With the movement for recall of the Mayor of Bellingham building due to his tax hike sleight of hand during the election, the city council and Mayor have decided to rethink their action Monday night of hiking propery tax 7.6%. They say because the county is proposing a sales tax hike, that will cover their shortfall. Recall proponents are now looking at recall of the county council members who vote for a tax hike.

-- (samizdat1@home.com), November 11, 1999

Answers

No problem with the county council proposing a sales tax increase. They should propose it...... to the voters. If it passes, they get it. If it doesn't, they shouldn't. If they try to sneak it in under the wire to avoid the voter approval requirement, they ought to be tarred and feathered, and then recalled.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.

I believe that even if the sales tax in any jurisdiction is increased, there is a provision for citizen referendum to reverse the decision.

-- Curious George (---@---.---), November 11, 1999.

As I noted on another thread, someone needs to check their figures. They can't increase the property tax by more than 6% without a vote of the people. It's illegal. What may be happening is that they are increasing the tax on existing tax payers by 6%, using the passage of 695 in their finding of a "substantial need". The additional 1.6% may be due to new construction.

Taxes on new construction are based on the value of the improvement, and the levy rate that was in effect the prior year. If that were not authorized, either the existing property owners would be paying for the added service required, of the service level of everyone would be reduced because of the added service needs caused by new construction.

The easiest way to see this is by an exageration. If a community grows by 20% in new homes and school children, the schools need 20% more classrooms and teachers to deal with just the growth in numbers (and excluding the CPI increase in the cost of the existing teachers and supplies). If the schools don't get that new construction revenue, the increase in students get packed into the same number of classrooms, and the level of service declines. That new construction revenue is not a tax increase to the existing property owners, since their part of any tax increase is limited to the IPD or a max increase of 6% even with a finding of "substantial need".

The same issues work themselves out in similar ways, for all government services.

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

They say they are invoking their ability to raise property taxes retroactively. If they don't raise them the allowable 6% each year, theoretically and now literally they can go back and raise taxes 18% (6% for each year they didn't raise them). That's my understanding.

-- (Samizdat@home.com), November 13, 1999.

By that logic, they could go back to BEFORE 601, and raise them a million percent. Sounds like they need to be replaced.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 13, 1999.

They can increase the property tax by 6% above the highest of the last three years. They can't legally go back three years and raise them 18%. The county assessor or state auditor should be contacted if that is what they are attempting to do.

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