Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 10/22/2002 FORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. CITY OF PORT ANGELES CITY ,COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER - SPECIAL MEETING: II. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Wiggins Councilman Braun Councilman Campbell Councilmember Erickson Councilman Headrick Councilmember Rogers Councilman Williams Staff Present: Manager Quinn . Attorney Knutson Clerk Upton B. Collins M. Connelly G. Cutler D. McKeen T. Riepe y. Ziomkowski III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by: 'd. QpJt~ ,j lf31o^- ~ v7 ~ v V ~ * October 22. 2002 'lDC- p. W\. . I ..... f'" CITY OF PORT ANGELES · FORTANGE,LES WAS H J N G TON, U. S. A. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING . Attendance Roster DATE OF MEETING: October 22. 2002 LOCATION: City Council Chambers A-:b P: ICE ..... \"1' uL '- o0~Eu 1/1 2--n, I ~ 0 '2.. tUl-/ {IJ B { r. ~;~ORT.ANGELES : Becky Upton City Clerk WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 321 EAST FIFTH STREET October 22, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING - 7:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER - Special Meeting (7:00 p.m.) \ B. ROLL CALL C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE . D. CONSIDERATION OF 1-790 1. Accept pro and con testimony (Page 1) 2. Consider taking position E. CONSIDERATION OF 1-776 1. Accept pro and con testimony (Page 19) 2. Consider taking position F. RESOLUTION SETTING DATE FOR WESTPORT STREET VACATION (Page 25) G. ADJOURNMENT . NOTE: HEARING DEVICES AVAILABLE FOR THOSE NEEDING ASSISTANCE MAYOR TO DETERMINE TIME OF BREAK October 22, 2002 Port Angeles Special City Council Meeting Page _ 1 of I . . . .. . . Changing the Governance Structure Jor the LEOFF Plan 2 Pension System For many years, the unions representing police and fire employees have wanted a larger role in the governance of the Law Enforcement Officers and Fire Fighters Plan 2 (LEOFF 2) Pension System. After failing to secure passage of legislation last session to gain control over the system, they decided to put the issue before the voters. 1-790 received sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot in November. If approved, this initiative would create a new board for the LEOFF 2 pension system. Currently, pension benefits for public employees are established in statute by the Legislature. Employee, local government employer, and state contributions, along with investment earnings, pay for the benefits. The Department of Retirement Systems, a state agency, administers the pension systems. The Joint Committee on Pension Policy, a special legislative committee, makes recommendations to the Legislature for changes. The contribution rates necessary to support the pension systems are recommended by the State Actuary and set by the Pension Funding Council (a council of state officials), the director of the Department of Retirement Systems, and the Legislature. 1-790 is a radical departure from that structure. It creates a pension board, dominated by employees, that wouldimake many of the recommendations and decisions currently made by these various groups. In June, the AWC membership adopted a resolution opposing 1-790 or any other governance change that would create a board that does not provide equal representation for employers. The resolution also opposed a board with independent authority to enhance benefits, rather than simply being advisory to the Legislature. At their meeting in August, the AWC Board decided to officially oppose the initiative. Board President Chuck Mosher has signed the oppo- sition statement. which will appear in the statewide voters' pamphlet. 1 Initiative 790 would make significant changes to the LEOFF 2 pension system. It would transfer authority over the system to an eleven-member board appointed by the governor. A majority of the board members would represent those who will receive benefits from the plan. The board would be composed of six members of LEOFF 2, three employer representatives, and two mem- bers of the Legislature. Among other powers, the board would have the authority to increase benefits and increase contribution rates for members, local government employers, and the state. · The board can authorize benefit increases that cost less than 2 percent of members' pay (10 percent paid by employers, 6 percent by local government employees, and 4 percent by the state). These rate increases would take effect unless the Legislature voted to repeal them. · If the board proposes a change that would cost more than an additional 20 percent of mem- bers' pay, the changes must first be submitted to the Legislature. The Legislature must vote to approve or disapprove the changes, but is has no authority to amend those changes. · Finally, and of primary importance, 1-790 requires all earnings of the LEOFF 2 pen- sion fund in excess of the actuarially assumed rate of return, to be used exclu- sively for additional benefits for members and beneficiaries. The current statutory assumption for investment return is 8% per year over the long term. There is no limit on contribution rate increases that might result from the fact that excess earnings in one year are not available to offset losses in the fund in another year. . Both the Office of the State Actuary and the Office of Financial Management have completed their fiscal analysis of the initiative, as required by law. Their fiscal impact statements outline the potential for staggering costs to local govern- ments and the state. According to the State Actuary, the requirement to allocate all interest earnings above actuarially assumed rates to enhance member benefits would result in significant costs to local govern- ments - $7.236 billion dollars over the next twenty-five years. $266.3 million in the next biennium alone. Since approximately two- thirds of all LEOFF 2 members are employed by cities, cities will bear the vast majority of these costs. Currently, investment earnings are used to build a reserve and lower contribution rates. The employer contribution rate, now 2.64% of each . employee's salary, is expected to rise steadily over the next few years given today's economy and the decline in investment earnings, even if this initiative does not pass. Initiative 790 will require an increase in the employer pension contribution rate to 15.47%. effective July 1.2003, according to the State Actuary. Local government costs would increase nearly six-fold. And the employee's contribution rate would also skyrocket, to more than 25% of salary. Again, this dramatic increase is due only to the alloca- tion of interest earnings above the assumed rate of return to benefit enhancements - contribu- tion rates could increase even more if the new board uses its authority to grant additional benefits. ................................................... Initiative 790 would make significant . changes to the LEOFF 2 pension system. 2 . The LEOFF 2 pension system provides excellent. retirement benefits for its members. Right now, police officers and fire fighters can retire at age 53 with a full pension equal to 60% of their average final compensation. Members of the Public Employees Retirement System Plan 2 (PERS 2) cannot retire until age 65 - a full 12 years later than public safety employees. We greatly respect our law enforcement officers and firefighters and value the work they do. However, this seriously flawed initiative takes control of tax dollars away from elected officials imd mandates enhanced benefits for a few. ' The increased employer contribution rates required by 1-790 will eat up dollars that are badly needed for current police and fire services. The budgetary p!e is limited - every additional dollar spent on pension enhancements doesn't get spent on vital public services. This pension is guaranteed for life. Even if the initiative does not pass, LEOFF 2 members are guaranteed their current level of pension ben- efits - which includes an annual cost-of-living increase. Once benefits are granted to them, they cannot be taken away. Members are never at risk of losing any benefits promised to them - .no matter what happens to the stock market and nvestment returns. . 3 . . . . 4 " . . . Initiative 790: Changing the Governance Structure for the LEOFF Plan 2 Pension System October 2002 Introduction Initiative 790 proposes significant changes to the LEOFF 2 pension system. These changes, if approved by Washington voters, are expected to be costly to local and state government. The initiative transfers authority over the LEOFF 2 system from a variety of current decision-makers to an eleven-member board. A majority of the board members would represent those who receive benefits from the plan. Among other powers, the board would have (the'aUtInPfity to increase benefits and increase contribution rates for members, local "0'_ .;......'. "-. ._',"'i-".-- government emptoye~s, ,and the st9te" ,0',<"":':"""" .'\ l~ :-...~ )I1G~1 :(~\/;8 /' ~:),,~.) t'1 ~~ ~ r;; fJ;:) :() cih~~ employ the majQritYtP"ap~9p.l~JrJlnerQRJ~F,f~?2Fsy~t~g1C~'ncf3~~~fqT\E:1 face substantial cos~s.i!t~~:)l,Q!.t\~!iye i~:ffRB~~XP9~.~:yoters. City of P~rt ~ng~les staff ha.s ~stimated that addltlqQ;~':gA~!S,~Could exceed $400,000 per year beginning In 2003. ThiS figure does not inclucfeanyincreased pension benefits enacted by the new LEOFF 2 pension board. In '~~9lt~?!~,}B::me financial imp~ct ~n employers, LEOFF 2 members could see dramatic mRmi~~~~~.m\e;mp),QX~~ ~9D~i~I9.Y~I?~,lB!~~:,c, fe'" ",,:, iF,. -) " ~t,,".....".1 V'..~ ! '...<\J {......:. tJi'.,I''''~'''''''''''''-'' .:,..'i~:::() _;'~.'..": !'. ,.<. ''''-'_' '';-)'''''_' l.-..J 1..-, "._, .._...,. ~~~~,R$;R~~:r}::a;p;'Ci'i~;d \i'/ E!"~ ~,) t=6'f'mc1in'Y'years, the unions representing police and fire employees have wanted a larger 1;9!~ !o. },~~!,~:p~~rJ;1cWl9'7 5~~ ;~~-~-;~?~i r~rf9~~e'!\en"tqtf~~e~r~", ~p~ t.lre:: ~i9Pt~D~.,~t~~(~ ,~~E OFF 2) ,1?,~n~!9tr::?,X~!~.n;\; ;;~ft~r}Ek~i~1~ti8h:~'I~~r~~'~,~ibQ, ~Q .~CJlii;:999\f,<i>19Y~f. tr~:~x~~~m,"~~,s., ,.; Uhs!1c'cEissful ('there decided"'top'Ut thEfissue,befdr'elhe vbte'rs. ,<1':790 'receiveCJ'sufticierit :~i'~:Q~rg~~;~;'fg!lgH~Kti: fgt:J~~~B~;IJgf:[dNB~~m~~{':'~'i';~'; !;,,'i;~! <;:";.,';~,;t):;IiC;:'S tnd;)~~::~~.;, '.;"Ce",: ;'/., i(tarrgritiy;p~H~i6f.f'i)~H~f,t~jo;~'!~JB)t~ten'lRtQMe.~~, ';,are, ~,s~abJisl1e,d; i~:"s~'atute, b,yjtn:r~ r 1 ; rjj :; -, ' . _'.. '::',-, .,....".;:, . , _,', ";' "_, .,: .J '.'"yi " . _,J -"'J~ r -'~_.I' _' ", -o. .....,:: . .::~;...-. -! ,; .>....^f ,..,' ~ .,..:. '~,"", ". ., ,~~ \ , ,.~,',.' " 'fiO ";.,0" '~_~,,, \ ~ ",.. 'J ".,' ;., . ~.,. LnQ!~I~W,~~,\ \,~91pI9-XJ€1;~{,,).99~IT~f?~~~nl:J;l;~R1r~mR!.Q~7S~;flQ~Lgt9~~,9$~tri.9~rthq(lr~~ ;~!.q~~,,~itlJi r. ,e,: m~~~tp.l~~~~ ':~9rnms~i,~p.:~~..f:o.,r:.t.h~;~)~r'~n!~;rTtj,~,P~P:5!ct~~DJP~) ~~~it~,~:~iJtrR~i~t~m~~ "~' ~tate ~'~,~~9~.1.1;:~. '~,.mJ~J~1~~~:-1t!.~]?~~~i8~:;:~Y~. Wrr~::,,~.D.:~. ~Rtr..t S~M~.j~t.. 'E;."~ ;'9P P~~\~if?f.i,~glIti~ {(,:'",; $ eciar]eiS'l'afiVE~(CO-' 'liiitIee; maKes.recomrffefldati6hs' t'6'''theJ~ 'j~latli rEn6r'chah", s.' Tne f~tiffi~J~I&,t~t~~~5,~~~~~JY;f9 ~~~g~~tl.'rh~"~~a~~Bh[I~9~~~tn~',~,c~;-r~~pmfP;~Ha..~&~t5Q3b~ 'State '~~!~,~r;Y,:;~'~i~L~'~t.~~Jbl,e~h~i8~~'~H~9;\,Q,Q>Cbun"tir "(~ coDnclr of' sta'te'Bfflcia'i's) 'the' dfi.~ctor of tri'e,D~pa'rtm~dt9M~etir.e,rnehr:Systems;Ean'd, the' l1.egisl~Hlire5( . r:,..;l! ::;:.r~ ~<:: ':::; ,;:}, '._. ';,:. . ;:~,i i,,~'; 0 .:~C:"/~::~ t-.:: ~t~!t9R,rijr~,p..~~:~~; Sig~ifiS~~!,P?~DR~~:,~Rit~:i1:.~itg~tgr~. i, ''-',''H \. Ii p~~&~~\Y.'~f\!~.~i:l'Olt~t~t)X~:.,~3\ j;(J~.\,i5 ::':'::I~'::~J:~i;,;i,!t.~C,;!t'::~~:}i'~.,-; ;~C;),J:~:; {~, ~:~!1~:~;:':'~;(:!;~, ~~."L::~;'; .,~ ~: :',: ~: fnlti~tive;790: Wdul(frrfa.lte;:sr"'nIflca6t:ch;ah:'~~slb tne'J3EOFF'2' ~hsiciri::s7~Stem:J: li,\Nbuld (',: ',':: ';:.'" i<:~;~:\ ,:", ;;.'_,{,' j.' "'A, .';:,~\'.," /":".)j."U''-L:R~ t~~. ~.,' t'.., ;';. rn.:::: j c.:.';:.' .' ;~, ;"-~;;".''- ~ r;~" i:::: i-tfj~.~', \ '~"\:-"'_:'. .(' .-~': PH / -.;;:! i !';'~":. (, ;':/.:: .., / {.~~"n .;;':;; ;......, (";; ,':\::.;~. t~~n~f~tr':~:~tQ9~JtXi~~~r;:!~:'~Y$,f!jm'it~:'~I;C~I,~Y~9~p1e-rribeliJ:joar,d,a'pphinted:by:tne','govefnon.:A tfr]aj9'rity(ii,f, JJiu;f,9C!),'ard', meoibei'$:, wou \C:trepresent those who, will, receivebenefitsJro[lJ the; pJ~~::..1~,~,99;~f;~i~~~~~;9i. s~~f9p,~i?:!~~~';rL~i~.,~}J~9;~~~(~0b;~~~;~~~~:;lN~~);r!~RIR~~r , ). . :::"G,<-'2';;;'t"'::';;,i~;;/)::'~'" ".,',! ;'}}i{i/li,j',,;";:;J'.';.D',:;' f:', ';,,;;;:,;; "; ";, . 5'..'..:........,.....'."'.'.~.':,".'.c.'.. :;~~'::';":;i,:;.;:., ....v '.,. ....ii ' .. ...... ..,~ ".,.~,,~~;.,.,.,.,., ,'...:':' c;:.~\::", .,^ '. ......",;,,:;;':;;...' .' i C:;."L;O,.",.;.<;,' ,':::;:~;;' - -:.' .. ;<~:"~~<~,/,:/i?~2(,",( :'~'; :.~'::; ).'~.~:e~.;,.~:;': -'.,.oJ., \~,.. :_.'..~:' " 'J> ;; -' ,i -, .;'. ~-:-; f~ ~ ~ -c .',' \. 1" ......'.;.:.\ . . r~pre~~ntati~es;a~dtWo;"emb~rs of the Legislature. Among'other.povversi the board' . would have the~auth()rity,t()incre,a~,eb~nefits and increase. c()nt~ibutiqr1rates form'embers . localgoM~rnment ;er;n8'loy~rs,ahd the 'state: , ..<.', ',H' ,~" . " ' :-'!- <' . Aqchrding,to theproposed'jnitiative: ." ',! ,. ..: '; ,,"1 '__' '.; ,_:,: .:', \,_ '.." '. ...'....T.'... ,'.heb....oa...r. dc.a.11 a. uthqrize. ..bene. fit,incre. asesthatc:os.fless. t.h...'a..'rl.'.2..' O:p.":.er.. 6e.,..:'n..,t.'o( "l'l;Ietllhers' pay' (1Qpercemf paid by employees, 6, percent byl()cal;gQv~mrrient . eJT1p,loyers!d?nq:4,perse,nt.bythe state). . These r~te increases would take effect unless the Legislature voted to repeal them. 'Iftheboardproposesa change that would costmore thanan'additional 20 . pe,rcent()flTlernPers' pay, the changes must first be submitledtothe'Le,9islature. THe,l.eg,islr;l'ture, rn9 stvote to approve . or disapprove the'c;hanges,q~titH~S no '.alltrprity,',1oalTlepdthqsechanges. .,::. . .. . .' :, ,~'~,~,~::;:3,;~",:.:ttw~,,~~~4~~~~'~~U~"~~tnlQ~i9t}lt~~'~gq,~F;Z~"~X~!~~n~t~~;~~18,:~*9"~,~~',~f!fH~~i.:1,::';,',_",..,. 0, ~,'.,,' ':-:::::";;,~~(q~p~U~~~~:~tT\~a~,~J~8rte.~Htri~tcfbe Use(re)(C1ti~iV'el}nbr; ~aHfff6hi1il;b~~~fif~ 'for ~)~i'i:'me'mDlers"ah'cr 'oei]efiCiaiies:The' current statutory a~sumptioD 'for investment ,\ ,",r.',.,{; ,." 'lr~t4~n~i~ ,.~r,~..~~rIYE?~d?~~r the long' term. .. There is ,0'61 inlit:oht~oritributionra,te . "''''',"'(~'Y'' '~'ir'ftrEtase~nliaFiJ1iglittestilt from therfact thatexcessearnfngs[inone'year are not ;'.', ~g~il~t?l~(J%g~~~tt!~~,~~~J!~~ar) tyr?(~.,ln~PRth~f'..~~~n! G'~';B ..rh~!IJ' ,'2C)'. p ~r(;e~'lt".'Cf: . .::. -""~,,"; ..'l"...,/:JJ..,"i"..,.,.h';.:::i.,....~J,_,.;,~,..,:",:!:l..;f..)::_f.",;i'l.:(~~.;,.,-j' ',;",,~~,,'I";-".:.' '.'-~\"I ~::::"",-" , "".,""~... ....'_.~ ',... -1'-'''- ~"~l;' . . "... . 1-190WiII/lle'"'Co'sfl'''tol.bcaI''Go1 'ernmenbf" ,_, ;3 :;:c";,<.:>:,,:,:..i"<:-i'';bi0'q\''9(n.n,fjn; . Bothth~qfrl?'i~~J~Jl~]!t~f~,;l\~{J~&5~h;~~!f~~(Hjf~9.~~'~f':F{A~Rtiaf'Mfiff~agrif~h~(h~$J~P completed'tl1:eirfisca'rarr~flysis 'bfftiennitlafive,'as 'required by law. Their fiscal impact ~t~tf?,mel1~~p,y~I!!}~:. tq~"R/?rl~qJt~1 to!ih!~Di ,,-~9.~.t~ ~,9;).Oi9;aJ ,~,~.dn~1~tr;g2xeJPm~,Qtt~;~'r~~Q;r.~.. details about those' costs "ci::irt"be'.fou'tla fb v cor'ita-difr 'those if' ehci'es~ . ", ,-, '. ,~" , ,'''' ,". ,J. ,cd ~ '.' ,..... '.. ..,12'~~t~';~j.'~;,_(~:,?i,E:~r?it:.(~;=":~I~.I~:"'.:;.~'',:':-~,j~~1.~':~.,'~n~J:rq';m (,~"":;~:on':niFC . ' rc. What'DOc;j~ :f~79()"M~an~:fo:rj:~:6n:"Ah~"eles ! '.. ; <:' '''., . . ':.' ...'. '_ _'-"-, ,.'-- :::' 't~~j-,'": _"~ ,~.,' .~ .. h' :" :-~')', f_~~'";-:(: : .<.- ".'-C:-':-~:' /'19,0": { :_.:'''' .. ,,~ . _ . "'_ _ ~ .-. _ ,::' qtyoflToft'iAhg~le~)sfaff~stihi'ate;s-Ul:atth'~ initiative would cost an additional'$417"l335 per ,~~~~~~:~~h~f~~t~T~Tll=~9~~~n~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~t~r"c" :em 'lo,efsr'!liE0FE:2'membets'~cdl::ilelsee:stee ,., Tn'creases'in "em 'lo"ee'icohlfibtitr6h'rates 'to .~~~;~~:e~!~fEv~rrt~!~ [;~~,;':':~i~;:;' c:': ,'" ;1'"", ,'::": ,~~;~. ;;" ~"'~:~:n: 0:,: "OS",",::". . Arrivin ,~r co~f~siimate~ !ofthellnancialilTl" aCfof'i~7gb"re iuites 'UhdEk~tandln' "tt1EfcLJrr~ht . .' .g,,,,,,:,,,",,Oh""""'" ,~r.,.,:",~.' v,~.",",;;,:" U" j'''',,:> 'l,J;!,..". ',''-'''',C(''::,' \!C,q,.. . ....... .. .... .,g. .... . Pension sy~tebl::'ahd;tbe proposed changes;d)6th;'b't'\Nhicbd:iresomewhat:cprnpl~)(:' 9"y;~f~p~:J~G;~iH:~~~~b'rE~l~~if~K~,~~~J~~~ff~~::!~f~~Jqf9~~':k;~o4f~,fDtH~~t'tHt~Jr!;;~rn:PJ~'i;ee.s," .:....... ,~9,r,t;i;f?,gJ~i4:;,~:9,,~;"9Lth;~in~~~t;'~tl~~q!W!p~~~"2~PJl.%~..;?~'"~~'p'~:v.~:e";p;ajc!; ~rf~t~~Et~t~~7: 'c6r1frTl)ul"'sl.'ah'oth;ef'~ .75o/c$' btir ~; THe"Cit ,also' 'a'sadmlnisttativEfcosfsof.22%"Of. ~!l~*~,;~':'(i'P:g" "';;i'i f~":::;\~ !(~, ,~~t;~:;.Ji; ~(;~;G;::i ~fl~i: ,~0,; X ''ir)'!, gn? ,r;')5 0' :_,;.~;;:~: .'_. :. ',,' I.:. ~_ _, ',<_'_' .._ . ,.}fj . . '~ J~fr~H pr9~!9~~}8f i9~r~,ar!~~:!n, pe9?,ig~(~~nefitsin:anumber.,of ways::i[;he most significant P~D"~J~t:p,i9iV.!~sj8N~iJIl~~qptt~\r~gir~pfjR,f1.,9finx:~,syJ;l~[1tE3-i3WJ 9g,~Py~r~~,l;w, ~:~ ;~t~\qt9ry"::i (', ....... J(~t~~~{t~IDJj$iff~~~m~~~i!1:~;;tl;~di~il;~I$~~l~~~:AE~~~l~~tt~ · iretf/rHishaJrber:/~ilcL'M&jfi:1s1ve1', ~ foKlidditlc/iJar1Jenefits: fO'{fHember~:~a,{a~b~hericiiifi'i3s>~;";' eq;f')r":;';>L:':'.'\::p''':;:y(rto!iJ'i':;~f:dr?c~~;~:5'~i;!")';::,,,: ".. ":{::c'," .,W/~):!/;'::;';;: "i,'r)';).:),::, ".: :' 6,' ,- . '. ., . ....... ,"., ~ " ..' :..! n:~ ; r' '--, " . . . 8 . . . . 'i#l';;;';',j:,!i.:;i:;,,!~i tia tive 7!~;::'\;;..;;;). i iR.~$R()tt~~i~p~he ORR ositi 0 It. ';~4rgtlm~T1~. '~~~:~ig~gmd~:9~~/B~irlU~EW[aMr ~tates. in the nati~nt!;~~"f1~~~in9t~!9\,Y'~t~... palice ,.<:>ffjs~E:~,'~~)f18~~~l').~~~~,~d;Y9IFe m theIr awn pensl()I1.pl~,';,~~9~~t.,~)~t~~....,allaw ...gl~;~~,m~~r,g~siI>~B~Ilqn their pensian baards':~~:8.r~~9~m~tt#~,~(). "~~I1ltigaypip~jil"?l1tP~ij..~lan and have tried ta caap~rate~th the'legislature to pa~~c'ann:)ar~blelegislatian. . '" -,>-."':,::-' - -'",':'-,.:',. ,-,<.,,-,,-.. -", ',- .. ',' .. -, 1I1i~~B~~i9()(I-'7Qo)is~lJ?ut giving palice .officers andfirefigJ:iters ... repr~sep!~,ti9paI{the.'baard that gaverns .our pensioI1,L~O~:E4iglan:2.... '.' \Ma~l1iI1&!()I'l's P9lice, affi~ers and firefighters cantribu~e890(ogf,'th~.p~I1~~ari f. u...........n... ...d...... s........ d.....I....r.....e.. ....c.....t1....y.....,.....f..r....p.......m........ a.u........rP..a.. y.. chi ecks ta the plan, yet w. e. .h.......a.....v. e. ,n.......a... sa.......'.........y....,.i..n. ...,..........h......o.w..... the le$i~I~t~lf~:g9y~I"11.~....it.'....l'he..legislature can tribu tes ?()t+'()f....tli~./ fq~~'~'...ta. .the plan anahas~nfettered...sayln..haw.it is gaverned. 1-790 presents a:hoppartunity far fairness and'reasanableness. . ........'........ .......-.............'........'....'........... .......'..-.......................... . ..'......... '. '..' ..... .... ,. ,., J-'79picr~~t;e~a?()yym~S~Raard far LEOFF Plan ?t.l1~ti.Jlc~B9~,~\~Hpar,ties W.a.tcr<:>J:"l~1:>B-t~,~~0t~~~:>';~!~p:l. Firefighters, palice .9ff!5~r~,i\~IlJ.p12:x~r~~....~1.the ....S.....'.'.t...a...t....e... m.'.:.....l...l all...................h. ..a..,.v..'.........e'..'r.. e.p. r..'es....e.n..fa....tian an the baard pra.p. o. ..tti.'....... '.o.".'..."..n... a.'...te..'....:t.:o.........t..,...h...'.e.......'.i..r..........:........ ..,' s8~~~G~?I1~t6~EOF~'Plan 2. The legislature still ha~'ffiefihalsay and the . Goveinorretalns'full veto autharity. I -790 establishes strang Safeguards and pratective measures ta ensure praper management anci fiscal respansibility. The new baard will simply make recammendatiansta the.legislature, as the current gaverningcammittee daes. The baard's recammendatians must be reviewed by up ta three actuaries ta assure laWmakers that the baard's actians are fiscally saurid~ accumulated assets are available, and its prapasals are affardable ahd reasanable. 1'-790 caps contributian rates at a reasanable level ta prevent erratic and valatile rate swings. Itpravidesa cantributian cap .of 100/0 far employees, 60/0 faremplayers, and 40/0 farthe State. As the system stands taday~ there are NO cantributian caps. . I -790 removeS, theincen tive far the legislature ta raid" .our pe:nsian funds. Histarically, the.legislature has used investmentretumsas a pretext ta cut contribution rates unilateraIly, reducing their fiscal respansibility tathe plan and allawingthem ta divert maney budgeted far LEOFF ta ather purpases. They have been filling hales in the state budget with pen sian investment returns earmarked far the trust fund! Further, lacal gavernment emplayers do not cantribute ta Sacial Security far their palice and fire employees. What they contribute ta LEOFF Plan 2 (currently 2.640/0 .of salary) is it! (OVER) 9 The wildly exaggerated fiscal impact statement on 1-790 is based on a new interpretation by the State Actuary that curiously changed only after the bill wasftled as an initiative. When this legislation was sent to the legislature last session as House Bill 2931, the State Actuary reviewed it and gave it a fiscal impact of "none." The bill died in committee, and we subsequently submitted it as an initiative. When it became clear to the elected officials and bureaucrats in Olympi~that Washington voters would support 1-790 as a common-sense initiative, the revised interpretation of the text was contrived to deliver a worst- case scenario. The text that "creates" the supposed fiscal impact has not changed from its original wording in HB2931. This error has gone unexplained and unanswered by the staff of the Office of the State Actuary. The State Actuary's interpretation that the initiative could cost millions of dollars is based on exceedingly deceptive assumptions. First, it assumes that the new governance board would make recommendations to increase contributions to implausible levels. Plan members contribute. 500,,10 of the funds to the plan - our members would have serious concern over any extraordinary increases. 1-790 also caps contribution ratesthat cannot be overridden without legislative approval. Second, this claim assumes that the board would ignore the advice of actuaries who most certainly would caution against unfunded increases. Next, it assumes that the legislature would allow the increases. Under 1-790, the legislature retains the final authority on changes to LEOFF 2 and can stop all board recommendations. Finally, it assumes that the Governor would not veto a budget increase. Initiative 790 does not increase taxes, does not increase contributions, and does not add new benefits. 1-790 merely changes the structure of the board governing LEOFF Plan 2 and protects our retirement. Please, read the initiative. There is no cost. LEOFF Plan 2 is the only source of retirement benefits for police officers and fIrefighters - we do not have Social Security retirement benefits. We are not asking for anything more than a voice in the governance of our futures. Please support your police officers and firefighters. VOTE YES on 1-7901 10 . . . . 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . 17 INITIATIVE 790 I, Sam Reed, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and custodian of its seal, hereby certify that, according to the records on file in my office, the attached copy of Initiative Measure No. 790 to the People is a true and correct copy as it was received by this office. AN ACT Relating to the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system, plan 2j adding new sections to chapter 41.26 RCWj creating new sectionsj and providing an effective date. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. OVERVIEW. The law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system plan 2 is currently subj ect to policymaking by the legislature's joint committee on pension policy with ratification by the members of the legislature and is administered by the department of retirement systems. Members of the plan have no direct input into the management of their retirement program. Forty-six other states currently have member representation in their pension management. This act is intended to give management of the retirement program to the people whose lives are directly affected by it and who provide loyal and valiant service to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state of Washington. NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. INTENT. It is the intent of this act to: 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (1) Establish a board of trustees responsible for the adoption of actuarial standards to be applied to the plan; (2) Provide for additional benefits for fire fighters and law enforcement officers subject to the cost limitations provided for in this act; (3) Exercise fiduciary responsibility in the oversight of those pension management functions assigned to the board; (4) Provide effective monitoring of the plan by providing an annual report to the legislature, to the members and beneficiaries of the plan, and to the public; (5) Establish contribution rates for employees, employers, and the state of Washington that will guaranty viability of the plan, subject to the limitations provided for in this act; (6) Provide for an annual budget and to pay costs from the trust, as part of the normal cost of the plan; and (7) Enable the board of trustees to retain professional and technical advisors as necessary for the fulfillment of their statutory responsibilities. . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 . NEW SECTION. Sec. section apply throughout otherwise. (1) "Member" or "beneficiary" means: (a) Current and future law enforcement officers and fire fighters who are contributing to the plan; (b) Retired employees or their named beneficiaries who receive benefits from the plan; and (c) Separated vested members of the plan who are not currently receiving benefits. (2) "Plan" means the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system plan 2. (3) "Actuary" means the actuary employed by the board of trustees. (4) "State actuary" means the actuary employed by the department. (5) "Board" means the board of trustees. (6) "Board member" means a member of the board of trustees. (7) "Department" means the department of retirement systems. (8) "Minimum benefits" means those benefits provided for in chapter 3. DEFINITIONS. The definitions in this this act unless the context clearly requires . 41.26 RCW as of July I, 2003. (9) "Employer" means the same as under RCW 41.26.030(2) (b). 12 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 . 37 38 (10) "Enrolled actuary" means an actuary who is enrolled under the employee retirement income security act of 1974 (Subtitle C of Title III) and who is a member of the society of actuaries or the American academy of actuaries. (11) "Increased benefit" means a benefit in addition to the minimum benefits. (12) "Trust" means the assets of the plan. (13) "Benefits" means the age or service or combination thereof required for retirement, the level of service and disability retirement benefits, survivorship benefits, payment options including a deferred retirement option plan, average final compensation, postretirement cost of living adjustments, including health care and the elements of compensation. Benefi ts shall not include the classifications of employment eligible to participate in the plan. (14) "Actuarially sound" means the plan is sufficiently funded to meet its projected liabilities and to defray the reasonable expenses of its operation based upon commonly accepted, sound actuarial principles. NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. BOARD OF TRUSTEES CREATED--SELECTION OF TRUSTEES--TERMS OF OFFICE--VACANCIES. (1) An eleven member board of trustees is hereby created. (a) Three of the board members shall be active law enforcement officers who are participants in the plan. Beginning with the first vacancy on or after January 1, 2007, one board member shall be a retired law enforcement officer who is a member of the plan. The law enforcement officer board members shall be appointed by the governor from a list provided by a recognized statewide council whose membership consists exclusively of guilds, associations, and unions representing state and local government police officers, deputies, and sheriffs and excludes federal law enforcement officers. (b) Three of the board members shall be active fire fighters who are participants in the plan. Beginning with the first vacancy on or after January 1, 2007, one board member shall be a retired fire fighter who is a member of the plan. The fire fighter board member shall be appointed by the governor from a list provided by a recognized statewide council, affiliated with an international association representing the interests of fire fighters. (c) Three of the board members shall be representatives of employers and shall be appointed by the governor. 13 1 2 3 4 5 appointed by the governor based on the recommendation of the majority 6 leader of the senate. 7 (2) The initial law enforcement officer and fire fighter board 8 members shall serve terms of six, four, and two years, respectively. 9 Thereafter, law enforcement officer and fire fighter board members 10 serve terms of six years. The remaining board members serve terms of 11 four years. Board members may be reappointed to succeeding terms 12 without limitation. Board members shall serve until their successors 13 are appointed and seated. 14 (3) In the event of a vacancy on the board, the vacancy shall be 15 filled in the same manner as prescribed for an initial appointment. (d) One board member shall be a member of the house of representatives who is appointed by the governor based on the . recommendation of the speaker of the house of representatives. (e) One board member shall be a member of the senate who is 16 NEW SECTION. Sec. S. POWERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES--MEETING 17 PROCEDURES--QUORUM--JUDICIAL REVIEW--BUDGET OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. 18 (1) The board of trustees have the following powers and duties and 19 shall: . 20 (a) Adopt actuarial tables, assumptions, and cost methodologies in 21 consultation with an enrolled actuary retained by the board. The state 22 actuary shall provide assistance when the board requests. The actuary 23 retained by the board shall utilize the aggregate actuarial cost 24 method, or other recognized actuarial cost method based on a level 25 percentage of payroll, as that term is employed by the American academy 26 of actuaries. In determining the reasonableness of actuarial 27 valuations, assumptions, and cost methodologies, the actuary retained 28 by the board shall provide a copy of all such calculations to the state 29 actuary. If the two actuaries concur on the calculations, 30 contributions shall be made as set forth in the report of the board's 31 actuary. If the two actuaries cannot agree, they shall appoint a 32 third, independent, enrolled actuary who shall review the calculations 33 of the actuary retained by the board and the state actuary. 34 Thereafter, contributions shall be based on the methodology most 35 closely following that of the third actuary; 36 (b) (i) Provide for the design and implementation of increased 37 benefits for members and beneficiaries of the plan, subject to the . 38 contribution' limitations under section 6 of this act. An increased 14 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 . 38 benefit may not be approved by the board until an actuarial cost of the benefit has been determined by the actuary and contribution rates adjusted as may be required to maintain the plan on a sound actuarial basis. Increased benefits as approved by the board shall be presented to the legislature on January 1st of each year. The increased benefits as approved by the board shall become effective within ninety days unless a bill is enacted in the next ensuing session of the legislature, by, majority vote of each house of the legislature, repealing the action of the board; (ii) As an alternative to the procedure in (b) (i) of this subsection, recommend to the legislature changes in the benefits for members and beneficiaries, without regard to the cost limitations in section 6(3) of this act. Benefits adopted in this manner shall have the same contractual protections as the minimum benefits in the plan. The recommendations of the board shall be presented to the legislature on January 1st of each year. These measures shall take precedence over all other measures in the legislature, except appropriations bills, and shall be either enacted or rejected without change or amendment by the legislature before the end of such regular session; (c) Retain professional and technical advisors necessary for the accomplishment of its duties. The cost of these services may be withdrawn from the trust; (d) Consult with the department for the purpose of improving benefit administration and member services; (e) Provide an annual report to the governor and the legislature setting forth the actuarial funding status of the plan and making recommendations for improvements in those aspects of retirement administration directed by the legislature or administered by the department; (f) Establish uniform administrative rules and operating policies in the manner prescribed by law; (g) Engage administrative staff and acquire office space independent of, or in conjunction with, the department. The department shall provide funding from its budget for these purposes; (h) The board shall publish on an annual basis a schedule of increased benefits together with a summary of the minimum benefits as established by the legislature which shall constitute the official plan document; and 15 1 (i) Be the fiduciary of the plan and discharge the board's duties 2 solely in the interest of the members and beneficiaries of the plan. ~ 3 (2) Meetings of the board of trustees shall be conducted as 4 follows: 5 (a) All board meetings are open to the public, preceded by timely 6 public notice; 7 (b) All actions of the board shall be taken in open public session, 8 except for those matters which may be considered in executive session 9 as provided by law; 10 (c) The board shall retain minutes of each meeting setting forth 11 the names of those board members present and absent, and their voting 12 record on any voted issue; and 13 (d) The board may establish, with the assistance of the appropriate 14 office of state government, an internet web site providing for 15 interactive communication with state government, members and 16 beneficiaries of the plan, and the public. 17 (3) A quorum of the board is six board members. All board actions 18 require six concurring votes. 19 (4) The decisions of the board shall be made in good faith and are 20 final, binding, and conclusive on all parties. The decisions of the ~ 21' board shall be subject to judicial review as provided by law. 22 (5) A law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement 23 system plan 2 expense fund is established for the purpose of defraying 24 the expenses of the board. The board shall cause an annual budget to 25 be prepared consistent with the requirements of chapter 43.88 RCW and 26 shall draw the funding for the budget from the investment income of the 27 trust. Board members shall be reimbursed for travel and education 28 expenses as provided in RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060. The board shall 29 make an annual report to the governor, legislature, and state auditor 30 setting forth a summary of the costs and expenditures of the plan for 31 the preceding year. The board shall also retain the services of an 32 independent, certified public accountant who shall annually audit the 33 expenses of the fund and whose report shall be included in the board's 34 annual report. 35 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. CONTRIBUTIONS. (1) The board of trustees 36 shall establish contributions as set forth in this section. The cost 37 of the minimum benefits as defined in this plan shall be funded on the ~ 38 following ratio: 16 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 . 38 Employee contributions 50% Employer contributions 30% State contributions 20% (2) The minimum benefits shall constitute a contractual obligation of the state and the contributing employers and may not be reduced below the levels in effect on July 1, 2003. The state and the contributing employers shall maintain the minimum benefits on a sound actuarial basis in accordance with the actuarial standards adopted by the board. I (3) Increased benefits created as provided for in section 5 of this act are granted on a basis not to exceed the contribu~ions provided for in this section. In addition to the contributions necessary to maintain the minimum benefits, for any increased benefits provided for by the board, the employee contribution shall not exceed fifty percent of the actuarial cost of the benefit. In no instance shall the employee cost exceed ten percent of covered payroll without the consent of a majority of the affected employees. Employer c?ntributions shall not exceed thirty percent of the cost, but in no instance shall the employer contribution exceed six percent of covered payroll. State contributions shall not exceed twenty percent of the cost, but in no instance shall the state contribution exceed four percent of covered payroll. Employer contributions may not be increased above the maximum under this section without the consent of the governing body of the employer. State contributions may not be increased above the maximum provided for in this section without the consent of the legislature. In the event that the cost of maintaining the increased benefits on a sound actuarial basis exceeds the aggregate contributions provided for in this section, the board shall submit to the affected members of the plan the option of paying the increased costs or of having the increased benefits reduced to a level sufficient to be maintained by the aggregate contributions. The reduction of benefits in accordance with this section shall not be deemed a violation of the contractual rights of the members, provided that no reduction may result in benefits being lower than the level of the minimum benefits. (4) The board shall manage the trust in a manner that maintains reasonable contributions and administrative costs. Providing additional benefits to members and beneficiaries is the board's priority. 11 1 (5) All earnings of the trust in excess of the actuarially assumed 2 rate of investment return shall be used exclusively for additional . 3 benefits for members and beneficiaries. 4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. NONAPPLICABILITY OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON 5 PENSION POLICY AND PENSION FUNDING COUNCIL. The joint committee on 6 pension policy established in RCW 44.44.050, and the pension funding 7 council created in RCW 41.45.100, shall have no applicability or 8 authority over matters relating to this plan. 9 NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. ASSET MANAGEMENT. Assets of the plan shall 10 be managed by the state investment board as provided by law. 11 NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this act 12 or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the 13 remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other 14 persons or circumstances is not affected. 15 NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. CAPTIONS NOT LAW. Captions used in this 16 act are not any part of the law. . 17 NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION. The department 18 of retirement systems and the office of the state actuary shall prepare 19 and submit to the fiscal committees of the legislature by January 15, 20 2003, proposed legislation for implementing this act. 21 NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. CODIFICATION. Sections 1 through 9 of this 22 act are each added to chapter 41.26 RCW. 23 NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE. Except for section 11 of 24 this act, the remainder of this act takes effect July I, 2003. --- END --- . 18 . . Limiting Motor Vehicle License Fees to $"30 . 1- . What is Awe's position? The membership of Awe ap- proved a resolution opposing the initiative at the association's annual business meeting in June. AWC's role will be to provide its members educational materials that can be shared with electeds, staff and the community. AWC's staff is also available to help you evaluate the issue and its impacts on your city. For current information, you can also check AWC's website at www.awcnet.org. . , I What does 1-776 do? · Requires license tab fees for motor vehicles to not exceed $30. · Requires license tab fees for light truckS to not exceed $30. Amends the combined licensing fee schedule contained in RCW 46.16.070 for truck weights as follows: . · Eliminates the authorization for vote....approved local option MVEl for transit Eliminates the authorization in RCW 81.104.160 for transit to impose a MVET of up to 0.81 % of motor vehicle value for the purpose of providing high capacity transportation service. Presently only Sound Transit imposes a 0.3% MVET. Preliminary analys~f this section has raised legal questions because Sound Transit issued bonds that specifi- cally pledged this revenue source for repayment. · Requires outstanding bonds for light rail be retired Requires that bonds previously issued for light rail be retired using reserve funds, sales of property, new voter approved tax revenues, or any combination. · Repeals local option vehicle license fee Repeals RCW 82.80.020, which authorizes counties (or certain cities by voter approval if the county does not enact the fee) to impose a ~ehicle license fee not to exceed $15.00 per year for transportation purposes. Presently four counties impose this fee: Douglas, King, Pierce, and Snohomish. Revenues are shared with cities in the county by a population-based formula. · Repeals MVEl related statutes - exemptions, valuation require- ments, and revenue distribution statutes that were in effect when MVEl was collected by the state 19 What would be the impacts of the initiative? LOCAL~O\? The prelimina from the tepe mates based STATE I MPACTS: ,q The. impact to the} Motor VehiCle Furfd State Patrol WSF -Operations Total The estimate' . imposed by So Estimated Loss in Revenue for Sound Transit Were car tabs more than $30 after 1-695 . was approved? When Initiative 695 (1-695) was approved in November 1999, it only eliminated the state motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) effective January 1, 2000 and imposed a $30 state license tab fee. After the initiative was found unconsti- tutional by the King County Superior Court, the Legislature enacted portions of the initiative during the 2000 session. However, the 2000 Legislature did not repeal: · The authority for transit authori- ties to impose a voter-approved MVET of up to 0.81 % of motor vehicle value for high capacity transit. · The authority of counties and certain cities to impose a local option vehicle license fee of up to $15.00 per year. . How would individual cities be impacted by the repeal of the $15 local license fee? Cities within the four counties can receive a portion of the Ii fee revenue, based on population, and cities in counties whe license fee is not imposed can impose the fee by voter appro Currently, the local license fee is only imposed in four counti Douglas, King, Pierce, and Snohomish. (note: estimates are b on calendar year January 1 - December 31) 20 ,-"o"'\ih: ;{>::'S\' 'J.,;'" ..,.,< c'_"._;;:.,,~,;-:,:,,;; REVENUE LOSSES TO CITIES AND COUNTIES FROM $15 LOCAL VEHICLE LICENSE FEES* . -c City Distribution 2003 2004 Six Year Total City Distribution ....2003 2004 Six Year Total 2003.2008 , 2003-2008 Algona $22,355 $22,802 $141.019 Medina $28,210 $28,775 $177.955 Arlington $102,109 $104,151 $644.116 Mercer Island $206,721 $210,856 $1.304,023 Auburn $404,206 $412,290 $2,549.779 Mill Creek $102,279 $ 104,324 $645.186 Beaux Arts Village . $2,848 $2,905 $17.963 Milton $49,012 $49,992 $309.175 Bellevue $ 1,033,760 $ 1,054,435 $6,521.084 Monroe $117,031 $119,372 $738.249 Black Diamond $37,131 $37.873 $234.226 Mountlake Terrace $177,661 $181,214 $1.120.706 Bonney Lalle $81,662 $83,295 $515,134 Mukilteo $ 156,357 $ 159.484 $986.316 Bothell $270.452 $275,861 $1,706.044 Newcastle $74,942 $76.441 $472.744 Bridgeport $17,250 $17,595 $108.814 Normandy Park $61,678 $62,912 $389.072 Brier $55,815 $56,932 $352.090 North Bend $42,748 $43,603 $269.659 Buckley $34,220 $34,904 $215,863 Orting $31,725 $32.359 $200,125 Burien $295,648 $301,561 $1.864,986 Pacific $52,226 $53,271 $329,448 Carbonado $5,220 $5,324 $32.926 Puyallup $271,546 $276.977 $1.712,948 Carnation $17,661 $18,014 $111.406 Redmond $424,022 $432,503 $2,674,784 Clyde Hill $27,237 $27,781 $171,812 Renton $470,316 $479,722 $2,966.810 Coulee Dam $1,193 $1,217 $7.528 Rock Island $6,759 $6,895 $42.640 Covington $ 128,239 $ 130,803 $808.945 Roy $4.462 $4.552 $28.149 Darrington $10,521 $10.731 $66.365 Ruston $6,159 $6,282 $38.853 Des Moines $274,111 $279,593 $1.729.126 Sammamish $314,228 $320,512 $1.982.187 Dupont $ 19,625 $20,018 $123.797 SeaTac $234,517 $239,207 $1,479,359 Duvall $43,582 $44.454 $274.923 Seattle $ 5,261, 792 $5,367,028 $33.192,019 East Wenatchee $47,223 $48,167 $297.887 Shoreline $500,155 $510,158 $3.155.036 Eatonville $16,672 $17,006 $105.172 Skykomish $2;147 $2,190 $13.546 Edgewood $78,725 $80,299 $496,607 Snohomish $73,977 $75.456 $466.653 Edmonds $344,133 $351,016 $2.170,833 Snoqualmie $16,949 $17,288 ", " $106.917 Enumclaw $104,014 $106,094 $656.133 South Prairie $3,365 $3.432 $21.225 Everett $811,842 $828,079 $5.121.196 Stanwood $33.476 $34,145 $211,170 Federal Way $771,173 $786,596 $4.864,650 Steilacoom $50,601 $51,613 $319.197 Fife $40,313 $41,120 $254,302 Sultan $28,934 $29,512 $182,516 Fircrest $48,885 $49,863 $308.374 Sumner $70,819 $72,235 $446,735 Gig Harbor $53,885 $54,963 $339,916 Tacoma $ 1,595,206 $1,627,110 $10.062.751 Gold Bar $17,617 $17,969 $"1.131 Tukwila $ 156,886 $ 160,024 $989,656 Granite Falls $20,194 $20,598 $127,387 University Place $249,240 $254,225 $1.572.238 Hunts Point $4,241 $4,325 $26.751 Waterville $9,588 $9,780 $60.484 Index $1,340 $1,367 $8.453 Wilkeson $3,345 $3.412 $21.100 Issaquah $111,111 $ 113,333 $700.899 Woodinville $89,070 $90,851 $561.862 Kenmore $172,151 $ 175,594 $1.085.948 Woodway $8,308 $8,474 $52.405 i;;:~~ $737,556 $752,307 $4.652.594 Yarrow Point $9.430 $9,619 $59.487 nd $424,833 $433,329 $2.679.897 Park $123,740 $126,215 $780.567 _qqllDW~_ Ste~ens .~ ..'!!'!!'~"'.' $55,835 $56,952 $352.215 Lakewood $493,770 $503,645 $3.114.759 County Distribution Lynnwood $294.461 $300,351 $1.857.497 Douglas County $278,304 $283,870 $1.755.575 Mansfield $2,728 $2,782 $17.208 King County $5,045,991 $5,146,911 $31.830.721 Maple Valley $ 130,854 $ 133.471 $825.444 Pierce County $3,983,720 $4,063,394 $25.129.786 . Marysville $215,661 $219,975 $1.360.418 Snohomish County $3,846,698 $3,923,632 $24.265.436 . 21 Would the initiative impact rental for transit systems for the purpose transportation? No. The authorization in RCW 81.104.160 for transit systems and re- gional transit authorities to impose a rental car tax of up to 2.172% for high capacity transportation would not be eliminated. Sound Transit currently imposes 0.8%. In addition, the authority in RCW 35.58.273 for transit systems to impose a 1.944% sales tax on rental car contracts for high capacity transporta- tion would remain, but currently no transit system imposes this tax. What are the indirectimpads of the initiative? Many cities and counties use the $15 license fee revenue as matching funds for state and federal grants on transportation projects. Without the license fee revenue, jurisdictions would need to find other sources of matching funds for those grants. Based on an assumption that 70% of the local license fee revenues would be used for grant matching funds, $22.5 million in new sources of grant matching funds would be needed in 2003, and $142 million would be needed for the six-year period between 2003 and 2008. What is the effective date of the initiative? The initiative does not include a specific effective date. If the initiative is approved, the effective date would be 30 days after the election, December 5. Will there be legal challenges to the initiative? Preliminary analysis has raised questions about the ability to repeal revenue sources that are pledged for bond repayment and the ability to repeal local voter-approved revenues by statewide initiative. Cities should consult their attorneys if they have any questions about legal issues that may be raised by the initiative and their potential impact. 22 , I . -. . . !AWC I I ASSOCIAtiON OIF WASHINGtON CfrlES 1076 Franklin St. SE Olympia. WA 98501-1346 Phone: (360) 753-4137 Toll Free: 1-800-562-8981 Fax: (360) 753-0149 Website: www.awcnet.org . . Awe Resolution Opposition to Initiative 776: Limiting Motor Vehicle License Fees to $30 (Adopted at the AWe annual business meeting on June 21,2002.) Background Local governments in Washington are reeling from the effects of a succession of recent anti-tax initiatives. This fall, the voters of Washington State will consider yet another initiative that would further erode local taxing authority and reduce local revenues. Initiative 776 would: . Require vehicle license tab fees to be $30, and 'reduce the annual license fee on small trucks (8,000 or less pounds) to $30. This would result in a revenue loss to the state motor vehicle fund which helps pay for state transportation projects that benefit cities and towns. . Repeal the statute that allows counties (and certain qualifying cities) to impose a $15 local option vehicle license fee. The fee is currently imposed in Douglas, King, Pierce, and Snohomish. A portion of the proceeds is distributed to cities within these counties on a per capita basis, and is required to be used for transportation purposes. . Repeal Sound Transit's authority to impose a voter-approved Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) of up to 0.8%. Sound Transit currently imposes a 0.3% MVET, which was approved by voters residing the Sound Transit regional transit authority (King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties). The MVET makes up approximately 20 per cent of Sound Transit's current budget. I Furthermore, 1-776 is the antithesis of local control. It would allow voters statewide to overrule decision of locally elected officials and local voters. Under 1-776 voters across the entire State of Washington are being asked to repeal $15 vehicle license fees enacted by the commissioners of King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Douglas counties. In the case of the Sound Transit MVET, 1-776 would undo the actions of citizens in Pierce, King, and Snohomish counties that voted to tax themselves in order to support the system. Awe Position AWe opposes Initiative 776. 23 , . . . 24 . . . ORrAN ELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. CITY COUNCil MEMO DATE: October 22, 2002 To: MAYOR WIGGINS AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: SUE ROBERDS, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: STREET VACATION PETITION - STY 02-04 I PORTOF PORT A."NGELES - Portion of Tu..fllwater Street north of Ma..rine Drive Summary: A petition for vacation of right-of-way has been received by ~e Port of Port Angeles. Recommendation: The Department of Community Development recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft resolution setting a public hearing for Council.'s November 19, 2002, regular meeting for consideration of the petition. Background / Analysis: During review of a short plat application recently submitted by the Port of Port Angeles for property located north of Marine Drive between vacated Tumwater Street and Cedar Street, it was discovered that ordit:lances that earlier vacated Tumwater Street did not vacate the entire right-of-way. The intersection of Tumwater and First Street remains as public right-of- way. In order to complete the short plat and proceed with the creation of the desired lot area for what is known as the Westport Marine proj ect, the intersection must be vacated. A petition requesting vacation of the small area was submitted by the Port of Port Angeles on October 16,2002. Per RCW 35.79, Council must set a hearing by resolution for consideration of such an action. The attached resolution accomplishes the required notific~tion for Council. The Planning Commission will meet to discuss the issue on November 13,2002, and will forward a recommendation to Council for Council's November 19th meeting. ' Attachments: Petition Resolution 25 . . . . 26