Because the legislature clearly laid out when each schedule will apply, there is no confusion or ambiguity arising from the text of the statute itself.” “It does not matter if the legislature set forth two depreciation schedules for different circumstances and made the current depreciation schedule inapplicable for a period of time because it remains clear to the reader when each depreciation schedule will apply, and that is what article II, section 37 requires. “The MVET statute specifically states in which circumstance each depreciation schedule will apply,” Owens wrote. And, they wrote, “even the most diligent search” would not reveal the actual valuation schedule to be used by Sound Transit. The law “provided inadequate guidance to legislators, voters, and future taxpayers of the taxes authorized by this statute,” the plaintiffs argued in court papers.
They contended it violated a provision which, in pursuit of clarity, calls for changes in existing law to be spelled out “at full length.” In this case, lawmakers should have included the complete text of the depreciation schedules but did not. The plaintiff taxpayers argued that the rise in the MVET rate approved by voters must be repealed because that 2015 law was unconstitutional. At that point, Sound Transit is required to switch to the other depreciation schedule. That’s when original bonds sold using the older valuation are scheduled to expire.
In 2006, lawmakers drew up a new depreciation schedule that better reflects a car’s actual value.Ī 2015 law that enabled Sound Transit to put its expansion plan on the ballot also permitted the transit agency to keep using the older vehicle valuation schedule until 2028. Sound Transit calibrates car-tab fees using that excise tax rate and a vehicle depreciation schedule drawn up in the late 1990s that overvalues vehicles.