I JUST READ THE VOTERS PAMPHLET. I AM NOW CONFUSED ABOUT THE STATUS AND ENFORCEMENT OF RCW 82.44.130.

-- STEVE DILLEY (HARMSSHD@3-CITIES.COM), October 13, 1999

Answers

Just so everyone knows what we're talking about, here's the RCW in question:

Ad valorem taxation barred. No motor vehicle shall be listed and assessed for ad valorem taxation so long as this chapter remains in effect.

This RCW is the one that prohibits the state or local governments from assessing a personal property tax on motor vehicles. And, for some completely unknown reason, the drafters of 695 decided to list it as one of the RCW's eliminated by the initiative (I'd like to hear a reason beside "we didn't know what we were doing").

The $64,000 question is whether that means that a personal property tax would automatically be reinstituted, or whether it would require action by the legislature and another public vote. This has been debated on this site for quite a while, so I won't go into it now. Suffice to say that it will take a bunch of lawyers and the final say of the Supreme Court to figure it out shou

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

Patrick

From my understanding of it property tax could be levied against a vehicle after I-695 passes. But the property taxes on your residence would have to be lowered a like amount unless it was put to a vote by the citizens

i.e. 2% property tax on house, 0% on vehicle. After I-695 1.5% on house,, 0.5% on vehicles.

The above is just an example and is not to be construed as actual values.

Ed - no flames just info

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

Ed:

The State Department of Revenue addressed both points in a memo to the county assessors about two weeks ago. Their interpretation, with the advice of the Office of the Attorney General, is that 695 does repeal the exemption and (re)impose the property tax on vehicles. They also note that additions to the taxable assessed value of a taxing district, such as new construction (or the addition of vehicles as taxable by the initiative) is likely not a tax increase by the state. Application of the tax rate to such additional assessed value does not increase the tax on anyone else, and is a "ministerial action" not subject to voter approval.

You can, of course, disagree with the Department of Revenue and the AG, and that is why this will be in court. Until a court rules, however, the instructions from the Department of Revenue are likely to control how county assessors apply the provisions of the initiative if it is passed.

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

d

"You can, of course, disagree with the Department of Revenue and the AG"

I wasn't disagreeing with anyone, just posting some info of what I thought. You have cited that this came from the Department of Revenue. Thank you, I was wrong.

Like I stated, I wasn't flaming just posting info. Patrick posted a reply and so did I. There was no name calling or making fun of spelling. Just information being exchange.

Also d maybe you can answer this for me.

My wife would like to know if she will have to take an increase in school lunches to a vote? I don't know the answer, so maybe you or Patrick do. Thank you in advance.

Ed - a guy in Texas called the cops to his trailer, when they showed up he shot and killed three. A 4th was wounded before the gunman was killed.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

Patrick

In response to your "$64,000" question. I can't answer why the rcw was left out. The one thing I feel this intiative is going to get accross is the point of out of controlness our government has on our tax dollars. Yes, I agree it may be true that our assessor may/maynot find a way to make up for the short fall if this I-695 passes, but theres always next year for a modified or ratified intiative to plug unwanted problems in 695. The world is not going to come to an end.

-- Mr. Bill (bspencer@kalama.com), October 14, 1999.

Ed, I've heard the same thing about counties possibly having to revise their other property taxes in order to keep things revenue neutral should the personal property tax be reimposed. As D stated, it is most likely one of those things that will be subject to interpretation. But it is probably one of the main reasons why the Auditors passed that resolution requesting that the personal property tax not be reimposed. If this were to be the case, they would all have to figure out the total value of all of the cars registered in their county (noting that the current MSRP value system would have been eliminated), and then figure out how much property taxes would have to be reduced accordingly. Now I'm no expert, but I can't imaging that this would be a fun thing to do for anyone.

As far as school lunches being affected, I haven't seen a single opinion that they wouldn't be. Even though I believe most schools contract out to private companies, I believe that the price setting is done by the schools themselves, so they would have to get voter approval first before raising the price on any item.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.

Ed:

My comment wasn't personal. I just expect that the issue will be disputed, and end up in court. The "you" was the editorial you, not the personal you.

On school lunches, schools may be able to avoid a vote by changing the food service arrangement so that the contractor sets the price. I-695 limits fee increases by the state, defined to include local governments. If the contractor has control, the fee increase is not set by "the state". That could be another whole subject for discussion. Is it really a good idea for governments to be encouraged to transfer such decisions to private contractors?

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

Patrick & d

Thanks for the responses. The reason I asked the question is that my wife is the food service director for a school district. They do not contract out their services.

She asked me and I personally don't know the answer. And didn't want to give a false answer. I did tell her to contact the State Attorneys office for an oppinon.

Again thank you for your responses.

Ed - trash talking is not talking

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.

Sure thing Ed, and that idea of contacting the AG's office is probably a good one regardless of the opinions expressed here and elsewhere. There still is a chance that school lunches aren't covered out of some obscure technicality. A lot of reporters still mention library fines as something affected by 695, but actually those would be exempt as criminal and civil fees are items excluded from 695.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.