Washington Votes Forum

Why is it so important the this bill of attainder (in fact if not in name) limit its provisions by the size of the county?  If the law is good for large counties, why is it not good for medium size counties and even (gasp) smaller counties?

This appears to be good for the city or goverment agency that imposes the tax BUT, isn't it still the public thatpays the tax. I don't care how you word it a new tax will only cost the people paying the utility bill.

Do we really need more taxes at this time?

This is an attempt to level the playing field.  Cities are currently allowed to (and counties would be allowed to) levy a utility tax on private utilities (the telephone companies, Puget Sound Energy, etc.) and on municipal utilities (sewer or water districts run by the cities themselves) but not on independent water and sewer districts.  Since municipalities are permitted to take over independent water and sewer districts, they need to consider whether it is financially worth it for the tax revenue.  This bill would allow the cities served by independent districts to glean the same revenue that other cities have and still provide the independence of our water and sewer districts.  (Of course, the legislature may want to consider the value of having some of these tiny little districts that span city borders as opposed to either forcing cities to take them over or rationalizing their borders to match city borders.)

The counties, which are providing urban level services to unincorporated areas, are currently denied the rights to tax residents of unincorporated areas like nearby cities can.  One result is that the opponents of annexation can correctly point out that annexation would cost those taxpayers more thus inhibiting our worthwhile goal of getting all areas of the county within the Urban Growth Boundary into cities.  What happens (at least in King County and maybe in other counties with reasonable urban areas) is that the counties "steal" money from the people in cities to subsidize the urban level services that they provide to residents in unincorporated county (the so-called Urban Subsidy.)  Passage of this bill would begin to level the playing field.

The legislature might want to reconsider the unincorporated road tax and either grant the same right to cities or abolish it, again to level the playing field.

 Tax and spend. Wake up before you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I moved from the city to unincorporated King County to get away from your tax and spend insanity. I will move further if I have to. Why not spend your precious time cutting taxes and spending before you start a revolution and find yourselves unemployed? I may just take your job instead of moving further out! Vive la revolucion!

 Isn't there a Washington State constitutional requirement for a bill to stick to one subject? How is it that a bill can authorize a new tax AND require a state audit? This bill looks to be even more a case of apples and oranges than the Eyman initiative that was tossed out by the courts. But if Gregoire wants to sign it then I'm sure one of her lawyer buddies can make a buck off of bringing a case against it, and the state will have to pay the legal fees.

 Why set a size of county restriction on this new taxing authority? Is this one of the classic divide and conquer bills that doesn't upset too many people when first introduced and then when they come back and lower that size restriction, slowly, it all seems so reasonable? If it is a good, and ethical, bill then a size restriction would not be necessary.

 The language of this bill is bad, there are districts in King County (the only county in the whole state that qualifies for this bill) that have several cities within their boundaries and they can't all be taxing the gross receipts, this language has to be tightened down to gross receipts of only those accounts within the city limits. At least then the people affected can vote out the people who caused their bills to go up another 6% in these cold cruel economic times.

Authorizes a city or town located partially or wholly within a county with a population of one million five hundred thousand or more, subject to certain requirements, to impose a tax upon the gross income or gross receipts of a water-sewer district.

Since the gross receipts of a utility are fundamentally equivalent to the billings for service, the way this is collected is to add 6% to each sewer or water bill.  This is essentially what cities are permitted to do today with private or municipal utilities.  This bill allows counties to do it within unincorporated areas (for which they provide local (city-like) services) and thus levels the playing fields for cities and counties.  An additiional feature os that now cities and counties can level the tax on independent utility districts also.

 Now we have a substitute bill, but it isn't like they made it any better. The bill still offers sticks and carrots for King County municipalities to annex more area, beat them by pulling the funding they've been getting, and tempt them with up to a 6% tax on water and sewer districts, calling them "businesses" to be taxed. These are  non-profit operations run by boards of customers who don't get paid beyond a stipend for their oversight work of two meetings with staff every month. Staff is limited to pay based on averages of other districts in the area doing the same-size/work. Either the cities should be allowed to tax monopoly utilities run as cheaply as possible, districts that often rely on state fund low interest loans to bring those pipes to new areas that then pay property taxes, or they should not tax another government entity, and annexations or not shouldn't have anything to do with it!!!

Substitute Bill 4th bullet: Authorizes cities and towns in King County to impose business taxes on water-sewer districts, if the city or town has annexed its potential annexation areas.