|
Printer Friendly - Subscribe to Page
Bainbridge Island Complaint
Not an official copy.
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KITSAP COUNTY
THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, a Washington municipal corporation; DWIGHT SUTTON,
a Bainbridge Island voter paying property taxes; and GILBERT & JANET BAILEY,
Bainbridge Island voters paying property taxes; and HOUSING RESOURCES BOARD,
a Washington non-profit corporation providing essential housing assistance to
low income families on Bainbridge Island; Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON,
in its general capacity as defender of I-722 and through its agency the Washington
Department Of Revenue; KITSAP COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation; JIM
AVERY, the Assessor for Kitsap County, in his official capacity only; and SHARON
SHRADER, the Treasurer for Kitsap County, in her official capacity only; Defendants.
No. _________________________
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
["Bainbridge Island Complaint"]
Plaintiffs allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF THIS SUIT
1. Introduction. This suit concerns Initiative Number 722 ("I-722").
That Initiative called for (1) nullifying and refunding increases in taxes,
fees, and monetary charges enacted after July 2, 1999, (2) reinstituting the
personal property tax exemption for motor vehicles, and (3) rolling back property
tax assessments to the level in effect on January 1, 1999 and instituting a
taxation scheme that redistributes property tax burdens from the owners of rapidly
appreciating property to the owners of property that is not rapidly appreciating
in value.
I-722 is scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2000.
Implementing I-722 on December 7, 2000 will cause substantial hardships and
inequity. It will cut the City of Bainbridge Island's 2001 general fund revenue
in half - which will require significant cutbacks in the police, building
inspection, roadwork, and other health and safety services that the City provides
to its citizens. It will eliminate all funding for low-income support services,
affordable housing assistance, and art & humanities programs. It will
also shift the City's property tax burdens from corporations and persons whose
real estate holdings have appreciated greatly these past few years to citizens
owning property that has not appreciated as much in that same time period.
These hardships and inequities cannot lawfully be imposed upon plaintiffs
because I-722 is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs accordingly file this action
to secure an injunction prohibiting the December 7, 2000 implementation of
I-722, and a declaratory judgment confirming that I-722 is unconstitutional,
null, and void.
2. Our Constitution Matters. One of the bedrock principles of government
in our nation is that all laws must comply with the Constitution.
That includes laws enacted through the Initiative process. As the Washington
Supreme Court recently confirmed in its decision striking down I-695, citizens
voting on an Initiative "are not superior to the written and fixed Constitution",
and thus they "must conform to the Constitution just as the Legislature must
do when enacting legislation." Over the years, courts have therefore invalidated
many Washington State Initiatives which violated the Constitution - including:
- The Graduated Income Tax Initiative that passed by over 70%. Culliton
v. Chase (1933).
- The WW II Veterans' Bonus Initiative that passed by 57%. Gilman v. Tax
Com'n (1949).
- The Death Penalty Initiative that passed by 59%. State v. Green (1979).
- The Anti-Pornography Initiative that passed by 55%. Jones v. Charboneau's
(1980).
- The Anti-Busing Initiative that passed by 66%. Washington v. Seattle
School District (1982).
- The Campaign Reform Initiative that passed by 73%. Washington Fed'n of
State Employees v. State (1995)(portions struck down).
- The Term Limits Initiative that passed by 52%. Gerberding v. Munro
(1998).
- The Three-Strikes-You're-Out Initiative that passed by 76%. State v.
Cloud (1999)(portions struck down).
- The $30 License Tab Initiative that passed by 56%. Amalgamated Transit
Union v. State (2000).
3. Safeguarding the Initiative Process. To safeguard the integrity and
fairness of the Initiative process in our State, our Constitution imposes some
basic requirements with which every Initiative must comply. For example:
· Every Initiative in this State must present a single subject
instead of combining separate proposals in one Initiative. Article II, §19,
1st clause. This requirement protects the voters' right to vote
"yes" on one proposal and "no" on the others, instead of being forced to vote
"yes" on all or "no" on all.
· Every Initiative in this State must have a ballot title that
discloses to voters what is buried in the fine print of that Initiative's
text. Article II, §19, 2nd clause. This requirement protects voters'
right to know what they are voting on when they read the ballot title in the
election booth.
· Every Initiative in this State must identify for voters the
existing statutes that a "yes" vote will revise or amend. Article II, §37.
This requirement protects the voters' right to know how the Initiative they
are voting on will change the laws already on the books.
I-722 violates each of these Constitutional requirements.
4. Promoting Fairness with respect to Taxation. To promote equality
and fairness among the citizens of this State, our Constitution also imposes
some basic requirements with respect to the collection of taxes and use of the
resulting public funds. For example:
· Our Constitution requires uniformity in real property taxes.
Article VII, §1. This ensures that citizens owning similar pieces of property
of equal value are taxed equally.
· Our Constitution bans gifts of public funds. Article VIII,
§§5 & 7. This ensures that once tax revenues are legally collected from
the citizenry as a whole, they are not then given away to be put in the pockets
of some.
I-722 violates each of these Constitutional requirements as well.
5. Upholding the Constitution. In short, I-722 violates many provisions
in our State Constitution. Plaintiffs therefore file this suit to secure a court
ruling that upholds and enforces our Constitution by declaring that Initiative
unconstitutional and enjoining its December 7, 2000 implementation.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff City. The plaintiff City of Bainbridge Island ("Bainbridge
Island" or "City") is a municipal corporation validly formed and existing under
the laws of the State of Washington, and has satisfied all conditions precedent
to bring this suit. Bainbridge Island will be directly and adversely affected
if Initiative 722 is found to be constitutional or implemented commencing December
7, 2000.
7. Plaintiff Taxpayers. Plaintiffs Dwight Sutton, Gilbert Bailey, and
Janet Bailey (collectively the "plaintiff taxpayers") are Bainbridge Island
voters, owners of real property within the City of Bainbridge Island, and pay
real property taxes with respect to their property. They have satisfied all
conditions precedent to bring this suit. Since January 1, 1999, the plaintiff
taxpayers' real property has appreciated in value less than the 19¼ % average
rate of appreciation on Bainbridge Island. The plaintiff taxpayers will be directly
and adversely affected if Initiative 722 is found to be constitutional or implemented
commencing December 7, 2000. For example, a direct result of that Initiative's
"2% limit" is to shift the property tax burden from owners of tax parcels which
have appreciated more rapidly than average to the owners of tax parcels which
have appreciated less rapidly (or not at all).
8. Plaintiff Housing Resources Board. Plaintiff Housing Resources Board
is a Washington non-profit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, and has satisfied
all conditions precedent to bring this suit. The Housing Resources Board provides
rent support for low income persons on Bainbridge Island, and provides housing
assistance for very-low to moderate income persons on Bainbridge Island. It
serves approximately 102 very-low to moderate income families on Bainbridge
Island every year, and receives approximately 1/3 of its operating funding from
the City of Bainbridge Island. If that City funding is cut off, plaintiff Housing
Resources Board will have to eliminate the previously-noted assistance it provides
to very-low to moderate income families on Bainbridge Island. The Housing Resources
Board, and the over 100 very-low to moderate income families it serves, will
be directly and adversely affected if Initiative 722 is found to be constitutional
or implemented commencing December 7, 2000 because, as explained further below,
that implementation will result in the City having to terminate its funding
of plaintiff Housing Resources Board.
9. Defendant State. The State of Washington is charged with defending
the constitutionality of I-722, implementing I-722, and enforcing the provisions
of I-722. For example, through its Department of Revenue and its Director Frederick
C. Kiga, the State is charged with valuing certain taxable property located
within municipalities such as Bainbridge Island, exercising general supervision
and control over the administration of the assessment of property and the tax
laws of this State, over county assessors, county treasurers, and all other
county officers in the performance of their duties relating to taxation, including
giving order and direction to county assessors and any other county officers
as to matters relating to the administration of the assessment and taxation
laws of this State, and ensuring compliance with property tax levy limits under
Chapter 84.55 RCW. Such control, administration, order, and direction includes
control and administration of, and order and direction to, the defendant County,
Assessor, and Treasurer in this suit, and accordingly occurs within this County.
The State is also a proper party pursuant to RCW 7.24.110.
10. Defendant Kitsap. Kitsap County is a political subdivision of the
State, duly formed and existing under the laws of the State of Washington. Kitsap
County and certain of its officers, employees, and agents are charged with implementing
and enforcing the provisions of I-722 through, among others, its Assessor and
Treasurer.
11. Defendant Assessor. Mr. Jim Avery is the Kitsap County Assessor,
and is charged by law with, e.g., valuing property within the City of Bainbridge
Island (except for property valued by the State Department of Revenue), determining
the levy limit, setting the tax rates, and determining the total amount of tax
on each piece of property within Bainbridge Island. Mr. Avery is named as a
defendant in this suit in his official capacity only.
12. Defendant Treasurer. Sharon Shrader is the Kitsap County Treasurer,
and is charged by law with, e.g., collecting property taxes on property within
Bainbridge Island and, possibly, effecting some "refunds" under I-722 if it
is constitutional and valid. Ms. Shrader is named as a defendant in this suit
in her official capacity only.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
13. Jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to RCW 7.24.010 and .030 because this action presents a judiciable
controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendants regarding the parties'
rights and obligations under Initiative 722. This is an actual and existing
dispute within the meaning of chapter 7.24 RCW, between the parties with genuine
and opposing interests which are direct and substantial, a judicial determination
of which will be final and conclusive. This Court also has jurisdiction by virtue
of RCW 2.08.010, RCW 4.12.010 & .020(2), RCW 36.01.050, and RCW 7.40.010.
14. Venue. Venue for this action properly lies in this Court with respect
to the defendant State under RCW 4.92.010, with respect to defendant Kitsap
County under RCW 36.01.050, and with respect to the defendant Assessor and Treasurer
under RCW 4.12.020(2).
BACKGROUND
Initiative 695
15. Initiative 695. Initiative 695, commonly referred to as the "$30
License Tab Initiative", was enacted by approximately 56% of the voters in the
November 1999 general election. Initiative 695 proposed (1) limiting license
tabs to $30 and (2) requiring voter approval of increases in taxes, fees, and
monetary charges. In October 2000, the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision
declaring Initiative 695 unconstitutional.
Initiative 722
16. Submission of Initiative 722. The proponents of I-695 submitted
Initiative 722 to the Washington Secretary of State for inclusion on the November
2000 ballot before the Supreme Court issued its decision concerning the constitutionality
of I-695.
17. "Son of 695". Throughout the election campaign, the proponents of
Initiative 722 referred to Initiative 722 as "Son of 695".
18. Statewide November 2000 Vote. A majority of the Washington State
voters who voted in the November 7, 2000 general election voted in favor of
Initiative 722 ("I-722").
19. Bainbridge Island November 2000 Vote. On information and belief,
plaintiffs allege that a majority of the Bainbridge Island voters who voted
in the November 7, 2000 general election voted against I-722. (That belief is
based in large part on the fact that in the November 1999 election, over 73%
of the Bainbridge Island voters voted against that Initiative's "father" - i.e.,
against I-695.)
20. Ballot Title. The ballot title for I-722 was: "Shall certain 1999
tax and fee increases be nullified, vehicles exempted from property taxes, and
property tax increases (except new construction) limited to 2% annually?" A
true and correct copy of that Ballot title is attached as Exhibit A.
21. Initiative Text. The full text of I-722 is attached as Exhibit B,
and is incorporated into this paragraph as if fully set forth verbatim.
22. No Similar Measures. No measures with provisions similar to those
in I-722 were included on the November 7, 2000 ballot.
23. Effective Date. Unless enjoined, I-722 will take effect on December
7, 2000. Moreover, defendant Kitsap County Assessor Avery has taken the position
that upon that effective date he is "obligated to comply with this new law".
Impacts of November 7 Implementation of I-722
24. LTGO Bonds. On October 13, 1999, the City of Bainbridge Island enacted
a bond ordinance to issue $4.9 million in Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds
(the "1999 LTGO Bonds"). Those bonds were then issued and sold on October 28,
1999.
25. Monetary Charge Increases. Between July 2, 1999 and December 31,
1999, the City of Bainbridge Island enacted several ordinances and resolutions
increasing taxes, fees, and monetary charges to the level necessary to repay
the 1999 LTGO Bonds and fund the normal operating costs of the City. Those increases
were enacted without a vote of the Bainbridge Island voters. Those tax, fee,
and monetary charge increases included, but were not limited to, increases in:
- property taxes,
- general Business & Occupation taxes,
- B & O taxes on utilities,
- commercial parking lot taxes,
- land development charges,
- storm and surface water management utility charges,
- water and sewer utility charges,
- boat docking fees, and
- parking lot charges.
With respect to many of the above charges, the City provided services in exchange
for the increased charge.
26. Revenues Pledged To Bondholders. The revenues from all of the taxes,
fees, and monetary charges listed in the preceding paragraph are specifically
pledged to support the City's 1999 LTGO Bonds, as declared in the Official Statement
issued for the sale of those bonds as required by the Federal Securities &
Exchange Commission.
27. 2001 Tax Levy. On October 25, 2000, the City enacted Ordinance Nos.
2000-33 and 2000-34 approving the property tax levy for 2001. The City has certified
that Bainbridge Island property tax levy for 2001 to the defendant County, and
has directed the defendant County, Assessor, and Treasurer to fully collect
that 2001 property tax levy.
28. 2001 Levy Impact. If fully implemented as written on December 7,
2000, I-722 will prevent the defendant County, Assessor, and Treasurer from
collecting the 2001 property tax levy already approved by the City and certified
to the County, and will require those defendants to recalculate the levy lids
and levy amounts to be significantly lower - i.e., approximately 30% lower.
For example, the defendant Assessor has already advised the City that since
I-722 is scheduled to become effective December 7, 2000 (absent an injunction),
the City's 2001 tax levy and collections must be recalculated according to the
lower figures allowed under that Initiative.
29. Cutting City's General Fund In Half. If fully implemented as written
on December 7, 2000, I-722 will reduce the City's General Fund by approximately
$4.4 million - which calculates to approximately 45% of its total 2001 General
Fund.
30. Bond Impairment or Curtailment of Police Protection. If fully implemented
as written on December 7, 2000, I-722 will, as a practical matter, require the
City to chose between having its contract obligations under the 1999 LTGO Bonds
seriously impaired or making substantial operating cuts such as completely eliminating
all discretionary services and terminating about ½ of its non-discretionary
services. (Non-discretionary services include services as police and municipal
court.)
31. Substantial Cutbacks. If fully implemented as written on December
7, 2000, I-722 will also force the City to execute significant cutbacks in building
inspection, roadwork, and other health and safety services provided to its citizens.
It will eliminate all funding for low-income support services, affordable housing
assistance, and art & humanities programs. For example, the City's funding
for community service programs such as Helpline House and plaintiff Housing
Resources Board will have to be eliminated - causing serious injury to the hundreds
of needy families such agencies serve on Bainbridge Island.
32. Tax Inequities. If fully implemented as written on December 7, 2000,
I-722 will force the real estate tax burdens within the City to be redistributed
from the owners of rapidly appreciating real property to citizens owning property
that has depreciated, remained stable, or appreciating less rapidly. That inequitable
tax-reallocation scheme will redistribute the real property tax burdens on Bainbridge
Island to citizens such as the plaintiff taxpayers, whose property has appreciated
less than the Bainbridge Island-wide average of 19¼% since 1999.
33. Inefficient Tax Collection. If fully implemented as written on December
7, 2000, I-722 will cause confusion, unfairness, and delays in the redistribution
of tax burdens and collections of the same. It will also cause the City (as
well as the County defendants) to incur needless administrative costs in attempting
to comply with the Initiative's provisions - e.g., its provisions requiring
the recalculation of levies and levy lids, requiring artificial "1999" reappraisals
for new construction and improvements, and requiring "refunds" to the "taxpayer"
for increased taxes, fees, and other monetary charges collected since July 1999.
Those costs and payments, moreover, cannot as a practical matter be recovered
after the courts invalidate I-722.
34. Need for Equitable Remedy. Plaintiffs have no plain, complete, speedy,
and adequate remedy at law.
35. Public Import. The real merits of this controversy are unsettled
and, without a judgment in this suit, questions of great public importance in
Kitsap County concerning the constitutionality of implementing and enforcing
I-722 will continue to exist.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLAIM
36. Incorporation. Plaintiffs incorporate in this paragraph the allegations
in the other portions of this Complaint to the extent they are not inconsistent
with this Declaratory Judgment Claim, and in addition allege:
Constitution's "Single-Subject" Requirement
37. Constitution. An Initiative that submits two different proposals
in one ballot measure is not fair to voters - for it robs them of a fair choice,
and forces them to vote either for both proposals or against
both proposals. The single-subject rule in Article II, § 19 of our Constitution
protects voters from being forced into that predicament, and thereby safeguards
voters' right to vote for one proposal and against the
other if they so choose.
38. Violation. I-722 violated our Constitution's single-subject requirement.
For example, the I-722 ballot presented at least three different proposals to
the voters, and required each voter to vote "yes" on all three as a group or
"no" on all three as a group:
(1) Do you want 1999 tax and fee increases nullified?, and
(2) Do you want vehicles exempted from property taxes?, and
(3) Do you want property tax increases limited to 2% annually?
Constitution's "Subject-In-Title" Requirement
39. Constitution. An Initiative can mislead voters if the fine print
buried in its text goes beyond what the average voter would think he
or she is voting on by reading the Initiative's ballot title. Article
II, § 19 of our Constitution accordingly establishes a "subject-in-title" requirement
that bars an Initiative's text from going beyond the subject disclosed to voters
in the ballot title.
40. Violation. I-722 violated our Constitution's "subject-in-title"
requirement. For example, the I-722 ballot title violated this constitutional
requirement by:
(1) asking voters if they wanted 1999 tax and fee increases "nullified"
- without disclosing to them that the text also required public funds legally
collected in 1999 and 2000 to be "refunded";
(2) asking voters if they wanted 1999 "tax and fee" increases
nullified - without disclosing to them that the text dramatically expanded
that nullification with a sweeping definition of "tax" that encompassed not
simply "taxes" and "fees", but also "any ... monetary charge"
collected by a government entity - including, e.g., "water, sewer, and other
utility charges".
(3) asking voters if they wanted property tax increases "limited to
2% annually" - without disclosing to them that the text also rolled
back property taxes to be based on assessments in effect on January
1, 1999 - i.e., a roll-back to assessments determined on February 15, 1998
at the very latest.
(4) asking voters if they wanted property tax increases "limited"
to 2% annually - without disclosing to them that the text also completely
eliminated tax liability attributable to certain types of construction.
Constitution's "Full Disclosure" Requirement
41. Constitution. Fairness dictates that an Initiative disclose to voters
how a "yes" vote will amend or revise the laws that already exist in this State.
Accordingly, Article II, § 37 of our Constitution requires an Initiative to
tell voters which statutes it would amend or revise.
42. Violation. I-722 violates that full disclosure requirement, and
alters existing statutes without identifying those statutes for the voters.
For example, this Initiative's provision mandating the refund of "water, sewer,
and other utility charges" already collected in 1999 and 2000 to cover the costs
of operating municipal water and sewer systems amends statutes such as chapters
35.67 and 35.92 RCW, which mandate that municipal utilities cannot operate at
a loss and must therefore set (and collect) sufficient water, sewer, and other
utility rates to fully fund the utility's costs of operation. Other examples
include, e.g., the provisions of chapter 84.12 RCW relating to inter-county
operating properties, RCW 84.55.010, RCW 84.48.080, RCW 84.80.080, and the refunding
rules in chapters 84.68 & 84.69 RCW.
Constitution's Tax Equality Requirement
43. Constitution. Article VII, §1 of our Constitution requires uniformity
in the taxation of real property. This assures that similar citizens owning
similar pieces of property with equal fair market values are taxed equally.
Indeed, such uniformity and equality in taxation is one of the cornerstones
of a fair and equitable taxation system.
44. Violation. I-722 violates our Constitution's requirement of tax
equality by taxing property at the old assessment values in effect January 1,
1999, plus inflation or 2% (whichever is less), instead of taxing property at
its current fair market value. That results in owners of depreciating (or slowly
appreciating) property paying taxes based on their property's fair market
value, but owners of more rapidly appreciating property paying taxes based on
less than fair market value. That in turn results in the property tax
burden being shifted from the owners of rapidly appreciating property
to the owners of slower appreciating property. (Depending upon how the
defendants intend to equalize the State Levy pursuant to RCW 84.48.080, a similar
lack of equality and uniformity claim exists with respect to any redistribution
of tax burdens from more rapidly appreciating property to slower appreciating
property. Plaintiffs reserve the right to add such a claim if the defendants'
determination with respect to such equalization so warrants - e.g., if defendants
decide to use the artificial 1999 assessment plus 2% approach of I-722 rather
than true and fair market value.)
Constitution's Ban Against Gifts of Public Funds
45. Constitution. Article VIII, §§ 5 & 7 of our Constitution ban
municipalities from making gifts of public funds to private parties. This helps
ensure that taxes validly collected from the citizenry as whole cannot be simply
given away to select citizens.
46. Violation. I-722 violates that ban by mandating that the City of
Bainbridge Island make payments out of its current public funds to certain citizens
who previously paid valid taxes, fees, and monetary charges (e.g., charges for
the City services they received). Indeed, the Washington Supreme Court has confirmed
that "refunding" taxes after they have been lawfully collected violates our
Constitution's ban against gifts of public funds.
Constitution's Ban Against Contract Impairment
47. Constitution. Article I, §23 of our Constitution also promotes fairness
by prohibiting laws that impair contracts.
48. Violation. The provisions of I-722, and their implementation, violate
that ban by, e.g., impairing the City's contracts with its 1999 LTGO Bondholders,
and impairing its contracts with its utility ratepayers. Such impairment, moreover,
is not necessary to achieve any legitimate public purpose.
Constitution's Ban Against Impermissibly Vague Mandates
49. Constitution. Article I, §3 of our Constitution (the due process
clause) promotes fairness by prohibiting laws that are too vague.
50. Violation. The provisions of I-722 violate that prohibition by,
e.g., imposing vague - indeed, incomprehensible - requirements such as those
contained in Initiative section 4(1) (requiring that "increases in property
tax ... shall be exempt from property tax").
Constitution's Guaranty of Equal Protection
51. Constitution. Article I, §12 of our Constitution (the equal protection/privileges
and immunities clause) also promotes fairness by prohibiting laws that treat
similar citizens unequally.
52. Violation. The provisions of I-722, and their implementation, violate
that ban by, e.g., treating similar owners of real property differently without
a sufficient reasonable basis. For example, the inequitable shift of tax burdens
from the owners of property that is rapidly appreciating in value to owners
of property that is appreciating more slowly such as the plaintiff taxpayers
in this suit.
Unlawful Calculation Of Levy Limit
53. Statute. RCW 84.55.010 authorizes levies of regular property taxes
in an amount equal to the limit factor (106%) multiplied by the highest amount
of regular property taxes lawfully levied in the three most recent years. The
property taxes levied by the City of Bainbridge Island in 1999 for collection
in 2000 is the highest amount of regular property taxes legally levied by that
City in the three most recent years, and the inflation rate as determined by
the State (through its Department of Revenue) for use in determining the limit
factor under Chapter 84.55 RCW for taxes to be collected in 2001 is 2.61%.
54. Violation. The plaintiff City maintains that even without the future
levy capacity protections of RCW 84.55.092, its regular property taxes levied
in October 2000 for collection in 2001 may legally equal an amount not to exceed
106% of the regular property taxes levied in 1999 for collection in 2000, and
that due to the levy capacity protections the City's regular property taxes
levied in October 2000 for collection in 2001 may legally equal an amount in
excess of 106% of the regular property taxes levied in 1999 for collection in
2000 (here, an amount of approximately 111%). The defendants - especially the
defendant Assessor - have warned that unless enjoined, they will apply the provisions
of I-722 in a manner that refuses to calculate the City's maximum property tax
levy for 2001 as 106% (or any higher figure such as 111%) of the levy collected
in 2000, and instead calculates that maximum property tax levy for 2001 as 102%
of the highest levy collected between 1996 and 1999. The defendants' calculation
method, however, constitutes an unlawful calculation of the City's levy limit.
If defendants' "comply" with I-722 by ceasing to keep and update records on
the value of taxable property at its true and fair market value for debt purposes
and the calculation of debt, defendants will also violate (or at least prevent
compliance with) the debt capacity provisions of Article VIII, §6 of our State
Constitution and its implementing statutes.
Declaratory Judgment Conclusion
55. Unconstitutionality and Illegality Of I-722. Washington law entitles
plaintiffs to a declaratory judgment that I-722 is invalid, null, and void under
the Washington State Constitution. For example, I-722 violates:
(a) Article II, §19, 1st clause (single-subject requirement for
Initiatives);
(b) Article II, §19, 2nd clause (subject-in-title requirement
for Initiatives)
(c) Article II, §37 (full disclosure rule for Initiatives);
(d) Art. VII, §1 (requirement of equal real estate taxation)
(e) Art. VIII, §§ 5 & 7 (ban on gift of public funds);
(f) Art. I, §23(ban on impairment of contracts);
(g) Art. I, §3 (due process clause/void for vagueness); and
(h) Art. I, §12(prohibition against unequal treatment of citizens).
I-722, as being threatened to be implemented by the Kitsap County defendants,
also results in an unlawful calculation of the City's levy lid, and will violate
(or at least prevent compliance with) the debt capacity provisions of Article
VIII, §6 of our State Constitution and its implementing statutes.:
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLAIM
56. Incorporation. Plaintiffs incorporate in this paragraph the allegations
in the other portions of this Complaint to the extent they are not inconsistent
with this Injunctive Relief Claim, and in addition allege:
57. Clear Legal Right. I-722 is unconstitutional in many respects. As
a matter of constitutional law, I-722 is null, void, and unenforceable. Plaintiffs
have a clear legal or equitable right to not be subjected to the implementation
of a law, such as I-722, that violates our Constitution. Plaintiffs also have
a clear legal or equitable right to not be subjected to the implementation of
a law that results in the unlawful calculation of the City's levy lid.
58. Well Grounded Fear Of Invasion. Plaintiffs have a well grounded
fear of an immediate invasion of their above rights (e.g., upon the defendants'
December 7 implementation of I-722).
59. Substantial Injury. The December 7, 2000 implementation of I-722
will result in actual and substantial injury to plaintiffs.
60. Injunction. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent
injunction barring implementation or enforcement of I-722.
61. Balance Of Interests. The balance of interests between the parties,
as well as the interests of the public in having the Courts of this State uphold
and defend our Constitution, also support the issuance of a preliminary and
permanent injunction barring implementation or enforcement of I-722 on December
7. The interest of the public in the efficient and fair collection of taxes
further supports the issuance of the injunctive relief requested in this suit.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs request the following relief from this Court:
1. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants, and all of
their employees, agents, political subdivisions, and others acting in concert
with them, from implementing or enforcing I-722 (including, but not limited
to, an injunction requiring the defendants to continue keeping and updating
their records on the value of taxable property at its true and fair market value
for purposes of debt and debt capacity limit calculations);
2. A declaratory judgment declaring I-722 unconstitutional, and thus entirely
null and void;
3. Plaintiffs' attorney fees, expenses, and costs to the full extent allowed
by law;
4. Permission to amend the pleadings to add additional claims or parties to
conform to the proof offered at the time of hearing or trial; and
5. Such other relief as appears to the Court to be just and equitable.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of November, 2000.
FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC
Thomas F. Ahearne, WSBA No. 14844
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
INSLEE BEST DOEZIE & RYDER, P.S.
Michael P. Ruark, WSBA No. 2220
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
|
