Clallam County voters to decide whether to increase excise tax – Questions arise about the process to get Proposition 1 on the ballot

October 3, 2005

Editorial by Sue Forde
for Citizen Review Online

Clallam County, WA – Clallam County Commissioners have issued a Proposition to levy a Buyer’s Excise Tax ( BET) on the sale of real estate which will be on the November ballot. (Ballots will be mailed in about a week or so.)

According to Resolution Nos. 70 & 79, the Commissioners are placing the issue on the ballot in accordance with the state law, and in response to petitions received by them from citizens asking them to do so.

Questions have been raised as to the legality of the process about the ballot measure – from the method used to whether the state law requirements have been met.

No plan as to how tax money will be spent

State law calls for a written plan to be presented at least 60 days prior to the election, to itemize how the taxes will be spent. No such plan was completed within that time frame. As recently as September 27th, the county commissioners hurriedly put together a stack of various propositions and RCWs, and called it their “plan”; but nowhere within these documents is an itemization as to how the collected funds will be spent. And the so-called "plan" was two weeks late!

The state law is very specific about what the plan is to include, however, stating: "A plan for the expenditure of the excise tax proceeds shall be prepared by the county legislative authority at least sixty days before the election if the proposal is initiated by resolution of the county legislative authority."

The ballot title, which was changed by Proposition 79, reads: “Shall the Board of County Commissioners be authorized to levy for ten years a buyer’s excise tax on each sale of real property in the County at a rate of ½ of 1 percent of the selling price, the proceeds to be used exclusively for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining agricultural conservation areas?”

What are “agricultural conservation areas?”

Since the proposed tax is authorized by state law, we took a look to see what “agricultural conservation areas” might be, since this tax is purported by the county commissioners and the proponents to serve the purpose of purchasing conservation easements on agricultural land (farmland).

Here’s the definition of “conservation areas” as per state law ( RCW 36.32.570)
(Conservation area acquisition and maintenance), as referenced in RCW 82.46.070
(Additional excise tax -- Acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas):

“As used in this section, the term "conservation area" means land and water that has environmental, agricultural, aesthetic, cultural, scientific, historic, scenic, or low-intensity recreational value for existing and future generations, and includes, but is not limited to, open spaces, wetlands, marshes, aquifer recharge areas, shoreline areas, natural areas, and other lands and waters that are important to preserve flora and fauna.”

Are the county commissioners – in particular, Clallam County Commissioner Steve Tharinger (D), being honest when they say the funds will be used to “save farmland”? It would appear that the language authorizes the commissioners to spend the taxpayers’ money in whatever area they choose. What will happen if the tax is passed without an advance plan....and knowing that there are other " cultural or historic" areas within Clallam County?

The commissioners wanted to know if the use of the revenue couple be restricted to the purchase of conservation easements on agricultural land (farmland). (click here to see letter). They had added the term "agricultural" to the wording of their resolution, in the possible attempt to influence voters that the funds would be used strictly to purchase those kind of easements.

The tax cannot be limited to agricultural purchases.

According to the Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney’s office (letter dated July 29, 2005), “under no circumstances can the revenues generated by the excise tax be used other than as established by statute….” and refers to the definition of conservation areas. In other words, the funds can be used for anything - including wetlands, marshes, shoreline areas, and "other lands and waters...".

The language - such as it is - of the proposition, combined with the methods in which the county commissioners have placed this on the ballot, are suspect at best. County Commissioner Mike Doherty is listed on the public disclosure documents as having donated to the proponents of this tax. He is obviously in favor of it. There is no doubt that County Commissioner Steve Tharinger is in favor, having pushed through the Conservation Futures Fund - despite public outcry against it - in 2001, costing $250,000 of county money which was previously designated for capital improvements.

The Commissioners resolution states that the there were 4,201 signatures on the petitions presented by Clallam Citizens for Food Security, led by Nash Huber and Bob Caldwell. Upon examination of the signatures by this reporter, there are less than 3,500 signatures after removing the duplicates (over 550), those without addresses and/or signatures, and those from outside the county. Since the signatures have not been verified as to whether or not the remaining are registered voters, it’s a good question as to how many signatures are actually valid by standards measured with the home rule charter initiative process.

Are we to trust the county commissioners - in essence, give them a "blank check" to use $27 MILLION of taxpayers' money - since they have not complied with presenting a plan as to how the money will be spent, in view of at least two of the commissioners strongly favoring the tax, and the misstatements as to the signatures on the petitions presented to them?

Voters should look long and hard at what is WRITTEN, instead of taking anyone's word for how these hard-earned monies will be used. It would seem wise to vote "no" on Proposition 1.

For more information about Conservation Easements, click here.