|
Printer Friendly - Subscribe to Page
Spokane County I-722 Complaint
Not an official copy.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
CITY OF SPOKANE, a Washington municipal corporation, and its Water, Sewer and
Solid Waste Utility Departments, Plaintiff, vs. SPOKANE COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Washington, SADIE CHARLENE COONEY, Spokane County
Assessor, LINDA M. WOLVERTON, Spokane County Treasurer, and STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Defendants.
No.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
COMES NOW the City of Spokane, by and through its attorneys JAMES C. SLOANE,
City Attorney, and Robert G. Beaumier, Jr., Assistant City Attorney, and by
way of claim against the Defendants, states as follows:
NATURE OF CASE; PLAINTIFF
- This is an action by the City of Spokane against Spokane County, the Spokane
County Assessor, Sadie Charlene Cooney, and the State of Washington to enjoin
them from implementing or enforcing Initiative Measure 722 ("I-722")
and to declare I-722 unconstitutional. Appropriate injunctive relief will
also be sought pending a determination of the legal issues presented.
- Plaintiff City of Spokane is a first class City of the State of Washington
and Spokane County with a population under 300,000. Besides providing general
local government services, Plaintiff City also operates a municipal Water
Utility, a Sewer Utility, and a Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Utility
for the benefit of its citizens and other persons throughout the Spokane region.
Each Utility is operated as an independent business enterprise by the Plaintiff
City. There are no shareholders, and all revenues of the Utilities are used
to benefit the ratepayers. By law, the Utilities operate only through the
use of separate enterprise funds. These Utility enterprise funds must be wholly
rate supported, and cannot be subsidized in any way by general tax monies.
- Plaintiff’s citizens and utility ratepayers depend on municipal services
financed by municipal taxes and utility charges. These local taxes and charges
are reviewed and adjusted annually in an orderly annual municipal budgeting
process as provided by law. Plaintiff brings this action on its own behalf
and the behalf of its citizens and utility ratepayers, inside and outside
the City of Spokane.
2000 BUDGET PROCESS CONCLUDED; BUDGET IMPLEMENTED
- The City budgeting process for the year 2000 occurred in the latter half
of 1999, as it does each year for the following year’s municipal budgets.
The City and its taxpayers would be directly and adversely affected if the
local taxes and charges adopted in the period of July through December 1999
and already expended during the year 2000 were now retroactively nullified
by I-722, and if the amount of property taxes levied for the City of Spokane
for collection in 2001 were reduced below amounts otherwise allowed by law.
- Plaintiff City and its utility customer ratepayers would similarly be directly
and adversely affected if I-722 were implemented to nullify 1999 utility rate
increases. The effect of such an action would be an improper retroactive redistribution
of the costs of providing such utility services by shifting such costs away
from those who benefit to other ratepayer groups who do not receive such a
commensurate benefit. Alternatively, Plaintiff and its constituents and customers
could be adversely affected if utility services essential to the public health
and safety were curtailed because of I-722.
DEFENDANTS
- Defendant Sadie Charlene Cooney is the Spokane County Assessor. She is charged
by law with valuing property within the City of Spokane (except for property
valued by the Washington State Department of Revenue (the "DOR")
and determining the levy limit, setting the tax rates, and determining the
total amount of tax on each piece of property within Spokane County.
- Defendant Linda M. Wolverton is the Spokane County Treasurer. She is charged
by law with billing and collecting taxes and issuing or crediting refunds
therefore as may be required by law, working with the County Assessor, on
each piece of property within Spokane County.
- Defendant Spokane County is a political subdivision of the State of Washington.
The County and certain of its officers and employees are charged with implementing
the provisions of I-722. The Spokane County Treasurer, collects, holds, invests,
and distributes property taxes, including monies levied by the City of Spokane
as a part of the annual property tax levy.
- The State of Washington, through the DOR, is charged by law with valuing
certain taxable property in the City of Spokane. In the exercise of these
functions, the DOR performs certain general supervision and control functions
over the administration and assessment and tax laws of the State. This affects
directly some of the functions and operations of the Spokane County Assessor,
County Treasurer, and other county officials in the performance of their duties
relating to property taxation, including compliance with levy limits in Chapter
84.55 RCW and the implementation of I-722. The State is a proper party pursuant
to RCW 7.24.110.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
- This Court has subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of RCW 2.08.010, RCW
7.24.010, RCW 7.24.020, and RCW 7.40.010.
- Jurisdiction and venue are proper under RCW 4.12.010. That law allows venue
in a county where the subject of the action, including personal property or
some part thereof, is situated. Additionally, venue and jurisdiction arise
under RCW 4.12.020(2), which permits suits against a public officer in the
county where the cause of action arose. Venue is further proper under RCW
4.12.025, which allows venue where any one of the defendants transacts business
or maintains an office.
NEED FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION
- On November 7, 2000, I-722 was approved by a simple statewide majority vote.
It takes effect unless enjoined on December 7, 2000. Section 1 rolls back
all local government authorized taxes, charges or rate increases adopted between
July 2, 1999 and December 31, 1999, with narrow exceptions. It requires such
increases be refunded to the payors. Included in its definition of refundable
"taxes" are all charges for services performed, but not goods sold.
It is not clear if section 1 requires the entire tax or charge to be refunded
or only the incremental increase. In either case, a significant taxpayer and
ratepayer expense will be created by having to implement such a refund and
because of uncertainty created by how the law will ultimately be interpreted
by the Courts. The problem applies also to other provisions of I-722.
- In the case of the utilities, all such implementation costs, plus the amount
of any refund, will have to be paid by the municipal ratepayers unless enforcement
is enjoined pending final determination. Such actions will be wholly unnecessary
and have to be reversed if I-722 is ultimately declared unconstitutional.
Any money wasted in this exercise will have to be paid by the public.
DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE UNLESS ENJOINED
- Section 3 of I-722 limits taxes by exempting any portion of property tax
attributable to an increase in value above 1999 values by the lesser of the
rate of inflation or 2% per year for so long as the sale of real property
is subject to a real estate excise tax pursuant to Ch. 82.46 RCW. Spokane
County has a real estate excise tax pursuant to Ch. 82.46 RCW. Section 5 limits
the growth of property tax to 2% per year.
- On information and belief, the DOR, acting with the advice of the state
Attorney General, has determined to implement and enforce I-722, notwithstanding
its repugnance to the Constitution of the State of Washington. On information
and belief, the DOR has issued direction to implement I-722 to local county
assessors throughout the state including Spokane County. Because of RCW 84.08.080,
the DOR’s decision to enforce and unconstitutional law has putative legal
force and effect until modified or annulled by judgment or decree of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
- The State of Washington collects and distributes to cities various sources
of revenue that from time to time are within the State’s possession and control.
Because of its decision to enforce I-722 in violation of the State Constitution,
the State will fail to perform these functions as would otherwise be required
by law.
CITY ORDINANCES ADOPTED JULY THROUGH DECEMBER 1999
- The City of Spokane has adopted ordinances increasing fees, taxes, and administrative
charges for governmental services and local water, sewer and solid waste utility
services it provides to its citizens and ratepayers. Some of these increases
were adopted during the period of July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999.
But the term of expenditure for said budgeted increases, the year 2000, is
nearly over. During this year, the City of Spokane has already provided local
governmental services to its citizens based on the approved increases. Plaintiff
City and its Utilities have given value in at least the amount of the charges
to its citizens and customers. Plaintiff City has provided such services in
reliance upon its authority to implement and collect such increases.
- A list of Spokane City Ordinances enacted by the City Council between July
2, 1999 and December 31, 1999 derived to date includes Ordinance # C 32495,
passed 9/27/99. That ordinance established 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.
- 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
IMMEDIATE HARM FROM IMPLEMENTATION
- In the property tax area, uncertainty has been created. Absent judicial
action, Plaintiff understands that the Spokane County Treasurer will or may
refund that portion of the City of Spokane’s property tax that the Treasurer
believes reflects a "tax increase" as under I-722 adopted between
July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
- Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, regular property taxes for
2000 collection were levied for the City of Spokane without a vote of its
electors. The levy exceeded by more than 2% the total regular City of Spokane
property taxes levied for collection in 1999.
- The City of Spokane will, during November 2000, certify for levy regular
property taxes for collection in 2001. The amount certified for levy will
exceed by more than 2% both the amount of regular property taxes levied by
the City of Spokane for collection in 1999 and the amount of regular property
taxes levied by the City of Spokane for collection in 2000.
- By law, the Spokane County Assessor determines and implements the limit
found in Ch. 84.55 RCW, which affects the amounts of the City of Spokane’s
regular property taxes that may be levied.
- Pursuant to the decision of the DOR, on information and belief, the Assessor,
unless enjoined, will certify to the County Treasurer an amount less than
the City of Spokane’s lawful levy for collection in 2001 because the Assessor
will limit the City of Spokane’s regular property tax levy to an amount no
greater than 2% higher than its levy for 1999 collection plus new construction.
This action is taken to implement I-722.
- When determining the amount of regular property taxes levied for the City
of Spokane for collection in 2001, on information and belief, the Assessor
will disregard the City of Spokane’s regular property tax levy collected in
2000.
- As a direct and immediate result of the State and County officials’ actions
in implementing I-722, the City of Spokane and its citizens will suffer immediate
and direct harm for which there is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at
law. This harm is not limited to problems created by the Defendants in this
case, but by the Plaintiff City’s own uncertainty in executing or not executing
the provisions of I-722 considering its doubtful legal status under the State
Constitution.
- Pursuant to the DOR’s decision to implement I-722, Spokane County, through
its Treasurer, unless enjoined, will refund upon request that portion of the
City of Spokane’s property tax that the Treasurer believes reflects a "tax
increase" adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
- Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, the City of Spokane levied
its regular property taxes for 2000 collection as referenced above. The levy
was not approved by a vote of the people and exceeded by more than 2% the
total regular property taxes the City of Spokane levied for collection in
1999.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – SINGLE SUBJECT VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II SECTION 19
- Article II, Section 19 of the State Constitution provides: "No bill
shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."
I-722 violates the State Constitution because it contains multiple subjects
including at least: (1) a repeal of unspecified and unidentified 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.
- None of the separate subjects encompassed by the various sections of I-722
is necessary to implement the others, and they are not rationally unified,
all in violation of Article II, Section 19, of the Washington Constitution.
SEconD CAUSE OF ACTION –DEFECTIVE TITLE
- The title of I-722 states "AN ACT Relating to limiting taxes; amending
RCW 84.55.005; adding a new section to chapter 84.55; adding new sections
to chapter 84.36 RCW; creating a new section, and repealing RCW 84.5.092."
The provisions within I-722 go well beyond this title. They attempt to nullify
"...any monetary charge imposed by the state." Section 1,
paragraph (2) (italics supplied). Under the definitions in I-722, "state"
also includes Plaintiff City.
- The ballot title of I-722 differs from the initiative, stating a question
"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?" The ballot title however likewise fails to
inform the average voter that virtually every monetary charge imposed by every
instrumentality of government, with only limited exceptions, is nullified.
The average voter would have no idea of the broad sweep of the statute, given
either the ballot title or the title of the act itself. Section 3 of I-722
further contains a limitation on individual property valuation. This separate
measure is nowhere expressed in the ballot title.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF TAX UNIFORMITY REQUIREMENT
- Article VII, Section 1, of the Washington Constitution requires that all
taxes on property be uniform within a class and provides that all real property
constitutes one class.
- 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.
- DOR is charged under 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. On
information and belief, DOR will, unless enjoined, assess the inter-county
operating properties of utility and public service companies at less than
their fair market values, will apportion those values among the several counties
on a disproportionate and non uniform basis, and the Assessor will spread
the taxes on the rolls using the value reported to it by DOR, as a result
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 Constitution Article VII, Section 1, of the Washington Constitution and
contrary to the intent of Chapter 84.12 RCW.
- If allowed to take effect, the value limitations in Section 3 of I-722 will
result in higher assessment ratios for taxpayers in slow or no-growth areas
of the State of Washington than for properties experiencing rapid appreciation,
creating an unconstitutional non uniformity within the class of real property.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – REFUNDS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS
- Article VIII, Section 7, of the Washington Constitution prohibits gifts
of public funds except under certain conditions not applicable here.
- During the period July 2, 1999 through December 31, 1999, and in accordance
with governing law, the Plaintiff City of Spokane adopted certain measures
providing for increases in municipal charges. These increases would fall within
I-722’s definition of a refundable "tax increase". Consistent with
the Washington Constitution and then applicable statues and ordinances, these
ordinances did not require a vote of local electors as a condition of becoming
effective. The ordinances became effective and were duly implemented by the
City of Spokane in good faith.
- The City of Spokane is required by Ch. 35.33 RCW each year to adopt a balanced
budget for the following year. This means that, under the law, the budgeted
expenses of providing municipal utility services, non utility governmental
services or other benefits to the public must be supported by anticipated
and budgeted revenues. Had Plaintiff known it could not rely on the "tax
increases" adopted as a part of the 2000 budget in the latter half of
1999, it would not have been legally able to provide the benefits and services
supported by such budgeted revenues.
- Benefits and services were provided pursuant to the budget however, and
the reasonable value of which was at least the charge made therefore. Any
refund of such charges, including increases, would constitute a gift of public
funds in contravention of Article VIII, Section 7, of the Washington Constitution.
- Additionally, upon collection, the funds became public funds. Similarly,
the refund of such funds would comprise an unconstitutional gift in violation
of Article VIII, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – AMENDMENT WITHOUT PROPER REFERENCE
- 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.
- The operation of I-722 as interpreted by the DOR, will effectively revise
and amend other laws. Among them are 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
84.40.030 and 84.40.040, which require the assessors to place property on
assessment rolls at 100% of its true and fair value, and RCW Chapters 84.68.
and 84.69, which provide comprehensive rules for property tax refunds. Also
affected are RCW 84.52.030, which requires that levies be made on all taxable
property, RCW 84.52.040 which requires that taxable value is assessed value,
and RCW 35.92.010, which requires utility rates to equal costs and prohibits
cross subsidization so that one class of ratepayers should not pay utility
costs properly apportionable to another class. I-722 further subverts the
entire municipal budgeting process as provided in Ch. 35.33 RCW.
- I-722 fails to set forth the existing statutes that are affected, nor does
it show how they are impacted.
- A straightforward understanding of the scope of rights or duties under the
above-referenced statutes is impossible under any reading of I-722.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – EX POST FACTO REPEAL IMPERMISSIBLY IMPAIRS CONTRACTS
- Article 1, Section 23, of the Washington Constitution prohibits laws impairing
the obligation of contracts. The City of Spokane increased and added municipal
utility charges and other charges for services or benefits supplied to the
public between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999. The City of Spokane has
provided services to users and ratepayers in exchange for its increased charges.
- I-722’s repeal of utility and other charges and fees and the requirement
that the charges be refunded substantially and unreasonably impairs the contracts
between the City of Spokane and its users and ratepayers. A controversy exists
between the City of Spokane and Defendants regarding the validity of I-722
insofar as it purports to require the City of Spokane to refund taxes, fees,
and other charges adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, which
adjudication by this court would definitively resolve.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – UNLAWFUL CALCULATION OF LEVY LIMIT
- 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.
- On information and belief, 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%.
- The annual levy for adopted in December of 1999 by the City Council for
the year 2000 exceeds this rate. Based upon a determination of the DOR, on
information and belief, the Spokane County Assessor intends to reduce Plaintiff’s
levy for 2001 collection to 102% of the amount of regular property taxes Plaintiff
levied for collection in 1999, rather than allow 104% of the amount of regular
property taxes levied for collection in 2000 consistent with the levy approved
for that year by the Spokane City Council.
- The City of Spokane seeks a declaration that the limit imposed by Chapter
84.55 RCW on regular property taxes levied for collection in 2001is as provided
in the ordinances previously adopted by the City of Spokane for such purpose.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – UNEQUAL TREATMENT
- 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.
- Section 3 of I-722 treats persons differently, depending upon the rate at
which their property appreciates, yet does not define a class. There is no
reasonable basis for the disparity in treatment among property owners based
on varying rates of property appreciation.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION – IMPROPER EQUALIZATION OF STATE LEVY
- DOR has not indicated, on information and belief, that it will use taxpayers’
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
Washington 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, such action
will violate the Constitution and RCW 84.48.080, and may result in a disproportionate
burden on properties appreciating more slowly than average.
- Because the DOR has not removed the uncertainty as to whether it will use
an improper method of apportioning the state tax levy, a controversy exists
between the parties. Plaintiff seeks 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.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE XI
- Article XI, Section 9 of the State Constitution prohibits release of any
county or its inhabitants or property therein from their proportionate share
of taxes levied for state purposes or commutation of such taxes in any form
whatever. Plaintiff City is a beneficiary of taxes collected for state purposes
in the form of grants and revenue sharing programs. The nullification of all
taxes adopted between July 2, 1999 and December 31, 1999 may include state
taxes which the City of Spokane has received benefit or which, if required
to be refunded, would impair or diminish benefits otherwise granted to Plaintiff
City. In the levy and expenditure of local taxes and utility rates, Plaintiff
City has also performed state purpose functions as mandated by state laws.
The retroactive refund provisions of I-722 would violate Article XI, Section
9.
- Article XI, Section 15 of the State Constitution requires all monies, assessments
and taxes belonging to or collected for the use of any City be deposited into
the public treasury for the benefit of the funds to which they belong. The
retroactive refund of lawfully collected local taxes, charges, and utility
rate monies violates the requirement that such monies be kept and used for
the benefit of funds to which they belong.
NEED FOR DECLARATORY RESOLUTION
- The provisions of the State Constitution are mandatory, not optional unless
expressly so stated. Article 1, Section 29.
- For all reasons heretofore stated, a controversy exists between Plaintiff
and Defendants regarding the constitutionality of I-722, which adjudication
by this court would definitively resolve, and Plaintiff is entitled to a Declaratory
Judgment that I-722 violates various mandatory sections of the Washington
State Constitution and should be declared unconstitutional and a nullity and
its enforcement or implementation preliminarily and permanently enjoined.
INCORPORATION OF OTHER PLEADINGS
- The City of Spokane anticipates the possibility that this Complaint may
be incorporated or consolidated with other litigation in Washington State
now pending or hereafter filed addressing the constitutionality or enforceability
of I-722. To the extent possible, and where not otherwise inconsistent with
this Complaint, Plaintiff City of Spokane adopts incorporates the contents
and attachments of all such pleadings, including the Complaints of any case
or cases with which this cause may now or hereafter be consolidated, as if
the same were fully set forth herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the court:
- Declare that I-722 violates the Washington Constitution and therefore is
null and void;
- Permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing or otherwise implementing any
of the provisions of I-722;
- Award Plaintiff its litigation costs; and
- Award such other and different relief as the court deems just and appropriate.
DATED this ______ day of November, 2000.
_____________________
JAMES C. SLOANE
City Attorney; WSB no.
_____________________________
Robert G. Beaumier
Assistant City Attorney; WSB no. 5512
|
