Five-second answer

Claim we investigated

Sound Transit's car-tab tax uses a 1990s depreciation schedule that overstates what cars are worth.

Mostly true. The 1990s schedule values cars under about 10 years old above market, but values older cars below it. State law, a Supreme Court opinion and Sound Transit itself confirm the schedule dates from the 1990s, and a 2006 legislative market-value study, the 2006 replacement schedule and a Kelley Blue Book comparison all show it values newer cars well above what they are worth.

Quote or cite this fact-check

FactHub rates the claim “Sound Transit's car-tab tax uses a 1990s depreciation schedule that overstates what cars are worth” Mostly true (high confidence): The 1990s schedule values cars under about 10 years old above market, but values older cars below it. Reviewed October 18, 2026. https://facthub.org/n/article/sound-transit-car-tab-valuation/1

One-minute summary

What the evidence establishes

  • Sound Transit's car-tab tax is 1.1% of a car's taxable value, set from its base MSRP and a depreciation schedule written in 1990 and last revised by Referendum 49 in 1998.
  • A 2006 legislative study found that schedule above market value for cars in their first ten years and below it after; fleet-wide, market value was about 89% of taxable value.
  • The schedule in use values a car 18% to 64% higher than the 2006 replacement schedule in years 1 to 10, but lower in years 12 to 15.
  • Example: a car with a $30,000 base MSRP in its fourth year is taxed on $24,900 ($274 at 1.1%) versus $16,065 ($177) under the 2006 schedule.
  • State law keeps the old schedule until December 31 of the year Sound Transit repays bonds pledged before July 15, 2015; Sound Transit says its 1999 bonds retire in 2028.
  • Bills to switch sooner passed the House three times in 2017-2018 but died in the Senate; Initiative 976 passed in 2019 but the Supreme Court struck it down in 2020.
  • The tax raised a budgeted $408 million for Sound Transit in 2025.
Important context: Sound Transit's car-tab tax is a motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) of 1.1% of a vehicle's taxable value in urban King, Pierce and Snohomish counties: 0.3% approved in 1996 and 0.8% added by Sound Transit 3 in 2016. Taxable value is not market value; the state computes it from the base sticker price (MSRP) and a depreciation schedule set in law. The schedule in use was written in 1990 and last changed by Referendum 49 in 1998. A gentler schedule adopted in 2006 is in law but cannot apply to Sound Transit until bonds sold in 1999 are paid off in 2028.

The evidence

The conclusion rests on the combined record. Expand each item to see its role and limitations.

Independence note: This check uses 6 methods across 8 institutions and 1 country or international grouping.
Evidence map
Method Institution / country Year(s) What it shows Key limitation Primary links
Review of statutes, court opinions and agency statements Washington State Legislature, Washington State Supreme Court, Sound Transit United States 1990, 1998, 2015, 2020, 2028 RCW 81.104.160 lets Sound Transit levy up to 0.8% for ST3 and says the tax must follow the vehicle-tax chapter as it existed on January 1, 1996, until December 31 of the year Sound Transit repays bonds pledged before July 15, 2015, and the schedule in force when voters approved the tax after that. In 2019 the State told the Supreme Court that the schedule actually applied is the one from Referendum 49 (1998). The Court upheld the statute in 2020, noting the 1999 bonds expire in 2028 and that the 2006 schedule produces lower values. Sound Transit says the same: the schedule has been in place since 1999 and the 2006 schedule takes effect after the 1999 bonds are retired in 2028, when the original 0.3% tax also ends. Statutes first set MSRP-based schedules in 1990. These sources establish which schedule applies and when, not how it compares with market prices. The 2028 retirement date comes from Sound Transit and the Court's summary of the bond record; we did not read the bond contracts. The statute's text names the January 1, 1996 version, while the version applied is the 1998 one; the Court held this did not affect the statute's validity. Washington State Legislature Washington State Supreme Court Sound Transit Washington State House Office of Program Research
Fleet-wide comparison of taxable values with used-car retail values Washington State Legislature Joint Transportation Committee United States 2005, 2006 The Legislature's Joint Transportation Committee, directed to design a schedule that more accurately reflects vehicle value, matched Washington's 6.1 million registered vehicles by year, make and model to western-region used-car retail values (National Market Reports, July 2005). For cars and light trucks, the MVET schedule was above market depreciation until service year ten and below it afterward. Fleet-wide, market value was about $51 billion, about 89% of the $58 billion taxable value. The comparison is from 2005, before the 2020-2023 rise in used-car prices, and uses retail values for a clean car, which run above private-party and trade-in values. It averages across all makes; some brands hold value better. Sound Transit was a required participant but the study was run by legislative staff. Washington State Legislature, Joint Transportation Committee
Year-by-year comparison of the two statutory schedules Washington State Legislature, FactHub United States 2006, 2017, 2026 The 2006 schedule in RCW 82.44.035 starts from 85% of base MSRP and, according to nonpartisan Senate staff, represents average western-region market depreciation. Compared year by year, the schedule in use taxes a car 1.18 to 1.64 times as much value in years 1 to 10, most in years 5 to 8. For a car with a $30,000 base MSRP in its fourth year, that is $24,900 of taxable value ($274 at 1.1%) against $16,065 ($177). The two schedules meet in year 11; in years 12 to 15 the old schedule is lower (in year 12, $4,200 against $6,120). Both schedules are formulas based on MSRP, not appraisals; the 2006 schedule is a market average, not a Kelley Blue Book value for any one car. The dollar example applies 1.1% to both schedules, while after the switch the 0.3% Sound Move tax will have ended. Washington State Legislature Washington State Senate Committee on Transportation FactHub
Single-vehicle comparison with Kelley Blue Book values The Seattle Times, Washington State Department of Licensing United States 2017 The Seattle Times compared the formula with Kelley Blue Book in 2017. A 2014 Toyota Camry with 30,000 miles, about $23,000 new, had a Blue Book value of about $10,700, but the schedule valued it at $19,090, making Sound Transit's share of the tab about $209 rather than $117. Blue Book put the average 1-year-old car at 70% of sticker price; the schedule uses 95%. A Department of Licensing spokesman said the formula is not related to fair market value. One newspaper analysis of one car and of Blue Book averages, from 2017. Blue Book values vary by mileage, condition and trim, and used-car prices rose sharply after 2020, which would narrow the gap for cars bought before then. The Seattle Times
Legislative history and court record review Washington State Legislature, Washington State Supreme Court, Association of Washington Cities, The Daily Herald (Everett) United States 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 In 2017 a Senate bill proposed taxing on Kelley Blue Book or NADA value. A House bill to give drivers a credit, HB 2201, passed the House three times, in April and May 2017 and January 2018, but the chambers could not agree on how to replace Sound Transit's lost revenue. A 2020 Senate bill, SB 6606, sought a schedule closer to Blue Book with offsets for what Sound Transit estimated as a $1 billion hit. Initiative 976 (2019) would have required Blue Book values and forced the bonds' retirement; it passed with about 53% statewide but lost by about 53% in the Sound Transit region, and the Supreme Court struck it down in October 2020 because it contained more than one subject and had a misleading ballot title. News and association summaries describe bills that did not pass; their exact terms changed during each session. The court ruling turned on how the initiative was drafted, not on whether the valuation was fair. Washington State Senate Committee on Transportation Washington State Legislature Association of Washington Cities The Daily Herald (Everett) Washington State House Office of Program Research Washington State Supreme Court
Agency budget review Sound Transit United States 2016, 2025 Sound Transit's 2025 budget resolution projects $408.3 million from the motor vehicle excise tax. The combined rate is $110 for each $10,000 of depreciated value, up from 0.3% before ST3. Budget figures are projections, not audited collections, and cover the whole tax, not just the portion attributable to the schedule difference. Sound Transit Board Sound Transit
1. State law keeps a 1990s schedule until the 1999 bonds are repaid

RCW 81.104.160 lets Sound Transit levy up to 0.8% for ST3 and says the tax must follow the vehicle-tax chapter as it existed on January 1, 1996, until December 31 of the year Sound Transit repays bonds pledged before July 15, 2015, and the schedule in force when voters approved the tax after that. In 2019 the State told the Supreme Court that the schedule actually applied is the one from Referendum 49 (1998). The Court upheld the statute in 2020, noting the 1999 bonds expire in 2028 and that the 2006 schedule produces lower values. Sound Transit says the same: the schedule has been in place since 1999 and the 2006 schedule takes effect after the 1999 bonds are retired in 2028, when the original 0.3% tax also ends. Statutes first set MSRP-based schedules in 1990.

Limit: These sources establish which schedule applies and when, not how it compares with market prices. The 2028 retirement date comes from Sound Transit and the Court's summary of the bond record; we did not read the bond contracts. The statute's text names the January 1, 1996 version, while the version applied is the 1998 one; the Court held this did not affect the statute's validity.

Verify: RCW 81.104.160: Motor vehicle excise tax for regional transit authorities Black v. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, No. 97195-1, 195 Wn.2d 198 (2020) Car tab (RTA MVET) FAQ House Bill Analysis, Initiative 976 (2019)

2. A 2006 legislative study found the schedule above market value for newer cars

The Legislature's Joint Transportation Committee, directed to design a schedule that more accurately reflects vehicle value, matched Washington's 6.1 million registered vehicles by year, make and model to western-region used-car retail values (National Market Reports, July 2005). For cars and light trucks, the MVET schedule was above market depreciation until service year ten and below it afterward. Fleet-wide, market value was about $51 billion, about 89% of the $58 billion taxable value.

Limit: The comparison is from 2005, before the 2020-2023 rise in used-car prices, and uses retail values for a clean car, which run above private-party and trade-in values. It averages across all makes; some brands hold value better. Sound Transit was a required participant but the study was run by legislative staff.

Verify: Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Study: Final Report (January 6, 2006)

3. The 2006 schedule, built to track market depreciation, values newer cars far lower

The 2006 schedule in RCW 82.44.035 starts from 85% of base MSRP and, according to nonpartisan Senate staff, represents average western-region market depreciation. Compared year by year, the schedule in use taxes a car 1.18 to 1.64 times as much value in years 1 to 10, most in years 5 to 8. For a car with a $30,000 base MSRP in its fourth year, that is $24,900 of taxable value ($274 at 1.1%) against $16,065 ($177). The two schedules meet in year 11; in years 12 to 15 the old schedule is lower (in year 12, $4,200 against $6,120).

Limit: Both schedules are formulas based on MSRP, not appraisals; the 2006 schedule is a market average, not a Kelley Blue Book value for any one car. The dollar example applies 1.1% to both schedules, while after the switch the 0.3% Sound Move tax will have ended.

Verify: RCW 82.44.035: Valuation of vehicles Senate Bill Report SB 5851 (2017) Sound Transit car-tab valuation: the schedule in use vs. the 2006 schedule

Sound Transit's car-tab schedule taxes newer cars at a higher value than the 2006 scheduleTaxable value as a percentage of base MSRP, by year of service, under the schedule Sound Transit uses now and under the 2006 schedule state law says replaces it after the pre-2015 bonds are repaid.{"width":960,"height":540,"plot":{"left":90,"top":70,"right":926,"bottom":482},"yDomain":[0,100],"series":[{"name":"Schedule in use (1990s)","color":"#176b87"},{"name":"2006 schedule (after bonds retire)","color":"#b6542c"}],"points":[{"series":0,"x":90,"y":70,"xLabel":"1","yLabel":"100"},{"series":1,"x":90,"y":131.8,"xLabel":"1","yLabel":"85"},{"series":0,"x":145.73,"y":90.6,"xLabel":"2","yLabel":"95"},{"series":1,"x":145.73,"y":198.34,"xLabel":"2","yLabel":"69"},{"series":0,"x":201.47,"y":115.32,"xLabel":"3","yLabel":"89"},{"series":1,"x":201.47,"y":229.86,"xLabel":"3","yLabel":"61"},{"series":0,"x":257.2,"y":140.04,"xLabel":"4","yLabel":"83"},{"series":1,"x":257.2,"y":261.37,"xLabel":"4","yLabel":"54"},{"series":0,"x":312.93,"y":177.12,"xLabel":"5","yLabel":"74"},{"series":1,"x":312.93,"y":289.39,"xLabel":"5","yLabel":"47"},{"series":0,"x":368.67,"y":214.2,"xLabel":"6","yLabel":"65"},{"series":1,"x":368.67,"y":317.41,"xLabel":"6","yLabel":"40"},{"series":0,"x":424.4,"y":247.16,"xLabel":"7","yLabel":"57"},{"series":1,"x":424.4,"y":338.42,"xLabel":"7","yLabel":"35"},{"series":0,"x":480.13,"y":284.24,"xLabel":"8","yLabel":"48"},{"series":1,"x":480.13,"y":355.93,"xLabel":"8","yLabel":"31"},{"series":0,"x":535.87,"y":317.2,"xLabel":"9","yLabel":"40"},{"series":1,"x":535.87,"y":369.94,"xLabel":"9","yLabel":"27"},{"series":0,"x":591.6,"y":354.28,"xLabel":"10","yLabel":"31"},{"series":1,"x":591.6,"y":387.45,"xLabel":"10","yLabel":"23"},{"series":0,"x":647.33,"y":391.36,"xLabel":"11","yLabel":"22"},{"series":1,"x":647.33,"y":390.95,"xLabel":"11","yLabel":"22"},{"series":0,"x":703.07,"y":424.32,"xLabel":"12","yLabel":"14"},{"series":1,"x":703.07,"y":397.95,"xLabel":"12","yLabel":"20"},{"series":0,"x":758.8,"y":440.8,"xLabel":"13","yLabel":"10"},{"series":1,"x":758.8,"y":401.45,"xLabel":"13","yLabel":"20"},{"series":0,"x":814.53,"y":440.8,"xLabel":"14","yLabel":"10"},{"series":1,"x":814.53,"y":408.46,"xLabel":"14","yLabel":"18"},{"series":0,"x":870.27,"y":440.8,"xLabel":"15","yLabel":"10"},{"series":1,"x":870.27,"y":425.97,"xLabel":"15","yLabel":"14"},{"series":0,"x":926,"y":440.8,"xLabel":"16","yLabel":"10"},{"series":1,"x":926,"y":446.98,"xLabel":"16","yLabel":"9"}]}Sound Transit's car-tab schedule taxes newer cars at a higher value than the 2006 schedule02040608010051015Year of service (model year = 1; 16 = 16 or older)Schedule in use (1990s)2006 schedule (after bonds retire)Schedules cross at year 11; older cars are valued lower under the schedule in useFactHub · Taxable value (% of base MSRP)
Taxable value as a share of base MSRP under the schedule Sound Transit uses now and the 2006 schedule that replaces it after the 1999 bonds are repaid. The old schedule is higher for cars up to 10 years old and lower for cars 12 to 15 years old. Both are statutory formulas, not market prices. View source chart
4. A Kelley Blue Book comparison shows the gap for a typical sedan

The Seattle Times compared the formula with Kelley Blue Book in 2017. A 2014 Toyota Camry with 30,000 miles, about $23,000 new, had a Blue Book value of about $10,700, but the schedule valued it at $19,090, making Sound Transit's share of the tab about $209 rather than $117. Blue Book put the average 1-year-old car at 70% of sticker price; the schedule uses 95%. A Department of Licensing spokesman said the formula is not related to fair market value.

Limit: One newspaper analysis of one car and of Blue Book averages, from 2017. Blue Book values vary by mileage, condition and trim, and used-car prices rose sharply after 2020, which would narrow the gap for cars bought before then.

Verify: Sound Transit uses inflated car values to collect higher tab fees (David Gutman, February 27, 2017)

5. Lawmakers and voters tried to change the schedule; none of it took effect

In 2017 a Senate bill proposed taxing on Kelley Blue Book or NADA value. A House bill to give drivers a credit, HB 2201, passed the House three times, in April and May 2017 and January 2018, but the chambers could not agree on how to replace Sound Transit's lost revenue. A 2020 Senate bill, SB 6606, sought a schedule closer to Blue Book with offsets for what Sound Transit estimated as a $1 billion hit. Initiative 976 (2019) would have required Blue Book values and forced the bonds' retirement; it passed with about 53% statewide but lost by about 53% in the Sound Transit region, and the Supreme Court struck it down in October 2020 because it contained more than one subject and had a misleading ballot title.

Limit: News and association summaries describe bills that did not pass; their exact terms changed during each session. The court ruling turned on how the initiative was drafted, not on whether the valuation was fair.

Verify: Senate Bill Report SB 5851 (2017) HB 2201 (2017-18) bill summary and history Sound Transit "fix" will have to wait (March 9, 2018) On car taxes, Sound Transit says it gets it, but does it? (Jerry Cornfield, February 5, 2020) House Bill Analysis, Initiative 976 (2019) Garfield County Transportation Authority v. State, No. 98320-8, 196 Wn.2d 378 (2020)

6. The tax is a major Sound Transit revenue source

Sound Transit's 2025 budget resolution projects $408.3 million from the motor vehicle excise tax. The combined rate is $110 for each $10,000 of depreciated value, up from 0.3% before ST3.

Limit: Budget figures are projections, not audited collections, and cover the whole tax, not just the portion attributable to the schedule difference.

Verify: Resolution R2024-25: Adopting the 2025 annual budget Car tab (RTA MVET) FAQ

Common questions

“Sound Transit has no choice: its bond contracts require the old schedule.”

This is largely correct, and it is the strongest point in Sound Transit's favor. The 1999 bonds pledged the tax as it was then calculated, the Supreme Court held in 2006 that a voter initiative could not impair those pledges, and the 2015 law voters relied on in 2016 keeps the old schedule until the bonds are repaid. But it answers why the schedule is used, not whether its values are accurate. The Legislature could have switched with a revenue backfill; bills to do so failed over how to pay for it.

“Voters approved ST3 in 2016 knowing how the tax would be calculated.”

Sound Transit's tax calculator and the Seattle Times calculator before the vote used the schedule now in effect, and the formula was posted on the Department of Licensing's site. That supports Sound Transit's position that nothing was hidden. It does not change how the schedule compares with market values, which is what this claim is about.

“MSRP-based values are fair because similar cars pay the same tax, and market values would need costly inspections.”

The uniformity argument is real but does not require the old schedule. The 2006 schedule also uses base MSRP and needs no inspections; it simply depreciates faster, in line with market averages.

“The schedule overvalues all cars.”

Not so. From about year 11 the old schedule is below market value and below the 2006 schedule, bottoming out at 10% of MSRP from year 13. Owners of cars 12 to 15 years old will pay more per dollar of MSRP after the switch. The overstatement applies to newer cars, which carry most of the tax.

“Sound Transit is breaking the law by using the 1999 schedule instead of the 1996 schedule the statute names.”

The State acknowledged to the Supreme Court in 2019 that the schedule applied is the one from Referendum 49 (1998), not the January 1, 1996 version the statute cites. The Court said this did not affect the statute's constitutionality and did not rule that Sound Transit had to change its calculation. Either way, both versions are 1990s schedules.

“Switching early would cost Sound Transit about $1 billion and delay projects.”

That is Sound Transit's own estimate, reported in 2020, and it shows how much revenue the higher valuations bring in. It is an argument about who should bear the cost of a switch, not evidence that the old values are accurate.

Conclusion

The claim has two parts, and both hold for most of the tax base. First, the schedule is from the 1990s: the Legislature wrote MSRP-based schedules into law in 1990, Referendum 49 set the version Sound Transit applies in 1998, and the State told the Supreme Court in 2019 that this 1998 version is the one in use. Second, it overstates value: the Joint Transportation Committee's 2006 study, which matched Washington's whole registered fleet against used-car retail prices, found the schedule above market value for cars in their first ten years and the fleet's market value about 89% of its taxable value. Compared with the Legislature's own 2006 replacement, built to track western-region market depreciation, the schedule in use values a car of the same age 18% to 64% higher in years 1 to 10. A Kelley Blue Book example points the same way: a 3-year-old Camry taxed at $19,090 had a Blue Book value of about $10,700. The rating is Mostly true rather than True because the claim, stated without qualification, overstates: from about year 11 the old schedule values cars below market and below the 2006 schedule, so owners of 12- to 15-year-old cars pay less than they would after the switch. Sound Transit's defense is strong on a different question. Its 1999 bond contracts pledged the tax as then calculated, the Supreme Court has twice protected such pledges, and the 2015 law voters relied on in 2016 expressly kept the old schedule until those bonds are repaid. That explains why the schedule persists; it does not make the values accurate, and the Department of Licensing itself says the formula is not related to fair market value. Confidence is high on the direction and the legal facts, which rest on statutes, court opinions and the agency's own statements. The size of the gap for any one car is less certain: the market comparisons date from 2005 and 2017, used-car prices rose sharply after 2020, and no current fleet-wide comparison has been published. The overvaluation ends for the ST3 tax only after December 31 of the year the pre-2015 bonds are repaid; Sound Transit and the Supreme Court put that repayment in 2028, so the switch would apply to tabs from 2029. Repeated attempts to switch sooner, in bills from 2017 to 2020 and through Initiative 976, failed in the Legislature or the courts.

How we checked

  1. Defined the claim as: the depreciation schedule used to value vehicles for Sound Transit's motor vehicle excise tax dates from the 1990s and values vehicles above what they are worth.
  2. Read the governing statutes (RCW 81.104.160 and RCW 82.44.035) and nonpartisan Senate and House staff analyses that reproduce both schedules.
  3. Read the Washington Supreme Court opinions in Black v. Sound Transit (2020) and Garfield County Transportation Authority v. State (2020).
  4. Compared the schedule with market values using the Legislature's 2006 fleet-wide study and a 2017 Kelley Blue Book comparison, preferring the fleet-wide study because it covers all vehicles rather than one example.
  5. Built a FactHub dataset comparing the two schedules year by year, with a worked example for a $30,000 car.
  6. Read Sound Transit's own explanation and budget, and news and association accounts of bills from 2017 to 2020, to state the agency's case and the legislative history.
  7. Recorded limits for each line of evidence, including the age of the market comparisons.

Editorial note: Scope: this check rates how Sound Transit's car-tab tax values vehicles, not whether ST3 projects are worth their cost or whether the tax rate is appropriate. Dollar examples are illustrative; individual bills depend on each vehicle's base MSRP and model year. The 2028 bond-retirement date is taken from Sound Transit and the Supreme Court's 2020 opinion; we did not review the bond documents themselves.

Expert-review status

No external specialist review has been recorded.

Funding and conflicts

Funding: No external funding for this piece.

Ownership: Published by FactHub. Research was compiled with an AI assistant (Claude, Anthropic) and checked against the cited sources.

Conflicts: None known.

Sources

Sources are labeled by kind, with what this fact check takes from each, so readers can check the evidence independently.

  1. Government Washington State Legislature. RCW 81.104.160: Motor vehicle excise tax for regional transit authorities

    The statute authorizing Sound Transit's MVET and setting which valuation schedule applies and when it changes.

    Reliability: Official statute text from the Code Reviser. The 2015 amendments (2ESSB 5987) added the 0.8% authority and the schedule-switch rule.

    • Sound Transit may levy an excise tax of up to 0.8% of a vehicle's value with voter approval.

      What the source says
      but not exceeding eight-tenths of one percent on the value
      Subsection (1)(a)

    • The tax must follow the vehicle-tax law as of January 1, 1996 until December 31 of the year Sound Transit repays bonds pledged before July 15, 2015.

      What the source says
      must comply with chapter 82.44 RCW as it existed on January 1, 1996, until December 31st of the year in which the regional transit authority repays bond debt to which a motor vehicle excise tax was pledged before July 15, 2015.
      Subsection (1)(c)
  2. Government Washington State Legislature. RCW 82.44.035: Valuation of vehicles

    The 2006 valuation schedule for local motor vehicle excise taxes.

    Reliability: Official statute text, enacted by SSB 6247 (2006) after the Joint Transportation Committee study.

    • Under the 2006 schedule, a car's value starts at 85% of base MSRP and is then depreciated by a statutory percentage; it still uses MSRP, not appraisals.

      What the source says
      the value of a vehicle other than a truck or trailer shall be eighty-five percent of the manufacturer's base suggested retail price of the vehicle
      Subsection (3)
  3. Government Washington State Senate Committee on Transportation. Senate Bill Report SB 5851 (2017)

    Nonpartisan staff analysis of a 2017 bill to value vehicles for Sound Transit's tax at Kelley Blue Book or NADA value; reproduces both schedules.

    Reliability: Prepared by nonpartisan Senate committee staff; not a statement of legislative intent.

    • The pre-2006 schedule (100% of MSRP in year 1, 95% in year 2, down to 10% from year 13) is the one DOL and Sound Transit use.

      What the source says
      The following vehicle valuation schedule for passenger cars and trucks was in statute prior to 2006 and is currently used by DOL and Sound Transit.
      Background, Valuation Schedule pre-2006

    • The 2006 schedule for passenger vehicles was designed to represent average market depreciation in the western United States.

      What the source says
      The valuation represents average, annual western-region market depreciation for passenger vehicles and light trucks.
      Background, Valuation Schedule B

    • SB 5851 (2017) would have valued vehicles for Sound Transit's tax at Kelley Blue Book or NADA value, whichever is lower.

      What the source says
      Replaces the current motor vehicle excise tax valuation used by a Regional Transit Authority to either Kelley Blue Book or the National Automobile Dealer Association values, whichever is lower.
      Brief Summary of Bill
  4. Government Washington State House Office of Program Research. House Bill Analysis, Initiative 976 (2019)

    Nonpartisan staff analysis of Initiative 976, including the history of the valuation schedules.

    Reliability: Prepared by nonpartisan House staff for the Transportation Committee; its schedule tables match the Senate report.

    • Statutory MSRP-based valuation schedules date from 1990; before that, valuation was set by agency rule.

      What the source says
      In 1990 the Legislature adopted statutory valuation schedules.
      Background, Motor Vehicle Excise Tax

    • Initiative 976 would have required local vehicle excise taxes to use Kelley Blue Book base values.

      What the source says
      Requires local motor vehicle excise taxes (MVET) to be calculated using the Kelley Blue Book base value of the vehicle.
      Brief Summary of Bill
  5. Government Washington State Legislature, Joint Transportation Committee. Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Study: Final Report (January 6, 2006)

    Legislative study comparing the MVET schedule with used-vehicle market values across Washington's registered fleet; led to the 2006 schedule.

    Reliability: Required by the 2005-07 transportation budget; participants included Sound Transit, DOL, WSDOT, the Attorney General's office and the financial community. Market values came from National Market Reports retail data.

    • The Legislature commissioned the study to develop a schedule that more accurately reflects vehicle value without impairing existing contracts.

      What the source says
      The purpose of the study is to develop an MVET depreciation schedule that more accurately reflects vehicle value but does not hinder outstanding contractual obligations.
      Proviso, front matter

    • Qualifies: For cars and light trucks the schedule was above market depreciation until year ten and below it after year ten.

      What the source says
      The MVET depreciation schedule is above the market depreciation schedule until service year ten. After service year ten the MVET depreciation schedule is below the market value.
      Section 3, Passenger Car and Light Truck Depreciation Curves

    • Fleet-wide, the market value of Washington's vehicles was about 89% of their taxable value in 2005.

      What the source says
      The market value of the fleet is about $51 billion. This is approximately 89% of the MVET value.
      Section 3, Washington's Vehicle Fleet
  6. Party to the dispute Sound Transit. Car tab (RTA MVET) FAQ

    Sound Transit's explanation of its car-tab tax, the schedule it uses and why.

    Reliability: Has a stake in this finding. Sound Transit receives the tax and defends keeping the older schedule. Its dates and rates match state law and the Supreme Court's account.

    • ST3 raised the rate from 0.3% to 1.1%, or $110 per $10,000 of depreciated value.

      What the source says
      This vote increased the MVET rate from .3 percent to 1.1 percent annually
      Why is the RTA tax on my vehicle higher

    • Qualifies: Sound Transit says its 1999 bond commitments require it to keep the schedule in place since 1999.

      What the source says
      Continued use of this schedule is required by commitments to people who purchased Sound Transit bonds in 1999
      What depreciation schedule is used

    • The 2006 schedule takes effect after the 1999 bonds are retired in 2028, when the 0.3% tax also expires.

      What the source says
      This schedule will go into effect after the 1999 bonds are retired in 2028.
      What depreciation schedule is used

    • Qualifies: Sound Transit says its pre-election tax calculator and the Seattle Times calculator both used the schedule now in use.

      What the source says
      Both were based on the depreciation schedule now in use.
      Did Sound Transit inform voters

    • Qualifies: Sound Transit says market-value taxation could require costly vehicle inspections.

      What the source says
      If these considerations were used it could require a costly and burdensome system for vehicle inspections.
      Why is vehicle value based on MSRP and not on Kelley Blue Book?
  7. Government Washington State Supreme Court. Black v. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, No. 97195-1, 195 Wn.2d 198 (2020) Identifier: No. 97195-1

    Opinion upholding RCW 81.104.160 against a challenge that it adopted the valuation schedules improperly.

    Reliability: Majority opinion by Justice Owens, filed February 13, 2020; Justice Gordon McCloud dissented. Slip opinion; the official reported version may differ in minor edits.

    • Qualifies: The Court held the statute keeping the old schedule constitutional.

      What the source says
      We hold the MVET statute is constitutional
      Opinion, introduction

    • The 1999 bonds backed by the tax expire in 2028.

      What the source says
      The bonds expire in 2028.
      Facts

    • The Court described the 2006 schedule as producing lower vehicle values than the former schedule.

      What the source says
      which results in a lower motor vehicle valuation than the former depreciation schedule
      Facts

    • The State told the Court the schedule Sound Transit applies is from Referendum 49 (1998), not the January 1, 1996 version the statute names.

      What the source says
      the depreciation schedule Sound Transit has been applying is found in Referendum 49
      Facts, State's notice before oral argument
  8. Government Washington State Supreme Court. Garfield County Transportation Authority v. State, No. 98320-8, 196 Wn.2d 378 (2020) Identifier: No. 98320-8

    Opinion striking down Initiative 976, filed October 15, 2020.

    Reliability: Majority opinion by Justice Gonzalez; Justice Madsen concurred on the single-subject ground only. Slip opinion.

    • The Court held I-976 unconstitutional for containing more than one subject and a misleading title.

      What the source says
      contains more than one subject, and its subject is not accurately expressed in its title. Accordingly, it is unconstitutional.
      Opinion, introduction

    • Qualifies: I-976 passed statewide with about 53% but was rejected by about 53% of voters in the Sound Transit region.

      What the source says
      The initiative passed statewide with about 53 percent of the vote, though it was rejected by about 53 percent of the voters in the Sound Transit region
      Facts
  9. News report The Seattle Times. Sound Transit uses inflated car values to collect higher tab fees (David Gutman, February 27, 2017)

    News analysis comparing Sound Transit's valuation with Kelley Blue Book values, with a worked example.

    Reliability: Staff reporting for the paper's Traffic Lab, which is supported by outside funders but editorially independent. Blue Book figures were looked up by the reporter in 2017.

    • Kelley Blue Book put the average 1-year-old car at 70% of sticker price, while the schedule uses 95%.

      What the source says
      Sound Transit says a 1-year-old car is worth 95 percent of its sticker price. Kelley Blue Book says the average 1-year-old car is worth only 70 percent of its sticker price.
      Article body

    • A 2014 Camry with 30,000 miles had a Blue Book value of about $10,700 in 2017.

      What the source says
      It has a Blue Book value of about $10,700.
      Camry example

    • The schedule valued the same Camry at $19,090, making Sound Transit's share of the tab about $209.

      What the source says
      At 3 years old, Sound Transit says the car is still worth $19,090, which means its portion of the car-tab fee is about $209.
      Camry example

    • A Department of Licensing spokesman said the formula is a standardized collection method, not a measure of market value.

      What the source says
      It’s not related to fair market value
      Quote from DOL spokesman · Brad Benfield, spokesman, Washington State Department of Licensing
  10. Government Washington State Legislature. HB 2201 (2017-18) bill summary and history

    Official record of the House bill on Sound Transit's 2016 car-tab tax and its votes.

    Reliability: Official legislative bill-tracking record.

    • HB 2201 addressed collection of the car-tab tax Sound Transit voters approved in 2016.

      What the source says
      Concerning the collection of a motor vehicle excise tax approved by voters of a regional transit authority in 2016.
      Bill title

    • The House first passed HB 2201 64-33 on April 12, 2017.

      What the source says
      Third reading, passed; yeas, 64; nays, 33
      Bill history, 2017 Regular Session

    • The House passed it again 60-37 on January 24, 2018; it then went no further in the Senate.

      What the source says
      Third reading, passed; yeas, 60; nays, 37
      Bill history, 2018 Regular Session
  11. Other Association of Washington Cities. Sound Transit "fix" will have to wait (March 9, 2018)

    Legislative update on the 2018 car-tab bills.

    Reliability: Association representing Washington cities; it says it took no position on either bill but was concerned about funding a backfill.

    • The 2018 House and Senate bills failed because the chambers could not agree how to replace Sound Transit's lost revenue.

      What the source says
      The separate chambers could not come to agreement on the backfill, resulting in no change to current law.
      Article body
  12. News report The Daily Herald (Everett). On car taxes, Sound Transit says it gets it, but does it? (Jerry Cornfield, February 5, 2020)

    Report on the 2020 Senate hearing on car-tab bills, including SB 6606.

    Reliability: Olympia reporting by the Herald's political writer; the $1 billion figure is Sound Transit's own estimate as reported.

    • Attempts to change the valuation in 2017, 2018 and 2019 all failed.

      What the source says
      Attempts in 2017, 2018 and 2019 all failed.
      Article body

    • The schedule in use was crafted in the 1990s and overvalues newer vehicles.

      What the source says
      Right now, the agency uses a depreciation schedule crafted in the 1990s which overvalues newer vehicles and is a contributing factor to higher car tab costs.
      Article body

    • Qualifies: Sound Transit estimated switching schedules early would cost it about $1 billion.

      What the source says
      offers some means for Sound Transit to offset the $1 billion hit it estimates it will take from switching schedules.
      Article body
  13. Government Sound Transit Board. Resolution R2024-25: Adopting the 2025 annual budget

    Board resolution adopting Sound Transit's 2025 budget, with revenue by source.

    Reliability: Official budget adopted by the Sound Transit Board in November 2024; figures are projections, not audited results.

    • Sound Transit budgeted $408.3 million from the motor vehicle excise tax for 2025.

      What the source says
      $408,311,026 for Motor Vehicle Excise Tax
      Resolution text, revenue sources
  14. FactHub record FactHub. Sound Transit car-tab valuation: the schedule in use vs. the 2006 schedule

    Year-by-year comparison of both schedules as a share of base MSRP, with a worked example for a $30,000 car.

    • The schedule in use values cars 1.18 to 1.64 times as high as the 2006 schedule in years 1 to 10, about the same in year 11, and lower in years 12 to 15.

    • A car with a $30,000 base MSRP in year 4 is taxed on $24,900 ($274 at 1.1%) versus $16,065 ($177) under the 2006 schedule.

  15. FactHub dataset Sound Transit car-tab valuation: the schedule in use vs. the 2006 schedule

    • Tables: schedules

      Saved analysis value-by-age

    • Tables: schedules

      Saved analysis example-30k-car

  16. FactHub chart sound-transit-mvet-schedule-comparison

Update history

  1. Initial version.

For search, research, and AI systems

Machine-readable fact-check

This page includes standardized ClaimReview metadata describing the exact claim, FactHub's finding, publisher, and review dates. You can inspect the record below and confirm that it matches the article you just read.

View ClaimReview JSON 
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"ClaimReview","url":"https://facthub.org/n/article/sound-transit-car-tab-valuation/1","datePublished":"2026-10-18","dateModified":"2026-10-18","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"FactHub","url":"https://facthub.org/"},"claimReviewed":"Sound Transit\u0027s car-tab tax uses a 1990s depreciation schedule that overstates what cars are worth.","reviewRating":{"@type":"Rating","alternateName":"Mostly true"},"image":"https://facthub.org/node-assets-v2/article/sound-transit-car-tab-valuation/1/link-train-mlk/social-1200x630.jpg"}

This metadata helps machines discover the fact-check. It does not prove the conclusion or guarantee special treatment by a search engine.

Challenge this fact-check

Every source above is linked so you can check it yourself. Identify the specific conclusion you dispute and provide verifiable evidence that could change it. Credible challenges deserve review and a visible response.

Submit evidence Send general feedback instead

Technical details: node handle article:sound-transit-car-tab-valuation:1