|
Printer Friendly |
Property owners prop up flood control - The Daily News, Longview, February
10, 2000.
Property owners prop up flood control
The Daily News, Longview, February 10, 2000.
By Don Jenkins
Longview property owners have overwhelmingly approved a $1.17 million flood-control
levy in what was apparently the first Initiative 695-inspired election in the
state.
Diking District 1 officials said the groundbreaking election ensures compliance
with I-695 and retains the district's only source of income.
But Cowlitz County Commissioner Bill Lehning criticized the election as an
unnecessary expense.
Citing legal advice commissioners have received, he disputed the diking district's
contention that it needed voter approval to keep collecting property taxes.
"I really don't understand that at all. I personally don't believe that's
the way the law reads," he said.
Only a fraction of Longview property owners cast ballots Tuesday. The county
auditor's office counted ballots Wednesday, and the outcome was 571 "yes"
to 29 "no" in favor of the levy, which will be collected next year.
"You can sleep easier tonight. The pumps are going to continue to run,"
district chairwoman Sherry Bean said. "We are safe now through the year
2001."
I-695 requires a public vote on any new tax or tax increase.
The $1.17 million levy is neither new nor an increase from the 2000 levy. But
the district's attorney, Dave Spencer, advised holding an election anyway.
Technically, Diking District 1 is a benefit-assessment district, rather than
a taxing district, such as a county or city. Benefit assessments must be renewed
each year. Spencer said the renewal amounts to a "brand new tax" ----
thus it's subject to I-695.
So far, Diking District 1 is alone in that position among the county's eight
diking, drainage and flood-control districts.
Said Spencer: "My only reaction is, 'Well, it's not my problem, it's their
problem.' "
Longview lawyer Barry Dahl, who counsels the other diking districts in the
county, said I-695 may not apply to small districts and he has advised them
to wait.
"Right now, it's a matter of interpretation, and our interpretation is
that (I-695) doesn't apply to funding for these districts," Dahl said.
"We're waiting for the Supreme Court to advise on the extent, scope and
nature of 695," he said. "If for some reason, districts need to have
elections, they will have time."
There is no statewide association of diking districts, but several sources
said they knew of no other district in the state that planned to put its levy
up for a vote.
"This is one of the more unique 695 stories I've heard of," Washington
State Association of Counties Interim Director Bill Vogler said.
Lehning said commissioners have no plans to hold levy elections for the Lexington
and Cedarbrook flood-control districts, which the commissioners govern.
"Let's wait and see what the courts do first. It's a lot of expense to
run all these elections," he said.
Diking District 1 spent about $5,000 for the election.
"It's seems to me, there's a lot of 'wait-and-see.' I'm not sure what
people are waiting to see. 695 is here," Spencer said. "We have to
realize the fact that people did pass 695, and they want to approve taxation
imposed upon them. What we did was to comply with 695."
A court may rule that the elections aren't necessary, Spencer said, "but
in the meantime, the diking district will protect itself from criticism that
it imposed a tax unlawfully."
Bean said she has no second thoughts about the election.
"I think you'll see as this goes along, other people lining up to get
their budgets approved."
