Letter to Sound Transit, and Reply
#1138891
Posted by BH at 5/30/06 10:50 a.m.
This letter was sent to several of the contact addresses listed on ST’s website:
“Dear Sound Transit:
It appears that ST’s board is not respecting the rights of taxpayers. In particular, the 2005 bond sales resolution requires ST to extend the current high sales tax rate until 2030, whether or not ST2 is approved. Locking in a high rate for the sales tax appears contrary to commitments made to the taxpayers in Sound Move.
Sound Transit’s sales tax rate currently is .4%. This is a very regressive tax – it hits the poor in our community disproportionately hard.
The voter-approved ST plan (Sound Move) promises that the .4% sales tax rate will be reduced by ST’s board upon the occurrence of a specific event: voters not approving additional capital expenditures. Sound Move puts its tax rate reduction promise this way --
“Should voter approval for a future phase capital program not be forthcoming, the RTA Board will initiate two steps to roll back the rate of sales tax collected by the RTA. a. First, the RTA will first initiate an accelerated pay off schedule for any outstanding bonds. Second, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay the accelerated schedule for debt service on outstanding bonds, system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency cost. b. Once all debt is retired, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay for system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency administration.”
The 2005 bond sales resolution passed last year requires that ST collect the sales tax at a high rate until 2030. Assuming an annual growth in the sales tax revenues of 5.75% (last year the growth rate was 8.2%), during the next 25 years ST could take in more than $13 billion in sales taxes – many times what it will need to retire debt and pay the O & M and capital replacement subsidies.
Moreover, voters may not approve ST2 in 2007, and that event is supposed to result in the first of the two mandatory reductions in the .4% sales tax rate.
The Sound Transit board appears to be acting against the interests of taxpayers. Taxpayers have a right to only be forced to pay the current high sales tax rate for the shortest possible period of time.
Sound Move contains several “public involvement principles.” These provide:
“The RTA will ensure that: -- citizens have access to the planning process, -- citizens’ input is actively sought at all stages of planing and development, . . . – citizens have opportunities to affect decisions before they are finalized, [and] citizens’ inquiries, suggestions and ideas are answered or accounted for in the decision-making process.”
In light of those “public involvement principles” of Sound Move, Sound Transit is requested to:
· reaffirm it is committed to immediately reducing the sales tax rate if voters do not approve ST2,
· provide an estimate of what the permanent sales tax rate will be (we taxpayers are going to be asked to vote on many big new tax proposals over the next year and a half – ST should let us know what its permanent sales tax rate is likely to be so we can figure out how those other governments’ upcoming tax requests will impact our budgets),
· update the “local taxes” figure on “Table 2. Revenues” in Sound Move (that table states that the amount of local taxes needed to pay for the “system plan” is $1.98 billion – I expect that by now this figure has grown considerably),
· explain what policies ST’s board has in place to ensure that taxpayers are not forced to pay sales taxes at the current high rate to ST for one day longer than necessary, and
· provide assurances to the taxpayers that nothing in the 2005 bond sales resolution will force them to pay sales taxes to ST at an excessive rate should ST2 not be approved.
Thank you,
***”
Less than 48 hours later this e-mail arrived: “No can do. ~Sound Transit”
Reply Report violation
#1138994
Posted by Terrorist at 5/30/06 2:07 p.m. in reply to: #1138891
Sound Transit’s sales tax rate currently is .4%. This is a very regressive tax – it hits the poor in our community disproportionately hard.
So one would assume from your comment that you favor replacing the state sales tax which is about 6.5% with a progressive income tax.
Reply Report violation
#1147451
Posted by BH at 6/10/06 7:21 a.m. in reply to: #1138994
On soundtransit.org the version Sound Transit posted of "Sound Move" does not include Table 2. Table 2 is where ST said to the voters in 1996 that it planned on collecting $1.99 Billion in taxes to build the system.
The bond sale resolution last year that the ST board adopted contains a requirement that Sound Transit keep imposing its sales tax at .4% (the current high rate) for the next 25 years. Last year the growth in the sales tax revenue was over 8%. Assuming a 5.75% growth rate for 24 more years, Sound Transit will collect over $13 Billion in additional sales taxes.
This is a bait and switch, or fraud, or however you want to phrase it. The voters were told about $2B in taxes would be collected, and because of what the ST board did last year now that number could well be over $15B.
Sound Transit is abusing taxpayers.
Reply Report violation
#1149185
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 6/12/06 2:12 p.m. in reply to: #1138891
Last edited at 6/12/06 2:13 p.m.
Terrorist - haven't you figured out that our broken record friend is only capable of asking questions, not answering them?
BH - writing a letter to yourself is a very effective way to gather the information you need. Just about as effective as asking pointless open-ended questions to a public agency on a message board.
Maybe you should try answering the letter you wrote to yourself to keep this bizarre charade and obsession going for a while longer! Or, did you already do that with the "no can do" comment?
Reply Report violation
#1157277
Posted by BH at 6/23/06 8:59 a.m. in reply to: #1149185
“Information is power and it ought to be shared.” That is the tag line from an editorial in the Seattle Times today about Greg Nickels’ style of governing. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003079479_charted23.html]
Sound Transit keeps hidden virtually all information about its plans for additional taxes on this community. Nickels’ twisted penchant for secreting information obviously permeates the culture in Union Station as well as City Hall.
Reply Report violation
#1157363
Posted by diehardTRANSITadvocate at 6/23/06 10:53 a.m. in reply to: #1157277
THere is no way Sound Transit will collect even close to that figure you put in, as there may be a few economic downturns preventing the sustained anual growth rates you mentioned.
Reply Report violation
#1170171
Posted by BH at 7/13/06 12:53 p.m. in reply to: #1157363
One thing Sound Transit learned from what happened to its sister-government Seattle Monorail Project is to NOT tell the truth about taxing plans. Up until the bitter end SMP was calmly assuring everyone it was financially sound. Staff and the board limited what was disclosed to the press and public regarding costs and tax plans.
Ten months after getting the DBOM cost information, and tens of millions of dollars wasted later, the truth about SMP’s taxing plans finally came out. There would be $2.1 billion in capital costs (not the $1.29 billion promised to the voters), and the financing costs over 50 years would require it to collect $11 billion in taxes (the voters had been repeatedly told that collecting sufficient taxes would take 23 years).
The truth revealed, SMP imploded. Mendacity was revealed.
Sound Transit has decided it won’t make the “mistake” of disclosing what its taxing plans are. It takes great pains to conceal information of the type outlined at the top of this thread because it does not want the public to know the truth. It wants to keep information secret that could be used to question the propriety of decisions it has made (and those it plans on making in the future).
Knowledge is power. If the public has knowledge, it can foster government accountability. It is unconscionable for Sound Transit to keep this information from the public. There is simply no good reason for ST to keep its taxing plans secret. ST’s hiding of its tax revenue projections is an anathema to the ideals of transparency and accountability in government.
Reply Report violation
#1170218
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 7/13/06 1:54 p.m. in reply to: #1170171
Last edited at 7/13/06 2:01 p.m.
Sound transit and SMP as sister governments. That's a good one, BH. You turned out to be a pretty funny guy, afterall!
The truth revealed, SMP imploded. Mendacity was revealed.
Hey, BH - if you had been reading this board for the past four years, you would know we "revealed" all kinds of problems with the monorail long ago.
Reply Report violation
#1170242
Posted by BH at 7/13/06 2:21 p.m. in reply to: #1170218
ST and SMP are virtually identical. Each is a single-purpose, stand-alone local transportation government. They both were set up to have boards comprised of appointees, unlimited taxing authority, and no oversight processes to keep them from breaking the promises they made to voters about how much they planned on taxing.
The same law firms advise them, represent them for fees that add up to millions of dollars each year (as bond counsel and otherwise), draft their policy documents (including board resolutions), prepare their ballot materials, and advise the legislature on an ongoing basis about what statutory changes to provide to them.
A critically important aspect of these two governments (from their framers’ perspective) is that hand-picked appointees will sign off on the multi-decade tax covenants in the bond sales resolutions. Whether or not “unfriendlies” later make it onto those boards then is irrelevant; such people would be powerless to disrupt the tax schedules the friendly appointees had previously adopted.
SMP was *marketed* to the voters as a better local government than ST, but they in fact are fundamentally identical siblings.
Reply Report violation
#1171817
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 7/15/06 4:47 p.m. in reply to: #1170242
Last edited at 7/15/06 4:50 p.m.
You seem to be the only person who believes this, BH, and it's apparently because of a personal axe you need to keep grinding.
Using your logic, the Department of Defense and the City of Seattle are also "identical" because they both are government agencies and the employees of each agency have desks and chairs in their offices.
And of all the desperate arguments you've tried, this one really makes you look pathetic.
For a seemingly smart guy, you sure do have a couple wires crossed, BH.
Time to write yourself another letter.
Reply Report violation
#1173089
Posted by BH at 7/17/06 7:21 p.m. in reply to: #1171817
No personal animus here.
But Sound Transit should provide a lot more information about the amount of taxing it still will do if ST2 fails in 2007.
It is appropriate that the voters be given enough information so they can decide rationally whether to vote yes or no based in part on what the financial impacts on their families is likely to be. Do you agree?
Reply Report violation
#1173143
Posted by BH at 7/17/06 8:50 p.m. in reply to: #1173089
Last edited at 7/17/06 8:52 p.m.
It is appropriate that the voters be given enough information so they are able to decide rationally whether to vote yes or no in November 2007 based on what the financial impacts on their families are likely to be. Do you agree SoulNotSoldto road warriors?
Reply Report violation
#1173308
Posted by BH at 7/18/06 7:18 a.m. in reply to: #1173143
There is no good reason for ST to hide from the public this information about its current taxing plans, correct?
Reply Report violation
#1189368
Posted by BH at 8/5/06 8:17 a.m. in reply to: #1173308
The good folks over at ST sure didn’t want to address the topics set out above. Plus, there is no information on ST’s website about when it plans on backing off on the “phase one” construction taxes. The financial plans should have that information, but those were taken down.
Maybe somebody NOT associated with that government wants to take a crack at a couple of questions like these:
-- The formal plan that created ST (voter approved in 1996) was called Sound Move. In it (in Table 2-Revenues ) ST estimated the amount of taxes it would need for constructing the entire system (HOV lanes, commuter train, and light rail from the airport to the U-District) would be $1.98 billion. How much in taxes has ST collected to date (it appears to be just about $2 billion), and how much in additional taxes (that is, beyond the $1.98 billion) does ST now intend to collect for the (scaled back) system construction?
-- One of the promises in Sound Move was that the sales tax rate would be rolled back from its current high level of .4% to a lower rate after enough was collected for construction costs. Assuming a new phase of capital expenditures (ST2) is not approved, Sound Move provided that the .4% rate would be reduced twice: first to a level necessary to generate revenue necessary to retire any outstanding bonds plus enough for some O & M subsidies, and then after the debt was retired to a lower level still (so that just enough revenue is generated for some O & M subsidies). In light of those promises to the voters, and assuming ST2 is not successful, 1) when does ST expect to make the first of those sales tax rollbacks, and 2) what will the eventual, lowest sales tax rate be (once the debt is paid off)?
-- Why did ST's board agree to the tax covenants last year in the 2005 bond sales resolution requiring collections of the sales tax at the .4% rate for twenty five more years? Assuming a 5.75% growth in that revenue source over that period (last year the revenue from the sales tax grew 8.2%), ST will collect over $12 billion in sales taxes pursuant to those new tax covenants with its new bondholders. And that massive commitment to collect future taxes only was made as security for a $423 million bond sale. Why did ST need that $423 million so desperately that it would agree to collect $12 billion as security for it? That ratio of 1:28 debt to security is completely unreasonable by any commercial metric. Also, why would ST agree to collect twenty five more years of sales tax at the .4% rate when there is nowhere near that much additional revenue needed for it to pay for the construction and O & M costs associated with the system described in Sound Move?
Reply Report violation
#1201973
Posted by BH at 8/19/06 8:01 a.m. in reply to: #1189368
ST is hiding this information to keep the public in the dark.
Reply Report violation
#1211603
Posted by BH at 8/31/06 8:30 a.m. in reply to: #1201973
Hey, Brian Sonntag. Here's a humble request. As part of your "audit," make sure you shine a strong light into ST's black-box taxing plans.
What we need is an audit covering the extent to which ST's statements in Sound Move about how much taxes it planned to collect grossly underestimated reality.
This local government is hiding all of its projections about future taxes. The SAO seems to be the only agency that has a shot of turning that rock over to discover the truth.
Of course if the "scope of the audit" Sonntag and ST agreed to does not include looking at ST's future taxing plans and how they diverged from what voters were told, then I guess we should just bend over and take it from ST.
Reply Report violation
#1211785
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 8/31/06 11:42 a.m. in reply to: #1211603
I guess we should just bend over and take it from ST.
BH, Sound Transit is a transit agency, not a person.
You are so emotionally wound up over this issue, I think you have really lost touch with reality...more so than usual, anyway.
Reply Report violation
#1211913
Posted by BH at 8/31/06 1:59 p.m. in reply to: #1211785
Buggery is an extremely apt metaphor for what ST does with its taxes. The voters in 1996 were told $1.98 Billion in taxes would be needed for the promised system. After that measure passed, ST unilaterally shortened the light rail line, removed popular stations, planned for less heavy trains, etc.
Then last year, the board passed a resolution committing ST to collect sales tax at a rate of .4% for 25 additional years. Assuming a 5.75% growth rate, ST now will collect over $12 Billion in sales taxes above and beyond what it told the voters it would require.
ST does not need anywhere close to $12 billion more to build out what is left of the system it promised in 1996. It is simply abusing its tax authority, and no one in this region has any recourse.
Has the SAO made public the scope of the performance audit it will conduct on ST? I wonder if ST’s “performance” in light of the representations it made in Sound Move regarding taxes will be examined by the SAO. It could be that the SAO simply will ignore that aspect of ST’s performance.
Reply Report violation
#1228386
Posted by BH at 9/18/06 6:17 p.m. in reply to: #1211913
One way to gauge whether or not ST2 will be "worth it" to the region is by examining ST’s performance so far. When it went to the voters in 1996, ST touted the soundness of its financial projections and cost estimates.
Obviously the costs were higher than what voters were told, and obviously the system promised has been scaled back to some extent since it was approved.
What we have no information about at this time is how far off on its estimate of tax needs will turn out to be. This is important information that Sound Transit is not making available. There is no good reason for it to withhold data about how much it expects the construction costs to be in total, and how much additional local taxes will be needed to cover those costs.
There have been postings to the effect that ST’s says it can keep collecting the sales tax at the .4% rate until construction of all the system elements mentioned in Sound Move are complete. That seems wrong – ST could then just delay completing some capital project or another and use that delay as an excuse for collecting far more taxes than it needs to pay for construction costs.
The taxpayers have a very real interest in knowing when the existing .4% sales tax rate now being collected is likely to be reduced. That will bear on whether it will make sense to approve an ADDITIONAL .3%, .4% or .5% sales tax as ST2 will request. The voters deserve to know how long they would be paying the combined, exceedingly high aggregate rate if ST2 is approved.
Reply Report violation
#1239863
Posted by BH at 9/30/06 7:17 a.m. in reply to: #1228386
One of the ways SMP was better than ST is that SMP was clear about its tax plans. It had a "Tax FAQ" page. It said how long it planned on collecting its MVET.
In contrast, ST provides no information to the public about when the required sales tax rate reduction could occur.
Reply Report violation
#1254434
Posted by BH at 10/16/06 8:49 a.m. in reply to: #1239863
Last edited at 10/16/06 8:52 a.m.
From the Seattle Times today:
==================
Nickels said he was comfortable going against voter sentiment expressed in the Times' poll. He pointed to similar popularity problems that hounded Sound Transit's downtown-to-the-airport light-rail project.
"I've gone through the peaks and valleys of building a light-rail system in this city, and there were times in 2000 and 2001 where it was about as popular as Prohibition," said Nickels, a Sound Transit board member. "We stuck it out and in 2009 we're going to open light rail to the airport, and today if you took a poll there would be consensus that it was the right thing to do."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003306657_viaductreax16m.html
==================
This story includes incorrect facts. For one, the voters in 1996 approved a system that included a light rail line from the U-District to the City of Seatac.
Nickels says there’d be a “consensus” now that Sound Transit was the right thing to do. Here is why he says that: Sound Transit said in 1996 it would take in $1.98B in local taxes for the system - but it never has updated that figure. Nickels’ belief that ST is popular now is rooted in the fact that ST keeps the public ignorant about the magnitude of the projected tax cost overrun.
This is one of the lessons the local politicians learned from Seattle Monorail Project. The “consensus” with SMP was that it was great concept – four times the voters approved it at the polls. What happened when the true tax costs were revealed? It was rejected by a 65% to 35% margin. That is why ST does not give out any information about how much tax it intends to collect.
Nickels says Sound Transit is popular because Nickels knows the public is being kept in the dark about ST’s tax collection plans.
Reply Report violation
#1265036
Posted by BH at 10/26/06 9:20 a.m. in reply to: #1254434
It’s budget time at Sound Transit. That means staff gets to have the board greenlight what staff wants to spend in the next 12 months.
Staff will be presenting the 2007 Budget to the board for its approval, and part of that is a hearing today. If history is a guide, those unaccountable appointees will thumb through the papers and not ask any questions of staff.
If the board members were even slightly concerned about the interests of the taxpayers, they would demand answers to some questions. One of those relates to the huge additional capital outlays staff suddenly decided it wants to spend on "light rail” in the next two years.
Starting in 2002, the ST Adopted Capital Plan (1997-2009) had capital outlays for the light rail project through 2009 pegged at around $2.7 B. This figure is in the annual Adopted Budgets.
That $2.7B figure held steady from then through the first five months or so of this year. For example, ST’s 2006 first quarter Quarterly Financial Report shows that figure at $2.692B.
Then all of a sudden, a couple of months ago, that capital outlay figure for light rail spending over the next 25 months skyrockets by over $1.3 billion. ST’s 2006 second quarter Quarterly Financial Report shows an Adopted Capital Plan (1997-2009) figure for light rail of $4.082 billion.
So in the last couple of months, ST staff just up and decided they wanted to spend an EXTRA $1.3 billion on light rail BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF 2009.
If the board goes ahead and rubberstamps this without demanding staff justify a sudden increase of that magnitude – one that is not provided for in the Adopted 2006 Budget – then those appointees clearly are not considering the consequences of their actions on taxpayers.
In addition, what possibly could account for ST suddenly deciding it needs to spend an extra $1.3 billion on light rail between now and 2009?
Reply Report violation
#1265662
Posted by John N at 10/27/06 7:40 a.m. in reply to: #1265036
I just wrote a note to BH in the comment section following the Paul Guppy op-ed explaining that the $1.3 billion addition for light rail capital in the 2nd quarter is for the lifetime budget of University Link ($1.5 billion) net of $200 million that Sound Transit has already spent planning the light rail subway tunnel from Pine Street to the U District and beyond.
Reply Report violation
#1265686
Posted by BH at 10/27/06 8:25 a.m. in reply to: #1265662
John Niles you are doing just a BANG UP job speaking for Sound Transit. I'm sure it appreciates your efforts!
So here's what those numbers mean. In ST's financial reports where there is a table called Capital Outlays by Phase, the numbers under the heading "Capital Plan 1997 - 2009" do NOT refer to spending ST plans on doing through 2009.
Instead, those are numbers showing what spending ST will do both before and after 2009.
John, does ST pay you to write about Sound Transit "numbers?"
Reply Report violation
#1268555
Posted by John N at 10/29/06 6:46 p.m. in reply to: #1265686
I've never received a dime from Sound Transit. Maybe I got a cup of coffee at a Board meeting.
Does Sound Transit appreciate my efforts? That depends on what you mean by "appreciate."
Reply Report violation
#1270826
Posted by BH at 11/1/06 9:29 a.m. in reply to: #1268555
Sound Transit plans on hauling in far more taxes than what the voters approved. Table 2 of Sound Move, in the “Paying for the System” section, states that the amount of local taxes would be $1.98 billion. Sound Move is what the voters approved.
The Supreme Court made it clear in the “Sane Transit” case that ANY substantial deviation from what the voters approved would be illegal:
“The broad question before us is whether Sound Transit's adoption of a scaled back light rail line that will take more than 10 years to complete was an unlawful substantial deviation from the plan approved by the voters. This question must be viewed in light of established law in Washington that when voters approve taxes for a public project any major deviation to the project is not within the government's lawful power. O'Byrne v. City of Spokane, 67 Wn.2d 132, 136-37, 406 P.2d 595 (1965); Davis v. City of Seattle, 56 Wn.2d 785, 789-90, 355 P.2d 354 (1960); George v. City of Anacortes, 147 Wash. 242, 244-46, 265 P. 477 (1928); Hayes v. City of Seattle, 120 Wash. 372, 374-75, 207 P. 607 (1922); Thompson v. Pierce County, 113 Wash. 237, 241, 193 P. 706 (1920). While minor details in a public project may be changed by the governing agency, taxpayer funds may not be used to construct a substantially different project than the one approved by voters. See O'Byrne, 67 Wn.2d at 136-37; Davis, 56 Wn.2d at 789-90; George, 147 Wash. at 244-46; Thompson, 113 Wash. at 241-42.”
In 1996 the voters approved a budget for putting the system into place (and operating it during that time) that included a tax cost figure: $1.98 billion.
Yet now we’ve got Sound Transit ignoring that limit. For example, in the March, 2006 North Link Final SEIS, in the Financial Analysis section (page 5-8), ST says the following: “Based on the fall 2004 revenue forecast, from 1997-2020 the sales and use tax is expected to generate a total of . . . $5,501 million for all of Sound Transit (2002$).”
Coupled with the MVET revenues, that is far above the limit the voters approved. In the Supreme Court’s parlance, it is a “major deviation to the project” the voters approved.
What is wrong with these people at Sound Transit? This is what you get when there are political appointees who are given taxing power. They abuse it. No one has official oversight over Sound Transit’s board, so it wants to hammer this region with grossly excessive taxes.
Reply Report violation
#1271307
Posted by John N at 11/1/06 5:42 p.m. in reply to: #1270826
BH writes: The Supreme Court made it clear in the “Sane Transit” case that ANY substantial deviation from what the voters approved would be illegal
In contrast to what BH writes, my reading of the language in the Sane Transit decision is that Sound Transit can take as long as required, and spend as much money as required, to build the specific projects described in Sound Move, as long as the tax rate is not changed.
I don't agree with this ruling, but that is what the Supreme Court ruled.
Sound Transit's actions are consistent with this ruling.
The 10-year Sound Move construction program approved in 1996 is now planned to last at least 20 years (until 2016 with the construction of University Link). Collections of Sound Transit taxes (sales tax, MVET, and rental car taxes) to pay for Sound Move will sum to $9.1 billion through 2020, according to the University Link Financial Plan, June 2006, top of page 14 in Table 9, a document submitted to the USDOT as part of applying for a new $750 million grant.
Back in 1996, Sound Transit pledged that we would vote on continuing, or rolling-back, these taxes after ten years, but the Supreme Court has relieved Sound Transit from a legal requirement to follow through on this pledge.
Reply Report violation
#1271780
Posted by BH at 11/2/06 10:03 a.m. in reply to: #1271307
Nothing in the “Sane Transit” case justifies Sound Transit in collecting more than $1.98 billion in taxes (in 1995 dollars). Here is that case:
http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/151wn2d/151wn2d0060.htm
The background of that lawsuit is that in 2001 ST realized it could not build the light rail line from the University District to SeaTac within the voter-approved $3.9 billion budget. So that year ST passed a resolution shortening the light rail line. ST scaled back this project because it could afford a shorter system within the budget the voters approved in 1996. Part of that $3.9 billion budget was $1.98 billion in local taxes.
A group sued. It asserted that the shortened light rail line was an unlawful deviation from what the voters approved, and that pushing back the completion date by three years also was an unlawful deviation. The court disagreed on both counts. The analysis by the court of both claims turns on how Sound Move specifies that if costs turned out to be excessive the board would have discretion to reduce the length of the line.
Nothing in that opinion relieves Sound Transit of the requirement that it stay within the tax limits the voters approved. The court makes it clear in the passage quoted in the post above that any substantial deviation from what the voters approved would be unlawful. That includes deviations from the tax amount the voters approved.
All of the language in the “Sane Transit” case about the amount of taxes Sound Transit can take in going forward is in the context of the scaled-back light rail plans approved in 2001. Those revised plans were within the revenues budget the voters approved in 1996.
Nothing in the opinion says Sound Transit can haul in more taxes than what the voters approved ($1.98 billion is specified in Table 2 of Sound Move). That issue was not before the court. The court was only addressing whether the scaled-back system – which was within the Sound Move budget - was permitted.
The opinion does not say anything about expanding ST’s tax powers beyond the limits the voters approved in Sound Move. The Supreme Court did not say Sound Transit would be acting legally if it did what it ended up doing: expanding back up the scope of the light rail project, which necessarily results in tax demands that are many billions over the amount the voters approved.
The “Sane Transit” court not say ST could tax more than what the voters approved. It could not have said such a thing: courts can not expand voter-approved tax limits.
Reply Report violation
#1273305
Posted by BH at 11/4/06 8:06 a.m. in reply to: #1271780
Since 1997 Sound Transit has taken in about $2.5 billion in local taxes. That is near, if not over, the voter-approved limit specified in Sound Move.
The voters in 1996 did not give Sound Transit a blank check. There was a stated revenue budget in the measure the voters approved. Part of that budget was a limit on the amount of local taxes ST could collect: $1.98 billion (1995$).
This unaccountable municipal government is ignoring that limitation on its tax powers. The tax covenants provided to the holders of the 2005 bonds is one example. ST committed to collect the sales tax at the .4% rate until 2030 as security, but tax collections of that magnitude would exceed by a wide margin what the controlling document states.
Sound Transit needs some tough love. Someone has to explain to the board and the staff that the voters did not approve unlimited tax collections. Valid limits on ST’s right to collect taxes are set out in the table in the “Paying for the System” section of Sound Move.
Reply Report violation
#1273877
Posted by John N at 11/4/06 8:13 p.m. in reply to: #1271780
BH: Thank you for pointing out the reference to the Supreme Court's decision. Contrary to what you write, the Court explicity ruled that Sound Transit could collect its taxes at the present rate forever, as long as it was spending the money on what it described in Sound Move.
Here is a quote from the ruling you cited:
"It is apparent from the language contained in Resolution 75 and in Sound Move and its appendices that when the voters approved the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan they implemented permanent taxes. At a minimum, taxes were to be collected beyond the 10-year period for operations and maintenance of the system, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency administration. It was also expected that taxes for construction costs would extend beyond the 10-year period. The only limitation on the collection of taxes for construction was that they not be collected on a second or any future capital phase without further voter approval. In sum, Sound Transit has the authority to continue to collect taxes within its district to finance construction beyond the 10-year period, as well as for operation and maintenance of the system."
Reply Report violation
#1274119
Posted by BH at 11/5/06 8:04 a.m. in reply to: #1273877
Last edited at 11/5/06 8:06 a.m.
The passage John N. quotes from the “Sane Transit” case does not support the contention he makes (“the Court explicity ruled that Sound Transit could collect its taxes at the present rate forever, as long as it was spending the money on what it described in Sound Move.”).
The flaw with his argument is that it ignores a separate, very important limitation on Sound Transit the voters imposed when they approved Sound Move in 1996. There is a limitation on what type of expenses ST can spend tax revenues on after ST has collected $1.98 billion (2005$) in local taxes. The “Sane Transit” case does not address that dollar limitation on expenditures, let alone expand it beyond what the voters approved.
The voter-approved revenues budget sets a finite dollar limit on the amount of local taxes Sound Transit can spend putting the system into place and operating it during that period. The “Paying for the System” section of Sound Move specifies ST can use $1.98 billion (1995$) to put the system into place and operate it during that period. ST can take as long as it wants to collect that $1.98 billion (that is, ten years or longer than ten years).
After ST has collected $1.98 billion (1995$), it can continue to collect local taxes but only for five specified categories of expenses: paying off bonds, operations and maintenance of the system, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency administration. After ST has taken in the $1.98 billion (1995$), it will have permanent tax power but only for those five enumerated categories of ongoing expenses.
This $1.98 billion (1995$) expenditure limitation was not an issue in the “Sane Transit” case. Indeed, ST at that time had scaled back its light rail line plans in order to not exceed the “Paying for the System” revenue limitations.
Reply Report violation
#1274882
Posted by BH at 11/6/06 9:08 a.m. in reply to: #1274119
The “$1.98 billion” limitation set out in Sound Move is not a limit on how much local taxes ST can collect, it is a limit on how much ST can spend putting the system into place and operating it during that period.
That first $1.98 billion in local taxes can be thought of as unrestricted funds: ST can use that tax revenue for buying trains, constructing the light rail line, paying off bonds, agency administration, buying easements from BNRR, paying for art, etc.
After ST has collected $1.98 billion in local taxes (1995$), local taxes still can be collected. However, that tax revenue is restricted. Subsequent tax revenues only can be spent on five categories of expenditures: payments on bonds, system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency administration.
One of the practical implications of this $1.98 billion dollar limit specified in the “Paying for the System” section of Sound Move is that ST is required to segregate tax revenues received after that amount is taken in. That is because those restricted funds can not be spent on the same kinds of expenses as the unrestricted funds.
There is nothing to indicate Sound Transit has implemented accounting policies to either 1) identify when it has collected all the unrestricted tax revenues it is entitled to, or 2) segregate and restrict the use of the tax revenues as required by Sound Move that it takes in after it has reached the $1.98 billion limit.
This limitation on how much of the local taxes ST collects can be spent putting the system into place is a very important protection for taxpayers (one of the few that Sound Move imposes on Sound Transit). The Seattle Monorail Project did not have this kind of dollar limitation on expenditures. This $1.98 billion limit is one way Sound Move is better for taxpayers than the SMP plan was.
Reply Report violation
#1282282
Posted by John N at 11/12/06 11:22 p.m. in reply to: #1274882
Sound Transit recognizes no limit on its spending for Sound Move. The agency has reported to the U.S. Government that it intends to spend $15 billion through 2020 on Sound Move, which includes the $1.5 billion University Link from downtown Seattle to Husky Stadium. On page 14, Table 9 of the University Link Financial Plan, this intention is reported. The document is a 2.3 megabyte pdf posted at www.bettertransport.info/pitf/ULinkFinan
cialPlan.pdf
Reply Report violation
#1284348
Posted by BH at 11/15/06 8:33 a.m. in reply to: #1282282
Last edited at 11/15/06 8:35 a.m.
Here’s a question for Sound Transit: What the hell makes you think you can exceed the voter-approved spending limits in Sound Move?
A little background for those just joining us. The first time ST tried to get approval for its plan it failed. On March 14, 1995, voters in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties rejected a $6.7 billion ST ballot offering. The next year, a scaled back $3.9 billion version was approved.
The WAY that second plan was limited to $3.9 billion was by the revenue and spending limitations specified in Sound Move. Those limits are set out in Table 1 and Table 2 of Sound Move. They are copied below.
Several years ago the meatheads in Union Station up and decided they wanted to ignore the revenue limits specified in their controlling ordinance:
-- ST now plans on ignoring the Sound Move limit on how much tax collections it can take in to put the system into place and operate it during that period. For example, the 2002 Financial Plan states that instead of only collecting the voter-approved $1.98 billion amount, ST planned on collecting about twice that: “Total Phase I (1997-2009) tax revenues are expected to amount to $3.605 billion.
-- ST plans on ignoring the Sound Move limit on how much debt it can issue. The voters only approved a plan that involved issuing $1,052 billion in bonds. Disregarding what Sound Move says, ST now plans on issuing $1.6 billion in long term debt (Adopted 2006 Budget, p. 235).
-- ST plans on ignoring the Sound Move limit on how much interest it pays bondholders. The voters only approved a plan that involved paying $171 million for bond service. Disregarding what Sound Move says, the Adopted 2006 Budget table on page 273 shows ST plans on paying far more than what its controlling document specifies for debt service.
ST MUST adhere to these expenditure limits specified in Sound Move. The Supreme Court ruled in the “Sane Transit” case that 1) Sound Move’s provisions were incorporated by Res. 75, and together those provisions comprise the voter-approved ordinance controlling what Sound Transit can do, and 2) any substantial deviation from what those governing ordinance terms mandate exceeds ST’s lawful authority.
Is ST justified in ignoring these limits on its expenditures set out in its controlling ordinance? No freaking way.
-------
-------
Here are the voter-approved spending limits from Sound Move that Sound Transit is required to comply with. You won’t find these on the ST website because ST does not have this information posted. This is in the section of Sound Move called “Paying for the System:”
“Table 1 summarizes the cost of putting Sound Move in place and operating regional express bus routes and rail lines.”
HOV Expressway access ramps [$377M], Regional Express Bus routes [$361M], Commuter rail [$669M], Electric Light Rail [$1.801B], Community connections [$255M], Regional fund/reserves [$280M], and Debt service [$171M].
Those sum up to $3.9B.
In Table 2, Sound Move sets limits on what amounts ST can spend from different revenue sources: “The system plan will be paid for with a combination of voter approved local taxes [$1.98B], federal grants [$727M], farebox revenues and interest revenues [$155M], and borrowed funds (bonds) [$1.052B].
These also sum up to $3.9B.
Reply Report violation
#1284577
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 11/15/06 1:50 p.m. in reply to: #1284348
Notice how arch Sound Transit rival JNiles (with over 10 years of fighting the agency under his belt) uses actual facts to prove BH has no idea what he's talking about.
Notice how BH sticks his head in the sand, and doesn't even try to address JNiles' claims.
For those of you just joining BH for his daily anti-transit obsessions and ongoing long-running conversation with himself and a wall, you may also take notice of how BH's toughest opponent is himself.
Reply Report violation
#1284608
Posted by BH at 11/15/06 2:09 p.m. in reply to: #1284577
Last edited at 11/15/06 2:25 p.m.
The J Niles post above mine says ST is not respecting spending limits, and my post says ST is not respecting spending limits. We agree.
Rather than simply cluttering up threads with snide comments, perhaps Soul.... would like to address the substance of what is being discussed?
What the hell is Sound Transit thinking by ignoring the voter-approved spending limits that are in Sound Move?
Reply Report violation
#1284658
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 11/15/06 3:15 p.m. in reply to: #1284608
Last edited at 11/15/06 3:30 p.m.
The substance, my friend, was addressed by the Washington State Supreme Court. Both John Niles and I agree your interpretation of that decision is just plain wrong, whether you agree with the actual decision or not.
And if you want snide, how's about your comments above, which were directed at JNiles, an established Sound Transit foe:
John Niles you are doing just a BANG UP job speaking for Sound Transit. I'm sure it appreciates your efforts!
John, does ST pay you to write about Sound Transit "numbers?"
Talk about snide and hypocritical, BH.
Reply Report violation
#1284680
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 11/15/06 3:32 p.m. in reply to: #1284658
More examples of BH's snide comments, also directed at ST foes:
Paul Guppy –
You definitely need mucho work on your research skills.
That number for Sound Transit costs is WAY low, Paul Guppy. You are not accurately reporting how high the costs of Sound Transit are. Care to respond? Maybe you would be interested in trying to support your “research.”
It would be great if you would do some research, Paul, and try to give us the current estimates for the numbers in Table 1 and Table 2. As the “vice president for research of the Washington Policy Center,” you’re in a good position to get at the truth.
What's your problem John, did you run off and hide?
I've heard of the pot calling the kettle black, but BH seems to have made a career out of it.
Reply Report violation
#1284698
Posted by BH at 11/15/06 3:45 p.m. in reply to: #1284680
Anybody who thinks Sound Transit is ignoring the spending limits in Sound Move because of the 2004 Sane Transit decision could not be more wrong. Sound Transit could not be relying on anything from “Sane Transit” as justification for exceeding the spending limits in Sound Move.
For starters, nothing in that opinion addresses any aspect of the spending limits set out in the “Paying for the System” section of Sound Move (Table 1 and Table 2).
Moreover, ST was planning on disregarding the spending limits the voters approved years before the Sane Transit case came out. The January 2002 Financial Plan says on page 6 that ST can sell $2.68 billion in bonds. That is over twice the limit set out in Sound Move. Also, that January 2002 document says that instead of only collecting the voter-approved $1.98 billion amount, ST planned on collecting about twice that: “Total Phase I (1997-2009) tax revenues are expected to amount to $3.605 billion.” That is on page 15. So ST was paying no attention to the Sound Move limits on spending for years before the Sane Transit case even came out.
What the “Sane Transit” case said is that substantial deviations were permitted to the extent Resolution 75 permits them, otherwise they are unlawful. Res. 75 requires the system capital elements be scaled back if they could not be built within the spending budget, so that deviation was lawful.
Spending more than what Sound Move authorizes is not allowed by anything in Res. 75. Sound Transit could not be relying now on the Sane Transit opinion as justification for the excessive spending and debt issuance policies it launched years before that opinion came out.
Reply Report violation
#1284704
Posted by BH at 11/15/06 3:52 p.m. in reply to: #1284698
Last edited at 11/15/06 4:02 p.m.
Here’s a question for Sound Transit: What makes you think you can exceed the voter-approved spending limits in Sound Move?
A little background. The first time ST tried to get approval for its plan it failed. On March 14, 1995, voters in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties rejected a $6.7 billion ST ballot offering. The next year, a scaled back $3.9 billion version was approved.
The WAY that second plan was limited to $3.9 billion was by the revenue and spending limitations specified in Sound Move. Those limits are set out in Table 1 and Table 2 of Sound Move. They are copied below.
Years ago - BEFORE the "Sane Transit" case came out from the Supreme Court - the folks in Union Station up and decided they wanted to ignore the revenue limits specified in their controlling ordinance:
-- ST plans on ignoring the Sound Move limit on how much tax collections it can take in to put the system into place and operate it during that period. For example, the 2002 Financial Plan states that instead of only collecting the voter-approved $1.98 billion amount, ST planned on collecting about twice that: “Total Phase I (1997-2009) tax revenues are expected to amount to $3.605 billion.
-- ST plans on ignoring the Sound Move limit on how much debt it can issue. The voters only approved a plan that involved issuing $1,052 billion in bonds. Disregarding what Sound Move says, ST now plans on issuing $1.6 billion in long term debt (Adopted 2006 Budget, p. 235).
-- ST plans on ignoring the Sound Move limit on how much interest it pays bondholders. The voters only approved a plan that involved paying $171 million for bond service. Disregarding what Sound Move says, the Adopted 2006 Budget table on page 273 shows ST plans on paying far more than what its controlling document specifies for debt service.
ST MUST adhere to these expenditure limits specified in Sound Move.
The Supreme Court ruled in the “Sane Transit” case that 1) Sound Move’s provisions were incorporated by Res. 75, and together those provisions comprise the voter-approved ordinance controlling what Sound Transit can do, and 2) any substantial deviation from what those governing ordinance terms mandate exceeds ST’s lawful authority. Sound Transit just ignored what the court said in "Sane Transit" and went ahead with its pre-existing excessive spending and bonding plans.
Is ST justified in ignoring the limits on its expenditures set out in its controlling ordinance? No way.
-------
-------
Here are the voter-approved spending limits from Sound Move that Sound Transit is required to comply with. You won’t find these on the ST website because ST does not have this information posted. This is in the section of Sound Move called “Paying for the System:”
“Table 1 summarizes the cost of putting Sound Move in place and operating regional express bus routes and rail lines.”
HOV Expressway access ramps [$377M], Regional Express Bus routes [$361M], Commuter rail [$669M], Electric Light Rail [$1.801B], Community connections [$255M], Regional fund/reserves [$280M], and Debt service [$171M].
Those sum up to $3.9B.
In Table 2, Sound Move sets limits on what amounts ST can spend from different revenue sources: “The system plan will be paid for with a combination of voter approved local taxes [$1.98B], federal grants [$727M], farebox revenues and interest revenues [$155M], and borrowed funds (bonds) [$1.052B].
These also sum up to $3.9B.
Reply Report violation
#1288620
Posted by BH at 11/20/06 9:14 a.m. in reply to: #1284704
---------------------
Posted by John N at 11/4/06 8:13 p.m. in reply to: #1271780
. . . . the Court explicity ruled that Sound Transit could collect its taxes at the present rate forever, as long as it was spending the money on what it described in Sound Move.
-------------------------
John Niles here misconstrues language in the “Sane Transit” case, and he does so in a way that is directly contrary to the interests of taxpayers. He and CETA want to disregard Sound Move's limits on how much Sound Transit can spend. That would further their goal of using future ST taxes for a greatly expanded bus system.
Sound Transit itself does not even claim the 2004 “Sane Transit” case allows it to “collect its taxes at the present rate forever, as long as it [spends] the money on what it described in Sound Move.” For example, ST’s 2006 Approved Budget refers several times to how the tax roll back requirement of Sound Move limits how long it can impose the tax at the present rate.
It is obvious why ST likes John Niles as an “opponent.” Like he does in this thread, Niles and CETA claim ST has taxing powers above and beyond those set out in the voter-approved ordinance.
Reply Report violation
#1292603
Posted by BH at 11/26/06 9:36 a.m. in reply to: #1288620
It just gets weirder. More incomprehensible pronouncements from ST about its spending plans --
Back in 2001, the light rail line was shortened, per Res. 75, because the budget was too small to pay for everything promised to the voters in 1996. Specifically, the spending limits in Sound Move did not allow building the line from the airport to the U-District, because the costs would have been too high.
Transportation Secretary Peters is expected to visit next week. She may well announce federal money is coming for extending the light rail line north from downtown. The P-I says:
“Sound Transit Board Chairman John Ladenburg said he believes Peters will announce that her agency is recommending congressional approval of as much as $750 million in federal cash toward the $1.7 billion cost of the extension.”
seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/29
3688_trans25.html
The $750M federal grant sounds great, but that leaves $950M for this new northward extension unaccounted for. How is this glaring $950M gap supposed to be filled in?
Can local taxes make up the difference? No, ST has already taken in the $1.98B in local taxes Sound Move says it can spend to build out the Phase 1 system.
Can additional bond issuances make up the difference? No, ST has sold $770M of the $1,052M in bonds it has authority to issue.
It would be very helpful if Mr. Ladenburg would explain his thinking here. How does he expect to cover the $950M funding gap without violating the spending limits in Sound Move? Bear in mind, the Supreme Court already has said any substantial deviation from the terms of Sound Move and Res. 75 would exceed ST’s lawful authority.
Reply Report violation
#1292825
Posted by John N at 11/26/06 3:02 p.m. in reply to: #1292603
I'm quite sure that IF USDOT Sec. Peters on Monday announces US Government support for the $1.5 billion Sound Transit light rail tunnel planned between Pine Street and Husky Stadium, THEN it must be true that USDOT is agreeing with Snorow's and my interpretation of Sound Transit's present taxing authority.
I would also assert that Sound Transit and FTA will not proceed with the University Link line IF the ST2 tax-hike measure scheduled for November 2007 is defeated. Husky Stadium would not be a reasonable northern terminus for Central Link light rail, according to University of Washington.
If Sec. Peters makes an announcement about University Link light rail on Monday, the exact wording will be very important to assess.
Reply Report violation
#1297051
Posted by BH at 11/30/06 9:47 a.m. in reply to: #1292825
John:
While I’m sure you and I disagree about some things, on the key issue we are in complete agreement - Sound Transit is disregarding the central taxpayer-protection terms of Sound Move.
The voters approved ST spending money, but only within circumscribed limits. The controlling ordinance says how much local taxes ST can spend, and how much bonds it can sell, to build out the system. If ST can not build the entire system described in Sound Move, Resolution 75 requires ST to scale back the capital spending to stay within the enumerated budget. You and I agree that ST has begun acting in derogation of those spending limits that the voters imposed as an upper boundary on ST’s lawful authority:
````````````````````````
Posted by John N at 11/12/06 11:22 p.m. in reply to: #1274882
Sound Transit recognizes no limit on its spending for Sound Move. . . .
````````````````````````````
The key question now is whether ST’s board believes exceeding those spending and bonding limits is justified in light of some extra-legal principle, or whether it is just deliberately violating taxpayers’ rights.
Reply Report violation
#1301860
Posted by BH at 12/5/06 9:14 a.m. in reply to: #1297051
The rubberstamping poohbahs on ST’s board will demonstrate their contempt for the rights of taxpayers if they approve the 2007 budget staff is proposing. That budget would direct ST staff to spend over a billion dollars in 2007 without regard to certain key limitations in the controlling ordinance.
The voters in 1996 gave ST power to spend up to $1.98 billion in local taxes to build out the system. The board was charged with spending that amount of local taxes on putting as much of the system into place as it could. That is a spending budget. At this point ST has collected that much local taxes, and more.
The controlling ordinance states exactly how the tax amounts collected in excess of that $1.98 billion figure may be spent (it identifies five separate categories of expenses). Capital expenditures are not among those five. Despite that limit, the draft 2007 budget directs staff to make construction expenditures irrespective of the revenue source. That flaw violates the rights of taxpayers.
The expenditure restrictions spelled out in Sound Move are there to benefit taxpayers, not Sound Transit. Those limitations on how ST must operate are being deliberately disregarded by ST: it doesn’t want the gravy train to slow down.
ST’s board members were selected by the three County Executives for their obsequious fealty, so they may just do what staff wants and approve the draft 2007 budget. The current thinking seems to be “don’t ask don’t tell.” For example, the board members never have requested staff inform them about whether the government they are supposed to be leading is in compliance with the taxpayer-protection provisions of its controlling ordinance. The board is intent on simply ignoring the rights of those it taxes.
Reply Report violation
#1301952
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 12/5/06 11:10 a.m. in reply to: #1301860
WTim/BH, now you seem to be mimicking Eyman lawyer Jim Klauser's wild conspiracy theories (cited in the article John Niles posted the other day). He's making this stuff up to make his 776 case look more interesting than it really is. You, sir, have no such excuse.
However, as a lawyer, Klauser is supposed to have a basic understanding of the law. It's clear your grasp of the law is weak, at best. At least you don't dispute that fact, WTim/BH.
Reply Report violation
#1302671
Posted by BH at 12/6/06 8:41 a.m. in reply to: #1301952
This week ST staff presents the board with a 2007 budget designed to shaft taxpayers. That budget fails to limit the spending of future local tax revenues to the five permitted perpetual expense categories.
The motives of the players are obvious. Staff doesn’t want what the controlling ordinance requires. That would slow the gravy train down. The unaccountable appointees on the board have no problem with their role. They know what to do - don’t ask, don’t tell about the Sound Move revenue limits.
Reply Report violation
#1303895
Posted by BH at 12/7/06 10:17 a.m. in reply to: #1302671
The opinion in the I-776 case came out today; it appears well-reasoned:
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=
opinions.showOpinion&filename=765341MAJ
When ST’s board is deciding next week whether to approve the draft 2007 budget, it should carefully consider what the court says about the limitations on ST’s taxing power. There are two references in particular relating to tax limits:
-- “At the time the bonds were issued and sold, Sound Transit had an unconditional grant of power to levy and collect the MVET, subject to limitations on amount and receipt of voter-approval, which it obtained.”
-- Footnote 17 “As noted earlier, at the time the bonds were issued and sold, the legislature provided Sound Transit with express authority to levy the MVET, a "dedicated funding source," RCW 81.104.140, to issue long-term bonds, RCW 81.112.140, and to pledge the revenues for the MVET for the life of outstanding bonds, RCW 81.104.180, subject to limitations on amount and receipt of voter approval, which it obtained.
Those “limitations on amount” are set out in Sound Move. They include the revenue amounts specified in Table 2.
To the extent ST’s board approves a budget for 2007 that fails to allocate local tax revenues collected after the first $1.98 billion to the five enumerated “perpetual” expenses, it will be violating the terms of the controlling ordinance.
Reply Report violation
#1304043
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 12/7/06 11:39 a.m. in reply to: #1303895
Only a truly obsessed person could find "victory" in defeat after defeat. Like the Sane Transit case (which also proved BH's creative legal interpretations were bunk) the Eyman 776 case shows Sound Transit is operating in a legal and constitutional manner.
If BH had any idea what he was talking about, his anti-transit arguments might hold some water. But he has consistently proved he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I think it's time for you to start another "Sound Transit Loses 776 Case" thread again. It's the only logical thing for you to do.
Reply Report violation
#1304115
Posted by BH at 12/7/06 12:44 p.m. in reply to: #1304043
Like I wrote above, I think this is a good opinion. The legal principles relied on are sound. The positions that the State and the Intervenors took were rejected, for good reasons in my opinion.
You seem way too giddy about this. The court did not determine that ST acted within the terms of Resolution 75 and Sound Move by pledging all the taxes it did. That issue was not even raised in this lawsuit.
What the Court did say about the amount of taxes ST can take in is that it is limited. For example, in footnote 17 the court observes ST has the right to “to pledge the revenues for the MVET for the life of outstanding bonds . . . subject to limitations on amount.”
That is what I have been posting about. ST failed to only pledge the amount of taxes it was authorized to collect.
There certainly is one thing that this new opinion clears up. Soul and John Niles selected the same sentence from “Sane Transit” to argue that ST’s unlimited-in-amount tax pledges are justified: “The only limitation on the collection of taxes for construction was that they not be collected on a second or any future capital phase without further voter approval.” In the new opinion, the court refers twice to limitations on the amount of taxes ST is allowed, which shows that the “only limitation” language does not mean what Soul and Niles have been claiming it means in these forum threads.
Soul, the court says ST’s authority to pledge tax revenues to bonds is “subject to limitations on amount.” What terms in Sound Move would justify ST in collecting taxes at the current rates until 2028 and 2030, given the $1.98 billion local tax revenue figure that IS in that ordinance? ST pledged billions of dollars more in taxes than it received voter approval to collect.
Reply Report violation
#1304221
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 12/7/06 2:49 p.m. in reply to: #1304115
Like clockwork, the mindlessly uniformed obsession machine that is BH (was WTim) marches onward.
BH got his legal degree from Boston Legal.
Reply Report violation
#1304262
Posted by BH at 12/7/06 3:58 p.m. in reply to: #1304221
Here, I’ll ask it another way. Maybe you will be interested in addressing this issue if it is framed a little differently.
The Court just wrote that ST could pledge tax revenues for the life of the bonds ”subject to limitations on amount”. What makes you think the $1.98 billion local tax revenue figure in the voter-approved Sound Move does not operate as a limitation on ST’s tax power?
I read Sound Move as establishing several revenue spending limits (in Table 2). One of those is a limit on how much local taxes ST can spend on putting the system into place and operating it during that time: $1.98 billion. Any additional local tax collections only can be allocated to cover the five specified “perpetual” expense categories. That reading of that part of Sound Move would mean ST could not legally collect anywhere near as much tax as it pledged to the bondholders (because the cost of the five enumerated “perpetual” expense categories is relatively modest). ST’s 2001 scaling-back of the light rail line is an action that is 100% consistent with this reading of the ordinance.
If you have a different interpretation of how those Table 2 revenue terms in Sound Move should operate, I’d be interested in hearing it. Maybe you think different terms in Sound Move say ST can collect all the tax as it pledged in the two bond sales resolutions?
If you don’t want to discuss this subject, that’s ok. It probably is an “off limits” topic for you.
My main concern at this point is that the ST board consider very carefully the limitations on taxing that Sound Transit's controlling ordinance imposes. The 2007 budget needs to be designed with those in mind, or the rights of taxpayers will be violated.
Reply Report violation
#1304708
Posted by BH at 12/8/06 7:30 a.m. in reply to: #1304262
Yesterday the Supreme Court woke ST up from its “unlimited taxes” fantasy.[ftnt 1]
The limitations on the amount of taxes ST can take in are referenced twice in that opinion. Those limits are there to protect taxpayers, they are voter-approved, and they must be respected now. There are adults on that Court and they just served up some very tough love.
There is one way for ST to legally budget for 2007 in light of the tax limits it is subject to. Future local tax revenues must be segregated and used only for the five enumerated categories of perpetual expenses.
------
1. “And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually.”
Castles Made of Sand (album: Axis Bold as Love)
Words and music by Jimi Hendrix
Reprise Records, 1968
Reply Report violation
#1304867
Posted by Wootch at 12/8/06 11:32 a.m. in reply to: #1304708
Actually, what the Supreme Court did was to give ST the green light to proceed as they have been. The court ruling is a complete victory for ST.
It's full steam ahead.
Reply Report violation
#1304954
Posted by BH at 12/8/06 1:22 p.m. in reply to: #1304867
Let’s say you are right in one respect, and that ST still plans on collecting all the tax it pledged to the bondholders. Then the question becomes: would that be legal?
The Supreme Court just said that ST’s authority to pledge its tax revenues to bond contracts is “subject to limitations on amount.” What terms in the controlling ordinance are you aware of that possibly could authorize ST to collect taxes at the current rates until 2028 and 2030, given the $1.98 billion local tax revenue figure that IS in that ordinance?
ST pledged to collect billions of dollars more in taxes than it obtained authority from the voters to collect. If you believe the law is otherwise, point to the controlling authority. No need to be coy. Explain your thinking. If your belief about this "geen light" is purely faith-based, just say so. We won’t laugh.
Reply Report violation
#1305162
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 12/8/06 5:56 p.m. in reply to: #1304954
As if there weren't a dozen lawyers out there (backed with hundreds of thousands of anti-transit/anti-tax legal fund dollars) to sue Sound Transit if BH's theory was actually true!
BH/WTim is in fantasyland. But he seems to like it there.
Reply Report violation
#1305416
Posted by BH at 12/9/06 8:14 a.m. in reply to: #1305162
Last edited at 12/9/06 8:20 a.m.
ST’s board should take several reasonable steps to significantly reduce the possibility that somebody has to sue it.
The board should ask staff for a compliance report ASAP. That report should identify for the board what the limitations on tax collections and bond pledges are that the Supreme Court just referred to. The board also needs staff to provide it with a snapshot of how close to those limits ST’s past actions have taken it.
Those data are central to the board’s ability to act with due regard toward the interests of taxpayers. The board needs this information to set policy guidelines. At this time it simply does not have these critical data points to use in its annual budgeting duties. The board now is flying blind regarding the limits on ST’s tax authority that the Supreme Court just said it is subject to.
The board needs to have this kind of tax limit compliance report before it takes action on the 2007 budget. Obviously the taxes will continue, the question is how future local tax revenues can be spent under the controlling ordinance's limiting provisions.
It’s time for the leaders of this government to take their heads out of the sand when it comes to the rights of taxpayers.
Reply Report violation
#1305688
Posted by BH at 12/9/06 6:32 p.m. in reply to: #1305416
ST’s crackerjack staff also has an affirmative obligation (or two) now.
Staff knows the official Financial Plan doesn’t refer to tax "amount" limits. It must inform the board of that shortcoming.
The board needs tax amount limitations data in addition to whatever other financial reporting staff provides to the board.
The board needs to specify ordinance tax amount limits must be considered by staff in all financial reporting and planning, and operations.
Reply Report violation
#1308596
Posted by BH at 12/11/06 9:51 p.m. in reply to: #1305688
Somebody else brought this subject up. Let’s say this week the board members approve the form of 2007 budget staff drew up. Then they get sued. The claim is they failed to account for the rights of taxpayers under the ordinance. The plaintiffs argue the tax and pledging limits enumerated in Table 2 were violated (heck, they could say those limits were breached recklessly).
Here is the board members’ defense: “Well, we respected the taxpayer’s rights spelled out in Sound Move in 2001 when we scaled back the light rail project, but in 2006 we just didn’t want to pay attention to those limits.”
Not so good. The board members should respect the controlling ordinance, including all Sound Move’s financing limits, when they consider the proposed 2007 budgeting resolution.
Reply Report violation
#1308916
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 12/12/06 10:57 a.m. in reply to: #1308596
Is your entire life this hypothetical and theoretical, BH?
You are so sure of yourself (obsessed more like) yet you can't seem to ever grasp anything real...like a "lawsuit" or even find "somebody who agrees with you." (Austin Powers quotations)
You keep running these fantasy scenarios of letters you wanted to write, and board members you want to impress, but you never seem to be able to break out of your fantasyland to actually do it. What's holding you back? Fear/knowlege you have no idea what you're talking about?
Reply Report violation
#1314330
Posted by BH at 12/18/06 9:10 a.m. in reply to: #1308916
Relax. I won’t sue.
Reply Report violation
#1314738
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 12/18/06 6:31 p.m. in reply to: #1314330
I think BH just totally re-defined the concept of "passive-aggressive."
Reply Report violation
#1322278
Posted by BH at 12/30/06 8:44 a.m. in reply to: #1314738
An ST apologist offers this “explanation” for why ST plans on spending so much building out Phase I:
---------------------------------------------------
Posted by Wootch at 12/27/06 9:13 a.m. in reply to: #1319720
You are wrong -- the voters never approved a cap on revenue or even a budget cap in Sound Move. What they did approve was a tax rate and a preliminary project list.
ST has not and can not increase the tax rate, but they have already made changes to the project list in some cases due to a variety of issues.
------------------------------------------------------
Each of the affirmative assertions in that post is correct in one narrow sense. However, none of those assertions addresses the problem: Sound Move only authorizes ST to spend a set amount of local taxes putting the “system” into place (and operating it during that period). This is exactly the kind of deceptive non-response that ST always gives when it is asked basic questions about its financing policies.
Let’s break it down.
The first sentence asserts there is neither a cap on revenue, nor a budget cap, in Sound Move. These assertions are correct, but only in certain senses. There is no overall “cap on revenue” in that voter-approved ordinance. For example, there is no limit on the amount of local taxation ST can employ to subsidize five particular types of on-going expenses: retiring outstanding debt, and four other enumerated categories of operational costs.
Likewise, that posting is correct in one sense when it asserts there is no “budget cap in Sound Move.” The overall estimated cost figure for putting the system into place that the voters approved ($3.9 billion) can be exceeded legally by ST. For example, if certain revenue sources exceeded expectations (such as federal grants or farebox revenues), it would be legal for ST to spend more than $3.9 billion putting Phase I into place.
What the poster is completely failing to address is the core problem. What ST is doing illegally, and the way it is violating the terms of the controlling 1996 ordinance, is that ST is failing to comply with the voter-approved limit on how much local taxes that municipality is authorized to spend putting the system into place.
The terms in Sound Move that ST is failing to respect are the revenue limits spelled out in Table 2 of the “Paying for the System” section of Sound Move. Those figures include a limit on the amount of local taxes ST can collect to put the system into place: $1.98 billion(1995$). Any local taxes collected after the first $1.98 billion only can spent to subsidize the five on-going expenditure categories. The Table 2 limits on spending function to limit ST’s authorized needs for taxes because the five specified on-going expense categories do not require anywhere near as much revenue as the current rates generate.
What the voters approved in 1996 includes that limit on how much local tax revenue can be spent putting the system into place. The voters also approved Resolution 75, and it contains terms that require ST to scale back capital spending should the specified revenues prove insufficient to provide all the system elements Sound Move describes. What no law authorizes is ST spending more than $1.98 billion in local taxes to build out Phase 1.
Reply Report violation
#1328474
Posted by governmentsucks at 1/5/07 5:41 p.m.
This message has been deleted.
Reply Report violation
#1328820
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 1/6/07 3:12 a.m. in reply to: #1328474
Last edited at 1/6/07 3:21 a.m.
governmentsucks, make sure you check in with us the day you decide to mount an argument you actually believe in.
Unless they are smart or clever (which is rare), it's pretty obvious when these phantom posters substitute fake arguments for real arguments. (hint - use of the word "overdue" kind of gave you away...twice)
Oh well. At least governmentsucks can take umrage in the fact he's smarter than BH. Which is not difficult.
For more on governmentsucks' funny little time-wasting game, go here seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/view
topic.asp?topicID=100336
Reply Report violation
#1330048
Posted by governmentsucks at 1/6/07 7:27 p.m.
This message has been deleted.
Reply Report violation
#1333308
Posted by BH at 1/9/07 7:34 a.m. in reply to: #1330048
Here is John Niles, in this thread, lending his voice in support of Sound Transit’s taxing practices:
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Posted by John N at 11/1/06 5:42 p.m. in reply to: #1270826
….. my reading of the language in the Sane Transit decision is that Sound Transit can take as long as required, and spend as much money as required, to build the specific projects described in Sound Move, as long as the tax rate is not changed.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
The Sane Transit opinion actually holds that 1) nothing in Sound Move required ST to stop taxing after 10 years, and 2) ST resolution dropping stations and shortening the light rail line to stay within Sound Move’s revenue limits was required under the controlling ordinance.
Absolutely nothing in that opinion even comes close to a holding that ST can “spend as much money as required, to build the specific projects described in Sound Move.” The plaintiffs in that case did not claim ST was spending too much, ST never argued the revenue figures in Sound Move did not apply to it, and the opinion does not mention either the $1.98 billion local taxes figure or the $1.05 billion bonding limit.
ST likes certain groups and individuals to be its “opponents.” One characteristic ST’s chosen foils share is an eagerness to disregard completely the revenue limits spelled out in the “Paying for the System” provisions of the controlling ordinance. Those are the taxpayer-protection provisions that ST’s appointed board members are bent on disregarding.
Reply Report violation
#1333323
Posted by Wootch at 1/9/07 7:52 a.m. in reply to: #1333308
There are no revenue limits in the Sound Move plan, only voter approved tax rate limits.
ST is staying within the voter approved tax rate limits and is fully within the law -- despite your attempt to make up supposed "issues" out of thin air.
If you think you have an issue, then file a lawsuit – but I think it is pretty clear by your repeated refusal to even consider filing a lawsuit that you know you don’t have a case and are just blowing smoke.
Go ahead, file a lawsuite -- I double dog dare you. We are all waiting.
Reply Report violation
#1333368
Posted by BH at 1/9/07 9:03 a.m. in reply to: #1333323
Last edited at 1/9/07 9:09 a.m.
Let's try it this way . . ..
Assume someone does sue ST, on the grounds that ST is failing to keep within the $1.98 billion "local taxes" revenue figure the controlling ordinance specifies. Does anyone have any idea what the substance of ST's defense would be?
We know what John Niles thinks - he spelled it out above. He misinterprets the Sane Transit opinion, and argues it provides ST with blank check spending authority.
Niles’ argument demonstrates he does not understand very basic civics precepts. What Niles does not grasp is that ANY authority ST could have to tax would have to be derived from the legislation (State and local) circumscribing ST's taxing powers. A court opinion can’t provide any additional taxing authority to a local government.
What Niles wrote above demonstrates how he is perfectly willing to misinterpret a court case publicly, and do it in the one way ST would want.
ST never has said anything like what Niles wrote above (that the Sane Transit opinion gives it more taxing authority than the controlling ordinance does). Nor would it – that is a ludicrous proposition that is contrary to fundamental legal principles of how governments must operate.
ST should just explain why it thinks the figures in Table 2 of Sound Move are not voter-approved tax and bond limits for putting Phase 1 into place. What could be wrong with ST addressing this issue forthrightly? It is a public entity whose mission is to serve the public, so why doesn’t it just explain why the Table 2 figures are not part of its financial plans? There might not be any need for a lawsuit.
Reply Report violation
#1333763
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 1/9/07 3:04 p.m. in reply to: #1333323
Wootch: I like the idea of BH and JNiles - the two most deceptive and/or misinformed people here - duking it out to see who can prove themselves the most inept.
Reply Report violation
#1333815
Posted by BH at 1/9/07 3:59 p.m. in reply to: #1333763
What have I posted that you think is deceptive or misinformed?
Reply Report violation
#1333978
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 1/9/07 7:04 p.m. in reply to: #1333815
So far, even your allies think you can't get anything right. It's like you're writing from another dimension, or decided to come up with all your legal and financial ideas in a vaccum.
Declaring victory on your day of defeat (776) was a perfect example.
My God, BH, I simply asked you to identify these "other investment priorities" you cite - as opposed to transportation - and you didn't even try to muster an answer. It's as if you're no more serious than governmentsucks.
Reply Report violation
#1334259
Posted by BH at 1/10/07 7:27 a.m. in reply to: #1333978
Right then. Let’s talk about ST.
There are lots of lawyers out there. One of them probably wants their name in the paper. She could sue ST, on the grounds that ST is failing to keep within the $1.98 billion "local taxes" revenue figure that the controlling ordinance specifies. The argument would be that spending more than that specified amount of local taxes to put the system into place substantially deviates from the measure the voters approved. The Sane Transit case could be cited as authority.
Does anyone have any idea what the substance of ST's defense would be?
We know what John Niles thinks ST’s defense would be. He spelled it out in his post above. He misinterprets the Sane Transit opinion, and argues it provides ST with blank check spending authority.
Niles’ argument is a loser. That is because ANY authority ST could have to tax would have to be derived from the legislation (State and local) circumscribing ST's taxing powers. A court opinion can’t provide any additional taxing authority to a local government.
What Niles wrote above demonstrates how he is perfectly willing to misinterpret a court case publicly, and do it in the one way ST would want. A number of ST’s chosen opponents do this same thing, they argue against certain aspects of ST’s operations, but they avoid addressing whether or not ST’s taxing authority is limited by terms in Sound Move.
Someone from ST should just explain why they think the figures in Table 2 of Sound Move are not voter-approved tax and bond limits for putting Phase 1 into place.
What could be wrong with ST addressing this issue forthrightly? It is a public entity whose mission is to serve the public, so why doesn’t it just explain why the Table 2 figures are not part of its financial plans? A sound explanation could remove any need for litigation about this. But just saying to taxpayers “we won’t explain our taxing plans – sue us and then maybe we’ll give you an answer” is just arrogant and short-sighted. It also proves the points in the new RTC report about how ST’s governance can’t serve the region well and must be completely reworked.
Reply Report violation
#1334288
Posted by Wootch at 1/10/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1333815
A better question would be, "What have you ever posted that is truthful?" I certainly can’t think of much.
So far it's all been make belief and fairyland stuff. For example take the beginning of this post – you never wrote that letter and ST never sent that reply. You made it up – it’s a "falsehood" (to be polite).
This is why you consistently refuse to put your money where your mouth is and sue ST. You claim ST is doing all these illegal things, but you know without doubt that you are just making false claims and that there is no truth to your statements. This is why you consistently refuse to sue ST – you know you would lose and lose badly.
But go ahead, sue ST. I double dog dare you.
Reply Report violation
#1335201
Posted by BH at 1/11/07 7:22 a.m. in reply to: #1334288
-----------------------------------------------------
Posted by Wootch at 1/10/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1333815
A better question would be, "What have you ever posted that is truthful?" I certainly can’t think of much.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some facts I’ve posted about:
- ST has collected about $2.5B in local taxes since 1997,
- The controlling ordinance limits how much taxes ST can spend building out the system the voters approved to $1.98B,
- There is a $1.052B bonding limit the voters imposed on ST,
- The Sane Transit case states that any substantial deviation from the plan the voters approved exceeds ST’s lawful authority,
- ST refuses to disclose why it is disregarding the taxing and bonding figures spelled out in Table 2 of the “Paying for the System” section of Sound Move, and
- The voters specified that future tax collections by ST need to be limited to the five categories of on-going expenses Sound Move identifies.
Exactly one (1) legal argument has been raised against what I’ve been posting about. That was John Niles’ argument (copied above) and it is devoid of merit.
Reply Report violation
#1336208
Posted by Wootch at 1/12/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1335201
Your first comment is not even relavent, the others are just plain false.
But I see you continue to refuse to step up to the plate and sue ST -- it proves my point that you know you have no basis to your arguements.
Reply Report violation
#1336227
Posted by BH at 1/12/07 8:48 a.m. in reply to: #1336208
Well, folks, how do you like Sound Transit now? We voted into power a new kind of government in 1996. One with appointed board members. This government was given the right in the law we voted on to tax up to certain amount to put a particular system into place. If those taxes (plus grants) weren’t enough to build the full train line, we instructed ST to scale back its spending. That is what Resolution 75 and Sound Move say.
Now, ten years have gone by. ST has taken in more than the $1.98 billion in taxes the voters approved to put the system into place. When a taxpayer asks why ST is not respecting the dollar limits set out in the law the voters approved, what is the response in 2007 from this government of appointees?
“ST denies the existence of the Table 2 revenue figures. We contend we can take in unlimited amounts of taxes to put the system into place. We won’t explain the basis of this contention. We won’t address questions relating to the taxing and bonding revenue figures set out in Sound Move. File a lawsuit. File a lawsuit. File a lawsuit.”
It is obvious why the Regional Transportation Commission is calling for an immediate and complete replacement of ST’s governing board. These arrogant poohbahs hold taxpayers in contempt. They blithely disregard terms the voters approved in the controlling law in order to protect taxpayers. Clearly they enjoy berating anyone questioning their taxing practices.
Reply Report violation
#1336269
Posted by BH at 1/12/07 9:58 a.m. in reply to: #1335201
In the past when I’ve pointed to language in the controlling ordinance, the ST PR folks have simply posted denials that the language even exists. I’d like to think we can move beyond that kind of misleading “discourse.”
A fundamental reality about the structure of Sound Move’s financing provisions is that the “Paying for the System” section differentiates between two types of ST expenses: the costs of implementing the system, and the costs of operating the system. The first of these two sets of costs is to be paid for by a number of funding sources, including a limited amount of local taxes and a fixed amount of long-term debt financing. That is what the document says.
The ST “voices” posting on this forum avoid all references to that fact about how the controlling ordinance was set up (e.g., implementing costs were capped, and differentiated from subsequent operating costs). What would be helpful now would be for someone from ST to explain why ST believes it is complying those terms in the controlling ordinance.
I suppose this could be the subject of a lawsuit. Some folks are in the business of making money off lawsuits, so there are self-interested motives behind calls for lawsuits against ST. However, with this sort of issue, everyone would be better served by a reasonable explanation from this government that would obviate any need for litigation.
I posted the following yesterday. If anyone has any reason to disagree with these statements regarding what Sound Move says, they should feel free to respond:
- ST has collected about $2.5B in local taxes since 1997,
- The controlling ordinance limits how much taxes ST can spend building out the system the voters approved to $1.98B,
- There is a $1.052B bonding limit the voters imposed on ST for the purposes of putting the system into place,
- The Sane Transit case states that any substantial deviation from the plan the voters approved exceeds ST’s lawful authority,
- ST refuses to disclose why it is disregarding the taxing and bonding figures spelled out in Table 2 of the “Paying for the System” section of Sound Move, and
- The voters specified that future tax collections by ST need to be limited to the five categories of on-going expenses Sound Move identifies.
Exactly one (1) legal argument has been raised in these threads against the proposition that ST is not limiting how much it is spending on Phase I in conformity with Sound Move. That was John Niles’ argument (copied above), and it is devoid of merit.
Reply Report violation
#1342975
Posted by BH at 1/17/07 9:48 a.m. in reply to: #1336269
Who knew? The P-I’s forums are thought of by ST’s PR team as a great place to lie to the public.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````
Posted by Wootch at 1/9/07 7:52 a.m. in reply to: #1333308
There are no revenue limits in the Sound Move plan, only voter approved tax rate limits.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Last week the ST board members rubberstamped a resolution staff handed to them. This resolution contained terms directing staff regarding what the ST2 ballot measure should say. In particular, ST’s board directed staff to have the outside lawyers draft up the ST2 ballot measure so that it would seek authority from the voters to continue the existing sales tax and MVET.
This shows, unmistakably, that there ARE revenue limits in Sound Move.
Let’s say Sound Move had no revenue limits (that is, we will ignore for the moment the figures set out in black and white in Table 2 of the Paying for the System section of Sound Move). If there were no terms in Sound Move limiting the amount of local taxes ST can collect, ST would not need to seek authorization from the voters to continue those taxes. ST2 only would have to seek authorization from the voters to spend the taxes ST collected on some new group of capital projects.
The quote above is a lie (“there are no revenue limits in” Sound Move). If ST actually believed it could collect unlimited amounts of the current taxes pursuant to the existing ordinance, it certainly would not need (or want) to seek any additional authority from the voters to continue those taxes.
Reply Report violation
#1347768
Posted by BH at 1/24/07 4:17 p.m. in reply to: #1342975
Here is some ST PR:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Wootch at 1/9/07 7:52 a.m. in reply to: #1333308
There are no revenue limits in the Sound Move plan, only voter approved tax rate limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are revenue limits in Sound Move.
In the “Paying for the System” section there is a paragraph called “Funding.” The second sentence of it says: “The system plan will be paid for with a combination of voter approved local taxes . . . (see Table 2).” The amount of voter approved local taxes Table 2 specifies is $1,980 million.
By approving an ordinance that contained those words, the voters limited how much local tax ST can spend to implement the system. ST only received authority from the voters to pay up to $1.98B (1995$) of local tax revenue to build out the Phase 1 capital elements. That amount is a limit, and it is there in the controlling ordinance.
Reply Report violation
#1350696
Posted by BH at 1/30/07 2:21 p.m. in reply to: #1347768
Last edited at 1/30/07 2:24 p.m.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````
Posted by Wootch at 1/9/07 7:52 a.m. in reply to: #1333308
There are no revenue limits in the Sound Move plan, only voter approved tax rate limits.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
ST’s PR team is trying to rewrite history AND ignore the law.
In 2000, ST obtained some new cost estimates for the light rail portion of the system plan the voters had approved five years previously. The new cost figures were much higher. The entire light rail line promised to voters could not be built within the voter-approved revenue limits.
So ST scaled back the light rail line, to stay within the revenue amount limits. Here is part of an article from the PI about this, published on April 27, 2001:
-----------------------------
A provision in the 1996 ballot measure allows Sound Transit to move forward even in the circumstances they now confront. "Resolution 75" says if the agency doesn't have enough money to build the whole project, it can build a smaller version of the project.
Earl said the agency must clarify the project and show broad consensus in order to appease the U.S. Department of Transportation inspector general, who recently recommended that federal funds should be suspended. But that won't be easy.
Board consensus is fracturing on how to use the $2.2 billion available from local revenues -- the only source the board can count on while federal funds are in limbo.
-----------------------------------
-
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/20574_sound27.shtml
-
Note the bold sentence. That is a reference to the limit on local tax revenue expenditures the voters imposed on ST for the purposes of building out the system plan ($1.98 billion in 1995$).
It is common knowledge the voters approved a limit on the amount of local taxes ST can spend implementing the system plan. It is stated in the controlling ordinance, it has been the subject of stories in the press, and ST scaled back the light rail line in 2001 because of that limit set out in the controlling law. There is no way in hell ST would have even considered shortening the light rail line from 21 to 14 miles if it thought it had the legal authority to spend an unlimited amount of tax revenue on the light rail portion of the system plan.
Despite all that, ST now is denying that particular limit even exists. The 2007 budget the ST board members just adopted fails to account for that limit. That limit is not in the current versions of the financial plan. ST is consciously disregarding the main taxpayer protection feature in the controlling ordinance: the express limit on local tax revenues set out in Table 2. Somehow I don’t think Joni Earl just forgot about this legal limit . . ..
And as can be seen from the posts coming from ST’s PR folks here in 2007, they’re willing to shamelessly lie about this. That’s why ST officials need to speak on the record about ST’s financing plans, and in particular, how those plans are going to be made to comply with the “Paying for the System” provisions of Sound Move.
Reply Report violation
#1354847
Posted by BH at 2/6/07 8:33 a.m. in reply to: #1350696
It would work to Sound Transit’s advantage to get sued in the right kind of lawsuit.
Let’s say somebody sues ST. One of the claims involves some aspect of ST’s financing authority. At that point, ST’s staff and board members have an excuse to ignore all questions about ST’s taxing practices and policies.
They could say their lawyers told them not to discuss why ST is disregarding the taxpayer protection provisions in Sound Move (“I’d really like to discuss what the $1.98 billion figure in Table 2 means, but because of this here lawsuit I just can’t”). That’s the “pending litigation” variant of the I-Defense:
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_defense
-
ST might even enlist a friendly enemy to file a suit. The claims would target aspects of ST’s authority where ST would prevail. There’s precedent for that kind of lawsuit - the Sane Transit case. ST then could misrepresent what the Supreme Court’s opinion holds and means. That is S.O.P. for Sound Transit; the holdings in the Sane Transit case and the I-776 case are being misrepresented now in these PI forum threads.
Reply Report violation
#1359442
Posted by BH at 2/14/07 9:33 a.m. in reply to: #1354847
Last edited at 2/14/07 9:38 a.m.
Someone wrote “The voters in 1996 gave Sound Transit a blank check.”
The truth is more complicated. From the perspective of taxpayers, the truth is much better than that simplistic assertion implies.
The assertion that the voters gave a blank check to ST is correct in certain respects. First, there is no overall limit on how much ST can spend on putting the system into place. Second, there is no overall limit on how much of certain revenue sources ST can secure to put the system into place. For example, ST would be within its rights to obtain more federal grant money, interest on investments, or farebox revenues than the amounts set out in Table 2 of Sound Move (see below). Third, there is no overall limit on how much ST can spend operating the system after the implementation period. Fourth, there is no limit on how much local tax revenue can be used to subsidize the four types of ongoing operating expenses Sound Move identifies.
However, the assertion that the voters gave Sound Transit gave a “blank check” is incorrect, and very misleading, in several respects. That is because of the revenue limits the voters approved. Those limits are in Table 2 of the controlling ordinance. The incomplete version of Sound Move ST posted on its website omits the key figures.
ST does not have a blank check to tax, nor does it have a blank check to sell long term debt. The limit on the amount of tax ST can collect to pay for implementing the system is set out in the controlling ordinance ($1.98 billion, in 1995$). The limit on the value of the long term bonds ST can sell to put the system into place also is prescribed by that section of Sound Move (which is called “Paying for the System”). ST’s bonding limit is $1.052 billion (1995$).
These voter-approved expenditure limits are intended to protect taxpayers. They are why the light rail line was shortened in 2001. For some reason, ST’s financial plans now ignore them, and ST is proceeding to spend tax revenues on putting the system into place as if Table 2 wasn’t in the ordinance.
No individual claiming to be an agent of Sound Transit ever has attempted to justify ST’s taxing practices and plans in light of the Table 2 revenue figures. Sound Transit officially just tries to ignore that aspect of what the law says. ST’s friendly enemies, and the ST PR team using pseudonyms online, actively try to explain away these particular taxpayer-protection terms.
The following are key taxpayer-protection terms from the controlling ordinance (the bracketed numbers are the figures set out in Tables 1 and 2 of Sound Move):
“Table 1 summarizes the cost of putting Sound Move in place and operating regional express bus routes and rail lines.”
HOV Expressway access ramps [$377M], Regional Express Bus routes [$361M], Commuter rail [$669M], Electric Light Rail [$1.801B], Community connections [$255M], Regional fund/reserves [$280M], and Debt service [$171M].
“The system plan will be paid for with a combination of voter approved local taxes [$1.98B], federal grants [$727M], farebox revenues and interest revenues [$155M], and borrowed funds (bonds) [$1.052B] (see Table 2).”
What Sound Transit needs to do is acknowledge that it did NOT receive a “blank check” to tax for the purpose of putting the system into place. We know from the Sane Transit case opinion that the implementation period does not have to last only ten years. The ordinance did not state that the voter-approved implementation period only could last ten years, and the Supreme Court was right to hold as it did in that case. However, ST has absolutely no legal authority to spend more than the specified “voter approved local taxes” amount to put (what it can of) the Sound Move system into place.
Reply Report violation
#1359541
Posted by Wootch at 2/14/07 11:49 a.m. in reply to: #1359442
What ST needs to do is to continue building the system that they promised the voters -- that is their number one priority and they are working toward keeping that commitment.
There is NO funding/spending cap and everyone (sans you) acknowledges this fact. If you disagree, then it is time for you to put your money where your mouth is and sue. Why won't you do this?
Reply Report violation
#1360491
Posted by BH at 2/16/07 9:26 a.m. in reply to: #1359541
The South Sound Senate Caucus just launched a tax-grab power play, using RTID.
Check out SB 6031:
-
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6031.pdf
-
Section One of the bill would mandate highway spending on particular road projects, in a particular order. At number two on that list is paying for a Cross-Base Highway. That project already is the subject of a lawsuit in Pierce County, on solid environmental grounds.
The remainder of this bill would do several things. RTID would be required to sell many billions (the exact amount is not defined) of dollars in face vale of long-term debt securities. The term of that debt, whenever it is sold, would have to be forty years. Some could be sold in 2009, some in 2020, etc.
So much for “pay as you go.” The South Sound Senate Caucus is bent on maximizing the amount of tax dollars from Seattle that go to paying RTID bondholders, as opposed to having Seattle taxpayers “just” pay billions to RTID for construction costs of roads in outlying reaches of the region.
It gets worse. Section Two also does the following. If all the RTID money is not enough to completely pay for the highway wish list in Pierce County the South Sound Senate Caucus has identified, then WITHOUT a public vote, RTID could raise additional sales tax and MVET on the entire region to finish up paying for those projects. That is, without seeking voter approval, RTID could add an additional tenth of a percent sales tax and an additional tenth of a percent MVET in all three counties to pay for these legislators’ pet roads in Pierce County.
Keep in mind, the RTID sales tax increase (or increases, if this bill passes) would be on top of the “Bridging the Gap” sales tax increase, and on top of the ST2 .5% sales tax increase. We would be at or near the top of places in country being hammered by sales tax. That is the most regressive form of tax. We are close to the top of that shameful list now.
RTID has legislative authority to impose taxes on businesses (a business excise tax). But it is just soooo much sweeter for these government leaders to slam families and the poor.
This is the kind of thing RTID and ST spawn. It also is what the new Regional Transportation Commission Report identifies as a fundamental flaw with the intrinsically unrepresentative and unaccountable governing structure of Sound Transit and RTID. Politicians appointed to those boards, and also the politicians in the legislature, manifestly are subject to conflicts of interest. They can not plan or act in the best interests of the region as a whole because they are accountable only to their local constituents.
Reply Report violation
#1361166
Posted by BH at 2/18/07 8:59 a.m. in reply to: #1360491
An interesting guest editorial in the Seattle Times today takes an historical look at transit and road planning. There is a timeline of key events here:
-
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003575747_suncrowleyside18.html
-
The following are the references to Sound Transit:
1995 — Regional voters reject $6.7 billion Sound Transit plan.
1996 — Regional voters approve $3.9 billion Sound Transit plan.
How was the 1996 plan set at $3.9 billion, you might ask? What legal provisions were used to scale it down from the rejected $6.7 billion plan?
The actual legal mechanism used in the voter-approved plan to limit the cost of the Sound Transit plan in 1996 is set out in the Paying for the System section of Sound Move. I’ve copied those terms from the ordinance below. FYI - ST omitted these particular terms from the version of Sound Move it posts on its website. Go figure.
See below. The voters prescribed a limit on how much local taxes ST could spend to put the system into place ($1.98 billion). Moreover, the voters capped the amount of long term bonds ST could sell to build out the train, HOV and bus system (at $1.052 billion).
Those two revenue limits – expressed in the ordinance - are legal terms. The ethically-bankrupt leaders of Sound Transit are ignoring them. They are bent on taxing and spending despite those particular voter-approved limits. The air down in the silo must be really thin. Obviously no sunlight is being shone down on them.
----
----
The following are terms in the controlling ordinance. The figures in Table 1 and Table 2 add up to $3.9 billion.
“Table 1 summarizes the cost of putting Sound Move in place and operating regional express bus routes and rail lines.”
HOV Expressway access ramps [$377M], Regional Express Bus routes [$361M], Commuter rail [$669M], Electric Light Rail [$1.801B], Community connections [$255M], Regional fund/reserves [$280M], and Debt service [$171M].
“The system plan will be paid for with a combination of voter approved local taxes [$1.98B], federal grants [$727M], farebox revenues and interest revenues [$155M], and borrowed funds (bonds) [$1.052B] (see Table 2).”
Reply Report violation
#1361193
Posted by diehardTRANSITadvocate at 2/18/07 11:16 a.m. in reply to: #1361166
Still, the fact that the second Light Rail Grant alone will be $500-$700 million shows that the $727 Million in Federal Grants alone figure you mentioned is inaccurate. Also, it was people that lost in 1996 were already trying to do whatever it took to delay the project, causing that hidden cost overun, inflation, to escalate costs. THe lawsuits, and critics, as well as Save Our Valley delayed construction until 2003. Even if there were not cost overuns on the original plan to go U-District first, inflation would have caused the project to go up in costs.
Just like when Sound Transit said they could not reach Northgate in Phase 1, everybody was saying they lied. No, that was definately in Sound Move, they said U-District to Northgate would only happen if there was funds leftover from the other two segments.
Plus, you cannot impose a flat limit on the tax dollars to be collected to pay off bonds. The bonds are backed by the taxes. The taxes are not the collateral, they are the funds to pay off the bonds. This is not the Federal Government where they argue on how and when they pay off bonds, we have to actually have some revenue to pay the bonds off, before anybody buys them.
Reply Report violation
#1361418
Posted by BH at 2/19/07 7:42 a.m. in reply to: #1361193
This is a response to the posting immediately above.
If ST gets more Federal grant money to put Phase I into place than the amount shown in Table 2, that would be fine. Technically speaking, it would not violate an enforceable interest.
The Table 2 voter approved local tax figure is not something ST can lawfully exceed. The voters limited ST’s taxing authority (for the purposes of putting the system into place) to that $1.98 billion figure. And the effects of inflation can be accounted for, because the $1.98 billion amount is specified as 1995$.
you cannot impose a flat limit on the tax dollars to be collected to pay off bonds
Nobody is suggesting this. One of the five enumerated expense categories specified in Sound Move for local tax revenues collected subsequent to the first $1.98 billion is retiring outstanding debt.
How about somebody from Sound Transit registers on this forum and answers a couple of questions? What could be wrong with that?
Reply Report violation
#1361453
Posted by Wootch at 2/19/07 10:03 a.m. in reply to: #1361418
Last edited at 2/19/07 10:04 a.m.
ST is a fully audited government agency – all of their finances and financial arrangements are a matter of public record. If you want the data, then it is already there.
However, I suspect that you actually don’t want real data anyhow because you know it would prove once and for all that your wild speculations on these forums are completely groundless. Isn't that so, BH?
And where is that lawsuit of yours anyhow? How come you won’t step up to the plate and sue ST?
Reply Report violation
#1361620
Posted by BH at 2/19/07 3:27 p.m. in reply to: #1361453
NO ONE is auditing whether or not Sound Transit is complying with several of the key voter-protection provisions in the “Paying for the System” section of the controlling ordinance.
The key issue from the perspective of taxpayers is whether Sound Transit is only spending the amount of local taxes the voters approved to put (what it can of) the 1996 system into place. Whether or not ST has exceeded that expenditure limit never has been within the scopes of the audits Brian Sonntag’s office, KPMG, or the Citizens Oversight Panel have conducted.
ST has already collected at least $2.5 billion in local taxes. It is tough to determine even that fact. At present, the only way a member of the public can figure out the total amount of taxes collected during the past ten years is by using at least three different documents.
Once folks start talking, they generally begin thinking. What we need are people from Sound Transit to begin speaking (and thinking!) about the provisions in Sound Move that were put in there after the ballot measure was defeated in 1995. The way the plan was reduced from a $6.7 billion ballot measure in 1995 to a $3.9 billion ballot measure in 1996 was by inserting revenue limitation terms in the ordinance that went on the ballot in 1996.
When they approved Sound Move, the voters adopted an ordinance with “reducing” revenue limitations. They slapped a lid on how much local taxes ST could spend to put the system into place ($1.98 billion). Moreover, the voters set an upper bound on the amount of long term bonds ST could sell to build out the train, HOV and bus system (at $1.052 billion).
Those two revenue limits – expressed in the ordinance - are legal terms. The ethically-bankrupt leaders of Sound Transit are ignoring them. They are bent on taxing and spending despite those particular voter-approved limits.
“Wootch” wants to keep pushing for a lawsuit. That is fine. Obviously it would be better, more efficient, and more transparent for everybody if Sound Transit would just assign somebody to register here and answer a couple of questions. The public won’t bite. This is not going to be a big time-sink. The ST designee can take all the time he or she wants to formulate responses. It would not matter if there were a platoon a lawyers at the designee’s elbow helping to draft the responses. This is not a gotcha game. But these are legitimate questions. They are very important questions, and they deserve answers.
Reply Report violation
#1361734
Posted by Wootch at 2/19/07 7:37 p.m. in reply to: #1361620
ST is fully audited and all the results are publicly available. It’s really not that hard for any citizen to verify that ST is in compliance.
But once again you attempt to makeup facts and remake history. The way ST got from the failed 1995 ballot measure to the 1996 measure, which passed easily, was by reducing the scoop of the plan. It had nothing to do with your made up fantasy of revenue caps because there simply aren’t any.
Time to face reality here BH – ST does not care about your made up assertions, nor do they probably even know about you. Bottom line is that they simply are not going to change unless forced to.
The courts have already said ST does not need to change, but if you think you can force them to, then there is only one course available – you must sue ST. Your failure to do so is a tacit admission that even you know you don’t have a case.
But prove us all wrong – sue ST. I personally would love to see it.
There are no revenue limits -- get over it.
Reply Report violation
#1364919
Posted by BH at 2/26/07 12:53 p.m. in reply to: #1361734
I’m interested in discussing some of the terms in the ordinance that limit ST’s taxing authority. The “diehard” screen name only posts non-responsive remarks to questions on that topic.
Let’s see if the quality of the responses improves if we address Wootch.
````````````````````````````````````````
Posted by Wootch at 2/14/07 11:49 a.m. in reply to: #1359442
What ST needs to do is to continue building the system that they promised the voters -- that is their number one priority and they are working toward keeping that commitment.
````````````````````````````````````````````
Sound Transit is a limited-purpose local government. As with all governments, it has more than one priority, and more than one commitment. Sometimes those priorities and commitments conflict.
ST collects taxes. It has commitments to taxpayers, in addition to the commitment to the voters to build and operate a train system. ST’s commitments taxpayers in fact can conflict with its commitment to build the system Sound Move describes. For example, ST may not collect too much tax. If ST collected tax at some rate exceeding the voter-approved rates set out in Sound Move, it would violate the rights of taxpayers. You agree with these basic precepts, right Wootch?
Now, do you understand that signing a contract can not expand a municipality’s taxing authority? For example, do you agree that because of what the ordinance says, ST can not start collecting sales tax now at a .5% rate just by signing a contract that says it will collect sales tax at a .5% rate? In other words, because the voter-approved ordinance limits ST’s taxing authority, contrary contract terms ST signed off on could not justify taxation in excess of what Sound Move allows. The ordinance trumps a contract when it comes to taxing authority, correct?
Reply Report violation
#1364929
Posted by diehardTRANSITadvocate at 2/26/07 1:04 p.m. in reply to: #1364919
Sound Transit's current sales tax is .4%. What King County Voters approved in 2006 was an increase of Metro's Sales Tax Authority, using the last tenth of one percent the amended statute overseeing Transit systems in this state can ask the voters to tax themselves for, which is 9 tenths of 1 percent. Sound Transit is under a different statute, but is allowed to seek the same amount.
Reply Report violation
#1364967
Posted by BH at 2/26/07 1:54 p.m. in reply to: #1364929
Last edited at 2/26/07 1:57 p.m.
Say Wootch, you disagree with how I read the “Paying for the System” section of Sound Move. Let’s see if we can’t find some areas of agreement – you know, on the basics. Then we’ll see if we can’t move this discussion forward.
And I appreciate that you would like Sound Transit to be sued over this, but I’m not sure that’s the best way to proceed.
I’m interested in discussing some of the terms in Sound Move, specifically, how the figures in Table 2 for putting the system into place should operate. Here is something you posted:
````````````````````````````````````````
Posted by Wootch at 2/14/07 11:49 a.m. in reply to: #1359442
What ST needs to do is to continue building the system that they promised the voters -- that is their number one priority and they are working toward keeping that commitment.
````````````````````````````````````````````
Sound Transit is a limited-purpose local government. As with all governments, it has more than one priority, and more than one commitment. Sometimes those priorities and commitments conflict.
ST collects taxes. It has commitments to taxpayers, in addition to the commitment to the voters to build and operate a train system. ST’s commitments to taxpayers in fact can conflict with its commitment to build the system Sound Move describes. For example, ST may not collect too much tax. If ST collected tax at some rate exceeding the voter-approved rates set out in Sound Move, it would violate the rights of taxpayers. You agree with these basic precepts, right Wootch?
Now, do you understand that signing a contract can not expand a municipality’s taxing authority? For example, do you agree that because of what the ordinance says, ST can not start collecting sales tax now at a .5% rate just by signing a contract that says it will collect sales tax at a .5% rate? In other words, because the voter-approved ordinance limits ST’s taxing authority, contrary contract terms ST signed off on could not justify taxation in excess of what Sound Move allows. The ordinance trumps a contract when it comes to taxing authority, correct?
Reply Report violation
#1365353
Posted by BH at 2/27/07 8:22 a.m. in reply to: #1364967
Its OK, Wootch. You can post about ST’s taxing authority limits. Your employer won’t mind.
If Sound Move limits how much tax ST can collect, that limit is enforceable by taxpayers despite what the bond sale resolution says.
You do understand that a government can not expand its taxing authority just by signing a contract, right?
Reply Report violation
#1365448
Posted by Wootch at 2/27/07 11:07 a.m. in reply to: #1365353
Last edited at 2/27/07 11:08 a.m.
I see you attempt to continue with your miss-information games. Once again you don’t provide a single quote to backup your claims, and once again you try to shirk your responsibility to sue.
I’m sure this is because you know you will lose since your case against ST is as fictitious as the letter to ST that you pretend to have written at the beginning of this post. Come on, admit it, you’ve made this all up.
Reply Report violation
#1365485
Posted by BH at 2/27/07 11:53 a.m. in reply to: #1365448
You may not be trying to dissemble, but your last post is non-responsive.
You can discuss ways in which a government’s taxing authority can be limited. I’m sure Sound Transit allows its PI-forum nyms to post at least something about taxing limits. You shouldn’t have to just mimic what “diehard” does when the conversation turns to this topic (check out those posts yesterday in the “ST loses I-776 case” thread!).
I want to make sure you understand some fundamental concepts about how governments must operate. Governments are limited by what their controlling ordinances say. From what you have been posting, it is not at all clear you understand that. Perhaps we can move our discussion forward if we can agree on the basics.
The point of the following question is to find out whether you understand that in certain situations taxpayers’ rights will trump bondholders’ rights. Read what is written below very closely. Take your time, and answer the question.
Let’s assume that terms in Sound Move limit the amount of tax ST can collect. Again, just assume such a limit is in Sound Move.
Do you agree that Sound Transit would have to comply with that limit, even if it had signed a bond sales contract calling for it to collect more tax than the ordinance allows?
Reply Report violation
#1365916
Posted by Wootch at 2/27/07 8:54 p.m. in reply to: #1365485
Son, why exactly is there a need to assume anything? The courts have ruled, and have ruled very clearly. ST is fully within the law and can continue to collect the tax. These are the facts as the courts have ruled, and nobody from the State Attorney General on down disputes them.
Your desire to have everyone join you in wild speculation is pointless and a waste of everyone’s time. If you believe you have a real case, then there is only one course of action – you must sue. However, this you consistently refuse to even consider. Are you afraid to sue because you know you will lose?
Besides, we all know what happens when you “assume”, so I’ll leave that little game to you.
Reply Report violation
#1365946
Posted by BH at 2/27/07 10:20 p.m. in reply to: #1365916
Last edited at 2/27/07 10:22 p.m.
This is a simple question: Can taxpayers’ rights prevail in court over bondholders’ rights?
That is a basic question relating to the status of citizens vs. municipalities under our law.
You’ve repeatedly posted here that ST CFO McCartan was justified under the law when he reported that the Supreme Court ruled Sound Transit can collect the MVET through 2028. Most folks don’t want to give legal opinions - certainly not lawyers. But you sure do. And those are fighting words.
That kind of report technically is within McCartan’s responsibilities. That is because a municipality’s CFO is supposed to be relying on advice of outside counsel when reporting to a Finance Committee. Did anyone advise McCartan he could report that, or are we in a “sua sponte” situation? Since he’s not a lawyer, no one is entitled to rely on his opinions about what the Supreme Court held.
You repeatedly posted McCartan was within his legal rights to report what he did on Dec. 7. But you won’t cite any authority. That suggests you may lack any semblance of a clue about how Supreme Court opinions can bear on governments' taxing authority.
The question above is easy. You say McCartan was legally justified in what he reported to the board. Just so we know whether or not you have a clue, describe what you do know about how ordinances can give taxpayers superior rights over bondholders.
Reply Report violation
#1366362
Posted by BH at 2/28/07 8:01 p.m. in reply to: #1365946
Last edited at 2/28/07 8:03 p.m.
This should not be a difficult topic for you to discuss. It is not a trick question. It involves no legal gray areas – this is Civics 101.
A local government can not tax beyond the limits prescribed in its controlling ordinance. Do you agree that statement is correct?
Moreover, a local government can not expand its taxing authority just by entering into a bond sales contract that says the government will collect more tax than the controlling ordinance allows. If it did enter into that kind of contract, a court would find that the taxpayers’ rights trumped the bondholders’ rights. You should not have any problem agreeing unequivocally with that, either.
This is basic stuff. Do yourself a favor, and right now just post “I agree.” You’ll feel better. Trust me.
Reply Report violation
#1367088
Posted by BH at 3/2/07 9:20 a.m. in reply to: #1366362
In his report to the ST Finance Committee on December 7, 2006, ST CFO Brian McCartan stated that the Supreme Court had just held that ST was within its rights to collect the MVET throughout the life of the bonds (through 2028). That’s a jaw-dropper AND a head-scratcher.
The opinion says nothing like that. All the court did was strike down sec. six of I-776. It beggars belief that anyone reading that opinion would think the Court reached a holding like what McCartan reported. What McCartan reported was not an issue in the case, and the Court would not have had to decide whether ST was within its rights to collect the MVET through 2028 in order to invoke the “contract clause” as it did.
So why the egregious misrepresentation from McCartan? He could have meant to lie. His motive? ST’s board members could have pressured staff to put something on the record that those appointees then could point to as ostensible justification for their directives to staff to spend future tax revenues on additional Phase I capital expenditures.
After all, Sound Move limits the amount of local taxes ST can spend putting the system elements into place at $1.98 billion (1995$). To justify their avoidance of that limit, they could have told staff “FIND US SOME DAMN LAW!” Des Brown came up with this, and McCartan put it on the record. Weak, very weak.
Anyone have any other ideas about McCartan’s motive for misrepresenting on the record what the Supreme Court held in its second I-776 opinion?
Reply Report violation
#1367183
Posted by Wootch at 3/2/07 12:09 p.m. in reply to: #1367088
Na, McCartan is 100% correct with what he said. All he was doing was reporting on what the Supreme Court and ruled, and they left little room for debate.
The Supreme Court ruled that ST could, and is in fact legally obligated, to continue to collect the tax for as long as the bonds are outstanding. This is a matter of constitutional law and the precedents go back over a century.
There is complete agreement on this. Even long time anti-transit foes like Niles/Fimia/McKenna/CETA/Eyman have effectively given up fighting this issue.
ST can, and will, continue to collect the tax. The courts have said so.
However, if you know anything at all about civics, then I am sure you understand the role the courts play in this process. If you know civics, then you also know that you (as in you “BH”) are obligated to take this issue to court and have your case heard. Win your case, and ST will be required to change.
However, I suspect that you won’t do this because either, 1) you don’t really know anything about civics, or 2) you know you have made all this up and that you will lose your case and be proven wrong.
Reply Report violation
#1367204
Posted by BH at 3/2/07 12:52 p.m. in reply to: #1367183
Sound Transit’s PR agent persists in disseminating garbage:
The Supreme Court ruled that ST could, and is in fact legally obligated, to continue to collect the tax for as long as the bonds are outstanding.
No, the Court did not. Here is the opinion:
-
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=765341MAJ
-
OK, Wootch. Support what you say. Copy and past the words from the opinion that you are referring to. Support your claim that McCartan was accurately describing what the opinion held.
You can’t back up McCartan, because the Court did not hold that ST was obligated to collect the tax throughout the life of the bonds. All the court did was say that sec. 6 of I-776 could not become effective.
Even long time anti-transit foes like Niles/Fimia/McKenna/CETA/Eyman have effectively given up fighting this issue.
They didn’t give up fighting “this issue,” because they never fought “this issue.” None of them challenged Sound Transit, in the press or in court, with respect to the enforceability of the “Table 2” revenue limits. Until last year (or maybe the year before), Sound Transit had not collected up to the “voter approved local taxes” limit specified in Sound Move ($1.98 billion). A suit over that issue would not have been ripe before now.
I don’t know why those particular entities or individuals you are so fond of naming have not sued to force ST to comply with the “Table 2” local taxes expenditure figure. Maybe they don’t care. Maybe they are not really "foes" of Sound Transit. In fact, those particular individuals seem positively friendly towards Sound Transit in its role as a taxing entity. Their quibbles have been related to other issues (CETA wants the tax money spent on buses, Eyman wants I-776 upheld, etc.).
If they posted here we could ask why they aren’t challenging ST with regard to the revenue limits in Table 2. My guess is they just don’t care about this particular issue.
So let’s say somebody does sue Sound Transit (and not a friendly enemy, like Niles). The claim in the lawsuit would be that ST only can spend up to the “voter approved local taxes” amount ($1.98 billion) to implement the system. What do you think ST’s defense would be, Wootch? And do your boss a favor: make them look good BY CITING SOME AUTHORITY FOR ONCE. You know, like a legal argument would have . . ..
Reply Report violation
#1367452
Posted by BH at 3/2/07 8:21 p.m. in reply to: #1367204
Wootch:
Talk to Sound Transit’s lawyers. Have them give you some LEGAL AUTHORITY to cite.
There is NO other way for you to attempt to support your (false) assertion that Brian McCartan’s report was accurate.
Once you come up with some LEGAL AUTHORITY (a statute and cases, if you don’t mind), then we can discuss whether or not what McCartan said was accurate. At this point, you have not cited ANY law supporting what McCartan reported. And your opinion about what the Supreme Court held is worthless.
Reply Report violation
#1367477
Posted by BH at 3/2/07 10:17 p.m. in reply to: #1367452
What ST lacks is law supporting this outlandish notion that ST has authority to collect the taxes through 2028.
That would be vastly more taxation than the voters approved in 1996. Sound Move limits how much tax can be collected. It does so in two ways. First, only $1.98B of local taxes can be spent to put the system into place. Second, subsequent local tax revenue can be spent only on paying off debt and subsidizing operations.
The ordinance limits tax expenditures to a certain amount for capital elements, and to debt, and to four specific O&M categories.
The Court didn't say ST could collect the amount of taxes it pledged. Not even close. If ST had ANY law on its side on this issue, it would be posting it right now. Repeatedly, in bold, and surrounded by insults.
Notice how nobody even tries to copy and paste language from ST’s controlling statutes, ordinances, and court opinions on this point? The usual ST nyms can not support what McCartan reported. That’s because no law supports it.
McCartan, the dweeb, put on the record on Dec. 7 that the Supreme Court held ST had the right to collect the MVET through 2028. McCartan is completely full of it.
No law from any source (including case law) justifies McCartan’s report. The Supreme Court did not hold ST has the right to collect that amount of MVET.
ST comes up way short in its legal posturing. It can’t cite ANY authorities that would undermine the right of taxpayers to rely on what Sound Move says. There’s an express limit on how much tax revenue can be spent putting the system into place. It is right there in the “Funding” paragraph of the ordinance: $1.98B, in Table 2. Taxpayers can enforce that limit.
Don’t you agree, Wootch?
Reply Report violation
#1367570
Posted by Wootch at 3/3/07 7:01 a.m. in reply to: #1367452
It’s incredibly easy to support my claims with real facts and data from respectable legal authorities. Here you are:
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=
opinions.showOpinion&filename=765341MAJ
The above is a definitive legal opinion from the State Supreme Court indicating that ST not only has the legal authority to continue to collect the tax, but is in fact legally obligated to continue to collect the tax.
Point proved – the debate is over.
Reply Report violation
#1367653
Posted by BH at 3/3/07 10:32 a.m. in reply to: #1367570
I'd suggest at this point that you take the time to actually read that new “Pierce Co. v. State” opinion.
What it DOES hold is that one section of I-776 was unconstitutional, due to the operation of the contracts clause.
But it sure doesn’t say what McCartan reported. McCartan reported that the Court held ST would be within its rights to collect the MVET throughout the life of the bonds (through 2028).
Yes, you certainly should read that opinion Wootch. And while you are reading it, try and find some words in it that POSSIBLY could comprise this purported holding McCartan reported on to the Finance Committee.
Take your time. Read it closely. Ask me if you have any questions about what you are reading. What you will see is that NOTHING it says what that jerk Brian McCartan reported to Sound Transit’s Finance Committee.
Pull out and post any excerpt you think supports what McCartan said (that there’s a holding in there that says ST would be legally justified in collecting the MVET at the current rate throughout the life of the bonds). Maybe you can find something I missed. THAT make you look good! Then people would think you knew your elbow from your earhole. I’d give you a big “atta boy.” I’m sure you’d get a raise, too.
Reply Report violation
#1370034
Posted by BH at 3/7/07 3:12 p.m. in reply to: #1367653
The above is a definitive legal opinion from the State Supreme Court
All you've done is post a URL to the opinion McCartan was reporting on. Have you read it yet, Wootch? Let's see you find something in that opinion to support your opinion that ST would be within its rights to collect unlimited amounts of taxes.
Seems to be taking you a really, really long time to find any ACTUAL WORDS in that opinion that would back up what Brian McCartan reported to ST's Finance Committee on Dec. 7.
Where in the opinion do you think the court holds that ST has the authority to collect the MVET throughout the life of the bonds?
Don’t go soft on us now. Its time for your money shot.
Reply Report violation
#1370372
Posted by Wootch at 3/8/07 7:57 a.m. in reply to: #1370034
Last edited at 3/8/07 7:59 a.m.
There is no debate on this. Everyone from our anti-transit state AG (McKenna) to our local anti-transit nabobs (Niles/Fimia/CETA/etc) agree with the court. The court’s decision is rock solid.
But since you are so much smarter than all the other legal minds in this state, then there is just one course of action for you – you must sue ST in a court of law. If things are really as simple as you say they are, then this will be a simple case for you to win. But you consistently refuse to even consider this course of action.
Why is this?
It is clear that you refuse to consider a lawsuit because you know you will lose. You started this thread with a “falsehood” – you never wrote a letter to ST and ST never sent you that reply. Now you continue this thread with more “falsehoods” asserting that ST somehow is outside the law. Simply stated – you won’t sue ST because you know there is no more truth behind your legal arguments than there is behind your fantasy letter to ST.
But go ahead, make my day, sue ST. I could you a little entertainment.
Reply Report violation
#1374428
Posted by BH at 3/15/07 4:34 p.m. in reply to: #1370372
Last edited at 3/15/07 4:40 p.m.
Here is a post from someone who supposedly knows what is going on at ST. This is an attempt to justify what ST CFO McCartan reported to the Finance Committee on December 7:
The Supreme Court ruled that ST could, and is in fact legally obligated, to continue to collect the tax for as long as the bonds are outstanding.
That sounds impressive. But it is a completely hollow statement. Nothing the court opinion says possibly could justify ST in collecting that much tax:
-
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=765341MAJ
-
Check it out. Nothing in the opinion says ST would be within its legal rights to collect the MVET throughout the life of the bonds (some of which do not come to term until 2028).
This tactic of making bold pronouncements about what Supreme Court opinions supposedly “hold” is a tactic ST’s apologists use with regularity in the PI’s forums.
John Niles is a covert apologist for ST. Niles posted a handful of times here in early November, 2006. The substance of his posts is identical to the arguments that Wootch/Soul/diehard make. They all claim Supreme Court opinions have validated ST’s tax collection practices.
As an initial matter, Court opinions can not be the source of a municipality’s taxing authority. The way municipal law works is that taxing authority must come from statutes and ordinances (local laws). Court opinions can not provide additional taxing authority. Yet these ST apologists all argue to the contrary (they refer to Supreme Court opinions as the source of the taxing authority).
Here is how John Niles puts it (this was on Nov. 1, 2006, above):
In contrast to what BH writes, my reading of the language in the Sane Transit decision is that Sound Transit can take as long as required, and spend as much money as required, to build the specific projects described in Sound Move, as long as the tax rate is not changed. I don't agree with this ruling, but that is what the Supreme Court ruled. Sound Transit's actions are consistent with this ruling.
Back in 1996, Sound Transit pledged that we would vote on continuing, or rolling-back, these taxes after ten years, but the Supreme Court has relieved Sound Transit from a legal requirement to follow through on this pledge.
Then three days later, John Niles posted this:
BH: Thank you for pointing out the reference to the Supreme Court's decision. Contrary to what you write, the Court explicity [sic] ruled that Sound Transit could collect its taxes at the present rate forever, as long as it was spending the money on what it described in Sound Move.
Niles is not a lawyer. But he was involved in the Sane Transit case, so he should know better than to post nonsense like the above.
The Sane Transit case only involved whether ST was justified under Resolution 75 in shortening the line by several miles because a 21 mile light rail line would have been too expensive. The court quite correctly held ST was justified in so doing. The other key issue in that case was whether the ordinance required construction be completed within ten years, and the Court correctly concluded there was no such requirement in the ordinance.
But there are absolutely no holdings like what Niles claims here Sound Transit can take as long as required, and spend as much money as required, to build the specific projects described in Sound Move or here the Court explicity [sic] ruled that Sound Transit could collect its taxes at the present rate forever, as long as it was spending the money on what it described in Sound Move.
The issue of whether ST would be within its rights to “spend as much money as required, to build the specific projects described in Sound Move” was not before the court in the Sane Transit case. The issue of whether ST “could collect its taxes at the present rate forever, as long as it was spending the money on what it described in Sound Move” likewise was not before the court. The Court does not say the things Niles attributes to it, nor would such purported holdings need to be made in order for the court to rule as it did in that opinion. There certainly was nothing in Sane Transit about ST being relieved of its obligations to roll back the sales tax as Sound Move requires.
So why would Niles misstate in so many ways what the court held in the Sane Transit case?
Niles is a friendly enemy of ST’s. ST uses a number of these. Their critiques are critiques ST wants. They complain about things ST does, but their complaints are tangential to matters that could significantly impact ST’s operations. They couch their criticisms in ways that support key agenda items for ST.
ST’s friendly enemies perform another function. They act to deflect and denigrate legitimate criticisms of big problems with how ST is conducting its affairs. The above quotes are examples.
Niles came on this thread to undermine the central contention raised here: that ST is failing to respect the twin expenditure limits in Sound Move that are in place to protect taxpayers. In his November posts copied above, Niles repeatedly (and without any good authority) posted dismissive comments regarding ST’s failure to comply with the revenue limits in Table 2 of Sound Move. Those are legal arguments he makes in order to directly support Sound Transit’s defense to that claim.
Friendly enemies are useful to Sound Transit. ST’s PR team can say: “look, CETA isn’t complaining about that,” or “McKenna isn’t suing over that.” They can be counted on for sound clips that are very manageable by ST. ST’s friendly enemies include Niles and CETA, Eyman, and disbarred attorney Knedlik.
Now that the ST2 ballot measure is coming up fast, Niles and CETA will be back in front of the microphones complaining about non-issues and acting unconcerned about ST’s significant problem areas. ST wants them as the face of its “opposition.”
Reply Report violation
#1376937
Posted by BH at 3/21/07 3:28 p.m. in reply to: #1374428
`````````````````````````````````````````
Posted by Wootch at 1/9/07 7:52 a.m. in reply to: #1333308
There are no revenue limits in the Sound Move plan, only voter approved tax rate limits.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````
How can you say there are no revenue limits? The figures in Table 2 of Sound Move are revenue limits. They are voter-approved limits on how much of the different revenue types Sound Transit can spend during the Phase I build out period.
You claim Sound Transit can spend an unlimited amount of local taxes during the Phase I build-out period. Why do you believe that would be allowed? Your explanation should include your understanding regarding how the figures specified in Table 2 should operate as ST is spending away.
Reply Report violation
#1378712
Posted by BH at 3/26/07 7:37 a.m. in reply to: #1376937
`````````````````````````````````````````
Posted by Wootch at 1/9/07 7:52 a.m. in reply to: #1333308
There are no revenue limits in the Sound Move plan, only voter approved tax rate limits.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````
Sound Transit WISHES there were no revenue limits in Sound Move.
Limits on how much of different types of revenue ST may spend during the system build-out are set out in Table 2 of Sound Move.
Those revenues limits are the legal terms by which the scope of ST’s spending authority was reduced from what was in the 1995 measure that was not approved. The voters in 1995 rejected a $6.7 billion system; it was only a slimmed-down $3.9 billion version that was approved in 1996. The Table 2 revenue limits are what slimmed the 1996 ballot measure down.
The voters in 1996 only authorized ST to spend $1.98 billion in local taxes (for example) during the implementation period. THAT is a revenue limit, and it is set out in the controlling ordinance.
Reply Report violation
#1379761
Posted by Wootch at 3/28/07 3:27 p.m. in reply to: #1378712
Last edited at 3/28/07 3:32 p.m.
Exactly! There are no revenue limits in Sound Move, only tax rate limits. This is how ST intends to pay for the Husky Stadium line -- with continuing taxes applied over an extended period of time.
If you don't like this approach, then you will need to file a suite against ST (and win), but we all know you won't do that, and we all know why too.
Does ST pay you to post this stuff? You know, discredit the opposition by pretending to be one of them and claiming ridiculous things? It’s one of the oldest tricks in the books – bring the opposition down from the inside.
Reply Report violation
#1386784
Posted by BH at 4/13/07 9:10 a.m. in reply to: #1379761
Sound Transit was set up by the legislature to have perpetual existence and (to some extent) never-ending taxes. ST also must operate pursuant to a series of problematic statutory constraints: ST only can provide certain types of transit, it must plan and operate “HCT” projects only, ST has few revenue options, it only was given authority to impose the most regressive types of taxes, etc. Perhaps worst of all, the board is made up of political appointees. ST’s taxpayers have no right to vote anyone in or out who isn’t looking out for their interests.
One of the big problems with how Sound Transit now is acting relates to its taxing practices. It keeps the most salient features of its taxing practices hidden, and there is no information provided that would give the public any means to accurately gauge whether or not the board and staff are acting in taxpayers’ best interests.
Take the taxpayer-protection provisions in Sound Move. The ONLY terms in the controlling ordinance that taxpayers can rely on to keep ST from abusing its taxing and bonding authority are those set out in the Paying for the System section of Sound Move. These are the limiting terms that were put into the ordinance that was placed on the 1996 ballot after the far more expensive proposal submitted to voters the previous year was rejected. These limiting terms from the 1996 ordinance are copied below.
ST’s taxing and bonding activities, and future revenue-raising plans, appear to flout the terms below. In addition, ST steadfastly refuses to provide basic information about these voter-approved revenue limits, and whether or not it remains in compliance with them.
If ST intends to ignore these provisions, it has not explained why. If ST’s finance department has policies and procedures in place to ensure ST will comply with these voter-approved limits, such policies and procedures are invisible to everyone outside the “inner ring.”
There are no revenue limits in Sound Move, only tax rate limits.
That entirely-conclusory statement is belied by Sound Transit’s own actions. Revenue limits are what forced ST’s board in 2001 to drop stations from the light rail plan and shorten that line from 21 miles to 15 miles. If there were no revenue limits in Sound Move, the board would not have reduced the scope of the light rail project – it just would have issued a pile of bonds and/or waited until the taxes it collected could cover the higher costs of building everything pictured in the Sound Move brochure relating to light rail. But it couldn’t tax more for implementing the system, because of the dollar-limits on the revenue sources. Those limits are copied below. The voter-approved terms in Resolution 75 require ST to scale back its capital expenditures on the system to stay within certain tax and bonding revenue limits ($1.98 billion, and $1.052 billion, respectively) during the system implementation period.
In 2001 the board resolved to shorten the light rail line in order to comply with the revenue limits below. It would be very helpful, and entirely appropriate, if someone from ST would explain on this very public forum whether or not ST here in 2007 still intends to honor those limiting terms that are a core feature of what the voters approved.
-----
-----
The following are key taxpayer-protection terms from the controlling ordinance (the bracketed numbers are the figures set out in Tables 1 and 2 of Sound Move). The incomplete version of Sound Move Sound Transit has posted on its website omits these figures.
“Table 1 summarizes the cost of putting Sound Move in place and operating regional express bus routes and rail lines.”
HOV Expressway access ramps [$377M], Regional Express Bus routes [$361M], Commuter rail [$669M], Electric Light Rail [$1.801B], Community connections [$255M], Regional fund/reserves [$280M], and Debt service [$171M].
Table 2 -
“The system plan will be paid for with a combination of voter approved local taxes [$1.98B], federal grants [$727M], farebox revenues and interest revenues [$155M], and borrowed funds (bonds) [$1.052B] (see Table 2).”
Reply Report violation
#1388606
Posted by BH at 4/17/07 9:06 p.m. in reply to: #1386784
Uh, bump.
Reply Report violation
#1388721
Posted by Wootch at 4/18/07 7:51 a.m. in reply to: #1386784
Son, I once had a college professor who said, “The skill of an engineer is inversely proportional to the amount of paper he generates.” I think the only thing you have proven so far is that his comments can be completely generalized.
Verbosity does not substitute for truth, and your arguments have no truth behind them. The courts have ruled in ST’s favor, and not even the most ardent anti-transit wonk is challenging ST on this – or on any other legal basis either. It’s over, get over it.
You started out this thread with a falsehood – you never wrote that letter to ST, and ST never sent that reply. Now you are continuing this thread with more falsehoods – there is absolutely no truth to any of your made-up legal arguments.
Why should anyone listen to you anymore? You don’t stick to the facts, you don’t tell the truth.
Reply Report violation
#1388812
Posted by BH at 4/18/07 11:10 a.m. in reply to: #1388721
your arguments have no truth behind them
What “arguments?” I’m not arguing anything.
My posts in this thread are just to point out some aspects of Sound Transit’s financing practices that deserve much closer scrutiny.
For example, can anyone from ST explain how it intends to comply with the Table 2 revenue limits, yet not breach the tax covenant terms in the bond sale resolution? That’s a question, not an argument.
No one seems willing to touch that subject with a ten-foot pole.
Looks to me like ST messed up big time. We’ve got a situation where ST will have to violate taxpayers’ rights or breach terms in the bond sales contracts. But maybe there’s a decent explanation. If so, it sure hasn’t found its way onto the PI’s forums.
Reply Report violation
#1392517
Posted by BH at 4/26/07 9:26 a.m. in reply to: #1388812
Eleven months ago this was posted in this thread:
------------
Sound Move contains several “public involvement principles.” These provide:
“The RTA will ensure that: -- citizens have access to the planning process, -- citizens’ input is actively sought at all stages of planing and development, . . . – citizens have opportunities to affect decisions before they are finalized, [and] citizens’ inquiries, suggestions and ideas are answered or accounted for in the decision-making process.”
In light of those “public involvement principles” of Sound Move, Sound Transit is requested to:
· reaffirm it is committed to immediately reducing the sales tax rate if voters do not approve ST2,
· provide an estimate of what the permanent sales tax rate will be (we taxpayers are going to be asked to vote on many big new tax proposals over the next year and a half – ST should let us know what its permanent sales tax rate is likely to be so we can figure out how those other governments’ upcoming tax requests will impact our budgets),
· update the “local taxes” figure on “Table 2. Revenues” in Sound Move (that table states that the amount of local taxes needed to pay for the “system plan” is $1.98 billion – I expect that by now this figure has grown considerably),
· explain what policies ST’s board has in place to ensure that taxpayers are not forced to pay sales taxes at the current high rate to ST for one day longer than necessary, and
· provide assurances to the taxpayers that nothing in the 2005 bond sales resolution will force them to pay sales taxes to ST at an excessive rate should ST2 not be approved.
----------------------------
Since then virtually no information on those topics has been disclosed by Sound Transit. ST puts information up on its website – but not information on these issues.
ST’s failure to inform on these topics keeps citizens ignorant of what it is up to. No one outside the silo can scrutinize ST’s profligate spending habits to ascertain whether the interests of taxpayers are being respected.
Sound Transit has an iron-clad policy of denying requests for information about its taxing and bonding plans and practices. All inquiries on those subjects are met with: “That warrants no response. Don’t like it? Sue us.” Not an edifying message from a secretive taxing authority controlled by political appointees that so far has ripped $2.7 billion in taxes out of our region. And what do we have to show for that? Precious little.
Reply Report violation
#1395596
Posted by BH at 5/1/07 8:41 a.m. in reply to: #1392517
There is an editorial in the PI today about the appointment of a new DOT Secretary:
-
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/313749_transed.html
-
The editorial lauds Doug MacDonald for his “accountability, openness and determination” at DOT.
None of those traits characterize what is going on at Sound Transit. MacDonald has been on ST’s board for the past six years, and he certainly wasn’t able to push ST’s culture in those directions.
Things clearly have gone downhill at ST in terms of accountability and openness. The “determination” at ST now is a determination to hide details of its taxing plans and practices from the public.
ST has been posting less and less financial information on its website. During the run-up to the November election it is determined to keep the public as ignorant as possible about the full scope and details of its taxing and bonding plans.
For example, key data that will be addressed at the Finance Committee meeting this week are not posted at the ST website. The April 19 Finance Committee meeting minutes are not posted, and the details of the ST2 Financial Plan are not posted:
-
http://soundtransit.org/x4866.xml
-
This information would provide us with a window into what ST is up to on the money side. Knowledge is power, so the denizens of Union Station keep the shades drawn over that window. They abhor public scrutiny.
Reply Report violation
#1395755
Posted by John N at 5/1/07 5:52 p.m. in reply to: #1374428
Last edited at 5/1/07 5:54 p.m.
BH:
You have written about the Sane Transit judgment, "there are absolutely no holdings ... like ... Sound Transit can take as long as required, and spend as much money as required, to build the specific projects described in Sound Move."
This is very important to you, and leads you to make false, pejorative statements about me, so I'll respond, as follows:
I'm no lawyer, but I read the following language from the majority ruling in the Sane Transit decision as indeed implying that Sound Transit can take as long as required, and spend as much money as required, to build the specific projects described in Sound Move:
"It is apparent from the language contained in Resolution 75 and in Sound
Move and its appendices that when the voters approved the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan they implemented permanent taxes. At a minimum, taxes were to be collected beyond the 10-year period for operations and maintenance of the system, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency administration. It was also expected that taxes for construction costs would extend beyond the 10-year period. The only limitation on the
collection of taxes for construction was that they not be collected on a
second or any future capital phase without further voter approval. In sum, Sound Transit has the authority to continue to collect taxes within its
district to finance construction beyond the 10-year period, as well as for operation and maintenance of the system." [Mar. 04, 2004 73413-5 - Sane Transit et al V Sound Transit at page 12 in my pdf copy]
So you and I disagree on this point.
On the other hand, I do agree with you that other language in the historical paperwork seems to obligate ST not to collect taxes for Sound Move beyond $1.98 billion, although this is offset by the language above from the Supremes about the Phase One taxes being permanent.
I also agree with you that there is other language remaining in ST's paper trail that could cause a lawyer to challenge my earlier statement, "Back in 1996, Sound Transit pledged that we would vote on continuing, or rolling-back, these taxes after ten years, but the Supreme Court has relieved Sound Transit from a legal requirement to follow through on this pledge."
The problem I see with taking substantive action on any of the legal restrictions on Sound Transit that can be discerned by you, me, or others, is that the track record of Sound Transit in defending itself in court against legal attacks based on interpretations of old documents like Resolution 75 is perfect or nearly so. Sound Transit wins in court all or most of the time. It's a strength of the agency.
I don't see any point in further legal challenges, especially of matters that seem closely related to those already decided.
That's just me talking; others who oppose ST may have different opinions, and may act on those opinions.
Reply Report violation
#1396002
Posted by BH at 5/2/07 10:02 a.m. in reply to: #1395755
The purpose of this posting is three-fold: 1) explain why John Niles’ purported understanding of the law misses the mark by a long shot, 2) show how Sound Transit has taken a series of actions recently demonstrating that it knows the law is completely different than what Niles says above, and 3) look into a crystal ball and see if I can guess who Sound Transit will choose to draft the “Statement Against” the November ballot measure.
John Niles’ posting above is replete with inaccurate characterizations of the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The thrust of Niles’ argument is that some holding in the 2004 Sane Transit opinion in effect gave ST the green light to collect as much tax as it may wish for the purposes of spending it on building out and operating the system elements described in Sound Move.
In support of this untenable thesis, Niles cites a passage from that opinion. The passage he cites refers to permanent taxes. What is permanent about the taxing authority that ST received in the 1996 voter-approved ordinance is that ST may impose sales tax and MVET to subsidize five specified categories of ongoing operational costs. However, the terms of the controlling ordinance also specify that only $1.98 billion of local tax revenue can be spent by ST during the Phase I implementation phase. That limit on the amount of tax ST may spend to build out the system is why the light rail line was scaled back in 2001. That “scaling back” was the issue challenged in the Sane Transit case, and the court quite correctly looked at the terms of Resolution 75 and held scaling back the system described in Sound Move was not an unlawful deviation because ST was required to do so in light of the higher-than-expected construction costs.
The court in that opinion also noted that nothing in Sound Move required ST to implement (what it could have) of the Phase 1 system within 10 years.
What the court did not do is say that ST could spend more than $1.98 billion of local taxes during the Phase I implementation period. The issue of whether or not ST could spend more local taxes during the implementation period than the Paying for the System section of Sound Move allows was not before the court. Indeed, the entire set of facts the court was dealing with involved ST scaling back capital spending in order to remain within the revenues limits of Sound Move.
It must be noted that nobody from Sound Transit ever has stated the Sane Transit opinion gave ST the authority to tax as much as it wants to implement system elements described in Sound Move.
One obvious flaw with Niles’ argument about the implications of the language from the opinion he cites is that he seems to believe a court opinion can expand taxing authority beyond what the local ordinance specifies.
Niles mischaracterizes (and tries to downplay) the significance of Sound Move and Resolution 75. Those together comprise the presently-controlling, and voter-approved, ordinance. Niles ascribes to me something I never said, and it is patently untrue to boot: “I do agree with you that other language in the historical paperwork seems to obligate ST not to collect taxes for Sound Move beyond $1.98 billion.” Sound Move most certainly does not cap how much tax ST can collect at $1.98 billion. That is a spending limit, not a taxing limit. More particularly, it is a cap on how much tax revenue ST can spend during the implementation phase. ST can spend that amount of local taxes during the period it is putting what it can of a Phase 1 into place, and after that it can impose taxes permanently to subsidize several enumerated categories of on-going expenses.
ST is paying the biggest law firms around for legal services. That’s over a thousand Washington attorneys. It has a legal staff of eighteen. Wonder why NONE of them will come on here and back up Niles? No attorney would sign her name to the kind of loony-toons analysis Niles (and his sidekick MacIsaac) are propagating.
Sound Transit has taken a series of actions recently demonstrating that it understands the law is completely different than what Niles says the law is.
--- Brian McCartan, ST’s CFO reported on Dec. 7, 2006 to the ST Finance Committee that the second I-776 opinion granted ST extra taxing authority to collect the tax throughout the life of the bonds (NOT the Sane Transit opinion).
--- Sound Transit’s counsel drafted SHB 1396, a bill that passed the legislature this past session. Section two of it authorizes ST to ask voters in November to continue the existing sales tax and MVET for the purposes of spending on the elements of the system plan described in Sound Move it now can not afford.
-
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1396-S.PL.pdf
-
Sec. 2 of that bill amends RCW 36.120.070. The new language allows ST to go to the voters to seek additional taxation authority to continue the current two taxes “to support [ST’s existing] system and financing plan.” ST obviously would not have needed its enabling statutes changed like this if Niles was right and it already had the unlimited authority to spend tax revenue (and secure long term debt) for Phase I like Niles claims above.
--- Based on this new authority provided by amended RCW 36.120.070, the draft plan documents ST disclosed last week show it will ask voters in November not just for taxes for additional capital and operations spending system, but also for additional taxation authority to “continue” the current two taxes for paying for more of what Sound Move describes (such as University Link) and so it can legally comply with the tax covenants in the bond sales contracts.
Those are several acts ST has taken that demonstrate Niles’ unsupported opinions regarding how much tax ST can collect, and for what purposes, are completely mistaken.
Who will author the “Statement Against” in the Voters’ Guide?
ST gets to choose who authors the “Statement Against” the November ballot measure. Obviously ST wants to choose someone with zero credibility who can’t (or won’t) write a convincing statement against. Look at what King County did with “Transit Now” – it selected disbarred attorney Will Knedlik as its opponent. Knedlik’s weird and unconvincing statement in the Voters’ Guide last November against “Transit Now” veered off into a completely irrelevant rant against Sound Transit. No wonder “Transit Now” won – the Voters Guide statement against is of critical importance with respect to whether or not a ballot proposition wins or loses.
Looks like Niles/MacIsaac are grooming themselves to be selected by ST to draft the Statement Against. They are making claims about ST2 now of the type that ST wants. They are the face of the opposition ST wants to see. They make inane statements to the press. They overstate the authority Sound Move affords ST to use tax revenue and sell bonds. They lowball tax costs when describing impacts on the region of approving ST2. They misstate court opinions in ways that favor ST. They attack observations about the benefits of voting no (both MacIsaac and Niles argue against the proposition that the Sound Move tax rollback provisions would reduce the existing tax rates if ST2 is not approved).
No doubt ST wants friendly enemies drafting the “Statement Against.”
Hey John Niles: Let’s say you are tapped to draft the “Statement Against” for the upcoming Voters’ Guide. What would you write? Give us a draft, and we’ll critique it.
Reply Report violation
#1396870
Posted by BH at 5/4/07 9:04 a.m. in reply to: #1396002
John Niles wrote on May 1, 2007 “I'm no lawyer.” Nobody said you are a lawyer, John. But ignorance of the law is no excuse.
You glean from a couple of sentences taken out of context from the Sane Transit case opinion that “Sound Transit can take as long as required, and spend as much money as required, to build the specific projects described in Sound Move.” The posting above addresses why this analysis is flat wrong. You are so wrong in your opinion about the significance of that excerpt that it isn’t even worth even asking you to explain your thinking.
There has been an odd phenomenon here on the PI’s message boards this week, John. You, Jim MacIsaac and Gary Powell all started vigorously posting this same exact nonsense. Here is where MacIsaac and Powell do it:
-
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/313393_sound27.html
-
Nobody from ST is saying this now; only you three who’ve marched under the CETA banner. Why the sudden, coordinated dissemination of this falsehood?
Looks like you three could be acting in concert with ST. You each falsely assert claims about the extent of ST’s tax authority. You each ignore completely the spending limits in Sound Move. Plus, what you say helps the proponents of the upcoming ballot measure.
Care to comment on this flurry of falsehoods from you guys? Why are you suddenly so eager to offer arguments to the effect that ST does not have to comply with the spending limits in Sound Move?
Reply Report violation
#1398708
Posted by John N at 5/9/07 12:45 a.m. in reply to: #1396870
BH writes, "Care to comment on this flurry of falsehoods from you guys? Why are you suddenly so eager to offer arguments to the effect that ST does not have to comply with the spending limits in Sound Move?"
I gather from all you have written, that your opinion is that if regional citizens vote down the roads & transit package in November, that will be the end of Sound Transit's legal authority to spend money?
While I don't believe that point based on my understanding, you are making an argument that I would be most happy to have you win! I would be pleased if Sound Transit's taxing and/or spending were shut off at $1.98 billion.
Given your analysis, do you think that Sound Transit will be legally able to finish the Initial Segment of Light Rail, and the short extension to the Airport if ST2 is shot down in the November 6 vote?
Do you think Sound Transit will be legally authorized to extend Sounder to Lakewood if ST2 goes down?
Reply Report violation
#1398812
Posted by BH at 5/9/07 10:49 a.m. in reply to: #1398708
I gather from all you have written, that your opinion is that if regional citizens vote down the roads & transit package in November, that will be the end of Sound Transit's legal authority to spend money?
No, not at all.
What would happen if ST2 is not approved in November is that ST would need to initiate the first of the two required sales tax rate reductions.
At that point ST still would have “legal authority to spend money.” For example, it could still spend tax revenues collected before it reached the $1.98 billion (1995$) mark on system capital elements. It also could legally spend taxes collected after it reached that mark on the five categories of post-implementation phase expenses specified in the statute (i.e. retiring debt, system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement and agency administration).
Here is how it works. ST’s has voter-approved taxing authority that has no end date. Further, there is no dollar limit on the overall amount of tax ST can collect. The two preceding sentences are true because of the terms in Sound Move that allow tax subsidies of certain operational expenses in the system’s post-implementation period.
HOWEVER there are two sets of spending limits in Sound Move that have the practical effect of limiting ST’s need for taxes, and therefore ST’s right to collect taxes. Those two limits are, first, how much local tax revenue ST can spend during the implementation period of Phase I ($1.98 billion,1995$), and second, what kinds of expenses ST is allowed to subsidize with local tax revenues subsequent to that implementation period.
We know from the 2004 Sane Transit case opinion that the Phase I implementation period can last longer than 10 years. Moreover, no court opinion gives ST any extra authority to spend more than $1.98 billion during the implementation period.
Copied below are the terms in Sound Move that specify the two sales tax rate reductions ST would need to initiate if ST2 is not approved in November. What they actually do is grant ST some extra time to keep the sales tax rate at .4%. That isn’t giving ST extra revenue, because ST still has the outstanding debt it needs to retire and local taxes can be used for that.
If ST2 is not approved, the sales tax rate would need to be reduced to a level sufficient to provide what ST needs to pay off the outstanding debt, and subsidize the four enumerated additional categories of ongoing “operational” expenses. After the debt is paid off, ST would reduce the rate again to the level needed to subsidize “system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement and agency administration.”
Because ST already has collected about $2.8 billion in local taxes, it already is limited in what it can spend newly collected taxes on. Taxes collected subsequent to the first $1.98 billion (inflation adjusted) can not be spent on anything other than principal and interest of debt and the other four enumerated expense categories.
If ST2 is not approved, these twin spending limits will reduce ST’s need for tax revenue in just a couple of years. They are taxpayer protection terms. They are what was inserted into Sound Move in 1996 to get it approved (the measure rejected the year before did not have these spending limits). These spending limits are what ST used to get Sound Move approved. They are the reason ST’s board was required to scale back the scope of the light rail project in 2001 because the expense estimates came in so high.
These spending limits have the practical effect of limiting how much tax ST will be able to collect going forward. That is because local governments are prohibited from collecting more tax than they need (to collect excessive amounts of tax would arbitrarily and capriciously violate taxpayers’ rights).
It would be entirely appropriate for Des Brown and Brian McCartan to explain Sound Transit’s position on these matters.
Given your analysis, do you think that Sound Transit will be legally able to finish the Initial Segment of Light Rail, and the short extension to the Airport if ST2 is shot down in the November 6 vote?
Here’s what I can say about that – in 2001 the light rail line was legally reduced in length from 21 to 15 miles, and stations were dropped. That was a lawful deviation, according to the Supreme Court (it based that holding on Resolution 75’s terms and Sound Move’s terms). Since then I’ve heard ST has been within or under budget on that light rail part of the system plan. I understand the Airport Link was not that much of an additional cost, and the Port and WSDOT are sharing some of those costs. As far as I know, Westlake to SeaTac would be feasible.
---------
--------
These are provisions from the controlling ordinance Sound Move:
Should voter approval for a future phase capital program not be forthcoming, the RTA Board will initiate two steps to roll back the rate of sales tax collected by the RTA.
a. First, the RTA will first [sic] initiate an accelerated pay off schedule for any outstanding bonds. Second, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay the accelerated schedule for debt service on outstanding bonds, system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency cost.
b. Once all debt is retired, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay for system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement and agency administration.”
Reply Report violation
#1399740
Posted by John N at 5/10/07 11:45 p.m. in reply to: #1398812
BH,
Your commentary is provocative and interesting. Thank you.
It's widely assumed in my circles that ST will try again with a new, reduced version of ST2 if the roads and transit plan fails to pass in November.
Do I understand you to believe that ST would not have the right to come back to voters post November 6 for a new chance at Yes?
On a different point, does the language of the Sound Move Plan have the status of an ordinance? Did all three counties pass the ordinance? What is an ordinance -- just a law?
If so, do you have an on-line source for the Sound Move ordinance language?
Thanks.
Reply Report violation
#1399838
Posted by BH at 5/11/07 10:07 a.m. in reply to: #1399740
``````````````````````````````````````
Posted by Wootch at 3/28/07 3:27 p.m. in reply to: #1378712
Last edited at 3/28/07 3:32 p.m.
. . . . This is how ST intends to pay for the Husky Stadium line -- with continuing taxes applied over an extended period of time.
`````````````````````````````````````````
Sound Transit needs approval of the ballot measure in November to continue the existing taxes. If ST2 is not approved, Sound Transit won’t be able to afford University Link.
ST already maxed out on the revenues the voters in 1996 authorized it to spend on Phase I capital expenditures. See Table 2 of the Paying for the System section of the governing ordinance.
Reply Report violation
#1400698
Posted by Wootch at 5/14/07 8:35 a.m. in reply to: #1399838
ST most certainly DOES NOT need approval of ST2 to continue building Link to the U. The voters approved that project, and they approved the taxes to pay for that project. ST will continue to collect the taxes in order to pay for the line – per the voter’s direction and per the law.
Please stop making things up.
Reply Report violation
#1400739
Posted by BH at 5/14/07 10:47 a.m. in reply to: #1400698
Why such a cryptic posting? If you have some kind of factual basis to support your belief on this issue, post a link to it. If Sound Transit has addressed this issue directly and publicly, I am unaware of it.
Your post seems to claim ST has sufficient taxing authority to spend whatever amounts of local tax revenue may be needed on University Link implementation costs. Is that what you are trying to say?
If you believe that is the case, I’d ask you to explain how ST could be able to spend so much tax revenue on that project in light of the revenue limits in Table 2 of the “Paying for the System” section of Sound Move.
Obviously I can’t force you to address an issue like this that Sound Transit should be explaining. But as you may or may not be aware, what you posted is directly at odds with the voter-approved spending limit in Sound Move regarding what amount of local tax revenue ST can spend to put (what it can of) the system plan into place.
I don’t know – are you familiar with how ST had to scale back the light rail line in 2001 to stay within budget? What do you think happened – did ST just suddenly “discover” an extra couple of voter-approved billions it could spend on railroad construction? I don’t think so.
I should point out as well that your posting immediately above is contradicted by a number of recent acts by ST. For example, ST’s agents just sought and obtained from the legislature an amendment to RCW 36.120.070. As amended, that statute now authorizes ST to seek voter approval not just for taxing powers relating to new projects, but also for authority to continue the current taxes “to support [the Phase I] system and financing plan.” If ST had all the taxing authority it needed for University Link (part of the Phase I system), it would not have needed this language in SHB 1396.
In addition, the newly-released ST2 draft plan documents contain terms whereby the voters would give the right to ST to “continue” the Phase I taxes. Last time I checked, those were here:
-
http://www.soundtransit.org/x4862.xml
-
If ST had the taxing authority it needed for University Link already, there would not be any need for the ST2 plan to reference continuation of the current taxes. The reason that language is in the ST2 plan is that ST needs additional voter approval in order to pay for the parts of Phase I it can not afford now. That includes all the light rail work between Westlake Center and the UW. At this point ST has tapped out on the revenue sources for capital expenditures the voters authorized it to spend in 1996.
Moreover, the tax covenants in the two bond sales contracts call for ST to collect more tax than Sound Move allows. Hence the amendment ST obtained to RCW 36.120.070 to support the RTA’s “financing plan.”
Maybe you’ve got some document I haven’t seen. Maybe ST has explained how it can comply with the spending limits in Sound Move yet still spend the additional billions it would need to pay for University Link. Are you willing to try explaining how that could be?
More fundamentally, can you think of any reason why someone like Des Brown or John Ladenburg shouldn’t be responding to these questions?
Reply Report violation
#1400923
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 5/14/07 6:13 p.m. in reply to: #1400739
I think they probably would respond if any of your claims or conspiracy theories were either credible or serious, BH.
Reply Report violation
#1400970
Posted by BH at 5/14/07 7:44 p.m. in reply to: #1400923
Draft language for the ST2 plan was just disclosed. I pointed out not a lot has been written yet about how it would authorize ST to spend unlimited amounts of tax revenue on the Sound Move projects. That’s hardly a “conspiracy theory” claim.
It would be great if some speaking agent for ST would address the practical impacts on ST's plans of the revenue limits in Sound Move, and the scope of the additional taxing authority ST2 was drafted to provide to that government.
Reply Report violation
#1401556
Posted by John N at 5/16/07 11:24 a.m. in reply to: #1400970
BH:
Last fall CETA obtained via Public Disclosure Act request to ST a copy of the University Link Financial Plan dated June 2006.
This document, provided by Sound Transit to USDOT as part of the preliminary application for $750 million in Federal funding as resources to partial fund light rail construction from Pine Street to Husky Stadium, clearly states, or at least implies, that Sound Transit has the legal authority to collect its Sound Move taxes beyond the $1.9 billion legal limit you believe exists.
I've posted the document (a 2.3 megabyte pdf, scanned so not word searchable) at www.bettertransport.info/pitf/ULinkFinan
cialPlan.pdf.
Take a look and tell us what you think it means for your point on ST's authority to tax us for mass transit construction.
Here's what I invite your attention to: On page 14, Table 9, Sound Transit Sources and Uses of Funds, 1997-2020, Year of Expenditure dollars, the total local tax collections shown is $9.1 billion.
This is a Sound Transit representation to the U.S. Government.
Are you saying that Sound Transit is not legally authorized to collect this much local tax money?
Reply Report violation
#1401573
Posted by BH at 5/16/07 12:05 p.m. in reply to: #1401556
What makes you think ST would not submit a revised report, with smaller numbers, to the FTA if ST2 is not approved?
Reply Report violation
#1402609
Posted by John N at 5/18/07 8:52 p.m. in reply to: #1401573
I'm answering this question and making any further comment on the topic of ST's borrowing and taxing authority to the topic "ST loses I-776 case."
Reply Report violation
#1402616
Posted by BH at 5/18/07 8:58 p.m. in reply to: #1402609
John: That "University Link Financial Plan dated June 2006" was submitted to the FTA in connection with one or more grant applications.
If ST2 is not approved, ST may be ineligible for those grants.
Reply Report violation
#1402627
Posted by John N at 5/18/07 9:07 p.m. in reply to: #1402616
BH: I like that possibility! JN
Reply Report violation
#1402732
Posted by BH at 5/19/07 7:37 a.m. in reply to: #1402627
My sense is that University Link is popular. If it appeared as a stand-alone proposition (and Feds were indicating a big grant would come through) the voters might approve it.
Reply Report violation
#1402733
Posted by BH at 5/19/07 7:39 a.m. in reply to: #1402732
Sound Transit wants to be sued over tax matters. It likes what happens in court then.
---------------------
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 12/12/06 10:57 a.m. in reply to: #1308596
Is your entire life this hypothetical and theoretical, BH?
You are so sure of yourself (obsessed more like) yet you can't seem to ever grasp anything real...like a "lawsuit"
-------------------------
------------------------
at 1/9/07 7:52 a.m. in reply to: #1333308
If you think you have an issue, then file a lawsuit – but I think it is pretty clear by your repeated refusal to even consider filing a lawsuit that you know you don’t have a case and are just blowing smoke.
Go ahead, file a lawsuite -- I double dog dare you. We are all waiting.
-------------------------------
--------------------------
at 1/10/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1333815
you consistently refuse to sue ST – you know you would lose and lose badly.
But go ahead, sue ST. I double dog dare you.
------------------------------
------------------------
at 1/12/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1335201
But I see you continue to refuse to step up to the plate and sue ST -- it proves my point that you know you have no basis to your arguements.
----------------------------
----------------------
at 2/14/07 11:49 a.m. in reply to: #1359442
it is time for you to put your money where your mouth is and sue. Why won't you do this?
--------------------------
-----------------------
at 2/19/07 10:03 a.m. in reply to: #1361418
And where is that lawsuit of yours anyhow? How come you won’t step up to the plate and sue ST?
------------------------------
-------------------
at 2/19/07 7:37 p.m. in reply to: #1361620
The courts have already said ST does not need to change, but if you think you can force them to, then there is only one course available – you must sue ST. Your failure to do so is a tacit admission that even you know you don’t have a case.
But prove us all wrong – sue ST.
----------------------
-----------------
at 2/27/07 11:07 a.m. in reply to: #1365353
once again you try to shirk your responsibility to sue.
-----------------------
-------------------
at 2/27/07 8:54 p.m. in reply to: #1365485
If you believe you have a real case, then there is only one course of action – you must sue. However, this you consistently refuse to even consider. Are you afraid to sue because you know you will lose?
------------------------
----------------------
at 3/8/07 7:57 a.m. in reply to: #1370034
But go ahead, make my day, sue ST.
------------------------------
-------------------------------
at 3/28/07 3:27 p.m. in reply to: #1378712
If you don't like this approach, then you will need to file a suite against ST (and win), but we all know you won't do that, and we all know why too.
--------------------------
Reply Report violation
#1404787
Posted by BH at 5/24/07 7:29 a.m. in reply to: #1402733
Sound Transit counts on the Supreme Court to clean up its big taxing problems.
Reply Report violation
#1406910
Posted by BH at 5/30/07 8:15 a.m. in reply to: #1404787
Sound Transit wants the Supreme Court to solve even more big taxation problems for it.
Reply Report violation
#1409480
Posted by BH at 6/5/07 8:02 a.m. in reply to: #1406910
From ST’s perspective, trips to the Temple of Justice are strolls through a pear orchard, the boughs heavy with fruit.
Reply Report violation
#1410929
Posted by BH at 6/8/07 8:41 a.m. in reply to: #1409480
The Temple of Justice is FAO Schwartz for statists.
Reply Report violation
#1414605
Posted by BH at 6/15/07 8:58 a.m. in reply to: #1410929
The Justices trip over their robes to give ST what it wants.
Reply Report violation
#1416334
Posted by BH at 6/19/07 9:05 a.m. in reply to: #1414605
ST has a license to poach at the Temple of Justice.
Reply Report violation
#1419349
Posted by BH at 6/25/07 8:55 a.m. in reply to: #1416334
The Justices bend over backwards and forwards for ST.
Reply Report violation
#1419583
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 6/25/07 4:55 p.m. in reply to: #1404787
Sound Transit counts on the Supreme Court to clean up its big taxing problems.
As we've explained before, BH, it was actually the SaneTransit which inadvertently led the Court to liberally interpret Sound Transit's taxing authority. From what I can tell, without JNiles' decade long "delay delay delay" tactics (culminating in the Sane lawsuit) in regard to light rail, we really wouldn't know whether Sound Transit had the ability to continue its tax authority through Phase 2 or not. Thanks to JNiles, the court ruling basically granted them all the authority they need. Maybe that's why you always pick silly fights with Mr. Niles, and inferring he's also on their payroll. (one of my Top 10 favorite BH claims)
It's hard to follow your diatribes, BH, so please remind me: what are those "big taxing problems" again?
Reply Report violation
#1419878
Posted by BH at 6/26/07 7:00 a.m. in reply to: #1419583
it was actually the SaneTransit which inadvertently led the Court to liberally interpret Sound Transit's taxing authority.
There was no interpretation, “liberal” or otherwise, in the Sane Transit case opinion.
What do you think the court held that even bears on ST’s “taxing authority?”
The holding that ST’s board was justified in scaling back the plans for light rail in light of the terms in Resolution 75 has nothing to do with ST’s taxing authority. Plus, that is not any kind of “liberal” interpretation: Res. 75 SAYS ST must reduce implementation phase spending to stay within the available revenues budget.
The holding that ST did not have to stop working on light rail because it would not be operating in ten years likewise has nothing to do with ST’s “taxing authority.”
Nothing in the Sane Transit opinion could possibly be read as eliminating the revenue spending limits in the Paying for the Section of Sound Move. Court cases can not expand taxing authority, and the court in the Sane Transit opinion restates the basic precept that substantial deviations from terms in that ordinance would exceed ST’s lawful authority. That includes spending more local taxes than the voters approved. What is it about this you do not understand?
Reply Report violation
#1419970
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 6/26/07 11:04 a.m. in reply to: #1402616
BH says: "If ST2 is not approved, ST may be ineligible for those grants."
John Niles says: "I like the possibilities"
So, guys, how's about telling us what you know, and what Sound Transit, the FTA, the UW, rail skeptic/reporter Mike Lindblom...and virtually every body else doesn't know about financing light rail to the UW:
The line can be constructed without a public vote because the agency can build a tunnel that would reach the stadium by prolonging its existing sales tax, combined with federal dollars. But extensions to Northgate and Lynnwood, to the Eastside and to Federal Way would require a multi-billion-dollar tax increase, which will be on the November 2007 ballot.
archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-b
in/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=sou
ndtransit28m&date=20061128&query=%22ligh
t+rail%22
Reply Report violation
#1419974
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 6/26/07 11:08 a.m. in reply to: #1419878
What do you think the court held that even bears on ST’s “taxing authority?”
Oh no. Do we have to watch you spin around in your logic loop on this issue again BH. Do I also need to post the definition of OCD one more time?
Reply Report violation
#1420018
Posted by BH at 6/26/07 12:35 p.m. in reply to: #1419974
That story from the Seattle Times certainly does not mean Sound Transit would not need approval of ST2 to be able to spend local taxes on University Link.
Here is what was written: "by prolonging its existing sales tax." If ST2 is approved, ST would get additional local tax spending authority for it to use during the implementation period. It could then legally prolong the periods at which both the taxes can be collected at their current rates.
The terms in ST2 Appendix B would supercede those in Sound Move Appendix B - that would be a big part of how the law would change to allow ST the additional local tax spending authority on University Link, which in turn would allow ST to prolong the periods at which those taxes could remain at their current rates.
And to whoever is using the Soul screen name: you just raised a ridiculous legal argument. Your posting to the effect that something in the Sane Transit vs. Sound Transit opinion increased ST’s “taxing authority” lacks any merit. That is why you should try backing up what you posted. Go ahead, tell us what it is you think the Supreme Court held in the Sane Transit opinion that bears in any way on the extent of ST’s taxing authority. Nothing whatsoever in the Sane Transit opinion enlarged (or reduced) ST’s taxing authority.
Reply Report violation
#1421483
Posted by BH at 6/28/07 10:31 p.m. in reply to: #1420018
The Supreme Court is drawn to ST’s imperatives, and ST milks it.
Reply Report violation
#1422793
Posted by BH at 7/2/07 7:03 a.m. in reply to: #1421483
Sound Transit wants to be sued over tax matters. It likes what happens in court then.
---------------------
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 12/12/06 10:57 a.m. in reply to: #1308596
Is your entire life this hypothetical and theoretical, BH?
You are so sure of yourself (obsessed more like) yet you can't seem to ever grasp anything real...like a "lawsuit"
---------------------
---------------------
at 1/9/07 7:52 a.m. in reply to: #1333308
If you think you have an issue, then file a lawsuit – but I think it is pretty clear by your repeated refusal to even consider filing a lawsuit that you know you don’t have a case and are just blowing smoke.
Go ahead, file a lawsuite -- I double dog dare you. We are all waiting.
--------------------
----------------------
at 1/10/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1333815
you consistently refuse to sue ST – you know you would lose and lose badly.
But go ahead, sue ST. I double dog dare you.
-----------------------
------------------------
at 1/12/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1335201
But I see you continue to refuse to step up to the plate and sue ST -- it proves my point that you know you have no basis to your arguements.
------------------------
----------------------
at 2/14/07 11:49 a.m. in reply to: #1359442
it is time for you to put your money where your mouth is and sue. Why won't you do this?
----------------------
-----------------------
at 2/19/07 10:03 a.m. in reply to: #1361418
And where is that lawsuit of yours anyhow? How come you won’t step up to the plate and sue ST?
----------------------
----------------------
at 2/19/07 7:37 p.m. in reply to: #1361620
The courts have already said ST does not need to change, but if you think you can force them to, then there is only one course available – you must sue ST. Your failure to do so is a tacit admission that even you know you don’t have a case.
But prove us all wrong – sue ST.
----------------------
---------------------
at 2/27/07 11:07 a.m. in reply to: #1365353
once again you try to shirk your responsibility to sue.
-----------------------
----------------------
at 2/27/07 8:54 p.m. in reply to: #1365485
If you believe you have a real case, then there is only one course of action – you must sue. However, this you consistently refuse to even consider. Are you afraid to sue because you know you will lose?
------------------------
--------------------------
at 3/8/07 7:57 a.m. in reply to: #1370034
But go ahead, make my day, sue ST.
---------------------------
---------------------------
at 3/28/07 3:27 p.m. in reply to: #1378712
If you don't like this approach, then you will need to file a suite against ST (and win), but we all know you won't do that, and we all know why too.
--------------------------
Reply Report violation
#1427070
Posted by BH at 7/9/07 8:30 a.m. in reply to: #1422793
Past results can determine future performance. See, seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/322747_ju
dges08.html, and comments thereto.
Reply Report violation
#1431008
Posted by BH at 7/16/07 8:02 a.m. in reply to: #1427070
The Justices are being threatened now. ST’s backers are demanding ST get special dispensation. If the Justices don’t play ball, things will get awfully sticky for the incumbents when they run in ’08, ’10 and ’12.
Reply Report violation
#1431549
Posted by BH at 7/16/07 8:26 p.m. in reply to: #1431008
The politicians on the Supreme Court can’t like being used by Sound Transit’s beneficiaries. They are way too tolerant of it though.
Reply Report violation
#1435143
Posted by BH at 7/23/07 8:16 a.m. in reply to: #1431549
The arms of ST’s supporters are reaching into the Temple of Justice again.
Reply Report violation
#1439731
Posted by BH at 7/30/07 8:59 a.m. in reply to: #1435143
ST’s supporters are using the Laws 2007, Ch. 509 proceeding(s) to offer a choice: massive PAC independent expenditures for, or against, the incumbent candidates at upcoming elections.
Reply Report violation
#1446021
Posted by BH at 8/6/07 8:33 a.m. in reply to: #1439731
Should the justices wish to convey to the public an appearance of integrity, they’d dismiss without comment any Laws 2007, Ch. 509 claims.
Reply Report violation
#1456694
Posted by BH at 8/20/07 8:13 a.m. in reply to: #1446021
Any word on how the Laws 2007, Ch. 509 proceeding(s) are playing out in the Supreme Court? Maybe the justices are still negotiating compensation terms.
Reply Report violation
#1466341
Posted by BH at 9/1/07 7:30 a.m. in reply to: #1456694
The legislature enacted some new law for Sound Transit last session: Laws 2007, Ch. 509. Section five of that enactment purports to trump myriad rules of civil and appellate procedure, allowing thereby ST to beseech the Supreme Court for all manner of special dispensation.
Any word on what the justices did this time around?
At this point, ST is making no bones about how it has the justices by the short and curlies.
Reply Report violation
#1476984
Posted by BH at 9/16/07 8:13 a.m. in reply to: #1466341
Any word on how those Laws 2007, Ch. 509 proceedings Sound Transit got the legislature to give it are playing out in the Supreme Court?
Maybe the justices are still having their campaign managers work out the details with ST's friends who'll be funding PAC's at the next couple of election cycles.
Reply Report violation
#1485065
Posted by BH at 9/26/07 2:15 p.m. in reply to: #1476984
ST is on its way back to the friendly confines of the Temple of Justice:
seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/33
2073_transpo18.html.
Some posts in the comment thread there, starting at 9:12 am, explain why RTID/ST2 indeed is unconstitutional under the single-subject rule.
Reply Report violation
#1496878
Posted by BH at 10/11/07 9:05 a.m. in reply to: #1485065
Remember, the Supreme Court just told us that it is kosher for the entities backing RTID/ST2 to lie about how much that measure would cost, and what would be done with the money.
Reply Report violation
#1501336
Posted by BH at 10/16/07 8:59 p.m. in reply to: #1496878
One of Sound Transit’s big problems now is all the new appointees on the board. There's been a big turnover recently. The newbies may not have a clue about what’s going on. Gosh only knows if they’ve been getting good advice.
Here’s some unsolicited advice to the Sound Transit Finance Committee members who are meeting day after tomorrow: do not mindlessly rubberstamp the bond sale paperwork staff will be waving in front of you.
Here is what the Sound Transit Finance Committee members need to ask ST staff, and have the answer reflected on the record: “Show us in writing how ST could have subarea bonding capacity left now, in light of how ST already sold $325 million in debt in 1999 - and then $423 million more debt in 2005 - and ST’s bond sale cap is only $1.051 billion.”
If a very satisfactory response from staff to that is not on the record, no way should the appointees on the Finance Committee approve the motions relating to bond sales it looks like staff intends to presented to them day after tomorrow.
Reply Report violation
#1501354
Posted by BH at 10/16/07 9:54 p.m. in reply to: #1501336
From what is posted on ST’s website, it looks like the drafts of the two bond sale documents the ST Finance Committee members will be asked to approve on Thursday will have blanks where dollar amounts should be.
No way should the Finance Committee approve incomplete documents like that.
It is incumbent upon the ST Finance Committee members to verify the bonding caps in Sound Move would not be exceeded by any future ST bond sales. Accordingly, they’d need to verify small enough dollar amounts are shown on all bond sale documents before allowing them to pass to the board.
Anyone disagree?
Reply Report violation
#1502068
Posted by BH at 10/18/07 9:05 a.m. in reply to: #1501354
Last edited at 10/18/07 9:09 a.m.
There’s been a lot of turmoil at Sound Transit over the past year. Some board members have resigned, the long-time CFO now is gone, and the focus has been on putting out something for the upcoming ballot measure.
ST’s website doesn’t show who the current Finance Committee members are. About six months ago it was these seven:
Fred Butler, Chair
Richard McIver, Vice Chair
Mary-Alyce Burleigh
Dow Constantine
Dave Enslow
Richard Marin
Pete von Reichbauer
These particular folks have had a lot going on in their lives, outside of Sound Transit. It isn’t clear how up on the issues any of them are with regard to what will be happening at their meeting today. Some of them are in the midst of running for re-election, and the Vice-Chair has been otherwise occupied.
There is a slew of motions and resolutions ST’s staff will insist these folks rubberstamp at the meeting today. Included in that pile of paperwork are three resolutions saying this:
Reso2007 No Staff Report Authorizing the issuance of sales tax bonds of the Authority in the principal amount of not to exceed $[_____] to finance a portion of the Authority’s regional transit system plan; fixing certain provisions and covenants of the bonds, including provisions safeguarding the payment of the principal thereof and interest thereon; and authorizing and directing the sale of such bonds.
soundtransit.org/x4914.xml
Before recklessly rubberstamping anything remotely like that, the Sound Transit Finance Committee members are required to think about taxpayers, and their rights.
Sound Move limits how much bonding proceeds can be spent in each subarea. The aggregate of those five caps is $1.051 billion (1995$). See, Sound Move Appendix A. Most of that amount already has been allocated (via the 1999 and 2005 bond sales).
The Finance Committee members need to understand they have fiduciary responsibilities that they owe to taxpayers. I know, they don’t like thinking about that, and no lawyers hired by Sound Transit are advising them of that. That is the problem.
Before any new bond sale resolutions can be properly approved by the Finance Committee members THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS NEED TO BE FILLED IN.
Here are some of the data the Finance Committee members would need to have, from staff, before they could have a rational basis to approve any new bond sale resolutions like those staff are going to shove under their noses today: how much bonding capacity remains in each of the five subareas, the amount of new bond debt ST would incur if the contemplated bond sale goes forward, and which subareas would get those bond proceeds.
The Finance Committee members at this point simply do not have the information they need. These blank-check proposed bond sale resolutions are entirely improper, and should not be approved at the meeting today.
There is no good reason to rush this particular decision. They should wait a couple of weeks and see if the voters give them unlimited billions of new taxing authority.
Reply Report violation
#1502393
Posted by BH at 10/18/07 10:24 p.m. in reply to: #1502068
-------------------------
-------------------------
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 9/7/07 12:13 a.m. in reply to: #1470078
Today, my legal eagle friend tells me BH's White Knight lost - yet again - at the State Supreme Court, despite a last minute intervention from Kemper goon ex-Senator Jim Horn (cue tiny violin).
seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/view
topic.asp?topicID=107925&page=25
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Ask your legal eagle friend this: who are the lawyers advising the ST board members (and its Finance Committee members) about how they are limited by Sound Move with regards to the amount of bonds ST has the legal right to sell.
From what little the public is told, ST is not getting any advice from any lawyers that would further the peoples’ interest in not being taxed excessively. Bond sales heighten the risk of excessive taxing, big time, because Sound Move limits how much bond sale authority ST has.
So who are the lawyers informing Sound Transit’s staff and board about how the bond sales authority of that government was limited by Sound Move?
Nothing on ST’s website suggests good advice about that critical issue ever has been presented to ST’s board.
Big problem, no? We don’t want Sound Transit selling excessive amounts of bonds, do we?
Reply Report violation
#1502526
Posted by BH at 10/19/07 8:29 a.m. in reply to: #1502393
Any Sound Transit supporters out there?
...
Let's discuss how much bond sale authority ST might have remaining under Sound Move.
ST is making noises now like it wants to sell more bonds. If ST2 is approved, it could do that.
Who thinks ST would have the right to sell any more long term bonds if ST2 is not approved? That would be a good thing to discuss.
Reply Report violation
#1502933
Posted by BH at 10/20/07 8:18 a.m. in reply to: #1502526
Hey, Sound Transit supporters – don’t shy away just because our discussion has moved to this new proposed bond sale.
Crawl out from behind the baseboards. Let’s gab. Bonding caps are an excellent thing to discuss.
Let’s first identify the areas where we agree:
- Sound Move (the local enabling legislation approved by the voters in 1996) limits how much revenue raised from bond sales ST can use in the five subareas during the Phase I construction period. In particular, Sound Move says that ST only can spend $1,052 million of that type of revenue.
- If the measure in November is approved, then ST can sell as much new long term bonds as it wants. ST would sell billions and billions of new bonds over the next twenty years, plunging the families of this region into massive indebtedness for the next five decades.
You Sound Transit supporters agree with those two propositions, correct? If we are going to have a meaty discussion about this, we need to make sure we all are reading off the same page of sheet music.
Does anyone want to try arguing that ST would have authority to sell any more bonds if the measure in November is not approved? That would be an interesting read.
Reply Report violation
#1503230
Posted by BH at 10/21/07 8:06 a.m. in reply to: #1502933
I e-mailed the Finance Committee members to find out what additional amount of long term bonds they thought ST could sell, in light of the Sound Move bonding caps.
I’ll let you know when I hear something back.
Reply Report violation
#1504469
Posted by BH at 10/22/07 9:58 a.m. in reply to: #1503230
Last edited at 10/22/07 10:01 a.m.
I can’t tell whether or not the Finance Committee approved the proposed bond sale resolutions ST staff asked them to rubberstamp at the meeting last week.
If they did, then these folks have been completely derelict in their duty to ensure the rights of taxpayers are being protected:
Fred Butler, Chair
Richard McIver, Vice Chair
Mary-Alyce Burleigh
Dow Constantine
Dave Enslow
Richard Marin
Pete von Reichbauer
If the proposed bond sale resolutions were approved by those political appointees, then they completely disregarded some legal limits in the local enabling legislation that the voters imposed on ST in 1996. The above individuals (or their replacements, if some new appointees were shuffled onto the Finance Committee recently) are deemed to have knowledge of all the terms in ST’s enabling legislation, including the terms that limit the amount of bonds ST has authority to sell.
The limits on ST’s bonding authority imposed by voters in 1996 are located in several places in the controlling ordinance:
-- Sound Move’s Appendix B. The following terms mandate ST maintain spending budgets for each of the five subareas: The RTA Financing Plan will provide a budget for each of the five RTA subareas, comprised of the subarea’s projected share of local taxes, bonding capacity and farebox proceeds, and an assumption for federal funding, and related expenditures.,
-- Sound Move's Appendix A. This contains the voter-approved amounts of taxes and bond proceeds that may be spent during the construction period in each of those five subareas. For example, in the North King subarea, ST only is authorized to spend $581 million in taxes (1995$) and $503 million in bond proceeds (1995$) during the construction period, and it already has spent up to those limits, and
-- Resolution 75 (which requires ST to scale back construction plans in the event the funds available in those subarea budgets would be insufficient to cover expected construction costs).
Also relevant are the tax rate rollback provisions referenced several times in the local enabling legislation. Those would be contrary to the tax pledges in the proposed bond sale resolutions.
If the Finance Committee members approved the draft bond sales resolutions ST staff shoved under their noses last week, then those appointees acted in reckless disregard of taxpayer protection provisions that now are part of the controlling law.
How about it Sound Tansit supporters, want to discuss this yet?
Reply Report violation
#1506840
Posted by BH at 10/27/07 8:54 a.m. in reply to: #1504469
Anyone think Sound Transit is being honest with the public? Post a link to information from Sound Transit showing how it has allocated its $778 million in bond sale revenue among the five subareas.
That is some of the information the public needs to determine whether or not ST is complying with spending limits spelled out in the law.
I know, ST is convinced the law doesn’t apply to it. But that really shouldn’t matter.
Reply Report violation
#1507183
Posted by BH at 10/28/07 9:17 a.m. in reply to: #1506840
This thread has been going a year and a half. Posting #1 is a request for some information about Sound Transit’s taxing plans, given what Sound Move says. In that time nobody’s tried to address those issues using information from ST.
Does ST disclose information about its taxing and bonding practices, and how those may be impacted by what Resolution 75 says? No, it does not.
Hey ST – you should register on the P-I’s forums, and discuss your position w/r/t certain key financing issues. Registration’s free! Don’t you think the public deserves some answers about your taxing plans and practices in light of what the voter-approved ordinance says?
Reply Report violation
#1507698
Posted by BH at 10/29/07 1:29 p.m. in reply to: #1507183
An agenda item for ST’s Finance Committee meeting this Thursday (November 1) is a vote on three new bond sale resolutions. Anyone think ST might have any bonding capacity remaining under Sound Move? I don’t.
Sound Move limits how much bond sale proceeds can be spent in each subarea during the Phase I construction period. The aggregate of ST’s bonding capacity in the five subareas is $1.052 billion (1995$). See, Sound Move Appendix A. Most of the bonding capacity already has been allocated (via the 1999 and 2005 bond sales).
I asked the Finance Committee members about this, but they are not responding:
Fred Butler, Chair
Richard McIver, Vice Chair
Mary-Alyce Burleigh
Dow Constantine
Dave Enslow
Richard Marin
Pete von Reichbauer
If ST2 is approved, ST could sell more bonds. But if the measure is not approved, ST could not. Anyone think ST would have the right to sell any more long term bonds if ST2 is not approved?
If the RTID/ST2 ballot measure is not approved next week, ST would be required by terms in Sound Move to pay off the outstanding bonds, on an accelerated basis – not sell a new pile of debt.
The Finance Committee members need to understand they owe fiduciary responsibilities to taxpayers. They don’t like thinking about that, and no lawyers hired by Sound Transit are advising them about their responsibilities in that area. That is a problem.
The political appointees on the Finance Committee identified above should not rubberstamp these bond sale resolutions staff will be shoving under their noses on Thursday. It is their responsibility to ensure bond proceeds spending caps in Sound Move are not be exceeded.
Here is some of the information the Finance Committee members would need to have from staff before they would have a rational basis to approve the sale of any more long-term debt: how much bonding capacity remains in each of the five subareas, the amount of new bond debt that could be sold pursuant to the proposed resolutions, and how the proceeds would be allocated among the subareas. From what the public is told, the Finance Committee members will not have that critical information before they are asked to approve the new bond sale resolutions this Thursday.
Reply Report violation
#1508103
Posted by BH at 10/30/07 8:30 a.m. in reply to: #1507698
Anyone think Sound Transit is acting responsibly with respect to its taxing rights and bond sale authority? The fine folks supporting this RTID/ST2 proposition should show us that ST is acting with due regard to the rights of taxpayers.
Below are some terms set out in the local law the voters approved in 1996. They require ST to establish an “RTA Financing Plan.”
The voter-approved amounts of “local taxes” and “bonding capacity” for each subarea that make up the upper limits of that financing plan are set out in Appendix A of Sound Move. Those amounts of those two revenue sources, and no more, are what ST was authorized by voters to spend during the construction period.
So, all you ST supporters, where’s the link to this “RTA Financing Plan?” I can’t find any ST documents showing how much local tax revenue spending capacity and bond sale revenue spending capacity remains of the amounts voters approved.
The “RTA Finance Plan” is supposed to exist, and it is supposed to show the extent of any remaining spending capacity of those revenue sources during the construction period. So, where is it?
---
---
Sound Move’s Appendix B states, in part: The RTA Financing Plan will provide a budget for each of the five RTA subareas, comprised of the subarea’s projected share of local taxes, bonding capacity and farebox proceeds, and an assumption for federal funding, and related expenditures.
Reply Report violation
#1508568
Posted by BH at 10/31/07 8:16 a.m. in reply to: #1508103
On the agenda tomorrow for the ST Finance Committee are some proposed bond sale resolutions. Those have blanks where dollar amounts should be.
No way should the ST Finance Committee approve those. The voters in 1996 only approved ST spending a total of $1.052 billion in bond sale proceeds during the Phase I construction period. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, any substantial deviation from terms approved by voters would exceed a local government’s lawful authority.
And no, the “Sane Transit” case opinion did not eliminate the bonding capacity limits spelled out in Sound Move.
What ST staff will do is try to get the Finance Committee members to sign off on those proposed resolutions tomorrow. The accompanying staff report does not provide the committee members the information they would need to ascertain those contemplated debt sales would be legal. Additional information the committee members would need includes how much bonding capacity remains in each subarea, and how the new bond sale revenue would be allocated among the subareas.
Hey committee members – ignorance of the law is no excuse. You are charged with knowing the bonding capacity limits spelled out in Sound Move Appendix A, whether or not staff is discussing those with you now.
Near as I can tell, the rubberstamping monkeys on that committee never have considered the rights of taxpayers. They don’t have to – Sound Transit was set up so that the political appointees on its board would be completely unaccountable to the individuals and families they tax (except by lawsuits, and ST now is convinced it is above the law).
Reply Report violation
#1513640
Posted by BH at 11/8/07 8:39 a.m. in reply to: #1508568
Sound Transit wants to be sued over tax matters. That gets it before the Supreme Court justices, and they lie about what taxpayers claim to ensure ST wins.
---------------------
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 12/12/06 10:57 a.m. in reply to: #1308596
Is your entire life this hypothetical and theoretical, BH?
You are so sure of yourself (obsessed more like) yet you can't seem to ever grasp anything real...like a "lawsuit"
---------------------
---------------------
at 1/9/07 7:52 a.m. in reply to: #1333308
If you think you have an issue, then file a lawsuit – but I think it is pretty clear by your repeated refusal to even consider filing a lawsuit that you know you don’t have a case and are just blowing smoke.
Go ahead, file a lawsuite -- I double dog dare you. We are all waiting.
--------------------
----------------------
at 1/10/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1333815
you consistently refuse to sue ST – you know you would lose and lose badly.
But go ahead, sue ST. I double dog dare you.
-----------------------
------------------------
at 1/12/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1335201
But I see you continue to refuse to step up to the plate and sue ST -- it proves my point that you know you have no basis to your arguements.
------------------------
----------------------
at 2/14/07 11:49 a.m. in reply to: #1359442
it is time for you to put your money where your mouth is and sue. Why won't you do this?
----------------------
-----------------------
at 2/19/07 10:03 a.m. in reply to: #1361418
And where is that lawsuit of yours anyhow? How come you won’t step up to the plate and sue ST?
----------------------
----------------------
at 2/19/07 7:37 p.m. in reply to: #1361620
The courts have already said ST does not need to change, but if you think you can force them to, then there is only one course available – you must sue ST. Your failure to do so is a tacit admission that even you know you don’t have a case.
But prove us all wrong – sue ST.
----------------------
---------------------
at 2/27/07 11:07 a.m. in reply to: #1365353
once again you try to shirk your responsibility to sue.
-----------------------
----------------------
at 2/27/07 8:54 p.m. in reply to: #1365485
If you believe you have a real case, then there is only one course of action – you must sue. However, this you consistently refuse to even consider. Are you afraid to sue because you know you will lose?
------------------------
--------------------------
at 3/8/07 7:57 a.m. in reply to: #1370034
But go ahead, make my day, sue ST.
---------------------------
---------------------------
at 3/28/07 3:27 p.m. in reply to: #1378712
If you don't like this approach, then you will need to file a suite against ST (and win), but we all know you won't do that, and we all know why too.
--------------------------
Reply Report violation
#1513642
Posted by BH at 11/8/07 8:43 a.m. in reply to: #1513640
ST intends to sell over one-half billion dollars worth of new long-term bonds in a couple of weeks:
soundtransit.org/x4936.xml
Some of those are interest-only for a couple of years, just like the monorail authority wanted to do.
ST’s plans relating to its future tax collections would violate taxpayers’ rights, under the local enabling legislation and the common law. That is because ST’s bond sale contract terms call for the collection of excessive amounts of taxes.
How to account for Sound Transit taking actions at this point that would violate the rights of taxpayers? ST’s advisors are convinced the Supreme Court justices again will be incapable of adjudicating fairly when it is a “ST vs. taxpayers” lawsuit. They believe the justices again will lie about the claims to ensure victory for Sound Transit. They expect to end up before politicos on that bench who’ll use their power to pervert the judicial system.
Reply Report violation
#1518658
Posted by BH at 11/16/07 2:57 p.m. in reply to: #1513642
Anybody want to try arguing that ST would have the right to confiscate as much sales tax as the new 2007 bond sale contracts call for it to haul in?
Resolution 75/Sound Move requires ST to roll back the sales tax rate now: If voters decide not to extend the system, the RTA will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off the bonds and operate and maintain the investment made as part of Sound Move. Guess what – voters decided not to extend the system. Now ST must roll the sales tax rate back.
Those are provisions in the local enabling legislation. Due to those terms (and others) in the law, ST could not comply with the taxing covenant security pledges in the new bond sales contracts. Simply promising bondholders it will keep the sales tax rate at the current high level for three more decades won’t expand the taxing rights the voters gave it in 1996.
But if someone thinks otherwise, feel free to chime in.
Reply Report violation
#1518862
Posted by BH at 11/17/07 7:41 a.m. in reply to: #1518658
Last edited at 11/17/07 7:47 a.m.
Prop. 1 failed. That means ST must pay off its outstanding bonds on an accelerated basis now, and drop the sales tax rate ASAP. The excerpt from the controlling law copied in the post immediately above describes this requirement.
Is Sound Transit taking any of the appropriate steps now to follow the law? Uh, no.
ST instead is taking steps to sell another huge steaming pile of bonds.
ST is failing to take the required steps to pay off the existing pile of debt, as the law the voters in 1996 approved requires. Another way it is thumbing its nose at that ordinance is how ST is basing future tax collection plans on keeping the tax rates at their current high levels far too long (the new bond sale resolutions evidence that plan).
ST is taking acts, and it is failing to act, in ways that will violate taxpayers' rights.
I’d suggest citizens call their representatives on ST’s board, except they don’t have any of those. ST’s board is made up entirely of political appointees.
What is the thinking in the ST silo? Do they think everybody will ignore what Sound Move and Res. 75 say? The terms the voters approved in 1996 state in so many words that ST must pay off the outstanding debt at this time, and roll back the sales tax rate.
No way does ST have the authority to pledge the amount of tax collections to bondholders those new bond sale contracts call for.
Selling another half-billion dollars of bonds secured by pledges to collect taxes pursuant to some non-existent taxing authority really wouldn’t be a good idea right now.
Three wrongs don’t make a right. Just because ST pledged to collect excessive amounts of tax in the 1999 and the 2005 bond sales contracts doesn’t mean it should rush out now, right after being handed its hat by voters, and make exactly the same mistake a third time.
It would be great if someone from the bond counsel law firm for ST (Foster Pepper?) starts engaging in a dialog regarding this subject. Think we might be able to arrange that? What could be the downside to ST of a little open public discourse here about ST’s upcoming financing plans?
We could discuss issues like how the sales tax rollback terms in the controlling ordinance must become operative now. That is an issue a knowledgeable representative of ST should address now, before another half-billion dollars of new long-term debt securities secured by sales taxes are sold.
Reply Report violation
#1519155
Posted by BH at 11/18/07 8:58 a.m. in reply to: #1518862
Judy Runstad is at Foster Pepper. She wrote a guest column last month urging voters to approve Prop. 1. The voters heard her out, and decided her views lacked merit.
Her law firm would make tens of millions if Sound Transit issues this new pile of bonds it wants to sell in a couple of weeks.
She should explain something. What on earth makes her and her partners think ST would have the right to covenant to collect the sales tax at the current rate for another three decades in light of the fact that Sound Move says that tax rate must be reduced now?
Here’s a guest column from Mike Vaska (Foster Pepper) and Slade Gorton (K&L Gates); they hold forth about how great it was that the legislature joined the RTID proposition to the ST2 proposition for a single ballot measure:
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2
002908374_slade04.html
Anyone think they should address some questions about why ST is ignoring the terms in Sound Move requiring the immediate payoff of all outstanding debt and reduction of the sales tax rate?
Reply Report violation
#1524104
Posted by BH at 11/26/07 8:27 a.m. in reply to: #1519155
I’d be interested in what State Treasurer Mike Murphy has to say about Sound Transit’s plans to sell another half-billion dollars in long-term debt now, given what the tax covenants in those bond sale contracts would say.
In particular, Treasurer Murphy should explain to the citizens of Washington how he thinks ST could comply both with 1) the provisions of Sound Move requiring it to reduce the sales tax rate in the wake of Prop. 1’s failure, and 2) the provisions of the bond sale contract tax covenants that purport to require ST to collect the sales tax at the current rate for decades into the future.
That is a glaring incongruity. Treasurer Murphy is just the guy to try to sort it all out for us.
I’m not sure who the lawyers on both sides of this proposed bond sale would be. Maybe Foster Pepper as issuer’s counsel and K&L Gates as counsel for the underwriting group. The two firms should make sure the Offering Statement they sign discloses the taxpayers’ claims that the local enabling legislation precludes ST from complying with the tax covenants.
Reply Report violation
#1525498
Posted by BH at 11/28/07 8:03 a.m. in reply to: #1524104
Are the ST flacks even capable of telling the truth? This is from their accommodating media outlet today:
[Sound Transit spokesman Geoff] Patrick said he expected the board to begin discussions soon on what to do in the wake of Proposition 1's failure at the polls.
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews
/2004039454_railroad28m.html
Begin discussions soon? ST already is taking major actions because ST2 went down in flames. Tomorrow the ST board is set to approve a huge resolution. It is a formal action that flips the bird at every taxpayer in the Puget Sound region and flouts the law.
Terms in the local enabling legislation (Sound Move) require ST to pay off all its outstanding debt and roll back the sales tax rate now. Those terms notwithstanding, the board of ST tomorrow will approve the sale of half a billion dollars of new long term bonds. The bond sale documents will purport to require ST to maintain the sales tax rate at the current level, despite what the ordinance the voters in 1996 approved says. ST also will be amending its 2007 and 2008 budgets to “account” for this new bond sale.
That is how ST operates: the law says one thing, ST’s flacks say ST is doing nothing, and the board acts directly against citizens’ legal interests.
A description of this board resolution is on ST’s website:
Reso2007-27 No Staff Report Providing for the sale and issuance of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority sales tax bonds, Series 2007A, Series 2007B and Series 2007C; specifying the amount, maturities, interest rates or provision therefore and other terms of the bonds; providing for conditions and convenants relating to bond insurance; ratifying, confirming and approving the purchase contract for certain of the bonds and actions of the chief financial officer relating to the sale of the bonds; and amending the Adopted 2007 Budget and the Proposed 2008 Budget in connection therewith
www.soundtransit.org/x6543.xml
Reply Report violation
#1526304
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 11/29/07 5:36 p.m. in reply to: #1524104
I’d be interested in what State Treasurer Mike Murphy has to say about Sound Transit’s plans to sell another half-billion dollars in long-term debt now, given what the tax covenants in those bond sale contracts would say.
Maybe he would say it's part of funding Sound Move programs and services, BH? Since it is....
Reply Report violation
#1526307
Posted by Wootch at 11/29/07 5:42 p.m. in reply to: #1526304
ST has every legal right to issue more bonds -- it's not really an issue, and it is voter approved. I fail to see the issue here...
Reply Report violation
#1526356
Posted by BH at 11/29/07 7:01 p.m. in reply to: #1526307
Let’s see if we can have a discussion about this topic of extreme public importance. Are you the designated hitter?
I’ll start, you follow up with your arguments against the following claims.
There are legal limits in the local enabling legislation the voters approved in 1996 that cap the amounts of tax revenue and bond sale revenue Sound Transit is authorized to spend in each subarea during the system plan build out period.
These construction period spending limits are enforceable by taxpayers. The amounts of those limits are set out in Appendix A of Sound Move (they are expressed in 1995$).
ST is required to set and maintain a particular kind of spending budget during the construction period for each subarea. In Sound Move’s Appendix B, the following terms describe how those ongoing budgets are to be adjusted based on actual tax receipts, grant projections, and costs as the construction proceeds:
The RTA Financing Plan will provide a budget for each of the five RTA subareas, comprised of the subarea’s projected share of local taxes, bonding capacity and farebox proceeds, and an assumption for federal funding, and related expenditures.
ST has failed completely to budget in that manner, as the controlling law requires. Given what ST does disclose about its spending plans and practices, it is impossible for anyone to determine whether ST now is in compliance with those spending budget requirements.
Because ST2 was not approved, ST now is obligated to pay off the outstanding debt on an accelerated basis. It must roll back the tax rate immediately. These also are legal obligations taxpayers can enforce as against ST:
Should voter approval for a future phase capital program not be forthcoming, the RTA Board will initiate two steps to roll back the rate of sales tax collected by the RTA.
a. First, the RTA will first [sic] initiate an accelerated pay off schedule for any outstanding bonds. Second, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay the accelerated schedule for debt service on outstanding bonds, system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency cost.
b. Once all debt is retired, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay for system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement and agency administration.
Those limits on ST's authority are in the controlling law. ST has not disclosed these legal limits in the context of its annual operating budgets or in its bond sale and debt securities compliance filings.
The security terms in the proposed 2007-series debt sale would violate taxpayers’ rights, because of the terms of the law copied above (among others). For example, ST does not have the legal authority to keep collecting the sales tax at the .4% rate as the tax covenants in the bond sales contracts purport to require.
Moreover, ST faces an affirmative legal obligation to pay off all the outstanding debt now, and drop the sales tax rate. Again, those legal obligations are directly contrary to what the bond sale documents supposedly would require of ST as far as future tax collections go.
Washington State Treasurer Murphy should be putting the kibosh on this proposed bond sale if for no other reason than to keep Sound Transit from violating federal securities laws. Those tax covenants in the new bond sales contracts would amount to material misstatements to the investing public about ST’s extant taxing authority. The SEC would deem them fraudulent (given what the terms in Sound Move copied above say).
We’ll start with that. What say you?
Reply Report violation
#1526542
Posted by BH at 11/30/07 8:05 a.m. in reply to: #1526356
Why are you ignoring these important issues?
The law the voters approved in 1996 requires ST to pay off the outstanding bonds now, and roll back the sales tax rate. The terms in Sound Move requiring those actions are in the post above.
We have the right to a reduced ST sales tax now. Let’s discuss why Sound Transit is choosing to ignore what the law requires of it in this respect.
Reply Report violation
#1526658
Posted by Wootch at 11/30/07 12:01 p.m. in reply to: #1526542
ST is not required to reduce the tax rate until after they have built all the projects they promised us they would build. This has not happened yet.
Additionaly, the vote on ST2 has not been held yet.
Reply Report violation
#1526673
Posted by BH at 11/30/07 12:46 p.m. in reply to: #1526658
Thank you for your remarks.
If I were to characterize them, I’d say they were very brief, and entirely conclusory. Let’s see if we can’t flesh them out a bit, just so everybody can try to understand what you are basing these statements on.
ST is not required to reduce the tax rate until after they have built all the projects they promised us they would build. This has not happened yet.
What terms in Sound Move are you referring to? Sound Move is the controlling law. For starters, it does not promise that any particular “projects” would be built.
It strikes me that you are not giving any credence to the terms in Sound Move that limit the amount of tax ST can spend during the construction period in the five subareas ($1.98 billion, in 1995$). Do you deny spending budget terms are present in Res. 75/Sound Move? If so, what significance do you think the subarea budgeting terms in Appendix A and Appendix B have on ST’s operations (some of the key budgeting terms from Appendix B are copied above in this thread)?
The way those subarea budget terms are supposed to work is that once ST has collected and allocated those amounts among the five subareas, and once the voters fail to approve a “future phase capital program” (as they did earlier this month), ST is required to pay off the outstanding debt and lower the sales tax rate. That is what Sound Move says. There is no exception in Sound Move in the event "some of the projects are not done," or anything like that as you seem to believe.
What you posted suggests you are not taking those terms in the law into account. Is there a reason for that? Have you even got a copy of Sound Move you can refer to? The text on Sound Transit’s website labeled “Sound Move” is only a small part of the actual legal terms.
Additionaly, the vote on ST2 has not been held yet.
There does not need to be a “vote on ST2” to trigger the bond payoff acceleration terms and the tax rollback terms from Sound Move copied above. What is required to trigger those mandatory obligations on the part of ST is “voter approval for a future phase capital program not be[ing] forthcoming.” That happened, earlier this month.
Again, thanks for responding. If you could, please read what I’ve written very carefully, and try to respond. It is not clear what you are basing your claims on.
Reply Report violation
#1527002
Posted by BH at 12/1/07 9:05 a.m. in reply to: #1526673
Last edited at 12/1/07 9:08 a.m.
Look, I don’t want to discourage you from continuing with our discussion. I'm trying to offer constructive criticism.
What you posted suggests you don’t understand some basic things about what the controlling law says.
The law the voters approved in 1996 does not require Sound Transit to build any particular “projects.” What the voters approved was a spending budget for five subareas, and the voters gave ST’s board complete discretion with respect to how to spend those available revenues. For example, it would have been within the rights of ST board’s to not build any light rail whatsoever.
Nothing in Res. 75/Sound Move is a promise by ST to build certain projects. You are just mistaken about that.
Here are some of the terms in Res. 75/Sound Move that show how the voters approved a “system plan” with a spending budget:
The system plan will be paid for with a combination of voter approved local taxes [$1.98B], federal grants [$727M], farebox revenues and interest revenues [$155M], and borrowed funds (bonds) [$1.052B] (see Table 2);
and
The RTA Financing Plan will provide a budget for each of the five RTA subareas, comprised of the subarea’s projected share of local taxes, bonding capacity and farebox proceeds, and an assumption for federal funding, and related expenditures.
Once ST has allocated that $1.98 billion to the five subareas, it can’t spend any more construction-period tax revenue. That’s what the law says.
There are no “projects” that ST must complete before it rolls back the tax rates. Let us know if you disagree.
Reply Report violation
#1528561
Posted by BH at 12/3/07 7:55 a.m. in reply to: #1527002
Are my questions too direct for you? I don’t want to assume anything here, but it seems from what you posted you may not even have read the local law the voters approved in 1996.
You are disappointing the P-I’s online readers. You step up, and act for all the world like you are willing and able to argue ST’s taxing plans are legal. Then, poof - off into the ether as soon as the first question comes your way.
Reply Report violation
#1529311
Posted by BH at 12/4/07 8:26 a.m. in reply to: #1528561
Let’s keep discussing the legality of ST’s financing plans. Most ST supporters are not so brave.
Here, I’ll give you a couple of questions. You try answering them. We’ll take it from there.
The controlling law imposes only two conditions precedent to Sound Transit’s obligation to roll back the sales tax rate. Each of those conditions already has been met:
1) Sound Move says: Should voter approval for a future phase capital program not be forthcoming, the RTA Board will initiate two steps to roll back the rate of sales tax collected by the RTA. Do you agree that at the 11/06/07 election on Prop. 1 “voter approval for a future phase capital program [was not] forthcoming”?
2) In Sound Move (see Appendix A) the voters approved ST spending up to $1.98 billion in local tax revenues during the construction period in the five subareas. ST has collected close to $3 billion in taxes since 1997. Do you agree that ST already has collected enough local taxes to cover the $1.98 billion spending amount the voters authorized?
If your answers to those questions are “yes,” then ST is obligated at this time to accelerate the payoff of all outstanding debt, and roll back the sales tax rate immediately. There is no other plausible reading of the law the voters approved in 1996. Taxpayers now are due for the break the voter-approved measure calls for.
It would be great if you would continue discussing this issue.
Reply Report violation
#1530083
Posted by BH at 12/5/07 8:27 a.m. in reply to: #1529311
ST has every legal right to issue more bonds -- it's not really an issue, and it is voter approved. I fail to see the issue here...
You don’t see the issue? I’ll try to open your eyes a little. Stop me if you’ve heard this before.
ST is defrauding the investing public. The disclosures it makes about its purported authority to keep the tax rates at the current high levels are materially false.
When ST sold bonds, it made references in the offering documents to its supposed right to collect the taxes at the current rates while any of the bonds were outstanding. ST never got that much taxing authority from the voters. The voters in 1996 capped how much tax ST could spend. Sound Move sets a dollar-denominated tax revenue spending budget for ST to use during the construction period, and after that period tax revenue only may be used for paying off outstanding debt on an accelerated basis and subsidizing several modest operational expenses. Because of those terms in the voter-approved ordinance, ST must reduce the tax rates long before it told bondholders and the bond market it would.
By putting the misleading statements it did in what are known as the "official statements" and the "continuing disclosure statements," ST committed fraud. Ditto with the misleading statements ST made to the credit rating agencies reviewing its municipal bonds.
ST was authorized to sell some bonds. Problem is, it uses fraud when it does so.
Reply Report violation
#1534996
Posted by BH at 12/13/07 8:34 a.m. in reply to: #1530083
From the Nov. 2 Sound Transit press release:
“The authority (Sound Transit) has a high-quality pledged revenue stream from a very deep and broad economic base that encompasses roughly 40 percent of the state’s population,” said Standard & Poor’s credit analyst Rob Williams.
soundtransit.org/x6632.xml
ST lied to that credit rating agency. ST told S&P (and Moody's) voters approved tax increases. What ST deceptively failed to describe is how Resolution 75 (which incorporates Sound Move) contains mandatory tax rollback procedure terms, bond payoff acceleration requirements, and tax revenue spending budgets applicable to the build-out period. All of those legal limits mean ST currently lacks the authority to collect anywhere near the amount of tax it pledged to bondholders.
The extent of the revenue stream ST represented to S&P it will enjoy is not supported by the law. Moreover, ST knows what it told the credit rating agencies is a lie, as can be seen from the terms in SHB 1396 ST sought and obtained last session, and by the terms in Prop. 1 that would have authorized ST to use the current taxes beyond the limits set out in Sound Move.
Reply Report violation
#1539380
Posted by BH at 12/20/07 9:26 a.m. in reply to: #1534996
Also from that Nov. 2, 2007 Sound Transit press release:
“Two credit upgrades in less than a month is unassailable proof taxpayers can have total confidence in Sound Transit’s financial health," said Sound Transit Board Chair and Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg.
soundtransit.org/x6632.xml
Those upgrades Ladenburg is crowing about are the result of deceptive statements Sound Transit made to the credit rating agencies.
ST failed to disclose to Moody’s and S&P material terms of Resolution 75.
That voter-approved local law has terms requiring ST to accelerate the payoff of the outstanding debt, and roll back the sales tax rate decades before the maturity dates of the bonds. Had ST disclosed those facts, the ratings on the bonds necessarily would have dropped.
Reply Report violation
#1547860
Posted by BH at 1/4/08 10:12 a.m. in reply to: #1539380
Ladenburg had this to say in the October 18, 2007 ST press release:
“This sends another signal that the taxpayers can be confident in Sound Transit's ability to maintain high standards of financial management as we deliver projects and services that help people move around the region."
soundtransit.org/x6503.xml
Tell you what, Ladenburg – post everything Sound Transit sent to the credit rating agencies about Sound Transit’s taxing and spending authority. That certainly would “send a signal” to taxpayers.
What those documents would show taxpayers was that Sound Transit completely failed to inform the credit rating firms about the terms in Resolution 75 requiring ST to accelerate the payoff of outstanding debt in the event a new capital spending proposition is not approved (which is what happened in November). Plus, Sound Transit failed to describe how the voter-approved ordinance prescribes a sales tax reduction process prior to the stated terms of those new bonds. In addition, Ladenburg should show us what he and his staff disclosed to Moody’s and S&P because that would “signal” the taxpayers that ST hid from those credit rating agencies the subarea budgeting provisions limiting ST’s spending authority.
Maybe Ladenburg likes the feeling of deceiving bond investors.
Reply Report violation
#1563356
Posted by BH at 1/22/08 8:26 a.m. in reply to: #1547860
Sound Transit’s press releases are revealing for what they don’t say.
The following is from a new ST press release (here soundtransit.org/x7112.xml). This is a press release trumpeting what the State Auditor’s Office has been putting in some recent audit reports:
--------------
State Auditor’s independent audit of Sound Transit’s accountability gives agency high marks.
January 07, 2008
Today the Washington State Auditor’s Office issued an accountability audit of Sound Transit that gives the agency a clean report on its compliance with a broad array of state laws and regulations regarding handling of public dollars and maintaining public transparency.
--------------
ST’s compliance with “state laws and regulations” is all fine and good. But that isn’t where the taxpayer-protection provisions and spending limits are.
What does that press release not address? The fact that the SAO has stopped auditing whether or not ST is complying with the local law governing it. That local law (Resolution 75/Sound Move) limits ST’s authority to tax, spend tax revenue, sell bonds, and remain a bond issuer. Sonntag and his auditors completely failed to audit ST’s compliance with those voter-approved legal limits.
Why would Sonntag and his audit team fail to examine whether or not ST is in compliance with local laws? After all, Resolution 75 is a crucial local law. It was approved by voters, and it contains numerous provisions that supposedly would prevent ST from imposing excessive taxes, spending too much on any elements of the Phase I system plan, etc.
The reason the SAO does not audit ST’s compliance with Res. 75 is that ST is violating it big-time. ST is not paying off its outstanding debt now, on an accelerated basis, as Res. 75 mandates. ST is not limiting its tax revenue spending in the subareas, as Res. 75 mandates. As the recent SEC filing from ST shows, ST also is planning on confiscating billions more in taxes than the law allows for Phase I.
Sonntag’s auditors are not auditing ST’s compliance with those local laws now. They used to do so as part of their annual accountability audits, as the 2001 accountability audit report shows (as an example). At this time however ST is so far beyond the legal limits the SAO needs to pretend Resolution 75/Sound Move does not exist.
Reply Report violation
#1571530
Posted by BH at 2/4/08 1:08 p.m. in reply to: #1563356
It isn’t just press releases that ST uses to shade the truth. Now that ST is planning a new ballot measure, it is putting out misleading documents relating to ST 2.1. Remember, lies bearing on political campaigns are just protected free speech.
The chart on page 16 of the new 1/31/2008 ST Board Workshop “ST2-Update - Preliminary Corridor Service Concepts” document contains some sales tax spending projections for Phase II. What that chart does not show is how much excess Phase I taxes ST also would have available in the five subareas.
A half-truth is just as deceitful as an outright lie. ST would have billions more to spend if an ST 2.1 measure passes than its new chart shows.
Reply Report violation
#1571533
Posted by BH at 2/4/08 1:12 p.m. in reply to: #1571530
-----------------
-----------------
Posted by diehardTRANSITadvocate at 5/30/06 3:05 p.m. in reply to: #1139020
Also, BH forgets to mention the Subarea Equity Rule, which is meant to ensure that taxes collected in one area cannot be spent in another. Now with taxes extended to get Phase I finished, and most projects on the Eastside either completed or nearing completion, they will have a surplus.
----------------------------
----------------------------
seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/view
topic.asp?topicID=85543&page=50
Oh yes – there’ll be a “surplus” all right in the East King subarea. And it’s really big.
ST plans on confiscating perhaps $1.26 billion in Phase I taxes and bonding revenue from the East King Co. subarea that it has no plan for spending there. That is quite the surplus.
That estimate is derived here: seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/view
topic.asp?topicid=110829&page=25.
Reply Report violation
#1572098
Posted by BH at 2/5/08 9:22 a.m. in reply to: #1571533
the Subarea Equity Rule, which is meant to ensure that taxes collected in one area cannot be spent in another.
For starters, ST calls one of its internal policies “subarea equity.” That policy is to be distinguished from the subarea budgeting requirements in the local law. The voters imposed that legal budgeting stricture on ST by approving Resolution 75 in 1996. ST is pretending those legal limits don’t exist, and the SAO now is not even auditing ST’s compliance with local laws in the annual accountability audits. Hmmmm, I wonder why . . ..
More fundamentally, ST’s internal policy of “subarea equity” sure ain’t doin’ its job (e.g., “meant to ensure that taxes collected in one area cannot be spent in another”). ST plans on confiscating approximately $1.26 billion in Phase I taxes (and bonding revenue) from the East King Co. subarea that it now has no plans to spend there.
Unless some kind of ST 2.1 plan gets approved by voters that is heavily overweighted to East King subarea spending, the taxes the businesses and individuals of that subarea will be paying for the next two decades to ST only will be going to cover Seattle light rail costs.
Reply Report violation
#1575545
Posted by BH at 2/11/08 8:49 a.m. in reply to: #1572098
---test
Reply Report violation
#1575548
Posted by BH at 2/11/08 8:51 a.m. in reply to: #1575545
Asking questions in public about Sound Transit’s financing practices produces a uniform response. First, nobody that knows anything will discuss what is going on. Then come the taunts: “sue Sound Transit - you’ll lose bad.”
When ST is sued it gets to go before Gerry Alexander, Charles W. Johnson, and the rest. The justices then will dismiss the claims. They go to extreme lengths to ensure ST does not lose big-money cases. The justices make up specious arguments, attribute those to the citizens, and dismiss lawsuits based on the fictional “contentions” they made up for that purpose:
---------------------
Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 12/12/06 10:57 a.m. in reply to: #1308596
Is your entire life this hypothetical and theoretical, BH?
You are so sure of yourself (obsessed more like) yet you can't seem to ever grasp anything real...like a "lawsuit"
---------------------
---------------------
at 1/9/07 7:52 a.m. in reply to: #1333308
If you think you have an issue, then file a lawsuit – but I think it is pretty clear by your repeated refusal to even consider filing a lawsuit that you know you don’t have a case and are just blowing smoke.
Go ahead, file a lawsuite -- I double dog dare you. We are all waiting.
--------------------
----------------------
at 1/10/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1333815
you consistently refuse to sue ST – you know you would lose and lose badly.
But go ahead, sue ST. I double dog dare you.
-----------------------
------------------------
at 1/12/07 8:12 a.m. in reply to: #1335201
But I see you continue to refuse to step up to the plate and sue ST -- it proves my point that you know you have no basis to your arguements.
------------------------
----------------------
at 2/14/07 11:49 a.m. in reply to: #1359442
it is time for you to put your money where your mouth is and sue. Why won't you do this?
----------------------
-----------------------
at 2/19/07 10:03 a.m. in reply to: #1361418
And where is that lawsuit of yours anyhow? How come you won’t step up to the plate and sue ST?
----------------------
----------------------
at 2/19/07 7:37 p.m. in reply to: #1361620
The courts have already said ST does not need to change, but if you think you can force them to, then there is only one course available – you must sue ST. Your failure to do so is a tacit admission that even you know you don’t have a case.
But prove us all wrong – sue ST.
----------------------
---------------------
at 2/27/07 11:07 a.m. in reply to: #1365353
once again you try to shirk your responsibility to sue.
-----------------------
----------------------
at 2/27/07 8:54 p.m. in reply to: #1365485
If you believe you have a real case, then there is only one course of action – you must sue. However, this you consistently refuse to even consider. Are you afraid to sue because you know you will lose?
------------------------
--------------------------
at 3/8/07 7:57 a.m. in reply to: #1370034
But go ahead, make my day, sue ST.
---------------------------
---------------------------
at 3/28/07 3:27 p.m. in reply to: #1378712
If you don't like this approach, then you will need to file a suite against ST (and win), but we all know you won't do that, and we all know why too.
--------------------------
Reply Report violation
#1576113
Posted by BH at 2/12/08 8:28 a.m. in reply to: #1575548
We are discussing how the Washington Supreme Court justices are shameless liars in this thread:
seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/view
topic.asp?topicid=85543&page=275
The justices foster massive unlawful taxing schemes by local governments. That helps their reelection campaigns.
Reply Report violation
#1576115
Posted by BH at 2/12/08 8:32 a.m. in reply to: #1576113
The local law authorizing Sound Transit’s activities that the voters approved in 1996 has some mandatory financial policies, and a built-in financing plan that features spending limits. The way that ordinance is structured is that voters approved Sound Transit spending certain amounts of tax revenue and bond sale revenue during the period it is building what it can afford from a menu of proposed projects.
This voter-approved financing plan includes a spending budget for each of the five subareas. Those five spending budgets are set out in Appendix A of Sound Move (ST took that document down off its website).
From the perspective of the businesses and individuals subject to Sound Transit’s taxes, the key feature of this mandatory financial plan is that the board of ST may not adopt annual operations budgets unless they conform to the subarea spending budgets.
What ST has been doing the past several years is completely ignoring that legal limitation. It is not conducting its financing operations in conformity with the voter-approved budgeting process required by the local law. Because of that, it is violating taxpayers’ rights in several ways, including by collecting and spending too much tax revenue during the construction period.
Reply Report violation
#1576117
Posted by BH at 2/12/08 8:36 a.m. in reply to: #1576115
Last edited at 2/12/08 8:41 a.m.
Set out below are some of the important subarea budgeting terms that are in the local law approved by voters in 1996. These are taken from Appendix B of Sound Move:
Financial Policies – Implementation Policy – a) Subarea budgets: 1. The RTA Financing Plan will provide a budget for each of the five RTA subareas, comprised of the subarea’s projected share of local taxes, bonding capacity and farebox proceeds, and an assumption for federal funding, and related expenditures.
2. Local taxes will be allocated to subarea budgets based on actual sales tax and motor vehicle excise tax receipts collected by subarea and within the RTA District. Annual RTA and subarea budgets will incorporate updated forecasts based on these actual receipts.
. . .
6. The subarea expenditures will be allocated in terms of the facilities and services to be provided, their projected costs and project contingencies, associated operating costs, debt service, and reserves for debt service, operations and maintenance, and capital replacement.
. . .
Financial Policies – Implementation Policy -- – b) Monitoring function: 1. The RTA will establish an accounting system by which to report performance against subarea budgets. This monitoring and reporting function will be incorporated into the RTA’s annual budgeting process.
. . .
Financial Policies – Implementation Policy – c) Adjustments to subarea budgets: 1. The RTA will establish a process by which subarea budgets can be adjusted, based on current revenue and expenditure forecasts. Since the subarea budgets will be included within the RTA’s general budget, adjustments to subarea budgets will occur every year as a step in the RTA’s annual budget adoption, which requires a two-thirds favorable vote of the RTA Board.
Reply Report violation
#1576119
Posted by BH at 2/12/08 8:39 a.m. in reply to: #1576117
Last edited at 2/12/08 8:44 a.m.
The “RTA Financing Plan” referenced above features spending budgets for each of the five subareas. It was adopted by ST’s board in August of 1996, and several months after that it was approved by voters (and thereby became part of the local law). It is set out in Appendix A of Sound Move.
Under the terms of that financing plan, ST only received authority to spend $1.98 billion of local tax revenues during the time it is building out the Phase I capital elements.
ST now wants to pretend the voters approved something other than a local law with subarea spending budgets.
Reply Report violation
#1576124
Posted by BH at 2/12/08 8:50 a.m. in reply to: #1576119
For the past several years, Sound Transit has been taxing and spending as if the voters had not imposed the budgeting limits copied above.
The SAO wants to cover up this unlawful conduct. That is why it always fails to include within its audits examinations of whether or not ST is complying with the local law.
Reply Report violation
#1577048
Posted by BH at 2/13/08 9:40 a.m. in reply to: #1576124
The voter-approved terms from Resolution 75/Sound Move copied above are detailed and mandatory. They require that Sound Transit develop - and abide by – a particular kind of subarea spending budget.
Those terms prescribe exactly what financial information must be included in that budget (on a subarea-by-subarea basis). They also specify exactly how the budgets for each subarea are to be amended every year; they are to be modified annually based on actual tax receipts as well as changes to the projected expenditures in each subarea. In addition, those terms in the local law specify how these subarea budgets are to be used by the board of ST during its annual operating budget adoption process.
Sound Transit is ignoring these voter-approved budgeting terms completely.
ST never developed, and it does not use, subarea budgets of the type the voters mandated in 1996. That is because those terms would protect taxpayers from excessive tax collections and excessive spending of tax and bond sale revenues in any subarea. ST does not want to respect those limits. For example, now it is bent on collecting and spending literally billions of dollars more than the voter-approved local tax spending amount ($1.98 billion of 1995$) allowed by Resolution 75/Sound Move for the Phase I construction period.
It would be great if ST’s head in-house attorney Des Brown would be willing to discuss this. Of course, given the history here this request for information will be ignored and there’ll just be a posting requesting that somebody sue Sound Transit to try to force it to comply with the law.
Reply Report violation
#1577768
Posted by BH at 2/14/08 9:16 a.m. in reply to: #1577048
ST produces a document each year it calls a “Report on Subarea Equity.” The one from 2006 is here: soundtransit.org/x5330.xml.
These reports are merely repackages of annual financial report data. They do not contain any of the projections of Phase I revenues and spending that the terms of Sound Move specify must be contained within the subarea budgets.
All the outside auditors actually audit with respect to these “Reports” is that they check to see that the reports comply with ST’s internal policies relating to what ST calls “subarea equity.” ST’s internal “subarea equity” policies bear no resemblance to what the voter-approved local law requires. Those outside auditors are not auditing to confirm ST is complying with the subarea budgeting terms of the local law (Sound Move).
Reply Report violation
#1577772
Posted by BH at 2/14/08 9:22 a.m. in reply to: #1577768
The subarea budgets the voters approved as part of the Sound Move plan are supposed to serve a critical function. They should be the basis of all of Sound Transit’s financing and spending activities in Phase I:
Financial Policies – Equity – Definition of equity : b) . . . The subarea budgets will serve as the starting point for evaluating the equity principle during the ten year construction period.
Those subarea budgets are supposed to be used by the board of ST every year to ensure that the annual operation budgets the board adopts do not call for excessive spending of any of the voter approved revenues in any subarea:
Financial Policies – Implementation Policy – c) Adjustments to subarea budgets: 1) The RTA will establish a process by which subarea budgets can be adjusted, based on current revenue and expenditure forecasts. Since the subarea budgets will be included within the RTA’s general budget, adjustments to subarea budgets will occur every year as a step in the RTA’s annual budget adoption, which requires a two-thirds favorable vote of the RTA Board.
Well, where are these subarea budgets? They don’t exist, they never existed, and ST isn’t about to start using them now.
Sound Transit never has prepared subarea budgets of the type Sound Move requires. None of the annual operating budgets ST’s board has been adopting even reference subarea budgets.
ST is acting unlawfully with respect to the subarea budgeting provisions set out in Sound Move primarily because ST wants to impose excessive amounts of tax on the businesses and individuals of the three non-Seattle subareas. That excessive revenue is needed for the Seattle light rail plans.
Reply Report violation
#1581567
Posted by BH at 2/20/08 10:18 a.m. in reply to: #1577772
Last edited at 2/20/08 10:22 a.m.
The local law governing Sound Transit (and limiting ST’s taxing and spending authority) is called Resolution 75/Sound Move. It is comprised of some 100 pages of text, charts, and photographs. The voters approved that multi-part ordinance at the ballot in November, 1996.
That ordinance specifies that all the taxing and spending ST is allowed to engage in must conform to a specific subarea budgeting process:
Financial Policies – Implementation Policy – a) Subarea budgets: 1) The RTA Financing Plan will provide a budget for each of the five RTA subareas, comprised of the subarea’s projected share of local taxes, bonding capacity and farebox proceeds, and an assumption for federal funding, and related expenditures.
. . .
Financial Policies – Equity – Definition of equity: b) . . . The subarea budgets will serve as the starting point for evaluating the equity principle during the ten year construction period.
ST has been ignoring these terms in the local law since the late 1990’s. No subarea budgets of the type the voters mandated ever have been prepared by ST staff, and so obviously none of the annual operating budgets could be in compliance with what the voters approved.
Let’s try to estimate what ST’s Phase I taxing and spending relating to the East King County subarea actually will look like. There should be a budget for that subarea, showing anticipated revenues and projected expenditures for all of Phase I. That doesn’t exist, so we’ll need to estimate what those amounts would be from other documents ST has disclosed.
ST’s documents contain information that suggest how much excess taxing (and bond sale proceeds diverted to other subareas) that the East King subarea taxpayers will be subjected to during Phase I. We know from the 11/07 “official statement” ST filed with the SEC what ST wants some of the overall taxing, spending, and bond selling totals for Phase I to be. When those are examined on a subarea-by-subarea basis, they show ST plans on confiscating perhaps $1.26 billion in Phase I taxes and bonding revenue from the East King Co. subarea that it has no plans to spend there.
The starting point for deriving that estimate are the Phase I revenue and spending totals ST just disclosed to the SEC for the purposes of selling its third round of long term bonds late last year. That “official statement” on page four shows that ST intends to confiscate and use at least $6.9 billion in tax revenue, and at least $2.4 billion in bond sale revenue, during the Phase I construction period.
Based on ST’s data relating to Phase I tax collecting from the five subareas, we can expect the East King County subarea’s share of that $9.3 billion would be $2.33 billion. Roughly one quarter of all ST tax revenues in Phase I will be from the East King subarea, as can be seen by the data on the chart on page 16 of the 1/31/2008 Board Workshop “ST2-Update - Preliminary Corridor Service Concepts” document.
What is the amount ST plans on spending on capital expenditures in the East King County subarea to benefit the businesses and people it is hammering with its regressive taxes? ST intends to spend $1.07 billion in the East King subarea during Phase I. That number comes from the 11/3/2004 chart called “2005 Financial Plan – Sources and uses Summary for 1997-2009.”
Subtracting those anticipated expenses from the “East King” Phase I revenues leaves about $1.26 billion in excess. That’s a rough estimate of how much excess tax confiscations (and related bond sale proceeds diverted to other subareas) the businesses and individuals of the East King County subarea will be subjected to through 2016 by Sound Transit.
The end the subarea budgeting provisions of Resolution 75/Sound Move were intended to serve was "spending proportional to taxing." ST can’t come close to achieving that, primarily because it has failed completely to implement the subarea budgeting process the local law requires.
Reply Report violation
#1582198
Posted by BH at 2/21/08 11:14 a.m. in reply to: #1581567
Here’s John Ladenburg spouting some utter foolishness. That guy’s either showing us he’s ignorant of the local law governing ST, or he’s making a deceptive statement he wants local media outlets to publish:
Ladenburg, the Pierce County executive, fumed in letters to newspapers: "Rep. Jennifer Dunn's efforts to deny Seattle the federal money to help build the light-rail line may cost east King County hundreds of millions. ... If the federal money is lost, the board of Sound Transit will have to review the issue again, since the excess revenue of the Eastside could be used to finish the Sound Move plan." (Emphasis added).
archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-b
in/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=sou
nd29m&date=20030729&query=%22light+rail%
22
Ladenburg threatens there to take some of the voter-approved East King county subarea revenues and increase the spending budgets for the North and South King county subareas.
Can’t do that, John. That would be contrary to law. The subarea budgeting process is mandatory. Nothing in Resolution 75/Sound Move would allow ST’s board to decrease the amount approved by voters for one subarea just to increase some other subarea’s budget.
Ladenburg has been chair of Sound Transit’s board for the past several years, and he’s the appointer for all the Pierce County seats on ST’s board. So what’s the consensus? Is Ladenburg a dolt, is he being duplicitous here? Maybe there’s an innocent explanation.
He’s supposedly going to run for Attorney General. The justices on the Supreme Court would be pleased to work with a guy like Ladenburg.
Reply Report violation
#1582851
Posted by BH at 2/22/08 10:56 a.m. in reply to: #1582198
Last edited at 2/22/08 10:58 a.m.
Ladenburg used his unchecked power to direct ST’s actions over the past couple of years. He’s set into motion a payment scheme that will use approximately $1.26 billion in taxes and bond sale proceeds from the businesses and people of Bellevue, Mercer Island, Redmond, Kirkland, Issaquah, etc. on light rail in the Seattle subareas. This is Ladenburg following through on his 2003 threats against Jennifer Dunn.
Ladenburg is set on punishing Dunn’s constituents because she questioned ST’s practices. Nevermind that Dunn’s dead. Forget that ST eventually got the grant from the feds for light rail that Ladenburg was fuming about. Ignore how the voter-approved local law prohibits ST from both 1) taking revenues approved for spending in one subarea and spending them in another, and 2) spending more than $1.98 billion (1995$) of local taxes in total during the Phase I buildout. None of that matters - ST is carrying out John Ladenburg’s vendetta.
Transportation
Friday, February 22, 2008
No Can Do, says Sound Transit to request for budget information
