Despite passage Initiative 722
won't go into effect Thursday
posted 12/06/00
Washington Department of Revenue Director Fred Kiga advised all Washington counties to postpone implementation of Initiative 722 until courts have ruled on its validity. According to the Department of Revenue, all counties and taxing districts are bound by the Thurston County Superior Court case because they act in "active concert" with the Department of Revenue.
"The Constitution’s mandate of uniformity is the highest and most important of all requirements applicable to the administration of property taxes," Kiga said in a press release. "Uniformity cannot be achieved if the state and some taxing jurisdictions are enjoined from implementing and enforcing I-722, while other taxing jurisdictions administer the property tax under the provisions of the initiative."
"This is the guidance from the Department we asked for," said Prosecutor
Randy Gaylord in a press release.
Under the initiative, property assessments would be rolled back to 1999 levels and increases in taxes would be limited to 2 percent or less. The initiative was supposed to take effect Dec. 7, 2000.
Citing the likelihood of the measure proving to be unconstitutional and impossibility of implementing the property valuation rollback, county Assessor Paul Dossett issued a letter to the county's taxing districts stating the I-722 injunction will allow districts to authorize 2001 property tax levies within current law of an optional 106% increase, based on current market value assessments.
"We have been informed by our programmers that it will be impossible to implement the valuation cap under section three of I-722 in time to issue taxes in 2001," he said. He compared it to "taking a fully loaded freighter in Rosario Strait and making a 180 degree turn."
Dossett believes the initiative will be found unconstitutional and that districts would be harmed if they were not allowed to collect taxes at the current rate. "They would not be able to recapture the value later," he said.
A final ruling from the court is not expected
until after February 23, 2000.
|
