Tag Archives: gas prices

Who would oppose multifamily housing in rural areas?

Dear Neighbor,

When legislators talk about the obstacles to increasing the supply of affordable housing in our state, the list always includes — at least for Republicans — the government regulations that make property development more complicated and costly than it needs to be. But there are forces outside government that get in the way as well, and this week’s report explains how and why I recently tangled with them.

Also, there’s important information for people who have purchased ag fuel and paid the surcharge tied to the cap-and-tax law (officially, the Climate Commitment Act). I and other Republicans worked hard to set up a fund to provide rebates, and we don’t want anyone to miss out on what they’re owed!

Click here or on the image to view my report.

***

I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.

Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

EMAIL: Perry.Dozier@leg.wa.gov
OLYMPIA PHONE: (360) 786-7630
OLYMPIA OFFICE: 342 Irving R. Newhouse Building
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 40416, Olympia, WA 98504

Here they come: one proposed tax hike, then another, then…

BFST committee

Dear Neighbor,

The results of a recent survey of 600 Washington voters showed up in my inbox earlier this month. Most of the survey questions had to do with state spending, one way or another. That makes sense considering how years of overspending have finally caught up with the majority Democrats, and put state government in a multibillion-dollar hole that has to be solved before legislators can adjourn for the year.

It’s no surprise to me that more than three-fourths of those responding think the Legislature doesn’t need more money to address important priorities, and more than three out of five responding simply don’t trust the Legislature on spending.

poll result

Click here for a full presentation of the survey results.

So what are the Democratic majorities in the Senate and House doing? Well, they’ve stepped up their efforts to raise taxes. It’s the easy way to get out of the budget hole while continuing to add to the size of state government.

In the meantime, Republicans are coming up with ways to reduce spending and solve the budget deficit without tax increases. I invite you to look at some of the cost-saving ideas at our $ave Washington webpage.

Here’s where three of the Democrats’ proposed tax hikes stand as the fifth week of this year’s 15-week legislative session wraps.

  • A new tax on each mile you drive? For many years, Democrats have wanted to impose a mileage tax. Senate Bill 5726, introduced Tuesday, would create a “road usage charge” (RUC for short) starting at 2.6 cents per mile, plus an assessment of 10% on the total RUC a person pays. That’s right — the “assessment” is really a tax on a tax.The supporters of a mileage tax argue Washington’s 49.4-cent per gallon gas tax isn’t generating enough money as it is, with more electric and hybrid vehicles on our state’s roads. But I wonder if they understand, or appreciate, how a mileage tax would hurt rural drivers disproportionately.

    Also, this would be another “regressive” tax — meaning it hits lower-income people harder — from the party that is always complaining about Washington’s tax code being regressive.

    Washington’s constitution guarantees gas-tax money can only go toward highways and bridges. The mileage-tax bill doesn’t (and can’t) guarantee how the 2.6 cents per mile would be used. Also, the 10% assessment could be used only for “multimodal,” meaning transit, rail, and pedestrian/bicycle purposes.SB 5726 will get a public hearing Tuesday afternoon before the Senate Transportation Committee. If you want to testify about the bill or at least make your opinion known, there’s a link at the end of this report that will help.

    The identical House bill (HB 1921) already received a public hearing. From what I’m told, the House majority is pushing harder for this tax than the Senate, but that is not reassuring.

  • Higher property taxes, Part I: Last year the Senate Democrats tried to lift the cap on the annual growth of property-tax rates. They wanted a 3% limit, rather than the 1% Washington voters had approved (which was later confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Legislature).That attempt fizzled after intense opposition from the public and Senate Republicans. But this year the House Democrats are making a run at tripling the property-tax growth rate, with House Bill 1334.

    It’s the same bad idea as before, and my argument against it is also the same. Beyond the fact that this would be another regressive tax increase that makes living in our state harder to afford, cities and counties already have the ability to increase property-tax rates beyond 1%. They try to make it sound like the Legislature is holding them back, but that’s false. All they have to do is get permission from the voters.

    The 1% cap applies only to the annual property-tax increases that get voted on at the council/commission level. This bill would basically let local governments take more without asking first. HB 1334 received a committee hearing Tuesday, and I expect it will continue to move ahead unless, like last year, enough pressure is applied to stop it.

  • Higher property taxes, Part II: There’s a reason a 60% majority vote is required to pass school bond issues. Unlike enrichment levies, school bonds create debt that typically takes decades to pay back. To me — and according to Washington’s constitution, for the past 80 years — such an obligation needs to be supported by more than a simple majority.The Democratic members of the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Committee, on which I serve, voted yesterday to pass legislation that would require only a simple majority to approve bond issues: Senate Bill 5186, and Senate Joint Resolution 8200. I and the other Republican committee members voted no, meaning we want to maintain the taxpayer protection afforded by the long-standing three-fifths approval standard.

    Because dropping to simple-majority approval would require a change in the state constitution, SJR 8200 would have to be passed with a two-thirds vote in the Senate and in the House, then a majority of voters would have to agree at the next general election.

    I know the supporters of bond issues are disappointed when those measures fail, but let’s not blame the 60% approval requirement. If a school district makes a persuasive argument to the voters, and the bond issue is the right size at the right price, shouldn’t 60% support be attainable?

media Feb 11

Each week, if there’s a long enough break between committee meetings and floor sessions, Republican lawmakers make themselves available to news reporters who are covering the 2025 session. I took part in this week’s meeting, commenting on tax-related questions as a member of the Senate Ways and Means committee — and was prepared to field questions about parental rights, being the originator of the Senate’s parental-rights bill and a member of the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Committee. To learn what reporters are asking about, and hear our responses, click here.

***

I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.

My priorities (shared by Senate Republicans) are:

Here’s how to:

Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

dozier signature

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

E-News: Hearings scheduled on initiatives next week; this week went to budgets

with Sen. L. Wilson

With Sen. Lynda Wilson of Vancouver in the Senate chamber. The supplemental operating budget passed today by the state Senate reflects some of my input, which I worked through her as Senate Republican budget leader and her counterparts on the majority side. Keep reading for details.

Dear Neighbor,

Greetings from the state Capitol! I have important news about voter initiatives that couldn’t wait… for reasons that will become apparent.

This past weekend I reported to you how our Democrat colleagues had finally committed to holding public hearings for three of the six initiatives submitted to us by the people. Now we have a schedule for those hearings, and opportunities for you to participate.

The three measures to be considered are Initiative 2111 (total ban on income taxes in our state), Initiative 2113 (restore the ability of police to conduct vehicle pursuits) and Initiative 2081 (parental rights regarding their children’s education).

I-2081 builds on the parents’ bill of rights legislation I have sponsored since 2021. It will come before the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee, on which I serve, and I am working with others on the committee to make sure the hearing covers the most important aspects during the one hour (!) allotted.

Unfortunately, the majority is still refusing to hold hearings on the initiatives to repeal laws that are about taking money and giving it to the state: I-2117, I-2109 and I-2124. Washington’s constitution does not say to give precedence to half the initiatives and ignore the rest. The people are the sponsors of these initiatives, and they deserve to be heard on all six!

To support the initiatives next week sign in as PRO, using the links below. Be sure the button next to the initiative number under “select agenda item” is checked, to display your options — which include submitting written testimony or testifying “live” in person or remotely:

For more detail about the six initiatives click here. I want to hear from you about all of them. Please take a few minutes to click on the link or the QR code and complete my survey!
survey QR code

Take my online survey about the six voter initiatives submitted to the Legislature this session!

Scan the QR code or click here to begin

initiative box

Local projects supported in budgets adopted, proposed this week

State government runs on a two-year budget cycle, with new budgets developed and adopted in odd-numbered years. This is why we alternate between 105-day sessions and 60-day sessions; in this year’s “short” session we are reopening the budgets approved in 2023 to make adjustments that are intended to carry through the remainder of the budget cycle (until June 2025). Those changes are captured in “supplemental” budgets.

This week the Senate adopted supplemental versions of the 2023-25 operating budget and capital budget. A high-level summary of the supplemental operating budget is here; before the final vote I worked with the budget leaders from both parties to make two adjustments of interest to our area.

One adds a $501,000 appropriation to help with the cleanup of gasoline contamination in downtown Walla Walla; the second creates a fourth tier in an agricultural-fuel reimbursement I discovered in the budget after it became public Monday. For those who purchase 10,000 gallons or more of farm diesel annually, the payment would go to $4,500, up from $3,400 (which remains the third-tier payment).

While I appreciate the majority’s support for my amendment, this approach still does not — as I stated publicly this week — truly reimburse those stuck paying a surcharge on farm fuel due to the state’s cap-and-trade law. The best solution is to do away with cap-and-trade completely, which is the purpose of Initiative 2117. It will save money for anyone who buys any kind of motor fuel or uses natural gas for any purpose, residential or commercial.

The capital budget adopted by the Senate appropriates another $6.6 million toward projects in our 16th Legislative District. I’m happy that includes another $1.5 million for the Columbia Valley Center for Recovery (it’s still listed as Three Rivers Behavioral Health Center, as the name changed after the underlying budget was adopted in 2023). Even better, in its way, is the $300,000 for a trio of local projects: resurfacing and revitalizing the public swimming pool in Prescott, funding a childcare center for Waitsburg and support for the Prosser Clubhouse, run by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin counties.

From here, the leaders for the operating and capital budgets from the Senate and House will get together and hammer out the differences between their respective spending plans, then come back with a compromise for another vote.

I also have an important appropriation in the Senate’s proposed supplemental transportation budget, for the State Route 224/Red Mountain project in the Benton County part of our district. Click here for my news release on it, from earlier this week. That budget will come up for a vote from the full Senate this next week, then it will go through the same compromise process.

***

I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.

Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. If you don’t already, also consider following me on Facebook. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

dozier signature

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

Republican senators question timing, purpose of proposed payments to farm-fuel users

Sen. Perry Dozier

OLYMPIA… The two state senators who farm in eastern Washington say they’re not sure what to make of a proposed offer of money for farm-fuel users who got stuck paying a surcharge on their fuel purchases because of the state’s cap-and-trade law.

The payments, which could amount to no more than pennies per gallon for many farming operations, are offered in the state Senate’s supplemental operating-budget proposal.

Sen. Mark Schoesler

“I don’t know anyone in the agricultural sector who would view this as a solution to the fuel-surcharge issue we’ve been fighting more than a year, since cap-and-trade was fully implemented,” said Sen. Perry Dozier, R-Waitsburg.

“These payments wouldn’t come close to making up for what farm-fuel users have been forced to pay because the executive branch of state government failed to uphold the promise made in the cap-and-trade law – that farm diesel and fuel used by the maritime industry would be exempt from the surcharge this new program would create,” said Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville.

Schoesler serves on the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which held a public hearing yesterday on the proposed supplemental operating budget. The budget appropriation doesn’t refer to the payments as rebates or reimbursements, and routes them through the state Department of Licensing – not the Department of Ecology, which is responsible for implementing the cap-and-trade law.

“Are these payments a way for the state to ease its guilty conscience for failing so badly on upholding the promised fuel-surcharge exemption? Does the timing have anything to do with the certification of the initiative to repeal the cap-and-trade law? Are the supporters of cap-and-trade just looking to throw a bone to agriculture? No one who buys farm fuel by the truckload would come up with this,” said Dozier.

Dozier and Schoesler are the sponsors of Senate Bill 5728, introduced in 2023. It would basically force Ecology to develop a process for implementing the promised exemptions. The bill has been ignored, and a task force set up by Ecology during the summer failed to completely resolve industry concerns.

Given that background, the senators were surprised to see a $30 million appropriation, buried on page 564 of the new Senate budget proposal, “solely for payments to support farm fuel users and transporters who have purchased fuel for agricultural purposes that is exempt from the requirements of the Climate Commitment Act… but paid a surcharge or an additional fee.”

The payments would be made by the Department of Licensing to “noncorporate farms” first – a term not defined in the budget bill – depending on annual farm-fuel consumption. The first tier, those using less than 1,000 gallons annually, would receive $600; the second tier, between 1,000 and 4,000 gallons consumed, would get $2,300; and those using 4,000 gallons or more a year would receive $3,400.

“It’s a lame proposal because most farms of any size operate as a corporation,” said Schoesler. “On top of that these tiers make no sense, except they’re consistent with the whole premise of cap-and-trade – or ‘cap-and-tax,’ as it should really be called. This law is about punishing people who use fossil fuel. It’s as though they think there are electric combines down at the farm-equipment dealer.”

Dozier agrees the tiered approach is not realistic. “One tractor pulling a heavy load can go through 25 gallons of fuel an hour. At that rate just one week of 10-hour workdays will blow past the 1,000-gallon threshold.

“It’s not difficult for a farm to go through 30,000 gallons of diesel in a year. Under this proposal, that’s 11 cents per gallon. Adding more tiers based on 10,000-gallon increments would be a slight improvement, but if the intent is to honestly compensate users who have been paying the surcharge, the payments to them should really be gallon for gallon, with no tiers at all.”

The Senate budget proposal also includes $35 million to provide low-income households with energy utility bill assistance. Like the payments proposed for farm-fuel users, those subsidies would be funded with proceeds from the cap-and-trade law, which has enabled state government to rake in about $1.8 billion in the past year from auctioning “carbon allowances.”

“In December the governor proposed using cap-and-trade money to subsidize low-income households. It wasn’t a surprise to also see it in the Senate budget. But this money to pay farm-fuel users feels like something thrown in at the last minute by people who don’t understand agriculture,” said Schoesler.

“This is a pretty responsible budget proposal overall, and I appreciate that Republicans had a fair amount of input about the priorities,” said Dozier, “but it needs some work to be a budget that truly respects the needs of agriculture.”

E-News: Property-tax threat goes away, but threat to rural health care remains

 

I was happy to welcome members of Teamsters 117, which represents Department of Corrections employees, when they came over from Walla Walla to visit the Capitol earlier this month. In response to the question “Who has been assaulted on the job?” probably half raised their hands. Feedback like this often inspires legislation, and I will be following up with them on this and other concerns in the spring.

Dear Neighbor,

Greetings from the state Capitol!

This week the state Senate wrapped up its work on bills introduced by senators, with the exception of updates to the three state budgets. The “cutoff” for approving Senate bills arrived at the end of Tuesday; we then went back to meeting as committees to take up the House legislation passed over to us (and the House committees are doing the same with Senate legislation).

The six voter initiatives submitted to the Legislature this session continue to get attention one way or the other. I and other Republicans have called for public hearings on these measures, in line with a requirement in our state constitution; the majority Democrats finally made commitments about three this past week. I’d like to know what you think about how the Legislature should handle these, and invite you to take a quick online survey. Details are below.

Dozier bills move to House for consideration

Early this week the state Senate unanimously passed my Senate Bill 6238, to update a property-tax exemption that benefits the widows and widowers of honorably discharged veterans. It was created in 2005 but has not kept pace with similar exemptions since then. SB 6238 was referred to the House Finance Committee for consideration; being a fiscal committee, it has until Feb. 26 to move my bill forward.

Also getting unanimous approval was SB 5801, a bill that has to do with the banking industry. I introduced it at the request of our state’s Uniform Law Commission, and the bill is a good example of just how narrowly focused and non-partisan a piece of legislation can be. That’s probably why it is moving so quickly through the House, with  a public hearing Wednesday and a “yes” vote from the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Business yesterday morning, well ahead of next Wednesday’s deadline for policy committees to act on legislation.

Property-tax proposal pulled due to public pressure

Sometimes it’s more important to keep a bad piece of legislation from becoming law, which is why I’m happy about the demise of SB 5770. It would have opened the door to tripling the growth of local property taxes…without voter approval!

Since 2001, and the passage of Initiative 747, the annual growth rate of property taxes has been limited to 1% annually, unless voters agree to a larger increase. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue, as that cap was confirmed in 2007 by a Democratic-controlled Legislature at the request of a Democratic governor.

Still, a group of Democrats from Puget Sound pushed SB 5770 through the Senate Ways and Means Committee and onto the Senate voting calendar. That’s when the public rose up in protest, and we held a news conference that resulted in a lot of media attention. The prime sponsor of the bill then announced he would stop trying to get it through the Senate, which was the right decision – but the excuses he gave in this news report are concerning.

One is that “supporters need to work on better explaining the needs of cities and counties…and helping the public better understand the mechanics of property taxes.” Having been a county commissioner for eight years, I have a good sense of what local governments need, versus what they might want. Also, to be clear, the 1% cap has never prevented local governments from asking voters for more than 1%. If a majority of voters in King County (where the prime sponsor is from) approve a 10% increase in their property taxes, for whatever purpose, they are free to tax themselves more.

I wonder if the supporters of this property-tax proposal understand the “mechanics” families must go through to contend with all the costs being layered upon them in recent years, through a variety of government policy decisions. A great example is the cap-and-trade law that was passed in 2021 and took full effect in 2023, which has raised the cost of just about everything, starting with gas at the pump and natural-gas heat (which the majority is now trying to ban through HB 1589, which was passed by a Senate committee yesterday). Don’t get me started on what cap-and-trade means for our agricultural sector, and how promises made in the cap-and-trade law aren’t being honored by Governor Inslee’s administration.

The real purpose of SB 5770 is to allow a higher annual increase in the tax rate without going to the voters. That sounds like the opposite of “democracy” to me. Besides, the housing shortage in our region and our state as a whole is challenging enough without allowing tax hikes that would hit not just property owners but also renters.

I was pleased that none of the counties I serve in the 16th District came to me asking for this bill. They realize they can ask their voters to go above the 1% limit, and I appreciate that our area commissioners are living within the means provided by the taxpayers, even if it makes budgeting more challenging.

I’m glad the proposal has been dropped for this year, but unfortunately, we should expect to see it again.

 

Proposed hospital-merger restrictions could be very harmful to rural Washington

With the majority’s proposed property-tax increase off the table, Senate Bill 5241 becomes the worst bill of the session so far – at least from the Senate side.

This bill has the meaningless title of “Concerning material changes to the operations and governance structure of participants in the health care marketplace.” That offers no clue about the true effect SB 5241 would have on our state. An accurate title would be something like “Allows a partisan state official to decide whether a hospital closes.” The trouble is, being that clear would alarm people across our state and keep this misguided proposal from flying under the radar.

The prime sponsor claims this is about preserving access to affordable health care, but as they say, the devil is in the details – she also acknowledges the intent is to ensure hospital mergers and acquisitions specifically don’t restrict access to “end-of-life, reproductive and gender-affirming care.”

Let’s suppose a small rural hospital is at risk of closing, and its only chance to continue operating is to be acquired by a larger hospital with a religious affiliation. SB 5241 would give the attorney general’s office the power to determine – over a 10-year oversight period – if such a transaction would affect access to end-of-life (assisted suicide), reproductive (including abortion) and gender-affirming care, which is defined in detail in the bill. That’s a very long time for a rural community to have a sword hanging over the head of its nearest health-care facility, should a merger be the only way to keep it open.

The version of the bill brought to the floor of the Senate was a 27-page rewrite that was made available for review only that day, while we were in the middle of debating and voting on a long list of other bills. I stood up during the 3-hour debate on SB 5241 and explained, using a recent trip to the Dayton General Hospital emergency department as an example, the danger this approach presents to health-care access in our area. It’s as though the supporters of this bill would rather see hospitals close than to have them remain open under an agreement that somehow involves religious affiliations.

SB 5241 is part of an agenda, which is why Republican amendments meant to protect consumers, involve the secretary of health, etc., were rejected, and why the bill is whizzing through the House – a vote in the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee is scheduled Tuesday. Doesn’t it seem odd that a “health care marketplace” bill isn’t coming before a health-care committee in either chamber?

It was my privilege to sponsor Olivia Smasne as a Senate page this past week. She’s a 9th-grader at Prosser High and is the daughter of Brent and Jamie Smasne of Prosser. I know Olivia appreciated being able to see a side of the Senate and the lawmaking process that isn’t shown on the TVW network, and she was here at one of the most important times of any session. Thanks, Olivia!

Democrats agree to committee hearings on only three initiatives, despite constitutional requirement

Article II, Section I of Washington’s constitution is clear about how legislators should treat initiatives submitted to them: “Such initiative measures, whether certified or provisionally certified, shall take precedence over all other measures in the legislature except appropriation bills and shall be either enacted or rejected without change or amendment by the legislature before the end of such regular session.”

That part about “take precedence” means we are supposed to consider the initiatives ahead of every other bill except spending bills (like the budgets).  Yet here we are, two-thirds of the way through the session, and only now is the majority side responding.

Yesterday afternoon the top Democrats in the Senate and House announced there will be joint Senate/House hearings week after next on three initiatives: I-2113 (police pursuits), I-2111 (income-tax ban) and I-2081 (which would create a parental bill of rights concerning , similar to legislation I’ve introduced each of the past three years).

They confirmed there will not be hearings on I-2117, which would repeal the cap-and-trade law that is driving up everyone’s gasoline and natural-gas costs; I-2109, which would repeal the tax on income from capital gains, and I-2124, which would end the mandatory payroll tax tied to the state-run long-term care program.

The chair of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee announced this past week that she intends to hold a work session on I-2124, but that is not the same as a hearing because the public is not allowed to testify.

I have no question the Democrats’ decision to have any hearings is due to the pressure Republicans have been applying all session long, but still, the bottom line is that they’ll let the people be heard on only half of the six initiatives.

I want to hear from you about all of them, however. Please take a few minutes to click on the link or the QR code and complete my survey!

Take my online survey about the six voter initiatives
submitted to the Legislature this session!

Scan the QR code or click here to begin

***

I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.

Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. If you don’t already, also consider following me on Facebook. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

E-News — People to Legislature: Consider six policy changes…this session

 

Chief Rocky Eastman headed the delegation from Walla Walla Fire District #4 that came by this past week. If you expect to be anywhere near the state Capitol between now and the March 7 end of this year’s session, I hope you will contact my office and arrange to stop in!

Dear Neighbor,

Greetings from the state Capitol!

Every session, one of our opening-day tasks is to agree on deadlines for taking action on legislation. Considering nearly 540 bills have been introduced in the Senate alone for 2024, not counting legislation that is still eligible from this past year, this “cutoff” calendar does much to help committee and caucus leaders decide which measures continue on the path to becoming law, and which are put aside.

In my experience, the bills that survive our deadlines tend to fall into three categories: simple bills that make reasonable changes; bills that have potential but need more of the refining that is done through the amendment process; and bills that the majority side wants, which happen to also be majority-sponsored measures much more often than not.

We are nearly at the first cutoff for this year’s legislative session, which is for Senate policy committees to decide the fate of Senate bills referred to them. This is formally known as “executive action,” which I’ll explain below, as it has come up in recent questions and comments from constituents.

Next week brings the cutoff for the two Senate fiscal committees. One is the Ways and Means committee, which handles legislation affecting the operating and capital budgets. Transportation is the second. SB 6238, my bipartisan bill to close a loophole in the state’s list of property-tax exemptions, received a public hearing in Ways and Means this past week; now we just need a vote (although it’s possible this bill could end up being in the package of bills labeled “necessary to implement the budget,” which exempts it from the usual deadlines). My measure specifically concerns a property-tax exemption that was created in 2005 to benefit the widows and widowers of honorably discharged veterans, yet has not kept pace with similar exemptions since then.

A web page showing the legislation I am sponsoring is here. You may choose between bills I’m prime-sponsoring and those for which I am a co-sponsor. For more on my session priorities and legislation, and a shout-out to some former legislators from our 16th Legislative District, read my recent interview in Shift.

Farmworkers rally against ag-overtime law;
labor committee schedules another hearing on reform bill

This past week farmworkers descended on the Capitol to protest the ag-overtime law adopted in 2021 (see photo), basically saying it’s not working for them the way the supporters claimed.

If you want to get legislators’ attention, there’s nothing like holding a rally on the front steps of the Legislative Building and also going inside the Capitol Rotunda. I have no doubt that these very visible demonstrations had an effect on the majority side of the aisle, because the bipartisan ag-overtime reform bill introduced last year (SB 5476) suddenly was scheduled for a public hearing tomorrow before the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee.

This is a nice turn of events, on the surface, but I have to point out how the same committee held a public hearing on SB 5476 this past February, during the 2023 session, then let the bill die. I’m not seeing a committee vote scheduled for the bill this time around, so all sides in our agricultural sector will have to keep their expectations real. That said, if SB 5476 is allowed to die again, the majority has some explaining to do – especially to the farmworker community. I don’t think it could make its concerns any clearer.

For some of the news coverage of the rally, click here and here.

 

Voters to Legislature: Consider
these six policy changes… this session

Under our state constitution, the state’s legislative authority is “vested” in the Senate and House of Representatives. However, Article II, Section 1 continues with this: “the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature.”

This power is exercised through the initiative – either an initiative to the people, which if certified goes straight to the ballot, or an initiative to the Legislature. If certified, an initiative to the Legislature does just what the name implies. It comes to us as legislation which may be enacted, just like any other bill. If an initiative is not enacted, it must go to the ballot alone or to the ballot accompanied by an alternative from legislators, in which case the voters get to choose one.

Our constitution also makes it clear that the Legislature isn’t supposed to just sit on these measures and do nothing: Article II, Section 1 includes a sentence about how initiatives are to “take precedence over all other measures in the legislature except appropriation bills.”

A record six initiatives to the Legislature – twice the previous high, set all the way back in 1972 – have been certified to us by the secretary of state.

  • I-2109 would repeal the state tax on income from capital gains. When this came before the Senate for a vote during the 2021 session, I and other Republicans proposed putting the measure before the voters later that year. The majority side said no. We now know from public-records disclosures that supporters of the tax knew its constitutionality would be challenged and saw that lawsuit as a way for the state Supreme Court to open the door to a full-blown income tax, like Oregon has. That strategy failed but for some reason the justices did accept the nonsensical argument that this is not an income tax but rather an “excise” tax. As our Senate Republican budget leader put it in this statement, I-2109’s certification puts it on a path to a public vote… one way or another.
  • I-2111 would ban any local or state government in our state from imposing an income tax (Washington voters have in one form or another rejected 11 other attempts to impose an income tax, but I know legislators who have yet to get the message). Like I-2109, this measure has been referred to our Ways and Means Committee. The Senate and House Republican leaders issued this statement about their support for the initiative.
  • I-2124 targets the mandatory payroll tax that supports the state-run WA Cares long-term care program. It would not end the program but instead allow workers to opt out, which isn’t possible now. In the Senate, I-2124 has been referred to the Labor and Commerce committee.
  • I-2113 would end another mistake made by the majority in 2021 – the criminal-friendly restrictions put on vehicular pursuits by law enforcement. I realize pursuits can be risky, but I also know our officers are trained to minimize that risk. It’s no wonder auto thefts and other property crimes have jumped in our state since criminals learned they would no longer be pursued. I-2117 has been referred to our Law and Justice committee.
  • I-2117 would basically repeal the cap-and-trade law that has made gas in Washington far more expensive than in Oregon and Idaho. In doing so it would also settle the fuel-surcharge issue hurting our agricultural and maritime sectors, which neither the majority nor the Inslee administration has done. If cap-and-trade (officially, the “Climate Commitment Act”) goes away, then there’s no more promise of fairness for the state Department of Ecology to break. This has been referred to the Environment, Energy and Technology committee.
  • I-2081 would essentially create a bill of rights for parents who want more information about what their children are doing at school. It’s similar to but more detailed than the parental-rights proposal I’ve offered every session since becoming senator. As this initiative has been referred to the Senate committee on education, on which I serve, I have asked the chair to have a public hearing on the measure. Click here for the details.

As these initiatives will help lower the cost of living, make Washington safer and make our school system better, I intend to support them. That will either happen in the Senate or at the November general election.

What voting ‘without recommendation’ really means

A lot of rules govern our handling of legislation, and some of the words that go along with the process aren’t as clear as they could be. I was reminded of that recently in relation to a bill that has roots in our part of the state.

The Senate State Government and Elections Committee is one of my committees. On day two of this session the chair had us take public testimony on SB 5824, which has to do with changing the chapter of state law about public library districts.

SB 5824 stems from the effort this past year to dissolve the Columbia County Rural Library District, which became a ballot measure that ended up being blocked by a court from the November ballot. The bill was introduced by the committee chair, a senator from Olympia, at the request of the secretary of state, who is Washington’s chief elections officer.

It’s important to note the committee chair sets the agenda for her or his committee, meaning which bills receive hearings, which are brought up for votes, and when that happens. The chair scheduled SB 5824 for “executive action” three days after the public hearing.

When a committee takes executive action on a bill, members may choose between a “do pass” or “do not pass” recommendation or a third option, which is to vote “without recommendation” – essentially, a neutral vote that doesn’t hinder the bill’s progress.

After the hearing on SB 5824, I had questions about the scope of the change it would make, plus this: Legislation passed in 1947 made it so a rural county library district could be established or dissolved through a petition signed by 10% of the voters within that district. In the form in which it came before our committee, SB 5824 would have replaced 10% with 35% but only for the dissolution of such a district. Does it seem consistent or fair to you that dissolving a taxing district should be more than three times as difficult than creating one?

If a law needs to be clarified or updated, I am willing to listen. In this case I just wasn’t going to recommend for or against the bill’s passage by the full Senate without knowing more.

Because I could not get answers ahead of the committee vote, I chose to refer the bill “without recommendation.” While that was reported accurately here in the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, some people inaccurately concluded I had opposed the bill. Once I explained how we vote in committee, and why I voted as I did on SB 5824, they understood.

When SB 5824 came before the full Senate this past week, the Republican leader on the state-government committee offered an amendment that would set the threshold for dissolving a library district at 25% — still far above what the law now requires but a compromise from 35%. The amendment was accepted, and the bill passed unanimously.

If you have a question about any vote I cast, by all means call or write. I want my constituents to have the facts.

The first student I sponsored as a Senate page this session was Alex Plourd, an 8th-grader at Highlands Middle School in Kennewick. Alex is the daughter of Brenden and Shauna Plourd of Kennewick. She did a wonderful job this past week, and was here when the Senate passed some important legislation!

***

I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.

Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. If you don’t already, also consider following me on Facebook. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

 

 

Senator says Ecology must be open about program driving up fuel prices

OLYMPIA… While raking in more than $1 billion from the carbon-pricing program that is behind Washington’s crushingly high fuel prices, the state Department of Ecology isn’t being fully open about who is buying and holding the carbon credits. A state senator says that has to change.

The state’s Climate Commitment Act requires Ecology to post information about carbon-allowance holding accounts on a searchable public website. In a Sept. 26 letter to agency director Laura Watson, Sen. Perry Dozier points out how what is believed to be the first post fails to include names of account holders, making it “useless” to the public and lawmakers.

“To be clear, the very information that the Legislature intended to make available when it enacted the CCA is being withheld by the department as it enforces the CCA,” wrote Dozier, R-Waitsburg.

While Dozier is not a member of the Senate Environment, Energy and Technology Committee, he notes the CCA is the lone topic on the agenda for the committee’s Monday meeting and expects concerns about the agency’s inadequate reporting will also be raised then. Ecology’s lack of openness is particularly troubling to Dozier because the agency has already broken the promise that farm diesel and fuel used by Washington’s maritime industry would be exempt from the CCA fuel surcharge.

Dozier’s request comes as Gov. Jay Inslee clings to a claim that his long-desired cap-and-trade policy is not the reason Washington motorists continue to pay more than $5 for a gallon of gasoline or diesel while prices are far less in neighboring Oregon or Idaho.

Carbon allowances function like permits to emit carbon, and may be bought, sold, traded, or transferred to another registered entity. Under the CCA, the allowances are held in accounts, and information about the contents of each holding account is to be public.

By providing the public with what his letter calls “the bare minimum” of information about those accounts, Dozier says, Ecology is adding to the controversy that has hung over the CCA since Democrat lawmakers pushed it through during the pandemic-lockdown 2021 legislative session. The distrust has increased as Washington gas prices began to soar this year.

“Unfortunately, the department’s holdings report is not searchable, does not allow the public to follow along, and provides no insight into the participation of various entities in the program, including general market participants…  In the presence of incessantly high gas prices, public perception of the CCA going forward will heavily depend on the program’s transparency,” Dozier’s letter continues.

In 2022 policy analysts outside the Inslee administration predicted the CCA would cause a significant increase in gas prices once the auctions of carbon allowances began this year. Inslee responded with the now-infamous claim that the new law would add “pennies” per gallon and might even lead to lower gas prices – yet the cost associated with the CCA is now estimated at 51 cents per gallon, as fuel suppliers continue adjusting their prices to recoup the growing cost of the allowances they purchase.

Dozier explained his request to Ecology is driven by a general interest in government transparency and holding state agencies accountable, plus his particular concern for how the CCA is being implemented.

“This is not about outing the private companies and public institutions that have been put over a barrel by the CCA and given no real choice except to pay up,” Dozier said. “At a fundamental level it’s about ensuring public access to the details of transactions involving government, the same way we should be able to see who holds any government-issued permit. These aren’t Swiss bank accounts, but Ecology is treating them that way.

“The CCA deserves special attention because it’s causing more pain at the pump and adding to the affordability crisis in our state while becoming a golden goose for state government. Turning carbon emissions into a commodity has enriched the state by over a billion dollars in a matter of months, with more sales to come this year. When a new line of business becomes that lucrative so quickly, it’s even more important to see the details so the public can keep a close eye on who is doing what.

“Instead of pushing for legislation to force a closer look at the oil industry’s finances, the governor should be more concerned that his own agency is flouting the law he wanted by failing to fully open its own books.”

Dozier noted the mandate for transparency was added to the CCA when it first came before the Senate, through a Republican amendment that was publicly endorsed by the bill’s Democratic prime sponsor.

“The senators who spoke in favor of this reporting requirement wisely said we need to follow this very confusing and cumbersome system to understand its full implications. Ecology is obstructing the public’s view. It needs to do better by following both the letter and the spirit of the law,” he said.

Dozier’s letter concludes by encouraging the agency director to reevaluate the holding-accounts report and upgrade the next version. While he did not ask for a direct response, the 16th District lawmaker said it’s disconcerting that more than a week has already passed without Ecology offering any meaningful response to his request, considering the agency is already in hot water over the fuel-surcharge issue and the public outrage over how the CCA is driving up fuel prices.

“I’m not expecting a thank-you note from Ecology for pointing out where it’s falling short. But seeing how the agency keeps fighting us on the fuel-surcharge promise, despite my proposing a bill, I hope my letter is enough to fix this new issue. There’s something very wrong when you keep needing more legislation just to get the executive branch to follow the law.”

E-News: Mid-interim update on fuel prices, ag issues, parents’ rights and more

September 2023

Dear Neighbor,

Greetings from here at the ranch! Legislators refer to the months between our annual sessions as “interim,” and if you look at when the 2023 session ended (late April) and when the 2024 session begins (early January), we’re not much past the halfway point of this particular interim. That makes it a good time for an update, as my previous report to you was in July.

Now that summer is behind us, I hope it was a safe and productive season for you and your loved ones. It’s been a busy time at our place on top of harvest, the local meetings and community events that go with being your senator, and…welcoming a new family member. We’re happy and thankful to now have a daughter-in-law!

Also, it’s been nice to know how budget appropriations that were on my list when this year’s session began are already bearing fruit. I’m thinking specifically of the Columbia Valley Center for Recovery (formerly called the Three Rivers Behavioral Health Recovery Center), which received $5 million in the new capital budget, and the SR 224 Red Mountain Vicinity project. The public works director for West Richland let me know recently how the additional $5 million put into the new state transportation budget is just what they needed to stay within budget and on schedule.

Climate Commitment Act still inflating gas prices

While Washington no longer has the highest gas prices in the nation, the average cost of regular gas in our state is still north of $5/gallon. That’s also true for the average price in Walla Walla County, although Benton and Franklin are averaging less.

The governor insists this is due to profiteering by the oil industry. If so, why could I have saved $1.30 per gallon for diesel this week by buying it south of the state line? If maximizing profits is truly the intent, it makes no sense to jack up prices in our state but not in Oregon… or Idaho, where the prices are lower still.

Governor Inslee’s argument doesn’t fly with me, but then again he also claimed the full implementation of his Climate Commitment Act would only increase the cost of gas by “pennies” – instead of the 50 or so cents that seems to be the reality.

It might be different if the cap-and-trade approach at the heart of the CCA truly put a cap on the price of carbon. However, at the latest quarterly auction of “carbon allowances” (by the Department of Ecology) on August 30, the “settlement price” was up 12% from the May auction, which in turn was up 16% from the February auction. By refusing to put a cap on the price, the state basically forces fuel suppliers to continue adjusting their prices to recoup the growing cost of the allowances they purchase… and that means more pain at the pump.

Since those auctions began this year, the state has already raked in more than $1 billion, with another auction coming in December. It’s a much bigger haul than was projected by legislative budget writers, and makes the CCA look less like a real carbon-reduction strategy and more like a backhanded gas tax.

Governor Inslee, who pushed for a cap-and-trade policy for years before the CCA was passed in 2021, also claims his approach is the “ultimate measure to cut the cost of gas” and gives people “the choice to be powered by something else” – a reference to things like electrified public transit.

The ag workers I see leaving the fields and orchards each day at this time of year don’t have the option to ride e-buses and don’t own electric cars to plug in at a publicly built charging station. The CCA’s effect on gas prices is gouging everyone, taking money out of the pockets of those who can least afford it. And that’s before you get to how prices at the grocery store are being inflated due to the CCA’s effect on shipping costs.

Ag update: fuel surcharge, overtime head list of issues

Speaking of the Climate Commitment Act, a pair of commitments made to the agricultural community are found deep in section 10 of the law… and unfortunately, the Department of Ecology isn’t holding up its end.

One states “motor vehicle fuel or special fuel that is used exclusively for agricultural purposes by a farm fuel user” is exempt from coverage by the law; the second requires Ecology to “determine a method for expanding the exemption to include fuels used for the purpose of transporting agricultural products on public highways.”

It became clear during this year’s legislative session that Ecology wasn’t complying, which caused me and other Republican senators to introduce SB 5728 in February. The bill went nowhere, and months later, Ecology is echoing the governor’s line; in this news report the agency blames fuel suppliers for the gouging of our ag community.

The broken commitment on the CCA fuel surcharge would have been an outrage even if this year had been a good one for Washington agriculture. But between the higher inflation rate driving up the cost of putting in crops, and the commodity prices and lower yields many have seen, the last thing our ag sector needs is more cost for simply operating equipment, and for trucking/shipping.

Washington agriculture also needs relief from the overtime law adopted in 2021. The farming operations I’ve visited say it’s a huge issue, and a seasonal exemption would be a big help… but a bipartisan bill to allow that went nowhere. As this NPR report explains – using a local asparagus operation as an example – workers who thought they would be helped by the change have come to a different conclusion. Unfortunately, labor advocates are acting like they know what’s best for the workers.

New school year, but no new rights for Washington parents

For three years I’ve proposed legislation that would, among other important things, require school districts and public schools to post certain assessment results online… instead of forcing parents to navigate this section of the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s website. Last year my bill finally got a public hearing in the Senate K-12 education committee, on which I serve, but the chair did not allow a vote.

After seeing the results of the student assessments from this past spring, I can understand why the state’s largest teachers’ union, the Washington Education Association, has SB 5024 on its list of proposals that “do not align with WEA’s priorities and present a concern.” The “at grade level” metric for students closest to graduating – this past year’s 10th-graders – shows students are far from recovering from the learning loss in English and math:

English:

  • Students meeting the standard for their grade level was unchanged from last year (50.7%)
  • In spring 2021, the figure was 47.7%, but pre-pandemic (spring 2019) it was 59.6%

Math:

  • 39.1% of students met the standard for their grade level, slightly higher than last year (37.7%)
  • In spring 2021, the figure was 30.4%, but pre-pandemic (spring 2019) it was 48.9%.

When SPI Chris Reykdal, the state’s top K-12 official, released the test results earlier this month, he offered almost no comment about the numbers, choosing instead to start with this: “Our students enter our school buildings each day and add new learning and skills to their toolbelt… Each and every student is learning year over year!”

Talk about stating what should be obvious. No wonder The Seattle Times recently criticized Superintendent Reykdal for “cheerleading mediocrity.”

Test results aside, my “parental bill of rights” legislation would also ensure parents and legal guardians have the right to:

  • Access to what their children are being taught, including but not limited to classroom and school-sponsored activities, access to curricula and instructional materials used within the curricula, and access to these materials for review either online or through an alternative method;
  • Information on who is teaching their children, including guest speakers and presenters who are not employed by the school;
  • Access to the names and organizations/affiliation of those with curriculum-related contracts with the school district or public school and are receiving public funding;

SB 5024 also would direct the Washington State School Directors’ Association (the statewide school-board agency) to update a model policy and procedure regarding accessibility through remote participation in and recordings of school board meetings, and encourage school districts to act accordingly.

K-12 funding in our state is based largely on enrollment, and many districts have had to tighten their belts because parents have gone elsewhere to get their children educated. Maybe that would change if districts made it easier for parents to be active and involved in their child’s education.

My bill is not about parents driving curriculum, but about schools being more transparent with parents… about creating better avenues for parents to access their children’s education and become better acquainted with district policies. Although powerful interests are opposing this legislation, I’ll keep trying.

Will court ruling force change in 16th District boundaries?

Our legislative district borders three others – the 9th, 14th and 15th. In the past several weeks, federal judges finally ruled on legal challenges filed last year regarding the boundaries of the 15th District, which shares a boundary with ours from west of Prosser to north of Benton City.

The upshot is that while the 15th is a “majority-minority” district, it falls short of the standard in section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act – meaning race was not considered enough when the boundaries were reset in 2021 (as part of the statewide redistricting that occurs following each federal census). The court says the boundaries must be redrawn.

A recent Tri-City Herald editorial does a good job of explaining the nuts and bolts of the situation, but since that was published, the majority leaders in the Senate and House have decided against having the state Redistricting Commission handle the job of redrawing the lines – even though state law clearly says that’s what should happen.

This is a mistake. Our Legislature has a civic duty to reconvene the Redistricting Commission – which was created by Washington voters 40 years ago, relieving the Legislature from the responsibility of redistricting and essentially eliminating opportunities for the “gerrymandering” that gives one party an advantage in elections.

Why would anyone think it’s better to let a single judge or a judge’s appointee redraw the map behind closed doors, instead of having a bipartisan committee do the job out in the open? As this might cause a change in our 16th District, I will keep you posted.

***

Please remember I am here to serve you. Although we may not always be able to meet face to face, I encourage you to reach out to my office and to share your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. Please, if you don’t already, follow me on Facebook. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

Perry Dozier

Republican ag leaders highlight hypocrisy of Democrats on gas-price debacle

Sen. Perry Dozier

OLYMPIA… Agricultural-policy leaders from the Senate Republican Caucus are weighing in on attempts to gaslight the public on why Washington’s gas prices remain highest in the nation.

While Gov. Jay Inslee and other Democratic elected officials tried to lay blame on the oil and gas industry during a news conference today, Senators Ron Muzzall, Judy Warnick, Perry Dozier and Mark Schoesler pointed out the hypocrisy of Democrats about their “cap-and-gouge” carbon-pricing scheme and its impact on the state’s agricultural producers. The carbon law was passed in 2021 but did not take full effect until 2023, triggering a steady rise in Washington gas prices. Washington overtook California for the nation’s worst gas prices a month ago.

“The governor and supporters of this money-grab are the only ones surprised that their carbon tax would result in higher prices at the pump,” said Muzzall, R-Oak Harbor, the ranking Republican on the Senate’s ag-related committee. “There’s a great deal of unhelpful finger-pointing going on while our ag industry is hurting. It’s hypocritical that farmers are stuck paying nearly 50 cents more per gallon for gas in costs that they were legally exempted from, while the governor gets to be chauffeured in his taxpayer-funded luxury SUV.”

The row over a fuel-surcharge exemption for Washington’s agriculture, timber and marine industries is ongoing as state regulators seem unable to follow the law’s requirements. When pressed on the issue, Inslee has flippantly said that these affected groups should seek reimbursement from the oil and gas industry themselves.

“Proponents of this scheme promised to maintain the exemption for ag fuel and broke that promise,” said Warnick, R-Moses Lake. “During recent town halls, I heard near-unanimous frustration and opposition to what the governor and these politicians are doing to rural and minority communities that I represent. Taking money out of working families’ pockets to line the state’s coffers doesn’t reduce carbon emissions, but it does make our state even more unaffordable.”

Washington has operated a similar state fuel tax refund program for the same industries for years, leaving Republican lawmakers and the public scratching their heads as to why the legally required rebates are unattainable.

“The governor has zero business talking about accountability on fuel prices. He hasn’t even held his own administration accountable for how his policy has gouged our state’s agricultural and maritime sectors. For months he and members of the Democratic majority ignored Republican efforts to end the surcharges on exempt fuels that are not only unfair but illegal,” said Dozier, R-Waitsburg, who prime-sponsored an unsuccessful piece of legislation to ensure the exemption is followed. “Farmers are price takers – they can’t be expected to absorb higher fuel costs while the governor and Ecology have dragged their feet on making things right. It’s completely unacceptable.”

The average price of regular unleaded gas in Washington is $4.928 today, compared to $4.588 in Oregon a gallon and $3.892 in Idaho. Assertions by Inslee and other Democratic lawmakers of price gouging and profiteering are debunked by the price disparity, while the effect of the higher fuel costs on overall business expenses puts Washington’s agricultural sector and other employers at a disadvantage.

“Even though the governor has been demonizing oil companies as the reason why our state has the highest gas prices in the nation, our neighboring states have much lower prices,” said Schoesler, R-Ritzville, a co-sponsor of Dozier’s legislation. “Oregon and Idaho don’t have cap-and-trade. It’s obvious that Washington’s cap-and-trade program is why our state has the highest gas prices in America. While most of the nation is enjoying gas prices below $4 a gallon, people in our state have been forced to pay about $5 a gallon for several weeks, and prices in Washington likely are going to keep rising.”