Opinion ID: 2639085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Construction of the light rail line and collection of local taxes beyond the 10-year period

Text: Sane Transit asserts, additionally, that even if the voters adopted Resolution 75 and authorized Sound Transit to scale back the light rail line project, Sound Transit's plan to extend the construction period beyond the 10-year period and to collect taxes beyond that 10-year period to finance the construction is an unlawful substantial deviation that is not authorized by the discretionary authority granted in Resolution 75. [12] Sane Transit indicates in this regard that Sound Transit assured voters the Sound Move project would take only 10 years by calling it The Ten-Year Transit System Plan. Sane Transit's argument does not, however, find support in the measure approved by the voters. Resolution 75 does not itself state any limits on the construction or taxation period. [13] Instead, it instructs the agency to construct those projects in the Sound Move plan that are feasible with the funds raised by the voter approved local taxes. In the event of insufficient funds, Resolution 75 requires Sound Transit to pay for the costs of the improvements deemed ... to be most necessary and in the best interests of the project. CP at 415 ([T]he RTA shall use the available funds for paying the cost of those improvements that are contained in the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan....). Neither does the information received by the voters support Sane Transit's argument. The summary brochure mentions the 10-year period only two times. One reference states that the University District to the Northgate shopping center segment would be built during the ten-year plan period only if additional funding is available. CP at 301. Another states [t]he RTA Board is committed to completing Sound Move within ten years of voter approval. CP at 303. Neither of these references constitutes more than a pledge to complete the project on time. It is true that references to the construction time period in the more detailed version of Sound Move indicate a serious commitment to completion of the project within ten years. The following statements are examples of references to the 10-year period set forth in the Sound Move plan: System completion within ten yearsdifferent parts and segments of the plan will be implemented in stages and be operational as soon as possible; the entire system will be completed and operational within ten years. CP at 26 (emphasis added). The ten-year timeframe for putting the plan in place begins the day after voters approve funding for the new regional transit system.... ... [ T ] he entire system should be up and running within 10 years. ... [T]he RTA will use a variety of techniques to make sure that the system is developed and operated as cost-effectively as possible. CP at 45 (emphasis added). The proposal to be placed before the voters will be a ten-year construction plan financed in part by long-term bonds. As elements are completed, they will begin operating during that ten-year period. After the ten-year period, the RTA's tax revenues will be used to continue transit operations and pay for debt service.... The RTA is committed to building and operating a ten-year system plan that can be confidently funded and completed as promised to the region's citizens. CP at 52. [T]en-year implementationDifferent parts and segments of the plan will be implemented in stages and be operational as soon as possible. The RTA is committed to the entire system being completed and operational within 10 years. CP at 53. Sound Transit argues that these and other similar statements were merely declarations of the principles of the plan. We agree with Sound Transit's characterization of the above statements. Declarations of principles, purposes, and aims are not operative rules of action and do not give rise to enforceable rights or create legal obligations. See Melville v. State, 115 Wash.2d 34, 38, 793 P.2d 952 (1990); Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local No. 286 v. Sand Point Country Club, 83 Wash.2d 498, 505, 519 P.2d 985 (1974); Whatcom County v. Langlie, 40 Wash.2d 855, 863, 246 P.2d 836 (1952). We conclude, therefore, that there is no legal obligation under the statements in the Sound Move summary brochure or the detailed Sound Move plan for Sound Transit to complete the light rail line within ten years. Pursuant to the language in Resolution 75, Sound Transit must complete the project to the extent possible based on the funds available. Insofar as continuing the local taxes, Sane Transit claims that the imposed sales and use, and motor vehicle taxes were also restricted to a 10-year collection period. Sound Transit responds that the taxes are permanent and for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the projects in the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan. In sections 3 and 4 of Resolution 75, the Sound Transit Board stated: For the sole purpose of providing funds for the planning, development, operation, and maintenance of a high capacity transportation system ... the RTA shall levy and collect a sales and use tax not to exceed four-tenths of one percent and levy and collect a motor vehicle excise tax of three-tenths of one percent ... if such local option taxes are approved by the voters within the RTA boundaries.... .... The Board intends for the levy and collection of the motor vehicle excise tax and the sales and use tax to begin on January 1, 1997. CP at 415 (emphasis added). This language indicates that the board intended to continue taxation beyond the projected 10-year construction period. Language in the full-length detailed Sound Move document also supports this conclusion. System expansion or tax rollbackAny second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require voter approval within the RTA District. If voters decide not to extend the system, the RTA will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off the bonds and operate and maintain the investments made as part of Sound Move. CP at 26. Any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require approval by a vote of those ... within the RTA District. CP at 52. Because transit facilities provide benefits over a long span of time, it is reasonable to finance their construction over a period that extends beyond the ten-year system plan construction timeframe. CP at 53 (emphasis added). System expansion or tax rollbackAny second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require voter approved [sic] within the RTA District. If voters decide not to extend the system, the RTA will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off the outstanding bonds and operate and maintain the investments made as part of Sound Move. CP at 56. In the financial policies appendix to Sound Move, the board indicated: Voter approval requirement The RTA Board recognizes its authority to fund Sound Move's future operations, maintenance and debt service as well as any future phase capital program through a continuation of the local taxes initially authorized by the voters. However, in its commitment to public accountability, the RTA Board pledges that any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require approval by a vote of those citizens within the RTA District. Sales tax rate rollback Should voter approval for a future phase capital program not be forthcoming, the RTA Board will initiate two steps to roll back the rate of sales tax collected by the RTA. a) First, the RTA will first [sic] initiate an accelerated pay off schedule for any outstanding bonds. Second, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay the accelerated schedule for debt service on outstanding bonds, system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency cost. b) Once all debt is retired, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay for the system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement and agency administration. Decl. of Joni Earl, Ex. B App. B at B-7. It is apparent from the language contained in Resolution 75 and in Sound Move and its appendices that when the voters approved the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan they implemented permanent taxes. At a minimum, taxes were to be collected beyond the 10-year period for operations and maintenance of the system, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency administration. It was also expected that taxes for construction costs would extend beyond the 10-year period. The only limitation on the collection of taxes for construction was that they not be collected on a second or any future capital phase without further voter approval. In sum, Sound Transit has the authority to continue to collect taxes within its district to finance construction beyond the 10-year period, as well as for operation and maintenance of the system. Finally, Sane Transit asserts that the 14-mile light rail line is an unlawful substantial deviation from the plan approved by the voters because a grant of discretionary authority to the agency in Resolution 75 subverts the legislative purpose behind RCW 81.104.100(2)(d) [14] and RCW 81.104.140(7). [15] These statutes required Sound Transit to inform the voters of the details of the system and financing plan. Sane Transit claims the purpose of these statutory requirements was to entitle the voters to make the decision of whether the benefits of Sound Transit's proposal outweighed its costs. Sane Transit further asserts that a governmental authority cannot retain the type of discretion claimed by Sound Transit for a publicly funded project. Sane Transit relies on Uhler v. City of Olympia, 87 Wash. 1, 151 P. 117, 152 P. 998 (1915), for the proposition that the discretionary authority set forth in section 2 of Resolution 75 deprived the voters of the statutory right to determine whether the benefits of the light rail plan warrant its costs. In Uhler, this court concluded that it would not allow a city council to increase the necessary sum of bonds to be issued from $90,000 to an amount of at least 10 percent more by allowing for the city to pass a supplemental ordinance raising the amount. Uhler, 87 Wash. at 16-17, 152 P. 998. In reaching this conclusion, we relied upon a statute which compelled a reasonably definite estimate of the value. In this case, Sound Transit has not changed the tax rates approved by the voters. Further, by constructing a shortened light rail line based on its authority to scale back a project to remain within budget, Sound Transit has not violated the voters' statutory right to pass upon the question of taxation. The discretionary authority in section 2 of Resolution 75 instead provides the agency with guidance regarding what action should be taken in the situation where funds are insufficient and/or changed circumstances occur. [16] The record further indicates that Sound Transit complied with RCW 81.104.100(2)(d) and RCW 81.104.140(7) when it mailed an eight-page summary pamphlet of the system and financing plan to every registered voter. The voters had the opportunity to deliberate over the summary of the plan which was sent to them. In addition, there is nothing in the record that indicated voters were denied the opportunity to examine the details of the plan, and consideration of Resolution 75 was available to them. The discretion granted to Sound Transit in section 2 of Resolution 75 is, therefore, not unlawful.