City of Spokane v. Horton, 93788-5

In 2015 Spokane enacted Ordinance C-35231 creating a citywide local property tax exemption for persons who would qualify under the state senior/disabled veteran exemption (RCW 84.36.381).
The Spokane County Assessor and Treasurer refused to implement the ordinance after the Department of Revenue (DOR) advised the ordinance was not authorized by state law and likely violated the Washington Constitution.
The City sought a writ of mandamus compelling the County to apply the ordinance; the trial court granted the writ and found the ordinance constitutional.
DOR intervened; on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the ordinance violated article VII, § 9 (tax uniformity) and that only the legislature may grant property tax exemptions under article VII, § 10.
The Washington Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding a city lacks constitutional authority to grant property tax exemptions that undermine the constitutional uniformity requirement; it therefore declined to order mandamus to compel implementation of the ordinance.

Issue	City Argument	County/DOR Argument	Held
Whether a code city has constitutional/statutory authority to create a local property tax exemption	RCW 35A.11.020 grants code cities "all powers of taxation" within constitutional limits, which includes exemption power; Tekoa permits reasonable local exemptions	Article VII vests exemption authority in the legislature (§ 10); cities may not create property tax exemptions that conflict with constitutional uniformity	City lacks power to grant property tax exemptions absent legislative authorization; ordinance invalid
Whether the ordinance violates the constitutional uniformity requirement for property taxes	Exemptions need not be mathematically perfect; Tekoa allows reasonable classifications to serve general welfare	Property taxes demand stricter uniformity than poll or other nonproperty taxes; Tekoa (a poll tax case) is distinguishable	Applying the exemption produces nonuniform tax rates/assessment ratios among property owners and violates article VII uniformity
Whether mandamus was appropriate to compel county officials to implement the ordinance	Officials had a ministerial duty to assess/collect per the ordinance; mandamus is proper	Officials may refuse to implement an act they reasonably believe unconstitutional; mandamus cannot compel performance of an unconstitutional act	Court must resolve constitutionality before mandamus; because ordinance is unconstitutional, mandamus was not appropriate to compel implementation

Town of Tekoa v. Reilly, 47 Wash. 202 (1907) (upholding local poll tax exemptions and stating municipal taxes need only be "as nearly equal as is consistent with the general welfare")
Belas v. Kiga, 135 Wn.2d 913 (1998) (interpreting constitutional uniformity and discussing exemptions under article VII, § 1)
Boeing Co. v. King County, 75 Wn.2d 160 (1969) (all real estate constitutes one class and must be taxed uniformly absent legislative exemption)
Inter Island Tel. Co. v. San Juan County, 125 Wn.2d 332 (1994) (tax uniformity is a primary constitutional requirement)