Bellevue Councilmember raises concerns about mileage tax and 18th amendment protection
After the state Transportation Commission’s executive director finished her presentation on the Road Usage Charge (RUC) Pilot before the Bellevue City Council last week, a couple councilmembers spoke up with concerns. One councilmember specifically noted the importance of constitutional protection for any new revenue collected from drivers in the form of a Road Usage Charge.
This is a concern that, when previously raised, has largely been deflected to the legislature. Naturally, I was curious to hear if the response had changed, allowing the public more insight into where Commission officials stand on this critical policy question. After all, a Road Usage Charge that is not protected by the 18th amendment for highway purposes but is diverted to fund transit is no longer a user fee, but a tax.
Councilmember Jennifer Robertson commented on the 18th amendment, which protects fuel tax revenues for highway purposes only, and whether RUC revenue would have similar protection:
“I would personally really like to see you come back and give us an update when the pilot is done and I would also like to see this body take a policy position on this once the information is in – the PSRC is studying this, and we’re going to need to do that…[A] concern I have is the 18th amendment and for those that don’t play Washington State Constitution bingo, the 18th amendment is the amendment that says gas taxes may only be used for highway purposes… I’m glad you guys are grappling with that because for me personally, if this is not restricted to transportation purposes, it won’t work.”
Unfortunately, the Commission’s executive director did not address the 18th amendment in her response to the councilmember’s list of concerns.
Fortunately, we are not totally in the dark on where the Commission might stand on the 18th amendment and constitutional protection for money collected from drivers. The Commission recently released their draft transportation plan, and here is what they note about the Road Usage Charge:
This language isn’t all that different from that of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), which would like “a broader consideration of possible uses” of a Road Usage Charge. The PSRC sits on the RUC Steering Committee.
It also sounds rather similar to language used by Transportation Choices Coalition (TCC), whose policy director is one of the WSTC’s Commissioners. In their legislative agenda, TCC has advocated for a “pay-as-you-drive system” that “will provide the level and flexibility of revenues to ensure our transportation system is well maintained and that Washington can pursue a wide variety of transportation choices.”
The continued lack of direct answers on the 18th amendment is striking. The public shouldn’t have to piece together quotes from reports and testimonies to get a clear picture of how public officials actually want to spend their money. Further, it is bad government to first pass a pilot project and promote acceptance (and perhaps passage) of a new tax, and decide how the money should be spent afterward.
We will continue to track the debate and encourage greater transparency and honesty about how a Road Usage Charge would function in practice.