Can anyone give a coherent explanation of how this proposed county tax levy shift can possibly leave rural taxpayers with the same tax bill, require municipal taxpayers to assume a greater portion of the prior total bill, and still not violate the 1% annual tax increase law? If I understand correctly, the county is planning to take the 1% increase permitted, on top of the levy shift.

I believe they have the same levy rate, however the percentage is reduced in the road levy and increased in the general levy. So technically the levy is not increased by more than 1%. Being a city dweller I would have loved the opportunity to talk to them about this, but I have a day job. The Schools, City, Fire Districts and PUD manage to meet when people can show up, but our highest paid elected officials seem to think they can get public input at 2:00 in the afternoon. This is ridiculous, I understand the tough spot they find themselves in, but we all saw this coming to or three years ago. Perhaps tough choices should have been made then rather than opting for bubble gum and duct tape. At least 2012 is an election year...

Still a bit abstract. As I recall, the impact of the levy shift was to be $12 to $13 per $100,000 valuation for city dwellers. Looking at my last tax bill breakout, this means my county tax would increase by at least 8.7% from last year, plus the 1% additional increase. Since rural bills are not going down, and the county plans to do the levy shift to generate additional funds, this smells like an illegal tax hike, unless voter-approved.

Perhaps the picture could look a little different if someone could lay out actual numbers and calculations, and an explanation how it's all OK under the law.

Do you happen to know if the county commissioners have an attorney review their proposed actions for legal sufficiency? Surely this would be accomplished prior to implementation.

I have no idea what, if any, legal research our county commissioners may have requested. Judges Godfrey and Edwards have repeatedly suggested our commissioners act without having done their homework. Perhaps those observations/opinions apply in this instance as well.

Someone--Terry Willis, I think--was quoted as saying other jurisdictions have done the levy shift. While that may be factual, it is not legal research.

The 1% annual non-voted increase cap is relatively new law (late 'nineties?), so there well may be no interpretive caselaw on point, yet. Perhaps it is time to make some caselaw. Or, it could be that the beloved Mr. Eyeman did such a poor job drafting the law that this tax-shifting ploy is clearly permissible. Since I have done no research myself, IDK.

Not that I am supporting their decision, but here is a link to how the shift works and the applicable statutes:

http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Pubs/Prop_Tax/RoadLevyShifts.pdf

What I was questioning is whether the commissioners have an attorney on staff (or on retainer) who is responsible for opinion as to the legal sufficiency of any proposed actions. That would seem to me to be a pretty important staff member which could save time and money in pursuing actions which are not legally permitted. I believe even our local municipalities have such a person available to them, so I would be surprised if the county would not be doing the same.
I'm not saying they aren't doing this, I just don't know.

Thank you. This link does explain why the rural tax stays unchanged, and the general concept of the levy shift. It also points out several potential limitation that could apply--most notably, the 1% annual increase cap. So, the question remains, if the net impact on those who reside within municipal boundaries is a tax increase (of the county levy) of close to 10%, how does this not violate the cap? The short answer--it appears-- is that it does violate the cap.

You're asking a good question.

If the total of road taxes + general fund taxes > 101% of last year's total I think you're right.

My original understanding was that the road tax would go down for county residents and up for city ones, but that is illogical if the point is to get more revenue.

Lumberjack, that is the basis of my opposition to this, I am a city dweller and we do not pay Road Tax levies as the City is responsible to maintain the roads, not the County. So the County lowers the road levy, but increases the General levy. The increase revenue comes from the City folks that are now paying an estimated $11 more per $100,000 of assessed value. The 1% cap is an interesting idea and I am wondering if pressed what our Commissioners would say. Unfortunately their meetings are at a time when I cannot get there to ask.

City residents use county, state and federal roads. The reverse is not necessarily true.

I require a better understanding of the idea before I can decide if it's fair.

But I am not paying extra taxes for roads, they are reducing the road funding in order to balance their general fund budget. I agree and would probably support paying road taxes, but city residents are now paying more than their share for County Services. I completely understand the position the three commissioners find themselves in, but I think some communication on their part to the City Councils would have helped tremendously and perhaps discussing this issue two years ago as a bridge to get through the downturn would have saved everyone some heartache. As it stands now, I did not have a chance to even discuss this with my elected official as I work during the day. You would think more public hearings would be required in order to adopt something like this that effects so many.

Since, in Grays Harbor, nearly every type of store or place of business used by the majority of people is inside the various city limits I would disagree with this statement. That said I have no opinion on the the actual shift as I do not as of yet completely understand it. And since the commissioners have made no communication at all with cities I'm left to read the paper or use other resources to try and form an opinion.

I will say I am less than impressed with the commissioners. I feel no sympathy for them at all. They had plenty of time to deal with the issues but chose to ignore them until it was far too late. Their lack of communication with the department heads, the employees and the citizens was plain old fashioned negligence to me. All three have proven an inability to perform the jobs for which they were elected.

That is a lot of of qualifiers; but a I know of numerous businesses that are not located within "city limits".

However, it does look like a way to raise taxes on city folk, while leaving the country people's taxes the same.

http://www.co.grays-harbor.wa.us/info/BudgetWeb/GHCBudget2011.pdf

How many people have their sailboat on the cover of a county budget?

I know two.

I was referring to grocery stores, pharmacies, major clothing retailers, etc. Yes there are businesses outside the city limits but those everyday items needed by most are within the cities (I'm not aware of any supermarkets in Quinault or Satsop or Grayland, etc). The point I was making is most county residents do use city roads. But that is a very minor issue. More to the point is the lack of communication by our commissioners and apparent lack of ability IMHO.

If a county resident chooses to go to Aberdeen, it's generally for the indirect purpose of depositing some change into the city's tax fund. With the exception of the Brady Food Mart, all my purchases from brick and mortar entities help fund operations of one city or another.

City residents, on the other hand, can't get out of their town without using county or state roads, and when they do, it's generally not for the purpose of doing commerce in the unincorporated county. Like me, they're usually driving to another city, to help fund their operations.

But since the county and state can and do levy sales tax you are also funding them even inside the city so to me that negates that argument.

Road taxes should go down for incorporated residents, while general fund taxes go up for every property owner in the county, including the cities, which translates into less funds for county roads, and more funds for the county general fund.

So, now I'm looking at this $5.90 per thousand aggregate rate limitation, and my fall property tax statement. It seems the total, non-voted, regular levy amount runs $6.81 per thousand. According to the DOR paper, this means the levy shift can't happen? I don't understand either.

What we need is a detailed article in the DW explaining all the ins and outs, and differing calculations for the various jurisdictions. Are you reading this Steven?

I do not know if this proposal was reviewed but they do have a rep from the pros. office that sits in the meetings and gives advice, etc similar to what city attorneys do.

I did a little more research and the 1% limit applies to the total tax collected amount, not on an individual tax payer. So the levy shift, while it does increase city dwellers taxes by more than 1%, does not violate the law as the total amount collected is not above the cap. I still feel the County Commissioners have done a horrible job through this crisis by not making the tough decisions years ago. At least it's an election year and let's hope someone worthwhile will file against both Willis and Wilson, it's time for a change!

I agree about it being an election year. I am also hoping someone worthwhile/qualified files. IMO the current three office holders do not meet that simple criteria. Unfortunately the only person to officially announce does not fit that bill either, at least for me. I know of at least one more person who is seriously considering running. They are strongly leaning towards it but haven't made a final decision. I hope they do. It would be nice to have a variety of choices for once.