|
Printer Friendly - Subscribe to Page
Initiative 722 - Complaint
Not an official copy.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR THURSTON COUNTY
CITY OF BURIEN, a Washington municipal corporation, CITY OF CARNATION, a Washington
municipal corporation, CITY OF PASCO, a Washington municipal corporation, CITY
OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal corporation, WILLIAM P. MALLOW, and SOUTHWEST
YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs, vs. FREDERICK C. KIGA, Director,
Washington State Department of Revenue and STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendants.
This is a Complaint by the City of Burien, City of Carnation, City of Pasco,
City of Seattle, William P. Mallow, and Southwest Youth and Family Services,
Inc. against the State of Washington (the "State"), and the Director, Washington
State Department of Revenue, Frederick C. Kiga, (the "Director") to permanently
enjoin the Director from enforcing Initiative 722 ("I-722") and to declare I-722
unconstitutional.
No.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff the City of Burien ("Burien") is a non-charter Code City pursuant
to Chapter 35A of the Revised Code of Washington located in King County, Washington.
Burien would be directly and adversely affected if the taxes, fees and other
charges it adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, were nullified
and required to be refunded, and if the amount of property taxes Burien may
levy for collection in 2001 is reduced below the limit allowed by law.
2. Plaintiff the City of Carnation ("Carnation") is a non-charter Code City
pursuant to Chapter 35A of the Revised Code of Washington located in King County,
Washington. Carnation would be directly and adversely affected if the taxes,
fees and other charges it adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999,
were nullified and required to be refunded, and if the amount of property taxes
Carnation may levy for collection in 2001 is reduced below the limit allowed
by law.
3. Plaintiff the City of Pasco ("Pasco") is a non-charter Code City pursuant
to Chapter 35A of the Revised Code of Washington located in Franklin County,
Washington. Pasco would be directly and adversely affected if the taxes, fees
and other charges it adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, were
nullified and required to be refunded.
4. Plaintiff the City of Seattle ("Seattle") is a municipal corporation validly
formed and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington.
It is a first-class charter city located in King County, Washington. Seattle
would be directly and adversely affected if the taxes, fees and other charges
it adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, were nullified and required
to be refunded, and if the amount of property taxes Seattle may levy for collection
in 2001 is reduced below the limit allowed by law.
5. Plaintiff Southwest Youth and Family Services, Inc. ("Family Services")
is a non-profit corporation validly formed and existing under the laws of the
State of Washington. Its principal place of business is in Seattle. Family Services
would be directly and adversely affected if the amount of property taxes Seattle
may levy for collection in 2001 is reduced below the limit allowed by law.
6. Plaintiff William P. Mallow is a homeowner and resident of King County and
would be directly and adversely affected by I- 722's shifting of the tax burden
from rapidly appreciating properties to his property.
7. The State of Washington, through its Department of Revenue ("DOR"), is charged
by law with valuing certain taxable property located within Seattle, exercising
general supervision and control over the administration and assessment and tax
laws of the state, over county assessors, county treasurers, and all other county
officers in the performance of their duties relating to taxation, including
giving order or direction to the county assessor or any other county officer
as to matters relating to the administration of the assessment and taxation
laws of the state and insuring compliance with RCW Chapter 84.55's property
tax levy limits. The State is also a proper party pursuant to RCW 7.24.110.
8. Defendant Frederick C. Kiga is the Director of DOR and controls and is responsible
for its actions.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of RCW 2.08.010, RCW
7.24.010 , the Declaratory Judgment Act, and RCW 7.40.010, Injunctions.
10. Jurisdiction and venue are proper by virtue of RCW 4.92.010(5) which provides
that actions against the State of Washington may be brought in Thurston County.
FACTS
11. On November 7, 2000, a majority of votes were cast in favor of I-722.
12. A true and correct copy of I-722 and the official ballot title are attached
as Exhibits A and B.
13. I-722 will take effect on December 7, 2000.
14. On information and belief, I-722 was defeated by Seattle voters, a majority
of whom cast their votes in opposition to I-722.
15. King County has adopted a real estate excise tax pursuant to RCW 82.46.
16. Construction materials are subject to the retail sales tax, RCW Chapter
82.08.
17. DOR, in accordance with its duty to supervise and direct assessors on the
implementation of law governing the taxation of property, has issued advice
to county assessors on the implementation of I-722 ("Director's Advice"). Copies
of the Director's Advice are attached as Exhibits C and D.
18. The Director's Advice to the county assessors has force and effect until
modified or annulled by judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction.
RCW 84.08.080.
FACTS PERTAINING TO BURIEN
19. Burien has collected increased taxes, fees and other charges adopted during
the period July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999, including business
license fees. Burien has provided services in exchange for the increased
charges.
20. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, King County, through its appointed Treasurer,
unless enjoined, will refund upon request that portion of Burien's property
tax that the Treasurer believes reflects a "tax increase" adopted between July
2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
21. Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, regular property taxes for
2000 collection were levied for Burien. The levy exceeded by more than 2% the
total regular Burien property taxes levied for collection in 1999, and was the
highest lawful levy for Burien during the preceding three-year period.
22. Burien will during November 2000 certify for levy regular property taxes
for collection in 2001. The amount certified for levy exceeds by more than 2%
both the amount of regular property taxes levied for Burien for collection in
1999 and the amount of regular property taxes levied for Burien for collection
in 2000.
23. The King County Assessor (the "Assessor") by law determines and implements
RCW Chapter 84.55's limits on the amount of Burien's regular property taxes
that may be levied.
24. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the county treasurer an amount less than Burien's lawful levy for
collection in 2001 because the Assessor will limit Burien's regular property
tax levy to an amount no greater than 2% higher than its levy for 1999 collection
plus new construction.
25. When determining the amount of regular property taxes levied for Burien
for collection in 2001, the Assessor will disregard Burien's regular property
tax levy collected in 2000.
26. A letter from the Assessor explaining how he will determine the amount
of Burien's maximum regular property tax levy for collection in 2001 is attached
as Exhibit E.
27. As a direct and immediate result of the Director's actions in implementing
I-722, Burien will suffer immediate and direct harm for which there is no plain,
speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO CARNATION
28. Carnation has collected increased taxes, fees and other charges adopted
during the period July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999, including utility
rates and permit fees. In some cases, Carnation has provided services in exchange
for the increased charges.
29. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, King County, through its appointed Treasurer,
unless enjoined, will refund upon request that portion of Carnation's property
tax that the Treasurer believes reflects a "tax increase" adopted between July
2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
30. Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, regular property taxes for
2000 collection were levied for Carnation. The levy exceeded by more than 2%
the total regular Carnation property taxes levied for collection in 1999, and
was the highest lawful levy for Carnation during the preceding three-year period.
31. Carnation will during November 2000 certify for levy regular property taxes
for collection in 2001. The amount certified for levy exceeds by more than 2%
both the amount of regular property taxes levied for Carnation for collection
in 1999 and the amount of regular property taxes levied for Carnation for collection
in 2000.
32. The Assessor by law determines and implements RCW Chapter 84.55's limits
on the amount of Carnation's regular property taxes that may be levied.
33. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the county treasurer an amount less than Carnation's lawful levy
for collection in 2001 because the Assessor will limit Carnation's regular property
tax levy to an amount no greater than 2% higher than its levy for 1999 collection
plus new construction.
34. When determining the amount of regular property taxes levied for Carnation
for collection in 2001, the Assessor will disregard Carnation's regular property
tax levy collected in 2000.
35. A letter from the Assessor explaining how he will determine the amount
of tax Carnation's maximum regular property tax levy for collection in 2001
is attached as Exhibit E.
36. As a direct and immediate result of the Director's actions in implementing
I-722, Carnation will suffer immediate and direct harm for which there is no
plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO PASCO
37. Pasco has collected increased taxes, fees and other charges adopted during
the period July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999, including utility rates,
business and occupation tax, and cemetery fees. In some cases, Pasco has provided
services in exchange for the increased charges.
38. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, Franklin County, through its appointed
Treasurer, unless enjoined, will refund upon request that portion of Pasco's
property tax that the Treasurer believes reflects a "tax increase" adopted between
July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
39. Pasco will during December 2000 set and certify its levy of regular property
taxes for collection in 2001.
40. The Franklin County Assessor by law determines and implements RCW Chapter
84.55's limits on the amount of regular property taxes Pasco may levy.
41. The Franklin County Assessor has advised that Pasco may levy regular property
taxes for collection in 2001 in an amount not to exceed the amount of regular
property taxes Pasco levied in 1999 for collection in 2000 plus 2%.
FACTS PERTAINING TO SEATTLE
42. Seattle has collected increased taxes, fees and other charges adopted during
the period July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999, including utility rates,
business and occupation tax, Seattle Center parking charges, and user fees for
parks. In some cases, Seattle has provided services in exchange for the increased
charges.
43. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, King County, through its appointed Treasurer,
unless enjoined, will refund upon request that portion of Seattle's property
tax that the Treasurer believes reflects a "tax increase" adopted between July
2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
44. Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, Seattle, levied its regular
property taxes for 2000 collection. The levy was approved by a vote of the people
and exceeded by more than 2% the total regular property taxes Seattle levied
for collection in 1999, and was Seattle's highest lawful levy during the preceding
three-year period.
45. Seattle is levying in November 2000 regular property taxes for collection
in 2001. The amount of the levy does not exceed the taxing authority approved
by the voters on November 7, 2000 when a majority of Seattle electors voted
in favor of Proposition 1, although the levy exceeds by more than 2% both the
amount of regular property taxes Seattle levied for collection in 1999 and the
amount of regular property taxes Seattle levied for collection in 2000.
46. The Assessor by law determines and implements RCW Chapter 84.55's limits
on the amount of regular property taxes Seattle may levy.
47. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the county treasurer an amount less than the lawful levy Seattle
made for collection in 2001 because the Assessor will limit Seattle's regular
property tax levy to an amount no greater than 2% higher than its levy for 1999
collection plus new construction.
48. When determining the amount of regular property taxes Seattle is allowed
to levy for collection in 2001, the Assessor will disregard Seattle's regular
property tax levy collected in 2000 in spite of the fact that those taxes were
approved by Seattle voters and not within the purview of I-722, disregard the
fact that Seattle voters have approved the 2001 levy so that the levy is not
limited by I-722, and, in any case, fail to take into account that Seattle levied
its taxes for collection in 2001 before I-722's effective date.
49. A letter from the Assessor explaining how he will determine the amount
of tax Seattle is allowed to levy for collection in 2001 is attached as Exhibit
E.
50. As a direct and immediate result of the Director's actions in implementing
I-722, Seattle will suffer immediate and direct harm for which there is no plain,
speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO MR. MALLOW
51. Mr. Mallow owns property located in Seattle.
52. From 1999 to 2000, Mr. Mallow's property value increased at rates less
than property owned by other taxpayers during that period.
53. By law, the Assessor is charged with determining, calculating, and fixing
the rate percent of property taxes for state, county, and taxing district purposes,
extending the rates upon the tax rolls, and certifying the tax rolls to the
King County Treasurer.
54. The King County Treasurer is charged with collecting the property tax certified
to it by the Assessor.
55. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the County Treasurer an incorrect amount of tax due on Mr. Mallow's
property because the Assessor will calculate the tax rates by disregarding the
portion of value of each property within King County and Seattle which exceeds
an amount equal to the assessed value of the property on January 1, 1999 plus
2%.
56. As a direct and immediate result of the Director's actions in implementing
I-722, Mr. Mallow will incur immediate and direct harm for which there is no
plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO FAMILY SERVICES
57. Family Services provides counseling to at-risk families and children, operates
an alternative school for children who are unsuccessful in the public school
system which offers GED courses, job training, and teen parenting classes, offers
mental health counseling, programs for disabled youth, and resource coordination
for high risk families, recent immigrants, and children.
58. Family Services receives half of its annual funding from Seattle in the
form of contracts for services for the high risk population that it serves.
59. On information and belief, a reduction in Seattle's authorized levy and
requiring Seattle to refund taxes will reduce monies available to fund the contracts.
60. A reduction in such funding would require Family Services to reduce staff
and reduce the services available to its clientele.
61. As a result of the Director's Advice to the Assessor to reduce the amount
of Seattle's levy, Family Services will suffer an immediate and direct harm
for which there is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - SINGLE SUBJECT VIOLATION
62. I-722 contains multiple subjects including: (1) a repeal of specific tax
and fee increases enacted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, which
subject is discrete and not continuing in nature; (2) a conditional exemption
of motor vehicles from the property tax, and (3) new procedures for calculating
property taxes and tax levy limits, which have a continuing effect.
63. None of the separate measures encompassed by the various sections of I-722
is necessary to implement the others; and they are not rationally unified, in
violation of Article II, Section 19, of the Washington Constitution.
64. I-722's limit on individual property valuation growth is not reflected
in the title, as required by Article II, Section 19..
65. A controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the constitutionality
of I-722 which adjudication by this court would definitively resolve.
66. Plaintiffs are entitled to a Declaratory Judgment that I-722 violates Article
II, Section 19, of the Washington Constitution in that it contains more than
a single subject and to an injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing
I-722.
SEconD CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF TAX UNIFORMITY REQUIREMENT
67. Article VII, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution requires that all
taxes on property shall be uniform within a class and provides that all real
property constitutes one class.
68. Subsection 3(1) of I-722 purports to limit the value on which property
taxes are paid to the "1999 valuation level" plus the lesser of 2% per year
or inflation, regardless of the true and fair value of the property.
69. Subsection 3(2) of I-722 is void for vagueness. The Director has, however,
interpreted Subsection 3(2) so as to require new construction to be added to
the tax rolls at a value equal to that of a similar property that existed in
1999 or before , plus an increase in value of 2% or inflation (whichever is
less) per year from 1999 to the year of construction.
70. DOR is charged by chapter 84.12 RCW with assessing the value of inter-county
operating properties of certain utilities and public service companies (such
as railroads) and apportioning those values among the various counties. DOR
will, unless enjoined, assess the inter-county operating properties of utility
and public service companies at less than their fair market values and will
apportion those values among the several counties on a disproportionate and
disuniform basis, all because of Section 3 of I-722. Counties in which an improperly
low amount of state-assessed operating property is placed on the assessment
rolls will have to spread the burden of their property taxes onto other property
in those counties, contrary to Article VII, Section 1, and contrary to the intent
of Chapter 84.12 RCW.
71. The value limitations in Section 3 of I-722 if allowed to take effect will
result in higher assessment ratios for taxpayers in slow or no growth areas
than for properties experiencing rapid appreciation, creating an unconstitutional
disuniformity within the class of real property.
72. Under Section 3 of I-722, Mr. Mallow's property will be subject to a higher
amount of tax per dollar of true and fair value than will other real property
within the same taxing jurisdictions.
73. A controversy exists between Mr. Mallow and Defendants regarding the validity
of I-722 insofar as it shifts the property tax burden from rapidly appreciating
to slower appreciating properties such as Mr. Mallow's, which adjudication by
this court would definitively resolve.
74. Mr. Mallow, therefore, seeks a declaration that I-722 violates Article
VII, Section 1, of the Washington Constitution and an injunction preventing
Defendants from implementing I-722.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - REFUNDS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS
75. Article VIII, Section 7, of the Washington Constitution prohibits gifts
of public funds.
76. Burien, Carnation, Pasco and Seattle adopted and collected increased taxes,
fees and other charges during the period July 2, 1999, through December 31,
1999, without a vote of their electors.
77. All such tax and fee increases were validly enacted in compliance with
governing law, and once collected became public funds, and a refund of those
increases would constitute a gift of public funds in contravention of Article
VIII, Section 7, of the Washington Constitution.
78. Section 1 of I-722 purports to require that tax and fee increases validly
adopted between July 2, 1999 and December 31, 1999, be refunded.
79. DOR has advised county assessors that they are "appropriate" officers for
making refunds of previously-collected property taxes for taxing jurisdictions
within their counties, including by subtracting amounts to be refunded from
the taxes that would otherwise be collected in 2001.
80. King County, through its appointed Treasurer, and Franklin County, through
its appointed Treasurer, unless enjoined, will refund upon request that portion
of property tax that the treasurers believe reflects a "tax increase" adopted
between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
81. A controversy exists between Burien, Carnation, Pasco, Seattle Family Services
and Defendants regarding the validity of I-722 insofar as it purports to require
the refund of "tax increases" adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31,
1999, which adjudication by this court would definitively resolve.
82. Burien, Carnation, Pasco, Seattle and Family Services, therefore, seek
a declaration that Section 1 of I-722 violates Article VIII, Section 7, of the
Washington Constitution and an injunction preventing Defendants from implementing
I-722.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AMENDMENT WITHOUT PROPER REFERENCE
83. Article II, Section 37, of the Washington Constitution prohibits enactment
of legislation that revises or amends other acts without setting them forth
at full length.
84. The operation of I-722 as interpreted by the Director will effectively
revise and amend among other laws, RCW 84.55.010, which provides that the regular
property tax levy limit is determined from the highest amount of tax lawfully
levied during the last three years, RCW 84.48.080, which provides that the DOR
shall equalize assessed valuation to true and fair value, RCW 84.80.080, which
requires the assessors to place property on assessment rolls at its full true
and fair value, and RCW Chapters 84.68. and 84.69 which provide comprehensive
rules for property tax refunds.
85. I-722 fails to set forth the existing statutes that are affected, nor does
it show how they are impacted.
86. A straightforward determination of the scope of rights or duties under
the above-referenced statutes would be rendered erroneous by I-722.
87. A controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the effect
of I-722 on Plaintiffs' rights and duties under existing laws, which adjudication
by this court would definitively resolve.
88. Plaintiffs, therefore, seek a declaration that I-722 violates Article II,
Section 37 of the Washington Constitution and an injunction prohibiting Defendants
from implementing I-722.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- EX POST FACTO REPEAL IMPERMISSIBLY IMPAIRS CONTRACTS
89. Article 1, Section 23, of the Washington Constitution prohibits laws impairing
the obligation of contracts.
90. Seattle and Carnation increased utility charges between July 2, 1999, and
December 31, 1999.
91. Seattle and Carnation each has provided services to ratepayers in exchange
for its increased charges.
92. I-722's repeal of utility charges and the requirement that the charges
be refunded substantially and unreasonably impairs the contracts between Seattle
and its ratepayers, and Carnation and its ratepayers.
93. Youth Services has provided services to Seattle under contract.
94. On information and belief if Seattle must refund taxes and its levy is
reduced , Seattle will be unable to fund Youth Services contracts such that
the contracts will be substantially impaired
95. Such impairment is not necessary to achieve a legitimate public purpose.
96. A controversy exists between Seattle and Youth Services and Defendants
and Carnation and Defendants regarding the validity of I-722 insofar as it purports
to require Seattle and Carnation to refund taxes, fees, and other charges adopted
between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, which adjudication by this court
would definitively resolve.
97. Seattle and Carnation therefore, seek a declaration that I-722 violates
Article I, Section 23, of the Washington Constitution and an injunction prohibiting
Defendants from implementing I-722.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - UNLAWFUL CALCULATION OF LEVY LIMIT
98. RCW 84.55.010 authorizes levies of regular property taxes in an amount
equal to the limit factor multiplied by the highest amount of regular property
taxes lawfully levied in the three most recent years.
99. On November 2, 1999, Seattle's voters approved, pursuant to RCW 84.55.050
and Seattle Ordinance 119522, a proposition authorizing Seattle's total regular
property tax levy for collection in 2000 to exceed the otherwise-applicable
limit in RCW 84.55.010, up to a regular tax rate of $3.52/$1000 of assessed
value.
100. In 1999, regular property taxes for Burien, Carnation, and Pasco were
levied in an amount equal to the limit factor multiplied by the highest amount
of regular property taxes levied in the previous three years.
101. The property tax levied in 1999 for collection in 2000 is the highest
amount of regular property taxes legally levied for Carnation, Burien, Pasco
and Seattle in the three most recent years.
102. The inflation rate as determined by the DOR for use in determining the
limit factor under Chapter 84.55 RCW for taxes to be collected in 2001 is 2.61%.
103. Based on the Director's Advice, the King County Assessor intends to reduce
Seattle's levy for 2001 collection to 102% of the amount of regular property
taxes Seattle levied for collection in 1999, rather than allow 106% of the amount
of regular property taxes levied for collection in 2000.
104. Based on the Director's Advice, the King County Assessor intends to set
Burien's levy for 2001 collection at 102% of the amount of regular property
taxes levied for Burien for collection in 1999, rather than allow 106% of the
amount of regular property taxes levied for Burien for collection in 2000.
105. Based on the Director's Advice, the King County Assessor intends to set
Carnation's levy for 2001 collection to 102% of the amount of regular property
taxes levied for Carnation for collection in 1999, rather than allow 106% of
the amount of regular property taxes levied for Carnation for collection in
2000.
106. A controversy exists between Burien, Carnation, Seattle and Defendants
regarding the application of I-722 to their regular property tax levies for
collection in 2000, which adjudication by this court would definitively resolve.
107. Burien, Carnation, and Seattle, therefore, each seek a declaration that
regular property taxes levied for collection in 2001 may legally equal an amount
not to exceed 106% of the regular property taxes levied for 2000 collection,
and an injunction prohibiting the Assessor from implementing I-722 so as to
limit the levies to 102% of each city's levy for 1999 collection.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - UNEQUAL TREATMENT
108. Article I, Section 12, of the Washington Constitution provides that no
law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation
other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall
not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.
109. Section 3 of I-722 treats persons differently depending upon the rate
at which their property appreciates, yet does not define a class.
110. There is no reasonable basis for the disparity in treatment among property
owners based on varying rates of property appreciation.
111. A controversy exists between Mr. Mallow and Defendants regarding the validity
of the disparate treatment created by Section 3 of I-722 , which adjudication
by this court would definitively resolve.
112. Mr. Mallow, therefore, seeks a declaration that Section 3 of I-722 creates
an invalid classification in violation of Article I, Section 12, of the Washington
Constitution and an injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing I-722.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION - IMPROPER EQUALIZATION OF STATE LEVY
113. DOR has not indicated it will use properties' true and fair values when
acting under RCW 84.48.080 to spread the obligation to pay the State's property
tax levy among the various counties of the state. Under that statute, and under
Article VII, Section 1, of the State Constitution, the state levy must be apportioned
to the various counties (and then by the county assessors to the various properties
within the counties) in proportion to the proper assessed value and the true
and fair value of property within those counties. If DOR applies I-722 so as
to use any basis for spreading the state tax levy other than proper assessed
values that are uniformly proportioned to true and fair value, that will violate
the Constitution and RCW 84.48.080, and may result in a disproportionate burden
on properties such as Mr. Mallow's which is appreciating more slowly than average.
114. Because DOR has not removed the uncertainty whether it will use an improper
method of apportioning the state tax levy, a controversy exists such that Plaintiffs
seek a declaration that DOR must equalize the state property tax levy according
to the true and fair value of property in each of the counties of the state.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the court:
1. Declare that I-722 in its entirety violates the Washington Constitution
and therefore is null and void;
2. Permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing or otherwise implementing any
of the provisions of I-722;
3. Award plaintiffs their litigation costs; and
4. Award such other and different relief as the court deems just and appropriate.
DATED this ______ day of November, 2000.
EVANS, KERR, HANEY & HILTON, PS
By: ______________________________
Leland Barrett Kerr, WSBA # 6059
Attorneys for Plaintiff The City of Pasco
MICHAEL WEIGHT
Burien City Attorney
By:__________________________
Michael Weight, WSBA #11643
415 SW 150th Street
Burien, WA 98166
Telephone: 206.248.5535
Attorney for Plaintiff The City of Burien
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, PLLC
By: _____________________________
Greg Rubstello, WSBA #6271
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, Washington 98101-1686
(206) 447-7000
Attorneys for Plaintiff The City of Carnation
MARK H. SIDRAN
Seattle City Attorney
By: ______________________________
Cynthia Unwin Seu, WSBA #26831
Assistant City Attorney
600 Fourth Avenue, 10th Floor
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 684-8250
Attorneys for Plaintiff The City of Seattle
_______________________________
William P. Mallow, Pro Se
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
By: ________________________________
Michele Radosevich, WSBA # 24282
2600 Century Square
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150
Attorneys for Plaintiff Southwest Youth and Family Services, Inc.
|
