From the Tri-City Herald 9/24/99 County assessors association says No, thanks to car tab measure By Kim Bradford

If Initiative 695 resurrects a long dormant property tax on cars, please dont ask county assessors to collect the money.

County assessors from across the state met for their annual conference Thursday in Pasco and overwhelmingly approved a resolution opposing any effort to impose the states personal property tax on vehicles.

We look at the job being so immense, from the staff to the software we would need, said Barb Wagner, Benton County assessor and the newly elected president of the Washington State Association of County Assessors.

And if the voters are saying they want a $30 car tab, they are not saying they want other taxes on vehicles.

The measure garnered only one no vote, from Adams County Assessor Jerry Crossier.

The Legislature exempted vehicles from the personal property tax in 1937, when it created the motor vehicle excise tax.

I-695 seeks to eliminate the excise tax in favor of a flat $30 licensing fee.

But in an ironic turn, the anti-tax initiative would repeal the excise tax laws, including the part that makes vehicles exempt from the states personal property tax.

Initiative supporters claim the personal property tax only could be revived through a public vote.

I-695 would require voter approval of any new taxes.

But the state Department of Revenue warned county assessors to be prepared to add vehicles, travel trailers and campers to the property tax rolls if the initiative passes, The Associated Press reported earlier this week.

Some lawyers who advise local governments say the rate might be 1 percent of the vehicles value-or $10 for every $1,000 the vehicle is worth.

The current tax rate under the motor vehicle excise tax is 2.2 percent of value.

Assessors say reinstating the personal property tax would be unfair and virtually impossible to enforce. Car owners would pay according to the tax rates for the area, rather than the statewide schedule used for the existing excise tax.

It would be a nightmare, Wagner said. I have 6,000 accounts for personal property now. I would have to add 80,000 or more. I dont know how many cars there are. And what are we going to do? Have everyone self-report?

The assessors resolution calls on state lawmakers to amend I-695, if it passes, to prevent property taxes on vehicles, travel trailers and campers.

But other county officials want to keep the tax option available.

Diane Oberquell, the president of the Washington State Association of Counties and a Thurston County commissioner, grumbled Thursday when told of the resolution.

Oberquell, who is in Richland this week for an association conference, said she understands the assessors concerns, but thinks other solutions are possible.

I would be more comfortable if they would ask the Department of Licensing to take it over, she said. But to just say, no, we dont want to do it  thats money that could help replace the $96 million that counties would lose if I-695 passes.

Local governments have predicted deep cuts if I-695 passes. The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs held a press conference Thursday in Richland to explain its opposition to I-695, which it said will led to police layoffs in virtually every city and county in the state. END STORY.

Apparently some of our elected officials are catching on. Just one thing that never was explained was why will cops be laid off and not some less important city personnel?

Ed  had to type it all in as the Herald didnt have it on web like their anti-695 articles.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999

Answers

Don't worry Ed, this won't even slow up the anti I-695 people from coming up with additional red herrings and bogus allegations to attempt to change the mind of the majority who support I-695. Any kind of chaff and flares to get the missile to break lock. Only I think that their efforts may be too little, too late, and too bogus.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 27, 1999.

I think it's time to start taking names and remembering these elected officials at election time and express our displeasure with their threats in the only method a voter can do. Vote them out of office! We need to get someone in there that is capable of handling their jobs without threats and/or intimidation of raising our taxes. Let's get 'em out of there!!

-- Dee Jay (dee@jay.com), September 27, 1999.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this article basically say that the people who would be in charge of enforcing what is widely considered to be the biggest unintentional flaw in this initiative don't want the responsibility? That they figure enforcing this aspect would create an even more expensive and intrusive bureaucracy than exists now? And remind me how this paints I-695 in a good light?

Of course this is a lot like a group of students passing a resolution telling their teacher that they no longer want to take the statewide accountability test. As has already been announced, if it is determined by the courts that the personal property tax is automatically re-instituted without a public vote, the assessors basically won't have a choice about enforcing it or not. So basically they're asking the state to either fix the problem or excuse them from being the ones in charge of enforcing the problem.

Again, what a ringing endorseme

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Patrick writes

"So, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this article basically say that the people who would be in charge of enforcing what is widely considered to be the biggest unintentional flaw in this initiative don't want the responsibility?"

Okay I think your wrong, as the following statement, which was at the start, says it all,

"said Barb Wagner, Benton County assessor and the newly elected president of the Washington State Association of County Assessors.

"AND IF THE VOTERS ARE SAYING THEY WANT A $30 CAR TAB, THEY ARE NOT SAYING THEY WANT OTHER TAXES ON VEHICLES."

Plus Patrick I did not say it was an endorsement, I was just posting an article with some common sense in it. I did not write it.

As for "And remind me how this paints I-695 in a good light? You can read into it anything your heart desires, that's fine. You're voting no. I did not post it for you (although if you actually read it, fine). But for the yes crowd (me included) to let them know that some of the elected officials aren't buying into the "WE'LL JUST TAX THE HELL OUT OF SOMETHING ELSE" put forth by you and the rest of the socialist liberals in this state.

Again I say your wrong as stated by Barb Wagner "AND IF THE VOTERS ARE SAYING THEY WANT A $30 CAR TAB, THEY ARE NOT SAYING THEY WANT OTHER TAXES ON VEHICLES".

Plus aren't you liberals always talking about the will of the people. Then why is it went an initiative or referendum is past by the people the first place you head is to the courts to have it over turned.

Ed - letter of commendation for lifesaving. (nothing to do with post, just like to toot my horn, never can tell when someone with common sense (like me) will run for office)

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

As the article points out, it is clear that the Initiative repeals the exemption of vehicles from property taxation, but the cost of assessing and taxing them under the property tax system is much higher. We're not talking about misunderstood intent here. Section 3 (19) explicitly repeals the exemption, so the intent to tax vehicles is clear to courts, if not to you.

What is ironic is that is if I-695 passes, the legislature won't even be able to vote to restore an exemption for vehicles for 2 years, unless they can get 2/3 of each house to agree, since they will be amending Section 3(19) of I-695. The chance of that happening is small, because it was pretty clearly the intent of the Initiative to substitute a property tax, and the legislature will be leary of messing with it. They may amend things not in I-695 by majority action, so could tell Licensing or Revenue to collect the property tax, instead of each Assessor, saving a lot of the administrative cost.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), September 28, 1999.

Exclusive of the fact that I doubt the courts will see it your way, Bob (Contrary to your assertion, there is no intent to tax vehicles. After all, while the initiative does repeal the exemption, it does not implement any machinery to collect the tax, as it also removes the system used to assign valuation to these vehicles, making it legally impossible to tax them) let's assume that you are correct, and somehow the courts say: "Yup, you're gonna have to collect a property tax."

Why you and the rest of the anti's see this as some sort of reasoning that we should oppose this is beyond me.

If you are right, then the tax cuts you anti's whine about will not be nearly as severe as you claim... if you are right, the tax level would be reduced from 2.2% to less then 1.4%... and we still save a chunk of money... Plus, of course, we still get the right to vote on tax/fee increases.

In this, the "reddest" of red herrings, all you do is reinforce the idea that this is a needed initiative, and that those wise enough to support it should continue to do so.

Westin

Who points out that you all are going to have to do much, much better then this.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 28, 1999.

There you have it, folks. Neither the pro-I-695 side or the anti-I-695 side can give us a factual answer on how much property taxes businesses and/or individuals will pay. Each side is either unwilling or incapable of providing a definitive answer. So, if you're trying to make an informed decision, you're out of luck.

I intend to vote for I-695 because I believe it will make the government more accountable and more responsive, as well as less arrogant. I voted against Referendum 49 because I have found the DOT to be one of the most corrupt and arrogant institutions in our state. If I-695 means less money for the DOT, then I'm all for it. The DOT should be renamed to be the Department Of Road Maintenance And No Transportation (DORMANT).

I'd much rather pay property taxes, since I can more easily attend a meeting in my county, as opposed to driving to Olympia.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 28, 1999.

Ed, please find the comment where I stated that either the assessors or anyone else believe that the "will of the people," if they pass I- 695, is to reinstate the personal property tax. It might be kind of difficult, since I never did make that statement. So you might want to stop shouting a quote the is fairly moot to the comments I made.

One of the points in the article seems to be the idea that EVEN THOUGH the people probably don't want a personal property tax reinstated, they consider it a distinct possibility that 695 will be interpreted to do just that. After all, it isn't what the people think they're voting on that gets enacted, but what the courts decide based upon case law and the constitution. Just review the interpretation of the 14th Amendment (US Constitution) over its first 100 years to see a REAL clear cut case of that.

"Then why is it went an initiative or referendum is past by the people the first place you head is to the courts to have it over turned."

Hmm, let's see. Off of the top of my head I can think of two over the past 10 years that were seriously debated in the courts, term limits and R-49, and a WHOLE LOT that haven't been, including 601 and I-200. The fact is that this is a poorly drafted initiative that could have been pretty air tight against possible court challenges had its authors known what they were doing, like for example, keeping the property tax exemption entact. But they didn't, and as a result, if it passes, it's going to be fodder for a whole bunch of lawyers.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

Patrick

I think you need to take some anger management classes with ac.

You state Ed, please find the comment where I stated that either the assessors or anyone else believe that the "will of the people," if they pass I- 695, is to reinstate the personal property tax. It might be kind of difficult, since I never did make that statement. So you might want to stop shouting a quote the is fairly moot to the comments I made. Your cut & paste isnt to sharp today and you should read the post and replies completely before you start blowing a cork.

Pat (can I call you Pat) I never said you said the will of the people was to reinstate the personal property tax. Also what shouting? I capitalized the quote so you would be sure to see it, if you thought I was shouting at you, sorry, that was not my intent. But again you did not read the original post or my reply to you entirely.

And when I said will of the people in this case I meant that the people of this state want some relief from the burdensome taxes that are levied on us. And by threatening to take it to court you and the rest of the screaming crowd of doom and gloom (liberals & conservatives) are trying to scare us.

Then this line The fact is that this is a poorly drafted initiative that could have been pretty air tight. Hmm lets see. $30 for tabs and a vote on any tax increases. Seems pretty tight to me.

Ed  not putting words in people mouths unlike some.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

Alight, Ed seems to be projecting here, since I don't know where he pulled the Patrick must be angry comment out of.

Been on the Internet long Ed? ALL CAPS = shouting in most corners of the net. Just trying to be helpful.

Let's see if I can get my cut and paste right this time.

"Again I say your wrong as stated by Barb Wagner "AND IF THE VOTERS ARE SAYING THEY WANT A $30 CAR TAB, THEY ARE NOT SAYING THEY WANT OTHER TAXES ON VEHICLES"."

So the way I read this was: I'm wrong because the voters DON'T want other taxes to be put in place should the tabs be reduced to $30. My response was that I CAN'T be wrong about this, because I never said that they DID want other taxes to be put in place. Perhaps you did mean to say something else, but if you did, you certainly attached it to the wrong quote (twice).

"And when I said will of the people in this case I meant that the people of this state want some relief from the burdensome taxes that are levied on us. And by threatening to take it to court you and the rest of the screaming crowd of doom and gloom (liberals & conservatives) are trying to scare us."

Actually, when you said it the first time you referenced it to attempts to overturn past initiatives and referendum, NOT the current "threats" to take 695 to court.

"Seems pretty tight to me."

And your background in interpreting state case and constitutional law is.....

Patrick- who seems to be able to say what he means a lot better than some.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

Patrick

I apologized for the all caps and explained why I used them. If you dont want to accept my apology and the reason for I did it fine.

Also you state Actually, when you said it the first time you referenced it to attempts to overturn past initiatives and referendum, NOT the current "threats" to take 695 to court.

Okay what part of Plus aren't you liberals always talking about the will of the people. Then why is it when an initiative or referendum is past by the people the first place you head is to the courts to have it over turned., is not referring to the courts.

Also spent 2 years studying state law (criminal) which had to do with State Supreme Court cases and U.S. Supreme Court cases. No it was civil law, which youll nick pick next. And 10 years applying the law as a police officer. I know this does not make me a lawyer. But as for the comment "Seems pretty tight to me.", The language of I-695 is very simple. Its the liberals trying to complicate it.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

Westin, You write that "After all, while the Initiative does repeal the exemption, it does not implement any machinery to collect the tax, as it also removes the system used to assign valuation to these vehicles, making it legally impossible to tax them." Sorry, that simply isn't an accurate recitation of the law.

Initiative 695 only repeal the method for excise tax calculation, which is completely different than the method of valuation for property taxation. Title 84, RCW contains all the requirements for valuation of personal property and no additional unknown steps exist for cars or any new kind of property created tomorrow. Assessor's do this for every kind of property imaginable every year. If it's not exempt, they have to value it, so they do. No legislation is necessary to say how to assess and tax property of any kind, the statutes and constitution haven't changed on this. In summary, assessors use generally accepted appraisal practice around the country to determine the true and fair value in money a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller for the particular type of property involved. That normally includes surveys and averaging of sales of comparable property. If surveys have been done by others, they can consider those, or if not, they can use their own devices.

The problem initiative 695 causes for assessors is that using the procedures they know how to employ is much more costly than MVET calculation, and it falls on counties, rather than on the state, without any compensation for the huge workload increase. For them it's just another unfunded mandate.

What you didn't mention is the huge extra hassle for taxpayers imposed by I-695. Now all you do is pay your MVET when you get your tabs. If I-695 passes, you and virtually every other car owner will have to fill out a personal property tax affidavit under oath, listing your cars, their original purchase prices and dates, and all other personal property you may have which is not exempt, and send it to the assessor in March. Then the Assessor must determine the fair market value of each type of personal property, and put that value on the tax rolls in the owner's name. If you fail to file, there will be a penalty of 5% per month added to the resulting taxes (NTE 25%). If you fail to file or falsify anything knowingly, you may instead be required to pay a 100% penalty, in addition to interest on unpaid amounts. If not paid when required by existing law, the Treasurer is to seize and sell the property on which tax is not paid, or certify it to any real or personal property of the owner.

None of this is too shocking--it's the way businesses and individuals handle property tax for all other non-exempt personal property now. It's just that it takes lots more time for taxpayers than excise taxation, and costs each local government involved lots more to collect the same amount of revenue. If you like government to collect nearly as much money as MVET, but waste most, if not all of it on collection costs, instead of on programs the way it is now collected, then I-695 is for you. You save a little, but almost all that you do pay is wasted.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), September 28, 1999.

"If you like government to collect nearly as much money as MVET, but waste most, if not all of it on collection costs, instead of on programs the way it is now collected, then I-695 is for you" Even if I believed this Bob (and I don't) I'd vote for I-695 strictly for the requirement for a vote on tax and fee increases.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 29, 1999.

"Okay what part of Plus aren't you liberals always talking about the will of the people. Then why is it when an initiative or referendum is past by the people the first place you head is to the courts to have it over turned., is not referring to the courts."

I'm sure this will qualify as nit picking, but 695 has not passed yet. Your comment seemed to imply that everytime an initiative or referendum is passed (as in, NOT including 695), the liberals try to override it with the courts. I was attempting to show you that your comment had little historical backing. Two proposals that passed, I- 200 and I-601, were fiercely fought by liberals but have yet to be attacked in court. So this "here they go again" kind of comment you're making about possible legal challenges falls flat.

And to dispell the idea that just the liberals are pointing out legal holes in 695, over 20 of the 39 prosecuting attorneys in this state (of which very few are Democrats) have come to the conclusion that this would reinstate the personal property tax. Jim West, the Republican leader in the Senate has stated the same thing. In fact, the only person in the legal or political world that I have heard say he has doubts about this is Senator Michael Heavey, a S

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

Ed wrote, "But as for the comment "Seems pretty tight to me.", The language of I-695 is very simple. Its the liberals trying to complicate it."

The problem is that the language is so simple, that the intent is unclear in a legal sense, and the initiative may have some inintended consequences. Tax law is complicated. Simple answers almost never solve complex problems. I am not a liberal. I am so much a conservative, that I want any proposed change to demonstrate that it will be clearly better than what I know works now.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 02, 1999.