Opinion ID: 2639085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Eight-Page Brochure Mailed to the Voters Is the Measure Adopted By the Voters.

Text: We have consistently followed the principle that government agencies may not substantially deviate from building the project approved by the voters. See O'Byrne v. City of Spokane, 67 Wash.2d 132, 136, 406 P.2d 595 (1965); George v. City of Anacortes, 147 Wash. 242, 245, 265 P. 477 (1928); Hayes v. City of Seattle, 120 Wash. 372, 375, 207 P. 607 (1922); Thompson v. Pierce County, 113 Wash. 237, 241, 193 P. 706 (1920). And we construe taxing initiatives and propositions as the average informed lay voter would read them. In re Estate of Hitchman, 100 Wash.2d 464, 467, 670 P.2d 655 (1983).
Chapter 81.104 RCW provides the exclusive and mandatory procedure a regional transit authority must follow to seek voter approval for increased taxation to build a high-capacity transportation system. This procedure is unique and distinct from normal proposition measures submitted to the voters. Cf. RCW 17.28.252 (mosquito control districts); RCW 27.12.222 (rural county library districts); RCW 28A.540.060 (school districts). In 1991 the legislature enacted Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2151, which, inter alia, amended various sections within chapter 81.104 RCW. See LAWS OF 1991, ch. 318, §§ 1-12. The bill's primary focus was to differentiate between various aspects of the planning process, namely system planning, project planning, and finance planning. See id. §§ 9-10 (codified as amended at RCW 81.104.100-.110). [3] While project planning involved specific details, see RCW 81.10.100(3), the system plan must contain specific elements: (d) The system plan submitted to the voters pursuant to RCW 81.104.140 shall address, but is not limited to the following issues: (i) Identification of level and types of high capacity transportation services to be provided; (ii) A plan of high occupancy vehicle lanes to be constructed; (iii) Identification of route alignments and station locations with sufficient specificity to permit calculation of costs, ridership, and system impacts; (iv) Performance characteristics of technologies in the system plan; (v) Patronage forecasts; (vi) A financing plan describing: Phasing of investments; capital and operating costs and expected revenues; cost-effectiveness represented by a total cost per system rider and new rider estimate; estimated ridership and the cost of service for each individual high capacity line; and identification of the operating revenue to operating expense ratio. The financing plan shall specifically differentiate the proposed use of funds between high capacity transportation facilities and services, and high occupancy vehicle facilities; (vii) Description of the relationship between the high capacity transportation system plan and adopted land use plans; (viii) An assessment of social, economic, and environmental impacts; and (ix) Mobility characteristics of the system presented, including but not limited to: Qualitative description of system/service philosophy and impacts; qualitative system reliability; travel time and number of transfers between selected residential, employment, and activity centers; and system and activity center mode splits. RCW 81.104.100(2)(d) (emphasis added). The phrase but is not limited to necessarily permits full disclosure of all other material terms submitted to the voters within or beyond the mandatory elements delineated in RCW 81.104.100(2)(d). As one of those elements is a financing plan, RCW 81.104.100(2)(d)(vi), subsumed within that element is what contingencies or qualifications, if any, the transit authority might make in the event of insufficient funding. Terms which reserve a discretionary power are generally unlawful unless disclosed up front. See Thompson, 113 Wash. at 241, 193 P. 706. Most importantly for the issue at hand, ESHB 2151 added what is now RCW 81.104.140(8). See LAWS OF 1991, ch. 318, § 11. That section imposes an express duty upon the regional transit authority seeking dedicated funding for a high-capacity transportation system to mail a document (brochure) descriptive of the plan to each registered voter in the designated area: (8) Agencies shall provide to the registered voters in the area a document describing the systems plan and the financing plan set forth in RCW 81.104.100. It shall also describe the relationship of the system to regional issues such as development density at station locations and activity centers, and the interrelationship of the system to adopted land use and transportation demand management goals within the region. This document shall be provided to the voters at least twenty days prior to the date of the election. RCW 81.104.140(8). This requisite statutory disclosure of the systems plan requires a mailing to the voters setting forth at least the major elements required in the systems plan, which necessarily includes, at the very least, a description of the physical location of the planned improvement, and a time frame for its construction. See RCW 81.104.100(2)(d)(iii), .100(2)(d)(vi),.100(2)(d)(viii). Nothing in RCW 81.104.140(8) indicates the legislature desired anything less than full disclosure to the electorate of at least the essentials of the system plan. And obviously the section would be meaningless if the transit authority were allowed to affirmatively misrepresent the plan. While the transit authority need not spell out the details of the project plan, it is required to describe the material terms to the system plan, which certainly includes the length and location of the proposed facilities as well as the completion date. RCW 81.104.100(2)(d)(iii),.100(2)(d)(vi), .100(2)(d)(viii). This brochure did exactly that. The eight-page brochure Sound Transit mailed to the voters pursuant to statute is, as a matter of law, a descriptive summary of the actual plan submitted to the voters for adoption. And, as a matter of law, it is what the voters voted on.
The eight-page document identified itself as [a] proposal to the citizens by the Regional Transit Authority, Clerk's Papers (CP) at 297 (emphasis added), representing itself as the citizen's guide to the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority's proposal to increase our transportation system capacity by offering new choices for getting around the region. Id. The document specifically referenced itself as the document required by RCW 81.104.140(8). The brochure unequivocally and without qualification promised 25 miles of light-rail with 26 stations within walking distance of major regional destinations. CP at 300. [4] Some of the major destinations expressly included:  Educationthe University of Washington, the UW Tacoma Campus, Seattle Central Community College, Seattle University and potentially North Seattle Community College.  Health carethe UW Medical Center, Swedish Hospital, Harborview and Virginia Mason.  Cultural, convention and sports facilitiesthe Seattle Art Museum, the Tacoma Theater District, the new Washington State History Museum, Husky Stadium, the Kingdome, the Tacoma Dome, the Washington State Convention & Trade Center, Seattle Center (via Monorail connection) and Benaroya Hall (the new Seattle Symphony hall).  Other transportationSea-Tac Airport, Colman Dock (the Washington State Ferries), King Street Station (commuter rail and Amtrak), the Monorail, Seattle's Waterfront Streetcar and a Tacoma Dome regional transportation terminal. Id. Sound Transit expressly assured voters in this brochure the light-rail would run from downtown Seattle to the University District (the second largest employment center and transit market in the region) through First Hill and Capitol Hilltwo of the largest transit markets in the region. CP at 301. The brochure was represented by Sound Transit as a Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan, CP at 297, made on express representations that Sound Transit was committed to completing [the project] within ten years of voter approval, CP at 303. Yet in a shocking turn of events those voters in the University District, First Hill, Capitol Hill, and Sea-Tac who voted in justified reliance on the statutory brochure to be taxed for Sound Transit to construct a means of traveling to and from the expressly listed destinations were betrayed. They are now faced with the reality these destinations are not to be served at all. Nothing in the mailed brochure self-identified as the proposal to the citizens, CP at 297, alerted them to this possibility in any way, shape, or form. Moreover, the brochure expressly stated exactly the opposite. Indeed, a voter examining the eight-page brochure would see that Sound Transit would service the area designated without qualification. Even the financing was guaranteed: An independent expert review panel appointed by the governor and the state Legislature has stated that Sound Move ridership and cost estimates are conservative. Project costs and revenues for Sound Move have been carefully estimated to provide a cushion in case there are unforeseen expenses or changes in revenues. . . . . Sound Move ten-year estimates include all costs to build and run the system including community planning, engineering, design, environmental mitigation, full accessibility, safety features, station amenities, and a contingency for unforeseen expenses. CP at 303 (emphasis added). There was no hint of shortfalland there were express representations to the contrary! Nowhere did the eight-page brochure state or imply Sound Transit's service plan would or could be scaled back at all, much less by one-third. Relying on this brochure, no voter could possibly have suspected Sound Transit had a hidden agenda to scale back the project and extend its time of completion should it run out of money, an eventuality which was expressly disclaimed in and of itself. The plan described in this brochure unequivocally, unconditionally, and categorically promised the voters Sound Transit would have more than enough money to build 21 miles of light-rail from the University District to Sea-Tac in 10 years. There was no mention of Resolution 75 in fact, form, or substance. That Sound Transit elected to withhold any hint of its now asserted discretionary power from the voters in the eight-page brochure means that alleged discretionary power was neither submitted to nor possibly approved by the voters. The failure to include this purported reserved discretion precludes its existence as a matter of law as the voters could not approve a power that was never submitted to them, and one which could substantially change the whole system submitted for approval. Louthan, 94 Wash.2d at 430, 617 P.2d 977. Voters simply could not, and did not, approve something substantially different than what was expressly and without qualification represented in the statutory plan brochure. Necessary to the majority's holding is its claim the voters pamphlet and the eight-page brochure were not sufficient to inform the voters of the detailed aspects of a multi-billion dollar transportation and financing plan, and could not be considered enabling legislation. Majority at 352 (emphasis added). If we were speaking only of details the majority might have a point. But, to the contrary, we are talking about direct and unqualified representations that go to the heart of the plan, i.e., [t]he plan includes 25 miles of light-rail, CP at 300, and that Sound Transit would complete the project within ten years of voter approval, id. at 303. These were the very features that distinguished it from the prior plan rejected by the voters. In sum, the legislature mandated the regional transit authority to submit to the voters a description of the system it proposed to build. RCW 81.104.140(8). Sound Transit did just that, and the voters were entitled to rely upon the unconditional, unqualified, and unequivocal promises Sound Transit made for a north-south light-rail system running from the University District to Sea-Tac, CP at 300, that would be complet[ed] ... within ten years of voter approval, id. at 303. If Sound Transit had a secret agenda, that agenda was never submitted to, much less adopted by, the electorate. This should end the case.