Ruth Fisher returns.............

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

"A 'clarification' of I-695 could let ferries raise fares

Tuesday, February 1, 2000

By CHRIS McGANN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/fery011.shtml

OLYMPIA -- Washington lawmakers are considering a "clarification" of Initiative 695 that would allow Washington State Ferries to raise fares without a public vote.

The move, which would require approval by at least two-thirds of the 105 lawmakers, is rare but is allowed under state law.

Attorney General Christine Gregoire earlier this year issued a memorandum stating that ferry fares would fall under the I-695 voter approval requirement because ferries have been held by the courts to be a traditional governmental function.

Public transit agencies, she said, sell a service, and thus can raise fares without a public vote.

Under terms of HB2866, introduced by Rep. Ruth Fisher, D-Tacoma, I-695 would be amended to make it clear that ferries and buses would have the same power to increase fares. It would also effectively amend the voter-approved Initiative 601's cap on state spending to allow the ferry system to raise and spend more money. "

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 01, 2000

Answers

Transit tax aid is fading

LITTLE HELP: The measure currently before the committee is a pared- down version of the original.

The Associated Press

OLYMPIA -- Washington's public transit systems, reeling from an initial loss of more than $400 million in car-tax money, may get authority to ask voters for more sales-tax support.

And that may be all they get in the way of new tax authority.

The measure, House Bill 3074, made its debut in the House Transportation Committee on Monday. Co-Chairwoman Ruth Fisher, D- Tacoma, said she carved it from a longer menu of tax options because she feared the larger bill is too controversial to pass this session.

The latest bill would remove the six-tenths of a percent sales tax lid. Local taxpayers still would have final say, but many legislators are leery of any legislation that might make it look like they support tax increases.

The legislation could help two of the largest systems in the state, King County Metro and Community Transit in Snohomish County. They're the only two systems imposing the full amount currently authorized.

Kitsap Transit is levying five-tenths of a percent and is looking for ways to restore deep budget cuts. The transit agency also is considering how to provide passenger-only ferry service, which the state is preparing to drop.

Most of the remaining 22 transit systems levy three-tenths of a percent.

Fisher's original bill, HB 3051, would have authorized cities, counties or transit agencies to ask local patrons for permission to impose a car tax of as much as $60 per vehicle, a property tax levy of up to 50 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation, a sales tax surcharge of one-tenth of one percent, a gross receipts tax on gasoline sales, a local-option gasoline tax of up to a nickel a gallon, a parking tax and others. http://news.theolympian.com/stories/20000201/Northwest/32333.shtml

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 01, 2000.


Allowing voters to vote on tax increases seems reasonable to me. After all, that's consistent with the spirit of I-695. But the voters aren't going to approve higher taxes unless they perceive value. Low-ridership bus routes will not endear the voters to transit.

I don't understand why Fisher isn't pushing for local control of the ferries. What value does the DOT add?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 01, 2000.


"It would also effectively amend the voter-approved Initiative 601's cap on state spending to allow the ferry system to raise and spend more money."

Except the PI did get it wrong here. This bill wouldn't amend 601 at all. 601 places a cap on expenditures out of the state General Fund. Ferry fares go into the Ferry System Revolving Account, which is not associated with the General Fund. That's why various fare increases have been able to be approved without a 2/3 vote of the legislature.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 01, 2000.


Patrick-

I believe the PI was referring to the original transportation bill she wanted, not the current pared down one affecting the ferries only (not that the PI has never made a mistake, though.......)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 01, 2000.


Actually, the sentence I referred to specifically mentioned HB 2866 just a little bit before where I started my quotation in saying that the bill would effectively amend 601. Although it clearly would amend the RCW's that were affected by 695, it doesn't touch 601 at all.

You can find the complete text of the bill here http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2850- 2874/2866_01212000.txt

While we're on the subject though, can anyone cite the differences between ferry fares and transit fares? The AG's opinion claimed that transit fares are not subject to the voter approval requirement as they are a fee for service. So why aren't ferry fares a fee for service? I can see someone's objection to the AG's opinion for exempting transit fares, but I'm a little unclear as to why this bill is a threat since, unless someone can point out the differences to me, it appears as if it just tries to apply 695 uniformly.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 01, 2000.



to Patrick: I'm not sure Ruth's bill is a threat. Most of us, after all, are just tickled pink we'll have a few hundred dollars more to spend, every year.

But, ferries are different from buses, since the state constitution allows the gas tax to be used on subsidizing the ferries. Whereas, the gas tax monies cannot be used to subsidize transit, other than constructing an HOV lanes or Park'n'Rides.

The elimination of the ferry system might make more of the gas tax available for road maintenance or new construction. Or, it might result in the gas tax not having to be raised in the near-term.

I think it is a waste of money having a state-wide vote on the ferries. So, Ruth's bill might actually be sensible.

But, still, I'd like to see the DOT out of my life, as much as possible. The DOT is arrogant, unresponsive, corrupt, and incompetent. Therefore, I plan to write my representatives, asking them to vote against Ruth's bill. The real solution is create local ferry districts. Then you won't require a state-wide vote. But, you will have shafted the DOT. Oh, the justice of it all.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 02, 2000.


"I think it is a waste of money having a state-wide vote on the ferries. So, Ruth's bill might actually be sensible." I think that as long as it is being funded by the taxpayers of the whole state, they (the owners) deserve to have a say as to how much the ferry riders (the customers) should pay for the provided services. I'm sure if you went to United Air Lines and told them that fares were going to be decided by a vote of United CUSTOMERS, the owners of United Air Lines would take issue, even if many of them were also customers.

"But, still, I'd like to see the DOT out of my life, as much as possible." Me too, and the way to do this is to privatize as much as possible. Get this organization SMALL and primarily doing procurement and contracting.

"The DOT is arrogant, unresponsive, corrupt, and incompetent." I KNEW if we kept talking long enough, we'd find something we were in total and complete agreement about. I think we've got it!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 02, 2000.


You could see this one coming from ten miles out, the old clarification routine. Ruth Fisher and the leaders in Olympia are doing everything they can to defy and compromise the vote of the people with the dissection of Initiative 695. Strange activity coming from a person who resigned their position after the passage of I-695. Did Ruth Fisher not mean what she said or will she clarify that statement too?

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ