Environmentalists file suit over who wrote the No on Prop 1

COMPLAINT - 1
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND
PLLC
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4088
(206) 652-8660, (206) 652-8290 FAX
587182.1/026290.00001
8/17/07
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
Citizens Against RTID, a political
committee in opposition to the
RTID/Sound Transit Joint Ballot measure,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR
COUNTY, a Washington State County,
Defendants.
NO.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Citizens Against RTID (“CAR”), by and through its attorneys of
record, hereby alleges as follows:
I. PARTIES
1.1
Plaintiff, Citizens Against RTID (“CAR”), a political committee as
defined under RCW 42.17.020(38) in opposition to the RTID/Sound Transit
Joint Ballot measure, as provided by RCW 42.17.040(G). CAR brings this
action on behalf of all its members and because its membership represents the
interest of environmentalists that oppose the Joint Ballot Proposition.
Page 2
COMPLAINT - 2
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND
PLLC
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4088
(206) 652-8660, (206) 652-8290 FAX
587182.1/026290.00001

Defendant, MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR COUNTY (“King
County”) is a Washington State County.
II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
2.1
The Joint Ballot Proposition is a nearly $40 billion tax increase for
the development of roads (collected by RTID) and mass transit (collected by
Sound Transit).
2.2
Friday, August 17, 2007, is the deadline for appointment of
committee members responsible for drafting the “vote no” position on the King
County voters’ pamphlet regarding the Joint Ballot Proposition.
2.3
Sounds Transit appointed three committee members responsible
for drafting the “vote no” position on the King County voters’ pamphlet
regarding the Joint Ballot Proposition.
2.4
The committee appointed to draft the statement advocating
rejection of the Joint Ballot Proposition was wrongfully appointed for two
reasons. First, the committee members were selected by Sound Transit, an
entity with a direct interest in the success of the proposition. Pursuant to RCW
29A.32.280, King County is the only entity with the authority to appoint the
committee members. This interpretation has been adopted by Snohomish
County, which properly implemented the appointment requirement. Second,
committee members must be “known to oppose the measure” in its entirety, not
just the mass transit component.
THE RTID-SOUND TRANSIT JOINT BALLOT PROPOSITION
Page 3
COMPLAINT - 3
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND
PLLC
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4088
(206) 652-8660, (206) 652-8290 FAX
587182.1/026290.00001

King County Ordinance 2007-0357 placed the RTID-Sound
Transit Joint Ballot Proposition on the November 2007 general election ballot.
Similar action was taken by Pierce and Snohomish Counties.
2.6
The Joint Ballot Proposition contains two distinct components: (i)
a Sound Transit component; and (ii) a RTID component. The Sound Transit
component provides for the implementation of a regional rail and transit system
financed by existing taxes and an increase in the sales tax of 0.5%. The RTID
component provides for the implementation of road construction to increase
local traffic capacity financed by increases in the sales tax of 0.1% and the
motor vehicle excise tax of 0.8%. Collectively, the package is estimated to cost
$38.1 billion through 2027, with $14.5 billion going toward the RTID for roads
and $23.6 billion toward Sound Transit.
2.7
Washington law provides for the publication of a pamphlet
regarding the Joint Ballot Proposition which includes statements from
committees advocating both adoption and rejection of the measure. The
legislative authority in the applicable jurisdiction is required to formally appoint
committees of up to three (3) individuals to prepare arguments advocating
voters' both positions.
2.8
King County Records and Elections has established deadlines for
production of the local voters’ pamphlet pursuant to RCW 29A.32.230. Under
King County administrative rules (document code number ELE 9-1-2), the
deadline to appoint committees advocating approval and rejection of the Joint
Ballot Proposition is Friday, August 17, 2007.
Page 4
COMPLAINT - 4
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND
PLLC
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4088
(206) 652-8660, (206) 652-8290 FAX
587182.1/026290.00001

Sound Transit, who has a vested interest in the success of the Joint
Ballot Proposition, has purported to appoint committees advocating both
approval and rejection of the proposition.
2.10 Sound Transit is a “regional transit authority” under Chapter
81.112 RCW.
2.11 Sound Transit is not a legislative authority.
2.12 Sound Transit is not the legislative authority responsible for the
Joint Ballot Proposition.
2.13 RTID and Sound Transit are the entities that would receive the
billions of dollars in tax money if the Joint Ballot Proposition passes in
November.
2.14 Sound Transit appointed Kemper Freeman Jr., Will Knedlik, and
Phil Talmadge to the committee advocating rejection of the Joint Ballot
Proposition. RTID appointed the same individuals to the committee advocating
rejection.
2.15 King County, the legislative authority responsible for the Joint
Ballot Proposition, neither appointed any individuals to the committee
advocating rejection nor adopted the purported committee members appointed
by Sound Transit.
2.16 Snohomish County rejected the individuals appointed by Sound
Transit and RTID. The Snohomish County Council appointed pro and con
committees for the Joint Ballot Proposition measure by Amended Motion No.
07-417 on August 8, 2007.
Page 5
COMPLAINT - 5
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND
PLLC
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4088
(206) 652-8660, (206) 652-8290 FAX
587182.1/026290.00001

24
2.17 It is well known that voters in King County generally support the
expansion of public transportation but oppose building more roads. The
expansion of public transportation is considered by King County voters to be an
environmentally friendly and sustainable solution to population expansion in
King County. Conversely, increasing road miles and expanding freeways is a
short-lived solution that encourages more cars and traffic while increasing
pollution and urban sprawl.
2.18 The Joint Ballot Proposition has an internal tension for the
environmental community that must be represented to voters. If the position
advocating rejection of the Joint Ballot Proposition is represented only by
opponents of Sound Transit, then it will likely not be well received by King
County voters. Similarly, the absence of voices critical of RTID is inconsistent
with the concept of a balanced voters’ guide. For these reasons, the position
advocating rejection of the Joint Ballot Proposition must also be represented by
opponents of RTID and the expansion of roads and encouragement of urban
sprawl.
2.19 The three members of the committee advocating voters' rejection
of the Joint Ballot Proposition are known opponents of Sound Transit, but have
generally supported RTID projects.
2.20 Kemper Freeman, Jr., is described as “renowned for his support of
‘roads over transit”.
He was a prominent opponent of RTA/Sound Transit
ballot measures in 1995 and 1996. In 2004, Freeman provided 90 percent of the
$353,000 campaign for Initiative 883, which would have redirected state
transportation funds to highway construction and studied the elimination of High
Page 6
COMPLAINT - 6
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND
PLLC
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4088
(206) 652-8660, (206) 652-8290 FAX
587182.1/026290.00001

Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Initiative 883 “was designed to complement
the RTID package.”
2.21 Will Knedlik served on the voters’ guide “no” committee for a
non-binding RTID advisory ballot in 2004. Knedlik supported RTID highway
projects, but opposed the funding mechanism. He argued that “regional officials
should be examining ways to divert taxes they're already collecting — away
from rail and toward projects that will help more.” In 2006, Knedlik served on
the voters’ guide “no” committee for a King County Metro Transit sales tax
measure. The approach in this statement against was unorthodox, referencing
Sound Transit as many times as King County.
2.22 Former State Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge is a noted
critic of Sound Transit’s light rail plan, “claiming it will spend too much money
to attract too few new transit riders.” Earlier this year, Mr. Talmadge advocated
rebuilding the Alaskan Way viaduct, opposing the tunnel and surface/transit
options. In a recent opinion article, Mr. Talmadge was critical of plans to spend
only half of transportation funds on roads, even though it accounts for 95 percent
of travel.
2.23 The Joint Ballot Proposition contains two distinct components.
The Sound Transit component provides for the implementation of a regional rail
and transit system financed by existing taxes and an increase in sales tax of
0.5%.
The RTID component provides for the implementation of road
construction to increase local traffic capacity financed by an increase in sales tax
of 0.1% and a motor vehicle excise tax of 0.8%.
Page 7
COMPLAINT - 7
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND
PLLC
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4088
(206) 652-8660, (206) 652-8290 FAX
587182.1/026290.00001

2.24 Pursuant to Act of the Washington State Legislature, both the
Sound Transit and RTID components of the Joint Ballot Proposition are required
to be in a single proposition.
2.25 The Joint Ballot Proposition will be placed on the ballot during the
November 2007 general election in portions of King, Snohomish and Pierce
Counties.
III. VIOLATION OF RCW 29A.32.210 AND RCW 29A.32.241
3.1
RCW 29A.32.210 provides for the authorization and contents of a
voters’ pamphlet providing information on all measures within that jurisdiction.
3.2
RCW 29A.32.280 provides that “. . . .the legislative authority of
that jurisdiction shall. . . formally appoint a committee to prepare arguments
advocating voters' approval of the measure and shall formally appoint a
committee to prepare arguments advocating voters' rejection of the measure.”
3.3
Under RCW 29A.32.280, the legislative authority must formally
appoint the committee “not later than forty-five days before the publication of
the [local voters’] pamphlet.”
3.4
RCW 29A.32.241(5) provides that the local voters' pamphlet shall
include the arguments for and against each measure submitted by committees
selected pursuant to RCW 29A.32.280.
3.5
Defendant King County violated RCW 29A.32.280 and RCW
29A.32.241(5) because, as the legislative body of the County of King, it failed to
formally appoint a committee to prepare arguments advocating and opposing
voters' approval of the Joint Ballot Measure not later than forty-five days before
the publication of the King County voter pamphlet for the 2007 general election.
Page 8
COMPLAINT - 8
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND
PLLC
999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4088
(206) 652-8660, (206) 652-8290 FAX
587182.1/026290.00001
Defendant King County violated RCW 29A.32.280 and RCW
29A.32.241(5) because it failed to appoint persons known to favor the Joint
Ballot Proposition to serve on the committee advocating approval of the Joint
Ballot Measure.
3.7
Defendant King County violated RCW 29A.32.280 and RCW
29A.32.241(5) because, despite the availability of persons known to oppose the
Joint Ballot Proposition, King County failed to appoint those persons to serve on
the committee advocating rejection of the measure.
IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief from
this honorable court:
4.1
Judgment vacating the committee to vote no against the Joint
Ballot Proposition.
4.2
Judgment against KING COUNTY enjoining it from recognizing
the committees appointed by Sound Transit and RTID for the purpose of
advocating approval and rejection of the Joint Ballot Proposition.
DATED this 17
th
day of August, 2006.
By: s/ Roger M. Townsend
Roger M. Townsend, WSBA No. 25525
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, Washington 98104-4088
(206) 652-8660/ (206) 652-8290 Fax
Attorneys for Plaintiff CAR

Text of Initiaitive 883

The text of this document is an accurate copy of what was filed by the initiative proponent with the Secretary of State for assignment of a serial number. The accuracy of code in amendatory sections has not been verified.

4/7/04

INITIATIVE 883

I, Sam Reed, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and custodian of its seal, hereby certify that, according to the records on file in my office, the attached copy of Initiative Measure No. 883 to the People is a true and correct copy as it was received by this office.

AN ACT Relating to reducing traffic congestion by making road construction to reduce traffic congestion the top priority of the state transportation system; amending RCW 36.120.160; adding new sections to chapter 47.10 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 47.01 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 47.06 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.08 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.12 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 43.09 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 46.68 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 47.05 RCW; and creating new sections.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 47.10 RCW to read as follows:

LEGISLATIVE INTENT--TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FUNDING MUST REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND IMPROVE MOBILITY. Traffic congestion costs Washington billions of dollars and thousands of jobs and is a drain on our state economy. Since 1990, vehicular travel growth has been at a rate more than triple the growth of lane-miles of freeways and arterials serving that travel. Projects constructed in Washington have generally exceeded costs of comparable construction in the rest of the country. The Puget Sound region is among the worst in the United States measured by delay per driver, fuel consumed per person, and annual congestion cost per person. This congestion continues to worsen with serious economic effects reducing economic development, hurting businesses, and costing jobs. Dedicating some of existing revenues to complete priority projects will reduce traffic delay to significantly and substantially improve Washington's economic climate. Long-term implementation of this Traffic Congestion Relief Initiative will reduce traffic congestion significantly below today's level. In order to create jobs and economic growth, it is necessary to act to reduce traffic delay by requiring dedication of some existing funds as provided in this act to construct the most cost-effective projects, controlling costs and exempting congestion relief projects from sales tax. The people direct that the provisions of this initiative be implemented without impact on education funding.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 47.10 RCW to read as follows:

CRITERIA FOR HIGHWAY PROJECT FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION--STATE AND REGIONAL EFFORTS. (1) The department of transportation, a county, a regional transportation investment district, or other entity proposing to construct freeways or principal arterial projects defined as highways of statewide significance with costs over ten million dollars shall first conduct a traffic congestion relief and cost-effectiveness analysis of the proposed project.

(2) Expenditures from the traffic congestion relief account created by section 8 of this act may be made only for freeway and principal arterial improvements certified after the traffic congestion relief analysis shows those improvements to be the best in the state or in each region of the state, as specified in subsection (5) of this section. The analysis by the department or entity set forth in subsection (3) of this section must:

(a) Be based on commonly accepted transportation planning procedures;

(b) Recognize regionally adopted population and employment projections;

(C) Estimate current afternoon/evening peak period vehicle-hours of delay for the project area or corridor;

(d) Estimate projected afternoon/evening peak vehicle-hours of delay for the project area or corridor for the tenth year in the future without project improvements;

(e) Estimate projected afternoon/evening peak vehicle-hours of delay for the project area or corridor for the tenth year in the future with the project completed and in operation; and

(f) Prepare an estimated present-value capital cost of the project.

(3) The calculated savings in vehicle-delay hours per million dollars of capital investment becomes the traffic congestion relief score. The score establishes priority ranking for projects that must be funded in descending order of delay reduction per million dollars of capital investment.

(4) No more than sixty percent of the funds dedicated through section 8 of this act may be committed for projects in any three-county area.

(5) In any region of the state, as determined by the department of transportation pursuant to chapter 47.01 RCW, at least one project with the highest traffic congestion relief rating after analysis under subsections (2) and (3) of this section may be funded and constructed in each biennium. For purposes of this section, the Northwest and Olympic regions will be redefined to exclude King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. A single county or other cooperative operating agency formed between counties or counties and cities under chapter 39.34 RCW may apply for and receive an appropriation of traffic congestion relief funds to construct the projects. A regional transportation investment district created under chapter 36.120 RCW may apply for and receive matching funds for such projects on a one-to-one basis.

(6) The minimum threshold for a project qualifying for funding from the Congestion Relief Fund shall be a projected 10-year roadway or corridor Travel Time Index of 1.1 or worse. Travel Time Index is the ratio of peak period travel time to free-flow travel time for a project or highway segment. If in any Region no projects meet this minimum threshold, then one safety-related or major maintenance-related project from that Region may qualify for funding. The projects so selected shall be those with the highest benefit/cost ratio.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 47.01 RCW to read as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT. (1) The department shall designate an office or division of dedicated staff and services whose primary responsibility is the analysis, design, permitting, and construction of transportation projects and conversion of existing high-occupancy vehicle lanes to general purpose lanes, which will reduce traffic congestion as determined to be necessary and appropriate as provided in section 2 of this act and in this section.

(2) As an immediate action, all high-occupancy vehicle lanes will be opened for off-peak and weekend hours and each lane analyzed for capacity to reduce traffic congestion through conversion to general purpose vehicle lanes. A maximum of three consecutive A.M. hours per weekday and three consecutive P.M. hours per weekday may be designated as "peak" for this purpose. Each lane must be immediately converted to a general purpose lane unless peak period congestion is not reduced by opening a high-occupancy vehicle lane to general purpose traffic. Future high-occupancy vehicle lanes may be implemented only if their projected use would carry more person-trips than would a general purpose lane in its place. In performing this analysis, the average car occupancy (ACO) of vehicles using the high-occupancy vehicle lane must be assumed to be constant when converted to a general purpose lane. This section does not affect RCW 46.44.080, 46.61.110, or 46.61.135 as relates to truck traffic.

(3) All of the powers granted the department under this title relating to highway construction must be used to implement this act and to construct, convert, or aid and facilitate these traffic congestion relief projects, including those projects proposed by counties, cooperative operating agencies, or regional transportation investment districts if meeting the criteria in section 2 of this act.

(4) At the request of a county, cooperative operating agency, or regional transportation investment district, the department shall perform the traffic congestion relief analysis specified in section 2 of this act for each proposed project and report the results within six months to the requesting entity and to the legislature.

(5) In an application for federal funding made by or through the department, each project costing over ten million dollars must be analyzed for traffic congestion relief cost-effectiveness and the results, and a cumulative summary of all state projects, submitted with any funding proposal or report made to federal agencies or to the United States Congress. The department shall prioritize these projects and seek maximum federal funding to implement this act and match the funds dedicated by this act to traffic congestion reduction.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 47.06 RCW to read as follows:

COST CONTROLS AND WAIVER OF SALES AND USE TAXES ON TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF PROJECTS. Capital costs of major roadway projects of the department have exceeded national costs. To be eligible for funding under this act, project costs must be controlled to meet the following requirements:

(1) Added lane-mile costs must be no more than fifty percent above prevailing national costs for roads of a similar type and in locations of comparable density by location (central city, urban, suburban, exurb, and rural);

(2) Prevailing national costs must be determined from average lane-mile costs by roadway type and location type provided by the federal highway administration or United States congressional committee reports. If these are unavailable, prevailing national costs may be calculated from the most recently completed or projects contracted and under construction in a sample of at least ten comparison states, including states subject to significant seismic design requirements and states with variable terrain. The comparison states must be geographically distributed around the United States.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 82.08 RCW to read as follows:

The taxes levied by RCW 82.08.020 do not apply to materials and labor used in the construction or maintenance of publicly owned roads, streets, and highways where funded by this act or by federal funding and meeting the traffic congestion relief criteria in section 2 of this act. This exemption includes project construction from matching funds.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 82.12 RCW to read as follows:

The taxes levied by RCW 82.12.020 do not apply to materials and labor used in the construction or maintenance of publicly owned roads, streets, and highways where funded by this act or by federal funding and meeting the traffic congestion relief criteria in section 2 of this act. This exemption includes project construction from matching funds.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 43.09 RCW to read as follows:

ACCOUNTABILITY AND PERFORMANCE AUDITS. (1) The state auditor shall conduct a performance audit of any constructing agency, including the department of transportation, and any county, regional transportation investment district, or other public agency that has constructed traffic congestion relief funded projects costing in excess of ten million dollars. The funds from sections 8 and 9 of this act must be used for the cost of the audit. The first audit report for each agency must be submitted to the legislature and made available to the public on or before December 31, 2006. Subsequent performance audits must be conducted by the state auditor and made available at least one year after the completion of any project or payment of over ninety percent of contracted costs for any project. For counties and cities, the audit may be conducted as part of audits otherwise required by state law.

(2) The state auditor shall also conduct a performance audit of the department of transportation administration and support of the traffic congestion relief program at least each fiscal biennium. Each audit must also include a summary and comparison of all highway and road construction under other funding sources of the department analyzed under the criteria set forth in section 2 of this act in order to allow comparison of the congestion relief effectiveness per million dollars spent of all department of transportation projects.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 46.68 RCW to read as follows:

TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ACCOUNT CREATED. (1) The traffic congestion relief account is created in the motor vehicle fund. Money in the account may be appropriated and spent in accordance with this act. Expenditures from the account must be used only for projects or improvements identified as traffic congestion relief projects and to pay the principal and interest on the bonds authorized for traffic congestion relief projects or improvements.

(2) That portion of fuel tax, weight fees, and sales and use tax specified in section 11 of this act must be transferred to the traffic congestion relief account in accordance with this Initiative.

(3) The proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by sections 9 and 10 of this act must also be deposited in the traffic congestion relief account of the motor vehicle fund. The proceeds are available only for the purposes enumerated in this act and for the payment of anticipation notes, if any, and for the payment of bond issuance costs, including the costs of underwriting.

(4) Any earnings on surplus balances in this fund will be invested and credited to the fund in accordance with RCW 43.84.092.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 47.10 RCW to read as follows:

TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF BONDS AUTHORIZED. In order to provide funds necessary for the immediate design and construction of selected traffic congestion relief highway and road projects under this act, there shall be issued and sold a total of ten billion dollars of general obligation bonds of the state of Washington, which must be appropriated in accordance with this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 47.10 RCW to read as follows:

As the bonds authorized by section 9 of this act are repaid, new bonds may be issued to the maximum of ten billion dollars as set forth in section 9 of this act, and the moneys appropriated to construct additional projects statewide that meet the traffic congestion relief criteria specified in section 2 of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. A new section is added to chapter 46.68 RCW to read as follows:

FUNDING FOR BOND PAYMENTS--TAXES AND FEES DEDICATED. (1) The following taxes, fees, and tolls are transferred and dedicated to the traffic congestion relief account to directly fund projects or to be applied to the repayment of bonds sold to fund the traffic congestion relief projects authorized by this act:

(a) Beginning June 30, 2005, 2.8 cents per gallon of the motor fuel tax rate applied by RCW 82.36.025 to the sale, distribution, or use of motor vehicle fuel will be transferred to the traffic congestion relief account;

(b) Beginning June 30, 2005, the proceeds of the tax rate of 2.8 cents per gallon of special fuel, or each one hundred cubic feet of compressed natural gas, measured at standard pressure and temperature imposed on special fuel users by RCW 82.38.030 will be transferred to the traffic congestion relief account;

(C) Beginning June 30, 2005, that portion of sales and use tax on motor vehicles specified in RCW 82.08.020 and 82.12.020 of three percent of the selling price, in the case of a sales tax, or three percent of the value of the motor vehicle used, in the case of a use tax, upon the occurrence of any taxable event will be transferred to the traffic congestion relief account;

(d) Beginning June 30, 2005, twenty percent of the license fees for motor buses and other trucks and tractor vehicles based on gross weight imposed by RCW 46.16.070 will be transferred to the traffic congestion relief account.

(2) Revenues from the taxes and fees specified in subsection (1) of this section may be used only to implement the traffic congestion relief projects as set forth in this act, including audits required by section 7 of this act. The department shall contract with the state department of revenue or other appropriate entities for administration and collection of the taxes or fees authorized in this section.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. A new section is added to chapter 46.68 RCW to read as follows:

DISTRIBUTIONS TO CITIES AND COUNTIES UNAFFECTED. The funds credited and distributed to cities and counties under RCW 46.68.090 through 46.68.120 and 35.76.050 and to the transportation improvement board under chapter 47.26 RCW and to the county road administration board pursuant to chapter 36.78 RCW, chapter 36.79 RCW, and chapter 46.68 RCW are not affected by the provisions of this act, and those payments must continue as otherwise provided by law. However, each such entity is encouraged to advance the purposes of this initiative and apply those funds to reduce congestion emphasizing improvement to principal arterials. Proof of such compliance for this section shall be shown by certification of compliance by the entity receiving and expending such funds subject to audit review.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 13.

GAS AND VEHICLE TAXES AND WEIGHT FEES NOT TO BE RAISED. Existing statewide motor vehicle fuel and special fuel taxes, at the distribution rates in effect on January 1, 2004, and sales and use taxes on vehicles are not to be raised or altered by this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. A new section is added to chapter 47.10 RCW to read as follows:

TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF BOND FUNDS. Bond issues under the authority of sections 9 and 10 of this act must distinctly state that they are a general obligation of the state of Washington, pledge the full faith and credit of the state to the payment of the principal thereof and the interest thereon, and contain an unconditional promise to pay the principal and interest as they become due. The principal and interest on the bonds are first payable from the portion of the state excise taxes on motor vehicle and special fuels and vehicle weight license fees and from the sales and use taxes transferred by section 11 of this act. Proceeds of these taxes transferred by section 11 of this act are pledged to the payment of any bonds and the interest on them. The state agrees to continue to impose these excise taxes, vehicle weight fees, and sales and use taxes in amounts sufficient to pay, when due, the principal and interest on all bonds issued under the authority of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 15. A new section is added to chapter 47.10 RCW to read as follows:

Both principal and interest on the bonds issued for the purposes of section 9 of this act are payable from the traffic congestion relief funds. The state finance committee may provide that a special account be created to facilitate payment of the principal and interest of these bonds. The state finance committee shall, on or before June 30th of each year, certify to the state treasurer the amount required for principal and interest on the bonds in accordance with the bond proceedings. The state treasurer shall withdraw revenues from the traffic congestion relief account in the motor vehicle fund and deposit in the highway bond retirement fund, or a special account, such amounts, and at such times, as are required by the bond proceedings. Any funds required for bond retirement or interest on the bonds authorized by sections 9 and 10 of this act must be taken from the traffic congestion relief account in the motor vehicle fund. Funds required do not constitute a charge against any other allocations of motor vehicle fuel and special fuel tax revenues to the state, counties, cities, and towns unless the amounts arising from excise taxes on motor vehicle and special fuels distributed to the state in the traffic congestion relief account proves insufficient to meet the requirements for bond retirement or interest on any such bonds.

Sec. 16. RCW 36.120.160 and 2002 c 56 s 116 are each amended to read as follows:

OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS. Any improvement to a state highway or road facility constructed under this chapter becomes and remains the property of this state.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 17. A new section is added to chapter 47.05 RCW to read as follows:

NONAPPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. This chapter does not apply to the projects authorized under sections 1 through 15 of this act or to the process set forth therein for authorization and funding.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 18.

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the policies and purposes of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 19.

CAPTIONS NOT LAW. Captions used in this act are not any part of the law.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 20.

If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. If the provisions transferring a portion of existing taxes and revenues to the traffic congestion relief account is held to impair any bond or other contract in existence at the time this act becomes effective, the provisions shall be applied prospectively and to all other persons and circumstances.

I-883 is pulled without reaching signature target

Why did God create Kemper Freeman Jr.? Somebody’s got to pay retail.
by Goldy, 06/20/2004, 3:36 PM

When it became apparent two weeks ago that Kemper Freeman Jr. was no longer paying for signatures on Initiative 883, I assumed it was because he had gathered all he needed. Thus it came as a pleasant surprise to learn that Junior had actually pulled the initiative: “Freeway initiative campaign takes exit.” (And kudos to the Seattle Times for not calling it a “car-pool initiative.”)

I-883 had been one of the season’s best financed initiative campaigns… most of it Junior’s money. With virtually unlimited personal funds, and a dishonest yet misleading quarter-truth of a sales pitch (”this initiative opens HOV lanes to everybody,”) I-883 seemed certain to reach the ballot.

But I should have been paying closer attention to the PDC filings. The I-883 campaign turns out to be so grossly inefficient that it makes Tim Eyman look like he’s giving the EIC a good deal for their money. (He’s not.)

Of the over $320,000 spent through the end of may, only $42,000 is listed as going to “voter signature gathering,” while a whopping $190,000 was pissed away on “management & consulting services.” The only conclusion is that either the campaign has hidden signature gathering efforts under the wrong expense category, or that Junior was royally reamed by his consultants.

If he had hired me as a consultant I could have saved him about $189,000 by advising him to fire me and SPEND ALL HIS DAMN MONEY ON SIGNATURES!

This calls into question the campaign’s claim that they had gathered half the 197,000 required signatures. With a street price of a buck each, the firms had to be charging at least $2.00… and with Junior’s penchant for paying retail, probably much, much more. So it is unlikely they collected more than a tenth the required number.

This also calls into question Junior’s business acumen, and begs the larger question of why we should trust this man to re-prioritize our state’s multi-billion dollar transportation budget when he can’t even prioritize a few hundred thousand dollars in campaign expenditures.

If our transportation spending were to follow Junior’s blueprint, for every $1 billion in new roads we’d spend $4.5 billion on management and consulting fees.

Tim Eyman likes to say that government never reforms itself when it is “fat and happy.” Looking at the campaign finances of Tim, Junior and their fellow initiative sponsors, it looks like there is plenty of cheerful corpulence to go around.

source horsesass.com