This Washington
State Senate GOP Leader Lays Out Guidelines on Fees
Republican state senate leader Sen. Mike Hewitt says some fees are more equal than others.
The legislature is not likely to pass any tax increases this year. Due to Tim Eyman's successful I-1053 initiative, raising taxes would require a two-thirds majority vote. Additionally, voters repealed a set of soda, candy, and bottled water taxes that the legislature passed just last year.
So, given the $5.2 billion budget shortfall, how is the state going to pay for programs?
"You're going to see a lot of people around here trying to wrap their programs up in fees," state Sen. Mike Hewitt (R-16, Walla Walla), the senate minority leader, tells PubliCola.
It's not that fees—charges on specific activities earmarked to pay for related services, as opposed to taxes that go to the general fund—are off limits for the GOP, though.
While making it clear he wasn't speaking for the whole caucus—"some members are just a flat-out 'no' vote because of the 960 implications [960 was Eyman's original two-thirds initiative against taxes]"—the Republican leader laid out his guidelines for approving and disapproving fees. (Fees don't require a two-thirds vote and Democrats often use them as a friendlier way to sell taxes.)
First, Hewitt says, he looks to see if the dedicated accounts—like the fund for toxic cleanup paid for by oil companies—have been "swept," i.e., raided to help the general fund. "I'm a 'no' on that sort of thing," Hewitt says, referring specifically to the hazardous site cleanup fund; environmentalists tried last year to increase the charge on oil companies, but the industry pointed out that the fund had been raided to the tune of $180 million in 2009, and the idea failed. Similarly, this year, environmentalists tried to initiate a new fee on oil companies to pay for stormwater cleanup. The industry was able to point to the legislature's habit of raiding funds and the bill has since stalled.
Second, Hewitt says he looks to see "if the industry is asking for the fee, if they think the [up-front] cost is sustainable, then I'm okay with that." Hewitt was addressing a bill that would amend the voter-approved smoking ban to allow businesses to pay a $15,000 fee for the right to open up cigar bars. (It's hard not to see the irony here: Republicans are loath to overrule the will of the people on Eyman's initiatives by raising taxes, but would be willing to go with a fee that businesses support even though it overrules 2005's smoking ban, approved by voters 63-36.)
Finally, Hewitt says he likes fee-for-service type setups such as a proposed $30 annual user fee to access state-run parks. "I don't want to commit to that," he says, "but in theory, if people want to use those services and they're paying for that option, it stabilizes our government and keeps us moving forward. Government can't run on fumes," he says.
The legislature is not likely to pass any tax increases this year. Due to Tim Eyman's successful I-1053 initiative, raising taxes would require a two-thirds majority vote. Additionally, voters repealed a set of soda, candy, and bottled water taxes that the legislature passed just last year.
So, given the $5.2 billion budget shortfall, how is the state going to pay for programs?
"You're going to see a lot of people around here trying to wrap their programs up in fees," state Sen. Mike Hewitt (R-16, Walla Walla), the senate minority leader, tells PubliCola.
It's not that fees—charges on specific activities earmarked to pay for related services, as opposed to taxes that go to the general fund—are off limits for the GOP, though.
While making it clear he wasn't speaking for the whole caucus—"some members are just a flat-out 'no' vote because of the 960 implications [960 was Eyman's original two-thirds initiative against taxes]"—the Republican leader laid out his guidelines for approving and disapproving fees. (Fees don't require a two-thirds vote and Democrats often use them as a friendlier way to sell taxes.)
First, Hewitt says, he looks to see if the dedicated accounts—like the fund for toxic cleanup paid for by oil companies—have been "swept," i.e., raided to help the general fund. "I'm a 'no' on that sort of thing," Hewitt says, referring specifically to the hazardous site cleanup fund; environmentalists tried last year to increase the charge on oil companies, but the industry pointed out that the fund had been raided to the tune of $180 million in 2009, and the idea failed. Similarly, this year, environmentalists tried to initiate a new fee on oil companies to pay for stormwater cleanup. The industry was able to point to the legislature's habit of raiding funds and the bill has since stalled.
Second, Hewitt says he looks to see "if the industry is asking for the fee, if they think the [up-front] cost is sustainable, then I'm okay with that." Hewitt was addressing a bill that would amend the voter-approved smoking ban to allow businesses to pay a $15,000 fee for the right to open up cigar bars. (It's hard not to see the irony here: Republicans are loath to overrule the will of the people on Eyman's initiatives by raising taxes, but would be willing to go with a fee that businesses support even though it overrules 2005's smoking ban, approved by voters 63-36.)
Finally, Hewitt says he likes fee-for-service type setups such as a proposed $30 annual user fee to access state-run parks. "I don't want to commit to that," he says, "but in theory, if people want to use those services and they're paying for that option, it stabilizes our government and keeps us moving forward. Government can't run on fumes," he says.
