| VETO MESSAGE ON 2ESHB 1299 |
| June 11, 2015 |
| To the Honorable Speaker and Members, |
| The House of Representatives of the State of Washington |
| Ladies and Gentlemen: |
| I am returning herewith, without my approval as to Sections 102, page 2, lines 29-36, and page 3, lines 1-8; 103(1); 213(3); 920(4); 1005, page 113, lines 26-27 and 1005(2); 1005(4); 1005(5); and 1005(6), Second Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 1299 entitled: |
"AN ACT Relating to transportation funding and appropriations." |
| Section 102, page 2, lines 29-36, and page 3, lines 1-8, Utilities and Transportation Commission, State Agency Workgroup |
| This proviso directs the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) to coordinate a state agency workgroup to identify issues related to consolidating rail employee safety and regulatory functions within the UTC. Funding for this activity would come from the Grade Crossing Protective Account, which is used to install and maintain equipment to make grade crossings safer. Because this is not the appropriate fund source for coordinating a workgroup on the topic identified in the proviso, I have directed the UTC to conduct this activity with other existing resources. For this reason, I have vetoed Section 102, page 2, lines 29-36, and page 3, lines 1-8. |
| Section 103(1), page 3, Office of Financial Management, Study of Fund Exchange |
| This proviso directs the Office of Financial Management to perform a study on the feasibility of establishing a fund exchange where federal funds are exchanged for state funds to reduce the administrative burden on local governments which use federal funds. The funding is likely insufficient to provide a thorough report on the issues. In addition, the Joint Transportation Committee is a more appropriate entity to perform this analysis, not the Office of Financial Management. Therefore, I have vetoed Section 103(1). |
| Section 213(3), pages 18-19, Department of Transportation, Beaver Dams |
| This proviso creates a complicated process for managing beaver dams on private property that pose a threat to Washington state highways, individual personal property, and public safety. The proposed process would require the Washington State Department of Transportation to notify private property owners of impending threats from beaver dam failure, to produce wildlife management plans, and to provide potential remedies that could create liability for the state. In addition, no funding is provided for this effort. For these reasons, I have vetoed Section 213(3). |
| Section 920(4), pages 105-106, Department of Transportation, Public Transportation |
| This proviso prevents the Washington State Department of Transportation from continuing work on regional mobility grant projects previously authorized by the Legislature. The department needs authority to work on these projects to support local efforts to improve transit mobility and reduce congestion on our roadways. The majority of the projects are not yet complete, and expenditures have already been made. Therefore, I have vetoed Section 920(4). |
| Section 1005, page 113, lines 26-27, and Section 1005(2), page 114, Department of Transportation, Highway Improvements Program |
| Due to changes in the timing of expenditures for highway improvement projects and insufficient flexibility in the capital program budgets, this reduced appropriation would result in an estimated shortfall of $3.5 million in expenditure authority in the Highway Improvements program. The Washington State Department of Transportation must have ongoing expenditure authority to keep projects within the total spending plan. Therefore, I have vetoed Section 1005, page 113, lines 26-27, and Section 1005(2). |
| Section 1005(4), 1005(5) and 1005(6), page 115, Department of Transportation, Proceeds from Bond Sales |
| Section 605 provides the flexibility needed to retroactively assign bond proceeds received in the 2015-17 biennium to associated costs that occurred in the 2013-15 biennium. The reduced appropriations in Section 1005(4), Section 1005(5), and Section 1005(6) negate the flexibility provided in Section 605. For this reason, I have vetoed Section 1005(4), Section 1005(5), and Section 1005(6). |
| For these reasons I have vetoed Sections 102, page 2, lines 29-36, and page 3, lines 1-8; 103(1); 213(3); 920(4); 1005, page 113, lines 26-27 and 1005(2); 1005(4); 1005(5); and 1005(6) of Second Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 1299. |
| With the exception of Sections 102, page 2, lines 29-36, and page 3, lines 1-8; 103(1); 213(3); 920(4); 1005, page 113, lines 26-27 and 1005(2); 1005(4); 1005(5); and 1005(6), Second Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 1299 is approved. |
| Respectfully submitted, |
| Jay Inslee |
| Governor |