approving a specific rate with limits on budget increases? Nothing you have presented sounds better to me, and the conservative in me is cautious about making radical changes without sufficiant justification. As the moving party, what is your justification? Since this was started because of BB, and comments about fire district funding, what would be better about voting on the fire district budget every year?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 11, 1999.

On the subject of fire districts having to put their funding before a public vote, this was in the TNT today. Federal Way FD serves about 105,000 people. Given that it costs about $1.50-$2.00 per voter in King County to fund an election, they could be spending up to $150,000-$200,000 on this. All so that they can continue to collect the same amount of money that they do now.

What irks me is that just for fun I've gone to several special district (fire, water-sewer, hospital) public meetings and 99% of the time there is NOBODY else there. Not one single member of the public besides me. In fact, the commissioners are usually surprised if anybody from the public shows up. If the tax rates were that important to people, wouldn't they be showing up at the public meetings that are scheduled for them to talk to their elected officials? You'd think so.

BB

Fire tax on ballot in FWay Department authorizes contingency measure to preserve its current tax rate if voters approve Initiative 695

Sarah Duran; The News Tribune

South King County

Concerned about the possible effects of Initiative 695, Federal Way fire commissioners agreed Friday to put an item on the November ballot asking voters to approve the city's current fire tax rate.

I-695 is designed to cut the cost of vehicle license fees but also includes a clause stating increases in public taxes or fees must be approved by voters.

Fire officials fear the initiative would freeze the total amount the district collects from taxes - $8.5 million. So the district is asking voters to maintain the current tax rate of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value.

While the rate would not go up, the district would collect more money because the tax rate is based on the total assessed property value in the district, and property values are rising. More property value would mean more money collected - which could constitute an increase under I-695.

The ballot item includes a provision that states the district cannot collect more than 6 percent of the current year's collected amount. If voters reject I-695, the ballot item will be moot, because it is contingent upon I-695 passing.

The funding is needed to keep up with inflation, administrator Jim Hamilton said. The item is not intended to be a statement for or against the initiative.

"We want to make sure we maintain our fire and safety services," Hamilton said.

Federal Way is the second district in South King County to put such an item on the ballot. Maple Valley's fire district already has approved a similar ballot item, Hamilton said.

The Federal Way Fire Department serves about 100,000 people living in 34 square miles, including the City of Federal Way and the parts of unincorporated King County, as well as a portion of Des Moines.

- - -

* Reach staff writer Sarah Duran at 253-946-8392 or sarah.duran@mail.tribnet.com.

) The News Tribune

09/11/1999

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 11, 1999.

I wrote:

"Given that it costs about $1.50-$2.00 per voter in King County to fund an election, they could be spending up to $150,000-$200,000 on this."

Umm...they could spend that much but they won't. Forgot about the fact that our ever so civic-minded populace doesn't have that high of a registered voter rate. So the total amount is probably half of what I said.

At least it's not in Pierce County, where the auditor has tried to charge up to $14 per registered voter to have an election.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 11, 1999.

Westin - Here's what I said in the first paragraph of the original post on this page. "Let me try to explain. This is me paraphrasing, so I'm not sure if everything is exactly correct. It was explained to me much better than I'll likely explain it to you, but try and bear with me. It's still slightly jumbled up in my brain."

My apologies. I didn't get it entirely right, but it's a complex set of issues. I told you that I might not get it perfectly right...and now you're calling BS on me for not getting it perfectly right. Fine. I warned you.

You also said: "You have a FAR greater chance of winning a $200,000,000 powerball lottery then you do of seeing a 747 "auger in to your neighborhood." . Unless, of course, you can show us this listing of the hundreds, if not thousands of 747 crashes-into- neighborhoods necessary to support your position?"

Ask the citizens of Bellingham if they thought six months ago that one of their creeks would blow up. Sh*t happens. You either assume that it might, and try and do some planning to make sure that if it does you'll be okay, or you don't do anything and hope for the best if it does. 695 makes it so that even if you do plan way ahead for an event like that, there's still a huge chance that all that planning won't matter. Personally, I think it's a waste of money to make people in Bellingham vote on an increase in their budget to deal with the aftermath of that disaster. It's obvious the money is necessary; let our elected people make the decision and go with it.

If there's a gigantic earthquake around here, for example, I'd rather have the officials that I've elected do something to mitigate the aftermath and raise taxes by themselves if they have to. Seems to make more sense than waiting until there's an election in November, especially if that earthquake happens in March. Or spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an election in March that could have otherwise gone to rebuilding stuff. Besides, if there ever is a natural disaster around here, the last thing people should be having to worry about is going to the polls to figure out how to fund relief.

Moving on, there's even more complexity about our levying system to deal with. Dbvz has mentioned the $10 per $1000 total limit that is placed on special districts in this state. Well, it needs a little bit more explanation than that. By the way, dbvz seems to be incredibly well versed about this stuff, so if you see anything wrong db, feel free to correct me.

Our system of special districts a multi-layered system, meaning that certain types of districts are placed higher in the funding ladder than others. Hospital districts, for example, are in the first tier. Fire districts are in the second. I'm not sure if there are more than two tiers, and I'm not sure what districts are in what tier except for the two I've mentioned. I tried searching the RCW's online but couldn't get anything back that gave me a better explanation.

The first tier gets the first crack at the $10 per $1000 AV. The second tier special districts then divide up whatever is left of the money. If the total amount collected goes over $10, the second tier special districts must cut their amount collected, because they are considered lower than the first (obviously). So in real life, this means that if the AV collected goes over $10 per $1000, a fire district (for example) would have to reduce it's total amount collected so that the whole system remains under the $10 cap. Hospital districts, which are in the first tier, still collect whatever they want.

This is why many special districts pass a benefit service charge, which dbvz and I have mentioned. This charge (for fire districts in particular) reduces the amount that is collected under the $10 limit to $1 per $1000 AV, but it ads a $.50 charge that must be approved by the voters. So these districts run a risk, because the voters might not approve this charge, but it also lessens their risk of having their funding cut because of the $10 limit per $1000 AV. The benefit charge doesn't count against the $10 total limit. All this is combined with the 106% total AV limit as well.

There's a high degree of public accountability in this system. Each special district deals with just one service. If a district enacts an extra charge, it has to go before a public vote. If (in particular) a fire district goes from volunteer to paid, the maximum amount they can levy under the $10 changes drastically (from around .50-.75 per $1000 AV to $1.50 per $1000 AV), and the change must go before a public vote. If a district needs to exceed the 106% total charge, it has to go before a public vote. Basically any major tax increase by a special district must go before a public vote.

Benefit service charges (as dbvz mentioned) in particular usually run for a number of years. This is where 695's impacts are unclear. If a ballot measure passes raising the total amount levied to $1.50 per $10,000 AV for five years, and the total amount of AV in a particular special district goes up for each of those five years, does that mean that this special district has to go back to the voters and ask again for the tax increase for each of those five years?

If you asked the voters once if they want to raise their taxes for five years, why should you have to ask them again for each of those five years? If they pass a benefit service charge for five years, and in the third year of that charge don't pass a public vote (because the total amount of money levied increases), which vote rules? The original one, or the one afterwards? Why spend thousands of dollars on elections asking voters the same question you asked them to answer years ago? If you ask a special district to enact a benefit service charge, do you have to run an election on that issue and then another election to satisfy the requirements for 695?

Confusion reigns.

By the way, here's what's known as the "vagueness doctrine" that's used by the State Supreme Court for criminal cases.

"Vagueness: A statute may also be constitutionally infirm if it is so vague it fails to define the criminal activity with sufficient definiteness to forewarn a citizen of the conduct which is deemed criminal. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983)"

Can they transfer this over to this initiative? I'm not sure. But it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way to. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 12, 1999.

BB

You have most of it right. Of the $10.00, $9.50 is allocated by the state, and some local option taxes like EMS can allocate the last $.50.. Of the $9.50, $3.60 is allocated for the support of the public schools, and is where the state gets the funding returned to the schols on a per student basis (schools add a local excess levy). That leaves $5.90. Unfortunately, local government authorizations for tax rates exceed $5.90. The county gets a county wide levy of (I think) $2.25, and a unincorporated area levy of (I think) $1.80 - I could have these reversed - , so if the county is at the maximum you have $1.85 left for the rest. Hospital Districts get $.50 and Library Districts get $.50, and you are correct that they are ahead of a fire district. That leaves $85 to run a fire department. We also have on Metro Park District in the Tacoma area, and it gets $.50 ahead of the fire district too, which would leave $.35 for fire/EMS; except that $.50 of the fire district total authorization of $1.50 is equal to the Hospital-Library-Metro Park levy, so they all get prorated down equally at that point. But that is after the fire district has already lost 2/3 of its levy authority (reduced from $1.50 to .50). After that comes the weed abatement, flood control, cemetary, etc. districts that only get funded if others are not at their maximum. The Benefit Charge a fire district can ask approval for, can run up to 6 years, and the fire district maximum is reduced to $1.00 property tax. The amount of the benefit charge is set annually through public hearings, and can be up to 60% of the fire district budget.

How this relates to I-695 is exactly as you stated it. We have a complex system that somehow works, that has been established by a political process and approved by voters. They authorize a district to levy a tax rate or a benefit charge, subject to the statutory requirements. An annul vote on whether they really meant it is a waste of time and money, and it adds some uncertainty even if approval is almost a foregone conclusion, that is damaging.

The target of the initiative seems to have been the MVET and the state. Some of the other consequences seem to have been unintended colateral damage. I believe the colateral damage will exceed the impact on the state.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 12, 1999.

P.S.

The reason a fire district can often levy as much as $1.50/$1000, is that some other (more senior) districts are not collecting the maximum they are authorized. It is the 106% limit and the IPD limit on revenue increases that causes the senior districts to be below their statutory maximum, as well as the political process and decisions of the elected officials who levy the taxes. The current system works to prevent any local government from taking more than they need to provde the services the voters require of them.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 12, 1999.

"The current system works to prevent any local government from taking more than they need to provde the services the voters require of them."

Yeah, and the requirement to submit tax increases to a vote of the governed will work even better.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 13, 1999.

Craig writes:

"Yeah, and the requirement to submit tax increases to a vote of the governed will work even better."

Really? Dbvz and I both mentioned that right now the system allows benefit service charges for up to six years for special districts.

How will forcing voters to go back and reapprove what they've approved already make our system work better? How isn't this a total waste of taxpayer money?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 13, 1999.

"How will forcing voters to go back and reapprove what they've approved already make our system work better? How isn't this a total waste of taxpayer money? " Because this statement is false,"The current system works to prevent any local government from taking more than they need to provde the services the voters require of them. " Read below. We need to curtail the growth of public spendine because the normal incentives in the system are for excess growth and inefficiency. You said as much yourself, "So no fire district ever collects less than 106%, because they never know if they'll need the extra money in case of some huge disaster that runs up extra money in OT or something. " The DEFAULT position for all government managers is to take every dime they can possibly get and to spend it, no matter the inefficiency, so they'll have it in their baseline next year (plus inflation) "Just in case.". It's a compound interest situation. You do this once, you're flush. You do it 2-3 years, you have embarassing excesses. You actuually get 106% of your true needs each year for 20 years, that's 320% of your true needs. You get rid of the money by lowering your standards as to what is acceptable, like the military with their $600 hammers. We need to control this. Tell me how else you propose to do so. If you tell me that no program manager would think of spending money that wasn't truly necessary, you lose all credibility points. Incentives in the Public Sector Public services are managed and produced by people. Just like all of us, government workers want higher standards of living. Accordingly, government employees gear their work toward incentives and away from penalties. Human nature operates as surely in government as it does outside government. Incentives, however, are different in government than they are outside government. For example an individual, family, or company must make economic choices and live within its income. Efficient spending produces a better life, because more can be purchased with available income. In the short-term, the economic situation can be improved only by efficient allocation of financial resources. Except in the most protected industries, the losses that result from wasteful, inefficient spending are not borne by others. The rewards in the private sector are tied to obtaining the most value for the amount of available money. A government manager, however, faces a different set of incentives. Government management salaries are highly correlated to the size of the manager's staff and budget. If a public manager under spends the budget or utilizes workers more productively, the manager will be penalized with a smaller budget and staff (in relative terms) in following years, and the manager's salary and career progression will be hampered. Alternatively, the economic losses that result from wasteful, inefficient spending can be passed on to others --- the taxpayers. In the public sector, then, managers are rewarded for inefficiency with higher funding, increased staffing, and enhanced career prospects. The rewards in government are tied to higher spending and the search for higher revenue. The Incentives Facing Management The interests of public managers and employees are consistent with greater spending and the growth of government. The direct and concentrated interests of public managers and employees have been very effective against the far more diffuse interests of the taxpayers. A public manager or employee can experience an immediate and substantial increase in compensation merely from responding to the incentives of government. And because public employees have greater knowledge of and greater access to government, the cost of manipulating the political process is less and the reward is far greater for public employees than for the taxpayer. The more numerous taxpayers rarely notice the increased tax that occurs from a single increase in public expenditures. But taxpayers have begun to notice the accumulation of such increases, and the present public concern with taxation is such an effect. The declining trust of government by taxpayers has been illustrated in surveys and in the most recent elections. Public sector decision making is much different than competitive decision making. In the competitive market, companies make decisions based upon consumer preferences. Consumers know the price per unit of the company's products, and consumers have the freedom to purchase from the competition or not at all if price exceeds the value of the product. A good decision on the part of the company will improve the firm financially, while a bad decision will lose it money or even cause it to fail. The company cannot extract funding from customers who have not purchased its products. No amount of rationalization or excuses can eliminate the judgement of consumers with respect to the company's products. As a result, administrative staff size tends to be lean, with the greatest effort committed to developing and marketing the products of the company. Armies of administrative staff would only burden a company in a competitive market and hasten its failure.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-dmdtx.htm

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 13, 1999.

Craig, try answering one simple little question.

If the citizens of a special district vote to place a benefit service charge on themselves for six years, why should they be forced to go back and vote on it again for every year of those six years?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 13, 1999.

Craig:

I agree with much of what you say about the incentives in government being different that the private sector. In many cases that's because the private sector incentives would not operate to provide an adequate level of service, for government operations - but that's a different discussion.

Your wrote "You actuually get 106% of your true needs each year for 20 years, that's 320% of your true needs." Well, yes, but in 20 years what is the actual rate of inflation? If it is 4%/year, the actual compounded growth is 2%/year. How do you factor in the years in the early 1980"s when inflation was 8 or 10 or 12%? A rate of 2%/year above inflation does not yeald 320%.

What do you do about a budget that is growing faster than inflation? You could ask sone simple questions, like why? Did the agency have unmet demands for services that had to be addressed? Did a change in the community require some changes in the programs? Is anyone in the community unhappy with what the specific agency is doing with their money? Did anyone run against the elected officials on a "cut the budget" campaign, and win?

I-695 treats every government as an "evil empire", without asking any questions. You just assume that government managers have nothing better to do than waste our money on the unnecessary. The best government is the government nearest the people, because they can see what is going on and do something about it; and the managers and local elected officials should know that. I-695 damages the operation of the local governments closest to the people, in communities where the people may be very satisfied with how their taxes are being spent. Even if the voters will routinely approve the annual budget, the process does damage.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 13, 1999.

BB if voters approve the 106% in six year chunks then they don't need to do it every year. Simple.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 14, 1999.

d- "You wrote "You actuually get 106% of your true needs each year for 20 years, that's 320% of your true needs." Well, yes, but in 20 years what is the actual rate of inflation? If it is 4%/year, the actual compounded growth is 2%/year. How do you factor in the years in the early 1980"s when inflation was 8 or 10 or 12%? A rate of 2%/year above inflation does not yeald 320%. " There's also a correction factor in the baseline (the implicit price deflator) that corrects for the inflation. Additionally, prior to Initiative 601 (which the politicians also fought) the actual growth had been FAR ABOVE 6% per year.

The opponents of I-695 treat every citizen as an "evil miser", without asking any questions. You just assume that citizens are either too lazy, too selfish, or too stupid to be actively involved in the budgeting decisions of government. The best government is a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE; not one of the bureaucrats and politicians, by the bureaucrats and politicians, and for the bureaucrats and politicians, and the bureaucrats and local politicians should know that.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 14, 1999.

Craig:

It is clear to me that no one is convincing anyone else, on this forum. Those who bother to post have made a decision, and stick to it. I don't see a lot of undecided voters here. We can agree to disagree, and let it go at that.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 14, 1999.

d-

Here is someone who epitomizes the elitist thinking of the big government, politicians know best crowd. As you might imagine, he's a university professor, an academic, who has no doubt spent his entire adult life with his lips firmly clamped on the public teat.

"It seems patently absurd to assume that the average voter will be able to judge whether something proposed is too costly or a bargain, whether that something is in the community interest and whether he should approve a tax onto himself even if the answer is affirmative. The reality is that the average voter tends to base a vote for approval on the personal benefit received. And why shouldn't he? Paying taxes for years on something that has a modest impact on his life or cannot foreseeably have one if he is older, is a personal waste for all but the most altruistic when the option is to say no. Therein lies the challenge facing our political leaders."

http://www.seattle-pi.com/opinion/rtaop.shtml

From his Bio on the UW website:

Background Professor Decher did his undergraduate studies at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (B. Aero. Eng. 1961) and went on to complete graduate (M.S.A.A., 1962 and Ph.D. 1967) degrees at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been with the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics since 1967.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 14, 1999.