RWC’s Related to Manchester’s Proposed IDD

IDD = Industrial Development District:

Two sections of the RCW cited (see below) with my interpretation. The port will hold a public hearing on this matter at 6 p.m. tonight (Aug. 10) at the Manchester Library

1. The port of Manchester is considering forming an IDD, which would allow it to impose a special levy of up to 45 cents per $1,000 of assessed value for up to six years. A port district can form an industrial development district for capital improvements within the district that contributes to economic development. A public hearing is required before the port can form the IDD..
Industrial development districts authorized — Boundaries — Deletion of land area.

(1) A port commission may, after a public hearing thereon, of which at least ten days’ notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the port district, create industrial development districts within the district and define the boundaries thereof, if it finds that the creation of the industrial development district is proper and desirable in establishing and developing a system of harbor improvements and industrial development in the port district.

The law allows a port to delete lands from the IDD boundaries.
(2) The boundaries of an industrial development district created by subsection (1) of this section may be revised from time to time by resolution of the port commission, to delete land area therefrom, if the land area to be deleted was acquired by the port district with its own funds or by gift or transfer other than pursuant to RCW 53.25.050 or 53.25.060.

2. Once an IDD is formed, the port can impose a first six-year levy for up to 45 cents per $1,000 of assessed value without a vote of residents within the district. The Port of Manchester is considering levying 20 to 25 cents per $1,000 of assessed value in addition to the current levy of just more than 14 cents per $1,000. The port is also authorized to impose a second six-year special levy for up to 45 cents per $1,000 of assess value. But the measure can be forced to a vote if at least eight percent of district residents (who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election) sign a petition to that effect. The vote is subject to simple majority approval (50 + one).
RCW 53.36.100 Levy for industrial development district purposes — Notice — Petition — Election.
(1) A port district having adopted a comprehensive scheme of harbor improvements and industrial developments may thereafter raise revenue, for six years only, and a second six years if the procedures are followed under subsection (2) of this section, in addition to all other revenues now authorized by law, by an annual levy not to exceed forty-five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value against the assessed valuation of the taxable property in such port district. In addition, if voters approve a ballot proposition authorizing additional levies by a simple majority vote, a port district located in a county bordering on the Pacific Ocean having adopted a comprehensive scheme of harbor improvements and industrial developments may impose these levies for a third six-year period. Said levies shall be used exclusively for the exercise of the powers granted to port districts under chapter 53.25 RCW except as provided in RCW 53.36.110. The levy of such taxes is herein authorized notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 84.52.050 and 84.52.043. The revenues derived from levies made under RCW 53.36.100 and 53.36.110 not expended in the year in which the levies are made may be paid into a fund for future use in carrying out the powers granted under chapter 53.25 RCW, which fund may be accumulated and carried over from year to year, with the right to continue to levy the taxes provided for in RCW 53.36.100 and 53.36.110 for the purposes herein authorized.

(2) If a port district intends to levy a tax under this section for one or more years after the first six years these levies were imposed, the port commission shall publish notice of this intention, in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the district, by June 1 of the year in which the first levy of the seventh through twelfth year period is to be made. If within ninety days of the date of publication a petition is filed with the county auditor containing the signatures of eight percent of the number of voters registered and voting in the port district for the office of the governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election, the county auditor shall canvass the signatures in the same manner as prescribed in *RCW 29.79.200 and certify their sufficiency to the port commission within two weeks. The proposition to make these levies in the seventh through twelfth year period shall be submitted to the voters of the port district at a special election, called for this purpose, no later than the date on which a primary election would be held under *RCW 29.13.070. The levies may be made in the seventh through twelfth year period only if approved by a majority of the voters of the port district voting on the proposition.

2 thoughts on “RWC’s Related to Manchester’s Proposed IDD

  1. I doubt that formation of an “IDD” is a prerequisite to imposing the additional tax of up to 45 cents per $1000 for 6 years.

    The “caption” of RCW 53.36.100 is not a part of the law, so when it refers to financing for an IDD, it isn’t a legal requirement or limitation that is actually in the law.

    Instead, look at the text of the law itself, which says that a “comprehensive scheme of harbor improvements and industrial developments” must be adopted before the port district can levy the additional tax.

    The same thing is stated in a different way in this RCW, which requires the “comprehensive scheme” before making expenditures:

    The “IDD” is for “marginal lands,” and allows the port district to take property through eminent domain procedures in order to develop it. The development or redevelopment of “marginal lands” is a different matter, I think. And, I doubt that the Manchester Port District commissioners believe they are embarking on a project that involves developing “marginal lands.”

  2. Manchester – Is this a Town that Time Forgot?
    Gage your priorities!

    Jim Strode has served many consecutive port commission terms with respectful and admired Performance. He serves exceptionally well on two local town commissions. He broke ground with much ado and dispute in creating a first class recreational facility for local and non-local boaters. That’s why I and many others elected him, and Pedersen, and Fallstrom. They are elected to make decisions that are best for the Port and the Port’s patrons. As one coming from King County some 49 years ago, it was true back ten and holds true today that here in Kitsap (South mainly) many expect all of this for nothing. Big bang for small tax.

    Don’t we all know that the line up of outstretched hands (other than our Port) is not shy nor tentative ones? SCHOOLS – essential services with levies rarely approved by folks in South Kitsap. POLICE – also essential often a reflects some communities lack of health and security due to low levy approval for schools and other community amenities to raise civil citizenry. EMERGENCY RESPONSE W/FIRE DISTRICTS – obviously essential but often bloated in size. Possibly due to the high ‘fear factor’ imbedded in us all as we age out and insist on fast and faster response times for critical and non-critical life emergencies. Then we have Ports. Larger ones are charged to create commerce, small ones like Manchester considered luxury to most since water related activities tend to be to expensive for most folks to enjoy. The last to ask for taxes (Manchester at least as a matter of record) and so also likely to never be approved by the voters.

    You don’t get safety and clean/healthy communities for nothing. You don’t get em by just adding and stirring in more Police. Like a garden, you get back the work you put into your plots. Learning centers, activity centers, recreational opportunities provide the environment to compel and promote healthy communities. Better to be growing it from the start to avoid a treatment of policing as with spraying for weeds in the future.

    The bitter truth to some is that there is going to be a forced tax by our Port to purchase lands essentially for uses in perpetuity, so to speak. Yeah, it is a tough nut for any elected person to decide. I admire the fact that all three commissioners are willing to be ‘fired’ by our community for doing the right thing by placing extremely valuable lands now under priced, into future uses for our community. It’s a bargain at twice the price and I will happily pay the tax without bitching. And, in the future when my kids, kids use these lands all will be saying, Damn! that hurt “a little bit”, but it really was the right thing to do..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Enter the word yellow here: