CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT

SENATE BILL 6493

Chapter 268, Laws of 2004

(partial veto)

58th Legislature
2004 Regular Session

ELECTIONS--NONCHARTER CODE CITIES

EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/1/04

Passed by the Senate March 9, 2004 YEAS 47 NAYS 0 BRAD OWEN ________________________________________ President of the Senate Passed by the House March 3, 2004 YEAS 96 NAYS 0 FRANK CHOPP ________________________________________ Speaker of the House of Representatives		CERTIFICATE I, Milton H. Doumit, Jr., Secretary of the Senate of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is SENATE BILL 6493 as passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on the dates hereon set forth. MILTON H. DOUMIT JR. ________________________________________ Secretary
Approved March 31, 2004, with the exception of section 1, which is vetoed. GARY F. LOCKE ________________________________________ Governor of the State of Washington		FILED March 31, 2004 - 3:19 p.m. Secretary of State State of Washington

_____________________________________________

SENATE BILL 6493
_____________________________________________
AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE
Passed Legislature - 2004 Regular Session

State of Washington

58th Legislature

2004 Regular Session

By Senators Horn, Kastama, Roach, Haugen and Esser

Read first time 01/21/2004. Referred to Committee on Government Operations & Elections.

AN ACT Relating to costs of elections; amending RCW 29A.04.410 and 35A.060.050; and providing an effective date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

     *Sec. 1   RCW 29A.04.410 and 2003 c 111 s 146 are each amended to read as follows:
     Every city, town, and district is liable for its proportionate share of the costs when such elections are held in conjunction with other elections held under RCW 29A.04.320 and 29A.04.330. The proportionate share of each city, town, and district shall not include any costs associated with the election of any statewide officer or ballot measure in even-numbered years.
     Whenever any city, town, or district holds any primary or election, general or special, on an isolated date, all costs of such elections must be borne by the city, town, or district concerned.
     The purpose of this section is to clearly establish that no city, town, or district is responsible for any election costs involved in electing statewide officers or ballot measures. Costs associated with the election of statewide officers and ballot measures in even-numbered years shall be borne by the county. The county is not responsible for any costs involved in the holding of any city, town, or district election.
     In recovering such election expenses, including a reasonable pro-ration of administrative costs, the county auditor shall certify the cost to the county treasurer with a copy to the clerk or auditor of the city, town, or district concerned. Upon receipt of such certification, the county treasurer shall make the transfer from any available and appropriate city, town, or district funds to the county current expense fund or to the county election reserve fund if such a fund is established. Each city, town, or district must be promptly notified by the county treasurer whenever such transfer has been completed. However, in those districts wherein a treasurer, other than the county treasurer, has been appointed such transfer procedure does not apply, but the district shall promptly issue its warrant for payment of election costs.
     *Sec. 1 was vetoed. See message at end of chapter.

Sec. 2 RCW 35A.06.050 and 1994 c 223 s 29 are each amended to read as follows:
The proposal for abandonment of a plan of government as authorized in RCW 35A.06.030 and for adoption of the plan named in the resolution or petition shall be voted upon at the next general ((~~municipal~~)) election ((~~if one is to be held within one hundred and eighty days or otherwise at a special election called for that purpose~~)) in accordance with RCW ((~~29.13.020~~)) 29A.04.330. The ballot title and statement of the proposition shall be prepared by the city attorney as provided in RCW 29.27.060 and 35A.29.120.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3 This act takes effect July 1, 2004.

         Passed by the Senate March 9, 2004.
         Passed by the House March 3, 2004.
         Approved by the Governor March 31, 2004, with the exception of certain items that were vetoed.
         Filed in Office of Secretary of State March 31, 2004.

     Note: Governor's explanation of partial veto is as follows:

"I am returning herewith, without my approval as to section 1, Senate Bill No. 6493 entitled:

     "AN ACT Relating to costs of elections;"

This bill addresses the allocation of election costs for statewide officers and ballot measures. It also provides that non-charter code cities, when making changes in their form of governance, place that decision before voters at the next general election, rather than calling a special election within 180 days.

This bill was adopted unanimously by the Legislature. However, following its delivery to me, King County and the associations that represent county officials and county governments recognized its potential impacts and requested that section 1 be vetoed.

Section 1 would have affected the sharing of election costs in even-numbered years. It would have prohibited counties from prorating any portion of the costs of statewide races or ballot measures to cities, towns, or special purpose districts. Currently, counties can distribute those costs among all jurisdictions that participate in an election.

This section would have had particularly severe effects in King County, which could have faced added costs of $600,000 to $700,000 in the 2004 election alone. The biggest beneficiary of the county's increased expense would have been the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID). This is unfair because RTID received close to $2 million in the 2003-05 operating budget specifically for election-related costs. The cities and towns in King County also would have experienced savings, but with a cumulative total of $270,000, these would have been relatively small for each of them.

For these reasons, I have vetoed section 1 of Senate Bill No. 6493.

With the exception of section 1, Senate Bill No. 6493 is approved."