___________________________________________________________________________________________

The House was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by the Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding). The Clerk called the roll and a quorum was present.

The flags were escorted to the rostrum by a Sergeant at Arms Color Guard, Pages Vanessa Garcia and Alaura Hilts. The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) led the Chamber in the Pledge of Allegiance. Prayer was offered by Pastor Dan Secrist, Faith Assembly of Lacey.

Reading of the Journal of the previous day was dispensed with and it was ordered to stand approved.

Authorizing the office of minority and women's business enterprises to receive gifts, grants, or endowments.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

On motion of Representative Santos, Representatives Edwards, Gombosky and Sommers were excused. On motion of Representative Clements, Representatives Condotta, Cox and Delvin were excused.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of House Bill No. 2226.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of House Bill No. 2226 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 82, Nays - 10, Absent - 0, Excused - 6.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Conway, Cooper, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 82.

Voting nay: Representatives Anderson, Armstrong, Boldt, Chandler, Crouse, Hinkle, Mielke, Newhouse, Pflug and Schindler - 10.

Excused: Representatives Condotta, Cox, Delvin, Edwards, Gombosky and Sommers - 6.

HOUSE BILL NO. 2226, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of House Bill No. 2237.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of House Bill No. 2237 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 92, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 6.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 92.

Excused: Representatives Condotta, Cox, Delvin, Edwards, Gombosky and Sommers - 6.

HOUSE BILL NO. 2237, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5245, By Senators Horn, Haugen, Mulliken, Finkbeiner, Oke, Swecker, Esser, Prentice, Benton and Kohl-Welles

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Transportation was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5245, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5245, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 89, Nays - 3, Absent - 0, Excused - 6.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Cody, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 89.

Excused: Representatives Condotta, Cox, Delvin, Edwards, Gombosky and Sommers - 6.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5245, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5256, By Senators Roach, Doumit, Hale, Kastama, Mulliken, T. Sheldon, Haugen, Hewitt, Stevens, Zarelli, Parlette, Horn, Rossi and Johnson

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

Representative Armstrong: "Does Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5256 create or add new requirements to the administrative procedures act for significant legislative rules?

Representative Haigh: "No, Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5256 simply affirms the 1995 regulatory reform act in clarifying that "members of the public affected by administrative rules must have the opportunity for a meaningful role in their development." The Supreme Court got it right in its Hillis decision: "before adopting a rule" means meaningfully before. Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5256 affirms the 1995 regulatory reform act in proving that the public be provided that opportunity for a meaningful role in their development before a rule is adopted. In 2001, the Shorelines Hearing Board applied the 1995 regulatory reform act correctly to invalidate regulations when the agency had not made the cost benefit analysis available to the public until after the public comment period had closed. More recent Superior Court decisions have raised questions about this requirement of the 1995 regulatory reform act, and Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5256 resolves those questions."

With the consent of the House, the House deferred action on ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5256 and the bill held its place on Third Reading.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5299, By Senate Committee on Technology & Communications (originally sponsored by Senators Stevens, Reardon, Esser, Finkbeiner, Johnson and T. Sheldon)

Concerning promotional service offerings. (REVISED FOR ENGROSSED: Concerning tariff and price list notices.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5299.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5299 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 92, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 6.

Excused: Representatives Condotta, Cox, Delvin, Edwards, Gombosky and Sommers - 6.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5299, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5310, By Senate Committee on Financial Services, Insurance & Housing (originally sponsored by Senators Morton, Hargrove and Haugen)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Financial Institutions & Insurance was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 81^st Day, April 3, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5310, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5310, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 92, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 6.

Excused: Representatives Condotta, Cox, Delvin, Edwards, Gombosky and Sommers - 6.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5310, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5335, By Senate Committee on Highways & Transportation (originally sponsored by Senators Zarelli, Haugen, Prentice, Mulliken, Benton, Oke and Carlson)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Transportation was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5335, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5335, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 83, Nays - 9, Absent - 0, Excused - 6.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Clements, Clibborn, Conway, Crouse, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Skinner, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 83.

Voting nay: Representatives Chase, Cody, Cooper, Darneille, Flannigan, Hunt, Lovick, Moeller and Simpson - 9.

Excused: Representatives Condotta, Cox, Delvin, Edwards, Gombosky and Sommers - 6.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5335, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5396, By Senate Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Senators McCaslin, Deccio, Thibaudeau, Eide and Brandland)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5396.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5396 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 93.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5396, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5450, By Senators Horn, Jacobsen, Finkbeiner, Eide, Swecker, Reardon, Regala, Fairley, Kline, Fraser, Haugen, Keiser and Kohl-Welles

Providing incentives to reduce air pollution through the use of neighborhood electric vehicles.

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Transportation was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5450, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5450, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 93.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5450, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5520, By Senate Committee on Highways & Transportation (originally sponsored by Senators Haugen, Horn and Oke; by request of Department of Transportation)

Authorizing the ferry system to use alternative public works contracting procedures.

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Transportation was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5520, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5520, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 93.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5520, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5579, By Senate Committee on Health & Long-Term Care (originally sponsored by Senators Parlette, Jacobsen, Winsley, Brandland, Rasmussen, Esser, Reardon, Honeyford, T. Sheldon, Hargrove, Haugen, Doumit, Zarelli, Stevens, Deccio, Keiser, Mulliken and Shin)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Health Care was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. A new section is added to chapter 18.20 RCW to read as follows:

(1) When a boarding home contracts with the department to provide adult residential care services, enhanced adult residential care services, or assisted living services under chapter 74.39A RCW, the boarding home must hold a medicaid eligible resident's room or unit when short-term care is needed in a nursing home or hospital, the resident is likely to return to the boarding home, and payment is made under subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The medicaid resident's bed or unit shall be held for up to twenty days. The per day bed or unit hold compensation amount shall be seventy percent of the daily rate paid for the first seven days the bed or unit is held for the resident who needs short-term nursing home care or hospitalization. The rate for the eighth through the twentieth day a bed is held shall be established in rule, but shall be no lower than ten dollars per day the bed or unit is held.

(3) The boarding home may seek third-party payment to hold a bed or unit for twenty-one days or longer. The third-party payment shall not exceed eighty-five percent of the average daily rate paid to the facility. If third-party payment is not available, the medicaid resident may return to the first available and appropriate bed or unit, if the resident continues to meet the admission criteria under this chapter.

(4) The department shall monitor the use and impact of the policy established under this section and shall report its findings to the appropriate committees of the senate and house of representatives by December 31, 2005.

Representatives Cody and Bailey spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5579, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5579, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 93.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5579, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

There being no objection, the House advanced to the seventh order of business and immediately resumed consideration of ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5256.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5256, By Senators Roach, Doumit, Hale, Kastama, Mulliken, T. Sheldon, Haugen, Hewitt, Stevens, Zarelli, Parlette, Horn, Rossi and Johnson

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5256.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5256 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 93.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5256, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5190, By Senate Committee on Highways & Transportation (originally sponsored by Senators Jacobsen, Horn, Haugen and Franklin)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Transportation was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 75^th Day, March 28, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5190, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5190, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 96, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 2.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 96.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5190, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Commerce & Labor was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5065, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5065, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 96, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 2.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 96.

SENATE BILL NO. 5065, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5601, By Senate Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Senators McCaslin and Deccio)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5601.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5601 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 84, Nays - 12, Absent - 0, Excused - 2.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Carrell, Chandler, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Crouse, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 84.

Voting nay: Representatives Campbell, Chase, Conway, Cooper, Darneille, Flannigan, McIntire, Moeller, Morrell, Santos, Simpson and Veloria - 12.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5601, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5051, By Senate Committee on Commerce & Trade (originally sponsored by Senator Jacobsen)

Removing the sale of strong beer from the exclusive jurisdiction of the liquor control board.

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Commerce & Labor was before the House for purpose of amendment. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

Representative Kagi moved adoption of amendment (396) to the committee amendment.

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. Sections 8 and 9 of this act apply to retailers who hold a restricted grocery store license or restricted beer and/or wine specialty shop license on or after the effective date of this section."

Renumber the remaining sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

Representative Kagi spoke in favor of adoption of the amendment to the committee amendment.

The amendment to the committee amendment was adopted. The committee amendment as amended was adopted.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5051, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5051, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 94, Nays - 2, Absent - 0, Excused - 2.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 94.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5051, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5073, By Senators Fraser, Honeyford, Hale and Kohl-Welles

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5073, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5073, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 62, Nays - 34, Absent - 0, Excused - 2.

Voting yea: Representatives Berkey, Cairnes, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Conway, Cooper, Darneille, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, O'Brien, Pettigrew, Priest, Quall, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schual-Berke, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Mr. Speaker - 62.

Voting nay: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Campbell, Condotta, Crouse, DeBolt, Delvin, Ericksen, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Kristiansen, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Nixon, Orcutt, Pearson, Pflug, Roach, Schindler, Schoesler, Sehlin, Sump, Talcott and Woods - 34.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5073, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5379, By Senators Stevens, Hargrove, Carlson, Regala, Parlette, McAuliffe and Winsley

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Children & Family Services was before the House for purpose of amendment. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

(1) All hearings ((may)) shall be public, and conducted at any time or place within the limits of the county, ((and such cases may not be heard in conjunction with other business of any other division of the superior court. The public shall be excluded, and only such persons may be admitted who are found by the judge to have a direct interest in the case or in the work of the court. Unless the court states on the record the reasons to disallow attendance, the court shall allow a child's relatives and, if a child resides in foster care, the child's foster parent, to attend all hearings and proceedings pertaining to the child for the sole purpose of providing oral and written information about the child and the child's welfare to the court)) except if the judge finds that excluding the public is in the best interests of the child.

(2) Either parent, or the child's attorney or guardian ad litem, may move to close a hearing at any time. If the judge finds that it is in the best interests of the child the court shall exclude the public.

(3) If the public is excluded from the hearing, the following people may attend the closed hearing unless the judge finds it is not in the best interests of the child:

(4) Stenographic notes or any device which accurately records the proceedings may be required as provided in other civil cases pursuant to RCW 2.32.200.

(5) Any video recording of the proceedings may be released pursuant to RCW 13.50.100, however, the video recording may not be televised, broadcast, or further disseminated to the public."

Representative Nixon requested a scope and object ruling on amendment (387) to the committee amendment Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5379.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding): "In ruling on the scope and object challenge to amendment (387), the Speaker first notes that the amendment is drawn to the amendment proposed by the Children and Family Services Committee. The committee amendment has not been adopted by the body. Therefore, for purposes of the ruling, the Speaker looks to the bill as it passed the Senate and was introduced in the House.

Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5379 is entitled an act relating to "dependency petition hearings." The bill requires that dependency and termination hearings, which currently are open only to persons with a direct interest in the case, be open to the public, with certain exceptions.

Amendment (387) also requires the proceedings to be open to the public, but sets forth different exceptions, and expands the persons eligible to attend a proceeding that has been closed to the general public. The amendment additionally regulates access and dissemination of video recordings of the proceedings.

The bill and the amendment both revise the standards for public access to dependency and termination hearings. The different standards they propose present a policy choice for the body; not a change in the scope and object of the bill.

Representatives Kagi and Boldt spoke in favor of the amendment to the committee amendment.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5379, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5379, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5379, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5592, By Senate Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Senators Mulliken, Eide, Johnson, Haugen, Sheahan and McCaslin)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Judiciary was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

There being no objection, the House deferred action on SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5592, and the bill held its place on Third Reading.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5616, By Senate Committee on Financial Services, Insurance & Housing (originally sponsored by Senators Benton, Prentice, Reardon, Zarelli, Winsley, Keiser and Finkbeiner)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5616.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5616 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5616, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

There being no objection, the House advanced to the sixth order of business and immediately resumed consideration of SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5592, as amended by the House.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5592, By Senate Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Senators Mulliken, Eide, Johnson, Haugen, Sheahan and McCaslin)

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5592, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5592, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5592, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 8402, By Senate Committee on Commerce & Trade (originally sponsored by Senators Shin, Swecker, T. Sheldon, Reardon, Fairley, West, Benton, Kohl-Welles, Rasmussen and Winsley)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Trade & Economic Development was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

On page 2, line 6, after "(2)" insert "Members of the house of representatives and the senate;"

On page 2, line 23, after "(14)" strike all material through "representatives;" on line 26

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the concurrent resolution, as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

Representatives Veloria and Skinner spoke in favor of adoption of the concurrent resolution.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the adoption of Substitute Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8402, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the adoption of Substitute Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8402, as amended by the House, and the resolution was adopted by the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 8402, as amended by the House, having received the necessary two-thirds majority, was adopted.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5223, By Senate Committee on Children & Family Services & Corrections (originally sponsored by Senators Keiser, Parlette, Hargrove, Deccio and Kline)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5223.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5223 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 92, Nays - 1, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 92.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5223, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5236, By Senate Committee on Health & Long-Term Care (originally sponsored by Senators Parlette, Thibaudeau, Winsley, Keiser, Carlson, Honeyford, McAuliffe, Mulliken, Kohl-Welles, Hale, Roach, Esser, Brandland and Eide)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5236.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5236 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5236, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5457, By Senate Committee on Highways & Transportation (originally sponsored by Senators Horn, Haugen, Oke, Johnson, Hargrove, B. Sheldon, Roach, Zarelli, Sheahan, Jacobsen, Stevens, Schmidt, Rossi, Eide, Kline, T. Sheldon, West, Shin and Rasmussen)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5457, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5457, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5457, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5600, By Senate Committee on Highways & Transportation (originally sponsored by Senators Schmidt, Kohl-Welles, Esser, Finkbeiner, Rossi, Horn and Winsley)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5600.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5600 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 91, Nays - 2, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 91.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5600, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5708, By Senate Committee on Children & Family Services & Corrections (originally sponsored by Senators Franklin, Esser, Haugen, Thibaudeau, Kline and Kohl-Welles)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Juvenile Justice & Family Law was before the House for purpose of amendment. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

Representative Carrell moved adoption of amendment (398) to the committee amendment.

"New section. Sec. 1. The legislature affirms that parents have a paramount right to raise their minor children. The legislature also recognizes that this paramount right must be considered in conjunction with a minor child's interest in maintaining the strong emotional bonds with others that the child has developed and relies upon. Therefore, the legislature intends to establish internally consistent and rigorous standards that must be met for a nonparent to obtain visitation with a minor child.

New section. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 26.10 rcw to read as follows:

(1) "applicant" means a nonparent who initiates a proceeding under this statute.

(2) "contact" includes all court-ordered arrangements by which a nonparent is authorized to interact with a child other than custody, conservatorship, guardianship, or joint or shared custody.

(3) "harm" means that denial of contact results in substantial loss and detriment to the child's physical, psychological, or emotional well-being. The likelihood of harm must be beyond the normal short- term distress a child suffers due to a change in circumstances.

(4) "nonparent" includes any person not legally recognized as a parent whether or not related by blood or marriage.

(5) "parent-like relationship" means a very significant relationship between a nonparent and a child in which the nonparent undertook responsibilities and tasks commonly performed by parents and commonly recognized as actions by someone in a parent-like relationship. Excluded from this category are baby-sitters or other caregivers who provided care for compensation or with the expectation of compensation, either directly or indirectly, in whole or in part. Compensation does not include incidental funds that the parent provides to the nonparent to be used for the benefit of the child.

(6) "substantially interfered" means to have unreasonably and greatly diminished the amount and quality of contact a nonparent has had with the child. A reasonable reduction in the frequency or length of contact previously enjoyed with the child is not a substantial interference.

New section. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 26.10 rcw to read as follows:

(1) a nonparent who is related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption may initiate a court proceeding for contact with a child by filing a verified application to obtain court-ordered contact under the following circumstances:

(A) (i) the application is filed during a pending dissolution, legal separation, or modification of a parenting plan;

(Ii) a parent or custodian of the child consented to or allowed the formation and establishment of the relationship or the relationship was formed as a result of the unavailability or inability of any legal parent to perform caretaking functions; and

(Iii) the relationship between the applicant and the child is beneficial to the child and to the applicant; or

(B)(i) the application is filed within twelve months from the date a final order is entered in a dissolution, legal separation, or modification of a parenting plan or within twelve months of the death of one of the child's parents;

(Iii) the child's parent or custodian has substantially interfered with the applicant's relationship with the child;

(Iv) the applicant has unsuccessfully attempted to resolve any disagreement with the parent or custodian before going to court; and

(Iv) the relationship between the applicant and the child is beneficial to the child and to the applicant.

(2) notwithstanding subsections 1 (a) and (b) of this section, a nonparent who is related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption may initiate a court proceeding for contact with a child by filing a verified application to obtain court-ordered contact under the following circumstances:

(I) the application is filed within twelve months following the effective date of this act;

(Iii) the relationship between the applicant and the child is beneficial to the child and to the applicant.

(3) a nonparent who is not related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption may initiate a court proceeding for contact with a child by filing a verified application to obtain court-ordered contact under the following circumstances:

(A) the application is filed during a pending dissolution, legal separation, or modification of a parenting plan;

(B) the applicant is an individual with a parent-like relationship with the child;

(D) a parent or custodian of the child consented to or allowed the formation and establishment of the relationship or the relationship was formed as a result of the unavailability or inability of any legal parent to perform caretaking functions; and

(E) the relationship between the applicant and the child is beneficial to the child and to the applicant.

(4) notwithstanding subsection 3 of this section, a nonparent who is not related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption may initiate a court proceeding for contact with a child by filing a verified application to obtain court-ordered contact under the following circumstances:

(A) the application is filed within twelve months following the effective date of this act;

(B) the applicant is an individual with a parent-like relationship with the child;

(E) the relationship between the applicant and the child is beneficial to the child and to the applicant.

(5)(a)the court shall treat standing as a threshold issue. The applicant bears the burden of establishing standing. If the applicant does not satisfy this burden, the proceeding shall be dismissed.

(B) upon a finding that the applicant has standing, the applicant shall come forward with evidence to show that the child would very likely suffer harm if contact were not awarded. If the applicant presents evidence that could allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the child would very likely suffer harm, the burden shifts to the parent or custodian to present evidence why the decision to refuse contact is reasonable and in the best interests of the child.

(6) the court shall order contact if it finds that the applicant has satisfied the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that:

(B) the parent's or custodian's denial of contact was unreasonable and not in the child's best interests.

(7) if the court dismisses the proceeding for lack of standing, the court shall award reasonable and necessary costs and fees to the prevailing party unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. In all other cases, the court may award such costs and fees as it deems appropriate.

(8) if the parent or custodian fails to comply with a court order awarding contact between the nonparent and the child, the nonparent may file a motion to initiate a contempt action under rcw 26.09.160.

(((1))) a person other than a parent may petition the court for visitation with a child under section 3 of this act ((at any time or may intervene in a pending dissolution, legal separation, or modification of parenting plan proceeding)). ((a person other than a parent may not petition for visitation under this section unless the child's parent or parents have commenced an action under this chapter.

(2) a petition for visitation with a child by a person other than a parent must be filed in the county in which the child resides.

(3) a petition for visitation or a motion to intervene pursuant to this section shall be dismissed unless the petitioner or intervenor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a significant relationship exists with the child with whom visitation is sought. If the petition or motion is dismissed for failure to establish the existence of a significant relationship, the petitioner or intervenor shall be ordered to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the parent, parents, other custodian, or representative of the child who responds to this petition or motion.

(4) the court may order visitation between the petitioner or intervenor and the child between whom a significant relationship exists upon a finding supported by the evidence that the visitation is in the child's best interests.

(5)(a) visitation with a grandparent shall be presumed to be in the child's best interests when a significant relationship has been shown to exist. This presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of evidence showing that visitation would endanger the child's physical, mental, or emotional health.

(B) if the court finds that reasonable visitation by a grandparent would be in the child's best interest except for hostilities that exist between the grandparent and one or both of the parents or person with whom the child lives, the court may set the matter for mediation under rcw 26.09.015.

(6) the court may consider the following factors when making a determination of the child's best interests:

(B) the relationship between each of the child's parents or the person with whom the child is residing and the petitioner;

(D) the effect that granting visitation will have on the relationship between the child and the child's parents or the person with whom the child is residing;

(G) any criminal history or history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or neglect by the petitioner; and

(7) the restrictions of rcw 26.09.191 that apply to parents shall be applied to a petitioner or intervenor who is not a parent. The nature and extent of visitation, subject to these restrictions, is in the discretion of the court.

(8) the court may order an investigation and report concerning the proposed visitation or may appoint a guardian ad litem as provided in rcw 26.09.220.

(9) visitation granted pursuant to this section shall be incorporated into the parenting plan for the child.

(10) the court may modify or terminate visitation rights granted pursuant to this section in any subsequent modification action upon a showing that the visitation is no longer in the best interest of the child.))

(1) a parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable visitation rights except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.

(2)(a) visitation with the child shall be limited if it is found that the parent seeking visitation has engaged in any of the following conduct: (I) willful abandonment that continues for an extended period of time or substantial refusal to perform parenting functions; (ii) physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; (iii) a history of acts of domestic violence as defined in rcw 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm; or (iv) the parent has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense under:

(A) rcw 9a.44.076 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;

(B) rcw 9a.44.079 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;

(C) rcw 9a.44.086 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;

(G) rcw 9a.64.020 (1) or (2) if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;

(I) any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (a)(iv)(a) through (h) of this subsection;

(J) any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (a)(iv)(a) through (h) of this subsection.

This subsection (2)(a) shall not apply when (c) or (d) of this subsection applies.

(B) the parent's visitation with the child shall be limited if it is found that the parent resides with a person who has engaged in any of the following conduct: (I) physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; (ii) a history of acts of domestic violence as defined in rcw 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault that causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm; or (iii) the person has been convicted as an adult or as a juvenile has been adjudicated of a sex offense under:

(A) rcw 9a.44.076 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;

(B) rcw 9a.44.079 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;

(C) rcw 9a.44.086 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;

(G) rcw 9a.64.020 (1) or (2) if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;

(I) any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (b)(iii)(a) through (h) of this subsection;

(J) any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (b)(iii)(a) through (h) of this subsection.

This subsection (2)(b) shall not apply when (c) or (e) of this subsection applies.

(C) if a parent has been found to be a sexual predator under chapter 71.09 rcw or under an analogous statute of any other jurisdiction, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with a child that would otherwise be allowed under this chapter. If a parent resides with an adult or a juvenile who has been found to be a sexual predator under chapter 71.09 rcw or under an analogous statute of any other jurisdiction, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with the parent's child except contact that occurs outside that person's presence.

(D) there is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense listed in (d)(i) through (ix) of this subsection poses a present danger to a child. Unless the parent rebuts this presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with a child that would otherwise be allowed under this chapter:

(I) rcw 9a.64.020 (1) or (2), provided that the person convicted was at least five years older than the other person;

(Iii) rcw 9a.44.076, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;

(Iv) rcw 9a.44.079, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;

(Vi) rcw 9a.44.086, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;

(Viii) any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (d)(i) through (vii) of this subsection;

(Ix) any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (d)(i) through (vii) of this subsection.

(E) there is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who resides with a person who, as an adult, has been convicted, or as a juvenile has been adjudicated, of the sex offenses listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection places a child at risk of abuse or harm when that parent exercises visitation in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person. Unless the parent rebuts the presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with the parent's child except for contact that occurs outside of the convicted or adjudicated person's presence:

(I) rcw 9a.64.020 (1) or (2), provided that the person convicted was at least five years older than the other person;

(Iii) rcw 9a.44.076, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;

(Iv) rcw 9a.44.079, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;

(Vi) rcw 9a.44.086, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;

(Viii) any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (e)(i) through (vii) of this subsection;

(Ix) any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (e)(i) through (vii) of this subsection.

(F) the presumption established in (d) of this subsection may be rebutted only after a written finding that:

(I) if the child was not the victim of the sex offense committed by the parent requesting visitation, (a) contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, and (b) the offending parent has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes such contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child; or

(Ii) if the child was the victim of the sex offense committed by the parent requesting visitation, (a) contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, (b) if the child is in or has been in therapy for victims of sexual abuse, the child's counselor believes such contact between the child and the offending parent is in the child's best interest, and (c) the offending parent has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes such contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child.

(G) the presumption established in (e) of this subsection may be rebutted only after a written finding that:

(I) if the child was not the victim of the sex offense committed by the person who is residing with the parent requesting visitation, (a) contact between the child and the parent residing with the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and that parent is able to protect the child in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person, and (b) the convicted or adjudicated person has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes such contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child; or

(Ii) if the child was the victim of the sex offense committed by the person who is residing with the parent requesting visitation, (a) contact between the child and the parent in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, (b) if the child is in or has been in therapy for victims of sexual abuse, the child's counselor believes such contact between the child and the parent residing with the convicted or adjudicated person in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is in the child's best interest, and (c) the convicted or adjudicated person has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes contact between the parent and child in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child.

(H) if the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (f) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent who has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense listed in (d)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to have visitation with the child supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such visitation. The court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child.

(I) if the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (g) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent residing with a person who has been adjudicated as a juvenile of a sex offense listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to have visitation with the child in the presence of the person adjudicated as a juvenile, supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such visitation. The court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child.

(J) if the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (g) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent residing with a person who, as an adult, has been convicted of a sex offense listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to have visitation with the child in the presence of the convicted person supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such visitation. The court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child.

(K) a court shall not order unsupervised contact between the offending parent and a child of the offending parent who was sexually abused by that parent. A court may order unsupervised contact between the offending parent and a child who was not sexually abused by the parent after the presumption under (d) of this subsection has been rebutted and supervised visitation has occurred for at least two years with no further arrests or convictions of sex offenses involving children under chapter 9a.44 rcw, rcw 9a.64.020, or chapter 9.68a rcw and (i) the sex offense of the offending parent was not committed against a child of the offending parent, and (ii) the court finds that unsupervised contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, after consideration of the testimony of a state-certified therapist, mental health counselor, or social worker with expertise in treating child sexual abuse victims who has supervised at least one period of visitation between the parent and the child, and after consideration of evidence of the offending parent's compliance with community supervision requirements, if any. If the offending parent was not ordered by a court to participate in treatment for sex offenders, then the parent shall obtain a psychosexual evaluation conducted by a state-certified sex offender treatment provider indicating that the offender has the lowest likelihood of risk to reoffend before the court grants unsupervised contact between the parent and a child.

(L) a court may order unsupervised contact between the parent and a child which may occur in the presence of a juvenile adjudicated of a sex offense listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection who resides with the parent after the presumption under (e) of this subsection has been rebutted and supervised visitation has occurred for at least two years during which time the adjudicated juvenile has had no further arrests, adjudications, or convictions of sex offenses involving children under chapter 9a.44 rcw, rcw 9a.64.020, or chapter 9.68a rcw, and (i) the court finds that unsupervised contact between the child and the parent that may occur in the presence of the adjudicated juvenile is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, after consideration of the testimony of a state-certified therapist, mental health counselor, or social worker with expertise in treatment of child sexual abuse victims who has supervised at least one period of visitation between the parent and the child in the presence of the adjudicated juvenile, and after consideration of evidence of the adjudicated juvenile's compliance with community supervision or parole requirements, if any. If the adjudicated juvenile was not ordered by a court to participate in treatment for sex offenders, then the adjudicated juvenile shall obtain a psychosexual evaluation conducted by a state-certified sex offender treatment provider indicating that the adjudicated juvenile has the lowest likelihood of risk to reoffend before the court grants unsupervised contact between the parent and a child which may occur in the presence of the adjudicated juvenile who is residing with the parent.

(M)(i) the limitations imposed by the court under (a) or (b) of this subsection shall be reasonably calculated to protect the child from the physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm that could result if the child has contact with the parent requesting visitation. If the court expressly finds based on the evidence that limitations on visitation with the child will not adequately protect the child from the harm or abuse that could result if the child has contact with the parent requesting visitation, the court shall restrain the person seeking visitation from all contact with the child.

(Ii) the court shall not enter an order under (a) of this subsection allowing a parent to have contact with a child if the parent has been found by clear and convincing evidence in a civil action or by a preponderance of the evidence in a dependency action to have sexually abused the child, except upon recommendation by an evaluator or therapist for the child that the child is ready for contact with the parent and will not be harmed by the contact. The court shall not enter an order allowing a parent to have contact with the child in the offender's presence if the parent resides with a person who has been found by clear and convincing evidence in a civil action or by a preponderance of the evidence in a dependency action to have sexually abused a child, unless the court finds that the parent accepts that the person engaged in the harmful conduct and the parent is willing to and capable of protecting the child from harm from the person.

(Iii) if the court limits visitation under (a) or (b) of this subsection to require supervised contact between the child and the parent, the court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between a child and a parent who has engaged in physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of the child unless the court finds based upon the evidence that the supervisor accepts that the harmful conduct occurred and is willing to and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing to or capable of protecting the child.

(N) if the court expressly finds based on the evidence that contact between the parent and the child will not cause physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm to the child and that the probability that the parent's or other person's harmful or abusive conduct will recur is so remote that it would not be in the child's best interests to apply the limitations of (a), (b), and (m)(i) and (iii) of this subsection, or if the court expressly finds that the parent's conduct did not have an impact on the child, then the court need not apply the limitations of (a), (b), and (m)(i) and (iii) of this subsection. The weight given to the existence of a protection order issued under chapter 26.50 rcw as to domestic violence is within the discretion of the court. This subsection shall not apply when (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m)(ii) of this subsection apply.

(3) ((any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any time including, but not limited to, custody proceedings. The court may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances.)) a person other than a parent may petition the court for visitation with a child under section 3 of this act.

(4) the court may modify an order granting or denying visitation rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child. Modification of a parent's visitation rights shall be subject to the requirements of subsection (2) of this section.

(5) for the purposes of this section, a parent's child means that parent's natural child, adopted child, or stepchild.

(1) the performance of parental functions and the duty to provide child support are distinct responsibilities in the care of a child. If a party fails to comply with a provision of a decree or temporary order of injunction, the obligation of the other party to make payments for support or maintenance or to permit contact with children is not suspended. An attempt by a parent, in either the negotiation or the performance of a parenting plan, to condition one aspect of the parenting plan upon another, to condition payment of child support upon an aspect of the parenting plan, to refuse to pay ordered child support, to refuse to perform the duties provided in the parenting plan, or to hinder the performance by the other parent of duties provided in the parenting plan, shall be deemed bad faith and shall be punished by the court by holding the party in contempt of court and by awarding to the aggrieved party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incidental in bringing a motion for contempt of court.

(2)(a) a motion may be filed to initiate a contempt action to coerce a parent to comply with an order establishing residential provisions for a child or awarding contact with a child to a nonparent under section 3 of this act. If the court finds there is reasonable cause to believe the parent has not complied with the order, the court may issue an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.

(B) if, based on all the facts and circumstances, the court finds after hearing that the parent, in bad faith, has not complied with the order establishing residential provisions for the child or awarding contact with a nonparent, the court shall find the parent in contempt of court. Upon a finding of contempt, the court shall order:

(I) the noncomplying parent to provide the moving party additional time with the child. The additional time shall be equal to the time missed with the child, due to the parent's noncompliance;

(Ii) the parent to pay, to the moving party, all court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred as a result of the noncompliance, and any reasonable expenses incurred in locating or returning a child; and

(Iii) the parent to pay, to the moving party, a civil penalty, not less than the sum of one hundred dollars.

The court may also order the parent to be imprisoned in the county jail, if the parent is presently able to comply with the provisions of the court-ordered parenting plan or court order awarding contact with a nonparent and is presently unwilling to comply. The parent may be imprisoned until he or she agrees to comply with the order, but in no event for more than one hundred eighty days.

(3) on a second failure within three years to comply with a residential provision of a court-ordered parenting plan or court order awarding contact with a nonparent, a motion may be filed to initiate contempt of court proceedings according to the procedure set forth in subsection (2)(a) and (b) of this section. On a finding of contempt under this subsection, the court shall order:

(A) the noncomplying parent to provide the other parent or party additional time with the child. The additional time shall be twice the amount of the time missed with the child, due to the parent's noncompliance;

(B) the noncomplying parent to pay, to the other parent or party, all court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred as a result of the noncompliance, and any reasonable expenses incurred in locating or returning a child; and

The court may also order the parent to be imprisoned in the county jail, if the parent is presently able to comply with the provisions of the court-ordered parenting plan or court order awarding contact with a nonparent and is presently unwilling to comply. The parent may be imprisoned until he or she agrees to comply with the order but in no event for more than one hundred eighty days.

(4) for purposes of subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section, the parent shall be deemed to have the present ability to comply with the order establishing residential provisions or awarding contact with a nonparent unless he or she establishes otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence. The parent shall establish a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the court-ordered contact with a nonparent or the residential provision of a court-ordered parenting plan by a preponderance of the evidence.

(5) any monetary award ordered under subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section may be enforced, by the party to whom it is awarded, in the same manner as a civil judgment.

(6) subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section authorize the exercise of the court's power to impose remedial sanctions for contempt of court and is in addition to any other contempt power the court may possess.

(7) upon motion for contempt of court under subsections (1) through (3) of this section, if the court finds the motion was brought without reasonable basis, the court shall order the moving party to pay to the nonmoving party, all costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and a civil penalty of not less than one hundred dollars.

(1) except as otherwise provided in subsections (4), (5), (6), (8), and (10) of this section, the court shall not modify a prior custody decree or a parenting plan unless it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or plan or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree or plan, that a substantial change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the nonmoving party and that the modification is in the best interest of the child and is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.

(2) in applying these standards, the court shall retain the residential schedule established by the decree or parenting plan unless:

(B) the child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with the consent of the other parent in substantial deviation from the parenting plan;

(C) the child's present environment is detrimental to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child; or

(D) the court has found the nonmoving parent in contempt of court at least twice within three years because the parent failed to comply with a court order awarding contact with a nonparent or the parent failed to comply with the residential time provisions in the court-ordered parenting plan, or the parent has been convicted of custodial interference in the first or second degree under rcw 9a.40.060 or 9a.40.070.

(3) a conviction of custodial interference in the first or second degree under rcw 9a.40.060 or 9a.40.070 shall constitute a substantial change of circumstances for the purposes of this section.

(4) the court may reduce or restrict contact between the child and the parent with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time if it finds that the reduction or restriction would serve and protect the best interests of the child using the criteria in rcw 26.09.191.

(5) the court may order adjustments to the residential aspects of a parenting plan upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances of either parent or of the child, and without consideration of the factors set forth in subsection (2) of this section, if the proposed modification is only a minor modification in the residential schedule that does not change the residence the child is scheduled to reside in the majority of the time and:

(B) is based on a change of residence of the parent with whom the child does not reside the majority of the time or an involuntary change in work schedule by a parent which makes the residential schedule in the parenting plan impractical to follow; or

(C) does not result in a schedule that exceeds ninety overnights per year in total, if the court finds that, at the time the petition for modification is filed, the decree of dissolution or parenting plan does not provide reasonable time with the parent with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time, and further, the court finds that it is in the best interests of the child to increase residential time with the parent in excess of the residential time period in (a) of this subsection. However, any motion under this subsection (5)(c) is subject to the factors established in subsection (2) of this section if the party bringing the petition has previously been granted a modification under this same subsection within twenty-four months of the current motion. Relief granted under this section shall not be the sole basis for adjusting or modifying child support.

(6) the court may order adjustments to the residential aspects of a parenting plan pursuant to a proceeding to permit or restrain a relocation of the child. The person objecting to the relocation of the child or the relocating person's proposed revised residential schedule may file a petition to modify the parenting plan, including a change of the residence in which the child resides the majority of the time, without a showing of adequate cause other than the proposed relocation itself. A hearing to determine adequate cause for modification shall not be required so long as the request for relocation of the child is being pursued. In making a determination of a modification pursuant to relocation of the child, the court shall first determine whether to permit or restrain the relocation of the child using the procedures and standards provided in rcw 26.09.405 through 26.09.560. Following that determination, the court shall determine what modification pursuant to relocation should be made, if any, to the parenting plan or custody order or visitation order.

(7) a parent with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time and whose residential time with the child is subject to limitations pursuant to rcw 26.09.191 (2) or (3) may not seek expansion of residential time under subsection (5)(c) of this section unless that parent demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances specifically related to the basis for the limitation.

(8) if a parent with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time voluntarily fails to exercise residential time for an extended period, that is, one year or longer, the court upon proper motion may make adjustments to the parenting plan in keeping with the best interests of the minor child.

(9) a parent with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time who is required by the existing parenting plan to complete evaluations, treatment, parenting, or other classes may not seek expansion of residential time under subsection (5)(c) of this section unless that parent has fully complied with such requirements.

(10) the court may order adjustments to any of the nonresidential aspects of a parenting plan upon a showing of a substantial change of circumstances of either parent or of a child, and the adjustment is in the best interest of the child. Adjustments ordered under this section may be made without consideration of the factors set forth in subsection (2) of this section.

(11) if the court finds that a motion to modify a prior decree or parenting plan has been brought in bad faith, the court shall assess the attorney's fees and court costs of the nonmoving parent against the moving party.

New section. Sec. 8. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately."

Representative Carrell spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment to the committee amendment.

Representative Dickerson spoke against the adoption of the amendment to the committee amendment.

The amendment to the committee amendment was not adopted. The committee amendment was adopted.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5708, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5708, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 92, Nays - 1, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 92.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5708, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5716, By Senate Committee on Financial Services, Insurance & Housing (originally sponsored by Senators Prentice, Winsley, Benton, Kline, McCaslin and Rasmussen)

Prohibiting manufacture or sale of fraudulent drivers' licenses and identicards.

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Financial Institutions & Insurance was before the House for purpose of amendment. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 81^st Day, April 3, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5716, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5716, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 86, Nays - 7, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 86.

Voting nay: Representatives Carrell, Chandler, Condotta, Hinkle, Newhouse, Sump and Talcott - 7.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5716, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SENATE BILL NO. 5726, By Senators Morton, Rasmussen, Brandland, Parlette, Swecker and Jacobsen

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5726.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5726 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SENATE BILL NO. 5726, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5766, By Senate Committee on Government Operations & Elections (originally sponsored by Senators Roach, Reardon, Kastama, Stevens, McCaslin, Esser, McAuliffe, Rasmussen and Hale)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

Representatives Haigh, Armstrong and Anderson spoke in favor of passage of the bill.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5766.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5766 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5766, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5779, By Senate Committee on Children & Family Services & Corrections (originally sponsored by Senators Stevens, Hargrove, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Winsley and Oke)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Children & Family Services was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5779, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5779, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5779, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SENATE BILL NO. 5898, By Senators Oke, Doumit, Esser, Jacobsen, Swecker, Fraser and Shin

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5898.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5898 and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SENATE BILL NO. 5898, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 8003, By Senators Fraser, Rossi, Kohl-Welles, Fairley, Jacobsen, Benton, Eide, Esser, Franklin, Hale, Haugen, Johnson, Kline, McAuliffe, Oke, Parlette, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Schmidt, B. Sheldon, Spanel, Stevens, Thibaudeau, Winsley and Zarelli

Requesting Congress to restore the sales tax deduction for federal income taxes.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the joint memorial was placed on final passage.

Representatives Gombosky, Nixon and Ahern spoke in favor of passage of the joint memorial.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Senate Joint Memorial No. 8003.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Senate Joint Memorial No. 8003 and the joint memorial passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 8003, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

Asking the federal energy regulatory commission to withdraw a new pricing policy proposal.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the joint memorial was placed on final passage.

Representatives Ruderman and Bush spoke in favor of passage of the joint memorial.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Senate Joint Memorial No. 8012.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Senate Joint Memorial No. 8012 and the joint memorial passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 8012, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

Petitioning Congress to adopt procedures for selling wheat reserves that preserve the integrity of the market.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the joint memorial was placed on final passage.

Representatives Schoesler and Eickmeyer spoke in favor of passage of the joint memorial.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Senate Joint Memorial No. 8015.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Senate Joint Memorial No. 8015 and the joint memorial passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 8015, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) called upon Representative Hatfield to preside.

SENATE BILL NO. 5935, By Senators Brandland, Oke, Swecker, Hale, Rasmussen, Schmidt and Winsley; by request of Washington State Patrol

Consolidating fire service mobilization responsibilities within the Washington state patrol.

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. (1) Because of the possibility of a disaster of unprecedented size and destruction, including acts of domestic terrorism and civil unrest, that requires law enforcement response for the protection of persons or property and preservation of the peace, the need exists to ensure that the state is adequately prepared to respond to such an incident. There is a need to (a) establish a mechanism and a procedure to provide for reimbursement to law enforcement agencies that respond to help others in time of need, and to host law enforcement agencies that experience expenses beyond the resources of the agencies; and (b) generally to protect the public safety, peace, health, lives, and property of the people of Washington.

(a) Provide the policy and organizational structure for large-scale mobilization of law enforcement resources in the state, using the incident command system, through creation of the Washington state law enforcement mobilization plan;

(b) Confer upon the chief of the Washington state patrol the powers provided in this chapter;

(c) Provide a means for reimbursement to law enforcement jurisdictions that incur expenses when mobilized by the chief under the Washington state law enforcement mobilization plan; and

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(1) "Agency" means any general purpose law enforcement agency as defined in RCW 10.93.020.

(4) "Chief law enforcement officer" means the chief of police or sheriff responsible for law enforcement services in the jurisdiction in which the emergency is occurring.

(5) "General authority Washington peace officer" means a general authority Washington peace officer as defined in RCW 10.93.020.

(6) "Host agency" means the law enforcement agency that requests statewide mobilization under sections 6 through 11 of this act.

(7) "Mobilization" means a redistribution of regional and statewide law enforcement resources in response to an emergency or disaster situation.

(8) "Mutual aid" means emergency interagency assistance provided without compensation pursuant to an agreement under chapter 39.34 RCW.

(9) "Resource coordination" means the effort to locate and arrange for the delivery of resources needed by chief law enforcement officers.

(10) "State law enforcement resource coordinator" means a designated individual or agency selected by the chief to perform the responsibilities of that position.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. (1) The state law enforcement mobilization policy board shall be established by the chief and shall have representatives from each of the regions established in section 10 of this act. In carrying out its duty, the board shall consult with and solicit recommendations from representatives of the state and local law enforcement and emergency management organizations, and regional law enforcement mobilization committees.

(2) The board shall establish and make recommendations to the chief on the refinement and maintenance of the Washington state law enforcement mobilization plan, including the procedures to be used during an emergency or disaster response requiring coordination of local, regional, and state law enforcement resources.

(3) The chief shall review the Washington state law enforcement mobilization plan, as submitted by the board, recommend changes as necessary, and may approve the plan. The plan shall be consistent with the Washington state comprehensive emergency management plan. The chief may recommend the plan for inclusion within the state comprehensive emergency management plan established under chapter 38.52 RCW.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. (1) Local law enforcement may request mobilization only in response to an emergency or disaster exceeding the capabilities of available local resources and those available through existing mutual aid agreements. Upon finding that the local jurisdiction has exhausted all available resources, it is the responsibility of the chief to determine whether mobilization is the appropriate response to the emergency or disaster and, if so, to mobilize jurisdictions under the Washington state law enforcement mobilization plan.

(2) Upon mobilization, the chief shall appoint a state law enforcement resource coordinator, and an alternate, who shall serve jointly with the chief law enforcement officer from the host agency to command the mobilization effort consistent with incident command system procedures.

(3) Upon mobilization, all law enforcement resources including those of the host agency and those that responded earlier under an existing mutual aid or other agreement shall be mobilized. Mobilization may include the redistribution of regional or statewide law enforcement resources to either direct emergency incident assignments or to assignments in communities where law enforcement resources are needed.

(a) Host agency resources shall become state law enforcement mobilization resources, under the command of the state law enforcement resource coordinator and the chief law enforcement officer from the host agency, consistent with the state law enforcement mobilization plan and incident command system procedures; and

(b) All law enforcement authorities providing resources in response to a mobilization declaration shall be eligible for expense reimbursement as provided by this chapter.

(5) The chief, in consultation with the regional law enforcement resource coordinator, shall determine when mobilization is no longer required and shall then declare the end to the mobilization.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. (1) The state law enforcement resource coordinator, or alternate, shall serve in that capacity for the duration of the mobilization.

(a) Coordinate the mobilization of law enforcement and other support resources within a region;

(b) Be primarily responsible for the coordination of resources in conjunction with the regional law enforcement mobilization committees, in the case of incidents involving more than one region or when resources from more than one region must be mobilized; and

(c) Advise and consult with the chief regarding what resources are required in response to the emergency or disaster and in regard to when the mobilization should end.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. (1) Regions within the state are initially established as follows and may be adjusted as necessary by the state law enforcement policy board, but should remain consistent with the Washington state fire defense regions:

(d) Northeast region - Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Adams, and Lincoln counties;

(e) Northwest region - Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, San Juan, and Island counties;

(h) Southeast region - Benton, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Whitman, Garfield, and Asotin counties;

(2) Within each of the regions there is created a regional law enforcement mobilization committee. The committees shall consist of the sheriff of each county in the region, the district commander of the Washington state patrol from the region, a number of police chiefs within the region equivalent to the number of counties within the region plus one, and the director of the counties' emergency management office. The police chief members of each regional committee must include the chiefs of police of each city of ninety-five thousand or more population, and the number of members of the committee shall be increased if necessary to accommodate such chiefs. Members of each regional mobilization committee shall select a chair, who shall have authority to implement the regional plan, and a secretary as officers. Members serving on the regional mobilization committees shall not be eligible for reimbursement for meeting-related expenses from the state.

(3) The regional mobilization committees shall work with the relevant local government entities to facilitate development of intergovernmental agreements if any such agreements are required to implement a regional law enforcement mobilization plan.

(4) Regional mobilization committees shall develop regional law enforcement mobilization plans that include provisions for organized law enforcement agencies to respond across municipal, county, or regional boundaries. Each regional mobilization plan shall be consistent with the incident command system, the Washington state law enforcement mobilization plan, and regional response plans adopted prior to the effective date of this act.

(5) Each regional plan, adopted under subsection (4) of this section shall be approved by the state law enforcement mobilization policy board before implementation.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. The state patrol in consultation with the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs and the office of financial management shall develop procedures to facilitate reimbursement to jurisdictions from funds appropriated specifically for this purpose when jurisdictions are mobilized under the Washington state law enforcement mobilization plan.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed or interpreted to limit the eligibility of any nonhost law enforcement authority for reimbursement of expenses incurred in providing law enforcement resources for mobilization.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. Sections 6 through 11 of this act are each added to chapter 43.43 RCW."

Renumber the remaining section consecutively and correct the title and any internal references accordingly.

Representatives Lovick and Armstrong spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Hatfield presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5935, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5935, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 93, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 5.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood and Woods - 93.

SENATE BILL NO. 5935, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

The Speaker (Representative Hatfield presiding) called upon Representative Lovick to preside.

On page 1, line 17, after "senate." strike all material through "development." on line 19

On page 3, line 2, after "and housing))" strike "committee of the" and insert "((committee of the))"

On page 3, line 2, after "representatives" strike "that deals with issues of economic development"

On page 3, line 10, after "senate" strike "committee" and insert "((committee))"

On page 3, line 10, after "((of the senate))" strike "that deals with issues of economic development"

Representatives Veloria and Skinner spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5662, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5662, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 96, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 2.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 96.

SENATE BILL NO. 5662, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5409, By Senate Committee on Land Use & Planning (originally sponsored by Senators Mulliken, T. Sheldon, Roach, Fairley, Schmidt, Kline, Swecker, Reardon, Deccio, Doumit, McCaslin, Parlette, Esser, Rasmussen and Shin)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Local Government was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. (1) The legislature finds that the inability of cities and towns to continue to utilize the petition method of annexation established by RCW 35.13.125 through 35.13.160 and 35A.14.120 through 35A.14.150 poses a threat to the public peace, health, and safety, and to the support of the state government and its existing public institutions. This threat results from, without limitation, the absence of a statutory means for municipal annexation of property that is unoccupied, or that is occupied only by persons ineligible to vote in city or town elections; the inability of cities and towns to complete annexations that are necessary for orderly implementation of plans, regulations, and ordinances relating to growth management; and the uncertainty regarding enforceability of agreements for municipal water and sewer service provided by cities and towns to customers outside municipal boundaries. The legislature further finds that this threat results from the decision of the Washington state supreme court in Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wn.2d 702 (2002), holding that the petition method of annexation authorized by RCW 35.13.125 through 35.13.160 and 35A.14.120 through 35A.14.150 is unconstitutional.

(2) The legislature intends this act to provide for a limited method of annexation by cities and towns based on utility service or utility agreements with property owners.

(1) City and town ((councils of second class cities and towns)) legislative bodies may by a majority vote annex new unincorporated territory outside the city or town limits, whether contiguous or noncontiguous for park, cemetery, or other municipal purposes when such territory is owned by the city or town or all of the owners of the real property in the territory give their written consent to the annexation.

(2) City and town legislative bodies may by a majority vote annex new unincorporated contiguous territory outside the city or town limits where the city or town provides, or by agreement with property owners has committed to provide, retail sewer or retail water service to at least seventy-five percent of the territory proposed for annexation.

(3) Territory annexed pursuant to subsection (2) of this section must be within the urban growth areas established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110, or, for jurisdictions not planning under RCW 36.70A.040, otherwise qualified for annexation.

(4) Prior to a city or town legislative body voting on an annexation pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the legislative body shall fix a date for a public hearing thereon and cause notice of the hearing to be published in one issue of a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town. The notice shall also contain a legal description of the territory proposed for annexation, shall be posted in three public places within the territory proposed for annexation, and shall specify the time and place of the hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval of the annexation.

(5) Following the hearing, the city or town legislative body shall determine by ordinance whether annexation shall be made. Subject to RCW 35.02.170, the legislative body may annex all or any portion of the proposed area but may not include in the annexation any territory not described in the notice. Upon passage of the ordinance a certified copy shall be filed with the board of county commissioners of the county in which the annexed territory is located.

(1) Legislative bodies of code cities may by a majority vote annex territory outside the limits of such city whether contiguous or noncontiguous for any municipal purpose when such territory is owned by the city.

(2) Legislative bodies of code cities may by a majority vote annex contiguous territory outside the limits of such city where the city provides, or by agreement with property owners has committed to provide, retail sewer or retail water service to at least seventy-five percent of the territory proposed for annexation.

(4) Prior to a city legislative body voting on an annexation pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the legislative body shall fix a date for a public hearing thereon and cause notice of the hearing to be published in one or more issues of a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice shall also contain a legal description of the territory proposed for annexation, shall be posted in three public places within the territory proposed for annexation, and shall specify the time and place of the hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval of the annexation.

(5) Following the hearing, if the city legislative body determines to effect the annexation, they shall do so by ordinance. Subject to RCW 35A.14.410, the ordinance may annex all or any portion of the proposed area but may not include in the annexation any territory not described in the notice. Upon passage of the annexation ordinance a certified copy shall be filed with the board of county commissioners of the county in which the annexed territory is located.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 17. The method of annexation provided for in sections 15 and 16 of this act shall be an alternative to existing methods, not superseding any other.

(1) In a transaction for the sale of residential real property, the seller shall, unless the buyer has expressly waived the right to receive the disclosure statement, or unless the transfer is exempt under RCW 64.06.010, deliver to the buyer a completed real property transfer disclosure statement in the following format and that contains, at a minimum, the following information:

Please complete the following form. Do not leave any spaces blank. If the question clearly does not apply to the property write "NA". If the answer is "yes" to any * items, please explain on attached sheets. Please refer to the line number(s) of the question(s) when you provide your explanation(s). For your protection you must date and sign each page of this disclosure statement and each attachment. Delivery of the disclosure statement must occur not later than five business days, unless otherwise agreed, after mutual acceptance of a written contract to purchase between a buyer and a seller.

THE FOLLOWING DISCLOSURES ARE MADE BY THE SELLER(S), CONCERNING THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DISCLOSURES CONTAINED IN THIS FORM ARE PROVIDED BY THE SELLER ON THE BASIS OF SELLER'S ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME THIS DISCLOSURE FORM IS COMPLETED BY THE SELLER. YOU HAVE THREE BUSINESS DAYS, UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED, FROM THE SELLER'S DELIVERY OF THIS SELLER'S DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TO RESCIND YOUR AGREEMENT BY DELIVERING YOUR SEPARATE SIGNED WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RESCISSION TO THE SELLER, UNLESS YOU WAIVE THIS RIGHT AT OR PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A SALE AGREEMENT. THE FOLLOWING ARE DISCLOSURES MADE BY THE SELLER AND ARE NOT THE REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY REAL ESTATE LICENSEE OR OTHER PARTY. THIS INFORMATION IS FOR DISCLOSURE ONLY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A PART OF ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE SELLER.

FOR A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF THE SPECIFIC CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY YOU ARE ADVISED TO OBTAIN AND PAY FOR THE SERVICES OF A QUALIFIED SPECIALIST TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY ON YOUR BEHALF, FOR EXAMPLE, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, PLUMBERS, ELECTRICIANS, ROOFERS, BUILDING INSPECTORS, OR PEST AND DRY ROT INSPECTORS. THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER AND THE OWNER MAY WISH TO OBTAIN PROFESSIONAL ADVICE OR INSPECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM WITH RESPECT TO ANY ADVICE, INSPECTION, DEFECTS OR WARRANTIES.

		I. SELLER'S DISCLOSURES:
*If "Yes" attach a copy or explain. If necessary use an attached sheet.
						1. TITLE
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		A. Do you have legal authority to sell the property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*B. Is title to the property subject to any of the following?
							(1) First right of refusal
							(2) Option
							(3) Lease or rental agreement
							(4) Life estate?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*C. Are there any encroachments, boundary agreements, or boundary disputes?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*D. Are there any rights of way, easements, or access limitations that may affect the owner's use of the property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*E. Are there any written agreements for joint maintenance of an easement or right of way?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*F. Is there any study, survey project, or notice that would adversely affect the property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*G. Are there any pending or existing assessments against the property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*H. Are there any zoning violations, nonconforming uses, or any unusual restrictions on the subject property that would affect future construction or remodeling?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*I. Is there a boundary survey for the property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*J. Are there any covenants, conditions, or restrictions which affect the property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*K. Are there any utility service or annexation agreements that affect the property?
						2. WATER
						A. Household Water
							(1) The source of the water is [ ] Public [ ] Community [ ] Private [ ] Shared
							(2) Water source information:
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know				*a. Are there any written agreements for shared water source?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know				*b. Is there an easement (recorded or unrecorded) for access to and/or maintenance of the water source?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know				*c. Are any known problems or repairs needed?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know				*d. Does the source provide an adequate year round supply of potable water?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*(3) Are there any water treatment systems for the property? [ ]Leased [ ]Owned
						B. Irrigation
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			(1) Are there any water rights for the property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*(2) If they exist, to your knowledge, have the water rights been used during the last five-year period?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*(3) If so, is the certificate available?
						C. Outdoor Sprinkler System
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			(1) Is there an outdoor sprinkler system for the property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*(2) Are there any defects in the outdoor sprinkler system?
						3. SEWER/SEPTIC SYSTEM
						A. The property is served by: [ ] Public sewer main, [ ] Septic tank system [ ] Other disposal system (describe)
						. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		B. If the property is served by a public or community sewer main, is the house connected to the main?
						C. Is the property currently subject to a sewer capacity charge?
						D. If the property is connected to a septic system:
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			(1) Was a permit issued for its construction, and was it approved by the city or county following its construction?
							(2) When was it last pumped:
							. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 19 . . .
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*(3) Are there any defects in the operation of the septic system?
				[ ] Don't know			(4) When was it last inspected?
							. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 19 . . .
							By Whom: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
				[ ] Don't know			(5) How many bedrooms was the system approved for?
							. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bedrooms
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*E. Do all plumbing fixtures, including laundry drain, go to the septic/sewer system? If no, explain: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*F. Are you aware of any changes or repairs to the septic system?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		G. Is the septic tank system, including the drainfield, located entirely within the boundaries of the property?
						4. STRUCTURAL
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*A. Has the roof leaked?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		If yes, has it been repaired?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*B. Have there been any conversions, additions, or remodeling?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*1. If yes, were all building permits obtained?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*2. If yes, were all final inspections obtained?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		C. Do you know the age of the house? If yes, year of original construction:
						. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*D. Do you know of any settling, slippage, or sliding of either the house or other structures/improvements located on the property? If yes, explain:
						. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*E. Do you know of any defects with the following: (Please check applicable items)
	□ Foundations				□ Decks				□ Exterior Walls
	□ Chimneys				□ Interior Walls				□ Fire Alarm
	□ Doors				□ Windows				□ Patio
	□ Ceilings				□ Slab Floors				□ Driveways
	□ Pools				□ Hot Tub				□ Sauna
	□ Sidewalks				□ Outbuildings				□ Fireplaces
	□ Garage Floors				□ Walkways
	□ Other				□ Wood Stoves
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*F. Was a pest or dry rot, structural or "whole house" inspection done? When and by whom was the inspection completed? . . . . . . . . . . . .
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*G. Since assuming ownership, has your property had a problem with wood destroying organisms and/or have there been any problems with pest control, infestations, or vermin?
						5. SYSTEMS AND FIXTURES
						If the following systems or fixtures are included with the transfer, do they have any existing defects:
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*A. Electrical system, including wiring, switches, outlets, and service
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*B. Plumbing system, including pipes, faucets, fixtures, and toilets
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*C. Hot water tank
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*D. Garbage disposal
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*E. Appliances
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*F. Sump pump
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*G. Heating and cooling systems
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know			*H. Security system [ ] Owned [ ] Leased
							*I. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
						6. COMMON INTEREST
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		A. Is there a Home Owners' Association? Name of Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		B. Are there regular periodic assessments:
						$ . . . per [ ] Month [ ] Year [ ] Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*C. Are there any pending special assessments?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*D. Are there any shared "common areas" or any joint maintenance agreements (facilities such as walls, fences, landscaping, pools, tennis courts, walkways, or other areas co-owned in undivided interest with others)?
						7. GENERAL
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*A. Is there any settling, soil, standing water, or drainage problems on the property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*B. Does the property contain fill material?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*C. Is there any material damage to the property or any of the structure from fire, wind, floods, beach movements, earthquake, expansive soils, or landslides?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		D. Is the property in a designated flood plain?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*E. Are there any substances, materials, or products that may be an environmental hazard such as, but not limited to, asbestos, formaldehyde, radon gas, lead-based paint, fuel or chemical storage tanks, and contaminated soil or water on the subject property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*F. Are there any tanks or underground storage tanks (e.g., chemical, fuel, etc.) on the property?
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*G. Has the property ever been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site?
						8. FULL DISCLOSURE BY SELLERS
						A. Other conditions or defects:
[ ] Yes		[ ] No		[ ] Don't know		*Are there any other material defects affecting this property or its value that a prospective buyer should know about?
						B. Verification:
						The foregoing answers and attached explanations (if any) are complete and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and I/we have received a copy hereof. I/we authorize all of my/our real estate licensees, if any, to deliver a copy of this disclosure statement to other real estate licensees and all prospective buyers of the property.
DATE . . . . . . . . . . . .				SELLER . . . . . . . . . .				SELLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
		II. BUYER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
			A.	As buyer(s), I/we acknowledge the duty to pay diligent attention to any material defects which are known to me/us or can be known to me/us by utilizing diligent attention and observation.
			B.	Each buyer acknowledges and understands that the disclosures set forth in this statement and in any amendments to this statement are made only by the seller.
			C.	Buyer (which term includes all persons signing the "buyer's acceptance" portion of this disclosure statement below) hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of this disclosure statement (including attachments, if any) bearing seller's signature.

DISCLOSURES CONTAINED IN THIS FORM ARE PROVIDED BY THE SELLER ON THE BASIS OF SELLER'S ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF DISCLOSURE. YOU, THE BUYER, HAVE THREE BUSINESS DAYS, UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED, FROM THE SELLER'S DELIVERY OF THIS SELLER'S DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TO RESCIND YOUR AGREEMENT BY DELIVERING YOUR SEPARATE SIGNED WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RESCISSION TO THE SELLER UNLESS YOU WAIVE THIS RIGHT OF RESCISSION.

BUYER HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE DISCLOSURES MADE HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE SELLER ONLY, AND NOT OF ANY REAL ESTATE LICENSEE OR OTHER PARTY.

DATE . . . . . . . BUYER . . . . . . . . . BUYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(2) The real property transfer disclosure statement shall be for disclosure only, and shall not be considered part of any written agreement between the buyer and seller of residential real property. The real property transfer disclosure statement shall be only a disclosure made by the seller, and not any real estate licensee involved in the transaction, and shall not be construed as a warranty of any kind by the seller or any real estate licensee involved in the transaction."

Representative Schindler requested a Scope and Object ruling on amendment #404 to Substitute Senate Bill No. 5409.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding): "Under precedent established by previous rulings in the House, the Speaker first looks to the title of a bill in determining scope and object questions. Substitute Senate Bill No. 5409 is entitled an act relating to "providing a new direct petition annexation method". Amendment #404 does not relate to the direct petition annexation method, but rather a method of annexation based on utility service or utility agreements. The Speaker therefore finds that the amendment is beyond the scope and object of the bill.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5409, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5409, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 95, Nays - 1, Absent - 0, Excused - 2.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 95.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5409, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5144, By Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Energy & Water (originally sponsored by Senators Morton and Oke)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources was before the House for purpose of amendment. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

Representative Holmquist moved the adoption of amendment (392) to the committee amendment:

On page 1, line 23 of the amendment, after "(1)" insert ""Affected tribes" means any tribal entity that owns either the land, or the land adjacent to the land, where a forest emergency operation that is exempt from the forest practices application or notification requirements, under RCW 76.09.060, will occur.

Representatives Holmquist and Schoesler spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment.

Representatives Rockefeller and Linville spoke against the adoption of the amendment.

Representative Rockefeller moved the adoption of amendment (382) to the committee amendment:

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. The legislature finds that since 1995, large numbers of oak and tanoak trees have been dying in the coastal counties of California. The legislature also finds that the disease causing the tree loss, which is commonly referred to as Sudden Oak Death Syndrome, has, as of the effective date of this act, been confirmed in twelve California counties, and one Oregon county. The legislature also finds that in addition to affecting several species of oak, this disease has been confirmed to affect several plant species common in Washington's forests, including Douglas Fir, big leaf maple, huckleberry, rhododendron, madrone, and manzanita. The legislature recognizes that the state of California and the United States department of agriculture have adopted restrictions on the movement of articles that may host the disease, and the state of Oregon and the Canadian government have adopted restrictions on the importation of potential host articles. The legislature finds that an introduction of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome into Washington could cause potential damage to the state's forest health, leading to both economic and ecological losses.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 17.24 RCW to read as follows:

The department and the department of natural resources shall coordinate their Sudden Oak Death Syndrome response efforts with other plant pest agencies and private organizations to exchange information, monitor the confirmed incidences of the disease, and take action as appropriate under existing plant pest control authorities to prevent the introduction of the disease into Washington and to control or eradicate the disease if it is determined to be present in the state."

Representative Schoesler requested a scope and object ruling on amendment (382) to Substitute Senate Bill No. 5144.

There being no objection, the House deferred action on SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5144, and the bill held its place on Second Reading.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5751, By Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Energy & Water (originally sponsored by Senator Hargrove)

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources was adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 82^nd Day, April 4, 2003.)

(1) Decisions pertaining to ((applications for Class I, II, and III forest practices, as defined by rule of the forest practices board under RCW 76.09.050,)) the following are not subject to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) as now or hereafter amended:

(a) Applications for class I, II, and III forest practices, as defined by rule of the forest practices board under RCW 76.09.050; and

(b) Individual sales of valuable materials, as that term is defined in RCW 79.01.038, from state trust lands, including federally granted trust lands, forest board transfer lands, forest board purchase lands, and community college reserve trust lands, that are harvested under a class I, II, or III forest practices application, if a programmatic detailed environmental impact statement has been finalized for the ten-year sustained yield plan required under chapter 79.68 RCW.

(2) When the applicable county, city, or town requires a license in connection with any proposal involving forest practices (a) on lands platted after January 1, 1960, as provided in chapter 58.17 RCW, (b) on lands that have or are being converted to another use, or (c) on lands which, pursuant to RCW 76.09.070 as now or hereafter amended, are not to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development, then the local government, rather than the department of natural resources, is responsible for any detailed statement required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).

(3) Those forest practices determined by rule of the forest practices board to have a potential for a substantial impact on the environment, and thus to be Class IV practices, require an evaluation by the department of natural resources as to whether or not a detailed statement must be prepared pursuant to this chapter. The evaluation shall be made within ten days from the date the department receives the application. A Class IV forest practice application must be approved or disapproved by the department within thirty calendar days from the date the department receives the application, unless the department determines that a detailed statement must be made, in which case the application must be approved or disapproved by the department within sixty days from the date the department receives the application, unless the commissioner of public lands, through the promulgation of a formal order, determines that the process cannot be completed within such period. This section shall not be construed to prevent any local or regional governmental entity from determining that a detailed statement must be prepared for an action regarding a Class IV forest practice taken by that governmental entity concerning the land on which forest practices will be conducted.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 79.01 RCW to read as follows:

Individual sales of valuable materials from state trust lands, including federally granted trust lands, forest board transfer lands, forest board purchase lands, and community college reserve trust lands, that are harvested under a class I, II, or III forest practices application, are not subject to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) if a programmatic detailed environmental impact statement has been finalized for the ten-year sustained yield plan required under chapter 79.68 RCW."

Representative Rockefeller requested a scope and object ruling on amendment #383 to Substitute Senate Bill No. 5751.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding): "In ruling on the point of order raised by Representative Rockefeller, the Speaker finds that Substitute Senate Bill No. 5751 is entitled an act relating to "sales of valuable materials". The bill amends several sections of Chapter 79.01 RCW, the Public Lands Act, that relate to the dollar amounts and notice requirements for sales of valuable material under DNR purview.

The amendment also relates to the sales of valuable materials, and fits within the title of the bill. But its provisions are not related to the dollar amounts and notice requirements for such sales. Rather, the amendment relates to requirements for environmental impact statements and includes changes to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW.

The Speaker therefore finds that the amendment is beyond the scope and object of the bill. Representative Rockefeller, your point of order is well taken."

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

Representatives Rockefeller and Schoesler spoke in favor of passage of the bill.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5751, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5751, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 96, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 2.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 96.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5751, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5776, By Senate Committee on Land Use & Planning (originally sponsored by Senators Doumit, Morton, Hargrove, Mulliken, Rasmussen, Swecker, Haugen, Zarelli, Reardon, Parlette, McAuliffe and Winsley)

Providing an appeal process for state agency and local government permit decisions for economic development projects.

There being no objection, the committee amendment by the Committee on Appropriations was not adopted. (For committee amendment, see Journal, 85^th Day, April 7, 2003.)

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The purpose of this chapter is to reform the process of appeal and review of final permit decisions made by state agencies and local governments for qualifying economic development projects, by establishing uniform, expedited, and coordinated appeal procedures and uniform criteria for reviewing such decisions, in order to provide consistent, predictable, and timely review. The appeal process authorized in this chapter is intended to be the exclusive process for review of final decisions made by state agencies and local governments on permit applications for qualifying economic development projects, superseding other existing administrative board and judicial appeal procedures.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

(1) "Board" means the environmental and land use hearings board established in this chapter.

(2) "Final decision" means the highest and last decision available within the permit agency with respect to a permit application to the agency, including but not limited to decisions resulting from internal appeals available within the agency for the permit decision.

(3) "Participating permit agency" means any permit agency in which the applicant for a qualifying project has filed an application for an environmental or land use permit that is required for the qualifying project.

(4) "Permit" means any license, permit, certificate, certification, approval, compliance schedule, or other similar document pertaining to any regulatory or management program related to the protection, conservation, use of, or interference with the land, air, or water in the state. This document must be required to be obtained from a state agency or local government, including but not limited to counties, cities, and air agencies, prior to constructing or operating a qualifying project. Local government permits include, but are not limited to, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, shoreline permits or other approvals under RCW 90.58.140, master plan approvals, site plan approvals, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, conditional use permits, variances, and site-specific rezones authorized by a comprehensive plan or subarea plan or other equivalent documents however titled or denominated. Local government permits excluded under this definition include the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, legislative actions on development regulations, certifications by local health districts of water and sewer availability, and building, grading, flood hazard, utility connection, and other nondiscretionary construction permits.

(5) "Permit agency" means any state agency or local government, including but not limited to air agencies, authorized by law to issue permits.

(6) "Qualifying project" means an economic development project that is (a) located within a county that in its entirety qualifies as a distressed area as defined in RCW 43.168.020(3) and a rural natural resources impact area as defined in RCW 43.160.020, (b) designed to provide at least thirty full-time year-round jobs, and (c) designated as a qualifying project by the office of permit assistance established under chapter 43.42 RCW if a request for a determination of such designation is made to the office by the project applicant as provided under this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The appeal process authorized in this chapter shall, notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, be the exclusive process for review of the decisions made by participating permit agencies on permit applications for a qualifying project. This chapter shall not apply to applications for certification by the energy facility site evaluation council pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW. The superior court civil rules and the rules of appellate procedure shall govern procedural matters for the judicial appeal process under this chapter to the extent that the rules are consistent with this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. (1) Any applicant for a project that meets the criteria set forth in section 2(6) (a) and (b) of this act may use the process of appeal and review of this chapter by filing with the office of permit assistance a request for a determination of designation as a qualifying project as required in section 2(6)(c) of this act. Such request shall be filed with the office no later than thirty days after the filing with a permit agency of the first application for a permit relating to the subject project that is filed after the effective date of this act. No requests may be filed with the office of permit assistance after December 31, 2010. The request shall include a list of permits that the project applicant reasonably believes will be required for the subject project.

(2) The office of permit assistance shall: (a) Respond to such request within thirty days after the filing of the request; and (b) if the office determines to designate the project as a qualifying project under section 2(6)(c) of this act, contemporaneously provide a copy of the designation response to all permit agencies responsible for the project permits listed in the request. The office of permit assistance shall provide notice of any project designation to the code reviser for publication in the state register and to any persons that have filed with the office of permit assistance a general request for such notice. Nothing in this section creates an independent cause of action or affects any existing cause of action.

(3) All final decisions of a permit agency notified under subsection (2) of this section shall include the following sentence: Any appeal of this decision shall be in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. (1) An environmental and land use hearings board is hereby established within the environmental hearings office created under RCW 43.21B.005. The environmental and land use hearings board shall be composed of six members, as provided in RCW 90.58.170. The chairperson of the pollution control hearings board shall be the chairperson of the environmental and land use hearings board. The members of the environmental and land use hearings board shall receive the compensation, travel, and subsistence expenses as provided in RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060.

(2) All proceedings before the board or any of its members shall be conducted in accordance with such rules of practice and procedure as the board may adopt. In all such proceedings, the board shall have all powers relating to the administration of oaths, issuance of subpoenas, and taking of depositions as set forth in RCW 34.05.446. The board shall publish any such rules and arrange for the reasonable distribution thereof. Failure to adopt such rules shall not deprive the board of jurisdiction nor relieve the board of the duty to hear petitions for review filed under this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. (1) Proceedings for review under this chapter shall be commenced by filing a petition with the environmental and land use hearings board. The board may adopt by rule procedures for filing and service that are consistent with this chapter.

(2) Such petition is barred, and the board may not grant review, unless the petition is timely filed with the board and timely served on the following persons who shall be parties to the review of the petition:

(a) The participating permit agencies, which for purposes of the petition shall be (i) if a state agency, the director thereof, and (ii) if a local government, the jurisdiction's corporate entity which shall be served as provided in RCW 4.28.080; and

(i) Each person identified by name and address as applicant in the application to the participating permit agencies;

(ii) Each person identified in project application documents as an owner of the property at issue or, if none, each person identified as a taxpayer for the property at issue in the records of the county assessor.

(3) The petition is timely if it is filed and served on all parties listed in subsection (2) of this section within twenty-one days of the issuance by the permit agency of the permit for the qualifying project.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the date on which a permit decision is issued is:

(a) Three days after a written decision is mailed by the permit agency to the project applicant or, if not mailed, the date on which the permit agency provides notice that a written decision is publicly available; or

(b) If (a) of this subsection does not apply, the date the decision is entered into the public record.

(5) Service on all parties shall be by personal service or by mail. Service by mail is effective on the date of mailing. Proof of service shall be by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. Standing to bring a petition under this chapter is limited to the following persons:

(1) The applicant and the owner of the property to which the permit decision is directed;

(2) Another person aggrieved or adversely affected by the permit decision, or who would be aggrieved or adversely affected by a reversal or modification of the permit decision. A person is aggrieved or adversely affected within the meaning of this section only when all of the following conditions are present:

(b) That person's asserted interests are among those that the permit agency was required to consider when it made its permit decision;

(c) A decision of the board in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the permit decision; and

(d) The petitioner has exhausted his or her administrative remedies to the extent required by law;

(3) The name and mailing address of the permit agency whose permit is at issue, if any;

(6) Facts demonstrating that the petitioner has standing to seek board review under this chapter;

(7) A separate and concise statement of each error alleged to have been committed;

(8) A concise statement of facts upon which the petitioner relies to sustain the statement of error; and

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. (1) Within seven days after receipt of service of the petition filed pursuant to section 6 of this act, the project applicant shall file with the board and serve on all parties an affidavit certifying all applications for permits that the project applicant has filed with participating permit agencies for the qualifying project, provided, however, that no permit may be included that has been issued and appealed to an administrative hearings board or to court prior to the date of service of the petition filed with the board under this chapter. The board shall request verification from the participating agencies of the permit applications certified in the project applicant's affidavit and of the expected date for final decision on the permit applications. Filing of the affidavit shall toll the schedule for hearing by the board until twenty-one days after issuance of the final permit decision on the last permit required for the qualifying project that has been certified in the project applicant's affidavit and verified by a participating agency as applied for, unless the petition filed and served by the petitioner relates to the final permit decision.

(2) Within seven days after the expiration of the appeal period for the final permit decision on the last permit required for the qualifying project, the petitioner shall note an initial hearing on jurisdictional and other preliminary matters, and, if applicable, on other pretrial matters. This initial hearing shall be set no sooner than thirty-five days and not later than fifty days after the expiration of the appeal period for the final permit decision on the last permit required for the qualifying project.

(3) If petitions for review of more than one permit issued by participating permit agencies for a qualifying project are filed with the board, the board shall contemporaneously process all such petitions in accordance with the case schedule requirements set forth in this act.

(4) The parties shall note all motions on jurisdictional and procedural issues for resolution at the initial hearing, except that a motion to allow discovery may be brought sooner.

(5) The defenses of lack of standing, untimely filing or service of the petition, lack of good faith or improper purpose in filing, and failure to join persons needed for just adjudication are waived if not raised by timely motion noted to be heard at the initial hearing, unless the board allows discovery on such issues.

(6) The petitioner shall move the board for an order at the initial hearing that sets the date on which the permit decision record or records of the applicable permit agency or agencies, if any, must be submitted, sets a briefing schedule, sets a discovery schedule if discovery is to be allowed, and schedules a hearing or hearings on the merits.

(7) The parties may waive the initial hearing by scheduling with the board a date for the hearing or hearings on the merits and filing a stipulated order that resolves the jurisdictional and procedural issues raised by the petition, including the issues identified in subsections (5) and (6) of this section.

(8) A party need not file an answer to a petition for review filed pursuant to section 6 of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. The board shall provide expedited review of petitions filed under this chapter. Any matter reviewed on the decision record as provided in section 13(1) of this act must be set for hearing within sixty days of the date set for submitting the decision record of all participating permit agencies, absent a showing of good cause for a different date or a stipulation of the parties. Any matter reviewed de novo as provided in section 13(3) of this act must be set for hearing or trial no later than one hundred twenty days after the initial hearing date. The board shall issue a final decision and order within thirty days after the final hearing required in this section.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. (1) A petitioner or other party may request the board to stay or suspend an action by a participating permit agency or another party to implement the decision under review. The request must set forth a statement of grounds for the stay and the factual basis for the request.

(2) The board may grant a stay only if the board finds that: (a) The party requesting the stay is likely to prevail on the merits, (b) without the stay the party requesting it will suffer irreparable harm, (c) the grant of a stay will not substantially harm other parties to the proceedings, and (d) the request for the stay is timely in light of the circumstances of the case.

(3) The board may grant the request for a stay upon such terms and conditions, including the filing of security, as are necessary to prevent harm to other parties by the stay.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. (1) Within forty-five days after entry of an order to submit the decision record, where applicable, or within such a further time as the board allows or as the parties agree, each participating agency shall submit to the board a certified copy of the decision record for board review of the permit decision, except that the petitioner shall prepare at the petitioner's expense and submit a verbatim transcript of any hearings held on the matter.

(2) If the parties agree, or upon order of the board, the record shall be shortened or summarized to avoid reproduction and transcription of portions of the record that are duplicative or not relevant to the issues to be reviewed by the board.

(3) The petitioner shall pay the participating agency the cost of preparing the record before the participating agency submits the decision record to the board. Failure by the petitioner to timely pay the participating agency relieves the participating agency of responsibility to submit the record and is grounds for dismissal of the petition.

(4) If the relief sought by the petitioner is granted in whole or in part the board shall equitably assess the cost of preparing the record among the parties. In assessing costs the board shall take into account the extent to which each party prevailed and the reasonableness of the parties' conduct in agreeing or not agreeing to shorten or summarize the record under subsection (2) of this section.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. (1) For all permit decisions being reviewed that were made by quasi-judicial bodies or permit agency officers who made factual determinations in support of the decisions, after the conduct of proceedings in which the parties had an opportunity consistent with due process to make records on the factual issues, board review of factual issues and the conclusions drawn from the factual issues shall be confined to the records created by the quasi-judicial bodies or permit agency officers, except as provided in subsections (2) through (4) of this section.

(2) For decisions described in subsection (1) of this section, the records may be supplemented by additional evidence only if the additional evidence relates to:

(a) Grounds for disqualification of a member of the body or of the officer that made the permit decision, when such grounds were unknown by the petitioner at the time the record was created;

(b) Matters that were improperly excluded from the record after being offered by a party to a permit decision proceeding; or

(3) For permit decisions other than those described in subsection (1) of this section, the board review of the permit decision shall be de novo on issues presented as error in the petition.

(4) The board may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record.

(5)(a) The parties may not conduct pretrial discovery except with the prior permission of the board, which may be sought by motion, subject to any applicable rules adopted by the board, at any time after service of the petition. The board shall not grant permission unless the party requesting it makes a prima facie showing of need. The board shall strictly limit discovery to what is necessary for equitable and timely review of the issues.

(b) If the board allows the record to be supplemented, or in any de novo proceeding under subsection (3) of this section, the board shall require the parties to disclose before the hearing or trial on the merits the identity of witnesses and the specific evidence they intend to offer.

(c) If any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, requests records under chapter 42.17 RCW relating to the matters at issue, a copy of the request shall simultaneously be given to all other parties, and the board shall take such request into account in fashioning an equitable discovery order under this section.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. (1) The board shall review the decision record and all such evidence as is permitted to supplement the record for review restricted to the decision record or is required for de novo review under section 13 of this act. The board may grant relief only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the standards set forth in (a) through (f) of this subsection has been met. The standards are:

(a) The body or officer that made the permit decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless;

(b) The permit decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by an agency with expertise;

(c) The permit decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the board;

(d) The permit decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts;

(e) The permit decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the body or officer making the decision; or

(f) The permit decision violates the constitutional rights of the party seeking relief.

(2) The board may affirm or reverse each and every permit decision under review or remand the decision for modification or further proceedings involving the permit agencies.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 15. (1) In order to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the environmental and land use hearings board, a party to the board case as consolidated shall timely file a petition for judicial review in the superior court for Thurston county and timely serve the board and all parties to the proceedings before the board by personal service or by mail. Such petition is timely filed and served only if it is filed and served on all parties within thirty days after the filing of the final decision and order of the board. Service by mail shall be deemed effective on the date of deposit with the United States postal service. Any party may apply for direct review by the court of appeals. An application for direct review must be filed with the superior court within ten days after the filing of the petition for judicial review. In considering an application for direct review under this chapter, it shall be presumed that: (a) The qualifying project presents fundamental and urgent issues affecting the public interest which require a prompt determination, and (b) delay in obtaining a final and prompt determination of such issues would be detrimental to a party and the public interest.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) of this section shall require that the superior court certify the direct review not less than ten days, and not more than fifteen days, after the filing of the application therefore, unless, upon motion of a party with supporting excerpts from the record within ten days after the filing of such application, the superior court finds that: (a) The project is not a qualifying project, or (b) the project will not in fact provide new employment within the county in which the project is located. The court may make such findings upon a showing that said record contains clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support such findings, which evidence has been testified to by at least one witness competent to testify on employment matters.

(3) A motion as set forth in subsection (2) of this section shall be heard within fourteen days after the filing of the motion and shall be confined to certified excerpts from the record, which any party may produce. It shall not be necessary to certify the entire record to the court for the purpose of hearing such motion.

(4) The court of appeals shall accept direct review of a case unless it finds that the superior court's certification under the standards contained in this section was clearly erroneous. Review by the court of appeals shall be restricted to the decision record of the permit agency and the board proceedings. All certified appeals shall be provided priority processing by the court of appeals.

(1) The final decision of an administrative agency in an adjudicative proceeding under this chapter may, except as otherwise provided in chapter 43.-- RCW (sections 1 through 15 of this act), be directly reviewed by the court of appeals either (a) upon certification by the superior court pursuant to this section or (b) if the final decision is from an environmental board as defined in subsection (3) of this section, upon acceptance by the court of appeals after a certificate of appealability has been filed by the environmental board that rendered the final decision.

(2) For direct review upon certification by the superior court, an application for direct review must be filed with the superior court within thirty days of the filing of the petition for review in superior court. The superior court may certify a case for direct review only if the judicial review is limited to the record of the agency proceeding and the court finds that:

(a) Fundamental and urgent issues affecting the future administrative process or the public interest are involved which require a prompt determination;

(b) Delay in obtaining a final and prompt determination of such issues would be detrimental to any party or the public interest;

(d) The appellate court's determination in the proceeding would have significant precedential value.

(3)(a) For the purposes of direct review of final decisions of environmental boards, environmental boards include those boards identified in RCW 43.21B.005 and growth management hearings boards as identified in RCW 36.70A.250.

(b) An environmental board may issue a certificate of appealability if it finds that delay in obtaining a final and prompt determination of the issues would be detrimental to any party or the public interest and either:

(4) The environmental board shall state in the certificate of appealability which criteria it applied, explain how that criteria was met, and file with the certificate a copy of the final decision.

(5) For an appellate court to accept direct review of a final decision of an environmental board, it shall consider the same criteria outlined in subsection (3) of this section, except as otherwise provided in chapter 43.-- RCW (sections 1 through 15 of this act).

(6) The procedures for direct review of final decisions of environmental boards include:

(a) Within thirty days after filing the petition for review with the superior court, a party may file an application for direct review with the superior court and serve the appropriate environmental board and all parties of record. The application shall request the environmental board to file a certificate of appealability.

(b) If an issue on review is the jurisdiction of the environmental board, the board may file an application for direct review on that issue.

(c) The environmental board shall have thirty days to grant or deny the request for a certificate of appealability and its decision shall be filed with the superior court and served on all parties of record.

(d) If a certificate of appealability is issued, the parties shall have fifteen days from the date of service to file a notice of discretionary review in the superior court, and the notice shall include a copy of the certificate of appealability and a copy of the final decision.

(e) If the appellate court accepts review, the certificate of appealability shall be transmitted to the court of appeals as part of the certified record.

(f) If a certificate of appealability is denied, review shall be by the superior court. The superior court's decision may be appealed to the court of appeals.

Sec. 17. RCW 36.70C.030 and 1995 c 347 s 704 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) This chapter replaces the writ of certiorari for appeal of land use decisions and shall be the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions, except that this chapter does not apply to:

(i) Land use decisions made by bodies that are not part of a local jurisdiction;

(ii) Land use decisions of a local jurisdiction that are subject to review by a quasi-judicial body created by state law, such as the shorelines hearings board, the environmental and land use hearings board, or the growth management hearings board;

(c) Claims provided by any law for monetary damages or compensation. If one or more claims for damages or compensation are set forth in the same complaint with a land use petition brought under this chapter, the claims are not subject to the procedures and standards, including deadlines, provided in this chapter for review of the petition. The judge who hears the land use petition may, if appropriate, preside at a trial for damages or compensation.

(2) The superior court civil rules govern procedural matters under this chapter to the extent that the rules are consistent with this chapter.

(1) There is created an environmental hearings office of the state of Washington. The environmental hearings office shall consist of the pollution control hearings board created in RCW 43.21B.010, the forest practices appeals board created in RCW 76.09.210, the shorelines hearings board created in RCW 90.58.170, the environmental and land use hearings board created in chapter 43.-- RCW (sections 1 through 15 of this act), and the hydraulic appeals board created in RCW ((75.20.130)) 77.55.170. The chairman of the pollution control hearings board shall be the chief executive officer of the environmental hearings office. Membership, powers, functions, and duties of the pollution control hearings board, the forest practices appeals board, the shorelines hearings board, and the hydraulic appeals board shall be as provided by law.

(2) The chief executive officer of the environmental hearings office may appoint an administrative appeals judge who shall possess the powers and duties conferred by the administrative procedure act, chapter 34.05 RCW, in cases before the boards comprising the office. The administrative appeals judge shall have a demonstrated knowledge of environmental law, and shall be admitted to the practice of law in the state of Washington. Additional administrative appeals judges may also be appointed by the chief executive officer on the same terms. Administrative appeals judges shall not be subject to chapter 41.06 RCW.

(3) The administrative appeals judges appointed under subsection (2) of this section are subject to discipline and termination, for cause, by the chief executive officer. Upon written request by the person so disciplined or terminated, the chief executive officer shall state the reasons for such action in writing. The person affected has a right of review by the superior court of Thurston county on petition for reinstatement or other remedy filed within thirty days of receipt of such written reasons.

(4) The chief executive officer may appoint, discharge, and fix the compensation of such administrative or clerical staff as may be necessary.

(1) The hearings board shall only have jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals from the following decisions of the department, the director, local conservation districts, and the air pollution control boards or authorities as established pursuant to chapter 70.94 RCW, or local health departments:

(a) Civil penalties imposed pursuant to RCW 18.104.155, 70.94.431, 70.105.080, 70.107.050, 88.46.090, 90.03.600, 90.48.144, 90.56.310, and 90.56.330.

(b) Orders issued pursuant to RCW 18.104.043, 18.104.060, 43.27A.190, 70.94.211, 70.94.332, 70.105.095, 86.16.020, 88.46.070, 90.14.130, 90.48.120, and 90.56.330.

(c) Except as provided in RCW 90.03.210(2), the issuance, modification, or termination of any permit, certificate, or license by the department or any air authority in the exercise of its jurisdiction, including the issuance or termination of a waste disposal permit, the denial of an application for a waste disposal permit, the modification of the conditions or the terms of a waste disposal permit, or a decision to approve or deny an application for a solid waste permit exemption under RCW 70.95.300.

(d) Decisions of local health departments regarding the grant or denial of solid waste permits pursuant to chapter 70.95 RCW.

(e) Decisions of local health departments regarding the issuance and enforcement of permits to use or dispose of biosolids under RCW 70.95J.080.

(f) Decisions of the department regarding waste-derived fertilizer or micronutrient fertilizer under RCW 15.54.820, and decisions of the department regarding waste-derived soil amendments under RCW 70.95.205.

(g) Decisions of local conservation districts related to the denial of approval or denial of certification of a dairy nutrient management plan; conditions contained in a plan; application of any dairy nutrient management practices, standards, methods, and technologies to a particular dairy farm; and failure to adhere to the plan review and approval timelines in RCW 90.64.026.

(h) Any other decision by the department or an air authority which pursuant to law must be decided as an adjudicative proceeding under chapter 34.05 RCW.

(a) Hearings required by law to be conducted by the shorelines hearings board pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW.

(b) Hearings conducted by the department pursuant to RCW 70.94.332, 70.94.390, 70.94.395, 70.94.400, 70.94.405, 70.94.410, and 90.44.180.

(c) Proceedings conducted by the department, or the department's designee, under RCW 90.03.160 through 90.03.210 or 90.44.220.

(e) Appeals of decisions by the department as provided in chapter 43.-- RCW (sections 1 through 15 of this act).

(3) Review of rules and regulations adopted by the hearings board shall be subject to review in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW.

Sec. 20. RCW 76.09.220 and 1999 sp.s. c 4 s 902 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The appeals board shall operate on either a part-time or a full-time basis, as determined by the governor. If it is determined that the appeals board shall operate on a full-time basis, each member shall receive an annual salary to be determined by the governor. If it is determined that the appeals board shall operate on a part-time basis, each member shall be compensated in accordance with RCW 43.03.250. The director of the environmental hearings office shall make the determination, required under RCW 43.03.250, as to what statutorily prescribed duties, in addition to attendance at a hearing or meeting of the board, shall merit compensation. This compensation shall not exceed ten thousand dollars in a fiscal year. Each member shall receive reimbursement for travel expenses incurred in the discharge of his or her duties in accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060.

(2) The appeals board shall as soon as practicable after the initial appointment of the members thereof, meet and elect from among its members a chair, and shall at least biennially thereafter meet and elect or reelect a chair.

(3) The principal office of the appeals board shall be at the state capital, but it may sit or hold hearings at any other place in the state. A majority of the appeals board shall constitute a quorum for making orders or decisions, adopting rules necessary for the conduct of its powers and duties, or transacting other official business, and may act though one position on the board be vacant. One or more members may hold hearings and take testimony to be reported for action by the board when authorized by rule or order of the board. The appeals board shall perform all the powers and duties granted to it in this chapter or as otherwise provided by law.

(4) The appeals board shall make findings of fact and prepare a written decision in each case decided by it, and such findings and decision shall be effective upon being signed by two or more members and upon being filed at the appeals board's principal office, and shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times.

(5) The appeals board shall either publish at its expense or make arrangements with a publishing firm for the publication of those of its findings and decisions which are of general public interest, in such form as to assure reasonable distribution thereof.

(6) The appeals board shall maintain at its principal office a journal which shall contain all official actions of the appeals board, with the exception of findings and decisions, together with the vote of each member on such actions. The journal shall be available for public inspection at the principal office of the appeals board at all reasonable times.

(7) The forest practices appeals board shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals arising from an action or determination by the department, and the department of fish and wildlife, and the department of ecology with respect to management plans provided for under RCW 76.09.350.

(8)(a) Any person aggrieved by the approval or disapproval of an application to conduct a forest practice or the approval or disapproval of any landscape plan or permit or watershed analysis may, except as otherwise provided in chapter 43.-- RCW (sections 1 through 15 of this act), seek review from the appeals board by filing a request for the same within thirty days of the approval or disapproval. Concurrently with the filing of any request for review with the board as provided in this section, the requestor shall file a copy of his or her request with the department and the attorney general. The attorney general may intervene to protect the public interest and ensure that the provisions of this chapter are complied with.

(b) The review proceedings authorized in (a) of this subsection are subject to the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW pertaining to procedures in adjudicative proceedings.

(1) There is hereby created within the environmental hearings office under RCW 43.21B.005 the hydraulic appeals board of the state of Washington.

(2) The hydraulic appeals board shall consist of three members: The director of the department of ecology or the director's designee, the director of the department of agriculture or the director's designee, and the director or the director's designee of the department whose action is appealed under subsection (6) of this section. A decision must be agreed to by at least two members of the board to be final.

(3) The board may adopt rules necessary for the conduct of its powers and duties or for transacting other official business.

(4) The board shall make findings of fact and prepare a written decision in each case decided by it, and that finding and decision shall be effective upon being signed by two or more board members and upon being filed at the hydraulic appeals board's principal office, and shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times.

(5) The board has exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals arising from the approval, denial, conditioning, or modification of a hydraulic approval issued by the department: (a) Under the authority granted in RCW 77.55.110 for the diversion of water for agricultural irrigation or stock watering purposes or when associated with streambank stabilization to protect farm and agricultural land as defined in RCW 84.34.020; or (b) under the authority granted in RCW 77.55.230 for off- site mitigation proposals.

(6)(a) Any person aggrieved by the approval, denial, conditioning, or modification of a hydraulic approval pursuant to RCW 77.55.110 may, except as otherwise provided in chapter 43.-- RCW (sections 1 through 15 of this act), seek review from the board by filing a request for the same within thirty days of notice of the approval, denial, conditioning, or modification of such approval.

(b) The review proceedings authorized in (a) of this subsection are subject to the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW pertaining to procedures in adjudicative proceedings.

(1) Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may, except as otherwise provided in chapter 43.-- RCW (sections 1 through 15 of this act), seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one days of the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6).

Within seven days of the filing of any petition for review with the board as provided in this section pertaining to a final decision of a local government, the petitioner shall serve copies of the petition on the department, the office of the attorney general, and the local government. The department and the attorney general may intervene to protect the public interest and insure that the provisions of this chapter are complied with at any time within fifteen days from the date of the receipt by the department or the attorney general of a copy of the petition for review filed pursuant to this section. The shorelines hearings board shall schedule review proceedings on the petition for review without regard as to whether the period for the department or the attorney general to intervene has or has not expired.

(2) The department or the attorney general may obtain review of any final decision granting a permit, or granting or denying an application for a permit issued by a local government by filing a written petition with the shorelines hearings board and the appropriate local government within twenty-one days from the date the final decision was filed as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6).

(3) The review proceedings authorized in subsections (1) and (2) of this section are subject to the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW pertaining to procedures in adjudicative proceedings. Judicial review of such proceedings of the shorelines hearings board is governed by chapter 34.05 RCW. The board shall issue its decision on the appeal authorized under subsections (1) and (2) of this section within one hundred eighty days after the date the petition is filed with the board or a petition to intervene is filed by the department or the attorney general, whichever is later. The time period may be extended by the board for a period of thirty days upon a showing of good cause or may be waived by the parties.

(4) Any person may appeal any rules, regulations, or guidelines adopted or approved by the department within thirty days of the date of the adoption or approval. The board shall make a final decision within sixty days following the hearing held thereon.

(5) The board shall find the rule, regulation, or guideline to be valid and enter a final decision to that effect unless it determines that the rule, regulation, or guideline:

(b) Constitutes an implementation of this chapter in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or

(d) Was developed without fully considering and evaluating all material submitted to the department during public review and comment; or

(6) If the board makes a determination under subsection (5)(a) through (e) of this section, it shall enter a final decision declaring the rule, regulation, or guideline invalid, remanding the rule, regulation, or guideline to the department with a statement of the reasons in support of the determination, and directing the department to adopt, after a thorough consultation with the affected local government and any other interested party, a new rule, regulation, or guideline consistent with the board's decision.

(7) A decision of the board on the validity of a rule, regulation, or guideline shall be subject to review in superior court, if authorized pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW. A petition for review of the decision of the shorelines hearings board on a rule, regulation, or guideline shall be filed within thirty days after the date of final decision by the shorelines hearings board.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 23. Sections 1 through 15 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 43 RCW.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 24. The legislature does not intend to appropriate additional funds for the implementation of this act and expects all affected state agencies to implement this act's provisions within existing appropriations.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 25. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately."

Representatives Kessler and Armstrong spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment.

There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill as amended by the House, was placed on final passage.

Representatives Kessler, Armstrong, Clements and Shabro spoke in favor of passage of the bill.

The Speaker (Representative Lovick presiding) stated the question before the House to be the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5776, as amended by the House.

The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5776, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 88, Nays - 8, Absent - 0, Excused - 2.

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Benson, Berkey, Blake, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Condotta, Conway, Cooper, Crouse, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDonald, McIntire, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Miloscia, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Orcutt, Pearson, Pettigrew, Pflug, Priest, Quall, Roach, Rockefeller, Ruderman, Santos, Schindler, Schoesler, Sehlin, Shabro, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Sump, Talcott, Tom, Veloria, Wallace, Wood, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 88.

Voting nay: Representatives Chase, Kirby, McDermott, Moeller, Romero, Schual-Berke, Simpson, and Upthegrove - 8.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5776, as amended by the House, having received the necessary constitutional majority, was declared passed.

With the consent of the House, the Rules Committee was relieved of further consideration of the following bills, and the bills were placed on the Second Reading calendar:

There being no objection, the House adjourned until 10:00 a.m., April 15, 2003, the 93^rd Day of the Regular Session.