HomeMy WebLinkAboutCenter for Government Reform 4 �yT
x WASHINGTDix
0 "P ICY "" ENT
L E R
t�l -ke so/
r
�.
� r ( xy
3
E w SEA' 18 2014
s CITY Ci PORT ANGELES
x CITY CLERK
jority
ote
S Enacting' .
Local
Requirements to Increase Taxes
k ¢
A Guide for Washington Cities and Counties
By� F
Jason Mercier, Director,
Center for Government Reform
�- and Chris Cargill, Eastern Washington Director
, .
s
€� r
f
-Addy€7
:.: .dune 2014
-r
WASHINGTON
POU CY CENTER,
Impi-ovin
� lives thro"gh maiket salt4lions
WWWWAS H INGTON POLICYORG
Mission and Vision:
The mission of Washington Policy Center is to improve lives through market solutions and
to shape the public debate on the key issues facing Washington state. WPC promotes
free-market solutions through research and education,and is Washington state's premier
public policy center providing high quality analysis and research for our state's citizens,
policyrnakers and media.
Background:
Washington Policy Center is a independent,non-profit,state-based think tank in Seattle,
Washington,with offices in Olympia and Eastern Washington. WPC publishes studies,
sponsors events and conferences,and educates citizens on public policy issues facing
Washington state.
The Center believes that the American ideals of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness
best flourish in a free society,which liberates the energies of all its members to pursue
their own peaceful goals.-Ideas,supported by sound research and promoted through
publications,conferences and the media,over time,create the environment in which
sound public policy decisions are made.
Guarantee of Quality Scholarship
Washington Policy Center is committed to delivering the highest quality and most reliable
research on Washington state issues.The Center guarantees that all original factual data are
true and correct and that information attributed to other sources is accurately represented.
If the accuracy of any material fact reference to an independent source is questioned and
brought to the Center's attention with supporting evidence,the Center will respond in
writing.If an error exists,it will be noted in an errata sheet that will accompany all subsequent
distribution of the publication,which constitutes the complete and final remedy under this
guarantee.
Nothing appearing in this document is to be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the
passage of any bill before any legislative body.
WASHINGTON
POLICY CENTER POLICY' BRIEF
1114pt-oili'lig /1'1"CS M11-011151-1 mu'o-kel-'501i'di'01-Is
V\TWW'VVASH1NGT0NP0L1CY.0P,G
Enacting Local Supermajor'l'ity Vote
Req
it m e int. s- to I n c rea se T- axes
A Guide for Wa5hington Cities and Counties
By Jason Mercier, Director, Center for Government Reform
and Chris Cargill, Eastern Washington Director
June 2014
Key Findings
1. A May 2014 statewide poll of 750 Washingtonians found that 63 percent want greater
taxpayer protection at the local level.
2. The cities of Spokane and Yakima, as well as Pierce County, recently approved a
supermajority vote requirement to raise taxes.
3. Supermajority requirements are a routine part of all democratic governing systems
and are common in many of Washington city codes and charters for making various
policy changes.
4. By approving a supermajority requirement for tax increases, local government officials
would.simply be stating a policy preference that they want a higher level of agreement
before increasing the financial burden a city or county places OD its citizens.
5. As shown by the consistent support for this policy at both the local and state level,
taxpayers expect reasonable limits, like a supermajority vote requirement for tax increases,
to protect them from narrow, controversial votes being used to raise taxes without broad
public support.
A,
WASHINGTON
POUCY CENTER
loves lln-oajli
FOLIGY BRIEF
Enacting Local Supermajority Vote
a
Requirements to Increase Taxes,
A Guide for Washington Cities and Counties
By Jason Mercier Director,Center for Government Reform and
Chris Cargill, Eastern Washington Director
June 2014
5 Introduction
5 Background
6 Supermojorities Requirements Are Part of Democratic Government
7 Supreme Court Ruling:Follow the Local Governments
8 Case Studies:Cities of Spokane, Yakima&Pierce County
9 Code versus Charter City
10 Michigan and Colorado's Requirements
11 Conclusion
C
Enact'Ing Local SupermajorltyVote
C
Requfrements to Increase Taxes.
A Guide for Washington Cities and Counties
B)t Jason Mercier, Director,Center for Government Reform and
Chris Cargill, Eastern Washington Director
[ritroduction
Voters in Washington state have consistently approved ballot proposals
to make it more difficult for state officials to raise taxes without first securing
a strong public consensus. While these ballot measures sought to restrict
state lawmakers, the same desire for reasonable tax limitation applies
to local governments. In fact, a May 2014 poll found that 63 percent of
Washingtonians want greater taxpayer protection at the local level. This study
will look at how local governments in Washington can follow the examples of
the cities of Spokane and Yakima, as well as Pierce County, in bringing this
popular taxpayer protection policy to their local jurisdiction.
Background
Voters in Washington have enacted or affirmed a two-thirds vote
requirement for tax increases five times during the past 20 years, most
recently in 2012. That year Initiative 1185 passed statewide with a 64 percent
yes"vote and with majority approval in 44 of the state's 49 legislative districts
and in every county of the state. This policy received more votes statewide
than either President Obama or Governor Inslee.1 Three local governments in
Washington have also enacted the policy by requiring that local tax increases
receive a supermajority vote before going into effect.
Showing the continued strong support for this tax-limitation policy is a
May 2014 statewide poll of 750 Washingtonians. They were asked:
"Would you support or oppose a local measure in your community that
would make it more difficult for your city or county council to raise taxes,
specifically by requiring a minimum of two-thirds vote from the city
or county council or voter approval before new taxes are passed? Is that
definitely(support/oppose) or probably(support/oppose)?
I "Initiative 1185 Vote by Legislative District,"Washington Policy Center,at http://www.
washingtonpolicy.org/sites/default/files/1185 percent20legislative percent20district.pdf.
2 "November 06,201.2 General Election Results,"Washington Secretary of State,at http://
votema.gov/results/20121106/default.htm.
Definitely support - 42 percent
Probably support - 21 percent
Probably oppose -10 percent
Definitely oppose -21 percent
Don't know- 6 percent"
The combined 63 percent"Definitely" and "Probably" support expressed
for bringing a supermajority vote restriction to the local level is nearly
identical to the actual 64 percent statewide vote for Initiative 1185 in 2012,
showing the popularity of this type of taxpayer protection has not waned.
Superniajoritles Requirements Are Part of Democratic
overn ien
Opponents of requiring a supermajority vote to raise taxes say such
requirements are undemocratic. Supermajority requirements, however, are
a routine part of all democratic governing systems. They exist at the federal,
state and local levels and are a common feature of democratic government in
other countries.
Washington state's Constitution contains more than 20 supermajority
requirements.'11e most recent was added in 2007,when Democratic Senate
Majority Leader Lisa Brown of Spokane and Republican Senator Joseph
Zarelli of Ridgefield (Clark County) sent voters Senate Joint Resolution 8206,
to require a three-fifths vote of the legislature to spend money from the state's
reserve Budget Stabilization Account.'the measure was approved by state
voters in 2007. Other examples of supermajority requirements in the state
constitution include:'
A two-thirds vote of the legislature to convene a special session of the
legislature;
A 60 percent vote of the legislature or a 60 percent vote of the people
to approve a state lottery;
3 "Supermajorities are a basic part of our democracy"by Jason Mercier,Washington
Policy Center,at wNvw.washingtonpolic),.org/publications/legislative/supermajority-vote-
requirements-are-basic-part-washingtons-democracy.
4 "Citizens Guide to SJR 8206"by Jason Mercier,Washington Policy Center,at www.
washingtonpolicy.org/sites/defau.It/files/PN2007-18 percent20(Rainy percent20Day
percent20Budget percent20Reserve.pdf.
5 "Constitution of the State of Washington"at www.leg.wa.gov/
LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution..aspx.
6
• A two-thirds vote of the legislature to consider a newly-introduced bill
within ten days of final adjournment;
• A two-thirds vote of the legislature to override a governor's veto;
• A two-thirds vote of the people to relocate the state capitol.
Supermajority requirements are also common in many of Washington
City codes and charters for making various policy changes.
The U.S. Constitution contains several supermajority vote provisions,
including the approval of foreign treaties, overriding a presidential veto,
impeachment of a public official and approval of changes to the constitution
itself.
The framers of both the Washington state Constitution and the U.S.
Constitution did not believe supermajority requirements were unfair or
undemocratic. They placed them throughout those documents,believing
a higher level of agreement was needed for certain public actions. In fact,
legislators have often changed their own rules and adopted higher vote
requirements.
By approving a supermajority requirement for tax increases, local
government officials would simply be stating a policy preference that they
want a higher level of agreement before increasing the financial burden a city
or county places on its citizens.
Supreme CDurt Ruling: Folloviv the, 1 Governments
While the Washington state Supreme Court struck down the state
requirement for a two-thirds vote to increase taxes,justices were careful not
to dismiss the policy idea altogether.
In the majority ruling,justices said they were not judging the "wisdom"
of the policy,but rather how it was put into place. Writing for the majority,
Justice Susan Owens said, "should the people and the Legislature still wish
to require a super-majority vote for tax legislation, they must do so through
constitutional amendment, not through legislation."'
The court essentially endorsed the action voters in the cities of Spokane
and Yakima as well as Pierce County have taken in adopting charter
amendments requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Charters serve as a
city or county constitution.
6 "State Supreme Court on Two-Thirds for Taxes:Do it like Spokane,Pierce County"by
Chris Cargill,Washington Policy Center,at http://wivw.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/
state-supreme-court-two-thirds-taxes-do-it-pierce-cou nty-spokane.
7
Case Studies- Cities of Spokane, Yakima & Pierce County
In February 2013,voters in the City of Spokane were the first in
Washington to adopt a city supermajority requirement. Six of the seven
council members agreed it should be placed on the ballot, and a majority of
citizens approved the local charter change. Nine months later,Yakima voters
also approved a charter change requiring a higher threshold for increasing
the financial burden Yakima places on its citizens. In both cities, it now takes
five of seven council members, or simple majority approval of voters, for tax
increases to be adopted.
In 2012, concerned about the cost shift onto local governments, the
Pierce County Council decided to send a measure to voters requiring a
supermajority vote for new taxes in Pierce County. Like Spokane and Yakima,
it was approved. Historically, a higher vote threshold has required a greater
discussion with citizens about tax increases and budgeting priorities.
The City of Spokane has already demonstrated that it is still possible to
raise taxes under the supermajority vote requirement. In November 2013,
with a 5-1 vote,the Spokane City Council enacted a two percent property tax
increase to fund public safety programs.'
Here are the texts of the supermajority vote requirements in Spokane,
Yakima and Pierce County:
Spokane: Section 21.5. Councilmanic Tax Measures and Increases
"After March 1, 2013, a new councilmanic tax may be levied and an
existing councilmanic tax increased only by a majority plus one vote of
the city council. For purposes of this section, "new councilmanic tax"
means a tax for which the city council has the authority to levy but has
not or is granted to the city council after March 1, 2013. A councilmanic
tax does not include fees, rates and charges, or special assessments. This
section does not apply to existing councilmanic taxes levied by the city
council as of March 1, 2013 or any renewal or reauthorization of those
taxes that does not increase the tax rate"
Yakima: ARTICLE VII -Limitation of Taxation
"The City Council.shall have power and authority to assess, levy and
collect taxes upon all the real and personal property(not exempt from
taxation) within the City for the corporate uses and purposes thereof and
provide for the payment of the debts and expenses of the City; provided
that after January 1, 2014, any new councilmanic tax may be assessed,
7 "Spokane City Council OKs property tax hike,"by Jonathan Brunt, The Spokesman
Review,November 20,2013,at http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/20/
spokane-property-tax-hike-approved-by-city-council/.
8
levied or increased only by a minimum affirmative vote of five members
of the City Council."
Pierce County: Section 2.20 -- Exercise of Rowers
"(1) The Council shall exercise its legislative power by adoption and
enactment of ordinances or resolutions. It shall have the power: (a)
subject to the limitations provided by law, to levy taxes, appropriate
revenue, and adopt budgets for the County, provided that after January
1, 2013, any new Councilmanic tax may be levied or increased only by a
minimum of two-thirds affirmative vote of the Council. For purposes
of this subsection, "new Councilmanic tax" means a tax for which the
Council has the authority to levy but has not, such as the mental health
tax (RCW 82.14.460), or is granted to the Council by the State Legislature
after January 1, 2013, and which excludes fees, rates and charges, special
assessments, taxes imposed by the Council on or before January 1, 2013,
and taxes imposed by the Council on or before January 1, 2013 which are
subject to renewal or reauthorization, such as the general property tax
levy and the excess property tax levy.'
It is important to note that under these definitions the supermajority
vote requirement applies only to tax increases, not fee increases. What is
the difference between a tax and a fee? According to the Washington state
Department of Revenue;'
Characteristic Tax Fee
Purpose To raise revenue To regulate for public welfare or to
charge as a user fee
A.pplicalioii Applied Applied to persons receiving services
uniformly in the or for the cost of off-setting the
taxing district regulatory burden incurred by the fee
payer
Use of funds General use,for Specific use and directly related to the
public benefit regulatory purpose
Code v rs 5 Charter City
Most cities in Washington are "code" cities meaning they are structured
according to state statute. Cities with populations exceeding 10,000 have the
option to become a"charter" city which essentially means they are governed
under a city constitution or charter that provides them more governance
flexibility than the code city statute.
8 "Tax or fee?"by Jason Mercier,Washington Policy Center,at http://www.
washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/it-tax-or-fee.
i
While Yakima and Spokane are charter cities and these councils
essentially asked their voters to amend their city's constitution with a charter
amendment, code cities are also able to add a supermajority vote requirement
for tax increases through a regular ordinance. As noted by RCW 35A.12.120,
approval of an ordinance for a code city requires "at least" a majority of the
whole council. Unlike other RCWs,it doesn't state merely a majority, which
indicates higher thresholds could be added. It is important to note, however,
that since a supermajority requirement added through an ordinance is
not part of a city charter, a later council could repeal the tax-limitation
requirement with a simple majority vote,without voter approval.
RCPT 35A.12.120: Council— Quorum — Rules — Voting (emphasis
added)
"At all meetings of the council a majority of the councilmembers shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business,but a less number
may adjourn from time to time and may compel the attendance of absent
members in such manner and under such penalties as may be prescribed
by ordinance. The council shall determine its own rules and order of
business, and may establish rules for the conduct of council meetings and
the maintenance of order. At the desire of any member, any question shall
be voted upon by roll call and the ayes and nays shall be recorded in the
journal. The passage of any ordinance, grant or revocation of franchise
or license, and any resolution for the payment of money shall require the
affirmative vote of at least a majority of the whole membership of the
council."
Mich[gan and Colorado's Requirements
Spokane,Yakima and Pierce County's supermajority vote requirement
for tax increases does not go as far as other states' taxpayer protections.
In Michigan, for example,local lawmakers are subject to the Headlee
Amendment,which requires voter approval of all tax increases at the state
and local level.'
In Colorado, voter approval is required of all tax increases before they
can become law. Despite the claims of opponents that the requirement
would hamper the ability of lawmakers to do their job,voters have shown
a willingness to increase their financial.burden when they are shown how
their hard-earned tax dollars will be spent. In fact, in the 2012 election, 11
Colorado cities approved tax increases to fund various public services.10
9 "The Headlee Amendment,serving Michigan for 25 years"by Lawrence Reed,Mackinac
Center for Public Policy,at www.mackinac.org/5574.
10 "Voters generous about tax increases in 11 towns,"by Ryan Parker, Vie Denver Post,
at www.denN erpost.com/politics/ci_21960660/voters-generous-about-tax-hikes-1 l-
colorado-towns.
Conclusion
Reasonable tax limitation remains,popular and a majority of
Washingtonians want greater taxpayer protections to be instituted at the
local level. Voters in Spokane, Yakima and Pierce County have already
demonstrated the support for this policy at the local level, It is important
to remember that supermajority vote requirements do not make increasing
taxes impossible as demonstrated by Spokane; it simply requires lawmakers
to reach greater consensus before raising the financial burden they place on
citizens.
In the absence of consensus on the council, lawmakers could always allow
voters to approve tax increases directly with a simple majority vote. As shown
by the consistent support for this policy at both the local and state level,
taxpayers expect reasonable limits, like a supermajority vote requirement for
tax increases, to protect them from narrow, controversial votes being used to
raise taxes without broad public support.
ll
Published by Washington Policy Center
1,Vashingtorr,Polic y Center is a rzon-partisan, independent research organization in
Washington state.Nothirjg here should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the
passage of ally legislation before any legislative body.
Chairman Greg Porter
President Daniel Mead Smith
Vice President for Research Paul Guppy
Communications Director Lisa Shin
If you have any comments or questions about this study,please contact us at:
Washington Policy Center
PO Box 3643
Seattle,WA 98124-3643
Online: www.washingtonpolicy.org
E-mail: wpc @washingtonpolicy.org
Phone: (206) 937-9691
O Washington Policy Center,2014
About the Authors
Jason Mercier is Director of the Center for Government Reform at Washington
Policy Center. He is a contributing editor of the Heartland Institute's Budget Tax
News, serves on the board of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, and
was an advisor to the 2002 Washington.State Tax Structure Committee. In June
2010, former Governor Gregoire appointed Jason as WPC's representative on her
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Panel. Jason holds a Bachelor's degree in Political
Science from Washington State University.
Chris Cargill is the Eastern Washington Director for Washington Policy Center.
Asixth-generation Eastern Washingtonian, Chris is a graduate of Gonzaga
University's broadcast communication studies and political science programs.
Before joining WPC in 2009,he worked in TV news for 10 years. Chris has
authored many of WPC's studies specific to Eastern Washington. He is an ex-officio
for the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Tri-City Regional Chamber
of Commerce, and formerly served on the Spokane Regional,Transportation
Commission Advisory Committee and other mass transit sounding boards. He was
also selected to serve on the budget and finance transition team for Spokane Mayor
David Condon.
WASHINGTON
L I CY C E N T E R
11",V.,ovu-iq lives M,,o"yk market sol"tions
Make a wiffere"a, 1 vest in t'weas'
Washington Policy Center(WPC) believes ideas,supported by sound research and promoted through
publications,conferences and the media,over time create an environment in which sound public policy
decisions are made.
WPC provides high-quality research and forums through its seven research centers focusing on:
• State Budget and Taxes - Small Business Issues
• Transportation - Education
• Health Care - Wash i ngtonVotes.org-WPCs free
• The Environment public service legislative website
Policyrnakers on both sides of the aisle look to WPC's work for the development of sound public policy.
We have a number of think tanks and wonderful partners in our state that are engaged in public policy,
and[you are]really some of the premier thought leaders, and have done a really good job in providing
us with high-quality data and high-quality analysis,and your perspective is really appreciated."
Representative Reuven Carlyle,Chair, Finance Committee (D)
Every day in Olympia people will come to my office and talk about problems. Washington Policy Center comes
to Olympia and talks about solutions and a vision for moving Washington forward."
Senator Doug Ericksen,Chair,Energy,Environment&Telecommunications Committee(R)
As a supporter,you will receive high-quality publications and invitations to events,conferences,and
forums featuring national and local public policy experts. For more information contact WPC at
206-937-9691 or visit us online at washingtonpolicy.org.
-]Yes. I want to make a tax-deductible contribution to support Washington Policy Center.
Levels of Support
D$10,000 Chairman's Club Name
j$5,000 President's Council
-1$2,500 Benefactor Address
F
y State zip 1
F1$1,000 Leadership Council Cit
L_ Phone
[__1$500 Patron Email Address
$100 Research Circle
1$50 Associate
Please make checks payable to Washington Policy Center or provide credit card information:
Charge my: ❑Visa L-Mastercard F-AmEx#
j
Exp. Security code Signature
Please send to: PO Box 3643,Seattle,WA 98124; fax 206-624-8038 or visit our secure website washingtonpolicy.org
Washington Policy Center is a 507(c)3 non-profit,tax-exempt organization(Tax ID#91-7752769)