Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/01/2009 06 Initiative 1033 Public Hearing
• • BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of 9/1/2009 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing regarding Initiative 1033 SUBMITTED BY: Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager, 575 -6040 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: Initiative 1033 has been certified by the Washington State Secretary of State for inclusion on the 2009 General Election ballot. At their July 21, 2009 meeting, the City Council voted to conduct a public hearing on 1 -1033. The motion, which passed on a 6-1 vote, also informed the public that the City Council did not intend to take a position on the proposal. If approved by the voters, Initiative 1033 would limit the growth of state, county and city "general fund" revenues received from taxes, fees, and other charges not expressly approved by the voters'. As provided for in RCW 42.17.130(1), this hearing allows members of the public an equal opportunity to express opinions with respect to initiative. Enclosed is a copy of the initiative and background information from the proponent of the initiative, Mr. Tim Eyman, together with information from opponents of the initiative, as well as other fiscal impact statements on the initiative from the Association of Washington Cities, State Office of Financial Management and KL Gates. Resolution Ordinance Other (Specify) Contract Mail to (name and address): Phone: Funding Source PPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is a Council policy issue. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The City Council Rules and Procedures Committee previously recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing on the measure. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPA; MEMORANDUM August 28, 2009 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Dick Zais, City Manager - FROM: Jeff Cutter, City Attorney Lawrence Watters, Senior Assistant City Attorney (509) 575-6M Fwc (509) 5756160 SUBJ: Guidelines for Public Hearings on Ballot Propositions and Actions the City Council May Take This memorandum addresses guidelines for public hearings on ballot propositions and ® actions the City Council may take on an upcoming school district levy. RCW 42.17.130 generally prohibits elected officials from using City facilities, directly or indirectly, for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. However, the general prohibition does not apply to the following actions of elected officials: . (1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance, or to support or oppose a.ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot.,proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view. (2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry. (3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency. ® Thus, the City Council may take a vote to support or oppose a school district levy at an open City Council meeting as long as the notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and Council member and citizens are afforded an approximately equal opportunity to express opposing views. Individual City Council members can also state their support or opposition to the levy at an open press conference or in response to a question concerning the matter. LW /brb -2- • O F— sYCF ,f J l Christine O. Gregoire ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Licensing & Administrative Law Division PO Box 40110 • Olympia WA 98504-0110 • (360) 664 -2405 MEMORANDUM September 13, 2001 TO: Interested Persons FRO:Y1: Nancy Krier, Assistant Attorney General SUBJECT: Statutory Limits On The Use of Public Funds /Facilities To Assist or Oppose Campaigns, Particularly Campaigns Involving Ballot Measures or Initiatives 1. INTRODUCTION The primary purpose. of this memorandum is to remind readers about the statutory prohibition at RCW 42.17.130 regarding the use. of local public funds anal public property and facilities to support or-oppose candidates or ballot propositions,.including initiative and bond and levy campaigns. This memorandum also presents some factual scenarios that should trigger discussions with local attorneys advising such local public entities, and/or with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission staff. Finally, this memorandum provides a list of resources for local agency employees and officials who may have questions concerning use of public funds and facilities, with respect to ballot measure or initiative campaigns. This memorandum is not designed to provide legal advice or to replace legal advice provided by attorneys advising local agencies and local officials. In particular, this memorandum does not discuss any local rules, ordinances, procedures or advice that may also address use of public facilities or funds in campaigns. This memorandum's approach is similar to that in a memorandum prepared by Senior Assistant Attorney General James K. Pharris, which analyzed the Executive Ethics Act's comparable provisions for state agencies at RCW 42.52.180.' That memorandum by Mr. Pharris is available at the Attorney General's Office Home Page at www.wa.gov /aoo. This memorandum references the statutes the State Public Disclosure Commission has Since January I, 1995, RCW 42.17.130 has been superseded as to state agencies and employees. Laws of 1994, ch. 154, § 317 (codified as RCW 42.17.131) provides that "RCW 42.17.130 does not apply to any person who is a state officer or state employee as defined in RCNV 42.52.010 ". It is also important to note RCW 42.17.190(4) prohibits the use of public funds or facilities to support or oppose an initiative to the Legislature, with exceptions parallel to those contained in RCW 42.17.130. September 13, 2001 Page 2 of l l analyzed for local agencies and officials in its rules, declaratory orders, and "Guidelines for Local Government Agencies, Including School Districts in Election Campaigns." ("Guidelines ,).2 Those PDC documents are available online at www.rndc.wa.Qov (see "Guide to the Law," "Interpretations. ") II. STATUTORY PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS For local public entities, the primary statute on this subject is R.CW 42.17.130_ The statute reads: No elective official nor any employee of his office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or- indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion Of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of.public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space,. publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or. agency: PROVIDED, That the foregoing provisions of this section small not apply to the following activities: (1) Action taken at an open public meeting by rnembers of an elected legislative body to express a collective decision, or_ to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body 'or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view; (2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry; (3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency. The PDC recently updated its guidelines specific to school districts. The '"Guidelines for School Districts in Election Campaigns" are available online at the PDC's website. It is anticipated that the local agencies' guidelines will be updated in the future to follow the than format in the school districts' guidelines. Attorney advisers of local agencies are encouraged, however, to also review the school districts' guidelines. • • • September 13, 2001 Page 3 of 11 Ill. CASES, ATTORNEY :GENERAL OPINIONS, INTERPRETIVE RULES, AND DECLARATORY ORDERS There are only two reported cases construing RCW 42.17.130. The law has been amended since those cases were reported, but I cite to them by way of background. King County Councit v. Public Disclosure Commission., 93 Wn.2d 5.59, 611 'P.2d 1227 (1980), had concluded that a county council could, as a matter of "normal and regular conduct ", pass resolutions endorsing a ballot. measure. City of Seattle v. Sidle,. 100 Wn.2d 232, 668 P.2d 1266 (1983), held that a city ordinance providing partial public funding for candidates in city elections did not violate RCW 42.1.7.130. However, subsequent legislation has rendered both of these opinions moot. Later amendments to RCW 42.17.130 explicitly permitted the conduct which the court allowed in King County Council V. Public Disclosure Commission, while the enactment of Initiative 134 (RCW 42.17.1.28) specifically prohibited local governments from using public funds to finance political' campaigns for state or local office. There are three formal .attorney general opinions. construing RCW 42.17 generally; including RCW 42.17.130. Persons interpreting the current act should read .them, but they should also check their analysis carefully against subsequent changes in the statutes interpreted. ® The -first of the three opinions is AGO 1973 No. 14, a long opinion answering some 23 questions about Initiative 276 (the initiative measure whose approval constituted the enactment of what is- now RCW 42.17). This opinion is valuable primarily as a discussion of the historical background of the law. AGO 1975 No. 23 construes the language concerning "normal and regular conduct of,.gie office or agency" and is worth reading since the same language appears in RCW 42.17.130. Finally, AGO 1979 No. 3, construing RCW 42.17.130, concluded that the use of college or university facilities for political conventions, meetings, and candidates' forums did not violate the section, and prohibitions such as RCW 42.17.130 were.not intended to cover "neutral public forum" uses of public property, such as the use of publicly owned facilities on a nondiscriminatory basis for political activities. The PDC has adopted two rules interpreting RCW 42.17.130 in the Washington Administrative Code: WAC 390 -05 -271 (general applications of RCW 42.17.130) and WAC 390 -05 -273 (definition of normal and regular conduct). Those rules are discussed in the PDC Guidelines and are available on the PDC's website. They read as follows: WAC 390 -05 -271 - (1) RCW 42.17.130 does not restrict the right of any individual to express his or her own personal views concerning, supporting, or opposing any ,candidate or ballot proposition, if such expression does not involve a use of the facilities of a public office or agency. (2) RCW 42.17.130 does not prevent a public office or agency from (a) making facilities available on a nondiscriminatory, equal access basis for political uses or September 13, 2001 Page 4 of 11 (b) making an objective and fair presentation of facts relevant to a ballot proposition, if such action is part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency. WAC 390 -05 -273 - Normal and regular conduct of a public office or agency, as that term is used in the proviso to RCW 42.17.130, means conduct which is (1) lawful, i_e., specifically authorized, either expressly or by necessary implication; in an appropriate- enactment, and (2) usual, i.e., not effected or authorized in or by some extraordinary means or mariner.. No local office or agency may authorize a use of public facilities for the purpose of assisting a candidate's campaign or promoting or opposing a ballot proposition, in the absence of a constitutional, charter, or statutory provision separately authorizing such use. The PDC has issued a number of declaratory orders interpreting RCW 42.17.130. Those orders are orders numbered 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, and 14. They are summarized at the end of this memorandum, and are available 'on, the PDC's website. Finally, as noted herein, the PDC has provided guidelines to offer further practical assistance in interpreting its rules and statutes. The "Guidelines for Local Government Agencies, Including School Districts, in Election Campaigns" (which is the relevant document for most local agencies.) and the more recent and updated "Guidelines for School Districts in Election Campaigns" (which is the relevant document for school districts at this time) are available on the PDC's website. 1V. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES This section of the memorandum is intended to draw together informal advice to state agencies from a variety of sources (primarily generated in response to ballot measures in previous years), and to-point to sources available for help in answering questions which may arise. As noted; this memorandum represents only the writer's analysis based. ,upon that information provided at the state level to agencies governed by similar statutes, and is not the official position of the office. Given the language of the statute itself at RCW 42.17.130, and factoring in cases and opinions interpreting the statute, it is possible to make some general statements about political activities. I think the following activities are clearly prohibited by RCW 42.17.130: 1. Using work hours to solicit signatures for ballot propositions, to raise funds for or against such propositions, or to organize campaigns for or against such Propositions. 2. Using public property to campaign for or against a ballot proposition, except j l ®. September 13, 2001 Page 5 a.f 1 I that "neutral forum" public property, available on a nondiscriminatory, equal access .basis and otherwise open to public use may be used for campaigning also: 3. Using public facilities --- office space, electronic mail and data processin; equipment, word processing and copying facilities, paper, supplies, and any other publicly owned property —for campaigns for or against a ballot proposition, whether during or after work hours. 4. Displaying political material in or on publicly owned vehicles. 5. Displaying or distributing campaign material on publicly owned or operated premises (other than "neutral open forum" property or "personal space" property as discussed in hypothetical question number 5 in Part V below). 6. Using public supplies, equipment, or facilities to print, mail, or otherwise produce or distribute materials supporting or opposing any candidate or ballot proposition. 7: Using publicly owned facilities to instruct or urge public employees to campaign for or against a candidate or ballot proposition on their own; time, or stating or implying that their job performance. might be judged according to their • willingness to use,th.eir own tim.e on a campaign. 8. Using public time and/or facilities to draft or pass a- resolution by an appointed committee,- board, or commission 'taking an official position for or against a pending ballot proposition. Turning to the other side, the following appear to be conduct that is'not prohibited by RCW 42.17.130: 1. An elected legislative body may collectively endorse or oppose a ballot measure if it meets the procedural requirements of RCW 42.17.130. 2. An elected official may make a statement in support of, or in opposition to, a ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry, or may make incidental remarks concerning a ballot proposition in an official communication, so long.as there is no actual, measurable expenditure of public funds. Again, note that this exception is limited to elected officials and does not, by its terms, extend to such "support" activity as using staff time or public facilities to'.prepare or distribute such' a statement, at least if any "measurable expenditure" of public funds is involved. 3. Unless it is inconsistent with some other applicable law or regulation, a public employee is not prohibited from campaigning for or against a ballot proposition • September 13, 2001 Page '6 of I I on the .employee's personal time. it should be clear that the activity is the individual's personal choice and is not tied to job performance in any way .3 4. Public employees may contact fellow employees, away from the office, to circulate petitions or to solicit one another for funds, volunteers, and other activity for and against a ballot proposition, but only under circumstances which strictly avoid the use of office time and public property. Officers and employees would be wise to avoid soliciting subordinate employees because, under those circumstances, the subordinate employees may feel,(no matter how carefully the campaign is conducted or the inquiry is phrased) that the superior is using improper influence. 5. Where public space is available on a nonrestricted basis to post signs, petitions, and advertisements, or to make speeches and hold meetings, public employees. may use these "neutral 'public forum" spaces to express their own views, including their views on pending ballot propositions, assuming they are not otherwise violating RCW 42.17.130. However, it might well be a violation of the statute for public employees to use their positions to gain special advantage in the use of such "public forum" spaces, such as by signing up all the time for the use of a public auditorium before non - employees have had an equal opportunity to seek use of the same space, or by using their access to a public bulletin, board to occupy the' entire.. space with -- favored campaign -- material and leaving .no . space available for opposing material (or material relating to othei. matters). 6. Public agencies may conduct research into the likely results of the passage of a ballot proposition. Indeed, where the passage of the proposition would directly affect the agency's duties, an agency might be remiss for not conducting such research_ activity. However, it must be clear that the research is being conducted with the purpose of gathering the facts, is directly related to the ordinary conduct of the agency's business (is "normal and regular for the agency), and is not designed to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure. I recommend that agencies avoid conducting research or assembling statistical data which they expect to be requested for use in connection with a campaign, unless they are satisfied that they would have undertaken the same research or statistical efforts for independent reasons, such as planning for contingencies. 7. Public agencies and public employees may supply public records in response to requests made by the supporters or opponents of candidates or ballot propositions. An agency should treat all campaigns fairly and equitably in responding to requests for public records. It is an obvious corollary that employees campaigning on their own personal time should avoid stating or implying that they are campaigning on behalf of the public agency. September 13, 2001 Page 7 of 1 I 8. Where two or more measures relate to the same subject, agencies may publish factual information showing the. comparative effects of the measures, just as they could publish factual information showing the expected effect of a single measure. However, the agency may not use public facilities or property to favor one proposition over the other, any more than it could urge passage or defeat of both measures. V. SOME HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS, AND SONlE SUGGESTIONS .ABOUT THE ANSWERS Following ate some hypothetical questions that might be asked about the, statute and some comments in response. These situations are offered as a "flag" to the types offact patterns that should trigger further review and-consideration of the statutes and regulations discussed in this memorandum: Readers are cautioned to review current PDC regulations and guidelines in considering possible scenarios that may implicate the statute. Readers who are local officials or agency staff are also strongly encouraged to contact their agency's attorneys, local ethics boards (if the community has, such a board) and PDC staff, before engaging in the' conduct, if they have any questions about whether a particular course of action -could result in a complaint to the PDC and/or a PDC enforcement action against the local entity or employees. 1. 1 serve by appointment on a commission that governs a local agency. I serve part -time and receive no compensotiomexcept for attending commission meetings. The other. day, I attended a fund- raiser iii support of an initiative measure that would, if approved, put the commission on a much more solid financial footing. I attended at my own expense and made a contribution to the campaign, which .was properly reported. . During the announcements, the announcer, specifically against my request, introduced me to the crowd as "Vice Chair of the X Commission "; I, quickly pointed out that 1 was attending as a private citizen. W'as the use of my title n use of a "public facility or property "? Unlike paper or ink or time, an officer's title cannot be measured or "expended" in any meaningful way. Knowledge that a particular candidate or ballot proposition is supported . by "Commissioner X" may lend some weight or dignity to a campaign event or advertisement, or it- may not. Thus, while it may be prudent to avoid using a position or title, primarily to avoid any implication that the agency or its officers are `officially" supporting a particular candidate or proposition, the mere identification of a person by stating his /her title or position would not seem to be a "use" of public facilities. However, it was wise for you to point out that you were attending in your private capacity in order to prevent any misunderstanding on that point. In the future, consult with youT agency's attorneys or local ethics board to determine if there any local ethics rules that otherwise limit use of your title. I •September 13, 2001 Page 8 of I 1 2. The head of my agency, Q, is an elected executive offrcer who supports a ballot measure on his own time. A close friend wanes to support the initiative both with financial contributions and volunteering time to the campaign. I do not know the address or telephone number of the campaign office. Would it.be all right to send an office voice -mail or e-mail to 0, passing along my friend's name and suggesting that Q forward this information to the campaign? Remember that voice -mail and e-mail are both office property and facilities. While forwarding the information to Q seems a sail thing, it involves both you and Q (Q involuntarily) in the use of office facilities for campaign activity. On your own time, take the steps to find out how to put your friend directly in touch with the campaign without using office. facilities. If you don't want to be involved even that much, suggest that your friend contact the campaign directly.. A third possibility would be to pass the information along using your own paper and stamp and Q's home address. 3. Everyone in my work unit is a strong opponent of Ballot Measure B. YVe have all been involved in the anti -B campaign, and we have been coref tl not to use either our public agency lime or any agency facilities, such as paper, computers, or copy machines, in our campaign work. We need to 'have a campaign meeting next weekend, and. the orgoni =ers are having. trouble finding a place for the meeting.--- 0uragency-hos a-lorge conference roorri which is not ordinarily open to the public but which Kill not be in use during the weekend. Can we offer the use of the room for the campaign meeting? Although office space is not "consumed" when used for a meeting (small amounts of heat and light notwithstanding), the use of a space not ordinarily available to the public leaves the definite impression that the campaign, is benefiting from its use of a public space. The fact that your work unit is all involved in the campaign reinforces this unfortunate impression. in my opinion, using this particular space would violate _RCW 42.17.130. If the conference room is generally open to the public, however, and is scheduled for the campaign on the same basis as anyone else could schedule it, the answer might be different. It still might be prudent to have the meeting somewhere . else, just to avoid any question about misuse of public facilities. 4. 1 am the office ' nianager for a local agency and 1 supervise about 50 employees. My close friend D is a drafter of an initiative. May, 1 invite all my office to a Saturday morning event at my home where then can meet D and will have the opportunity to contribute to the campaign? Extreme caution is advised. For the obvious points first, avoid the use of office space, office paper, e -mail, voicemail, or any other office facility for the September 13, 2001 Page 9 of I I invitations. ,Employee mailing lists are also public facilities that may not be used for campaign purposes .4 Perhaps you know the phone numbers and addresses by heart, or can use publicly available sources such as telephone and e -mail directories to get the necessary information. Even then, remember that you supervise all of these employees. Will one or more misunderstand why they are invited to a campaign fundraiser at your home? Will they conclude, no matter how you protest otherwise, that they stand to gain your favor if they support the initiative, or to lose your favor if they don't? Even if this is not strictly a violation of RCW 42.17.130., do you want to raise these issues and risk a complaint filed with the PDC? S. My co- worker and 1 have strongly different political philosophies. During the last initiative campaign, she wore a large button promoting a position I find repugnant, and she placed a flier about the initiative in. her workstation next to the.pictures of her husband and her cat. Would it be appropriate for me to ask our supervisor to ban such overt displays this year? Ethical and policy considerations must always be balanced against free speech rights and the legitimate interest of any employee in expressing her views and in arranging her personal space. The courts and the ethics agencies have recognized • that campaign buttons on clothing are a personal expression and do not violate the ethics statute. The use of personal assigned space in a workstation probably meets the same requirement.5 The answer would likely be different if a) an. employee's space or cubicle or work area is accessible or visible to members of the public, or b) an employee is using publicly visible space, such as a wall, window, or reception desk, which could leave the impression that the campaign is favored by the agency or its leadership. 6. Initiative J would, if approved by the people, repeal the tax that supports 90% of my agency's activities. The Legislature might replace some of the money if the ta-r was repealed, but it is virtually certain that our agency's budget would be severely reduced. Can .we use staff time and agency resources to assemble and publish a sheet that would just "show the facts "_ that is, that enactment of ' As a reminder, if there is a public records request for lists of names, your agency should review the public disclosure act's requirements in RCW 42.17, including RCW 42.171-60(9) and RCW 42.:17.310(Ixu). If a list is generally available as a public record, it cannot be denied to a person or group on the grounds that it might be used in a campaign. If the record is not generally available to the public, it may not be made "specially" available to or for a campaign. However, an employee's office or workspace may not be used under any circumstance as a distribution point for campaign literature or materials, such as posters, bumper stickers, fliers, buttons, or other campaign materials. Likewise, an employee cannot distribute these materials in a public office, such as in hallways, office -to- office, or cubicle -to- cubicle. September 13, 2001 Page 10 of 1 1 Initiative J would effectively end 611 of the popular programs my agency is involved with? As noted earlier, as part of their "normal and regular conduct," agencies can anticipate ballot measures by preparing contingency plans or by researching the possible effects of a treasure for planning purposes. Your proposal goes considerably beyond that, though. The major flaw in your logic is to characterize as a "fact" your predicted outcome of the legislative session should the Initiative be approved. The Legislature would be free to replace the agency's funding; therefore, it is simply not a "fact" that the agency's programs would be eliminated. it is only speculation. There seems little purpose for the agency. to indulge in such speculation, except to influence the election results. Perhaps the agency could publish a true "fact sheet" which, for instance, .lists the . current programs administered by the agency with its current budget. Perhaps the material also could point out the current source of the agency's budget without speculating what would happen if that funding source disappeared. Vl. SUMMARY In closing, it is important to remember that the public is generally very sensitive to the use of public facilities or property on ballot propositions or initiatives and takes accusations of violations very seriously. Officers and employees who try to bump up against the "line" that divides lawful from unlawful conduct in this area may find, even if their conduct is eventually judged lawful, that their questionable activity has incited a public backlash against the very position they were attempting to advocate. As a result, public employees should walk a careful line to assure that the public is fully and adequately informed about the consequences of voting on a particular measure, without making unlawful use of public money or property to influence the result of the vote. Local agency staff and officers should consult closely with their legal counsel and local ethics boards on all activities relating to matters before the voters, and they should use utmost skill and care in expressing any comments on such matters. When in doubt, local agency staff and officers are encouraged to contact the PDC. V11. OTHER RESOURCES • Public Disclosure Commission Staff: (360) 753 -1111; toll -free 1- 877 - 601 -2828; FAX: (360) 7 -53 -1112; e -mail: pdc @pdc.wa.gov. • Public Disclosure Commission Written Information (P.DC website is wtiv)y..ndc.wa.Qov — See "Guide to the Law"): PDC regulations at WAC 390 -05 -271 (general applications of RCW 42.17. 130) and 390 -05 -273 (definition of normal and regular conduct). • September 13, 200[ Pave 1 I of I I PDC guidelines, including "Guidelines for Local Government Agencies, Including School Districts, In Election Campaigns" and "Guidelines for School Districts in Election Campaigns" (the latter is an updated specific publication for school districts; school personnel should also review RCW 28A.320.090, which addresses distribution of literature). PDC declaratory orders interpreting RCW 42.17.130 - - No. 1(RCW 42.17.130 would be violated by a legislator using public facilities or funds to prepare and distribute a newsletter expressing views in opposition to two ballot measures, or to make speeches or distribute legislative materials for the purposes of opposing such measures). No. 2 (the production and mailing of a budget questionnaire at county expense during an election campaign would violate RCW 42. 17.130 if it includes a cover page which is unrelated to the questionnaire and which draws special attention to a council member who is a.candidate). - No. 4 (the use of a local agency's internal mailing systems for candidate endorsements would violate RCW 4117.130). • - No. 10 (unless express authority is granted by an .independent source, a local agency cannot promote a ballot proposttton as "normal and regular conduct" of the agency, for to do so would be in violation of RCW 42.17.130). No. 13 (a city is not prohibited by RCW 42.17.130 from organizing and broadcasting a candidate forum where the purpose of the forum is to educate voters. about the candidate for office, each candidate is provided an equal opportunity to participate, and the forum is presented in a fashion that is unbiased and nondiscriminatory with regard to all candidates). - No. 14 (an analysis of when and to what extent RCW 42.1 7.130 and RCW 42.17.190 affect a school district's ability to engage in activities relating to the support of or opposition to initiatives to the legislature). • Page 2of3 Westlaw. •West's RCWA 42.17.130 Page 1 P West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness Title 42. Public Officers and Agencies (Refs & Annos) a Chapter 42.17. Disclosure -- Campaign Finances -- Lobbying -- Records (Refs & Annos) ro Campaign Financing (Refs & Annos) _42.17.130. Use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns— Prohibition— Exceptions No elective official nor any employee of his [or her] office nor any person appointed to or employed by any pub- lic office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the of- fice or agency. However, thisdoes not apply to the folfowing activities: (1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body or by an elected board, council, or commission of a special purpose district including, but not limited to, fire districts; public hospital districts, library districts, park districts, port districts, public utility districts, school districts,, sewer districts, and water districts, to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal; resolution; order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body, members of the board, • council, or commission of the special purpose district, or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view; (2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry; (3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency. CREDIT(S) [2006 c 215 § 2, eff. June 7, 2006; 1979 ex.s. c 265 § 2; 1975 ='76 2nd ex.s. c 112 § 6; 1973 c 1 § 13 (Initiative Measure No. 276, approved November 7, 1972).] HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Finding — Intent -2006 c 215: "(1) The legislature finds that the public benefits from an open and inclusive dis- cussion of proposed ballot measures by local elected leaders, and that for twenty -five years these discussions have included the opportunity for elected boards, councils, and commissions of special purpose districts to vote in open public meetings in order to express their support of, or opposition to, ballot propositions affecting their jurisdictions. (2) The legislature intends to affirm and clarify the state's long - standing policy of promoting informed public i© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http: / /web2.westlaw.com/ print /printstream.aspx ?sv= Split &prid= ia744a5680000012361 fe£... 8/28/2009 Page 3 of 3 Page 2 West's RCWA 42.17.130 • discussion and understanding of ballot propositions by allowing elected boards, councils, and commissions of special purpose districts to adopt resolutions supporting or opposing ballot propositions." [2006 c 215 § 1.1 Disposition of violations before January 1, 1995: "Any violations occurring prior to January 1, 1995, of any of the following laws shall be disposed of as, if chapter 154, Laws of 1994 were not enacted and such laws contin- ued in full force and effect: RCW 42.17.130, chapter 42.18 RCW, chapter 42.21 RCW, and chapter 42.22 RCW." [1994 c 154 § 226.] 2006 Legislation Laws 2006, ch. 215, § 2 made nonsubstantive changes near the end of the introductory paragraph; and rewrote subsec. (1), which formerly read: "(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view;" West's RCWA 42.17.130, WA ST 42.17.130 Current with 2009 Legislation effective through August 1, 2009 © 2009 Thomson Reuters. END OF DOCUMENT © 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 0 http: / /web2.westlaw.coml printlprintstream.aspx ?sv= Split &prid= ia744a5680000012361 fe£.. 8/28/2009 • • C7 Page 2 of 2 Westlaw. WA ADC 390 -05 -271 Page 1 WAC 390 -05 -271 Wash. Admin. Code 390 -05 -271 5� WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 390. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION CHAPTER 390 -05. GENERAL POLICIES AND DEFINITIONS Current with amendments adopted through July 1, 2009. i90 -05 -271. General applications of RCW 42.17.130. (1) RCW 42.17.130 does not restrict the right of any individual to express his or her own personal views con- cerning, supporting, or opposing any candidate or ballot proposition, if such expression does not involve a use of the facilities of a public office or agency. (2) RCW 42.17.130 does not prevent a public office or agency from (a) making facilities available on a nondis- criminatory, equal access basis for political uses or (b) making an objective and fair presentation of facts relev- ant to a ballot proposition, if such action is part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.370(1). 80 -02 -055 (Order 80 -01), S 390 -05- 271, filed 1/17/80; 79 -02 -056 (Order 79 -01), S 390 -05 -271, filed 1/31/79. < General Materials (GM) - References, Annotations, or Tables> WAC 390 -05 -271, WA ADC 390 -05 -271 WA ADC 390 -05 -271 END OF DOCUMENT © 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http: / /web2.westlaw.coml printlprintstream- aspx ?sv = Split &prid= ia74487c000000l 23 62004... 8/28/2009 YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 1033 LIMITING STATE, COUNTY AND CITY REVENUE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the. Yakima City Council will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of Yakima City Hall, 129 North 2`d Street, Yakima, Washington, to provide an opportunity for citizen comments for or against Initiative No. 1033 (1- 1033). This initiative has been certified to be placed on the ballot for voter approval or rejection at the state general election to be held on November 3, 2009. If approved by Washington voters, 1 -1033 would limit the growth of state, county and city "general fund" revenues received from taxes, fees and other charges not expressly approved by the voters. Any citizen wishing to comment on 1 -1033 is welcome to attend the public hearing. Citizens may also submit written comments to the City Council in two ways: 1) Send a letter via regular mail to "Yakima City Council, 129 North 2'd Street, Yakima, WA 98901"; or, 2) E -mail your comments to ccounci! _ci.yakima.wa.us. Include in the e-mail subject line, 1- 1031" Initiative proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to address the City Council. at this public hearing. According to Council policy, the City Council will not vote • to endorse or oppose the initiative. Dated this 41h day of August, 2009. Deborah Moore City Clerk Publish once on Friday, August 21, 2009 Charge to Account Number 10952 �J From: Tim Eyman <tim_eyman @comcast.net> To: Edler, Dave; Cawley, Micah; Ensey, Rick; Coffey, Kathy; Rodriguez, Sonia; Adkison, Maureen; Lover, Bill CC: mike.leita @co.yakima.wa.us <mike. leita@co. yakima.wa. us>; kevin.bouchey @co.yakima.wa.us < kevin.bouchey @co.yakima.wa.us >; rand.elliott @co.yakima.wa.us <rand.elliott @co.yakima.wa.us> Sent: Wed Aug 2610:48:44 2009 Subject: Confirming next Tues' 1 -1033 presentation to Yakima's city and county elected representatives August 26, 2009 To: Yakima's Board Of County Commissioners (BOCC) — Mike Leita, Rand Elliott, & Kevin Bouchey To: Yakima Mayor Dave Edler and Yakima City Council members — Micah Cawley, Bill Lover, Sonia Rodriguez, Maureen Adkison, Rick Ensey, & Kathy Coffey To: Candidates running for the legislature, county, and city office (will members of Yakima's media please pass this invitation to the non - incumbent candidates and ask them if they'll please attend ?) cc: Yakima's state legislators Charles Ross, Curtis King, and David Taylor bcc: All local and statewide media outlets, House & Senate members, Governor bcc: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state From: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Initiative 1033 co-sponsors, ph: 425 -493 -9127, email: tim_eyman @comcast.net, http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com <http://www.voterswantmorechoices.com/> On July 6th, I asked Yakima's City Council and Yakima's Board Of County Commissioners for a public hearing on 1 -1033 as has been done in years past. After some wrangling on dates, we settled on next Tuesday, September 1 st (at 10 am before the county commissioners in the Yakima City Council Chambers and at 7 pm before the city council members also at-the City Council's Chambers). Thank you again for this opportunity — I really appreciate your willingness to listen and ask questions about 1 -1033 at these public forums so that you can learn more about -its policies and also so you can help the voters in Yakima learn more about 1 -1033 (and in the process, voters get to learn more about you). Yesterday, I traveled down to Olympia to record 1- 1033's "video voter guide" for TVVN, a 4.1/2 minute presentation that TVW will air on TV throughout the state from now until election day. Attached is the text of that presentation — please read through it prior to Tuesday. No doubt the citizens of Yakima want to hear what their elected representatives and potential elected representatives think about initiative 1033 and the specific reasons they support or oppose it. 1 -1033 provides a window into the thinking and political philosophy of officeholders and potential officeholders and voters deserve to know their views on such fundamental issues as those raised by 1 -1033. So just to be clear: Dave Ettl, Mary Place, Paul George, and Ben Soria should respect the voters enough to attend and participate in the discussion and publicly disclose their specific reasons for supporting or opposing I -1033. And the current members of the city council and county board of commissioners should also respect the voters enough to state their specific reasons for supporting or opposing 1 -1033. Thank you again for your consideration and I look forward to September 1 st. Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Initiative 1033 co- sponsors, ph: 425 -493 -9127, email: tim—eyman@comcast.net • F"- We want to start by thanking the 315,000 citizens who voluntarily signed Initiative 1033's petitions, as well as the thousands of volunteers throughout the state who made that possible. Here's what we're debating with I -1033: how fast should the government grow and who should decide? I -1033 takes the position that the public sector should grow at the same rate as the private sector -- unless voters OK a bigger increase -- and it should be the citizens, and not the politicians, who decide. I -1033 brings back successful policies passed by the voters previously. In 1993, during tough economic times, voters approved Initiative 601, which put reasonable limits on government's fiscal policies. 1-601 established a sustainable rate for government to grow, saying it could grow at the inflation rate plus population growth with faster growth requiring voter approval. Despite a multi - million- dollar opposition campaign, the voters passed 601. And I -601 worked very well for many years until the Legislature started putting loopholes in it. It started with the Republicans in 1998, and accelerated with the Democrats in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2007. Those loopholes removed 1-60 I's reasonable fiscal discipline and policies. The result? Two major deficits — $3.2 billion in 2003 and. $9 billion in 2009. Those loopholes allowed them to. take their budgets on a fiscal roller coaster, overextending themselves in good times — creating unsustainable budgets — which led to slashing during bad times. I -1033 gets us off that fiscal roller coaster by reestablishing I- 60 I's same reasonable allowance for growth while permitting higher increases with voter approval.. I -601 worked, it can work again with the passage of I -1033. So what happens to excess tax revenues that government collects above I- 1033's limit? After a fixed percentage of tax revenue is transferred into the constitutionally - protected rainy day fund, the remainder of excess tax revenues gets refunded back to taxpayers via lower property taxes. Struggling working families and fixed- income senior citizens desperately need relief from our state's crushing property tax burden. Washington shouldn't be a state where only rich people can afford a home. I -1033 provides needed, long- overdue property tax relief. Opponents want higher taxes and a state income tax. Opponents are against ANY limit on government's growth and against ANY restriction on government's power to take as much as they want from the taxpayers. I -1033 provides fiscal discipline with flexibility: any revenue from any source deposited into general funds is limited except voter - approved revenues, rainy day funds, and federal funds for the state and except voter - approved revenues for counties & cities. Putting a reasonable limit on the growth of government, like I -601 previously did, gives politicians the excuse to say `no' to the special interest groups and encourages them to finally start nrinritiAnv and refnrminco anvernmpnt • Is Opponents have no alternative to I -1033 to lower property taxes. O_ pponents have no alternative to I -1033 to get government off the fiscal roller coaster. Opponents want us to trust the politicians, despite their insatiable appetite for higher taxes. Opponents ignore the 16 years of positive history with Initiative 601 in Washington state, preferring instead to talk about different tax limits in California, Colorado, and other states. Opponents are against I -1033 because it allows the people, and not the politicians, to decide how fast the government should grow and how big a tax burden we can afford. Both Forbes magazine and the Tax Foundation rank Washington as the 8h highest taxed state in the nation. I -1033 keeps us from hitting #1. Property taxes keep going higher and higher and government keeps getting bigger and bigger. The people are losing control. I -1033 allows the state, counties, and cities to grow, but at a rate that citizens can control and taxpayers can afford. I -1033 gets government off the fiscal roller coaster, allowing it to grow at a sustainable rate that doesn't outpace taxpayers' ability to afford it. I -1033 is needed now more than ever. We're very proud of our supporters and very hopeful that voters will support controlling the growth of government and lowering property taxes by approving Initiative 1033 in November.. Thank you. • • From: Tim Eyman [mailto:tim_eyman @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:37 AM To: mike.leita @co.yaldma.wa.us; kevin.bouchey @co.yakima.wa.us; rand.elliott @co.yakima.wa.us Cc: Edler, Dave; Cawley, Micah; Ensey, Rick; Coffey, Kathy; Rodriguez, Sonia; Adkison, Maureen; Lover, Bill Subject: We ask Yakima's county council and city council for a public hearing on I -1033 July 6, 2009 To: Yakima county commissioners -- Mike Leita, Rand Elliott, & Kevin Bouchey To: Yakima Mayor Dave Edler and Yakima city council members -- Micah Cawley, Bill Lover, Sonia Rodriguez, Maureen Adkison, Rick Ensey, & Kathy Coffey To: Candidates running for the legislature, county council and city council cc: Yakima's state legislators Charles Ross, Curtis King, and David Taylor bcc: All local and statewide media outlets, House & Senate members, Governor bcc: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state From: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Initiative 1033 co- sponsors, ph: 425- 493 -9127, email: tim_eyman @comcast.net, hM://www.VotersWantMoreChoices;com We ask Yakima's county council and city council for a public hearing on I- 1033 as you've granted in years. past. It has become a positive, welcome tradition. Here is the initiative's text -- htt_p: / /www.secstate.wa.gov /elections /initiatives /text/11033.pdf Here is a'one page' describing I- 1033's policies and rationale -- htp://w-ww.VotersWantMoreChoices.com. The Lower Property Taxes Initiative I -1033 substantially reduces property taxes by controlling the growth of government. 1 -1033 says that the growth rate of state, county, and city general fund revenue cannot exceed the inflation rate plus population growth. Revenues collected above the limit will reduce property taxes. Not only does I -1033 provide meaningful property tax relief, but it stops politicians from shifting the tax burden by raising taxes someplace else. I -1033 provides `net' property tax relief. Property taxes are a huge problem, especially for struggling working families and fixed- income senior citizens. Too many are being taxed out of their homes. We don't want Washington to be a state where only rich people can afford to buy and own a home. Citizens desperately need and deserve property tax relief, especially now, during these tough economic times. As you know, our tax initiatives consistently receive support from voters statewide, but they always seem to earn a particularly high level of support in Yakima. We feel strongly that the policies contained in Initiative 1033 will be well- received by voters. Td like the chance to address your county council and city council, as we've done in recent years, at a public hearing to answer your questions, to explain more fully the policies in 1 -1033, and to try to earn the support of individual council members and candidates for office. No doubt the citizens in Yakima would appreciate hearing what their elected representatives and potential elected representatives think about Initiative 1033. We look forward to hearing from both the county council and city council soon concerning this public hearing request. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Initiative 1033 co- sponsors, ph: 425- 493 -9127, email:,tim � eyman@comcast.net P.S. We look forward to reinforcing what was said in this recent news story: Yakima crowd sees eye- to -Eyman Initiative activist joins GOP politicians in celebrating Legislature's property tax action By PAT MUIR, YAKIMA HERALD- REPUBLIC Published on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 Anti -tax activist Tim Eymari was practically glowing Tuesday, ringed by political allies and media types in his Yakima hometown. The initiative guru and hero of small- government conservatives was in his element -- denouncing Democrats and celebrating last week's reinstatement of his property tax cap in front of a friendly crowd at Russillo's Pizza. downtown. "If every elected official in the state of Washington was like you guys, we wouldn't have a Problem," Eyman beamed to a table that included all three Yakima County commissioners, two members of the Yakima City Council, the county treasurer, county assessor and 14th District state Re . Charles Ross R Naches. Eyman's initiative- enacted 1 percent cap on property tax increases was thrown out by the state Supreme Court early last month, but the Legislature reinstated it in a one -day session Thursday. Though the cap's reinstatement won overwhelming support from both parties, Eyman slammed Democrats for not addressing the prospect of "banked" taxing capacity that cities and other taxing districts could still use to raise taxes. This banking authority, which state law has allowed for the past two decades, refers to the difference between what a taxing district actually collected and what it could have collected. He called Republicans, including Ross, heroic for their attempts to close that loophole. "And I don't use the word often," said Eyman, a graduate of West Valley High School. He then used it several more times throughout the hourlong meeting. "Heroic is the word that kept reverberating in my brain as I was driving over here," he said. At one point, discussing the potential problems in implementing a Democratic - backed tax deferral program for homeowners, Yakima County commissioners Chairman Mike Leita asked Eyman how to "put the logic back in Olympia." "You guys cotta move to Olympia," Eyman replied with a hearty laugh. The lovefest went on despite the fact the 1 percent cap, passed by voters in 2001, has often been blamed for local government budget woes. "We have to live within our means," said Leita, whose 2008 county budget includes job cuts. "And we work for the taxpayers. If they want 1 percent (as a cap), we'll have to deal with it." * Pat Muir can be reached at 577 -7693 or pmuir @yakimaherald.com. -- END — • r, • Voters Want More Choices �T VISA s Solving Problems Politicians Won't, In Washington State Page 1 of 6 I Lower Property Taxes Initiative I- HOME PAGE 1033 Donate by Congratulations - anything higher "Help than 292,000 was needed, we turned All Us Help TPaYPa;s" I in 315,444 signatures - YOU DID IT! Donations are via our I Initiative co- sponsors Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, and Mike parent organization Fagan trekked to Olympia to turn -in petitions/signatures natures for 9 p 9 "Voters Want • their Lower Property Taxes Initiative I -1033 today (Thursday, More Choices" July 2nd, 2009). Here's what we have to say about I -1033: account Donate by Credit card We want to start by thanking the 315,000 Donate by 1 citizens who voluntarily signed Initiative 1033s Check petitions, as well as the. thousands of volunteers Text of the throughout the state who made that possible. Lower . Here's what we're debating with I -1033: how Property fast should the government grow and who should Taxes Initiative decide? I -1033 takes the position that the public sector should grow. at the same rate as the private Join our sector -- unless voters OK a bigger increase -- and it 99 Email List should be the citizens, and not the politicians, who Join Our decide. Mailing List I -1033 brings back successful policies passed by Email Us the voters previously. In 1993, during tough Our Resume economic times, voters approved Initiative 601, which put reasonable limits on government's fiscal Email Jack Fagan ! policies. I -601 established a sustainable rate for government to grow, saying it could grow at the http : / /www.permanent- offense.org/ 8/27/2009 Voters Want More Choices Tea Party Petitioner Harassment inflation rate plus population growth with faster growth requiring voter approval. Despite a multi - million - dollar opposition campaign, the voters passed I -601. Page 2 of 6 And I -601 worked very well for many years until the Legislature started putting loopholes in it. It started with. the. Republicans in 1998, and accelerated with the Democrats in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2007. Those loopholes removed I- 601's reasonable fiscal discipline and policies.. The result? Two major deficits — $3.2 billion in 2003 and $9 billion in 2009. Those loopholes allowed them to take their budgets on a fiscal roller coaster, overextending themselves in good times — creating unsustainable budgets — which led to slashing during bad times. I- 1033 gets us off that fiscal roller coaster by reestablishing 1-601 's same reasonable allowance for growth while permitting higher increases with voter approval. I -601 worked, it can work again with the passage of 1- 1033. So what happens to excess tax revenues that government collects above I- 10331s limit? After,a fixed percentage of tax revenue is transferred into the constitutionally - protected rainy day fund, the remainder of excess tax revenues gets refunded back to taxpayers via lower property. taxes. Struggling working families and fixed - income senior citizens desperately need relief from our state's crushing property tax burden. Washington shouldn't be a state where only rich people can afford a home. I -1033 provides needed, long- overdue property tax relief. * * Opponents want higher taxes and a state income http : / /www.permanent- offense.org/ 8/27/2009 • is • Voters Want More Choices Page 3 of 6 tax. Opponents are against ANY limit on j government's growth and against ANY restriction on government's power to take as much as they want from the taxpayers. I -1033 provides fiscal discipline with flexibility: any revenue from any source deposited into general funds is limited except voter - approved revenues, rainy day funds, and federal funds for the state and except voter- approved revenues for counties & cities. Putting a reasonable limit on the growth of government, like I -601 previously did, gives politicians the excuse to say 'no' to the special interest groups and encourages them to finally start prioritizing and reforming government. Opponents have no alternative to I- 1033.to lower property taxes. Opponents.have no alternative to I= 1033.to get government off the fiscal roller coaster. Opponents want us to trust the politicians, despite their insatiable appetite for higher taxes. Opponents ignore the 16 years of positive history with Initiative 601 in Washington state, preferring instead to talk about different tax limits in California, Colorado, and other states. Opponents are against I- 1033 because it allows the people, and not the politicians, to decide how fast the government should grow and how big a tax burden we can afford. Both Forbes magazine- and the Tax Foundation rank Washington as the 8th highest taxed state in the nation. I -1033 keeps us from hitting #1. Property taxes keep going higher and higher and government keeps getting bigger and bigger. The people are losing control. I -1033 allows the state, counties, and cities to grow, but at a rate that citizens can control and taxpayers can afford. I -1033 gets government off the fiscal roller coaster, allowing it to grow at a sustainable rate that doesn't outpace taxpayers' ability to afford it. http : / /www.permanent- offense.org/ 8/27/2009 Voters Want More Choices I -1033 is needed now more than ever. Page 4 of 6 We're very proud of our supporters and very hopeful that voters will support controlling the growth of government and lowering property taxes by approving Initiative 1033 in November. Thank you. -- END -- Congratulations on getting I -1033 on the ballot - we look forward to working with all of you to get it approved by the voters in November. As for our compensation fund, we would be extremely grateful for any financial assistance you can offer. Thanks. Best Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Fighting for Taxpayers for Twelve Years, co- sponsors of the Lower Property Taxes Initiative I -1033, ph: 425- 493 -9127, email time man comcast.net. P.S. There are thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and special interest groups working each and every day to raise your taxes. Shouldn't there be at least one person, one team, one organization that fights to lower your taxes? Please help us so we can continue our successful efforts on behalf of taxpayers. http : / /www.permanent - offense.org/ 8/27/2009 • • r� Voters Want More Choices • is • Page 5 of 6 TAX RELIEF EARNED OVER THE YEARS (through 2009) �r $13 billion in tax savings so far - we're fighting for taxpayers. http: / /www.permanent- offense.org/ 8/27/2009 I -747 YEAR I -695 $30 Tabs 1% Property I -776 $30 Tax Cap 199911, 2000 $0 $743 Million $0 $0 $.0 $0 2001 $788 Million $0 $0 2002 $834 Million $68 Million $0 2003 $8.84 Million $130 Million $50 Million 2004 $936 Million $208 Million $51 Million 2005 $990 Million $279 Million $52 Million http: / /www.permanent- offense.org/ 8/27/2009 Voters Want More Choices Page 6 of 6 Grand Total: $13.234 billion in tax savings so far ! Donate by-Credit Card Donate by Check Newsletters and Articles Join Our Email List Join Our Mailing List Email Us Our Resume Email Jack Fagan Voters Want More Choices is a grassroots taxpayer - protection organization with about 26,000 supporters throughout the state of Washington. Paid for by Voters Want More Choices PO Box-18250, Spokane, WA 99228 :: -p 425 - 493 -8707 :: f 509 - 467 -4323 Webmaster Mail • 0 http : / /www.permanent- offense.org/ 8/27/2009 $1.047 $374 $53 2006 Billion Million Million $1.107 $501 $54 [2:0:07 Billion Million Million $1.170 $671 $55 200 Billion Million Million 2009 $1.236 Billion $897 Million $56 Million $9.735 $3.128 $371 Totals Billion * Billion * Million Grand Total: $13.234 billion in tax savings so far ! Donate by-Credit Card Donate by Check Newsletters and Articles Join Our Email List Join Our Mailing List Email Us Our Resume Email Jack Fagan Voters Want More Choices is a grassroots taxpayer - protection organization with about 26,000 supporters throughout the state of Washington. Paid for by Voters Want More Choices PO Box-18250, Spokane, WA 99228 :: -p 425 - 493 -8707 :: f 509 - 467 -4323 Webmaster Mail • 0 http : / /www.permanent- offense.org/ 8/27/2009 • • Association of Washington Cities Moore, Debbie From: AWC News [news @awcnet.org] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:02 AM To: Moore, Debbie Subject: Initiative 1033 Cleared for November Ballot If you have trouble viewing this email, click here to view this message in your Web browser: Page 1 of 2 Secretary of State clears 1 -1033 for November ballot On Wednesday, July 15, 2009 Secretary of State Sam Reed announced that Initiative 1033 has enough valid signatures to qualify for the November statewide ballot. In order to qualify for the ballot, the initiative must have at least 241,153 valid signatures. The Secretary of State's Office reports that 315,444 signatures were submitted by the July 2, 2009 deadline. Election officials conducted a 3 percent random sample of 9,614 signatures, checking that the person was a registered state voter and that the signature matched the one on file. The check showed an unusually low invalidation rate of 12 percent. The Office of Financial Management is required to provide a fiscal impact . statement to the Secretary of State by August 10. This analysis will include the impacts of the initiative on cities and counties. We do not yet know how this data will be collected including whether or not cities and counties will be asked directly to provide data for this analysis. If data is required from cities and counties, there will be a very short time frame to produce the information. AWC will continue to send updates about I -1033 as more information becomes available. For additional information about I -1033, including the initiative's full text, the Public Disclosure Commission's guidelines for local governments in election campaigns and an Attorney General's Office memo regarding use of public funds to assist /oppose campaigns, please see www.awcnet.org /initiatives. Contact: Jim Justin Director of State and Federal Relations jimj @awcnet.org (360) 753 -4137 Alicia Seegers Martinelli Research Coordinator 7/16/2009 Association of Washington Cities aliciam @awcnet.org (360) 753 -4137 Page 2 of 2 The Association of Washington Cities provides information for educational purposes only. This is not intended to be an expression for or against a ballot measure. AWC will continue to provide information about the fiscal impacts of this initiative on cities. City officials may want to consult legal advice for specific impacts on your city. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, dick here. Association of Washington Cities 1076 Franklin Street SE, Olympia, WA 98501 -1346 360- 753.4137, 1- 800 - 562 -8981 Fax: 360 - 753 -0149, Insurance Services Fax: 360- 753-0148 0 Right -click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic dovmkoad of this picture from the Internet. 7/16/2009 • • Page I of 2 Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 1033 Released Initiative 1033, concerning state, county and city revenues, was certified for the November general election ballot on July 15, 2009. I -1033 is intended to limit growth in state revenues deposited in funds subject to the state expenditure limit, and limit growth in county and city revenues deposited into the county and city current expense funds. The cap on revenues would fluctuate annually based on any change in population and inflation. Any additional revenues collected above the cap would be placed in a °Lower Property Taxes Account" and used to reduce the property tax levy. By statute, the Office of Financial Management (OFM) was required to send a fiscal impact statement on I -1033 to the Office of the Secretary of State by Monday, August 10, 2009. Earlier today, this fiscal impact statement was posted. on OFM's website. The fiscal impact statement estimated the fiscal impact through 2015 on the state, urban counties, rural counties, cities in urban counties and cities in rural • counties. For cities, it is estimated I -1033 will reduce general fund revenues by. $2.1 billion between 2011 and 2015. State impacts are estimated to be $5.9 billion by 2015, and county impacts are estimated. at $694 million. A further breakdown of impacts by individual jurisdiction is not available due to data limitations. In calculating the fiscal impacts, some of OFM's assumptions were: • The CY 2010 revenue limit is calculated as CY 2009 General Fund Revenue X (1 + 2009 % Change Population) X (1 + 2009 % Change Inflation). • Calendar year 2010 general fund revenues that exceed the CY 2010 revenue limit will be transferred into the "Lower Property Tax Accounts." The first transfer into the account will take place in CY 2011, reducing the levy approved in 2011 for collection in CY 2012. To view the complete fiscal impact statement, please visit AWC's website at www.awcnet.org /initiatives. Additional information on this website includes: • A summary of I -1033 • The full initiative text • Articles about city official responses to I -1033 • Links to the sponsors' website and the Vote No on I -1033 website • The Public Disclosure Commission's guidelines for local governments in election campaigns and an Attorney General's Office memo regarding use of public funds to assist/oppose campaigns AWC will continue to send updates about I -1033 as more information becomes http:// www .magnetmail.netlactionslemail web version.cfm ?recipient _ id = 8559834 &messa... 8/12/2009 Page 2 of 2 available. Contact: Jim Justin Director of State and Federal Relations jimi @awcnet.org (360) 753 -4137 Alicia Seegers Martinelli Research Coordinator aliciam @awcnet.org (360) 753 -4137 The Association of Washington Cities provides information for educational purposes only. This is not intended to be an expression for or against a ballot measure. AWC will continue to provide information about the fiscal impacts of this initiative on cities. City officials may want to consult legal advice for specific impacts on your city. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, click here. Association of Washington Cities 1076 Franklin Street SE, Olympia, WA 98501 -1346 360-753-4137,1-800-562-8981 , Fax: 360- 753 -0149, Insurance Services Fax: 360- 753-0148 • • http:// www .magnetmail.netlactionslemail web version.cfm ?recipient id= 8559834 &messa... 8/12/2009 Association of Washington Cities (AWC) The limit established by I -1033 would apply to city general fund revenues in 2010, with the limit set at 2009 revenues adjusted for inflation and population growth. Although the initiative states that new voter - approved revenues would be exempt for 2010, it also states that new voter - approved revenue is defined as the increase in revenue approved by the city's voters after the effective date of this act. Since the November election is the last of 2009, any voter - approved tax increases passed in 2009 would likely be subject to this initiative and not excluded from the revenue limitations. The rate of inflation and population figures would be determined by OFM. Inflation is defined as OEM's report of the Bureau of • Economic Analysis' calculation of the implicit price deflator on 'March 27 of each year. General fund revenue is defined as the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees, and other governmental charges received by the city that is deposited in the current expense fund. I -1033 would require a reduction in property taxes when general fund revenues exceed the revenue limit and makes no changes to the property tax levy limit originally established by Initiative 747. If voters approve a levy lid lift,.the only portion of"that revenue that would be exempt from the revenue limit would be the additional increase in property tax revenue and not the base levy. If any city program or function is shifted from the current expense fund after January 2009 to another source of funding, or if it is transferred from the current expense fund to another fund or account, the limit would still apply to the aggregate of the current expense fund plus the shifted and /or transferred revenue for that year and all subsequent years. If a program or function is transferred into the current expense fund, the limit will be the _ aggregate of the current expense fund including the shifted revenue for that year and all subsequent years. Fihd. Home JobNet Legislative Insurance Library Resources Training ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON City Resources Ci%iES -F ' educational purposes only. This is not intended to be an expression Initiatives Initiative Home Page Initiatives / Summary of 1 -1033 Magnet Mails & Articles officials may want to consult legal advice for specific impacts on from AWC your city. For Public Disclosure Commission guidelines and a memo Summary of Initiative 1033, Concerning State, County and City Revenue PDC & AGO Resources assist/oppose campaigns. Please click here. If I -1033 passes in November, it would limit the growth of state Contact Us revenues deposited in funds subject to the state expenditure limit ' Summary of I -1033 and limit growth in county and city revenues deposited into the county and city current expense funds. The limit would be adjusted based on annual growth in inflation and population and not include new voter - approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the cap would be used to reduce property taxes. The limit established by I -1033 would apply to city general fund revenues in 2010, with the limit set at 2009 revenues adjusted for inflation and population growth. Although the initiative states that new voter - approved revenues would be exempt for 2010, it also states that new voter - approved revenue is defined as the increase in revenue approved by the city's voters after the effective date of this act. Since the November election is the last of 2009, any voter - approved tax increases passed in 2009 would likely be subject to this initiative and not excluded from the revenue limitations. The rate of inflation and population figures would be determined by OFM. Inflation is defined as OEM's report of the Bureau of • Economic Analysis' calculation of the implicit price deflator on 'March 27 of each year. General fund revenue is defined as the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees, and other governmental charges received by the city that is deposited in the current expense fund. I -1033 would require a reduction in property taxes when general fund revenues exceed the revenue limit and makes no changes to the property tax levy limit originally established by Initiative 747. If voters approve a levy lid lift,.the only portion of"that revenue that would be exempt from the revenue limit would be the additional increase in property tax revenue and not the base levy. If any city program or function is shifted from the current expense fund after January 2009 to another source of funding, or if it is transferred from the current expense fund to another fund or account, the limit would still apply to the aggregate of the current expense fund plus the shifted and /or transferred revenue for that year and all subsequent years. If a program or function is transferred into the current expense fund, the limit will be the _ aggregate of the current expense fund including the shifted revenue for that year and all subsequent years. Page 1 of 2 http:// www .awcnet.org/portal /StudioNew.asp ?Mode =B 1 & WebID =1 &UID= &MenuAction... 8/27/2009 Cities would be able to use existing and future reserve funds to supplement general fund revenue when revenue is below their revenue limit. The Association of Washington Cities provides information for ' educational purposes only. This is not intended to be an expression for or against a ballot measure. AWC will continue to provide information about the fiscal impacts of this initiative on cities. City officials may want to consult legal advice for specific impacts on your city. For Public Disclosure Commission guidelines and a memo from the Attorney General's Office regarding use of public funds to „ .. assist/oppose campaigns. Please click here. Page 1 of 2 http:// www .awcnet.org/portal /StudioNew.asp ?Mode =B 1 & WebID =1 &UID= &MenuAction... 8/27/2009 C b > STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Insurance Building, P.O. Box 43113 •Olympia, Washington 98504- 3113— (360) 902- 0555 Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 1033 As sent to the Office of the Secretary of State, August 10, 2009 Fiscal Impact through Calendar Year 2015 Initiative 1033 limits annual growth of state, city and county general fund revenue to the rate of inflation and population growth. General fund revenues exceeding this limit must be used to reduce the following year's state, city or county general fund property tax levy. The initiative reduces state general fund revenues that support education; social, health and environmental services; and general government activities by an estimated $5.9 billion by 2015. The initiative also reduces general fund revenues that support public safety, infrastructure and general government activities by an estimated $694 million for counties and $2.1 billion for cities by 2015. General Assumptions • The initiative is set on a calendar year (CY) basis. • CY 2010 revenue limit is calculated as follows: CY 2009 General Fund Revenue x (1 + 2009 % Change Population) x (1 + 2009 % Change Inflation) • CY 2010 general fund revenues that exceed the CY 2010 revenue limit will be transferred into new "Lower Property Tax Accounts" for the. state, counties and cities. The first transfer(s) into the new accounts will occur in CY 2011. • The first property tax levy to be reduced by the initiative is the 2011 levy, which is collected in CY 2012. Thus, funds will be transferred from the new "Lower Property Tax Accounts" into state, county and city general funds in CY 2012 to account for any reduction in 2011 levies. State Revenue Estimate - Assumptions • The initiative defines state general fund revenue as the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees and other governmental charges received by state government that are deposited into any fund ' subject to the state's expenditure limit under RCW 43.135.025. For CY 2009 and CY 2010, state general fund revenues are General Fund — State revenue estimates from the June 2009 Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council converted from a fiscal -year basis to a calendar -year basis.. C • • The following state revenue sources, totaling less than $30 million annually, have been excluded from these estimates: • Sales and income from property. ' • Contributions and grants. • Grant and loan repayments. • Indirect and prior cost recoveries. • Unclaimed property. ' • Charges for publications and documents. • Interest and investment earnings. • State general fund revenues for CYs 2011 -15 are estimated to grow, on average, by the change in real per capita personal income plus change in inflation plus change in population, adjusted for revenue elasticity. This methodology is consistent with prior long -term revenue forecasts produced by the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and result's in an average annual growth rate of 4.8 percent. • State general fund revenues are reduced by the amount required to be transferred into the Budget Stabilization Account created under Article 7, Section 12, of the Washington State Constitution. • The initiative defines inflation as the annual percentage change in the Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption for the United States as published on or about March 27 each calendar .year by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and reported by OFM. Inflation estimates for CY 2009 and CY 2011 are from the June 2009 Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast. ® Inflation estimates for CYs 2012 -15 are from the June 2009 IHS Global Insight forecast of the Implicit Price Deflator for the United States. The Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council relies on IHS Global Insight models and data for the U.S. portion of the official state economic forecast. The initiative defines population growth as the percentage change in the statewide population based on the annual statewide population determinations reported by OFM during the prior calendar year and the current calendar year. Statewide population growth estimates are-from OFM's 30 -Year Forecast of the State. Population. Estimated STATE Cash Receipts: FUND CY CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General f201 ($676,000,000) ($875,000,000) ($1,125,000,000) ($1,447,000,000) - ($1,803,000,000) Fund - State Lower State 0 $676,000,000 $875,000,000 $1,125,000,000 $1,447,000,000 $1,803,000,000 Property Tax Account State Costs to Implement - Assumptions Less than $50,000 will be incurred by OFM in CY 2009 and CY 2010 to set up, test and verify computer systems, and establish policies and practices to implement a state general fund revenue limit. County and City Revenue Estimate - Assumptions • The initiative applies to counties, first class cities, second class cities, code cities, towns and unclassified cities. 2 To account for possible different patterns in population and revenue growth, counties and cities were analyzed using four groupings: 1. Urban County — 7 counties 2. Rural County — 32 counties 3. Cities in Urban Counties — 109 cities and towns 4. Cities in Rural Counties — 172 cities and towns Urban counties are Clark, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane and Thurston; all others are rural counties. Under RCW 82.14.370, rural counties are defined as a county with a population density of less than 100 persons per square mile or a county smaller than 225 square miles as determined and published each year by OFM for the period July 1 to June 30. County and city general fund revenues are defined as the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees and other governmental charges received by the county or city and deposited into the county current expense fund or city general fund, respectively. County and city revenues are estimated from 2007 financial information contained in the Local Government Financial Reporting System ( LGFRS) of the Washington State Auditor's Office. Only funds reported within LGFRS as general fund revenues are assumed to be deposited into the county current expense fund or city general fund, and therefore, are included in these estimates. The following county and city revenue sources have been excluded from these estimates: o Federal and state direct and indirect grants. o State shared taxes or revenues. o Charges for contracted services performed by counties or cities. • o Charges for enterprise activities or charges that.are not governmental in nature. o Inter -fund and inter- department charges. o Interest and investment earnings. • . County and city general fund revenue growth rates for CYs 2009 -15 are related to the state's revenue growth rate by estimating each grouping's five -year historical rate of revenue growth in proportion to the state's revenue growth rate of 4.8 percent. • Inflation estimates for counties,and cities are the same as used for the state. • Population growth is defined as the percentage change in the countywide population for counties and the percentage change in citywide population in cities, as reported annually by OFM. County and city population growth is estimated from OFM's 30 -Year Forecast of the State Population, adjusted using OFM's Washington State County Growth Management Population Projections: 2000 -2030 and each grouping's historic population growth rates. Estimated URBAN COUNTY Cash Receipts: FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General 0 ($55,000,000) ($70,000,000) ($87,000,000) ($111,000,000) ($137,000,000) Fund — Urban Counties Lower 0 $55,000,000 $70,000,000 $87,000,000 $111,000,000 $137,000,000 County Property Tax Accounts 3 L� I 0 Estimated RURAL COUNTY Cash Receipts: FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General 0 ($24,000,000) ($35,000,000) ($46,000,000) ($58,000,000) ($72,000,000) Fund - Rural Counties Lower 0 $24,000,000 $35,000,000 $46,000,000 $58,000,000 $72,000,000 County 0 $176,000,000 $257,000,000 $350,000,000 $463,000,000 $588,000,000 Property Tax Accounts Estimated CITIES IN URBAN COUNTIES Cash Receipts: FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General 0 ($176,000,000) ($257,000,000) ($350,000,000) ($463,000,000) ($588,000,000) Fund - Cities in Urban Counties Lower City 0 $176,000,000 $257,000,000 $350,000,000 $463,000,000 $588,000,000 Property Tax Accounts Estimated CITIES IN RURAL COUNTIES Cash Receipts: FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General 0 ($30,000,000) ($42,000,000) ($55,000,000) ($72,000,000) ($91,000,000) Fund - Cities in . Rural Counties Lower City 0 $30,000,000 $42,000,000 $55,000,000 $72,000,000 $91,000,000 Property Tax Accounts County and City Costs to Implement - Assumptions County and cities will incur indeterminate costs to implement the initiative during CY 2009 and CY 2010 to modify computer systems, establish policies and practices, train employees and respond to requests for public information. Costs will vary by jurisdiction and depend, in large part, on the jurisdiction's ability to modify accounting systems to identify and track revenues subject to the general fund revenue limit. 4 From: K&L Gates LLP [mailto:ldgates @klgates.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:38 PM To: Zais, Dick Subject: K&L Gates Alert: Initiative No. 1033 — an Initiative Limiting State, County and City Revenue August 4, 2009 The Authors Stacey H. Crawshaw -Lewis stacev.crawshaw- lewis(aaklgates.com 206.370.7656 B. Gerald Johnson gerry.iohnson(i)klgates.com 206.623.7580 Matthew J. Segai matthew.seg al(rDkigates.com 206.370.7595 Deanna L. S. dregory dean na.gregory(raklgates.com 206.370.8128 For more information, please contact one of our Public Finance lawyers, or visit our practice page on the Web. www.kigates.com Initiative No. 1033 — an Initiative Limiting State, County and City • Revenue The Washington Secretary of State has certified Initiative No. 1033 ( "1- 1033 "), the latest initiative sponsored.by Tim Eyman, for the November 2009 ballot. If approved by Washington voters, 1-1033 would limit the growth of state, county and city "general fund" revenues received from taxes, fees, and other charges not expressly approved by the voters. 1 -1033 would apply to general fund revenues; commencing with general fund revenues received in 2010 with the limit set at the 2009 level, adjusted as described below. 1 -1033 applies only to the state, counties and cities, and would not directly apply to ports, public utility districts, transit districts, and other governmental entities. To view the complete alert online, click here. K &L Gates is a global law firm with lawyers in 33 offices located in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and represents numerous GLOBAL 500, FORTUNE 100, and FTSE 100 corporations, in addition to growth and middle market companies, entrepreneurs, capital market participants and public sector entities. For more information, visit www.kigates.com. • • • K &L Gates comprises multiple affiliated partnerships: a limited liability partnership with the full name K &L Gates LLP qualified in Delaware and maintaining offices throughout the U.S., in Berlin and Frankfurt, Germany, in Beijing (K &L Gates LLP Beijing Representative Office), in Dubai. U.A.E., in Shanghai (K &L Gates LLP Shanghai Representative Office), and in Singapore; a limited liability partnership (also named K &L Gates LLP) incorporated in England and maintaining offices in London and Pans; a Taiwan general partnership (K &L Gates) maintaining an office in Taipei; and a Hong Kong general partnership (K &L Gates, Solicitors) maintaining an office in Hong Kong, K &L Gates maintains appropriate registrations in the jurisdictions in which its offices are located. A list of the partners in each entity is available for inspection at any K &L Gates office. K &L Gates has offices in: Anchorage, Austin, Beijing, Berlin, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Dubai, Fort Worth, Frankfurt, Harrisburg, Hong Kong, London, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York, Orange County, Palo Alto, Paris, Pittsburgh, Portland, Raleigh, Research Triangle Park, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Shanghai, Singapore, Spokane /Coeur d'Alene, Taipei, and Washington, D.C. This communication may be considered a commercial electronic mail message under applicable legislation regarding unsolicited commercial e-mail. To unsubscribe from future K &L Gates marketing communications, please click here. This e-mail was sent by: K &L Gates, 925 Fourth Ave., Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98104. Copyright © 2009 K &L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved. Vote No on Initiative 1033 1I -1033 Threatens Education, Health Care, Services, and the E... Page 1 of 3 W ' INITIATIVE • zip 1033 • About the Campaign • In the News • Take Action • Truth About 1033 • Donate • Subscribe Vote NO on 1033 Initiative 1033 is a misleading initiative that will have thousands of unintended consequences - and it's an idea that's already been proven a, failure in other states. • I -1033 would slow economic recovery and leave us in a permanent recession. This year Washington faced a devastating budget deficit. Unfortunately,l -1033 would lock in this year's budget as our baseline. The worst of times in Washington, would become the best that we can hope for I -1033 threatens education and health care. Unemployment is still on the rise, families are being kicked off health care, teachers across the state are being laid off, and nursing homes and hospitals are being forced to reduce their care. As the economy recovers, we could restore funding to these services - but under I -1033 the current situation would become permanent. I -1033 is a proven failure. A similar initiative passed in Colorado in 1992. Since then, Colorado's economy has been devastated and funding for services ranging from education, to the judicial system, to health care, and libraries has plummeted. The situation was so critical that in 2005 voters put the law on hold so their state could recover. Similar initiatives been defeated at the ballot in Maine, Nebraska, Oregon and most recently California —and they've been kept from the ballot in Ohio, http://no1033.com/ 8/27/2009 • Vote No on Initiative' 1033 11-1 033 Threatens Education, Health Care, Services, and the E... Page 2 of 3 Missouri, Oklahoma, Montana, and Michigan. Between 2005 and 2009, TABOR was introduced legislatively in 28 states (AL, AZ, CA, FL, GA, ID, KS, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PH, SC, TN, TX, VA, WI). Colorado remains the only state to have adopted this terrible idea. • Subscribe & Get Updates • Volunteer • Lessons Learned Can you email your contacts? Participate in a Speaker's Bureau? Introduce. the No on 1 -1033 campaign to your organization? Join the Campaign! The Bell Policy Center studied impacts of a similar - initiative in Colorado. All Public Services Medicaid and Health Transportation Colorado's Economy Higher Ed Community Colleges Rural Colorado Agriculture Support the.Campaign Colorado's Lesson's Learned Let's not make the same mistake, Washington. http://no1033.com/ 8/27/2009 Vote No on Initiative 1033 I -1033 Threatens Education, Health Care, Services, and the E... Page 3 of 3 Paid for by No on I -1033 Committee o 603 Stewart St., #819 0 Seattle, WA 98101 • (206) 200 -8969 - info @no1033.com - • 0 r� http://no1033.com/ 8/27/2009 • • Initiative Measure No. 1033 Find JAN 0 9 2009 SECRETARY OF STATE COMPLETE TEXT AN ACT Relating to protecting taxpayers by limiting the tax burden on Washington's citizens; adding a new section to chapter 43.135 RCW; amending RCW 84.52.065; adding new sections to chapter 36.33 RCW; adding new sections to Title 35 RCW; adding new sections to Title 35A RCW; amending RCW 84.52.043; amending RCW 84.55.010; and creating new sections. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPI,F OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: POLICIES AND PURPOSES NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. This measure is intended to protect taxpayers by reducing our state's obscene and unsustainable property tax burden by controlling the growth of government to.an affordable level. It is long overdue. This measure would limit the growth rate of state, county, and city general fund revenue, not including new voter - approved revenue, to inflation and population growth. Excess revenue collected above these limits would be used to reduce property taxes. This measure permits the growth of Washington's tax burden to increase at an affordable, sustainable rate, allows citizens to vote.for higher taxes where they see a need, and uses excess revenues above this limit to reduce property taxes. Intent of sections 2(7), 4(7), 6(7) and 8(7): Voter- approved increases in revenue are exempt from this -measure's revenue limit. T.h.is in,ludes binding votes of the people and does not include a revenue increase approved by an advisory vote. The language of this Code Rev /JM:segl [08/16/2002] I- 1630.1/03 act is clearly intended to ensure that voter approval of a property tax levy lid lift only exempts the additional increase in property tax revenue and not the base levy. Intent of sections 2(8 ), 4(8), 6(8) and 8(8): In order to ensure affordability, sustainability, and predictability of the people's tax burden, the rate of growth of general fund revenue, not including new voter - approved revenue, shall not exceed inflation and population growth. The general fund revenue limit for 2010 will be the revenue col- lected and received in 2009, adjusted for inflation for 2009 and population growth using determinations by the office of financial management in 2009 and 2010 (new voter - approved revenues are exempt). The general fund revenue limit in 2011 will be the general fund revenues received in 2010 that do not exceed the limit for 2010, adjusted for inflation and population growth using determinations by the office of financial management in 2010 and 2011 (new voter - approved revenues are exempt). The people want the revenue limit for any year to be the previous year's general fund • revenue plus an adjustment for that year's inflation and population growth. This will ensure that the rate of growth of our tax burden does not exceed the taxpayers' ability to afford it. Intent concerning inflation and population growth: This measure limits state, county, and city general fund revenue increases, not including new voter - approved increases, to inflation and population growth. The office of financial management reports the bureau of economic analysis' calculation for annual inflation on March 27 following each calendar year; this measure uses that calculation to define inflation. The office of financial management annually develops and tracks populations for the state,.counties, and cities and generally reports its determinations each year on June 30. it is an extensive, detailed and long - standing demographic program. This measure defines population growth as the percentage charge in couulation based on those determinations made in the current year 40- Code Rev /JM:seg2 [081110/2'0021 I- 1630.1/03 and the previous year, this measure uses those calculations to define population growth. Intent of section 21: Property tax increases are currently limited to one percent per year. This measure makes no change to the calculation_ of that limit. Instead, it requires a reduction in property taxes when general fund revenues exceed the revenue limit. intent related to reserve accounts: This measure exempts fund transfers in and out of the constitutionally required rainy day fund for the state. in regard to cities and counties, this measure makes no change to the ability of any city or county to use existing and future reserve funds to supplement their general fund revenue when revenue is below their revenue limit. .During these tough economic times, struggling working families and fixed - income senior citizens desperately need and deserve meaningful property tax relief. Property taxes have skyrocketed for decades and politicians have done nothing to address this very real • problem. This measure also provides a much - needed economic stimulus to our state's struggling economy by keeping our tax burden at an affordable, sustainable level and by reducing our state's crushing property tax burden. So, this measure ensures meaningful tax relief, a big boost to our state's economy, and long - overdue reform of government. It is a smart, balanced, reasonable solution to our state's property tax problem. LIMITING THE TAX BURDEN OF WASHINGTON'S CITIZENS BY LIMITING THE GROWTH OF STATE GOVERNMENT'S GENERAL FUND REVENUE, NOT INCLUDING NEW VOTER - APPROVED REVENUE, TO INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH EXCESS REVENUE ABOVE THIS LIMIT WOULD BE USED TO REDUCE PROPERTY TAXES IMPOSED BY STATE GOVERNMENT NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 43.1.35 RCW to read as follows: (1) The growth rate of state government general fund revenue, not including new voter- approved revenue; must be limited to inflation and population growth. As provided in subsection (8) of this Code Rev /JM:seg3 [08/16/2002] I- 1630.1/03 section, any revenues received above this limit must be deposited into a new account hereby created called the "Lower State Property Takes Account." All revenues received during a year which are, deposited in this account must be used to reduce the subsequent year`s state property tax levy as provided in section 3 of this act. (2) For purposes of this section, "general fund revenue" means the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees, and other governmental charges received by state government that are deposited in any fund subject to the state expenditure limit under RCW 43.135.025. "General fund revenue "does not include the funds required to be transferred into the fund created under Article 7, Section 12 of the state constitution and does not include funds transferred from that fund. "General fund revenue" does not include revenue received from the federal government. (3) For the purposes of this section, "inflation" means the annual percentage change in the implicit price deflator for the United States as published on or -about March 27 following each calendar year by the bureau of economic analysis and reported by the office of financial management. (4) For purposes of this section, "population growth" means the percentage change in the statewide population based on the annual statewide population determinations reported by the office of financial management during the prior calendar year and the current calendar year... (5) If the cost of any state program or function is shifted from the state general fund or any fund subject to the state expenditure limit under RCW 43.135.025, on or after January 1, 2009, to another source of funding, or if revenue is transferred from the state general fund or.any fund subject to the state expenditure limit under RCW 43.135.025 to another fund or account, the limit required by this section shall apply to the aggregate of funds subject to the state expenditure limit under RCW 43.135.025, plus the shifted and /or transferred revenue for that year and all subsequent years. (6) If the cost of any state program or function and the revenue to fund the program or function are shifted to the state general fund or any fund subject to the state expenditure limit under RCW Code Rev /JM:seg4 [08/16/2002] I- 1630.1/03. 43.135.025, on or after January 1, 2009, the limit required by this section shall apply to the aggregate of funds subject to the state expenditure limit under RCW 43.135.025, including the shifted revenue for that year and all subsequent years. (7) ,:or the purposes of this section, "new voter - approved revenue" is defined as the increase in revenue approved by the state's voters at an election after the effective date of this act. (8) The limit established in subsection (1) of this section must be implemented as follows: (a) For the first calendar year beginning after the effective, date of this act, the general.fund revenue, not including new voter - approved revenue, received above the amount received in 2009 adjusted by any amount necessary to reflect inflation for the 2009 calendar year and population growth, must be deposited in the 'Lower State Property Taxes Account.." (b) For, subsequent years, the general fund revenue, not including new voter- approved revenue, received above the amount received in,the immediately prior calendar year, less any deposits ® into the "Lower State Property Taxes Account," adjusted by any amount necessary to reflect inflation for the immediately prior calendar year and population_ growth, must be deposited.in the "Lower State Property Taxes Account." Sec. 3. RCW 84.52.065 and 1991 sp.s. c 31 s 16 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Subject to the limitations in RCW 84.55.010, in each year the state shall levy for collection in the following year for the support of common schools of the state'a tax of three dollars and sixty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value upon the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the state adjusted to the state equalized value in accordance with the indicated ratio fixed by the state department of revenue. (2) The state property tax levy must be reduced from the amount that could otherwise be levied under subsection (1) of this section by an amount equal to the gross deposits to the "Lower State Property Taxes Account" established in section 2 of this act from the previous • year. Code Rev /JM:seg5 [08/16/2002; i- 1630.1/03 (3) The balance of the "Lower State Property Taxes Account" must be transferred each year to the general fund to account for the reduction of the levy as provided in subsection (2) of this section. (4) As used in this section, the support of common schools" includes the payment of the principal and interest on bonds issued for capital construction projects for the common schools. LIMITING THE TAX BURDEN OF WASHINGTON'S CITIZENS BY LIMITING THE GROWTH OF EACH COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND REVENUE, NOT INCLUDING NEW VOTER - APPROVED REVENUE, TO INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH. EXCESS REVENUE ABOVE THIS LIMIT WOULD BE USED TO REDUCE PROPERTY TAXES IMPOSED BY EACH COUNTY NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 36.33 RCGq to read as follows: (1) The growth rate of each county government's general fund revenue, not including new voter - approved revenue, must be limited to inflation and population_ growth. As provided in subsection (8) of this section, each county must deposit revenues received above this limit in a new account created by the county called the "Lower County Property Taxes Account." All revenues received during a year which are deposited in this account must be used to reduce the subsequent- year's county property tax levy by the amount of gross deposits in the account. (2) For purposes of this section, "general fund revenue" means. the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees, and other governmental charges received by the county that are deposited in the county's current expense fund. (3) For the purposes of this section, "inflation" means the annual percentage change in the implicit price deflator for the United ;Mates as published on or about March 27 following each calendar year by the bureau of economic analysis and reported by the office of financial management. (4) For purposes of this section, "population growth" means the percentage change in the countywide population based on the annual countywide population determinations reported by the office of financial management during the prior calendar year and the current calendar year. • Code Rev /JM:seg6 [08/16/2002] I- 1630.1/0.3 (5) if the cost of any county program or function is shifted from the county's current expense fund on or after January 1, 2009, to another source of funding, or if revenue is transferred from the county's current expense fund to another fund or account, the limit required by this section shall apply to the aggregate of the county's current expense fund plus the shifted and /or transferred revenue for that year and all subsequent years. (6) If the cost of any county program or function and the revenue to fund the program or function_ are shifted to the county's current expense fund on or after January 1, 2009, the limit required by this section shall apply to the aggregate of the county general fund including the shifted revenue for that year and all subsecuent years. (7) For the purposes of this section, "new voter - approved revenue" is defined as the increase in revenue approved by the county's voters at an election after the effective date of this act. (8) The limit established in subsection (1) of this section must be implemented as follows: (a) For the first calendar year beginning after the effective date of this act, the general fund revenue, not including new voter - approved revenue, received above the amount received in 2009 adjusted by any amount necessary to reflect inflation for the 2009 calendar_ year and population growth, must be deposited in the "Lower County Property Taxes Account (b)-For subsequent years, the general fund revenue, not including new voter - approved revenue, received above the amount received in the immediately prior calendar year, less . any deposits into the "Lower County Property Taxes Account," adjusted by an amount necessary to reflect inflation for the immediately prior calendar year and population growth, must be deposited in the "Lower County Property Taxes Account." NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 36.33 RCW to read as follows: Any county's property tax levy shall be reduced from the amount that could otherwise be levied under RCW $4.52.043 of this section by Code Rev /JM:seg7 [08/10/2002] I- 1630.1/03 an amount equal to the previous year's gross deposits to. that county's "Lower County Property Taxes Account" established in Section 4 of this act. LIMITING THE TAX BURDEN OF WASHINGTON'S CITIZENS BY LIMITING THE GROWTH OF EACH CITY'S GENERAL FUND REVENUE, NOT INCLUDING NEW VOTER - APPROVED REVENUE, TO INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH. EXCESS REVENUE ABOVE THIS LIMIT WOULD BE USED TO REDUCE PROPERTY TAXES IMPOSED BY EACH CITY . NEW SECTION, Sec. 6. A new section is added to Title 35 RCW to read as follows: (1) The growth rate of each city government's general fund revenue, not including new voter- approved revenue, must be limited to inflation and population growth. As provided in subsection ($) of this section, each city must deposit revenues received above this limit in a new account created by the city called. the "Lower City Property Taxes Account." All revenues received during a year which are deposited in this account must be used to reduce the subsequent year's city property tax levy by the amount of gross deposits in the account. (2) For purposes of this section, "general fund revenue" means the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees, and other governmental charges received by the city that are deposited in the city's current expense fund. (3) For the purposes of this section, "inflation" means the annual percentage change in the implicit price deflator for the United States as published on or about March 27 following each calendar year by the bureau of economic analysis and reported by the office of financial management. (4) For purposes of this section, "population growth" means the percentage change in the city wide population based on the annual city wide population determinations reported by the office of financial management during the prior calendar year and the current calendar year. (5) If the cost of any city program or function is shifted from the city's current expense fund on or after- January 1, 2009, to another source of funding, or if revenue is transferred from the Code Rev /JM:seg8 [081/16/2002] 1- 1630.1/03 city's current expense fund to another fund or account, the limit required by this section shall apply to the aggregate of the city's current expense fund plus. the shifted and /or transferred revenue for that year and all subsequent years. (6) If the cost of any city program or function and the revenue to fund the program or function are shifted to the city's current expense fund on or after January 1, 2009, the limit required'by this section shall apply'to the aggregate of the city's current expense fund including the shifted revenue for that year and all subsequent years. (7} For the purposes of this section, "new voter - approved revenue" is defined as the increase in revenue approved by the city's voters at an election after the effective date of this act. (8) The limit established in subsection (1) of this section must be implemented as follows: (a) For the first calendar year beginning after the effective date of this act, the general fund revenue, not including new voter- approved revenue, received above the amount received in 2009 adjusted by an amount necessary to reflect inflation for the 2009 calendar year and population growth, must be deposited in the "Lower City Property Taxes Account." (b) For subsequent years,.the general fund revenue, not including new voter - approved revenue, received above the amount received in the immediately prior calendar year, less any deposits into the "Lower City Property Taxes Account," adjusted by an amount necessary to reflect inflation for the immediately prior calendar year and population growth, must be deposited in the "Lower City Property Taxes Account." NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to Title 35 RCW to read as follows: Any city's property tax levy must be reduced from the amount that could otherwise be levied under RCW 84.52.043 of this section by an amount equal to the gross deposits to that city's "Lower City Property Taxes Account" established in section 6 of this act from the ® previous year. Code Rev /JM:seg9 {08/16/2002] I- 1630.1/03 NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to Title 35A RCW to read as follows: (1) The growth rate of each city government's general fund revenue, not including new voter- approved revenue, must be limited to inflation and population growth. As provided in subsection (8) of this section, each city must deposit revenues received above this limit in a new account created by the city called the "Lower City Property Taxes Account." All revenues received during a year which are deposited in this account must be used to reduce the subsequent year's city property tax levy by the amount of gross deposits in the account. (2) For purposes of this section, "general fund revenue" means he aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees, and other governmental charges received by the city that are deposited in the city's current expense fund. (3) For the purposes of this section, "inflation" means the annual percentage change in the implicit price deflator for the United States as published on or about March 27 following each calendar year by the bureau of economic analysis and reported by the office of financial management. (4) For purposes of this section, "population growth" means the percentage change in the city wide population based on the annual city wide population determa_ nations reported by the office of financial management during the prior calendar year and the current, calendar year (5) If the cost of any city program or function is shifted from the city's current expense fund on or after, January 1, 2009, to another source of funding, or if revenue is transferred from the city's current expense fund to another fund or account, the limit required by this section shall applv to the aggregate of the city's current expense fund plus the shifted and /or transferred revenue for that year and all subsequent years. (6) If the cost of any city program or function and the revenue to fund the program or function are shifted to the city's current expense fund on or after January 1, 2009, the limit required by this Code Rev /JM:seg10 [08/16/2002] I- 1630.1/03 • • • section shall apply to the aggregate of the city's current expense fund including the shifted revenue for that year and all subsequent years. (7) For the purposes of this section, "new voter - approved revenue" is defined as the increase in revenue approved by the city's voters at an.election after the effective date of this act. (8) The limit established in subsection (1) of this section must be implemented as follows: (a) For the first calendar year beginning after the effective date of this act, the general fund revenue, not including new voter - approved revenue, received above the amount received in 2009 adjusted by an amount necessary to reflect inflation for the 2009 calendar year and population growth, must be deposited in the "Lower City Property Taxes Account." (b} For subsequent years, the general fund revenue, not including new voter - approved revenue, received above the amount received in the immediately prior calendar year, less any deposits into the "Lower City Property Taxes Account,", adjusted by an amount necessary to reflect inflation for the immediately prior calendar year and population growth, must be deposited in the "Lower City Property Taxes Account." NEM' SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to Title 35A RCW, to read as follows: Any city's property tax levy must be reduced from the amount that could otherwise be levied under RCW 84.52.043 of this section by an amount equal to the gross deposits to that city's "Lower City Property Taxes Account" established in section 8 of this act from the previous year. Code Rev /JM:se911 (08/16/2002] i- 1630.1/03 Sec. 10. RCW 84.52.043 and 2005 c,122 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: Within and subject to the limitations imposed by RCW 84.52.050 as amended, the regular ad valorem tax levies upon real and personal property by the taxing districts hereafter named shall be as follows: (1) Levies of the senior taxing districts shall be as follows: • (a) The levy by the state shall not exceed three dollars and sixty Code Rev /JM:se911 (08/16/2002] i- 1630.1/03 cents per thousand dollars of assessed value adjusted to the state equalized value in accordance with the indicated ratio fixed by the state department of revenue to be used exclusively for the support of the common schools; (b) the levy by any county shall not exceed one dollar and eighty cents per thousand dollars-of assessed value; (c) the levy by any road district shall not exceed two dollars and twenty -five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value; and (d) the levy by any city or town shall not exceed three dollars and thirty - seven and one -half cents per thousand dollars of assessed value. However any county is hereby authorized to increase its levy from one 'dollar and eighty cents to a rate not to exceed two dollars and forty -seven and one -half cents per thousand dollars of assessed value for general county purposes if the total levies for both the county and any road district within the county do not exceed four dollars and five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value, and no other taxing district has its levy reduced as a result of the increased county levy. (2) The aggregate levies of junior taxing districts and senior taxing districts, other than the state, shall not exceed five dollars and ninety cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation. The term "junior taxing districts" includes all taxing districts other than the state, counties, road districts, cities, towns, port districts; and public utility districts. The limitations provided in this subsection shall not apply to: (a) Levies at the rates provided by existing law by or for any port or public utility district; (b) excess property tax levies authorized in Article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution; (c) levies for acquiring conservation futures as authorized under.RCW 84.34.230; (d) levies for emergency medical care or emergency medical services imposed under RCW 64.52.069; (e) levies to finance affordable housing for very low- income housing imposed under RCW 84.52.105; (f) the portions of levies by metropolitan park districts that are protected under RCW 84.52.120; (g) levies imposed by ferry districts under RCW 36.54.130; (h) levies for criminal justice purposes under RCW 84.52.135; and (i) the portions of levies by fire protection districts that are protected under RCW 84.52.125. .® Code Rev /JM:seg12 [08/16/2002] 1- 1630.1/03 (3) The limitations in subsections (1) and (2) for the levies by the state, counties and cities must—be further adjusted as provided in sections 2 4, 6 and 8 of this act. Sec. 11. RCW 84.55.010 and 2006 c 184 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: Except as provided in this chapter, the levy for a taxing district in any year shall be set so that the regular property taxes payable in the following year shall not exceed the limit factor multiplied by the amount of regular property taxes lawfully levied for such district plus revenues deposited as provided in sections 2(7;, 4(7),, 6(7) and 8(7) of this act in the highest of the three most recent _years in which such taxes were levied for such district plus an additional dollar amount calculated by multiplying the increase in assessed value in that district resulting from new construction, increases in assessed value due to construction of electric generation wind turbine facilities classified as personal property, improvements to property, and any increase in the assessed value of state- assessed property by the regular property tax levy rate oz that district for the preceding year. The adjustments Provided, in sections 2, 4, 6, and 8 of this act provide a limitation on property tax levies which is in addition to the limit factor in this section. CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE NEW SECTION. Sec. 12.- 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. 13. 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 Code Rev %JM:segl3 [08/16/20021 1- 1630.1/03 NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. Subheadings used in this act are not part of the law. NEW SECTION. Sec. 15. This act shall be known and cited as the Lower Property Taxes Act of 2009. - -- END - -- Code Rev /'JM:segl4 (08/16/2002) I- 1630.1/03 • • u �bvf-e_er '?/J loq ryk Let me start by thanking the 315 thousand citizens who voluntarily signed 1033's petitions, as well as the thousands of volunteers who made that possible. Here's what we're debating with 1033: how fast should the government grow and who should decide? 1033 takes the position that the public sector should grow at the same rate as the private sector -- unless voters OK a bigger increase -- and it should be the citizens, and not the politicians, who decide. 1033 brings back successful policies passed by the voters previously. In 1993, during tough economic times, voters approved Initiative 601, which put reasonable limits on government's fiscal policies. 601 established a sustainable rate for government to grow, saying it could grow at the inflation rate plus population growth with faster growth requiring voter approval Despite a multi - million- dollar opposition campaign, the voters passed 601. And 601 worked very well for many years until the Legislature started putting loopholes in it. It started with the Republicans in 1998, and accelerated with the Democrats in 2000, 2001, 20025 2005 and 2007. Those loopholes removed 601's reasonable fiscal discipline and policies. The result? Two major deficits — $3.2 billion in 2003 and $9 billion in 2009. Those loopholes allowed them to take their budgets on a fiscal roller coaster, overextending themselves in good times — creating unsustainable. budgets — which led to slashing during bad times.. 1033 gets us off that fiscal roller coaster by reestablishing 601's same reasonable allowance for growth while permitting higher increases with voter approval. 601 worked, it can work again with the passage of 1033. So what happens to excess tax revenues that government collects above 1033's limit? After a fixed percentage of tax revenue is transferred into the constitutionally - protected rainy day fund, the remainder of excess tax revenues gets refunded back to taxpayers via lower property taxes. Struggling working families and fixed - income senior citizens desperately need relief-from.. our state's crushing property tax burden. Washingtbn shouldn't be a state where only rich people can afford a home. 1033 provides needed, long - overdue property tax relief. Opponents want higher taxes and a state income tax. Opponents are against ANY limit on government's growth and against ANY restriction on government's power to take as much as they want from the taxpayers. 1033 provides fiscal discipline with flexibility: any revenue from any source deposited into general funds is limited except voter - approved revenues, rainy day funds, and federal funds for the state and except voter - approved revenues for counties & cities. Putting a reasonable limit on the growth of government, like 601 previously did, gives politicians the excuse to say `no' to the special interest groups and encourages them to .finally start prioritizing and reforming government. Opponents have no alternative to 1033 to lower property taxes. Opponents have no alternative to 1033 to get government off the fiscal roller coaster. Opponents want us to trust the politicians, despite their insatiable appetite for higher taxes. Opponents ignore the 16 years of positive history with Initiative 601 in Washington state, preferring instead to talk about different tax limits in California, Colorado, and other states. Opponents are against 1033 because it allows the people, and not the politicians, to decide how fast the government should grow and how big a tax burden we can afford. Both Forbes magazine and the Tax Foundation rank Washington as the Stn highest taxed state in the nation. 1033 keeps us from hitting #1. Property taxes keep going higher and higher and government keeps getting bigger and bigger. The people are losing control. 1033 allows the state, counties, and cities to grow, but at a rate that citizens can control and taxpayers can afford. 1033 gets government off the fiscal roller coaster, allowing it to grow at a sustainable rate that doesn't outpace taxpayers' ability to afford it. 1033 is needed now more than ever. Xs _ We're very proud of our supporters and very hopeful that voters will support controlling the growth of government and lowering property taxes by approving 1033 in November. Thank you.