Washington Votes

2003 House Bill 1557

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. Joe McDermott on January 29, 2003, to prohibit persons from owning vehicles in one area and registering them in another area for the purpose of evading special excise taxes. This bill would also allow city transportation authorities that have been dissolved by vote to continue to exist and collect taxes until all debts incurred have been repaid. See also Companion HB 5559.
    • Referred to the House Transportation Committee on January 30, 2003.
      • Testimony in support offered to the House Transportation Committee on March 10, 2003, by Barton Potter, Office of the State Treasurer; Charles Hamilton, Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce; Judith Runstad, Foster Pepper and Shefelman; Maude Daudon, Seattle Northwest Securities; Greg Hanon, Joel Horn, Daniel Malarkey, and Kristina Hill, Seattle Popular Monorail Authority; D. John Coney, Queen Anne Community Council Town and Uptown Alliance; Ron McGahd, King County Labor Council; and Edwin Stone, North Beacon Hills Neighborhood Association, who testified that more security for bond holders will result in lower bond costs and savings on the project. By insuring that the authority will remain in place in order to retire bonds adds such security. Bond interest rates are at their lowest point in over 30 years and the ability to sell bonds now, at low rates, reduces the overall cost and the financial risk of the total project. Insuring that Seattle residents cannot avoid the motor vehicle excise tax by registering their vehicles outside the city is both a tax-payer equity issue and a revenue issue.
      • Testimony with concerns offered to the House Transportation Committee on March 10, 2003, by Howard Anderson, Building Owners and Managers Association; Geoff Logan; Rudi Bertschi; and Patricia Stambon, who testified that not enough design has been done to assess whether the project can be built within projected costs. Selling bonds now exposes the taxpayers to significant risk for a project whose costs may prevent it from being built. Don't issue financing for a project that may never be built. Provisions that taxpayers will be held accountable for the bonds is a transfer of risk from bondholders to taxpayers.
    • Substitute offered to the House Transportation Committee on March 10, 2003, to add requirements for the citizen oversight panel and the bonds not being sold until the final environmental impact statement; and to clarify that out of state vehicles are not subject to the tax on initial registration within an authority. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on March 10, 2003.
    • Referred to the House Rules Committee on March 10, 2003.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, (D-Seattle) on March 19, 2003, to remove authority for the Independent Oversight Panel, created to oversee monorail activities, to hire independent consulting firms to assist with its activities and analysis. It also directs the monorail authority to provide to the Independent Oversight Panel all financial risk materials and other materials related to development of the monorail. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on March 19, 2003.
  • Passed in the House (82 to 15) on March 19, 2003, regarding city transportation authorities. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received to the Senate on March 20, 2003.
    • Referred to the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on March 20, 2003, the bill did not pass both chambers during the 2003 regular session, so the bill automatically returned to the House Rules Committee when the regular 105-day session adjourned on April 27, 2003.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Joe McDermott on January 29, 2003. Passed in the House (82 to 15) on March 19, 2003. New Comment

1) What if prosecutor doesn't agree [by BigHalo on February 25, 2003]
Although not the subject of this amendment, what happens if the prosecutor does not agree with the petitioners claims? From the wording of the law, it seems the petition dies no matter how many signatures it may contain. Is that correct? Is there no appeal? One person, perhaps not even an elected official, can stop the citizenry?
Reply New Comment

Line

2) It needs to be handled differently [by Anonymous Citizen on March 11, 2003]
It appears to have been some time since others have posted but my thoughts on this are as follows:

1. The monorail is being designed to ease congestion but it seems short-sighted to limit funding to those who live a) only in Seattle and b) drive vehicles. Monorail should be more resonably distributed amongst the taxpayers within the tranist area. Particularly since vehicle drivers in the metro area are already paying and RTA. (I am also not opposed to the idea of giving vehicle owners who pay the monorail tax a ride-for-free-as-much-as-you-like card.)

2. There needs to be a single agency for planning transportation needs in the Puget Sound Region. I believe there is a bill introduced that will create such an agency. This way we cut down on multiple interests each trying to tax the citizen for their pet project.

3. If the monorail is suppose to grow to include lines that extend from the Seattle City to Redmond and surrounding areas why don't they have to pay the taxes for years before there is any visible and appreciable use of the improvement? Or would these guys be forever immune since legislation approving the monorail only called for the tax on Seattle city registered vehicles?
Reply New Comment

Line

3) No more bonds sold [by BigHalo on February 25, 2003]
After the dissolution of such a transit authority or the passage of an initiative to repeal a tax used by such an authority, the authority's ability to continue to spend money on the project or sell new bonds should be explicitly denied.

For example, if an authority used some excise tax for bonding and that tax were repealed or limited, the authority should be prohibited from spending more money on the project until an alternative source of bonding authority had been established.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Intent [by BigHalo on February 25, 2003]
Since the registration of a vehicle outside Seattle is only illegal if the "purpose" is to evade collection of special excise taxes, in order to assess the fines, etc. one would have ot prove intent which seems extraordinarily difficult. I might suggest that if the person is regeistered to vote in Seattle, they should register their vehicle there. If they choose to register to vote, provide their address to census takers, recieve official mail, etc. at a summer cabin outside the city, they should be allowed to register their vehicle at that cabin. Make sure that they have to do sufficient inconvenient things at their alternative address so they will give up and register their vehicle where they "live."

Please do not attempt to punish their intentions, but rather their provable actions.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Two topics [by BigHalo on February 25, 2003]
I thought that having two topics in legislation (e.g. dissolution of city transit authorities and penalties for registering your vehicle in the wrong space) was not permitted in Washington State.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Two topic rule [by Anonymous Citizen on February 25, 2003]
That only applies to initiatives that the "establishment" doesn't like. :{
Reply New Comment

Line

7) State Constitution and "One Subject" Rule [by BeACynic on February 26, 2003]
From the Washington State Constitution (http://www.courts.wa.gov/education/constitution/)

ARTICLE II SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT.
No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Preservation of public peace, health, safety [by BigHalo on February 25, 2003]
The idea that this bill affects public peace, health, or safety seems ludicrous on the face of it. That waiting a while to allow people to change their registrations to conform to the law would affect the amount of collection of tax revenue and civil penalties may be accurate but hardly seems worthy of this clause.

Adding this type of clause into bills such as this goes to the heart of why the people do not trust politicians. Politician will lie, cheat adn steal to collect a few more dollars of our money as taxes or penalties.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: