|
Printer Friendly - Subscribe to Page
Affidavit of Henry Miggins
Not an official copy.
Honorable Christine A. Pomeroy
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR THURSTON COUNTY
THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, et. al., Plaintiffs vs. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
et. al, Defendants.
Thurston County Cause no. 00 2 02068 3
AFFIDAVIT OF HENRY MIGGINS
Henry Miggins, being first duly sworn on oath under penalty of perjury deposes
and says:
1. I am of legal age and competent to testify as to all matters contained herein
on personal knowledge and/or based upon records and practices I would reasonably
rely upon during the course of my employment and professional discipline.
2. I am the City Manager of the City of Spokane. My professional training
and background includes matters of finance and audit. I am familiar with the
budget process of the City of Spokane, just now in the process of final completion
and approval by our City Council after months of hearings, study and preparation.
I have reviewed and concur with the affidavit of my Budget Director, Collette
Greenwood.
3. The files and records already before the Court, I am informed, reflect
an integrated property tax assessment and collection process in Washington State,
which process involves administrative functions of the State Department of Revenue
conjunctively with the Counties and local governments. The consequences of immediate
implementation of I 722 on the budget and ability of the City of Spokane to
maintain essential governmental services would be disastrous. Based upon conversations
with my attorney, Robert Beaumier, and information derived from his review of
documents on file by other litigations already participating in the pending
Thurston County litigation, there are no known final guidelines or rules available
from the State Department of Revenue so far as knowing for certain how I 722
can or will be implemented.
4. The City of Spokane, acting on behalf of its citizens and utility ratepayers,
is required by law as my attorney confirms, to adopt a balanced budget before
the end of the year. To do this, we must have some idea of predictable revenue
streams based, in part upon guidelines and standards administered by various
state and county officials. While the City Council has some legal authority
to set the amount of the local government tax levy for the year 2001, it does
not control the actions of the County Assessor or County Treasurer. Unless current
status quo procedures are followed and the implementation of I 722 is delayed
pending judicial review of the constitutionality of the initiative, reserving
to the proponents of I 722 and the State of Washington whatever remedies at
law (payment of monies) the Court may determine appropriate at a later time,
our 2001 budget process and the implementation and continuation of essential
government services to the public is thrown into serious doubt and jeopardy.
5. Ordinances as reviewed by our legal staff, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Spokane between July 2, 1999 and December 31, 1999, to which
claims for refund may apply under I 722 are listed in the City of Spokane’s
Complaint previously filed in Spokane Superior Court. For reference, these are
listed therein as:
A. Ordinance # C 32495, passed 9/27/99, establishing a sewer special
connection charge for a new sewer crossing Highway 2 at Flint Road. Monies have
been spent by the City in reliance upon having collected and being able to collect
such new sewer connection charges. Commensurate value has been or will be provided
by the Sewer Utility to persons enjoying the benefits of connecting to a new
public sewer serving their area. If this ordinance is nullified, the burden
falls back on all the other sewer ratepayers to absorb the costs, but not the
benefits of the new construction.
B. C 32504, passed 11/29/99, is the water rates ordinance for 2000.
It amended the Water Code, Ch. 13.04 SMC (Spokane Municipal Code). It includes
certain provisions for water rate increases for the years 2000 and 2001 based
upon the costs of the service to the Water Utility. If the water rate increases
therein are required to be refunded by I-722, the City Water Fund will be thrown
out of balance because revenues will then not cover expenses as originally budgeted
for 2000. Because the Water Fund must be self supporting by law, any deficit
would have to be absorbed by the 2001 water ratepayers as redistributed by the
Spokane City Council, rather than paid by the customers who have already obtained
the benefit of the water service.
C. C 32505, passed 11/29/99, amended the City Sewer Code. It added
new charges and increased certain other sewer service rates. One group of new
charges arises from the City Sewer Utility’s stormwater management program.
The stormwater management program is the result of federal and state environmental
law mandates such as the Clean Water Act imposed upon the City Sewer Utility
to separate out storm water from sanitary sewage flows. The concept of the new
charges is that premises contributing more heavily to stormwater flows should
bear a larger portion of increasing municipal sewer utility costs of stormwater
management.
D. Components of the new stormwater charges are derived from the amount of
impervious surface on a given premises. Persons owning property with a large
square footage of impervious surface, such as parking lots or office building
rooftops, and who do not install onsite stormwater treatment or dispersion facilities
pay a higher monthly stormwater charge. If the stormwater charges are refunded
by I-722, the costs would have to be paid by the general sewer service rate
base. Again, persons responsible for the higher municipal stormwater costs would
no longer bear the proportionately greater share of costs of handling such flows.
E. C 32506, passed 11/29/99, amends the general administrative provisions
of the City utility code in Ch. 13.01 SMC and raises some fees to persons generating
administrative expenses to municipal utilities. One example is an increase in
the bad check fee from $15 to $25. If these charges are nullified by I-722,
the only source of money would be the innocent municipal ratepayers, who did
nothing to deserve having to bear such additional costs and who would receive
no benefit from such payment. Costly and burdensome logistics problems as to
how to implement such a refund for all these ordinances also arise.
F. C 32507, passed 11/29/99, includes some solid waste service increases.
If these increases were nullified, the same problems arise as stated earlier
with respect to the other utility funds.
G. C 32519, passed 12/6/99, makes the annual property tax levy
to raise $7,270,534 for the year 2000, an excess property tax of 50¢ per $1,000
and a 4% increase in property taxes from the previous levy. Substantial reductions
in general government services would result in implementation of I-722 to reduce
the levy provided in this ordinance, in addition to problems similar to those
stated above. Plaintiff and its citizens and ratepayers understand that properly
enacted legislative measures may sometimes operate to require reductions in
services due to decreased tax or rate revenues. The problem here is that the
provisions of the I-722 were enacted in violation of the state constitution.
Unless enjoined, an unconstitutional measure will be permitted to take effect,
contrary to the foundational principles under which our state and local governments
must operate.
H. C 32538, passed 12/6/99, makes adjustments to fees charged
by the Planning Services Department. It includes numerous fee increases, reflected
in SMC 8.02.038, 061, 064, 065, 066, 069, and adds fees in new sections SMC
8.02.0665, 0695, and 087. The Planning Department budget would likely have to
absorb these costs, resulting in curtailment of local planning services and/or
a redistribution of the costs of providing such services away from parties creating
the burden or receiving the direct benefit and onto the shoulders of the general
municipal taxpayer.
I. C 32548, passed 12/20/99, establishes a new chapter in the Spokane
Municipal Code, 10.47 SMC, regulating ambulances. It includes provision for
new permit fee provisions to support this program. These new charges would be
abolished and have to be refunded under I-722. The Spokane City Council would
have to determine whether to continue the program and how to fund the refund
and future program expenses. As with other cases, costs are removed from responsible
parties and put back upon innocent parties.
6. It would be administratively difficult or impossible to calculate revenues
collected under these ordinances, legally adopted and legally implemented at
the time of adoption. The revenues have been collected and used in many governmental
and utility service programs run by the City of Spokane. The money cannot be
unspent or the goods and services supplied by the City of Spokane in return
for such revenues, be they general governmental services such as police and
fire protection or specific benefits such as authorization to connect to a new
utility service line constructed for the benefit of the property paying the
connection charge. Not only would there be substantial losses of revenue which
could not be recaptured if I 722 were implemented, but the City of Spokane would
be exposed to a property taxing scheme different from King County or other Counties
subject to the injunction. Based on records filed with the Court, as interpreted
by my attorneys, this would make a uniform system of taxation statewide impossible.
7. The City Council implements budgeting decisions, but there is no doubt that
the kind of budget impact as identified in Collette Greenwood’s affidavit, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference would necessarily include elimination
or drastic reduction of library, police and fire services, among other unavoidable
options. Should projected impacts affect the City of Spokane’s ability to perform
its contract obligations, this would affect the City of Spokane’s bond ratings,
as has already happened in the context of another pending lawsuit involving
the City of Spokane.
DATED this__________ day of December, 2000.
________________________________
HENRY MIGGINS
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of December, 2000.
__________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing in Spokane.
My Commission expires ____________.
|
