The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About087 82 ,j.<;';';' , ')j,h f' i'tl, <-.) (f¥"..... f:;1.t.,.f-""'¡- ,-...! ~Ît 8/::''-J;r RESOLUTION NO. 87-82 A RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SALES OR USE TAX UPON AND TO BE COLLECTED FROM THOSE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE STATE SALES OR USE TAX IS COLLECTED, FIXING THE RATE OF TAX, PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINIS~RATION AND COLLECTION THE~EOF AND CONSENTING TO THE INSPECTION OF RECORDS. WHEREAS, The 47th Legislature of the State of Washington in Engrossed Senate Bill No. 4972 (RCW 82.14.030(2) has authorized the imposition of a sales and use tax by the counties of this state; and WHEREAS, the Department of Revenue of the State of Washington has required that passage of a sales and use tax ordinance effective January 1, 1983, be enacted on or before November 5, 1982, by counties in Washington State; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County deem it neces- sary and in the best interest of the residents of said county to impose a sales and use tax pursuant thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners that: Section 1. There is hereby imposed a sales and use tax, as the case may be, upon every taxable event, as defined in RCW Chapter 82, within the County of Jefferson. The tax shall be imposed and collected pursuant to Chapters 82.08 and 82.12 of the Revised Code of Washington. Section 2. The rate of tax imposed by Section 1 shall be five- tenths (5/10) of one percent (1%) of the selling price (in the case of the sales tax) or value of the article used (in the case of the use tax). PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if Jefferson County shall impose a sales or use tax under this resolution at a rate equal to or greater than the rates imposed under RCW 82.02.030(2), as added by Section 17(2), Engrossed Senate Bill No. 4972, Laws of 1982, First Special Session, by any city within the county, the county shall receive fifteen percent (15%) of the city tax; PROVIDED, FURTHER, that if the rate provided in this resolution as hereafter amended, is less than the rate imposed under RCW 82.14.030(2), as added by said Section 17(2), by any city within the county, the county shall receive that amount of revenue from such city equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the rate of tax imposed by the county under this subsection. Section 3. The administration and collection of the tax imposed by this resolution shall be in accordance with the provisions of RCW Chapters 82.08 and 82.12. Section 4. There shall be allowed against the tax imposed by this resolution, a credit for the full amount of the city sales or use tax imposed upon the same taxable event, up to the amount of the tax imposed by the county herein, as provided in RCW 82.14.040(2). :.Wl ~, , 8 r~rÆ' f' 81$48 Section 5. The county hereby consents to the inspection of such records as are necessary to qualify the county for inspection of records of the Department of Revenue, pursuant to RCW 82.32.330. Section 6. This resolution shall take effect on January 1, 1983, which shall be the date upon which collection of said tax shall commence. Section 7. The tax imposed by this resolution is in addition to that imposed under Resolution No. 26-70, dated September 1, 1970, as author- ized in RCW 82.14.030(1). Section 8. As provided in Section 19, Engrossed Senate Bill 4972 Laws of 1982, First Special Session, there is hereby created a special initi- ative procedure under which the imposition of this tax is subject to approval or rejection by voters. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, said special initiative procedure shall be exercised under the requirements of RCW 35A.11.100. PROVIDED, FURTHER, that said special initiative procedure must comply with the time limits as provided in RCW 35A.ll.090. Section 9. The Board finds as a fact that an emergency exists and this resolution is necessary for the immediate preservation of public power, health and safety and for the support of county government and its existing public institutions. Section 10. If any provisions of this resolution or its appli- cation to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the resolution or the application of the provision to other persons or circum- stances is not affected. APPROVED and ADOPTED this ~6th day of August, 1982. .\~'t1 JC;;,) ~ ~ '~ i ~. ;..." .. SEAL:'¡~, ~ '. C$-t'ftl . . ,. .. '.1'. .~ ,',.. r~q .J'. ..' , ..... ,. .... JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ . /~ ..... L ., ,- ..-« J:) B.G. Brown, airmañ «, A.M. O'Meara, Member (!~l¿I/!J.~/ Carroll M. Merce·, Member ) t<;4>!'<!IIj- a~ .förm~ . / J F. Rf~ JK¿6.uq>· P osecuting Attorney [/ . Resolution No. 87-82 1VO~ ø fj.~F ~;·tJ!iB49 . . , ~ I [j íj î j ~, ~ ,j J ! 1, IISOlUTIOH NO. a7a2':~i 'A Resolt.ttioll imposi"t . ..... or use tax ..... and to be coIlecte4 front tires. persons from ,,!lent the st.t. soles or use tax is ~, fixi"t the rat. of tox, proYlding for tho ocJ. millÍstnltion and coIIedieA thereof and cententiat to tho ÎII.pection of record.. .. WHER~AS, The 47th Legislature of the State of Washington in Engrossed Sen- ate-Bill No.. 4972 (RCW82.14.030(2) has oûtharized the imposition of Of Pub Ii cat ion o sales onduse}ax by the counties of this state; and \ . WHEREAS, the Department of Revenue of the State of Washington has re- quired that passage of a sales and us, tax ordinancéeffective 55 Januaryd~,.~983.be enacted on.or bef9re November 5. 1982; by counties in Washington State; and,,~.., sworn, soys he is the publisher of the WHEREAS: the Board. of County Commissionen of;J. effer~on County deem it L.~eekIiIYhnleW$paper Wdhci.Crchu~a~edS bc:n .,. . . ..... . . . ' . .' ".. Eng s anguage on I - nec~s5ary Qnd ,,,,the best Interest of thefes,dents .of sOld county to spaper in thelown of Port Townsend, in impase'a saleSe and use tax purs!Jant th~reto; " . fer general circulation in ,soid co~nty . '.... . ". hs prior '0 the dote of the firs' publica- < NOW.THER~F<:IRE,tTIS~EREBYRESOl VED" by the"Boord ofJeff:rsonCou~ty attached, and tho' the seid Port Town· Commiss.ione[$',thot:·::;;:~!:.·~~.~;,,/;';-;·.';;;:'.< '"..'."~í);'\ :,'·¡/1t'S~·\.';'t;,··.-r::;..,+ Ik day of June, 1941, approved as 0 Secfio"'rJherø is her,eby imposed 0 soles and use tox. os' the case may be, perler Cour' of said Jefferson County, , upon everytøxoble event~ a" defined in RCW Chapt.er 82, within the Covnty of copy of the Jefferson,~p';Jox sholl., be imposed andcoHected pursuant to Chapters8~L08 82 and 82.12' o£}he J¡ElvisedCode of Woshington,.' .~. . ','., . Section2;:1;~:tatElof,~~~~o~edbySection Ts~QH be five-tenths (5/10) of ng a sales or use tax one percent.~''r.l.of,thet~elling ~rìce. (in"the-. coseqf the soles tax) or "olueof the art;cle.us~(ìnthe:cåS,~of~he use tox):';$f .............. . P'ROVIDepKHpWEVEIi.-!~at.if Jefferson County sholl impose a sales or. use tax undeJ' tbis resOlutioriato ,rate equal to .or.greoter than the rates imposed' under RcW··a7.'02:030(2r,;àSfôdd~ bySectio~: 17(2}~Engrossed Senate 8i11.No~ 4972, lawSc 'Õf'J 982; First.$ped91.Session, by any city within the county,the county shQt~*~e¡vefi~t~.énPef~¡"'t(T5%) of thei city tax; PROVIDED" FUR· , THER, thof'-æ.re,9,-rote provldiw ¡hthisresolution os hereafter amended, is less. ' th th" ..;.' ~ ed" d I RéWS2.J4 030(2) 'dd d b 'd S r l7(2) lor and entire issue of said paper .tself an. era ,!mpos ...,~~,;.er, ,'... ...... .as 9 e y SQI ec Ion ..... . thereof for 0 period of by any cityw~!~¡ri-,thø'count~. tre ~ounty sholl receive that amount of revenue .rom suchd~ltofifteeri pet:c~t(15%)of the. rote of tax imposed by the county undêr:.tÀii.subseètion..·.,i::.X~\<· '.it, ,.~. ,Sf';;>~¡""~t\ consecutive weeks, beginning on the Sectio".3,:..rh~·øâm¡ni~~ratlcrn;èÎ~dcoHection o~ the .imposed by"this August 82 :~;~;~~~~~1~1,~ in~~c;r:anc:~ith,theprovis~ns of RCW Chapters·82.08 yof Icg~ ,19 ,Section.f:The.-e shall be.allowedagainst the tax(imposed bY' this resolution, h doyafAugust, a credit for:theh.¡Uomount of the dtysales or use,tax imposed upon the some ~~:~~~~e:~~8~71 ~::~t~~:;~!,~~he" tox:,.~p~i~~~'~~~":~~~:y herein,. os I~:'~:'::~i~;.:~~~:r:~n~~::~:: Sec:fionS":the c;ounty hereby. consents tOe the inspection of such records os ..' ore necesso. '._'Y...... ,'to.··qUOlifyt.he..... ..COuotYfo...r.. inspe. ction a.I records of the Deportment ~.. ¡d, j,rr/.~s.,a..!, th"lr~tr~f~,20 p..r col- of Rev~nue..; p~nuant t~ ~CW 82.32.330·4 " !k. \. ,",I.'!' 1 ï/ SectIon 6.,T"lIs'r,esol~!'on shall tak", effed.on Jon~ary 1, .1983, which sholl be . I "~J¢é ~,/~ the dote upot'?<whicheC),~I~tion of sC)id tax sholl c9mmence, ,; .,' '. '. '... 1 :; ¡'\' r- ' Seetio "tox.impos~ bythi~cresolùtionisjn addition to thai imposéd: ~ ~ ' . t "~ } , . .il.St.h under Res ;;t>lo;'26~70¡7dote(Fseptember'l."T970;¡as.outhorized in'RCW ~~f,?r':l "1"> thIs .J J . ", day o~ 82 14 030( ';';" ..,''''.'/ ';"";~-!";;'ì.1!';~"í;;"".''''·'''~''':''''';·~''~''''·c " ''>'~''~....' ,) . ., , ~:~;~~~~":',i·~e;;::";·,~~:-'-;~'~~', ~->~!~'.,:~·~~~~'>!:;'7'-~r::~:>~:L;~~;~-~::':/~:~;~i~~jt3~~.§!::'~ \, '<.),' "'</il') ~I Secti~fI'8;;>.: rOd>ti~~n19,1~rossed~~~,ate ~iU~4~~2"~aw,sof''':;<!i ,~,y:. .(... I". 1982';::M1!$t'.-!5.'. p....:...eC1....'-...........o.. ..~.S......8S'S... ...._.'..~.....Qf}....;._.'...~.,.i......'..:.h., e.......re._......'. .....,.~..~.....,.:...b...e. r..'~..' :t:rea..te. .d.'i' '.-~...'..;s......p. ec. 1~....I..;'mtlot.ty. .e;.,_.......~....;p.....'.. 2..'.:.:. '~; /¡ 1 Y.4,,~ì;;,;.' i c,edure unâé~~~,,~'in;t,2e,;:~~~~I,h~,~ ~H~~$t .,I:"br;~o~~~b~ ~~I/Z1) t:ß,'(:t;r /'-' fIon by voter~.J:~¡~i.·>'~::;::;;,~:F:i::'ih;~?, J :7::~:Ú~é~~\:;;.: " "lt$d~J N?tary Publi~ i~ and for the Stole of PROVIDEQþï-IQWEVER;'soid special inihativepr~edure'sholl'be exercised WO$hIßg'on, residmgat Port Townsend und~rt~~;;f~~~i~~~I\)~~ts,¡;~!r~p.v:,~~·11 :t~. PR().t'I,DE();:,F~RTHER. t?~t.;s,~~d special, ",.hahve'pt'ocedure:.must' comply 'i.VtththeA,me Ilm,ts·as provided 10 , RCW· 35.Þ;..iï£ocxi;~qiM?[~~~¡;~~j¿¡;:¡;ff~t:ç"I,.,,?:,~f .i ='f,¿tt,,,·~t:"0,~"'~;f'..;,,· SectjOn~,T~e8oordfi~?s as,afaci,that on e':;';~rge~~yexi~ts and thisresolu: tion is neces!igrY,for thé:ITlTlediate'prese(vatìon of,public power. heohh'and -safetyafdto~,the. support,of,countygovernment and its existing public institu- tion s * ' : ';::~::,~1f¡: :'~'~'\"~';::')~'5f#:~:~~~_\?j¢'i;.-;~ .,";e-,~.~,'.~~~ -,~'{: :~., ,\~~ ~<.f>::'-~-~~,'e -W'~~~ ';'~~ ""..''':;;--;-;':w~~~", ,.'j' ,!¡'''."'','' '. ;..._,~.; ~-'\t._,,,,.~~.~,\·,~:~ Section '0; If anyprovisi~~s~f this resolution or it$i:Jpplicatio~t~'any person or circumstá"ëes ishêld invalid; the remai'liderof thé resolùtionor the applìèõ: lion of the provi~ion to otht!r persons or;c.ircumsto~~es is n?,~(]f!t;.cte~\"~ APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th doy-"of Augu:¡t; 1982;":""" ;"t;'j~.j'''': ,.,,{ ,.,: 'c;JEFFERSON COUNTY, BOÀRD OF COMMISSIONERS -"h ~."': _'_',_ ,:,:," _ .,-'. i,,:,:: B,.G, Brown: Choirmon Còrroll M"Mercer, Member ff::~ f - _ ;/"~,K'~ ~~F< -',', t;~ / .. ~.........',......'.................' - '. " - . . . .JK' SEAL: """,;Z"" '.' ATTEST: Jerdine ç, B Clerk of the'Boord I ' ¡- " I . ,. .: -"",. ... ~ ,'b "87-"62... Jefferson County Planning Department county courthouse, port townsend, washington 98368 telephone 120613a5 -1427 david goldsmith,. director MEMORANDill·! TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM,: David Goldsmith. Fran, Hansen, Jack Westerman '. DATE: July 9. 1982 SUBJECT: Local Option Tax During the last session of the legislature, a local option tax package 'was passed. Engrossed Senate Bill 4972 allows cities and counties the option of increasinp; either the sales tax (up to 5/10 of a cent) or the real estate excise tax (up to 1/2%). 'Both of these options are subject to an initiative recall vote of the citizenry. The legislature also provided for an ad- ditional real estate excise tax. over and above the other tax options. of up to 1/4% to be used only for capital improvements. If this tsx is utilized. the cities and counties would waive their right to impose development fee's. This tax increase is not subject to a initiative recall. This memorandum is intended to provide you with an under- standing for what these tax options would generate,'sRou1d it become necessary to generate additional revenue. In this analy~ sis, 1981 year end sales tax and real estate exise tax revenue figures are used: ' Sales Tax Option 5/10 of One Cent 1981 County sales tax $239.624 Qptional:.sa1estax:wouldHgenerate $239,624 Real Estate Excise Tax 1/2 of 1% Option 1981 real estate excise tax city and county $435.100 County only (assume SO/50 split) $217,500 Optional real estate excise tax would generate $108,875 Real Estate Excise Tax Option in lieu of Development fee's 1981 Real Estate Excise Tax, County only $217,500 Capitol Improvement Excise Tax would generate $54,387 VOL '8 L~Fr. .,1 .I.t!,,)_ o 160a ,I ~ , JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINGTON November 17, 1982 Department of Revenue Office Audit Section General Administration Bldg. AX-O Olympia, WA 98504 Attn: Floyd Charles Dear Sir: Jefferson County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Port Townsend, Washington 98368 . Phone (206) 385-2016 A.M. O'MEARA, DISTRICT 1 B.G. BROWN, DISTRICT 2 CARROLL M. MERCER, DISTRICT 3 Enclosed herewith is a copy of Je ferson Countyís Resolution No. 87-82, imposing a sales/use tax pursuant to Senate Bill No. 4972, Laws of 1982. If there is anything additional I need to do, please advise. ". ;væ£~ )t(:'d/~d '/Jerdine C. Bragg ~ Clerk of the Board Encl: 3 .. JOHN SFELLMAN Governor ~. ?7-8~ DONALD R, BURROWS Director STATE OF WASHINGTON ',:/ ~} DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Olympia, Washington 98504 MS"AX"02 JEFfERSCJN SOAHD OFCOrvHv¡¡SSIO!\j E}<S DATE: November 3, 1982 TO: ~es and Counties Donald R~~irector Department of Revenue FROM: Recently some questions have been raised regarding the requirement that "local option" sales taxes be subjected toa "special initiative" procedure. Section 19, Chapter 49, Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess. The Attorney General's office has issued an opinion (AGO 1982, No. 13, copy attached) holding that the "special initiative" called for in Section 19 is an initiative procedure rather than a referendum procedure. This means that, as a general rule, local sales tax ordinances can become effective subject to later repeal (on a prospective basis only) by the initiative process. Based on the Attorney General's Opinfon, the Department is adopting the following requirements as. additional conditions to entering into con- tracts to administer local option sales taxes: 1. The taxing ordinance must be enacted and the Department notified at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the tax (e.g., December 1, 1982 for a tax beginning January 1, 1983.) The previous requirement that the tax become effective only on the first day of a calendar year quarter remains un- changed. 2. The taxing ordinance must contain a "special initiative" provision acceptable to the Department. The Department will work with the Associations to develop mOdel language along the lines suggested in the AGO. 3. The local jurisdiction's attorney must provide the Depart- ment with a written opinion that the tax is effective on the stated date without possibility of subsequent retroactive repeal. 4. Those local jurisdictions currently imposing the tax must amend their ordinances in the manner suggested by the Attorney General. See AGO 1982 No. 13, page 7. The Department will work with the Associations to develop model language. The amendments must be effective January 1, 1983. (continued) VOL hGt o Z618 I' TO: All Cities and Counties November 3, 1982 .page 2 5. The contract must provide that a tax which is repealed by the "special initiative" process ceases to be effective only on the first day of the calendar year quarter next succeeding thirty days from the date the vote on the "special initiative" is certified by the proper election official. 6. A city which adopts a "local option" sales tax contingent upon adoption of the tax by their county must notify the Depart- ment as soon as possible, and in no event later than 30 days prior to the effective date of the city's tax. These requirements are necessary to assure rational administration of the local option sales tax. It is simply not administratively possible to refund local sales taxes on a retroactive basis which may have been adopted in violation of state and local law. Furthermore, retailers, particularly those who operate in many jurisdictions, must have adequate time to adjust to varying rate changes. The local option sales tax is becoming a very complex program to administer and your cooperation is appreciated. By working together we keep the cost of taxpayer compliance low and reduce the Department's administrative costs even further. .. DRB :pg cc: Association of Washington Cities Association of Washington Counties attachment VOL 8 h\Œ o 261.9 '. . .,J OFFICE OF THE ....'{,'-,. .",\~ ÆTORNEY GENERAL ,"v'. .~~ COUNTIES--TAXATION--INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM--INITIATI~: ADDITIONAL LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX IlL.... . Where the voters of a home rule charter county possess, the general power of initiative~ § 19, chapter 49, Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess. requires that the "special initiative procedure" provided for in that section conform to the requirements of the county's initiative procedure. October 28, 1982 Honorable Norm Maleng Prosecuting Attorney King County 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 ATTN: Richard H.. Holmquist Chief Civil Deputy Cite as: AGO 1982 No. 13 Dear Sir: This is written in response to your request for our opinion on the followingquestion~ "Where the voters of a home rule charter county possess the general power of initiative, does Section 19, Chapter 49, Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess. require that the 'special initiative procedure' provided for in that section conform to the requirements of the county's initiative procedure?" We answer this question in the affirmative. ANALYSIS The full text of § 19, chapter 49, Laws' of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess. reads as follows: "Every county and city imposing a tax under section 11(2) of this act shall provide for a special initiative procedure on an ordinance imposing or alter ing each tax. Such a special initiative procedure shall subject the ordinance imposing or altering the tax to approval or Ken Eikenben)' Attorney General Temple of JUltlce.Olympla. WUhlngton 98504 8 rAG: 0 2620 VOL . , , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . Honorable Norm Maleng 2 AGO 1982 No. 13 rejection by the voters. If the voters of the county or city otherwise possess the general power of initiative on county or city matters, this special initiative procedure shall conform to the requirements of that procedure. If the voters of a county or city do not otherwise possess the general power of initiative on county or city matters, this special initiative procedure shall conform to the requirements and procedures for initiative petitions provided for code cities in RCW 35A.ll.100.R I n t urn, the e sse nee 0 f S 1 7 ( 2 ) of t h ea c t is an authorization, to any county or city, to impose a further local sales and use tax at a rate of up to S/lOths of one percent in addition to the local sales and use tax previously authorized by S 4, chapter 94, Laws of 1970, 1st Ex. Sess. (cf., RCW 82.14.030(1». And clearly, the subject legislation applies to a home rule charter county in the same manner, and to the same extent, as it applies to any other county or city, home rule charter, code or otherwise. The only distinction to be noted is that, as recognized by § 19, supra, in some cases the particular county or city is already subject either to a charter provision or a statute providing for the enactment of local ordinances (including those repealing existing ordinances) by the initiative process while in other instances it is not. Accordingly, in the case of these counties or cities which thus have the initiative, the legislature has simply directed that the "special initiative procedure"--relative to an ordinance or resolu~ion imposing an additional local sales and use tax increment under S 17(2)--be in conformity with that existing procedure. On the other hand, in the case of those other counties or cities which do not now have such an initiative procedure in place, the legislature dircted that, ". . . this special initiative procedure shall conform to the requirements and procedures for initiative petitions provided for code cities in RCW 3SA.1l.l00." The thrust of 'your question, as we understand it from your letter, is whether § 19, sUEr a, truly prescribes a "special initiative procedure" which maybe-invoked in response to a local ordinance imposing the additional tax provided for by J 17(2) of chapter 49, supra, at any time thereafter. Or, instead, does it actually contemplate a referendum process to be invoked for the purpose of rejecting the ordinance imposing the additional tax only within a limited period of time following its adoption? 1/01_ 8 ~A{;~ o 2621 ·..... "'. . OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . Honorable Norm Maleng 3 AGO 1982 No. 13 By your letter you h~ve also indicated, briefly, your own analysis and at least tentative conclusion, saying: "Our own analysis of this issue has led tis previously to conclude that when the legislature repeatedly used the artful term 'initiative' throughout Section 19 of the act, it meant precisely ~hat it said. Apart from anything else, comparison of the critical language of Section 19 with the parallel phrasing of Section 10, Chapter 42, Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess. (signed into law the same day as Chapter 49) where the legislature used the word 'referendum' instead .of 'in itiative' supports this conclusion, we believe." We, ~s well, have already come to the s~me conclusion. Specifically, in a memorandum opinion dated October 25, 1982 to the State Department of Revenue, copy enclosed, we also said that we believe § 19, supra, " . should be taken to mean precisely what it says and, thus, to call for an initiative, rather than a referendum, procedure. ..." And by that, we then went on to explain, ". . . we mean a procedure which allows the people, at any time after passage of the tax imposing resolution or ordinance, to either ratify it or repeal it by the defeat o r pas sag e 0 fan in i t i å t i v,e . Un d era ref ere n dum procedure, on the other hand, the action of the people would, instead, be more in the nature of a veto which could be exercised only for a limited period of time." We also noted, in our analysis of the question, ". .. one £urther difference between the initiative and referendum process. Under an initiative procedure the law (in this case, a local ordinance) which is subject to amendment or repeal by the people through use of ,an initiative is, in the mean time, fully in effect. On the other hand, under a referendum procedure the subject law remains in suspense until the referendum election is conducted--at which time it then either goes into effect or is., in essence , vetoed. Cf., Berndson v. Graystone Materlals Co., 34 Wn.2d 530, 209 P.2d 326 (1949)." VOt 8f'AŒ 02622 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Honorable Norm Maleng 4 AGO 1982 No. 13 We then observed, by way of an explanation of the legislature's action, that: "This last noted difference between an initiative and a referendum, in turn, suggests a plausible reason for the legislature's choice, in this instance, of an initiative rather than a referendum process. Onder a referendum process, the underlying tax imposition ordinance would not go into effect until' voted upon, assuming that a referendum petition was filed within the applicable, limited, period of time for the filing of a referendum. Conversely, under an initiative procedure, the tax-imposing ordinance may go into effect upon being enacted--subject, then, only to possible subsequent repeal by the people." Bearing that in mind, however, we next acknowledged, ". . . that the language in § 19, supra, which refers to voter approval or 'rejection' does, in that respect, speak in terms which sound more like a referendum procedure, and that the provisions of existing local law CRCW 35A.ll.lOO and RCW 35.17.24.0 - .360) which are incorporated by reference in the section deal with both initiatives and referenda. ..." In addition, we expressed our awareness, ". . . that some city and county associations have taken the position that § 19 should be read to allow only ,for a voter referendum petition on the ordinance during a limited period following its enactment." Nevertheless, we then noted and explained the fact that. ". . . the legislature in § 19 pointedly, and repeatedly, used the word 'initiative' rather thantreferendum'~-not merely once or tw ice but a total of six times. ... " And then, finally, we referred to a point which you have also noted; namely, " .. that in the same session, only a few days prior to the.passageof chaper49,supra, the legislature utilized the same general process for voter participation with, however, significantly contrasting language demonstrating VOL 8 r~,Œ 02623 . , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Honorable Norm Maleng 5 AGO 1982 No. 13 quite clearly that it knew how to say 'referendum' when that is what it meant. ..." Our reference, like yours, was to § 10, chapter 42, Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess. by which the legislature provided for voter appioval of certain general obligation bonds in language as follows: " . . . "In addition, the ordinance or resolution authorizing the issuance of such general obligation bonds shall be subject to potential referendum approval by the voters of the issuing entity when the bonds are part of the non-voter approved indebtedness limitation established pursuant to RCW 39.36.020. If the voters of the county or city iSsuing such bonds otherwise possess the general power of referendum on county or city matters, the ordinanc~~r-~esõlution shall be subject to that procedure. lfthe voters of the county or city issuing such bonds do not otherwise possess the general power of referendum on county or city matters~ the referendum shalï-ë-onform to the requirements and pro¿ëdu~ës-fõr referendum petitions provided for code cities inRCW 35A.ll.lOO." (Emphasis supplied) Accordingly, based on all of these factors evidencing apparent legislative intent, we concluded our memorandum opinion to the Department of Revenue as follows: "Our conclusion, therefore, is that in its reference to a s p e cia I i ni t i a t ive pro c e d u rei n § I 9, .§ u .EE..!! , the legislature intended to make a particular process described as a 'specia1 initiative procedure' applicable to all counties and cities electing to impoSe the additional, local, sales and use tax authorized by § 17(2) of the same act. Conversely, the legislature did no t me r e 1 y i n ten d, ins t ea d , to re qui r e that a local or~inance imposing this tax be made subject tG a referendum process durin~only a limited period of time followings its enactment." 1 It is, furthermore, interesting to note that if, indeed, the legislature's intended reference was, instead, to a referendum procedure, the provisions of § 19, supra, would be at least technically inoperative in the case of those counties or VOL 8 rAŒ 02624 . . .' ~ OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Honorable Norm Maleng 6 AGO 1982 No. 13 It is, therefore, on that same basis that we now answer your question (as above stated) in the affirmative. Where the voters of a home rule charter county possess the general power of initiative, § 19, chapter 49, Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess. does, indeed, require I that the "special initiative procedure" provided for in that section conform to the requirements of the county's initiative procedure. Moreover, having so answered your inquiry, We believe it appropriate, as well, to reiterate a further portion of the same October 25, 1982 memorandum opinion by which we dealt, in addition with the following related question: "What steps should a county or city take in providing for the 'special initiative procedure' in connection with its adoption of an ordinance imposing, or altering, the additional sales tax provided for in § 17(2) of chapter 49, supra?" Our response to that question, here set forth in full, was as follows: "Let us attempt to answer this question in, basically, three stages. "(1) First, as we view it, the cleanest and simplest way to go would be. through the enactment, by each county or city, of a separate ordinance providing for the 'special initiative procedure'which is contemplated by S 19, supra. Suchan ordinance should, in essence, say that if, at any time thereafter, the subject county or. city enacts a resolution or ordinance imposing the additional tax, or alters such a previously adopted ordinance or resolution, that action will be subject to voter ratification or repeal through an initiative procedure--either the initiative procedure generally applicable to the particular class of county or city cities which do not have the initiative or referendum under their charters or applicable statutes. RCW 35A.1l.l00, which sets forth the applicable procedures in those instances, refers to new 35A.l1.090 as an exception and that statute, in turn, exempts from the referendum process, inter alia, ". . . ordinances authorizfõg-ör-rëpealing the levy of taxes; " . . . VOL 8 rAŒ o 2625 't:, . . ". ' OFFICE OF TilE .YITOHNEY (jENl":HAL Honorable Norm Maleng 7 AGO 1982 No. 13 involved or, in the absence of such an existing procedure, in accordance with the initiative procedure which governs code cities as provided for in RCW 35A.II.IOO and related statutes. "(2) Secondly, and alternatively, we would suggest that if the foregoing is not done there should, at least, be a provision in the tax-imposing ordinance itself which, in similar terms, spells out the requisite ~etails of an initiative process for any later ratification or repeal by act of the people. "( 3) And third, in the event that neither of the foregoing steps has been taken with respect to a tax-imposing ordinance which may, already, have beèn adopted, our recommendation to the subject county or city would be to now adopt, as expeditiously as possible, a general ordinance such as we outlined in our first recommendation, above, with however, express language contained therein declaring the ordinance to be applicable both prospectively and retrospectively." We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to you. mg Enclosure VOL Very truly yours, KENNETH O. EIKENBERY to ney Generß.I TIN Deputy Attorney General 8 fAŒ 02626 '1. The f{)}lowing seniœ is requested (check one.) . 18.Show to whom and date delivered-.w......._¢ o Show to whom. date ar.d address of delr¡e~;.., _ 4 o RE..<qPJCTED DEliVERY , ' Show to VlhOÎD md date de1ivared............_ë o RESTRICTED DELIVERY. . Show to whom, date, and addIess of d~liYery.$ _ '. .';- Compkte items I, 2, and 3. Add )'DIU address in the "RETUltN TO" ._'0. , _crse. ' , (CONSUL'J: POSTMASTER FOR FEES) 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSE~ ¡: .J)E;6'/: á r ~£'/.clÝtI¿'-~; i. ~~~/~;4~C>/r S£(!.l"'/Ø¥ z ~#. 4'ò/V/fff, ' fØ-,.G. t1X ~ð.:{ :;II, YfrJ/7 :;&:.1. ,».y " , ~ 3. TICLE IPTION: !!! REGISTERED NO. aRTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. ~ DATE OF DELlVERV ~~ POSTMARK N0\j311Jq~¡L S' 'ç' ADDRESS (Complete only if ~ 6. UNABt.£ TO DELIVER BECAUSE: :: )Þ ;:: -ttGPO : 1979-301).459 ,," - . "~' '.J.~~\~Ç~'" U~ì1'ÊD STATU POSTAl,. SE ...¡ IC~ ~ ;1 , OFFICIAL BU$IN_' ,f ," SENDER INSTRUCTIONS Pr~ your ....Iddris\ and zÎP Code in "'~ · C...I.,.,""". 1, 2. 8!!d ~ 0111118 revel'lL · A_ . front of rieI9 if 1Ia,ce perm¡~ ~ aff:1X to bIICIt of M1IcI~ · Eo'" ricIe "R~ Receipt R........ to II\IRIbIr~ .....-r-.- .....~ _.~ ~, TO " " . ... #~~~~~W({(¡I(G?·ßð~>{ ~ú?~U~þ' " ,': '..', "'~QJr.(lb) .. :~4';~~æq£r~. 9(f;fq: ;