Eyman's I-985 attacked for reducing incentive for cities to introduce red light cameras

Eyman's I-985 invites road tragedies

By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST

DURING THE past decade, our state's less savvy citizens have seen voting for Tim Eyman's tax initiatives as a pain-free way of giving local government a poke in the eye.

The officials so often abused by the initiative kingpin -- Eyman talks endlessly of an unnamed "they" and "them" -- bend over backward to ease the impact and maintain pared-down essential services.

Initiative 985 carries more pain -- physical pain.

Vote in favor of the initiative and your kid may get smashed in the legs by fenders of a car running a red light, or your grandmother killed as she uses a crosswalk after getting off a bus.

Why? Initiative 985 erects a financial barrier that will prevent cities from installing or maintaining cameras at busy and dangerous intersections.

"Traffic cameras are an attempt to begin to level the playing field between powerful cars and human bodies out there. Eyman could give a rat's rear about that," said Andrea Okomski, whose son, Joe, suffered permanent injuries when hit by a car on North 85th Street.

Lori Koidal has become an activist for pedestrian rights since her mother was killed last year by a driver who ran a red light at a busy Kenmore intersection. The driver was not found criminally liable.

"It makes me mad to see something gain traction, and then not happen," Koidal added. "Something CAN work, and this takes it away.

"We're talking about holding people accountable for their actions. If you know there is a camera, you're going to be less likely to run a red light. You will be more likely to slow down."

Eyman, not surprisingly, takes a different view. Displaying the insight that marks him as a leader of bitter men, he used a Friday e-mail to blast traffic cameras as "a lucrative cash cow profit center."

The initiative would take away from cities all of the fines and penalties raised by traffic cameras. The money would instead be sent to a state decongestion fund. It would be used to time traffic lights rather than installing cameras to monitor traffic at sensitive intersections and around schools.

"I hate those cameras, but I believe in them. They make me be careful," King County Executive Ron Sims said in a Seattle CityClub debate with Eyman.

Sims draws on personal experience. He was hit by a car after school as a third-grader in Spokane.

We've seen a common pattern on previous Eyman initiatives. The Elway Poll, about two weeks out, shows a sharp decline in voter support. But time runs out on opponents.

Eyman squeaks through with about 51.12 percent of the vote. He loses in King County but carries rural areas by heavy margins. A guy who could strut sitting down, he then descends on Olympia and claims to be a tribune of the regular guy.

The traffic camera issue is making him squirm.

He tried the Big Brother gambit before CityClub, claiming there is "a little bit of ACLU in all of us." He has tried to demonize camera makers for contributing to the campaign against I-985.

How much is the anti-985 war chest? It totaled $186,000 as of Friday, compared with the $6.2 million raised by supporters and opponents of Initiative 1000, which would legalize physician-assisted suicide.

Above all, argues Eyman, "I-985 removes the profit motive for photo red light cameras and photo speeding cameras."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the consequences. The cameras become unaffordable to install or maintain.

Eyman has recently heard that message from both the Renton and Burien city councils. He was told in Renton that cameras have cut speeding around schools and freed up police officers to pursue criminals.

Will cities continue to install cameras if money from fines gets sent to Olympia? "We would not be able to afford them," Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels said on a recent podcast.

The national growth of intersection accidents underscores a need to do exactly what Eyman's initiative would render fiscally impossible.

Drivers running red lights cause more than 100,000 crashes a year, killing nearly 1,000 people and injuring 90,000 others. According to the Federal Highway Administration, this has become a leading cause of fatal collisions in metropolitan areas.

"This should be viewed as an outrageous epidemic," Richard Retting, chief traffic engineer with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told the Ladies Home Journal. "We're not talking about a rare illness that requires decades of billion-dollar research to prevent or cure. This is a situation where people are dying from something that's 100 percent preventable."

Okomski makes another telling point. We simply don't have enough police to make people be civil on the road, or to cover intersections prone to side-impact "T-bone" crashes.

Yet, I-985 is aimed at preventing the prevention. Eyman doesn't stand for tax relief. He is promoting road kill.

I-695 cuts licence tabs to $30 - passed in 1999

Keeping tabs on reality
There's no such thing as a free lunch: feel good tax cut would gore all our oxes

Sunday, October 10, 1999
By THOMAS SHAPLEY
P-I EDITORIAL BOARD

Almost every workday morning brings transportation headaches on I-5 and I-405. But November could deliver a transportation migraine called I-695.

Just last November, with Referendum 49, Washington voters elected to dedicate a big chunk of their license tab tax money to fund a long-term, multi-billion dollar program for highway construction, rail, freight mobility and ferry construction. This November, Washington voters are being asked to approve Initiative 695, which would essentially toss out the license tab money altogether.

Shifting hundreds of millions of dollars in Motor Vehicle Excise Tax out of the state general fund and into the state transportation fund with Referendum 49 last year and then slashing the MVET through I-695 this year is like taking out a car loan and then quitting your job before you make the first payment.

Then, in a strange non sequitur, the initiative would also have us put to a public referendum every increase in tax or fee our duly elected officials deem necessary.

An anti-tax, less-is-more mythology has grown up around this ill-conceived proposal. The only antidote to this self-inflicted misery is a dose of reality before Election Day on Nov. 2.

Here, then, are some of the myths -- and attendant realities -- of Initiative 695.

The role of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax

Myth: The MVET isn't doing the job it was created to do in the first place, which was to build and maintain the road system.

Reality: The MVET was first imposed in 1937, in lieu of a property tax on automobiles. Its revenues were not initially intended to be used for transportation. The MVET was no more established to pay for the roads that carried the vehicles it taxed than the property tax on real estate is confined to paying for the sidewalks in front of the property upon which it is assessed.

Over the years, however, more and more MVET money has been transferred out of the state general fund and into the state transportation fund. The most recent such transfer came with voter approval of Referendum 49 last year.

R-49 moved roughly $469 million out of the two-year general fund budget and into the separate state transportation budget. The R-49 money tapped the general fund budget surplus, in large measure, to float billions of dollars worth of bonds to finance long-overdue transportation improvements around the state.

I-695 would gut that effort. Those tempted to support I-695 on the argument that it is wrong to not spend all the vehicle license tax on transportation might ask themselves how it can now suddenly be right to spend almost none of it on transportation.

Who benefits

Myth: Dropping the MVET to a flat $30 per vehicle will help the "little guy," the average, working-hard-to-make-ends-meet person.

Reality: This is a boon to the big guys with newer, more expensive cars and motor homes. The progressiveness of the existing formula -- the more you have the more you pay, and, just as important, the less you have the less you pay -- is overturned in favor of a flat price for everyone.

The MVET is already applied at a flat rate of 2.2 percent on all vehicles. Dropping to a flat amount of $30 per vehicle gives a hugely disproportionate break to the owners of expensive vehicles.

Under current law, the yearly tax on a $40,000 Mercedes is $880. At a flat assessment of $30, that Mercedes would be taxed the same amount as an old Chevy worth $1,360. The Mercedes owner chocks up an $850 tax cut. The owner of the old Chevy, meanwhile, gets no break at all.

Another example: The owner of a middle-aged Ford valued at $4,000 now pays $88 a year for her tabs. Her big I-695 tax break? Fifty-eight dollars. Whoopeee!

The serious partying will take place in the $100,000 motor home, whose owner gets a $2,170 cut.

But even the license tab tax break I-695 would give the "big guys" would be diluted on April 15. The MVET is a federal income tax deduction, and as such reduces the owners' federal tax obligation. No state MVET; no tax deduction. Vehicle owner's will end up sending less money to Washington state and more to Washington, D.C.

Saved by the "surpluses"

Myth: We've got plenty of money, at both the state and local level, to make up for this lost revenue. I-695 proponents cite the nearly $1 billion state budget "surplus" and the $3 billion local government investment pool as evidence that government can do without the MVET money.

Surplus Reality Part 1: The state Department of Transportation estimates it will take a huge hit if I-695 passes. It will lose about $558 million in direct tax revenue in the next two years. (Beyond that, the transportation department would lose out on another $686 million in borrowed money secured by R-49 bonds.)

That represents a cut of about one-third of the departments $3.3 billion in transportation expenditures planned over the next two years. Over the next six years -- the period in which we are supposed to do all those R-49 projects --

I-695 would cost the state transportation budget $7 billion.

Surplus Reality Part 2: The lion's share of the state budget "surplus" is really a reserve, designed to guard the state against unforseen problems, including a downturn in the economy.

This "surplus" is very hard to spend -- thanks to voters' approval of Initiative 601. That law sets strict limits on how much the state can spend each year out of the general fund budget. The current two-year general fund budget is just $78 million under that limit. Going over that spending limit requires -- guess what? -- approval by the voters.

So, under I-601, using any more than $78 million of the "surplus" to replace the MVET revenue loss would require a majority of voters agreeing to raid the state's savings account.

Surplus Reality Part 3: The $3 billion local government investment pool is a short-term holding place for various government funds moving through the system at any given time. These are committed funds. Saying we could tap this fund is like saying you've got money for a Caribbean cruise because the check for the house payment hasnt yet cleared the bank.

The extent of the damage

Myth: I-695 affects only state transportation funding.

Reality: While the transportation budget and the proposed R-49 projects take a big hit, there would also be substantial losses to local government, cutting funding for criminal justice and public health.

Included in the $1.2 billion that would be lost throughout the state over the next two years is $345 million in local transit funding, $62.8 million in local criminal justice money and $215.5 million in other local government funding, including more than $52 million in public health money.

Adams County, for instance, stands to lose more than a half-million dollars next year alone, including $33,400 for public health, $83,800 for city police and fire protection and $302,700 for criminal justice. Ritzville, hometown of Republican state Sen. Larry Sheahan, would take a $20,500 hit, including $18,000 in city police and fire protection and $1,877 in criminal justice.

Garfield County stands to lose as much as 40 percent of its operating budget.

Jurisdictions within King County, meanwhile, face losses of $139.5 million, including $9.5 million in public health, $13.5 million in city police and fire protection, $7.4 million in criminal justice funds and more than $100 million in public transit support.

Opponents, including Mike Patrick, executive director of the Washington State Council of Police and Sheriffs, say the passage of I-695 could result in the loss of 1,000 police officers and firefighters.

While it's difficult, if not impossible, to predict just what budget-cutting measures local jurisdictions might take, it's certain that criminal justice costs soak up large portions of county budgets, especially in rural areas. Local tax bases are not equipped to fill the void.

Holding the line on taxes

Myth: Tax increases are out of control and subjecting all tax and fee increases to public votes will bring taxes under control.

Reality: There are already several mechanisms in state law that restrict tax increases. Two of those are the recently approved limitations contained in I-601 and Referendum 47.

Under I-601, raising taxes requires approval by a super majority (two-thirds) of the Legislature. And as a guard against profligate tax increases, I-601 limits the amount legislators can spend, no matter how much they take in.

State law had long limited taxing jurisdictions to no more than a 6 percent increase in annual expenditures without a vote of the people. Referendum 47, approved by the voters in 1997, limited the automatic increase to the rate of inflation (in no case to exceed 6 percent) without approval of two-thirds of the members of the governing body.

For those opposed to excessive government spending, it shouldn't make much sense to require that every increase in taxes or fees be subject to the public expense of a referendum.

Is it wise policy to hold an election every time the public library needs to raise the cost of a library card or parks and recreation needs to increase the admission price to the public pool?

The only alternative to multiple elections allowed by I-695 would be annual plebiscites covering a gaggle of money issues for the already under-informed public to bone up on.

The reality is that Washington is run by a representative democracy, in which we elect people to make informed decisions on a myriad of matters, including taxes.

I-695 backers have made no convincing case for overthrowing our traditional form of government.

Origins of I-695

Myth: Initiative 695 was crafted by a group of concerned, committed citizens to express a broad grassroots ideology.

Reality: I-695 founder Tim Eyman seems more off on a lark than a crusade. A mail-order salesman, Eyman decided to try pedaling public policy like he does watches. He had been a co-sponsor of Washington's Initiative 200, which effectively ended affirmative action here, but little thanks to Eyman. His effort fizzled and I-200 was rescued by talk-show host John Carlson. Eyman first tried to get the $30 license tab measure on the ballot last year but came up short on signatures.

Eyman apparently doesn't claim to be one of the "little guys" for whom he says he's doing all this -- unless he defines the "little guy" as one who, like himself, recently bought a $433,000 home and pays $900 a year in car tabs on his '98 Saab.

Taxpayers will get just what they deserve from billions less in taxes -- billions less in government services. And who usually gets the short end of the stick with fewer government services? Ah, yes, the little guy.

For one thing, there are more little guys out there, so they're more likely to feel the effect of cuts in police, fire, public health, public transit and road improvements. The little guys often live in little places, such as the rural counties whose budgets are in for such a beating from I-695.

Delivering on the promise

Myth: The passage of I-695 will be a victory for the downtrodden taxpayer over the free-spending politicians by not only shutting down billions of tax-funded transportation projects but by hog-tying local elected officials who won't dare take the political risk of putting tax and fee increases up for a vote.

Reality: The grim reality for the no-taxniks is that it's just bad public policy to allow basic services to go unfunded.

Responsible elected officials will find a way to fund them. The logical solution to the suddenly unfunded transportation need would be obvious if ironic: a gas tax increase.

Republican legislators generated R-49 last year as an alternative to Gov. Gary Locke's proposal to raise the gas tax and index future increases to inflation.

The gas tax is the truly intuitive way to fund transportation. Indeed, the 18th Amendment to the Washington State Constitution mandates that gas tax money only be used for "highway purposes," including ferries, State Patrol and the Department of Licensing.

Initiative 695 may not even result in removing hefty taxes from vehicles.

At the 1937 inception of the MVET, the Legislature tempered the tax by exempting vehicles from city and county property taxes.

Initiative 695 would eliminate that exemption. So it's quite possible that, with the passage of I-695, and without even the necessity of a vote of the Legislature (let alone a public vote), county assessors would have no choice but to assess vehicles as personal property.

Because automobiles were subject to personal property tax before the 1937 exemption and because I-695 would toss out that exemption, says King County Assessor Scott Noble, it would not be a new tax and therefore would not require I-695's voter approval. Assessors are obligated to assess and collect taxes in accordance with the law.

And then there is the income tax. The passage of this initiative might be what it takes to finally force serious consideration of an income tax.

Perhaps the biggest myth of all is that we can get something for nothing, or that government is something that somebody else should pay for, or that it's always right for someone else to get less so that we can get more.

Reality bites. But a myth can swallow you whole.

Text of Initiative 960 requiring 2/3 vote to raise taxes

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.

INITIATIVE 960

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. 960 to the People is a true and correct copy as it was received by this office.

AN ACT Relating to tax and fee increases imposed by state government; amending RCW 43.88A.020, 43.88A.030, 43.135.035, 29A.72.040, 29A.72.250, 29A.72.290, 29A.32.031, 29A.32.070, and 43.135.055; adding a new section to chapter 43.135 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 29A.72 RCW; creating new sections; and providing an effective date.

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

INTENT

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1.

Washington has a long history of public interest in tax increases. The people have clearly and consistently illustrated their ongoing and passionate desire to ensure that taxpayers are protected. The people find that even without raising taxes, the government consistently receives revenue growth many times higher than the rate of inflation every year. With this measure, the people intend to protect taxpayers by creating a series of accountability procedures to ensure greater legislative transparency, broader public participation, and wider agreement before state government takes more of the people's money. This measure protects taxpayers and relates to tax and fee increases imposed by state government. This measure would require publication of cost projections, information on public hearings, and legislators' sponsorship and voting records on bills increasing taxes and fees, allow either two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases, and require advisory votes on tax increases blocked from citizen referendum.

The intent of sections 2, 3, and 4 of this act: The people want a thorough, independent analysis of any proposed increase in taxes and fees. The people find that legislators too often do not know the costs to the taxpayers for their tax and fee increases and this fiscal analysis by the office of financial management will provide better, more accessible information. The people want a user-friendly method to track the progress of bills increasing taxes and fees, finding that transparency and openness leads to more public involvement and better understanding. The people want information on public hearings and legislators' sponsorship and voting records on bills increasing taxes and fees and want easy access to contact information of legislators so the people's voice can be heard. Section 2(5) and (6) of this act are intended to provide active, engaged citizens with the opportunity to be notified of the status of bills increasing taxes and fees. Such a notification system is already being provided by the state supreme court with regard to judicial rulings. Intent of RCW 43.88A.020: The cost projection reports required by section 2 of this act will simplify and facilitate the creation of fiscal notes. The people want the office of financial management to fully comply with the cost projections and other requirements of section 2 on bills increasing taxes or fees before fiscal notes. Cost projections and the other information required by section 2 are critically important for the Legislature, the media, and the public to receive before fiscal notes.

The intent of section 5 of this act: The two-thirds requirement for raising taxes has been on the books since 1993 and the people find that this policy has provided the legislature with a much stronger incentive to use existing revenues more cost effectively rather than reflexively raising taxes. The people want this policy continued and want it to be clear that tax increases inside and outside the general fund are subject to the two-thirds threshold. If the legislature cannot receive a two-thirds vote in the house of representatives and senate to raise taxes, the Constitution provides the legislature with the option of referring the tax increase to the voters for their approval or rejection at an election using a referendum bill. The people expect the legislature to respect, follow, and abide by the law, on the books for 13 years, to not raise taxes in excess of the state expenditure limit without two-thirds legislative approval and a vote of the people. Intent of RCW 43.135.035(5): When it comes to enactment of tax increases exceeding the state expenditure limit, the legislature has, in recent years, shifted money between funds to get around the voter approval requirement for tax increases above the state expenditure limit as occurred in 2005 with sections 1607 and 1701 of ESSB 6090. RCW 43.135.035(5) is intended to clarify the law so that the effective taxpayer protection of requiring voter approval for tax increases exceeding the state expenditure limit is not circumvented.

The intent of sections 6 through 13 of this act: Our state constitution guarantees to the people the right of referendum. In recent years, however, the legislature has thwarted the people's constitutional right to referendum by excessive use of the emergency clause. In 2005, for example, the legislature approved five hundred twenty-three bills and declared ninety-eight of them, nearly twenty percent, "emergencies," insulating them all from the constitution's guaranteed right to referendum. The Courts' reviews of emergency clauses have resulted in inconsistent decisions regarding the legality of them in individual cases. The people find that, if they are not allowed to vote on a tax increase, good public policy demands that at least the legislature should be aware of the voters' view of individual tax increases. An advisory vote of the people at least gives the legislature the views of the voters and gives the voters information about the bill increasing taxes and provides the voters with legislators' names and contact information and how they voted on the bill. The people have a right to know what's happening in Olympia. Intent of section 6(1) of this act: If the legislature blocks a citizen referendum through the use of an emergency clause or a citizen referendum on the tax increase is not certified for the next general election ballot, then an advisory vote on the tax increase is required. Intent of section 6(4) of this act: If there's a binding vote on the ballot, there's no need for a non-binding vote.

The intent of section 14 of this act: The people want to return the authority to impose or increase fees from unelected officials at state agencies to the duly elected representatives of the legislature or to the people. The people find that fee increases should be debated openly and transparently and up-or-down votes taken by our elected representatives so the people are given the opportunity to hold them accountable at the next election.

PROTECTING TAXPAYERS BY REQUIRING PUBLICATION OF COST PROJECTIONS,

INFORMATION ON PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND LEGISLATORS' SPONSORSHIP AND

VOTING RECORDS ON BILLS INCREASING TAXES AND FEES

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 43.135 RCW and reads as follows:

(1) For any bill introduced in either the house of representatives or the senate that raises taxes as defined by RCW 43.135.035 or increases fees, the office of financial management must expeditiously determine its cost to the taxpayers in its first ten years of imposition, must promptly and without delay report the results of its analysis by public press release via email to each member of the house of representatives, each member of the senate, the news media, and the public, and must post and maintain these releases on its web site. Any ten-year cost projection must include a year-by-year breakdown. For any bill containing more than one revenue source, a ten-year cost projection for each revenue source will be included along with the bill's total ten-year cost projection. The press release shall include the names of the legislators, and their contact information, who are sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill so they can provide information to, and answer questions from, the public.

(2) Any time any legislative committee schedules a public hearing on a bill that raises taxes as defined by RCW 43.135.035 or increases fees, the office of financial management must promptly and without delay report the results of its most up-to-date analysis of the bill required by subsection (1) of this section and the date, time, and location of the hearing by public press release via email to each member of the house of representatives, each member of the senate, the news media, and the public, and must post and maintain these releases on its web site. The press release required by this subsection must include all the information required by subsection (1) of this section and the names of the legislators, and their contact information, who are members of the legislative committee conducting the hearing so they can provide information to, and answer questions from, the public.

(3) Each time a bill that raises taxes as defined by RCW 43.135.035 or increases fees is approved by any legislative committee or by at least a simple majority in either the house of representatives or the senate, the office of financial management must expeditiously re-examine and re-determine its ten-year cost projection due to amendment or other changes during the legislative process, must promptly and without delay report the results of its most up-to-date analysis by public press release via email to each member of the house of representatives, each member of the senate, the news media, and the public, and must post and maintain these releases on its web site. Any ten-year cost projection must include a year-by-year breakdown. For any bill containing more than one revenue source, a ten-year cost projection for each revenue source will be included along with the bill's total ten-year cost projection. The press release shall include the names of the legislators, and their contact information, and how they voted on the bill so they can provide information to, and answer questions from, the public.

(4) For the purposes of this section, "names of legislators, and their contact information" includes each legislator's position (Senator or Representative), first name, last name, party affiliation (for example, Democrat or Republican), city or town they live in, office phone number, and office email address.

(5) For the purposes of this section, "news media" means any member of the press or media organization, including newspapers, radio, and television, that signs up with the office of financial management to receive the public press releases by email.

(6) For the purposes of this section, "the public" means any person, group, or organization that signs up with the office of financial management to receive the public press releases by email.

Sec. 3. RCW 43.88A.020 and 1994 c 219 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:

The office of financial management shall, in cooperation with appropriate legislative committees and legislative staff, establish a procedure for the provision of fiscal notes on the expected impact of bills and resolutions which increase or decrease or tend to increase or decrease state government revenues or expenditures. Such fiscal notes shall indicate by fiscal year the impact for the remainder of the biennium in which the bill or resolution will first take effect as well as a cumulative forecast of the fiscal impact for the succeeding four fiscal years. Fiscal notes shall separately identify the fiscal impacts on the operating and capital budgets. Estimates of fiscal impacts shall be calculated using the procedures contained in the fiscal note instructions issued by the office of financial management.

In establishing the fiscal impact called for pursuant to this chapter, the office of financial management shall coordinate the development of fiscal notes with all state agencies affected.

The preparation and dissemination of the ongoing cost projections and other requirements of section 2 of this act for bills increasing taxes or fees shall take precedence over fiscal notes.

Sec. 4. RCW 43.88A.030 and 1986 c 158 s 16 are each amended to read as follows:

When a fiscal note is prepared and approved as to form, accuracy, and completeness by the office of financial management, which depicts the expected fiscal impact of a bill or resolution, copies shall be filed immediately with:

(1) The chairperson of the committee to which the bill or resolution was referred upon introduction in the house of origin;

(2) The senate committee on ways and means, or its successor; and

(3) The house committees on revenue and appropriations, or their successors.

Whenever possible, such fiscal note and, in the case of a bill increasing taxes or fees, the cost projection and other information required under section 2 of this act shall be provided prior to or at the time the bill or resolution is first heard by the committee of reference in the house of origin.

When a fiscal note has been prepared for a bill or resolution, a copy of the fiscal note shall be placed in the bill books or otherwise attached to the bill or resolution and shall remain with the bill or resolution throughout the legislative process insofar as possible. For bills increasing taxes or fees, the cost projection and other information required by section 2 of this act shall be placed in the bill books or otherwise attached to the bill or resolution and shall remain with the bill or resolution throughout the legislative process insofar as possible.

PROTECTING TAXPAYERS BY ALLOWING EITHER TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE

APPROVAL OR VOTER APPROVAL FOR TAX INCREASES

Sec. 5. RCW 43.135.035 and 2005 c 72 s 5 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) After July 1, 1995, any action or combination of actions by the legislature that ((raises state revenue or requires revenue-neutral tax shifts)) raises taxes may be taken only if approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature, and then only if state expenditures in any fiscal year, including the new revenue, will not exceed the state expenditure limits established under this chapter. Pursuant to the referendum power set forth in Article II, section 1(b) of the state Constitution, tax increases may be referred to the voters for their approval or rejection at an election.

(2)(a) If the legislative action under subsection (1) of this section will result in expenditures in excess of the state expenditure limit, then the action of the legislature shall not take effect until approved by a vote of the people at a November general election. The state expenditure limit committee shall adjust the state expenditure limit by the amount of additional revenue approved by the voters under this section. This adjustment shall not exceed the amount of revenue generated by the legislative action during the first full fiscal year in which it is in effect. The state expenditure limit shall be adjusted downward upon expiration or repeal of the legislative action.

(b) The ballot title for any vote of the people required under this section shall be substantially as follows:

"Shall taxes be imposed on . . . . . . . in order to allow a spending increase above last year's authorized spending adjusted for inflation and population increases?"

(3)(a) The state expenditure limit may be exceeded upon declaration of an emergency for a period not to exceed twenty-four months by a law approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature and signed by the governor. The law shall set forth the nature of the emergency, which is limited to natural disasters that require immediate government action to alleviate human suffering and provide humanitarian assistance. The state expenditure limit may be exceeded for no more than twenty-four months following the declaration of the emergency and only for the purposes contained in the emergency declaration.

(b) Additional taxes required for an emergency under this section may be imposed only until thirty days following the next general election, unless an extension is approved at that general election. The additional taxes shall expire upon expiration of the declaration of emergency. The legislature shall not impose additional taxes for emergency purposes under this subsection unless funds in the education construction fund have been exhausted.

(c) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not impose any tax on intangible property listed in RCW 84.36.070 as that statute exists on January 1, 1993.

(4) If the cost of any state program or function is shifted from the state general fund or a related fund to another source of funding, or if moneys are transferred from the state general fund or a related fund to another fund or account, the state expenditure limit committee, acting pursuant to RCW 43.135.025(5), shall lower the state expenditure limit to reflect the shift. For the purposes of this section, a transfer of money from the state general fund or a related fund to another fund or account includes any state legislative action taken that has the effect of reducing revenues from a particular source, where such revenues would otherwise be deposited into the state general fund or a related fund, while increasing the revenues from that particular source to another state or local government account. This subsection does not apply to the dedication or use of lottery revenues under RCW 67.70.240(3) or property taxes under RCW 84.52.068, in support of education or education expenditures.

(5) If the cost of any state program or function and the ongoing revenue necessary to fund the program or function are shifted to the state general fund or a related fund on or after January 1, 2007, the state expenditure limit committee, acting pursuant to RCW 43.135.025(5), shall increase the state expenditure limit to reflect the shift unless the shifted revenue had previously been shifted from the general fund or a related fund.

(6) For the purposes of this act, "raises taxes" means any action or combination of actions by the legislature that increases state tax revenue deposited in any fund, budget, or account, regardless of whether the revenues are deposited into the general fund.

PROTECTING TAXPAYERS BY REQUIRING AN ADVISORY VOTE OF THE PEOPLE

WHEN THE LEGISLATURE BLOCKS A TAX INCREASE FROM A PUBLIC VOTE

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 43.135 RCW and reads as follows:

(1) If legislative action raising taxes as defined by RCW 43.135.035 is blocked from a public vote or is not referred to the people by a referendum petition found to be sufficient under RCW 29A.72.250, a measure for an advisory vote of the people is required and shall be placed on the next general election ballot under this act.

(a) If legislative action raising taxes involves more than one revenue source, each tax being increased shall be subject to a separate measure for an advisory vote of the people under the requirements of this act.

(2) No later than the first of August, the attorney general will send written notice to the secretary of state of any tax increase that is subject to an advisory vote of the people, under the provisions and exceptions provided by this act. Within five days of receiving such written notice from the attorney general, the secretary of state will assign a serial number for a measure for an advisory vote of the people and transmit one copy of the measure bearing its serial number to the attorney general as required by RCW 29A.72.040, for any tax increase identified by the attorney general as needing an advisory vote of the people for that year's general election ballot. Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are not counted in calculating the time limits in this subsection.

(3) For the purposes of this section, "blocked from a public vote" includes adding an emergency clause to a bill increasing taxes, bonding or contractually obligating taxes, or otherwise preventing a referendum on a bill increasing taxes.

(4) If legislative action raising taxes is referred to the people by the legislature or is included in an initiative to the people found to be sufficient under RCW 29A.72.250, then the tax increase is exempt from an advisory vote of the people under this act.

Sec. 7. RCW 29A.72.040 and 2003 c 111 s 1805 are each amended to read as follows:

The secretary of state shall give a serial number to each initiative, referendum bill, ((or)) referendum measure, or measure for an advisory vote of the people, using a separate series for initiatives to the legislature, initiatives to the people, referendum bills, ((and)) referendum measures, and measures for an advisory vote of the people, and forthwith transmit one copy of the measure proposed bearing its serial number to the attorney general. Thereafter a measure shall be known and designated on all petitions, ballots, and proceedings as "Initiative Measure No. . . . .," "Referendum Bill No. . . . . .," ((or)) "Referendum Measure No. . . . .," or "Advisory Vote No. . . . .."

NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to RCW 29A.72 and shall read as follows:

Within five days of receipt of a measure for an advisory vote of the people from the secretary of state under RCW 29A.72.040 the attorney general shall formulate a short description not exceeding thirty-three words and not subject to appeal, of each tax increase and shall transmit a certified copy of such short description meeting the requirements of this section to the secretary of state. The description must be formulated and displayed on the ballot substantially as follows:

"The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, (identification of tax and description of increase), costing (most up-to-date ten-year cost projection, expressed in dollars and rounded to the nearest million) in its first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be:

Repealed . . . [ ]

Maintained . . . [ ]"

Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are not counted in calculating the time limits in this section. The words "This tax increase should be: Repealed . . . [ ] Maintained . . . [ ]" are not counted in the thirty-three word limit for a short description under this section.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to RCW 29A.72 and shall read as follows:

When the short description is finally established under section 8 of this act, the secretary of state shall file the instrument establishing it with the proposed measure and transmit a copy thereof by mail to the chief clerk of the house of representatives, the secretary of the senate, and to any other individuals who have made written request for such notification. Thereafter such short description shall be the description of the measure in all ballots and other proceedings in relation thereto.

Sec. 10. RCW 29A.72.250 and 2003 c 111 s 1825 are each amended to read as follows:

If a referendum or initiative petition for submission of a measure to the people is found sufficient, the secretary of state shall at the time and in the manner that he or she certifies for the county auditors of the various counties the names of candidates for state and district officers certify to each county auditor the serial numbers and ballot titles of the several initiative and referendum measures and serial numbers and short descriptions of measures submitted for an advisory vote of the people to be voted upon at the next ensuing general election or special election ordered by the legislature.

Sec. 11. RCW 29A.72.290 and 2003 c 111 s 1829 are each amended to read as follows:

The county auditor of each county shall print on the official ballots for the election at which initiative and referendum measures and measures for an advisory vote of the people are to be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection, the serial numbers and ballot titles certified by the secretary of state and the serial numbers and short descriptions of measures for an advisory vote of the people. They must appear under separate headings in the order of the serial numbers as follows:

(1) Measures proposed for submission to the people by initiative petition will be under the heading, "Proposed by Initiative Petition";

(2) Bills passed by the legislature and ordered referred to the people by referendum petition will be under the heading, "Passed by the Legislature and Ordered Referred by Petition";

(3) Bills passed and referred to the people by the legislature will be under the heading, "Proposed to the People by the Legislature";

(4) Measures proposed to the legislature and rejected or not acted upon will be under the heading, "Proposed to the Legislature and Referred to the People";

(5) Measures proposed to the legislature and alternative measures passed by the legislature in lieu thereof will be under the heading, "Initiated by Petition and Alternative by Legislature";

(6) Measures for an advisory vote of the people under RCW 29A.72.040 will be under the heading, "Advisory Vote of the People".

Sec. 12. RCW 29A.32.031 and 2004 c 271 s 121 are each amended to read as follows:

The voters' pamphlet must contain:

(1) Information about each measure for an advisory vote of the people and each ballot measure initiated by or referred to the voters for their approval or rejection as required by RCW 29A.32.070;

(2) In even-numbered years, statements, if submitted, advocating the candidacies of nominees for the office of president and vice president of the United States, United States senator, United States representative, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, attorney general, commissioner of public lands, superintendent of public instruction, insurance commissioner, state senator, state representative, justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, or judge of the superior court. Candidates may also submit a campaign mailing address and telephone number and a photograph not more than five years old and of a size and quality that the secretary of state determines to be suitable for reproduction in the voters' pamphlet;

(3) In odd-numbered years, if any office voted upon statewide appears on the ballot due to a vacancy, then statements and photographs for candidates for any vacant office listed in subsection (2) of this section must appear;

(4) In even-numbered years, a section explaining how voters may participate in the election campaign process; the address and telephone number of the public disclosure commission established under RCW 42.17.350; and a summary of the disclosure requirements that apply when contributions are made to candidates and political committees;

(5) In even-numbered years the name, address, and telephone number of each political party with nominees listed in the pamphlet, if filed with the secretary of state by the state committee of a major political party or the presiding officer of the convention of a minor political party;

(6) In each odd-numbered year immediately before a year in which a president of the United States is to be nominated and elected, information explaining the precinct caucus and convention process used by each major political party to elect delegates to its national presidential candidate nominating convention. The pamphlet must also provide a description of the statutory procedures by which minor political parties are formed and the statutory methods used by the parties to nominate candidates for president;

(7) An application form for an absentee ballot;

(8) A brief statement explaining the deletion and addition of language for proposed measures under RCW 29A.32.080;

(9) Any additional information pertaining to elections as may be required by law or in the judgment of the secretary of state is deemed informative to the voters.

Sec. 13. RCW 29A.32.070 and 2003 c 111 s 807 are each amended to read as follows:

The secretary of state shall determine the format and layout of the voters' pamphlet. The secretary of state shall print the pamphlet in clear, readable type on a size, quality, and weight of paper that in the judgment of the secretary of state best serves the voters. The pamphlet must contain a table of contents. Federal and state offices must appear in the pamphlet in the same sequence as they appear on the ballot. Measures and arguments must be printed in the order specified by RCW 29A.72.290.

The voters' pamphlet must provide the following information for each statewide issue on the ballot except measures for an advisory vote of the people whose requirements are provided in subsection (11) of this section:

(1) The legal identification of the measure by serial designation or number;

(2) The official ballot title of the measure;

(3) A statement prepared by the attorney general explaining the law as it presently exists;

(4) A statement prepared by the attorney general explaining the effect of the proposed measure if it becomes law;

(5) The fiscal impact statement prepared under *RCW 29.79.075;

(6) The total number of votes cast for and against the measure in the senate and house of representatives, if the measure has been passed by the legislature;

(7) An argument advocating the voters' approval of the measure together with any statement in rebuttal of the opposing argument;

(8) An argument advocating the voters' rejection of the measure together with any statement in rebuttal of the opposing argument;

(9) Each argument or rebuttal statement must be followed by the names of the committee members who submitted them, and may be followed by a telephone number that citizens may call to obtain information on the ballot measure;

(10) The full text of the measure;

(11) Two pages shall be provided in the general election voters' pamphlet for each measure for an advisory vote of the people under section 6 of this act and shall consist of the serial number assigned by the secretary of state under RCW 29A.72.040, the short description formulated by the attorney general under section 8 of this act, the tax increase's most up-to-date ten-year cost projection, including a year-by-year breakdown, by the office of financial management under section 2 of this act, and the names of the legislators, and their contact information, and how they voted on the increase upon final passage so they can provide information to, and answer questions from, the public. For the purposes of this subsection, "names of legislators, and their contact information" includes each legislator's position (Senator or Representative), first name, last name, party affiliation (for example, Democrat or Republican), city or town they live in, office phone number, and office email address.

PROTECTING TAXPAYERS BY REQUIRING FEE INCREASES TO BE VOTED ON BY

ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, RATHER THAN IMPOSED BY UNELECTED OFFICIALS AT STATE AGENCIES

Sec. 14. RCW 43.135.055 and 2001 c 314 s 19 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) No fee may be imposed or increased in any fiscal year ((by a percentage in excess of the fiscal growth factor for that fiscal year)) without prior legislative approval and must be subject to the accountability procedures required by section 2 of this act.

(2) This section does not apply to an assessment made by an agricultural commodity commission or board created by state statute or created under a marketing agreement or order under chapter 15.65 or 15.66 RCW, or to the forest products commission, if the assessment is approved by referendum in accordance with the provisions of the statutes creating the commission or board or chapter 15.65 or 15.66 RCW for approving such assessments.

CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE

NEW SECTION. Sec. 15.

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

SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

NEW SECTION. Sec. 16.

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.

MISCELLANEOUS

NEW SECTION. Sec. 17. Subheadings and part headings used in this act are not part of the law.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 18.

This act shall be known and cited as the Taxpayer Protection Act of 2007.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 19.

This act takes effect December 6, 2007.

--- END ---

Initiative 985 Text - Congestion Relief Eyman

Initiative Measure No. 985 Filed JAN 14 2008 Reduce Congestion . org Secretary of State Reduce Traffic Congestion Initiative

Complete Text

AN ACT Relating to reducing traffic congestion on public highways, freeways, streets, and roads; amending RCW 46.61.165, 47.66.090, 47.56.403, 82.08.020, 43.17.200, 43.46.090, 47.56.030, 47.56.160, and 47.56.170; reenacting and amending RCW 46.63.110; adding a new section to chapter 35.21 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 36.01 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 47.01 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.12 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 46.68 RCW; creating new sections; and providing an effective date.


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


POLICIES AND PURPOSES


NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. During these tough economic times, the people deserve a common sense proposal to reduce traffic congestion by implementing basic congestion relief strategies and improving Washington's transportation system with better use of existing public resources. In 2005, the voters of Washington overwhelmingly approved Initiative 900 granting the state auditor the power to conduct independent, comprehensive performance audits of state and local governments. The auditor was hired by the people to determine ways for government to deliver services as effectively and efficiently as possible. Through extensive outreach with citizens, including focus groups and town hall meetings, in 2006, the state auditor learned that eighty percent of citizens said reducing traffic congestion is their number one transportation priority. Traffic congestion incurs incredible costs to citizens, businesses and government; it is an important aspect of transportation and is an indicator of how well the state's transportation system is working. Reducing traffic congestion means minimizing vehicle trip delays, the amount of time

Electronic Transmittal 1 1-1866.1



it takes a vehicle to get from point A to point B. So the state auditor contracted with the prestigious auditing firm of Talbot, Korvola and Warwick, LLP who brought years of experience in performance auditing. They hired subject-matter experts with internationally recognized experience in traffic and congestion management. Members of the audit team had more than two hundred years' of cumulative experience auditing transportation systems. In October 2007, the state auditor released the results of their independent performance audit report "Managing and Reducing Congestion." Their number one finding was that traffic congestion relief is not a top priority of the department of transportation so the audit's fundamental recommendation was: "Commit to congestion management and reduction as a primary goal." The anger, defensiveness, and condescending dismissal of the report by the department of transportation, the legislature, and the governor was swift and resolute. The new head of the department of transportation rejected the recommendations on the day they were released. House of representatives and senate transportation committees refused to acknowledge the report or even hold a public hearing as required under Initiative 900. At the public hearing held by an unaffiliated legislative committee, legislators lashed out at the state auditor for even broaching the topic. The governor's chief of staff said citizens do not understand transportation and simply take for granted what government does. Legislators quoted from statutes that no longer existed to defend the status quo. Some promised legislative retribution on the state auditor and interference in future audits, which is illegal under Initiative 900. The state auditor identified and retained internationally recognized experts in state, federal and international transportation issues. Their recommendations are crystal clear. This act provides voters with the opportunity to implement the strategies recommended in the report that will have an immediate impact on reducing traffic congestion using existing infrastructure and resources. Upon its approval by the voters, it is incumbent upon the department of transportation, the legislature, and the governor to listen to the people and make traffic congestion management and reduction the primary goal of transportation. As State Auditor Brian Sonntag says in his accompanying letter to the report: "Citizens have identified congestion as a priority, and therefore, so must the Department (of Transportation) and the


Electronic Transmittal 2 1-1866.1



Legislature." It is clear from the establishment's reaction to this transportation performance audit that the only way for voters to change the attitude of those in power is to approve this act. This measure would open carpool lanes during non-peak hours, require synchronization of traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets, increase funding for emergency roadside assistance, and dedicate a portion of existing vehicle-related revenue for these purposes. The intent of sections 2 and 3 of this act: We all pay taxes for our carpool lanes, so everyone should be allowed to use them at least some of the time. This act strikes a reasonable balance by allowing our carpool lanes to be open to everyone during non-peak hours, meaning midday and evenings on weekdays and all day and all night on weekends. Existing road capacity must be utilized to maximize its effectiveness. How can we increase road capacity and reduce traffic congestion on our most congested highways and roadways without spending billions of dollars? By opening our carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours. This will quickly, significantly, and cost-effectively relieve traffic congestion and increase traffic flow on our most congested highways and roadways and illustrate that increased road capacity results in reduced traffic congestion. These sections do not create or impose new tolls on carpool lanes; but if tolls or charges are imposed on carpool lanes, then these sections ensure that the toll revenue is used to reduce traffic congestion. The intent of sections 4 and 15(1)(b) of this act: due to the voters' approval of Initiative 960 in 2007, any tolls or charges must be decided and approved by a simple-majority vote of the Legislature, not unilaterally imposed by unelected bureaucrats on the transportation commission. Such decisions are too important and too impactful to be made by anyone other than our elected representatives. The intent of sections 5 and 6 of this act: To increase traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion, each city must synchronize the traffic signals on heavily-traveled arterials and streets within its jurisdiction. Heavily-traveled arterials and streets include routes of regional and local significance and include major and secondary arterials and streets. For heavily-traveled arterials and streets outside of a city, the county must synchronize the traffic signals. For heavily-traveled arterials and streets that are the


Electronic Transmittal 3 1-1866.1



responsibility of the state or other local government, it is the responsibility of the state or other local government to synchronize the traffic signals. What is the use of having a top-notch Medic One system if it simply gets stuck in traffic? Synchronizing traffic lights ensures increased traffic flow, reduced traffic congestion, and better safety. Transferring goods to and from our ports, and other freight mobility necessities, are hampered by stop-and-go traffic at successive traffic lights. Reducing traffic congestion and increasing traffic flow is critical for freight mobility. Synchronization of traffic signals is a coordinated set of timing plans for a group of signals on arterials and streets used to facilitate smooth traffic flow. The objective of synchronizing traffic signals is to allow progression through arterials and streets with the fewest stops at intersections, while minimizing delay for the side street. Synchronizing traffic lights creates more uniform speeds along streets, increases traffic flow, reduces time delays at intersections, and creates opportunities for traffic from side streets to safely enter a main street. This act helps cities, counties, and other governments fund these improvements. The intent of section 7 of this act: Traffic accidents and other temporary obstructions greatly hinder the smooth flow of traffic and must be responded to and cleared as quickly as possible. This involves coordination, communication, equipment, and manpower. A blocked highway or roadway can result in miles of backups and long delays. A large portion of all traffic congestion is caused by collisions, disabled vehicles, spills, and other events that impede the normal flow of traffic. An initial incident has the potential for creating secondary incidents such as vehicles running out of fuel or overheating, or collisions that occur from lane changing and rapid braking in the initial incident's traffic backup. The quicker the initial incident is cleared, the less time motorists and response personnel are exposed to traffic hazards and the possibility of a secondary collision. The Washington state department of transportation and other government entities and contracted companies, including tow truck operators, must expeditiously assist in the safe, prudent, and quick removal of vehicles and other debris involved in traffic accidents or other temporary obstructions. The people want the roads cleared and drivers helped as quickly as possible to reduce traffic congestion and restore the normal flow of


Electronic Transmittal 4 1-1866.1


traffic. This act provides increased funding for these programs. We need to fix what we already have using the taxes we're already paying. Taxpayers can't afford to pay for the mega-platinum option for every mega-project, especially when it's simply to satisfy the aesthetic preferences of Seattle's elite. A perfect example is the decade of debate over the Alaska Way viaduct (Highway 99), a major north-south state highway that everyone is paying for. The people want practical, pragmatic solutions that will reduce traffic congestion, not make it worse. Government too often has a knee-jerk reaction: If their pick-up truck gets a flat tire, rather than repairing the tire, they instead replace the pick-up with a Mercedes. The people want a solution that reduces traffic congestion for the thousands of vehicles that travel over state highways every day, but at a minimum, it shouldn't be made worse. Taxpayers are already paying billions of dollars in taxes and they expect and demand improvements now, rather than promises of "less bad" decades from now. Taxpayers want transparency and accountability with the focus on solving the problem rather than using the problem to leverage the public to swallow yet another tax increase. It is way past time for the people to get something in return for the taxes they're already paying. The intent of sections 8 and 9 of this act: In order to reduce traffic congestion, it is essential that existing vehicle taxes be spent on this critical priority. Vehicle purchases generate approximately $850 million per year in state tax revenue and using 15% of those revenues to reduce traffic congestion is reasonable and prudent. People who purchase vehicles want their taxes to go toward reducing traffic congestion on our roads, streets, and highways at the state and local level. The intent of section 11 of this act: To provide additional revenue for the policy requirements of this act, moneys collected from fines and civil penalties from red light traffic cameras shall be used to reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow. The intent of sections 12 through 14 of this act: To provide additional revenue for the policy requirements of this act, any transportation-related public works project shall not be required to spend a percentage of its funds on purchases of art, instead a percentage will be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion. Taxpayers don't have bottomless wallets so every dollar possible must


Electronic Transmittal 5 1-1866.1



go toward the people's top priority: reducing traffic congestion. The intent of sections 15 through 17 of this act: These sections do not create or impose new tolls; but if tolls or charges are imposed, then these sections ensure taxpayers are protected. There has been talk of simply charging people extra just to drive on existing highways, freeways, roads, and streets, including adding global positioning system (GPS) devices or transponders to vehicles or other methods to collect revenue. If citizens are double-taxed, then any tolls or charges will be used to reduce traffic congestion. Year after year, Washington voters have repeatedly rejected the business-as-usual, the-only-solution-is-a-tax-increase mentality. During these tough economic times, the people deserve a common sense proposal to reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow by implementing basic traffic congestion relief strategies and improving Washington's transportation system with better use of existing public resources. Reduced traffic congestion ensures a growing, thriving economy that is essential in generating the tax revenue necessary to fund government services. This measure will make travel times faster immediately on our highways and roadways, reduce traffic congestion, increase traffic flow, increase safety and freight mobility, and result in fewer vehicles idling thus decreasing carbon emissions, all by maximizing the use of existing public resources.


OPENS CARPOOL LANES TO EVERYONE DURING NON-PEAK HOURS

Sec. 2. RCW 46.61.165 and 1999 c 206 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: The state department of transportation and the local authorities are authorized, subject to the requirements in this section, to reserve all or any portion of any highway under their respective jurisdictions as carpool lanes, including any designated lane or ramp, for the exclusive or preferential use of public transportation vehicles or private motor vehicles carrying no fewer than a specified number of passengers when ( (eueh)) the limitation will increase the efficient utilization of the highway or will aid in the conservation of energy resources. Regulations authorizing ( ( ) ) exclusive or preferential use of a highway facility ( (mmaybe dcelaredtebe)) are


Electronic Transmittal 6 1-1866.1



effective ( (at all ti cser)) only at the specified times of day ( (ems)) and on the specified days designated in this section. In order to reduce traffic congestion, existing road capacity must be utilized to maximize its effectiveness. On and after December 4, 2008, all carpool lanes shall be opened during non-peak hours for use by all traffic otherwise lawfully abiding by the rules of the road of this state, including RCW 46.61.100. This policy shall be in effect for any carpool lane in effect on January 1, 2008, and for any new or expanded carpool lanes designated after January 1, 2008, on any highway, freeway, or roadway in the state. Electronic and nonelectronic signage must be substantially updated and expanded to ensure that drivers are fully alerted to the policies required under this section. For the purposes of this section: (1) "Carpool lanes" are high-occupancy vehicle lanes, including express lanes, lanes like those established under RCW 47.56.403, off-ramp bypass lanes, and on-ramp bypass lanes on any highway, freeway, or roadway in the state. (2) "Non-peak hours" mean midday on weekdays, evenings on weekdays, and all day and all night on weekends. (a) "Midday on weekdays" is between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday; (b) "Evenings on weekdays" are between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on Monday through Thursday; (c) "All day and all night on weekends" is between the hours of 6:00 p.m. on Friday and 6:00 a.m. on Monday; (d) "Peak hours" are between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday. ( 3) During hours not specified as non-peak hours under this section, the use of carpool lanes by a motor vehicle is limited to those carrying two or more persons, except in the case of a motorcycle, which may use a carpool lane if carrying one or more persons. (4) A governmental entity, authority, or agency shall not avoid the requirements of this section by redesignating a carpool lane as another name or designation. (5) To reduce traffic congestion by encouraging traffic to use carpool lanes during non-peak hours, a toll may not be charged on any vehicle in a high-occupancy toll lane under RCW 47.56.403 during non-


Electronic Transmittal 7 1-1866.1



peak hours, and any tolls or charges imposed and collected for such lanes during peak hours which exceeds the costs identified in section 3 of this act must be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. This section does not restrict the operation of RCW 46.44.080, 46.61.100, or 46.61.135, thus continuing restricted truck usage of city streets. Violation of a restriction of highway usage prescribed by the appropriate authority under this section is a traffic infraction.

Sec. 3. RCW 47.66.090 and 2005 c 312 s 4 are each amended to read as follows: The high-occupancy toll lanes operations account is created in the state treasury. The department shall deposit ( (a31)) only those revenues received by the department as toll charges collected from high-occupancy toll lane users that are necessary to cover the costs of construction and operation of the toll lanes. Moneys in this account may be spent only if appropriated by the legislature. ( (Meneyin this ? count may be used for, but be net lifaited te 6 a


eee aney tell lane and to inereasc trans-it, vanpeol and , and trip rcduction scrviccG in the eerrider. Areamse l of the nreneys in this account moot be dedieatcdto increase transit ageol, carpeel, and trip reduction ocrviees in the eerrider. '


the corridor.)) All toll charge revenues exceeding these costs shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act.

Sec. 4. RCW 47.56.403 and 2005 c 312 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: ( 1) The department may provide, subject to the requirements of RCW 46.61.165, 47.66.090, and any other applicable law, for the establishment, construction, and operation of a pilot project of high-occupancy toll lanes on state route 167 high-occupancy vehicle lanes within King county. The department may issue, buy, and redeem bonds, and deposit and expend them; secure and remit financial and


Electronic Transmittal 8 1-1866.1



other assistance in the construction of high-occupancy toll lanes, carry insurance, and handle any other matters pertaining to the high-occupancy toll lane pilot project. (2) Tolls for high-occupancy toll lanes will be established as follows: (a) The schedule of toll charges for high-occupancy toll lanes must be established by the transportation commission and collected in a manner determined by the commission. (b) Toll charges shall not be assessed on transit buses and vanpool vehicles owned or operated by any public agency. (c) The department shall establish performance standards for the state route 167 high-occupancy toll lane pilot project. The department must automatically adjust the toll charge, using dynamic tolling, to ensure that toll-paying single-occupant vehicle users are only permitted to enter the lane to the extent that average vehicle speeds in the lane remain above forty-five miles per hour at least ninety percent of the time during peak hours as defined in RCW 46.61.165. The toll charge may vary in amount by time of day, level of traffic congestion within the highway facility, vehicle occupancy, or other criteria, as the commission may deem appropriate. The commission may also vary toll charges for single-occupant inherently low-emission vehicles such as those powered by electric batteries, natural gas, propane, or other clean burning fuels. (d) The commission shall periodically review the toll charges to determine if the toll charges are effectively maintaining travel time, speed, and reliability on the highway facilities. ( 3) The department shall monitor the state route 167 high-occupancy toll lane pilot project and shall annually report to the transportation commission and the legislature on operations and findings. At a minimum, the department shall provide facility use data and review the impacts on: (a) Freeway efficiency and safety; (b) Effectiveness for transit; (c) Person and vehicle movements by mode; (d) Ability to finance improvements and transportation services through tolls; and (e) The impacts on all highway users. The department shall analyze aggregate use data and conduct, as needed, separate surveys to assess usage of the facility in relation to geographic,


Electronic Transmittal 9 1-1866.1



socioeconomic, and demographic information within the corridor in order to ascertain actual and perceived questions of equitable use of the facility. ( 4) The department shall modify the pilot project to address identified safety issues and mitigate negative impacts to high-occupancy vehicle lane users. (5) Authorization to impose high-occupancy vehicle tolls for the state route 167 high-occupancy toll pilot project expires if either of the following two conditions apply: (a) If no contracts have been let by the department to begin construction of the toll facilities associated with this pilot project within four years of July 24, 2005; or (b) Four years after toll collection begins under this section. ( 6) The department of transportation shall adopt rules that allow automatic vehicle identification transponders used for electronic toll collection to be compatible with other electronic payment devices or transponders from the Washington state ferry system, other public transportation systems, or other toll collection systems to the extent that technology permits. ( 7) The conversion of a single existing high-occupancy vehicle lane to a high-occupancy toll lane as proposed for SR-167 must be taken as the exception for this pilot project. ( 8) A violation of the lane restrictions applicable to the high-occupancy toll lanes established under this section is a traffic infraction. ( 9) Procurement activity associated with this pilot project shall be open and competitive in accordance with chapter 39.29 RCW.


REQUIRES SYNCHRONIZATION OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON HEAVILY-TRAVELED ARTERIALS AND STREETS


NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 35.21 RCW to read as follows: (1) To reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow, each city must synchronize the traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets within its jurisdiction to optimize traffic flow. Heavily-traveled arterials and streets include routes of regional and local significance and include major and secondary arterials as defined in RCW 35.78.010. For heavily-traveled


Electronic Transmittal 10 1-1866.1


arterials and streets outside of a city, the county must synchronize the traffic lights to optimize traffic flow. For heavily-traveled arterials and streets that are the responsibility of the state or other local government, the state or other local government must synchronize the arterials' and streets' traffic lights to optimize traffic flow. Cities, counties, and other governments must cooperate and coordinate their efforts in implementing this traffic light synchronization mandate. Funding shall be allocated from the dedicated revenue in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act to assist efforts after January 1, 2008 by cities, counties, and other governments to synchronize traffic lights to optimize traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion. (2) The state auditor shall identify and establish performance benchmarks using best practices for traffic light synchronization to optimize traffic flow under this section. The state auditor shall investigate and track local governments' progress on these benchmarks and shall provide information on such progress and other relevant information to the public on a regular basis.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 36.01 RCW to read as follows: ( 1) To reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow, each county must synchronize the traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets within its jurisdiction to optimize traffic flow. Heavily-traveled arterials and streets include routes of regional and local significance and include major and secondary arterials as defined in RCW 35.78.010. For heavily-traveled arterials and streets in an incorporated city or town, the city or town must synchronize the traffic lights to optimize traffic flow. For heavily-traveled arterials and streets that are the responsibility of the state or other government entity, the state or other government entity must synchronize the traffic lights to optimize traffic flow. Cities, counties, and other governments must cooperate and coordinate their efforts in implementing this traffic light synchronization mandate. Funding shall be allocated from the dedicated revenue in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act to assist efforts after January 1, 2008 by cities, counties, and other local governments to synchronize traffic lights to optimize traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion.


Electronic Transmittal 11 1-1866.1



( 2) The state auditor shall identify and establish performance benchmarks using best practices for traffic light synchronization to optimize traffic flow under this section. The state auditor shall investigate and track local governments' progress on these benchmarks and shall provide information on such progress and other relevant information to the public on a regular basis.


INCREASES FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE


NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 47.01 RCW to read as follows: ( 1) To reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow, the department of transportation and other governmental entities must rapidly respond to traffic accidents and other. obstructions on highways, freeways, roads, and streets, and clear these accidents and obstructions as expeditiously as possible. The department and other governmental entities must receive increased funding for emergency roadside assistance from the dedicated revenue in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Relief Account created in section 10 of this act. To maximize flexibility and response times, the state, the department, and other governmental entities may and are encouraged to contract out emergency roadside assistance services to private companies, including tow truck operators. ( 2) The state auditor shall identify and establish performance benchmarks using best practices for emergency roadside assistance under this section and shall investigate and track progress fulfilling this requirement, providing this and other relevant information to the public on a regular basis. DEDICATES A PORTION OF EXISTING VEHICLE-RELATED REVENUE TO HELP FUND THE OPENING OF CARPOOL LANES TO EVERYONE DURING NON-PEAK HOURS, HELP FUND THE SYNCHRONIZATION OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON HEAVILY-TRAVELED ARTERIALS AND STREETS, AND INCREASE FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE

Sec. 8. RCW 82.08.020 and 2006 c 1 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: ( 1) There is levied and there shall be collected a tax on each retail sale in this state equal to six and five-tenths percent of the


Electronic Transmittal 12 1-1866.1



selling price. ( 2) There is levied and there shall be collected an additional tax on each retail car rental, regardless of whether the vehicle is licensed in this state, equal to five and nine-tenths percent of the selling price. The revenue collected under this subsection shall be deposited in the multimodal transportation account created in RCW 47.66.070. ( 3) Beginning July 1, 2003, there is levied and collected an additional tax of three-tenths of one percent of the selling price on each retail sale of a motor vehicle in this state, other than retail car rentals taxed under subsection ( 2) of this section. The revenue collected under this subsection shall be deposited in the multimodal transportation account created in RCW 47.66.070. ( 4) For purposes of subsections ( 3) and ( 8) of this section, "motor vehicle" has the meaning provided in RCW 46.04.320, but does not include farm tractors or farm vehicles as defined in RCW 46.04.180 and 46.04.181, off-road and nonhighway vehicles as defined in RCW 46.09.020, and snowmobiles as defined in RCW 46.10.010. ( 5) Beginning on December 8, 2005, 0.16 percent of the taxes collected under subsection ( 1) of this section shall be dedicated to funding comprehensive performance audits required under RCW 43.09.470. The revenue identified in this subsection shall be deposited in the performance audits of government account created in RCW 43.09.475. ( 6) The taxes imposed under this chapter shall apply to successive retail sales of the same property. ( 7) The rates provided in this section apply to taxes imposed under chapter 82.12 RCW as provided in RCW 82.12.020. ( 8) To effectively utilize existing resources to reduce traffic congestion, beginning on December 4, 2008, fifteen percent of the taxes collected under subsection (1) of this section on the retail sale of those vehicles taxed under subsection ( 3) of this section shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. This subsection ( 8) of this section dedicates a portion of existing vehicle sales tax revenue and does not raise taxes.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 82.12 RCW to read as follows:

Electronic Transmittal 13 1-1866.1



Beginning on December 4, 2008, fifteen percent of the taxes collected under RCW 82.12.020 on vehicles taxed under RCW 82.08.020 ( 3) based on the rate in RCW 82.08.020(1) shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act.


CREATES "REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ACCOUNT"

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 46.68 RCW to read as follows: ( 1) The Reduce Traffic Congestion Account is hereby created in the state treasury as a subaccount of the motor vehicle fund. All receipts from: The fifteen percent of sales and use taxes dedicated in RCW 82.08.020(8) and section 9 of this act; any tolls or charges collected under RCW 46.61.165(5) and 47.66.090; revenue from infractions dedicated to reducing traffic congestion under RCW 43.63.110; appropriate allocated funds under section 13 of this act; and any tolls or charges collected under RCW 47.56.030 and 47.56.170 must be deposited in the subaccount. Moneys in the subaccount may be spent only after appropriation. Expenditures from the subaccount may be used only: (a) To pay for costs associated with the opening of carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours as required under RCW 46.61.165, including new and modified electronic and nonelectronic signage; lane striping, improvements, and maintenance; and shoulder maintenance and improvements, including bumpers; (b) To pay for costs associated with synchronizing traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets as required under sections 5 and 6 of this act; (c) To provide increased funding for emergency roadside assistance as required under section 7 of this act; and (d) To provide funding for the activities of the state auditor required under this section and sections 5, 6, and 7 of this act. ( 2) After payment of costs identified in subsections ( 1) (a) through (d) of this section, any other purpose which reduces traffic congestion by reducing vehicle delay times by expanding road capacity and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles may be provided funding from the subaccount. Purposes to improve traffic flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining, or

Electronic Transmittal 14 1-1866.1




operating bike paths or lanes, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail, or heavy rail. ( 3) Revenue deposited in the subaccount and not appropriated shall be retained by this subaccount. (4) To measure the level of compliance with the policies, purposes, and intent of this act, the state auditor shall investigate and track the revenues and expenditures required under this act and shall report this and other relevant information to the public on a regular basis. DEDICATES REVENUE FROM RED LIGHT TRAFFIC CAMERAS TO THE "REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ACCOUNT"

Sec. 11. RCW 46.63.110 and 2007 c 356 s 8 and 2007 c 199 s 28 are each reenacted and amended to read as follows: (1) A person found to have committed a traffic infraction shall be assessed a monetary penalty. No penalty may exceed two hundred and fifty dollars for each offense unless authorized by this chapter or title. (2) The monetary penalty for a violation of (a) RCW 46.55.105 (2) is two hundred fifty dollars for each offense; (b) RCW 46.61.210 ( 1) is five hundred dollars for each offense. No penalty assessed under this subsection ( 2) may be reduced. (3) The supreme court shall prescribe by rule a schedule of monetary penalties for designated traffic infractions. This rule shall also specify the conditions under which local courts may exercise discretion in assessing fines and penalties for traffic infractions. The legislature respectfully requests the supreme court to adjust this schedule every two years for inflation. ( 4) There shall be a penalty of twenty-five dollars for failure to respond to a notice of traffic infraction except where the infraction relates to parking as defined by local law, ordinance, regulation, or resolution or failure to pay a monetary penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter. A local legislative body may set a monetary penalty not to exceed twenty-five dollars for failure to respond to a notice of traffic infraction relating to parking as defined by local law, ordinance, regulation, or resolution. The




Electronic Transmittal 15 1-1866.1



local court, whether a municipal, police, or district court, shall impose the monetary penalty set by the local legislative body. ( 5) Monetary penalties provided for in chapter 46.70 RCW which are civil in nature and penalties which may be assessed for violations of chapter 46.44 RCW relating to size, weight, and load of motor vehicles are not subject to the limitation on the amount of monetary penalties which may be imposed pursuant to this chapter. ( 6) Whenever a monetary penalty, fee, cost, assessment, or other monetary obligation is imposed by a court under this chapter it is immediately payable. If the court determines, in its discretion, that a person is not able to pay a monetary obligation in full, and not more than one year has passed since the later of July 1, 2005, or the date the monetary obligation initially became due and payable, the court shall enter into a payment plan with the person, unless the person has previously been granted a payment plan with respect to the same monetary obligation, or unless the person is in noncompliance of any existing or prior payment plan, in which case the court may, at its discretion, implement a payment plan. If the court has notified the department that the person has failed to pay or comply and the person has subsequently entered into a payment plan and made an initial payment, the court shall notify the department that the infraction has been adjudicated, and the department shall rescind any suspension of the person's driver's license or driver's privilege based on failure to respond to that infraction. "Payment plan," as used in this section, means a plan that requires reasonable payments based on the financial ability of the person to pay. The person may voluntarily pay an amount at any time in addition to the payments required under the payment plan. (a) If a payment required to be made under the payment plan is delinquent or the person fails to complete a community restitution program on or before the time established under the payment plan, unless the court determines good cause therefor and adjusts the payment plan or the community restitution plan accordingly, the court shall notify the department of the person's failure to meet the conditions of the plan, and the department shall suspend the person's driver's license or driving privilege until all monetary obligations, including those imposed under subsections (3) and ( 4) of this section, have been paid, and court authorized community restitution has been completed, or until the department has been notified that


Electronic Transmittal 16 1-1866.1


the court has entered into a new time payment or community restitution agreement with the person. (b) If a person has not entered into a payment plan with the court and has not paid the monetary obligation in full on or before the time established for payment, the court shall notify the department of the delinquency. The department shall suspend the person's driver's license or driving privilege until all monetary obligations have been paid, including those imposed under subsections ( 3) and ( 4) of this section, or until the person has entered into a payment plan under this section. (c) If the payment plan is to be administered by the court, the court may assess the person a reasonable administrative fee to be wholly retained by the city or county with jurisdiction. The administrative fee shall not exceed ten dollars per infraction or twenty-five dollars per payment plan, whichever is less. (d) Nothing in this section precludes a court from contracting with outside entities to administer its payment plan system. When outside entities are used for the administration of a payment plan, the court may assess the person a reasonable fee for such administrative services, which fee may be calculated on a periodic, percentage, or other basis. (e) If a court authorized community restitution program for offenders is available in the jurisdiction, the court may allow conversion of all or part of the monetary obligations due under this section to court authorized community restitution in lieu of time payments if the person is unable to make reasonable time payments. ( 7) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this section and not subject to the limitation of subsection ( 1) of this section, a person found to have committed a traffic infraction shall be assessed: (a) A fee of five dollars per infraction. Under no circumstances shall this fee be reduced or waived. Revenue from this fee shall be forwarded to the state treasurer for deposit in the emergency medical services and trauma care system trust account under RCW 70.168.040; (b) A fee of ten dollars per infraction. Under no circumstances shall this fee be reduced or waived. Revenue from this fee shall be forwarded to the state treasurer for deposit in the Washington auto theft prevention authority account; and


Electronic Transmittal 17 1-1866.1



(c) A fee of two dollars per infraction. Revenue from this fee shall be forwarded to the state treasurer for deposit in the traumatic brain injury account established in RCW 74.31.060. ( 8) (a) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this section and not subject to the limitation of subsection ( 1) of this section, a person found to have committed a traffic infraction other than of RCW 46.61.527 shall be assessed an additional penalty of twenty dollars. The court may not reduce, waive, or suspend the additional penalty unless the court finds the offender to be indigent. If a court authorized community restitution program for offenders is available in the jurisdiction, the court shall allow offenders to offset all or a part of the penalty due under this subsection ( 8) by participation in the court authorized community restitution program. (b) Eight dollars and fifty cents of the additional penalty under (a) of this subsection shall be remitted to the state treasurer. The remaining revenue from the additional penalty must be remitted under chapters 2.08, 3.46, 3.50, 3.62, 10.82, and 35.20 RCW. Money remitted under this subsection to the state treasurer must be deposited as provided in RCW 43.08.250. The balance of the revenue received by the county or city treasurer under this subsection must be deposited into the county or city current expense fund. Revenue to be deposited into the county or city current expense fund from infractions issued under RCW 46.63.170 shall instead be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. Moneys retained by the city or county under this subsection shall constitute reimbursement for any liabilities under RCW 43.135.060. ( 9) If a legal proceeding, such as garnishment, has commenced to collect any delinquent amount owed by the person for any penalty imposed by the court under this section, the court may, at its discretion, enter into a payment plan. ( 10) The monetary penalty for violating RCW 46.37.395 is: (a) Two hundred fifty dollars for the first violation; (b) five hundred dollars for the second violation; and (c) seven hundred fifty dollars for each violation thereafter.


DEDICATES REVENUE PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED TO ART TO THE "REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ACCOUNT"


Electronic Transmittal 18 1-1866.1




NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. RCW 43.17.200 and 2005 c 36 s 4 are each amended to read as follows: All state agencies including all state departments, boards, councils, commissions, and quasi public corporations shall allocate, as a nondeductible item, out of any moneys appropriated for the original construction of any public building, except for appropriations after December 4, 2008 for transportation-related public works projects, an amount of one-half of one percent of the appropriation to be expended by the Washington state arts commission for the acquisition of works of art. The works of art may be placed on public lands, integral to or attached to a public building or structure, detached within or outside a public building or structure, part of a portable exhibition or collection, part of a temporary exhibition, or loaned or exhibited in other public facilities. In addition to the cost of the works of art, the one-half of one percent of the appropriation as provided herein shall be used to provide for the administration of the visual arts program, including conservation of the state art collection, by the Washington state arts commission and all costs for installation of the works of art. For the purpose of this section, building shall not include highway construction sheds, warehouses or other buildings of a temporary nature.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. To provide additional funds for reducing traffic congestion, all state agencies, including all state departments, boards, councils, commissions, and quasi public corporations shall allocate, as a nondeductible item, out of any moneys appropriated after December 4, 2008 for any transportation-related public works project, an amount of one-half of one percent of the appropriation to be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. The people find that their top priority is reducing traffic congestion.

Sec. 14. RCW 43.46.090 and 1983 c 204 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: The legislature recognizes this state's responsibility to foster culture and the arts and its interest in the viable development of her artists and craftsmen by the establishment of the Washington


Electronic Transmittal 19 1-1866.1


state arts commission. The legislature declares it to be a policy of this state that a portion of appropriations for capital expenditures, except as provided in RCW 43.17.200 and section 13 of this act, be set aside for the acquisition of works of art to be placed in public buildings or lands. There is hereby established a visual arts program to be administered by the Washington state arts commission.


CRITICAL TAXPAYER PROTECTION: PREVENTS POLITICIANS FROM DIVERTING TOLL REVENUE TO THE GENERAL FUND; TOLLS ON A PROJECT GET SPENT ON THE PROJECT


Sec. 15. RCW 47.56.030 and 2002 c 114 s 19 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Except as permitted under chapter 47.46 RCW: (a) The department of transportation shall have full charge of the construction of all toll bridges and other toll facilities including the Washington state ferries, and the operation and maintenance thereof. (b) The transportation commission shall determine and establish the tolls and charges thereon, subject to all applicable laws, and shall perform all duties and exercise all powers relating to the financing, refinancing, and fiscal management of all toll bridges and other toll facilities including the Washington state ferries, and bonded indebtedness in the manner provided by law. Except for Washington state ferries toll facilities, revenue from any new tolls or charges established after December 4, 2008, that exceed the cost of construction, operation, or maintenance of toll facilities and new capital improvements to highways, freeways, roads, bridges, and streets, shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. Except for Washington state ferries toll facilities, in the absence of any capital improvements, revenue from any new tolls or charges established after December 4, 2008, that exceed the cost of collecting the tolls or charges shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. (c) The department shall have full charge of design of all toll facilities. (d) Except as provided in this section, the department shall


Electronic Transmittal 20 1-1866.1



proceed with the construction of such toll bridges and other facilities and the approaches thereto by contract in the manner of state highway construction immediately upon there being made available funds for such work and shall prosecute such work to completion as rapidly as practicable. The department is authorized to negotiate contracts for any amount without bid under (d) (i) and (ii) of this subsection: (i) Emergency contracts, in order to make repairs to ferries or ferry terminal facilities or removal of such facilities whenever continued use of ferries or ferry terminal facilities constitutes a real or immediate danger to the traveling public or precludes prudent use of such ferries or facilities; and (ii) Single source contracts for vessel dry dockings, when there is clearly and legitimately only one available bidder to conduct dry dock-related work for a specific class or classes of vessels. The contracts may be entered into for a single vessel dry docking or for multiple vessel dry dockings for a period not to exceed two years. (2) The department shall proceed with the procurement of materials, supplies, services, and equipment needed for the support, maintenance, and use of a ferry, ferry terminal, or other facility operated by Washington state ferries, in accordance with chapter 43.19 RCW except as follows: (a) Except as provided in (d) of this subsection, when the secretary of the department of transportation determines in writing that the use of invitation for bid is either not practicable or not advantageous to the state and it may be necessary to make competitive evaluations, including technical or performance evaluations among acceptable proposals to complete the contract award, a contract may be entered into by use of a competitive sealed proposals method, and a formal request for proposals solicitation. Such formal request for proposals solicitation shall include a functional description of the needs and requirements of the state and the significant factors. (b) When purchases are made through a formal request for proposals solicitation the contract shall be awarded to the responsible proposer whose competitive sealed proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the state taking into consideration price and other evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. No significant factors may be used in evaluating a proposal that are not specified in the request for


Electronic Transmittal 21 1-1866.1



proposals. Factors that may be considered in evaluating proposals include but are not limited to: Price; maintainability; reliability; commonality; performance levels; life cycle cost if applicable under this section; cost of transportation or delivery; delivery schedule offered; installation cost; cost of spare parts; availability of parts and service offered; and the following: (i) The ability, capacity, and skill of the proposer to perform the contract or provide the service required; (ii) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the proposer; (iii) Whether the proposer can perform the contract within the time specified; (iv) The quality of performance of previous contracts or services; (v) The previous and existing compliance by the proposer with laws relating to the contract or services; (vi) Objective, measurable criteria defined in the request for proposal. These criteria may include but are not limited to items such as discounts, delivery costs, maintenance services costs, installation costs, and transportation costs; and (vii) Such other information as may be secured having a bearing on the decision to award the contract. (c) When purchases are made through a request for proposal process, proposals received shall be evaluated based on the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposal. When issuing a request for proposal for the procurement of propulsion equipment or systems that include an engine, the request for proposal must specify the use of a life cycle cost analysis that includes an evaluation of fuel efficiency. When a life cycle cost analysis is used, the life cycle cost of a proposal shall be given at least the same relative importance as the initial price element specified in the request of proposal documents. The department may reject any and all proposals received. If the proposals are not rejected, the award shall be made to the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the department, considering price and the other evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposal. (d) If the department is procuring large equipment or systems (e.g., electrical, propulsion) needed for the support, maintenance, and use of a ferry operated by Washington state ferries, the


Electronic Transmittal 22 1-1866.1



department shall proceed with a formal request for proposal solicitation under this subsection (2) without a determination of necessity by the secretary.

Sec. 16. RCW 47.56.160 and 1984 c 7 s 258 are each amended to read as follows: Except for revenues to be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account under RCW 47.56.030(1)(b), ( (A))all tolls or other revenues received from the operation of any toll bridge or toll bridges constructed with the proceeds of bonds issued and sold hereunder shall be paid over by the department to the state treasurer. The treasurer shall deposit them forthwith as demand deposits in a depository or depositories authorized by law to receive deposits of state funds. The deposit shall be made to the credit of a special trust fund designated as the toll revenue fund of the particular toll bridge or toll bridges producing the tolls or revenue, which fund shall be a trust fund and shall at all times be kept segregated and set apart from all other funds.

Sec. 17. RCW 47.56.170 and 1984 c 7, s 259 are each amended to read as follows: From the money deposited in each separate construction fund under RCW 47.56.160, the state treasurer shall transfer to the place or places of payment named in the bonds such sums as may be required to pay the interest as it becomes due on all bonds sold and outstanding for the construction of a particular toll bridge or toll bridges during the period of actual construction and during the period of six months immediately thereafter. The state treasurer shall thereafter transfer from each separate toll revenue fund to the place or places of payment named in the bonds such sums as may be required to pay the interest on the bonds and redeem the principal thereof as the interest payments and bond redemption become due for all bonds issued and sold for the construction of the particular toll bridge or toll bridges producing the tolls or revenues so deposited in the toll revenue fund. All funds so transferred for the payment of principal or interest on bonds issued for any particular toll bridge shall be segregated and applied solely for the payment of that principal or interest. The proceedings authorizing the issuance of bonds may provide for setting up a reserve fund or funds out of the tolls and


Electronic Transmittal 23 1-1866.1


other revenues not needed for the payment of principal and interest, as the same currently matures and for the preservation and continuance of the fund in a manner to be provided therein. The proceedings may also require the immediate application of all surplus moneys in the toll revenue fund to the retirement of the bonds prior to maturity, by call or purchase, in such manner and upon such terms and the payment of such premiums as may be deemed advisable in the judgment of the department. The moneys remaining in each separate toll revenue fund after providing the amount required for interest and redemption of bonds as provided in this section shall be held and applied as provided in the proceedings authorizing the issuance of the bonds. If the proceedings authorizing the issuance of the bonds do not require surplus revenues to be held or applied in any particular manner, they shall be ( ( Be the eenstructien, eperatren, and tcnr,n" of the tell bridge e-r bride a=thc depa cnt may determine)) dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 18. This act does not inhibit or prohibit the department of transportation or any other state or local government agency or body from allocating or expending other revenue from other sources to fund costs associated with opening carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours, synchronizing traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets, or increasing funding for emergency roadside assistance as required under this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 19. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 20. Subheadings used in this act are not any part of the law.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 21. 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.


Electronic Transmittal 24 1-1866.1





NEW SECTION. Sec. 22. This act shall be known and cited as the Reduce Traffic Congestion Act of 2008.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 23. This act takes effect December 4, 2008.


--- END ---