HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/2008 04B Minutes 08-08-2008 Council Rules and Procedures Committee Yakima C ity Council Committee Meeting %Minutes`
RULES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
Friday, August 8, 2008
2:00 — 3:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room, 1 Floor, City Hall
Council Members Staff
Norm Johnson - Chair Dick Zais, City Manager
Neil McClure Dave Zabell, Asst. City Manager
Micah Cawley Cynthia Martinez, Acting City Attorney
Randy Beehler, Community Relations Mgr.
Agenda
1. Request from Tim Eyman for City Council's endorsement of 1 -985
After a short discussion, motion by Cawley second by McClure to not hold a public
hearing on 1 -985. Johnson voted to hold a public hearing. Motion carried, the
Committee recommends to the council not to hold a public hearing on 1 -985.
The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
4
orm Jo • n Chairman
•
Re: Neil, I -985 officially certified 1-in, July 17 - when can you schedule city council vote ... rage 1 of to
Moore, Debbie
From: Zais, Dick
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:50 PM
To: Martinez, Cynthia; Moore, Debbie
Subject: FW: Request from Tim Eyman re Council vote on 1 -985?
Importance: High
Cynthia: We need to discuss this tomorrow.
Debbie: Please see me re this. Please verify which Council Committee this will need to be referred to.
Dick
From: Tim Eyman [ mailto :tim @permanent-offense.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:44 AM
To: Zais, Dick
Cc: McClure, Neil; Cawley, Micah; Ensey, Rick; Lover, Bill; Johnson, Norm; Edler, Dave;
mike.leita @co.yakima.wa.us; rand.elliott@co.yakima.wa.us; ronald.gamache@co.yakima.wa.us;
ross.charles@leg.wa.gov; king.curtis @leg.wa.gov; skinner.mary@leg.wa.gov
Subject: Dick, when is soonest the Council can vote on I -985?
• Per Councilman McClure (see below), now that 1-985 is officially certified for the ballot, as co-sponsor of the
measure I officially request that the Yakima City Council vote to endorse our initiative - a presentation has already
been made to the Transportation Committee on the policies of the initiative. When is the soonest the Council can
schedule a vote on 1-985, preferably in early August? 1-985 mandates that every city and county . synchronize their
traffic lights on heavily - traveled arterials and streets and provides all the funding necessary to fulfill that
requirement, as well as professional oversight and expertise by State Auditor Brian Sonntag: In wonky terms;
synchronized traffic fights are a fully funded mandate on local governments - I want to make sure that the city of
Yakima is first in line in Olympia next session to receive funding to implement I -985's policies.
Regards, Tim Eyman, ph: 425 -493 - 9127, email: tunnpermanent- offense.org
I believe it takes a formal request to the City Manager to get the proccess started. So I "d say
send a letter with such a request so that no time is wasted.
Talk to you soon.
Neil.
Original Message
From: Tim Eyman <tim @permanent - offense.org>
To: McClure, Neil; Cawley, Micah; Ensey, Rick; Lover, Bill; Johnson, Norm; Edler, Dave
CC: mike.leita@co.yakima.wa.us <mike.leita@co.yakima.wa.us>;
rand.elliott@co.yakinaa.wa.us <rand.elliott@co.yakima.wa.us>;
III
ronald.gamache @co.yakima.wa.us < ronald .gamache @co.yakima.wa.us>;
ross.charles@leg.wa.gov <ross.charles@leg.wa.gov >; king.curtis@leg.wa.gov
8/6/2008
Re: Neil, I -985 officially certified Fri, July 17 - when can you schedule city council vote ... Page 2 of 6
<king.curtis @leg.wa.gov >; skinner.mary@leg.wa.gov <skinner.mary@leg.wa.gov>
40 Sent: Mon Jul 21 08:06:15 2008
Subject: Neil, I -985 officially certified Fri, July 17 - when can you schedule city council vote
on it?
Let me know what works for the council, preferably early August. Thanks.
Eyman's transportation initiative makes the ballot, By KOMO Staff
<mailto:WebTeam@komo4news.com> , July 17th, 2008,
http://www.komonews.cominews/25636659.html
<http://www.komonews.cominews/25636659.html>
Regards, Tim Eyman, ph: 425- 493 -9127, email: tim @permanent - offense.org
From: Tim Eyman [mailto:tim @permanent- offense.org]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 11:53 AM
To: 'neil_mcclure @ci.yakima.wa.us'; 'micah_cawley @ci.yakima.wa.us';
'rick_ensey@ci.yakima.wa.us'; 'bill_lover@ci.yakima wa.us';
'norm_johnson@ci.yakima.wa.us'; 'dave_edler@ci.yakima.wa.us'
Cc: ' mike. leita @co.yakima.wa.us';'rand.elliott @co.yakima.wa.us';
rnald.gamache@co.yakima.wa.us'; 'ross.charles@leg.wa.gov'; 'king.curtis@leg.wa.gov';
'skinner: mary@leg.wa.gov'
Subject: Neil, please schedule Yakima City Council endorsement vote on I -985
July 14, 2008
To: Yakima city council member Neil McClure
cc: Yakima city council members Micah Cawley, Rick Ensey, Bill Lover, Kathy Coffey,
Norm Johnson, and Mayor Dave Edler
cc: Yakima county commissioners Mike Leita, Rand Elliott and Ronald Gamache
cc: Yakima's state legislators Charles Ross, Curtis King, and Mary Skinner
bcc: All Yakima media outlets (newspapers, TV, radio)
bcc: All media outlets throughout the state (newspapers, TV, radio), House & Senate
members, Governor
From: Tim Eyman, co- sponsor of I -985, ph: 425 -493 -9127, cell: 509 -991 -5295, email:
tim_eyman @comcast.net
8/6/2008
Re: Neil, I - 985 officially certified Fri, July 17 - when can you schedule city council vote ... Page 3 of 6
RE: Neil, please schedule Yakima City Council endorsement vote on I -985
I thought it was a very productive exchange during my 27th presentation before •
� �y P hang wring Y � P
your transportation committee (as well as with the County Commissioners earlier that day).
It was an excellent give- and -take. Now that we've turned in over 300,000 voter signatures to
the Secretary of State (it required 224,880 signatures), I -985 is assured a place on the
November ballot We should get official word from the Secretary of State of its qualification
by early August. Is there a day in mid- August when the full council would take up my
request for an endorsement of I -985 by the Yakima City Council? Attached are the
highlights of I -985 and here is a link to its complete text:
http://www.secstate.wa.govielections/initiatives/text/i985.pdf
And I'm hopeful that there will be an opportunity, prior to the endorsement vote, to
address the full council and answer any questions they may have. I firmly believe that the
policies in 1 -985 will not only benefit the citizens of Yakima but also the city and county
governments of Yakima. As councilman McClure highlighted, total annual spending by
state and local governments to synchronize traffic lights throughout our state is $70 million
per year. I -985's dedicated fund will nearly triple that amount. The initiative empowers the
State Auditor to handle all the engineering and study necessary to optimize traffic flow. Not
a penny of city funds will be expended — it will be 100% paid for by the new state account.
Our initiatives have consistently earned substantial support from the voters in Yakima 410
and I'm hopeful that your city council will represent your constituents in your endorsement
vote.
Please let me know what day works for you. Thanks for your help on this, Neil.
Regards, Tim Eyman, co- sponsor of I -985
P.S. For some background, reprinted below are some earlier emails concerning the May
27th presentation on I -985 -- note especially the bold -faced portions.
May 23, 2008
To: Yakima City Council members
To: Yakima County commissioners
From: Tim Eyman, 1-985 co- sponsor, ph: 425- 493 - 9127, email: tim_eyman @comcast.net,
www.ReduceCongestion.org < http : / /www.reducecongestion.org/>
bcc: Yakima media outlets (newspapers, radio, TV)
RE: On Tues, Eyman will give I -985 presentation to Yakima city council and Yakima
county commissioners
Thank you again for allowing me this opportunity. Pll be presenting to the county
8/6/2008
Re: Neil, I -985 officially certified Fri, July 17 - when can you schedule city council vote ... Page 4 of 6
commissioners at 10 am for roughly 30 minutes (Yakima County Courthouse, 128 N 2nd St,
® Room B -33, Commissioners Hearing Room). At 1 pm, the city council will hear from me
during a special meeting of their transportation committee, also likely to last 30 minutes. I
sincerely appreciate this 'two-fer' opportunity since I'm traveling over from Mukilteo for the
day and will return the same day (my youngest son has a baseball game that evening). The
goal of my presentations will be to inform you on the details of I -985 and answer questions -
- an endorsement from the city council will not be pursued until I -985 qualifies for the ballot
(deadline is July 3rd). I'm really looking forward to meeting with all of you and discussing
in depth the policies and possibilities offered by this year's initiative.
In 10 years of doing initiatives, this will be the first time I've ever made an effort to earn
the support of a government for one of our initiatives — we've consistently received the
support of the people, but with elected officials, it's been a rough road. I'm hoping to change
that with Initiative 985 and its policies and funding for local transportation improvements.
Finally, I offer special thanks and appreciation to Commissioner Mike Leita and
Councilman Neil McClure for their kind willingness to schedule these special presentations.
Their leadership and their openness to new ideas is appreciated.
Regards, Tim Eyman, ph: 425- 493 - 9127, email: time permanent- offense.org
P.S. For the benefit of the media, I have included some earlier emails to provide a little
more context and information.
that's fantastic, Neil. I really want to make sure that Yakima is 'first in line' in Olympia to
secure the funding for this. would like to have your committee make some initial contacts
with the state auditor's office, identifying which major streets and arterials in Yakima would
benefit the most from synchronizing the traffic lights. the initiative empowers the state
auditor to handle all the engineering and study necessary to optimize traffic flow. again, not
a penny of city funds will be expended -- it will be 100% paid for by the new state account.
very exciting stuff.
As we'll do with the Yakima's County Commissioners, I request the chance for a public
discussion about I -985's policies where I can provide information to your committee and
answer questions. As stated earlier, I want to make sure you avail yourselves of the funding
opportunities provided by I -985 and ensure you're first in line at the 2009 legislative
session. Is there any way to schedule a hearing with the Transportation and Transit
committee of the Yakima City Council on an upcoming Tuesday so that I could present to
the County Council at 10 am and your committee later that same day? Sure would
appreciate the chance to address both legislative bodies on the same day, if at all possible.
8/6/2008
Re: Neil, I -985 officially certified Fri, July 17 - when can you schedule city council vote ... Page 5 of 6
I'm certain it will be a fruitful discussion and very informative. The details of I -985 will be
very well received by voters (as usual) but also with local officials once the policies are full)
understood.
I look forward to meeting with and speaking with all of you at the earliest possible
convenience.
Regards, Tim Eyman
From: McClure, Neil [ mailto :nmcclure @ci.yakima.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:29 PM
To: tim_eyman @comcast.net; Cawley, Micah
Cc: Ensey, Rick
Subject: Re: Sure would appreciate hearing back from all of you on this
Hello Tim,
It would be fine with me to schedule a esentation on 1-985 to the transportation committee.
PI' Po
Maybe in May. Find out what day works fot the County and then we can schedule on that
day. I will check to see what our regularly scheduled meeting day is so that we can get close
if possible. I'll get back to you.
Neil
From: Mike Leita [ mailto :Mike.Leita @co.yakima.wa.us
< mailto :Mike.Leita @co.yakima.wa.us> ]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:55 AM
To: Tim Eyman
Subject: RE: Mike, I'll be traveling over to address the city council
Tim,
You are very welcome to make a presentation to the commissioners at one of our public
business agendas held every Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. during our public comment time. This
issue is of importance to our community and therefore appropriate to be shared in our agenda
8/6/2008
Re: Neil, I -985 officially certified Fri, July 17 - when can you schedule city council vote ... Page 6 of 6
fa) meeting. Again, however, the BOCC will not take a formal position for reasons already
explained.
Please let me know when you would like to make your presentation so there will be adequate
media attention. Although I am sure you may already have that under control.
I personally applaud your efforts.
Thanks,
Mike Leita
County Commissioner
"Keep your face in the sunshine
and you cannot see the shadow"
8/6/2008
Moore, Debbie
From: Zais, Dick
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:29 PM
To: Claar, Sonya; Beehler, Randy; Moore, Debbie; Cook, Bill; Zabell, Dave; Waarvick, Chris
Cc: Paolella, Ray
Subject: FW: We ask Yakima's city council & county council to endorse 1 -985
Importance: High
In accordance with the Council's recent direction on ballot measures this will need to be
on the next Council Rules and Procedures Committee Agenda.
We will want a full technical and fiscal impact assessment of this bill from AWC and
others to give to the committee on this Initiative for the Committee's packet.
Dick
Original Message
From: Cawley, Micah
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 1:18 PM
To: Zais, Dick; Zabell, Dave
Subject: Fw: We ask Yakima's city council & county council to endorse I -985
Original Message
From: Tim Eyman <tim @permanent - offense.org>
To: Edler, Dave; McClure, Neil; Whitman, Susan; Johnson, Norm; Cawley, Micah; Lover, B ;
Ensey, Rick; Coffey, Kathy
CC: ronald.gamache @co.yakima.wa.us <ronald.gamache @co.yakima.wa.us >;
rand.elliott @co.yakima.wa.us <rand.elliott @co.yakima.wa.us >; mike.leita @co.yakima.wa.us
<mike.leita @co.yakima.wa.us>
Sent: Mon Apr 07 13:15:44 2008
Subject: We ask Yakima's city council & county council to endorse I -985
April 7, 2008
To: Dave Edler, Mayor of Yakima
To: Yakima city council members -- Neil McClure, Susan Whitman, Norm Johnson, Micah
Cawley, Bill Lover, Rick Ensey, & Kathy Coffey
To: Yakima county commissioners -- Mike Leita, Rand Elliott, & Ron Gamache
cc: Yakima's state legislators Charles Ross, Curtis King, & Mary Skinner and
bcc: All local and statewide media outlets, House & Senate members, Governor
cc: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state
From: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Initiative 985 co- sponsors, ph: 425 - 493 -9127,
email: tim eyman @comcast.net, http: / /www.ReduceCongestion.org
We ask Yakima's city council & county council to endorse I -985.
Here is the initiative's text --
http: / /www.secstate.wa.gov /elections /initiatives /text /i985.pdf
I -985 accomplishes the following goals:
• illustrates the public's support for making reducing traffic congestion a top
transportation priority
• opens up carpool lanes to everyone during non -peak hours.
• requires local governments to synchronize traffic lights on heavily - traveled
arterials and streets
• clears out accidents faster with expanded emergency roadside assistance
• uses a portion of vehicle sales tax revenue for these policies
1
• removes the profit motive for red light cameras
• replaces the percentage spent on public art to instead go toward reducing congestion
ID institutes critical taxpayer protections on future tolls; and
empowers the State Auditor to monitor the implementation of the initiative's
policies to ensure compliance.
We've not sought the support of governmental entities for our initiatives before.
But there are two reasons that have prompted us to try this year with Initiative 985:
1) Our initiative dedicates more state funds toward local transportation projects,
something local governments have been asking Olympia to do for years
2) The Yakima City Council's recent endorsement of endorsing (Yakima City Council
endorses endorsing, By CHRIS BRISTOL, YAKIMA HERALD- REPUBLIC, 4/2/08)
As you know, our initiatives consistently receive overwhelmingly support from voters
statewide, but they earn a particularly high level of support in Yakima. We feel strongly
that the policies contained in Initiative 985 will not only be well- received by voters,
but also by local government officials. I'd like the chance to address your city council
and county council at a public hearing to answer your questions, to explain more fully the
policies in I -985, and to formerly request your councils' endorsements.
We look forward to hearing from both the city council and county council soon
concerning this endorsement request.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Initiative 985 co- sponsors, ph:
425- 493 -9127, email: tim_eyman@comcast.net
•.S. We're confident that all of you take your responsibilities seriously and will look
jectively at I -985's policies and make a judgement based on its merits. Given the
sitive public policies offered by I -985, we have every confidence we can work together
to earn your councils' support. 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 Eyman 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 Rep. 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.
is banking authority, which state law has allowed for the past two decades, refers to
e 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.
2
"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," hIII/1
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 gotta 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 --
3
Initiative Measure No. 985
Red
JAN 14 200810
Reduc eC:onge s t l oll . org 81/cretarY of State
Reduce Traffic Congestion Initiative
Complete Text
AN ACT Relating to reducing traffic congestion on public
highways, freeways, streets, and roads; amending RCW 46.61.165,
47.66.090, 47.56.403, 82.08.020, 43.17.200, 43.46.090, 47.56.030,
47.56.160, and 47.56.170; reenacting and amending RCW 46.63.110;
adding a new section to chapter 35.21 RCW; adding a new section to
chapter 36.01 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 47.01 RCW; adding
a new section to chapter 82.12 RCW; adding a new section to chapter
46.68 RCW; creating new sections; and providing an effective date.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
POLICIES AND PURPOSES
flil
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. During these tough economic times, the
people deserve a common sense proposal to reduce traffic congestion
by implementing basic congestion relief strategies and improving
Washington's transportation system with better use of existing public
resources.
In 2005, the voters of Washington overwhelmingly approved
Initiative 900 granting the state auditor the power to conduct
independent, comprehensive performance audits of state and local
governments. The auditor was hired by the people to determine ways
for government to deliver services as effectively and efficiently as
possible. Through extensive outreach with citizens, including focus
groups and town hall meetings, in 2006, the state auditor learned
that eighty percent of citizens said reducing traffic congestion is
their number one transportation priority. Traffic congestion incurs
incredible costs to citizens, businesses and government; it is an
important aspect of transportation and is an indicator of how well
the state's transportation system is working. Reducing traffic
congestion means minimizing vehicle trip delays, the amount of time
Electronic Transmittal 1 I- 1866.1
it takes a vehicle to get from point A to point B. So the state
• auditor contracted with the prestigious auditing firm of Talbot,
410 Korvola and Warwick, LLP who. brought years of experience in
performance auditing. They hired subject- matter experts with
internationally recognized experience in traffic and congestion
management. Members of the audit team had more than two hundred
years' of cumulative experience auditing transportation systems. In
'October 2007, the state auditor released the results of their
independent performance audit report `Managing and Reducing
Congestion.° Their number one finding was that traffic congestion
relief is not a top priority of the department of transportation so
the audit's fundamental recommendation was: *Commit to congestion
management and reduction as a primary goal.' The anger,
defensiveness, and condescending dismissal of the report by the
department of transportation, the legislature, and the governor was
swift and resolute. The new head of the department of transportation
rejected the recommendations on the day they were released. House of
representatives and senate transportation committees refused to
acknowledge the report or even hold a public hearing as required
4110 under Initiative 900. At the public hearing held by an unaffiliated
legislative committee, legislators lashed out at the state auditor
for even broaching the topic. The governor's chief of staff said
citizens do not understand transportation and simply take for granted
what government does. Legislators quoted from statutes that no
longer existed to defend the status quo. Some promised legislative
retribution on the state auditor and interference in future audits,
which is illegal under Initiative 900. The state auditor identified
and retained internationally recognized experts in state, federal and
international transportation issues. Their recommendations are
crystal clear. This act provides voters with the opportunity to
implement the strategies recommended in the report that will have, an
immediate impact on reducing traffic congestion using existing
infrastructure and resources. Upon its approval by the voters, it is
incumbent upon the. department of transportation, the legislature, and
the governor to listen to the people and make traffic congestion
management and reduction the primary goal of transportation. As
State Auditor Brian Sonntag says in his accompanying letter to the
report: *Citizens have identified congestion as a priority, and
4111 therefore, so must the Department (of Transportation) and the
Electronic Transmittal 2 I- 1866.1
•
Legislature." It is clear from the establishment's reaction to this .
transportation performance audit that the only way for voters to
change the attitude of those in power is to approve this act.
This measure would open carpool lanes during non -peak hours,
require synchronization of traffic lights on heavily - traveled
arterials and streets, increase funding for emergency roadside
assistance, and dedicate a portion of existing vehicle- related
revenue for these purposes. .
The intent of sections 2 and 3 of this act: We all pay taxes for
our carpool lanes, so everyone should be allowed to use them at least
some of the time. This act strikes a reasonable balance by allowing
our carpool lanes to be open to everyone during non -peak hours,
meaning midday and evenings on weekdays and all day and all night on
weekends. Existing road capacity must be utilized to maximize its
effectiveness. How can we increase road capacity and reduce traffic
congestion on our most congested highways and roadways without
spending billions of dollars? By opening our carpool lanes to
everyone during non -peak hours. This will quickly, significantly,
and cost - effectively relieve traffic congestion and increase traffic
flow on our most congested highways and roadways and illustrate that
increased road capacity results in reduced traffic congestion. These III
sections do not create or impose new tolls on carpool lanes; but if
tolls or charges are imposed on carpool lanes, then these sections
ensure that the toll revenue is used to reduce traffic congestion.
The intent of sections 4 and 15(1)(b) of this act: due to the
voters' approval of Initiative 960 in 2007, any tolls or charges must
be decided and approved by a simple- majority vote of the Legislature,
not unilaterally imposed by unelected bureaucrats on the
transportation commission. Such decisions are too important and too
impactful to be made by anyone other than our elected
representatives.
The intent of sections 5 and 6 of this act: To increase traffic
flow and reduce traffic congestion, each city must synchronize the
traffic signals on heavily - traveled arterials and streets within its
jurisdiction. Heavily - traveled arterials and streets include routes
of regional and local significance and include major and secondary
arterials and streets. For heavily- traveled arterials and streets
outside of a city, the county must synchronize the traffic signals.
For heavily - traveled arterials and streets that are the
Electronic Transmittal 3 I- 1866.1
responsibility of the state or other local government, it is the
responsibility of the state or other local government to synchronize
the traffic signals. What is the use of having a top -notch Medic One
system if it simply gets stuck in traffic? Synchronizing traffic
lights ensures increased traffic flow, reduced traffic congestion,
and better safety. Transferring goods to and from our ports, and
other freight mobility necessities, are hampered by stop - and -go
traffic at successive traffic lights. Reducing traffic congestion
and increasing traffic flow is critical for freight mobility.
Synchronization of traffic signals is a coordinated set of timing
plans for a group of signals on arterials and streets used to
facilitate smooth traffic flow. The objective of synchronizing
traffic signals is to allow progression through arterials and streets
with the fewest stops at intersections, while minimizing delay for
the side street. Synchronizing traffic lights creates more uniform
speeds along streets, increases traffic flow, reduces time delays at
intersections, and creates opportunities for traffic from side
streets to safely enter a main street. This act helps cities,
counties, and other governments fund these improvements.
The intent of section 7 of this act: Traffic accidents and
III other temporary obstructions greatly hinder the smooth flow of
traffic and must be responded to and cleared as quickly as possible.
This involves coordination, communication, equipment, and manpower.
A blocked highway or roadway can result in miles of backups and long
delays. A large portion of all traffic congestion is caused by
collisions, disabled vehicles, spills, and other events that impede
the normal flow of traffic. An initial incident has the potential
for creating secondary incidents such as vehicles running out of fuel
or overheating, or collisions that occur from lane changing and rapid
braking in the initial incident's traffic backup. The quicker the
initial incident is cleared, the less time motorists and response
personnel are exposed to traffic hazards and the possibility of a
secondary collision. The Washington state department of
transportation and other government entities and contracted
companies, including tow truck operators, must expeditiously assist
in the safe, prudent, and quick removal of vehicles and other debris
involved in traffic accidents or other temporary obstructions. The
people want the roads cleared and drivers helped as quickly as
possible to reduce traffic congestion and restore the normal flow of
Electronic Transmittal 4 I- 1866.1
traffic. This act provides increased funding for these programs.
We need to fix what we already have using the taxes we're
already paying. Taxpayers can't afford to pay for the mega - platinum 41,
option for every mega - project, especially when it's simply to satisfy
the aesthetic preferences of Seattle's elite. A perfect example is
the decade of debate over the Alaska Way viaduct (Highway 99), a
major north -south state highway that everyone is paying for. The
people want practical, pragmatic solutions that will reduce traffic
congestion, not make it worse. Government too often has a knee -jerk
reaction: If their pick -up truck gets a flat tire, rather than
repairing the tire, they instead replace the pick -up with a Mercedes.
The people want a solution that reduces traffic congestion for the
thousands of vehicles that travel over state . highways every day, but
at a minimum, it shouldn't be made worse. Taxpayers are already
paying billions of dollars in taxes and they expect and demand
improvements now, rather than promises of "less bad" decades from
now. Taxpayers want transparency and accountability with the focus
on solving the problem rather than using the problem to leverage the
public to swallow yet another tax increase. It is way past time for
the people to get something in return for the taxes they're already
4110 paying.
The intent of sections 8 and 9 of this act: In order to reduce
traffic congestion, it is essential that existing vehicle taxes be
spent on this critical priority. Vehicle purchases generate
approximately $850 million per year in state tax revenue and using
15% of those revenues to reduce traffic congestion is reasonable and
prudent. People who purchase vehicles want their taxes to go toward
reducing traffic congestion on our roads, streets, . and highways at
the state and local level.
The intent of section 11 of this act: To provide additional
revenue for the policy requirements of this act, moneys collected
from fines and civil penalties from red light traffic cameras shall
be used to reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow.
The intent of sections 12 through 14 of this act: To provide
additional revenue for the policy requirements of this act, any
transportation- related public works project shall not be required to
spend a percentage of its funds on purchases of art, instead a
percentage will . be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion.
Taxpayers don't have bottomless wallets so every dollar possible must
Electronic Transmittal 5 1- 1866.1
go toward the people's top priority: reducing traffic congestion.
The intent of sections 15 through 17 of this act: These
4110 sections do not create or impose new tolls; but if tolls or charges
are imposed, then these sections ensure taxpayers are protected.
There has been talk of simply charging people extra just to drive on
existing highways, freeways, roads, and streets, including adding
global positioning system (GPS) devices or transponders to vehicles
or other methods to collect revenue. If citizens are double- taxed,
then any tolls or charges will be used to reduce traffic congestion.
Year after year, Washington voters have repeatedly rejected the
business -as- usual, the- only - solution -is -a -tax- increase mentality.
During these tough economic times, the people deserve a common sense
proposal to reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow by
implementing basic traffic congestion relief strategies and improving
Washington's transportation system with better use of existing public
resources.
Reduced traffic congestion ensures a growing,. thriving economy
that is essential in generating the tax revenue necessary to fund
government services.
4111 This measure will make travel times faster immediately on our
h ighways and roadways, reduce traffic congestion, increase traffic
flow, increase safety and freight mobility, and result in fewer
vehicles idling thus decreasing carbon emissions, all by maximizing
the use of existing public resources.
OPENS CARPOOL LANES TO EVERYONE DURING NON - PEAR HOURS
Sec. 2. RCW 46.61.165 and 1999 c 206 s 1 are each amended to
read as follows:
The state department of transportation and the local authorities
are authorized, subject to the requirements in this section, to
reserve all or any portion of any highway under their respective
jurisdictions as carpool lanes, including any designated lane or
ramp, for the exclusive or preferential use of public transportation
vehicles or private motor vehicles carrying no fewer than a specified
number of passengers when ((suck)) the limitation will increase the
efficient utilization of the highway or will aid in the conservation
of energy resources. Regulations authorizing ((3uch)) exclusive or
4110 preferential use of a highway facility ((may bc dcclarcd to bc)) are
Electronic Transmittal 6 I- 1866.1
effective ((at all timc3 or)) only at the specified times of day
((e*)) and on the specified days designated in this section. In
order to reduce traffic congestion, existing road capacity must be
utilized to maximize its effectiveness. On and after December 4,
2008, all carpool lanes shall be opened during non -peak hours for use
by all traffic otherwise lawfully abiding by the rules of the road of
this state, including RCW 46.61.100. This policy shall be in effect
for any carpool lane in effect on January 1, 2008, and for any new or
expanded carpool lanes designated after January 1, 2008, on any
highway, freeway, or roadway in the state. Electronic and
nonelectronic signage must be substantially updated and expanded to
ensure that drivers are fully alerted to the policies required under
this section.
For the purposes of this section:
(1) "Carpool lanes" are high - occupancy vehicle lanes, including
express lanes, lanes like those established under RCW 47.56.403, off -
ramp bypass lanes, and on -ramp bypass lanes on any highway, freeway,
or roadway in the state.
(2) "Non -peak hours" mean midday on weekdays, evenings on
weekdays, and all day and all night on weekends.
(a) °Midday on weekdays° is between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday;
(b) "Evenings on weekdays" are between the hours of 6:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. on Monday through Thursday;
(c) "All day and all night on weekends" is between the hours of
6:00 p.m. on Friday and 6:00 a.m. on Monday;
(d) "Peak hours" are between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday.
(3) During hours not specified as non -peak hours under this
section, the use of carpool lanes by a motor vehicle is limited to
those carrying two or more persons, except in the case of a
motorcycle, which may use a carpool lane if carrying one or more
persons.
(4) A governmental entity, authority, or agency shall not avoid
the requirements of this section by redesignating a carpool lane as
another name or designation.
(5) To reduce traffic congestion by encouraging traffic to use
carpool lanes during non -peak hours, a toll may not be charged on any
vehicle in a high- occupancy toll lane under RCW 47.56.403 during non-
III
Electronic Transmittal 7 I- 1866.1
peak hours, and any tolls or charges imposed and collected for such
lanes during peak hours which exceeds the costs identified in section
3 of this act must be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion
Account created in section 10 of this act.
This section does not restrict the operation of RCW 46.44.080,
46.61.100, or 46.61.135, thus continuing restricted truck usage of
city streets.
Violation of a restriction of highway usage prescribed by the
appropriate authority under this section is a traffic infraction.
Sec. 3. RCW 47.66.090 and 2005 c 312 s 4 are each amended to
read as follows:
The high - occupancy toll lanes operations account is created in
the state treasury. The department shall deposit ((all)) only those
revenues received by the department as toll charges collected from
high- occupancy toll lane users that are necessary to cover the costs
of construction and operation of the toll lanes. Moneys in this
account may be spent only if appropriated by the legislature.
thc corridor.)) All toll charge revenues exceeding these costs shall
be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the
Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act.
Sec. 4. RCW 47.56.403 and 2005 c 312 s 3 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) The department may provide, subject to the requirements of
RCW 46.61.165, 47.66.090, and any other applicable law, for the
establishment, construction, and operation of a pilot project of
high - occupancy toll lanes on state route 167 high- occupancy vehicle
lanes within King county. The department may issue, buy, and redeem
4110 bonds, and deposit and expend them; secure and remit financial and
Electronic Transmittal 8 I- 1866.1
other assistance in the construction of high - occupancy toll lanes,
carry insurance, and handle any other matters pertaining to the high-
occupancy toll lane pilot project.
(2) Tolls for high - occupancy toll lanes will be established as
follows:
(a) The schedule of toll charges for high- occupancy toll lanes
must be established by the transportation commission and collected in
a manner determined by the commission.
(b) Toll charges shall not be assessed on transit buses and
vanpool vehicles owned or operated by any public agency.
(c) The department shall establish performance standards for the
state route 167 high - occupancy toll lane pilot project. The
department must automatically adjust the toll charge, using dynamic
tolling, to ensure that toll - paying single - occupant vehicle users are
only permitted to enter the lane to the extent that average vehicle
speeds in the lane remain above forty -five miles per hour at least
ninety percent of the time during peak hours as defined in RCW
46.61.165. The toll charge may vary in amount by time of day, level
of traffic congestion within the highway facility, vehicle occupancy,
or other criteria, as the commission may deem appropriate. The
commission may also vary toll charges for single- occupant inherently'
low- emission vehicles such as those powered by electric batteries,
natural gas, propane, or other clean burning fuels.
(d) The commission shall periodically review the toll charges
to determine if the toll charges are effectively maintaining travel
time, speed, and reliability on the highway facilities.
(3) The department shall monitor the state route 167 high -
occupancy toll lane pilot project and shall annually report to the
transportation commission and the legislature on operations and
findings. At a minimum, the department shall provide facility use
data and review the impacts on:
(a) Freeway efficiency and safety;
(b) Effectiveness for transit;
(c) Person and vehicle movements by mode;
(d) Ability to finance improvements and transportation services
through tolls; and
(e) The impacts on all highway users. The department shall
analyze aggregate use data and conduct, as needed, separate surveys
to assess usage of the facility in relation to geographic,
Electronic Transmittal 9 I- 1866.1
socioeconomic, and demographic information within the corridor in
order to ascertain actual and perceived questions of equitable use of
the facility.
(4) The department shall modify the pilot project to address
identified safety issues and mitigate negative impacts to high -
occupancy vehicle lane users. •
(5) Authorization to impose high - occupancy vehicle tolls for
the state route 167 high - occupancy toll pilot project expires if
either of the following two conditions apply:
. (a) If no contracts have been let by the department to begin
construction of the toll facilities associated with this pilot
project within four years of July 24, 2005; or
(b) Four years after toll collection begins under this section.
(6) The department of transportation shall adopt rules that
allow automatic vehicle identification transponders used for
electronic toil collection to be compatible with other electronic
payment devices or transponders from the Washington state ferry
system, other public transportation systems, or other toll collection
systems to the extent that technology permits.
(7) The conversion of a single existing high - occupancy vehicle
lane to a high - occupancy toll lane as proposed for SR -167 must be
taken as the exception for this pilot project.
(8) A violation of the lane restrictions applicable to the
high - occupancy toll lanes established under this section is a traffic
infraction.
(9) Procurement activity associated with this pilot project
shall be open and competitive in accordance with chapter 39.29 RCW.
REQUIRES SYNCHRONIZATION OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS
DM HEAVILY- TRAVELED ARTERIALS 'AND STREETS
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 35.21
RCW to read as follows:
(1) To reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow, each
city must synchronize the traffic lights on heavily- traveled
arterials and streets within its jurisdiction to optimize traffic
flow. Heavily- traveled arterials and streets include routes" of
regional and local significance and include major and secondary
arterials as defined in RCW 35.78.010. For heavily- traveled
Electronic Transmittal 10 I- 1666.1
arterials and streets outside of a city, the county must synchronize
the traffic lights to optimize traffic flow. For heavily - traveled
arterials and streets that are the responsibility of the state or
other local government, the state or other local government must
synchronize the arterials' and streets' traffic lights to optimize
traffic flow. Cities, counties, and other governments must cooperate
and coordinate their efforts in implementing this traffic light
synchronization mandate. Funding shall be allocated from the
dedicated revenue in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in
section 10 of this act to assist efforts after January 1, 2008 by
cities, counties, and other governments to synchronize traffic lights
to optimize traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion.
(2) The state auditor shall identify and establish performance
benchmarks using best practices for traffic light synchronization to
optimize traffic flow under this section. The state auditor shall
investigate and track local governments' progress on these benchmarks
and shall provide information on such progress and other relevant
information to the public on a regular basis.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 36.01
RCW to read as follows:
4 1/ 1
(1) To reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow, each
county must synchronize the traffic lights on heavily - traveled
arterials and streets within its jurisdiction to optimize traffic
flow. Heavily - traveled arterials and streets include routes of
regional and local significance and include major and secondary
arterials as defined in RCW 35.78.010. For heavily - traveled
arterials and streets in an incorporated city or town, the city or
town must synchronize the traffic lights to optimize traffic flow.
For heavily - traveled arterials and streets that are the
responsibility of the state or other government entity, the state or
other government entity must synchronize the traffic lights to
optimize traffic flow. Cities, counties, and other governments must
cooperate and coordinate their efforts in implementing this traffic
light synchronization mandate. Funding shall be allocated from the
dedicated revenue in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in
section 10 of this act to assist efforts after January 1, 2008 by
cities, counties, and other local governments to synchronize traffic
lights to optimize traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion.
Electronic Transmittal 11 I- 1866.1
(2) The state auditor shall identify and establish performance
benchmarks using best practices for traffic light synchronization to
optimize traffic flow under this section. The state auditor shall
investigate and track local governments' progress on these benchmarks
and shall provide information on such progress and other relevant
information to the public on a regular basis.
INCREASES FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE
NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 47.01
RCW to read as follows:
(1) To reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow, the
department of transportation and other governmental entities must
rapidly respond to traffic accidents and other. obstructions on
highways, freeways, roads, and streets, and clear these accidents and
obstructions as expeditiously as possible. The department and other
: governmental entities must receive increased funding for emergency .
roadside assistance from the dedicated revenue in the Reduce Traffic
Congestion Relief Account created in section 10 of this act. To
maximize flexibility and response times, the state, the department,
• and other governmental entities may and are encouraged to contract
out emergency roadside assistance services to private companies,
including tow truck operators
(2) The state auditor shall identify and establish performance
benchmarks using best practices for emergency roadside assistance
• under this section and shall investigate and track progress
fulfilling this requirement, providing this and other relevant
information to the public on a regular basis.
DEDICATES A PORTION OF EXISTING VEHICLE- RELATED REVENUE TO
HELP FUND THE OPENING OF CARPOOL LANES TO EVERYONE DURING
NON -PEAK HOURS, HELP FUND THE SYNCHRONIZATION OF TRAFFIC
' LIGHTS ON HEAVILY - TRAVELED ARTERIALS AND STREETS, AND
INCREASE FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE
Sec. 8. RCW 82.08.020 and 2006 c 1 s 3 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) There is levied and there shall be collected a tax on each
retail sale in this state equal to six and five - tenths percent of the
Electronic Transmittal 12 I- 1866.1
•
selling price. •
(2) There is levied and there shall be collected an additional
tax on each retail car rental, regardless of whether the vehicle is
licensed in this state, equal to five and nine - tenths percent of the
selling price. The revenue collected under this subsection shall be
deposited in the rnultimodal transportation account created in RCW
47.66.070.
(3) Beginning July 1, 2003, there is levied and collected an
additional tax of three - tenths of one percent of the selling price on
. each retail. sale of a motor vehicle in this-state, other than retail
car rentals taxed under subsection (2) of this section. The revenue
collected under this subsection shall be deposited in the multimodal
transportation account created in RCW 47.66.070.
(4) For purposes of subsections (3) and (8) of this section,
"motor vehicle" has the meaning provided in RCW 46.04.320, but does
not include farm tractors or farm vehicles as defined in RCW
46'.04.180 and 46.04.181, off -road and nonhighway vehicles as defined
in RCW 46.09.020, and snowmobiles as defined in RCW 46.10.010.
(5) Beginning on December 8, 2005, 0.16 percent of the taxes
collected under subsection (1) of this section shall be dedicated to
funding comprehensive performance audits required under RCW 41,
43.09.470. The revenue identified in this subsection shall be
deposited in the performance audits of government account created in
RCW 43.09.475.
(6) The taxes imposed under this chapter shall apply to
successive retail sales of the same property.
(7) The rates provided in this section apply to taxes imposed
under chapter 82.12 RCW as provided in RCW 82.12.020.
(8) To effectively utilize existing resources to reduce traffic
congestion, beginning on December 4, 2008, fifteen percent of the
taxes collected under subsection (1) of this section on the retail
sale of those vehicles taxed under subsection (3) of this section
shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in
the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this
act. This subsection (8) of this section dedicates a portion of
existing vehicle sales tax revenue and does not raise taxes.
• NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 82.12
RCW to read as follows:
Electronic Transmittal 13 I- 1866.1
Beginning on December 4, 2008, fifteen percent of the taxes
collected under RCW 82.12.020 on vehicles taxed under RCW
4111 82.08.020(3) based on the rate in RCW 82.08.020(1) shall be dedicated
to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic
Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act.
CREATES °`REDIICE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ACCOUNT"
NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 46.68
RCW to read as follows:
(1) The Reduce Traffic Congestion Account is hereby created in
the state treasury as a subaccount of the motor vehicle fund. All
receipts from: The fifteen percent of sales . and use taxes dedicated
in RCW 82.08.020(8) and section 9 of this act; any tolls or charges
collected under RCW 46.61.165(5) and 47.66.090; revenue from
infractions dedicated to reducing traffic congestion under RCW
43.63.110; appropriate allocated funds under section 13 of this act;
and any tolls or charges collected under RCW 47.56.030 and 47.56.170
must be deposited in the subaccount. Moneys in the subaccount may be
spent only after appropriation. Expenditures from the subaccount may
be used only:
(a) To pay for costs associated with the opening of carpool
lanes to everyone during non -peak hours as required under RCW
46.61.165, including new and modified electronic and nonelectronic
signage; lane striping, improvements, and maintenance; and shoulder
maintenance and improvements, including bumpers;
(b) To pay for costs associated with synchronizing traffic
lights on heavily - traveled arterials and streets as required under
sections 5 and 6 of this act;
(c) To provide increased funding for emergency roadside
assistance as required under section 7 of this act; and
(d) To provide funding for the activities of the state auditor
required under this section and sections 5, 6, and 7 of this act.
(2) After payment of costs identified in subsections (1)(a)
through (d) of this section, any other purpose which reduces traffic
congestion by reducing vehicle delay times by expanding road capacity
and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles may
be provided funding from the subaccount. Purposes to improve traffic
flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining, or
Electronic Transmittal 14 1- 1866.1
operating bike paths or lanes; wildlife crossings, landscaping, park
and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail, or
heavy rail.
(3) Revenue deposited in the subaccount and not appropriated
shall be retained by this subaccount.
(4) To measure the level of compliance with the policies,
purposes, and intent of this act, the state auditor shall investigate
and track the revenues and expenditures required under this act and
shall report this and other relevant information to the public on a
regular basis.
DEDICATES REVENUE FROM RED LIGHT TRAFFIC CAMERAS TO TEE
"REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ACCOUNT"
Sec. 11. RCW 46.63.110 and 2007 c 356 s 8 and 2007 c 199 s 28
are each reenacted and amended to read as follows:
(1) A person found to have committed a traffic infraction shall
be assessed a monetary penalty. No penalty may exceed two hundred
and fifty dollars for each offense unless authorized by this chapter
or title.
(2) The monetary penalty for a violation of (a) RCW 46.55.105(2)
is two hundred fifty dollars for each offense; (b) RCW 46.61.210(1)
is five hundred dollars for each offense. No penalty assessed under
this subsection (2) may be reduced. .
(3) The supreme court shall prescribe by rule a schedule of
monetary penalties for designated traffic infractions. This rule
shall also specify the conditions under which local courts may
exercise discretion in assessing fines and penalties for traffic
infractions. The legislature respectfully requests.the supreme court
to adjust this schedule every two years for inflation.
(4) There shall be a penalty of twenty -five dollars for failure
to respond to a notice of traffic infraction except where the
infraction relates to parking as defined by local law, ordinance,
regulation, or resolution or failure to pay a monetary penalty
imposed pursuant to this chapter. A local legislative body may set a
monetary penalty not to exceed twenty -five dollars for failure to
respond to a notice of traffic infraction relating to parking as
defined by local law, ordinance, regulation, or resolution. The
S
Electronic Transmittal 15 I- 1866.1
local court, whether a municipal, police, or district court, shall
impose the monetary penalty set by the local legislative body.
4111 (5) Monetary penalties provided for in chapter 46.70 RCW which
are civil in nature and penalties which may be assessed for
violations of chapter 46.44 RCW relating to size, weight, and load of
motor vehicles are not subject to the limitation on the amount of
monetary penalties which may be imposed pursuant to this chapter.
(6) Whenever a monetary penalty, fee, cost, assessment, or other
monetary obligation is imposed by a court under this chapter it is
immediately payable. If the court determines, in its discretion,
that a person is not able to pay a monetary obligation in full, and
not more than one year has passed since the later of July 1, 2005, or
the date the monetary obligation initially became due and payable,
the court shall enter into a payment plan with the person, unless the
person has previously been granted a payment plan with respect to the
same monetary obligation, or unless the person is in noncompliance of
any existing or prior payment plan, in which case the court may, at
its discretion, implement a payment plan. If the court has notified
the department that the person has failed to pay or comply and the
4110 person has subsequently entered into a payment plan and made an
initial payment, the court shall notify the department that the
infraction has been adjudicated, and the department shall rescind any
suspension of the person's driver's license or driver's privilege
based on failure to respond to that infraction. °Payment plan,° as
used in this section, means a plan that requires reasonable payments
based on the financial ability of the person to pay. The person may
voluntarily pay an amount at any time in addition to the payments
required under the payment plan.
(a) If a payment required to be made under the payment plan is
delinquent or the person fails to complete a community restitution
program on or before the time established under the payment plan,
unless the court determines good cause therefor and adjusts the
payment plan or the community restitution plan accordingly, the court
shall notify the department of the person's failure to meet the
conditions of the plan, and the department shall suspend the person's
driver's license or driving privilege until all monetary obligations,
including those imposed under subsections (3) and (4) of this
section, have been paid, and court authorized community restitution
has been completed, or until the department has been notified that
Electronic Transmittal 16 1- 1866.1
the court has entered into a new time payment or community
restitution agreement with the person. •
(b) If a person has not entered into a payment plan with the
4 11 0
court and has not paid the monetary obligation in full on or before
the time established for payment, the court shall notify the
department of the delinquency.. The department shall suspend the
person's driver's license or driving privilege until all monetary
obligations have been paid, including those imposed under subsections
(3) and (4) of this section, or until the person has entered into a
payment plan under this section.
(c) If the payment plan is to be administered by the court, the
court may assess the person a reasonable administrative fee to be
wholly retained by the city or county with jurisdiction. The
administrative fee shall not exceed ten dollars per infraction or
. twenty -five dollars per payment plan, whichever is less.
(d) Nothing in this section precludes a'court from contracting
with outside entities to administer its payment plan system. When
outside entities are used for the administration of a payment plan,
the court may assess the person a reasonable fee for such
administrative services, which fee may be calculated on a periodic,
percentage, or other basis.
(e) If a court authorized community restitution program for
offenders is available in the jurisdiction, the court may allow
conversion of all or part of the monetary obligations due under this
section to court authorized community restitution in lieu of time
payments if the person is unable to make reasonable time payments.
(7) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this
section and not subject to the limitation of subsection (1) of this
section, a person found to have committed a traffic infraction shall
be assessed:
(a) A fee of five dollars per infraction. Under no
circumstances shall this fee be reduced or waived. Revenue from this
fee shall be forwarded to the state treasurer for deposit in the
. emergency medical services and trauma care system trust account under
RCW 70.168.040;
(b) A fee of ten dollars per infraction. Under no circumstances
shall this fee be reduced or waived. Revenue from this fee shall be
forwarded.to the state treasurer for deposit in the Washington auto
theft prevention authority account; and
4 11 0
Electronic Transmittal 17 I- 1866.1
(c) A fee of two dollars per infraction. Revenue from this fee
shall be forwarded to the state treasurer for deposit in the
. 4111 traumatic brain injury account established in RCW 74.31.060.
(8)(a) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this
section and not subject to the limitation of subsection (1) of this
section, a person found to have committed a traffic infraction other
than of RCW 46.61.527 shall be assessed an additional penalty of
twenty dollars. The court may not reduce, waive, or suspend the
additional penalty unless the court finds the offender to be
indigent. If a court authorized community restitution program for
offenders is available in the jurisdiction, the court shall allow
offenders to offset all or a part of the penalty due under this
subsection (8) by participation in the court authorized community
restitution program.
• (b) Eight dollars and fifty cents of the additional penalty
under (a) of this subsection shall be remitted to the state
treasurer. The remaining revenue from the additional penalty must be
remitted under chapters 2.08, 3.46, 3.50,• 3.62, 10.82, and 35.20 RCW.
Money remitted under this subsection to the state treasurer must be
deposited as provided in RCW 43.08.250. The balance of'the revenue
4111 received by the county or city treasurer under this subsection must
be deposited into the county or city current expense fund. Revenue
to be deposited into the county or city current expense fund from
infractions issued under RCW 46.63.170 shall instead be dedicated to
reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in. the Reduce Traffic
Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. Moneys
retained by the city or county under this subsection shall constitute
reimbursement for any liabilities under RCW 43.135.060.
(9) If a legal proceeding, such as garnishment, has commenced to
collect any delinquent amount owed by the person for any penalty
imposed by the court under this section, the court may, at its
discretion, enter into a payment plan.
(10) The monetary penalty for violating RCW 46.37.395 is: (a)
Two hundred fifty dollars for the first violation; (b) five hundred
dollars for the second violation; and (c) seven hundred fifty dollars
for each violation thereafter.
DEDICATES REVENUE PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED TO ART TO TEE
"REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ACCOUNT"
Electronic Transmittal 18 I- 1866.1
NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. RCW 43.17.200 and 2005 c 36 s 4 are each
amended to read as follows:
All state agencies including all state departments, boards,
councils, commissions, and quasi public corporations shall allocate,
as a nondeductible item, out of any moneys appropriated for the
original construction of any public building, except for
appropriations after December 4, 2008 for transportation- related
public works projects, an amount of one -half of one percent of the
appropriation to be expended by the Washington state arts commission
for the acquisition of works of art. The works of art may be placed
on public lands, integral to or attached to a public building or
structure, detached within or outside a public building or structure,
part of a portable exhibition or collection, part of a temporary
exhibition, or loaned or exhibited in other public facilities. In
addition to the cost of the works of art, the one -half of one percent
of the appropriation as provided herein shall be used to provide for
the administration of the visual arts program, including conservation
of the state art collection, by the Washington state arts commission
and all costs for installation of the works of art. For the purpose
of this section, building shall not include highway construction
4 11 0
sheds, warehouses or other buildings of a temporary nature.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. To provide additional funds for reducing
traffic congestion, all state agencies, including all state
departments, boards, councils, commissions, and quasi public
corporations shall allocate, as a nondeductible item, out of any
moneys appropriated after December 4, 2008 for any transportation -
related public works project, an amount of one -half of one percent of
the appropriation to be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and
be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in
section 10 of this act. The people find that their top priority is
reducing traffic congestion.
Sec. 14. RCW 43.46.090 and 1983 c 204 s 1 are each amended to
read as follows:
The legislature recognizes this state's responsibility to foster
culture and the arts and its interest in the viable development of
her artists and craftsmen by the establishment of the Washington
4 11 0
Electronic Transmittal 19 I- 1966.1
state arts commission. The legislature declares it to be a policy of
this state that a portion of appropriations for capital expenditures,
4110 except as provided in RCW 43.17.200 and section 13 of this act, be
set aside for the acquisition of works of art to be placed in public
buildings or lands. There is hereby established a visual arts
program to be administered by the Washington state arts commission.
CRITICAL TAXPAYER PROTECTION:
PREVENTS POLITICIANS FROM DIVERTING TOLL REVENUE TO THE GENERAL FUND;
TOLLS ON A PROJECT GET SPENT ON THE PROJECT
Sec. 15. RCW 47.56.030 and 2002 c 114 s 19 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) Except as permitted under chapter 47.46 RCW:
(a) The department of transportation shall have full charge of
the construction of all toll bridges and other toll facilities
including the Washington state ferries, and the operation and
maintenance thereof.
(b) The transportation commission shall determine and establish
4110 the tolls and charges thereon, subject to all applicable laws, and
shall perform all duties and exercise all powers relating to the
financing, refinancing, and fiscal management of all toll bridges and
other toll facilities including the Washington state ferries, and
bonded indebtedness in the manner provided by law. Except for
Washington state ferries toll facilities, revenue from any new tolls
or charges established after December 4, 2008, that exceed the cost
of construction, operation, or maintenance of toll facilities and new
capital improvements to highways, freeways, roads, bridges, and
streets, shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and -
deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section
10 of this act. Except for Washington state ferries toll facilities,
in the absence of any capital improvements, revenue from any new
tolls or charges established after December 4, 2008, that exceed the
cost of collecting the tolls or charges shall be dedicated to
reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic
Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act.
(c) The department shall have full charge of design of all toll
• facilities.
4110 (d) Except as provided in this section, the department shall
Electronic Transmittal 20 I- 1866.1
proceed with the construction of such toll bridges and other
facilities and the approaches thereto by contract in the manner of
state highway construction immediately upon there being made
4 11 0
available funds for such work and shall prosecute such work to
completion as rapidly as practicable. The department is authorized to
negotiate contracts for any amount without bid under (d)(i) and (ii)
of this subsection:
(i) Emergency contracts, in order to make repairs to ferries or
ferry terminal facilities or removal of such facilities whenever
continued use of ferries or ferry terminal facilities constitutes a
real or immediate danger to the traveling public or precludes prudent
use of such ferries or facilities; and
(ii) Single source contracts for vessel dry dockings, when there
is clearly and legitimately only one available bidder to conduct dry
dock- related work for a specific class or classes of vessels. The
contracts may be entered into for a- single vessel dry docking or for
multiple vessel dry dockings for a period not to exceed two years.
(2) The department shall proceed with the procurement of
materials, supplies, services, and equipment needed for the support,
maintenance, and use of a ferry, ferry terminal, or other facility
operated by Washington state ferries,. in accordance with chapter
4 11 0
43.19 RCW except as follows:
(a) Except as provided in (d) of this subsection, when the
secretary of the department of transportation determines in writing
that the use of invitation for bid is either not practicable or not
advantageous to the state and it may be necessary to make competitive
evaluations, including technical or performance. evaluations among
acceptable proposals to complete the contract award, a contract may
be entered into by use of a competitive sealed proposals method, and
a formal-request for proposals solicitation. Such formal request for
proposals solicitation shall include a functional description of the
needs and requirements of the state and the significant factors.
(b) When purchases are made through a formal request for
proposals solicitation the contract shall be awarded to the
responsible proposer whose competitive sealed proposal is determined
in writing to be the most advantageous to the state taking into
consideration-price and other evaluation factors set forth in the
request for proposals. No significant factors may be used in
evaluating a proposal that are not specified in the request for
4 11 0
Electronic Transmittal 21 I- 1866.1
proposals. Factors that may be considered in evaluating proposals
include but are not limited to: Price; maintainability; reliability;
410 commonality; performance levels; life cycle cost if applicable under
this section; cost of transportation or delivery; delivery schedule
offered; installation cost; cost of spare parts; availability of
parts and service offered; and the following:
(i) The ability, capacity, and skill of the proposer to perform
the contract or provide the service required;
(ii) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience,
and efficiency of the proposer;
(iii) Whether the proposer can perform the contract within the
time specified;,
(iv) The quality of performance of previous contracts or
services;
(v) The previous and existing compliance by the proposer with
laws relating to the contract or services;
(vi) ,Objective, measurable criteria defined in the request for
proposal. These criteria may include but are not limited to items
such as discounts, delivery costs, maintenance services costs,
installation costs, and transportation costs; and
(vii) Such other information as may be secured having a bearing
on the decision to award the contract.
(c) When purchases are made through a request for proposal
process, proposals received shall be evaluated based on the
evaluation factors set forth in the.request for proposal. When
issuing a request for proposal for the procurement of propulsion
equipment or systems that include an engine, the request for proposal
must specify the use of a life cycle cost analysis that includes an
evaluation of fuel efficiency. When a life cycle cost analysis is
used, the life cycle cost of a proposal shall be given at least the
same relative importance as the initial price element specified in
the request of proposal. documents. The department may reject any and
all proposals received. If the proposals are not rejected, the award
shall be made to the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to
the department, considering price and the other evaluation factors
set forth in the request for proposal.
(d) If the department is procuring large equipment or systems
(e.g., electrical, propulsion) needed for the support, maintenance,
and use of a ferry operated by Washington state ferries, the
Electronic Transmittal 22' 1- 1866.1
• department shall proceed with a formal request for proposal
solicitation under this subsection (2) without a determination of
necessity by the secretary.
III
Sec. 16. RCW 47.56.160 and 1984 c 7 s 258 are each amended to
read as follows:
Except for revenues to be deposited in the Reduce Traffic
Congestion Account under RCW 47.56.030(1)(b), ((A))all tolls or other
revenues received from the operation of any toll bridge or toll
bridges constructed with the proceeds of bonds issued and sold
hereunder shall be paid over by the department to the state
treasurer. The treasurer shall deposit them forthwith as demand
deposits in a depository or depositories authorized by law to receive
deposits of state funds. The deposit shall be made to the credit of
a special trust fund designated as the toll revenue fund of the
particular toll bridge or toll bridges producing the tolls or
revenue, which fund shall be a trust fund and shall at all times be
kept segregated and set apart from all other funds.
Sec. 17. RCW 47.56.170 and 1984 c 7, s 259 are each amended to
read as follows:
ID
From the money deposited in each separate construction fund under
_RCW 47.56.160, the state treasurer shall transfer to the place or
places of payment named in the bonds such sums as may be required to
pay the interest as it becomes due on all bonds sold and outstanding
for the construction of a particular toll bridge or toll bridges
during the period of actual construction and during the period of six
months immediately thereafter. The state treasurer shall thereafter
. transfer-from each separate toll revenue fund to the place or places
• of payment named in the bonds such sums as may be required to pay the
interest on the bonds and redeem the principal thereof as the
interest payments and bond redemption become due for all bonds issued
and sold for the construction of the particular toll bridge or toll
bridges producing. the tolls or revenues so deposited in the toll
revenue fund. All funds so transferred for the payment of principal
or interest on bonds issued for any particular toll bridge shall be
segregated and applied solely for the payment of that principal or
interest. The proceedings authorizing the issuance of bonds may
provide for setting up a reserve fund or funds out of the tolls and
Electronic Transmittal 23 1- 1866.1
I
other revenues not needed for the payment of principal and interest,
A gli k as the same currently matures and for the preservation and
continuance of the fund in a manner to be provided therein. The
proceedings may also require the immediate application of all surplus
moneys in the toll revenue fund to the retirement of the bonds prior
to maturity, by call or purchase, in such manner and upon such terms
and the payment of such premiums as may be deemed advisable in the
judgment of the department.
The moneys remaining in each separate toll revenue fund after
providing the amount required for interest and redemption of bonds as
provided in this section shall be held and applied as provided in the
proceedings authorizing the issuance of the bonds. If the
proceedings authorizing the issuance of the bonds do not require
surplus revenues to be held or applied in any particular manner, they
shall be ((alloc'tcd and uocd for such othcr purpooco incidental to
_- -- ---)) dedicated to reducing
traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion
Account created in section 10 of this act.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 18. This act does not inhibit or prohibit the
department of transportation or any other state or local government
agency or body from allocating or expending other revenue from other
sources to fund costs associated with opening carpool lanes to
everyone during non -peak hours, synchronizing traffic lights on
heavily - traveled arterials and streets, or increasing funding for
emergency roadside assistance as required under this act.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 19. The provisions of this act are to be
liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes
of this act.
NEW SECTION. Sec.. 20. Subheadings used in this act are not any
part of the law.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 21. If any provision of this act or its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other
persons or circumstances is not affected.
- Electronic Transmittal 24 I- 1866.1
NEW SECTION. Sec. 22. This act shall be known and cited as the
Reduce Traffic Congestion Act of 2008.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 23. This act takes effect December 4, 2008.
- -- F.�TD - --
Electronic Transmittal 25 I - 1866.1
c� bf a r'cia l /�'I a na errs -n
5
Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 985
Proposed 1 -985 Fiscal Impact Statement
Over five years, approximately $668.6 million would be redirected from projects and activities supported
by state and local general and transportation funds to congestion relief activities. This would include
$239.2 million for opening carpool lanes to general traffic during off -peak hours, $65.7 million for
synchronizing traffic lights, $18 million for additional emergency relief and $1.4 million for the State
Auditor to monitor performance. The remaining $343.9 million would be available for other congestion
relief activities, induding expanding road capacity. Funds would not be allowed for bike paths,
landscaping, wildlife crossings, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses or rail.
General Assumptions
o Estimates are based upon such sources as trends, current appropriation levels and the last
legislatively adopted 16 -year transportation financial plan.
o The following have been excluded from this analysis:
o Most federal funds, as they have regulations that govem their use.
o Revenues dedicated to outstanding bonds, as they are pledged for specific purposes.
o Tolling authority for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, as it is in a different chapter of the law
than the statutes amended in the initiative.
o Toll rate increases, which are not considered 'new tolls or charges.'
o Funds appropriated to agencies for distribution as grants, as opposed to direct
appropriations for specific projects.
Revenue Assumptions
Estimated Revenues Deposited into the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account
Fiscal Year 2009 to 2013
2007419 2009 -11 2011 -13 Total
Red Light Traffic Cwneras $ 13,043,998 $ 13,383,998 $ 13,383,998 $ 39,811,994
Transportation-Related Public Works Projects 0 4,926,0Mi 3,899,999 8,826,092
Sales and Use Taxes on Motor Vehicles 52,536,596 237,965,000 329,456,000 619,957,596
Toll Revenues 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue $ 65,580,594 $ 256,275,091 $ 346,739,997 $ 668,595,682
Red tight Cameras Revenue Assumptions
o Presently, no counties and 12 cities have automated traffic safety camera programs.
o Revenues decrease after the first year of use because the number of traffic violations typically
decrease following the first year of installation. Estimated revenues assume a 70 percent
collection rate.
Transportation - Related Public Works Projects Revenue Assumptions
o One -hatf of 1 percent of state appropriations for "transportation related public works projects"
would be deposited into the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account This requirement affects '... all
state agencies, including all state departments, boards, councils, commissions, and quasi- public
corporations ...' This pertains to state entities only.
•
Date: July 31, 2008 1
o Transportation - related public works projects would not subject to the one -half of 1 percent
allocation for public art
Sales and Use Tax Revenue Assumptions
o The 2007 -09 revenues represent seven months of collections. Future biennia represent 24
months of collections and growth, as forecast by the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council.
Toll Revenue Assumptions
o Toll revenues would be used for 'construction, operation and maintenance' of toll facilities.
o Operation of toll facilities includes Washington State Patrol enforcement, tow truck operations,
emergency response and routine maintenance.
o Tolls may be collected prior to the construction of a toll facility as long as the revenue is for the
anticipated expenses identified in a capital or financial plan.
o All projected toll revenues would be planned to be used for operations, maintenance and
construction of toll facilities, so there would be no excess revenue assumed to be available for
deposit to the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account.
Assumptions on Costs to Implement 1-985
Estimated Expenditures from the Reduce Trafic Congestion Account
Fiscal Year 2009 to 2013
2007-09 2009 -11 2011 -13 Total
Traffic Ught Synchronization $ 20,935,000 $ 20,935,000 $ 23,870,000 $ 65,740,000
Red Light Traffic Cameras 14,840 0 0 14,640
Carpool Lanes 3200,000 36,000,000 200,000,000 239,200,000 III
Sales and Use Taxes on Motor Vehicles 27,000 0 0 27,000
Washington State Auditor 200,000 600,000 600,000 1,400,000
Department of Transportation AudB Support 50,000 100,000 100,000 250,000
Emergency Roadside Response 5636,500 6,190,800 6,190,900 18,018,200
Total Expenditure $ 30,063,140 $ 63,825,800 8 230,760,900 $ 324,649,840
Traffic Ught Synchronization — Cost to Implement Assumptions
o One -half of the signals would be synchronized in 2009 and one -half in 2010.
o Synchronization would need to.be recalibrated every 2 34 to 3 years.
o The estimated number of signalized intersections in cities is 3,734. At an average cost of $5,000
per intersection, the total cost to synchronize all intersections for cities would be $18.7 million,
with an additional cost of $18.7 million for recalibration.
o Approximately 362 signalized intersections are on heavily traveled arterials and streets in King,
Pierce, Snohomish and Clark counties_ At an average cost of $5,000 per intersection, the total
cost to synchronize all intersections for these counties would be $1.8 million, with an additional
cost of $1.8 million for recalibration.
o Approximately 405 signalized intersections are on heavily traveled arterials and streets on state -
owned highways. At an average cost of $8,500 per intersection, the total lost to synchronize all
intersections on state highways would be $3.4 million, with an additional cost of $3.4 million for
recalibration. The Washington State Department of Transportation estimates an additional cost of
up to -$18 million for the state -owned highways only.
o Costs to take full advantage of real -time synchronization, such as staffing of traffic operations
centers and traffic cameras, are not included.
Carpool Lanes — Cost to Implement Assumptions
Opening carpool lanes to general purpose traffic during off -peak hours requires:
o Installation or modfication of variable speed fimit and lane use control systems for 50 miles of
HOV lanes at approximately $4 million per mile, for a total of $200 million over five years.
Date: July 31, 2008 2
gra Installation of access ramp gates and electronic signing at eight locations, estimated at about $2
million per location, fora total of $16 million over five years.
O Installation of additional ramp meters, at a cost of $6 million over five years.
O Replacement of 700 HOV signs to comply with requirements, at a cost of $22 million.
O Implementation would be staged over the five years, in part due to the need to obtain federal
approval to make changes to HOV lanes.
O King County Metro estimates that opening carpool lanes to general purpose traffic would reduce
efficiency of transit vehicles by about 10 percent King County's cost is estimated to be
approximately $15 million over five years, due primarily to additional fuel and labor costs. Impact
to other transit districts has not been assessed, but is assumed to be the equivalent of the King
County impact
State Auditor — Cost to Implement Assumptions
o The State Auditor's Office would incur a one -time cost of $100,000 to $200,000 to develop the
benchmarks and best practices required, and annual monitoring and reporting costs of $200,000
to $300,000.
O The Department of Transportation would incur costs to support the State Auditor's work, at a cost
of $50,000 per year.
Emergency Roadside. Assistance — Cost to Implement Assumptions
O Although 1 -985 requires additional funds to be spent on emergency roadside assistance, it does
not specify how much of an increase is expected. For the purpose of this analysis, additional
funds are assumed to be provided to the Washington State Department of Transportation and the
Washington State Patrol.
o The Washington State Department of Transportation estimates include an additional 10
emergency roadside assistance vehicles and 10 full -time equivalent employees (FTEs) to
respond to 17,978 incidents per biennium.
• 0 The Washington State Patrol estimates include 13 more troopers in the central Puget Sound
Region; three more FTEs to improve accident investigations, enforcement, education and
coordination with other jurisdictions; and additional equipment for troopers and investigation staff.
Assumptions related to fund shifts and revenue losses
O Estimated revenue loss to cities from red light traffic camera infractions would be $40 million over
five years.
O Not charging tolls during off -peak hours on SR -167 HOT lanes would result in a 33 percent loss
of funds, or a total loss of $3.1 million over five years.
O Washington state transit agencies are estimated to lose about $20 million over five years in
federal transit funds due to the opening of carpool lanes to general traffic during non -peak
periods. .
O The Washington State Arts Commission would. lose $500,000 over five years.
O The state general fund would be reduced by $620 million over five years. The general fund is
used for education, public safety, social services and general government
Date: July 31, 2008 3
' CITY OF YAKIMA
•
LEGAL
DEPARTMENT
zoo South Third Street,Yak Washington 98901 (509) 575-6030 Fax (509) 575 -6160
MEMORANDUM
January 31, 2008
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Dick Zais, City Manager
FROM: Raymond L. Paolella, City Attorney
Lawrence Watters, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJ: Guidelines for Public Hearings on Ballot Propositions and Actions the City
Council May Take
Ili This memorandum addresses uidelines for b
g public 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-
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
FROM: 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
0 .
prohibition at RCW 42.17.130 regarding the use of local public funds and 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.zov /ago.
This memorandum references the statutes the State Public Disclosure Commission has
Since January 1, 1995, RCW 42.17.130 has been superseded as to state agencies and employees. Laws of 1994, ch.
154, § 317 (codified as RCW 4117.131) provides that "RCW 42.17.130 does not apply to any person who is•a state
officer or state employee as defined in RCW 42.52 ". 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 11
analyzed for local agencies and officials in its rules, declaratory orders, and "Guidelines for
Local Government Agencies, Including School Districts, in Election Campaigns :'
( "Guidelines "). Those PDC documents are available online at www.pdc.wa.aov (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 RCW 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 shall not apply -to the following activities:
(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;
(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.
2 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' uidelines
m
will be updated in the future to follow the chart 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 l l
111. 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 1 cite to them by way of background. King County
Council v. Public Disclosure Commission, 93 Wn.2d 559, 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. 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 42.17.130. 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 42.17.128) 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 2
g p gs 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 o.flie 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 manner. 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.
IV. 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. 1 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
September 13, 2001
Page 5 of I 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 processing
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 their own time 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
i
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.
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
w ise 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 other 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 ow personal time should avoid stating or implying
that they are campaigning on behalf of the public agency. `,
•
September 13, 2001
Page 7 of 1 1
•
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 SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT
THE ANSWERS
•
Following are 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 of fact 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 compensation except for attending commission meetings.
The other day, 1 attended a fund-raiser in support of an initiative measure that
would, if approved put the commission on a much more solid financial footing. 1
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". 1 quickly pointed out that 1 was attending as a private citizen. W"as
the use of my title a 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 your agency's
attorneys or local ethics board to determine if there any local ethics rules that
I otherwise limit use of your title.
September 13, 2001
Page 8 of 11
2. The head of my agency, Q, is an elected executive officer who supports a ballot
measure on his own time. A close friend wants to support the initiative both with
financial contributions and volunteering time to the campaign. 1 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 Q. 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 small 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. We have
all been involved in the anti -B campaign, and we have been carefitl not to use
either our public agency time 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 organizers are having trouble finding a place for the
meeting. Our agency has a large conference room which is not ordinarily open to
the public but which will 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. I am the office manager for a local agency and 1 supervise about 50
employees. My close friend D is a drafter of an initiative. May 1 invite all niv
office to a Saturday morning event at my home where they 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
Paue 9 of 1 1
invitations. Employee mailing lists are also public facilities that may not be used
for campaign purposes. 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?
5. My co- worker and I have strongly different political philosophies. During the
last initiative campaign, she wore a large button promoting a position 1 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 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 1 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
tar 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 42.17260(9) and RCW 42..17.3I0(I)(u). 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 11
Initiative. J would effectively end all 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 measure 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.
VI. 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.
VII. OTHER RESOURCES
• Public Disclosure Commission Staff: (360) 753 -1111; toll -free 1- 877 -601 -2828;
FAX: (360) 753 -1112; e -mail: pdc @pdc.wa.gov.
• Public Disclosure Commission Written Information (PDC website is
ww.pdc.wa.,ov -- 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, 2001
Page 11 of 11
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 42.17.130).
- No. 10 (unless express authority is granted by an independent
Y P
source, a local agency cannot promote a ballot proposition 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 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 42.17.130
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).
•