No. 79447-7 ____________________________________________________________ COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION I, OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ___________________________________________________________ S. MICHEAL KUNATH et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al., Appellant. ____________________________________________________________ APPELLANT ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTE’S RESPONSE TO MOTION OF LEVINE AND BURKE RESPONDENTS FOR RECONSIDERATION ____________________________________________________________ SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC Knoll D. Lowney, WSBA No. 23457 Claire E. Tonry, WSBA No. 44497 2317 E. John St. Seattle, WA 98112 (206) 860-2883 Attorneys for Economic Opportunity Institute TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... ii I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 II. RESPONDING PARTY AND RELIEF SOUGHT ......................... 2 III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................... 2 A. The Court correctly ruled that SSB 4313 violated the single-subject rule.. ......................................................................................................... 2 1. Plaintiffs continue to ignore the critical requirement that the provisions of the bill be germane to one another................................. 2 2. The Court properly discounted the bill’s legislative history. ....... 3 3. Traditional city tax authority and establishing a combined citycounty government have not historically been treated as one subject. 5 4. The legislative history indicates that SSB 4313 violated the spirit of the single subject rule. ..................................................................... 6 B. If the Court reconsiders or amends its decision it should also address EOI’s article II, section 37 argument. ........................................ 9 C. The Court correctly held that RCW 84.36.070 does not apply to Seattle’s income tax. ............................................................................. 10 1. RCW 84.36.070(2)’s definition of “intangible personal property” does not encompass income. ............................................................. 10 2. Interpreting RCW 84.36.070 to prohibit taxes on income would conflict with the Legislature’s B&O tax............................................ 12 IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 13 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Amalgamated Transit v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 212, 11 P.3d 762, 783-84 (2000) ...................................................................................................... 4 Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wn.2d 622, 632, 71 P.3d 644 (2003) ....................................................................................... 4 Dean v. McFarland, 81 Wn.2d 215, 221, 500 P.2d 1244, 1248 (1972) ... 12 Filo Foods LLC v. City of SeaTac, 183 Wn.2d 770, 782-83, 357 P.3d 1040 (2015) ...................................................................................................... 2 Hebert v. Litig. Document Grp., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-01536-KJD-CWH, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13935, at *11 (D. Nev. Jan. 28, 2019) ............ 11 Lee v. State, 185 Wn.2d 608, 623, 374 P.3d 157, 165 (2016) ............ 5, 7, 8 State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318, 320 (2003) .................... 13 State v. Parmenter, 50 Wash. 164, 175, 96 P. 1047 (1908) ........................ 8 Wash. Ass'n for Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention v. State, 174 Wn.2d 642, 657, 278 P.3d 632, 641 (2012) ........................................ 5, 6 Washington Education Association v. State, 93 Wn.2d 37, 41, 604 P.2d 950 (1980) ............................................................................................... 9 Washington Toll Bridge Auth. v. State, 49 Wn.2d 520, 525, 304 P.2d 676 (1956) ...................................................................................................... 4 Waste Mgmt. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 123 Wn.2d 621, 630, 869 P.2d 1034, 1039 (1994) ................................................................................. 13 Statutes Chapter 35A RCW ...................................................................................... 7 Chapter 35 RCW ......................................................................................... 7 RCW 82.04.220 ........................................................................................ 15 RCW 84.04.060 ........................................................................................ 12 RCW 84.36.070 ......................................................................... 1, 9, 10, 11 Other Authorities Substitute Senate Bill 4313 ................................................................ passim Regulations WAC 458-50-160...................................................................................... 12 ii Washington Constitutional Provisions Article II, section 19 .......................................................................... passim Article XI, section 10 .................................................................................. 6 Article XI, section 16 .................................................................................. 8 iii I. INTRODUCTION Burke and Levine plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”) is a waste of the Court’s time for at least three reasons: First, plaintiffs prevailed on appeal, so their Motion would not change the outcome. Second, the Court already rejected plaintiff Kunath’s motion to reconsider its single-subject ruling and this Motion presents no grounds for a different result the third time around. Indeed, Burke and Levine plaintiffs’ entire argument on the single-subject issue is based on mistaken belief that legislative history is essential to whether a bill embraces more than one subject. But controlling precedent expressly rejects this argument. Moreover, Burke and Levine plaintiffs never even attempt to refute the Court’s conclusion that the provisions of the bill are not germane to one another. They simply ignore that critical part of the test. Reconsideration is not warranted for these misguided arguments. Finally, the Court correctly held that RCW 84.36.070’s prohibition on ad valorem taxes on certain intangible personal property does not apply to Seattle’s income tax. Plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary ignores wellsettled rules of statutory interpretation. In addition, plaintiffs’ argument 1 must be rejected because it would directly conflict with the Legislature’s B&O tax (an “ad valorem” tax on gross receipts, revenue, and income). Motions for reconsideration are rarely granted. Burke and Levine plaintiffs’ Motion fails to provide any reason for exceptional treatment. The Motion should be denied. II. RESPONDING PARTY AND RELIEF SOUGHT Appellant and intervenor below, Economic Opportunity Institute (“EOI”), requests that the Court deny Burke and Levine plaintiffs’ Motion. III. ARGUMENT A. The Court correctly ruled that SSB 4313 violated the singlesubject rule. 1. Plaintiffs continue to ignore the critical requirement that the provisions of the bill be germane to one another. The Court’s ruling correctly emphasizes that, to satisfy article II, section 19’s single-subject rule, the matters within a bill must be “‘germane to the general title and to one another.’” Op. at 21 (quoting Filo Foods LLC v. City of SeaTac, 183 Wn.2d 770, 782-83, 357 P.3d 1040 (2015) (emphasis added by this Court)). The Court held that the subsections of Substitute Senate Bill 4313 “are not adequately germane to each other,” Op. at 25, and noted that plaintiffs “fail to identify the required rational unity between all five operative sections of the bill,” id. at 24. 2 The Motion does not even attempt to address this critical failure — it omits the second prong of the rational unity test entirely. See Mot. at 7 (disputing only whether the Court used the proper test for “determining that a provision in a bill had the requisite nexus to the bill’s general title.”). And see generally id. at 9–14. Accordingly, even if the Court were to accept the arguments in the Motion, it would have no impact on the Court’s decision that SSB 4313 violates the single-subject rule because its subsections “are not adequately germane to each other.” Since the Motion does not speak to the second, dispositive prong of the “rational unity” test, there is no reason to revisit the Court’s article II, section 19 decision. 2. The Court properly discounted the bill’s legislative history. In addition to being inconsequential, the article II, section 19 argument that plaintiffs do make in the Motion should be rejected because it is contrary to controlling authority. Plaintiffs argue that the Court should have analyzed SSB 4313’s legislative history for evidence of “logrolling” or “riding,” but the constitution and multiple Washington Supreme Court decisions support the Court’s decision to discount the legislative history. Section 19 states in full “No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” Nothing in the text requires a showing of “logrolling,” “riding,” or any other malfeasance before the 3 Court enforces section 19. See Washington Toll Bridge Auth. v. State, 49 Wn.2d 520, 525, 304 P.2d 676 (1956) (“The plain language of [article II, section 19] makes it mandatory that the members of the legislature be given the opportunity to consider legislative subjects in separate bills.”) Consistent with the plain language of the constitution, the Supreme Court has held that the section 19 analysis “is limited to the title and body of the act.” Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wn.2d 622, 632, 71 P.3d 644 (2003) (citing Amalgamated Transit v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 212, 11 P.3d 762, 783-84 (2000)). The Court cited Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management for exactly this proposition and held that “[e]vidence beyond the bill’s four corners is beyond the court’s inquiry.” Op. at 19. Burke and Levine plaintiffs now argue that Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management “did not foreclose consideration of legislative history materials.” Mot. at 9. But there is no need to quibble over the exact scope of the Citizens ruling because the Supreme Court explicitly foreclosed consideration of legislative history materials in Amalgamated Transit v. State. In Amalgamated Transit, the court rejected a request to “consider the Voters Pamphlet and ‘legislative history’ as evidence of rational unity,” and held that “regardless of what is in the Voters Pamphlet or the history of the initiative, the rational relationship inquiry centers on what is in the measure itself, i.e., whether the measure contains 4 unrelated laws.” 142 Wn.2d 183, 212. The Court’s decision to adhere to this binding precedent does not need to be reconsidered. 3. Traditional city tax authority and establishing a combined city-county government have not historically been treated as one subject. Burke and Levine plaintiffs point out (and this Court acknowledged) that the Supreme Court does consider whether the Legislature has historically addressed issues together when deciding whether a bill satisfies the single-subject rule. Mot. at 11 (citing Lee v. State, 185 Wn.2d 608, 623, 374 P.3d 157, 165 (2016); Wash. Ass'n for Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention v. State, 174 Wn.2d 642, 657, 278 P.3d 632, 641 (2012) (“WASAVP”)). For example, in WASAVP the Supreme Court held that the legislature’s historic recognition of the relationship between liquor regulation and public welfare reinforced the court’s finding of rational unity. WASAVP at 657. However, plaintiffs improperly conflate this broader inquiry into regulatory traditions with an analysis of a specific bill’s legislative history for evidence of unsavory legislative tactics. The latter is not relevant, as explained above. The former inquiry supports the Court’s decision that SSB 4313 violates the single-subject rule. The Legislature has not historically treated the subjects of traditional cities’ tax authority and the establishment of combined city-county governments together. Washington’s original constitution provided for 5 cities, whereas city-counties were only authorized by a 1948 constitutional amendment. Const., art. XI, § 10; Amend. 23 (1948). City-counties are exempt from a whole host of constitutional provisions that apply to cities, counties, and townships. Const., art. XI, § 16. Among these is an exemption for city-counties from the constitutional requirement that property taxes be uniform. Id. The Legislature has enacted numerous statutes and amendments governing cities which appear in Chapters 35 RCW (“Cities and Towns”) and 35A RCW (“Optional Municipal Code”). In contrast, the Legislature has passed a single bill concerning city-counties that is codified in Chapter 36 RCW, which otherwise and primarily concerns counties. This history stands in stark contrast to the situation in WASAVP where the court held that the fact that spirits and wine “have been governed as such by the same act for decades” indicates they are the same subject. WASAVP at 659. 4. The legislative history indicates that SSB 4313 violated the spirit of the single subject rule. Even if the Court were to consider SSB 4313’s legislative history, as plaintiffs request, that history (or lack thereof) would reinforce the Court’s decision that the bill violates the single-subject rule. Before getting into the scant legislative history it is important to note that combatting logrolling is not section 19’s only purpose. Another equally important purpose is “to assure that the members of the legislature and the 6 public are generally aware of what is contained in proposed new laws.” Lee v. State, 185 Wn. 2d at 620, (internal citations and quotations omitted). SSB 4313’s legislative history strongly suggests that legislators were generally unaware that they were voting on a bill that contained a restriction on traditional cities’ and counties’ taxing authority. Throughout the committee reports and congressional hearings, SSB 4313 is referred to as though it only concerns the novel combined city-county form of government. CP 291, 293, 295. The bill received no substantive debate, which is surprising for any bill that touches on the always-controversial issue of the authority of existing cities and counties. See CP at 305-307, 311. SSB 4313 quickly made its way to the House, where one Representative moved to amend the bill to require border counties to levy an additional sales tax. CP at 312. The Speaker of the House ruled that the proposed amendment was outside the scope and object of SSB 4313 because the bill “pertains to consolidation of city and county and the method of allocating state revenue in connection with the consolidation” such that the amendment pertaining to taxation by traditional counties was “out of order.” Id. The Speaker’s reasoning applies equally to section 3 of SSB 4313: the provision pertains to traditional, stand-alone county taxes and is therefore out of place in a bill pertaining to consolidation city-county government. 7 The most logical explanation for the House’s failure to catch the inconsistency is that the legislators were unaware that that SSB 4313 included any provisions on traditional cities’ and counties’ taxing authority. This history indicates that SSB 4313 violated the spirit of article II, section 19, in addition to its letter. Nevertheless, Burke and Levine plaintiffs focus on the legislative history of SSB 4313 in an attempt to revive their argument that the Court should ignore section 19 and focus only on article XI, section 16, which requires that restrictions on city-counties also apply to traditional cities and counties. The parties already fully addressed this argument and the Court rejected it. To summarize, there are four reasons the Court properly rejected this argument: First, the Legislature cannot prioritize compliance with one constitutional requirement over another; it must comply with both. State v. Parmenter, 50 Wash. 164, 175, 96 P. 1047 (1908) (“One requirement of the Constitution is as mandatory in its nature as another.”) Second, the argument only supports rational unity within SSB 4313’s section 3 itself, whereas the test requires rational unity “between the operative provisions,” Lee, 185 Wn. 2d at 620-21 (emphasis added). 8 Third, the substantive restriction on the taxing authority of traditional cities and counties is no mere “ancillary” provision that can be slipped into legislation under the guise of being necessary to implement the general purpose of the bill. Finally, the Legislature could have passed a stand-alone bill addressing taxation powers of all three forms of local government and complied with all provisions of the constitution. There is simply no need to prioritize article XI, section 16 over article II, section 19. B. If the Court reconsiders or amends its decision it should also address EOI’s article II, section 37 argument. Because the Court held “SSB 4313 is unconstitutional in its entirety for violating article II, section 19, [it did] not need to consider whether section three of SSB 4313 also violated article II, section 37.” Op. at 26. However, if the Court were to reconsider its section 19 decision, it would need to consider whether SSB 4313 violated section 37. As explained in EOI’s prior briefing, SSB 4313 flagrantly violates section 37. EOI Opening Brief at 20–27; EOI Reply Brief at 11–14 (explaining that SSB 4313 failed to set forth its amendments to the expressly broad taxing authority granted in Title 35A RCW, and that this case is indistinguishable from Washington Education Association v. State, 93 Wn.2d 37, 41, 604 P.2d 950 (1980)). 9 Accordingly, even if the Court were to reconsider its decision, the ultimate outcome would not change. C. The Court correctly held that RCW 84.36.070 does not apply to Seattle’s income tax. As the Court recognized, “neither Seattle nor EOI argued for the applicability of [Seattle’s statutory authority for property taxes] because both contend that the income tax is not a property tax at all.” Decision at 12, n. 58. Regardless, the Court correctly held that RCW 84.36.070’s prohibition on ad valorem taxes on certain intangible personal property does not apply to income taxes.1 1. RCW 84.36.070(2)’s definition of “intangible personal property” does not encompass income. RCW 84.36.070(2) establishes three categories of “intangible personal property,” none of which include income: The first category is “All moneys and credits.” RCW 84.36.070(2)(a). “Moneys” is defined to mean “coin or paper money issued by the United States government,” RCW 84.04.060, neither of which is “income.” “Credits” means assets owed to the taxpayer by a debtor, such as mortgages, notes, stocks, and bonds, see RCW 84.36.070(2)(a), which is hardly synonymous with “income.” Cf. Hebert v. Litig. Document Grp., EOI does not concede that Seattle’s income tax is an ad valorem tax and reserves the right to address that issue if the Court grants reconsideration. 1 10 Inc., No. 2:17-cv-01536-KJD-CWH, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13935, at *11 (D. Nev. Jan. 28, 2019) (distinguishing a creditor-debtor relationship from an employer-employee relationship). The second category is certain personal service contracts and sports franchises — plainly not income. RCW 84.36.070(2)(b). The third category is: Other intangible personal property such as trademarks, trade names, brand names, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, franchise agreements, licenses, permits, core deposits of financial institutions, noncompete agreements, customer lists, patient lists, favorable contracts, favorable financing agreements, reputation, exceptional management, prestige, good name, or integrity of a business. RCW 84.36.070(2)(c). Again, “income” is not on the list. Nor does this third category encompass “income” merely because it begins with the phrase “Other intangible personal property such as. . .” RCW 84.36.070(2)(c). Plaintiffs’ argument that RCW 84.36.070 applies to “all personal property” and that RCW 84.36.070’s expressly listed examples are irrelevant is contrary to the ejusdem generis principle of statutory construction. The ejusdem generis rule requires that general terms appearing in a statute in connection with specific terms are to be given meaning and effect only to the extent that the general terms suggest items similar to those designated by the specific terms. In short, specific terms modify or restrict the application of general terms where both are used in sequence. 11 Dean v. McFarland, 81 Wn.2d 215, 221, 500 P.2d 1244, 1248 (1972). The ejusdem generis rule is especially applicable here because RCW 84.36.070(2)(c) is explicitly limited to “intangible personal property such as. . .” the specific examples. (Emphasis added). The statute’s interpretive rules even explain that RCW 84.36.070(2)(c) is limited to the specific examples listed and “and other similar types of intangible personal property.” WAC 458-50-160 (emphasis added). The specific terms listed in RCW 84.36.070(2)(c) — intellectual property, licenses, contracts, customer lists, and aspects of business good will — are all quite different than income. RCW 84.36.070(2)(c) therefore does not encompass income. 2. Interpreting RCW 84.36.070 to prohibit taxes on income would conflict with the Legislature’s B&O tax. Burke and Levine plaintiffs’ argument that RCW 84.36.070 prohibits ad valorem taxes on income must also be rejected because it is inconsistent with the Legislature’s B&O tax. The B&O tax “is measured by the application of rates against value of products, gross proceeds of sales, or gross income of the business, as the case may be.” RCW 82.04.220. If Burke and Levine plaintiffs were correct that RCW 84.36.070 prohibits taxing a percent of income, it would directly conflict with RCW 82.04.220. The Legislature presumably did not intend for RCW 84.36.070 to be 12 interpreted in such a manner. Waste Mgmt. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 123 Wn.2d 621, 630, 869 P.2d 1034, 1039 (1994) (“[W]e will read statutes as complementary, rather than in conflict with each other.”) Furthermore, it is not plausible that the Legislature intended to invalidate its own B&O tax and the B&O taxes of numerous jurisdictions across the state, thereby eliminating a major source of revenue, all without mentioning anything of the sort. State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318, 320 (2003) (Courts “cannot add words or clauses to an unambiguous statute when the legislature has chosen not to include that language,” and “a reading that results in absurd results must be avoided because it will not be presumed that the legislature intended absurd results.” (Internal citations omitted)). The Court’s decision appropriately avoids unintended conflicts and absurd results by holding that RCW 84.36.070 does not apply to income. Op. at 12 n. 58. That decision should stand. IV. CONCLUSION The Motion does not raise any arguments that would affect the outcome of the Court’s decision. The arguments that are presented fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. Reconsideration is not warranted. 13 Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of September 2019. /s/ Claire E. Tonry_______________ Knoll D. Lowney, WSBA No. 23457 Claire E. Tonry, WSBA No. 44497 Smith & Lowney, PLLC 2317 E. John St., Seattle, WA 98112 (206) 860-2883 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused the foregoing Response to Burke and Levine Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration to be served on counsel for all other parties in this matter via this Court’s e-filing platform. Dated this 23rd day of September 2019. /s/ Claire E. Tonry 15 APPENDIX Exhibit 1 Page 290 REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE. duo/W SENATE Bill N0. 431? (Type in brief titie exactiy as it appears on back cover of original bili) Authorizinq the formation of combined citv and countanuniripai corporations under Art. XI. section 16 of the Constitution (reported by Committee on Loca] Government): (7) Recommendation - Majority Do pass Do pass as amended That Substitute Senate be substituted therefor, and the substitute bili do pass Other Thompsonf Chairman . . I Ajz?n Equta Egber, Vice Chairman Alan Thompson, Chairman! 1" Graniund McCaan . ?g?w woody Zimmerman . A Bauer, Vice Chairman Scott Barr 904i Bob McCasiin Dianne Woody Haithenmn Passed to Committee on Ruies for Second Reading Page 29 1 I Exhibit 2 Page 292 Report of Standing Committee HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES- Olympia, Washington . February 1984 (da to} SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL N0 4313 (Typo-in House or Senate Bili, Resolution, or Memorial) Committee on Local Government Prime Sponsor Authoriz1ng the formation of combined city and county municipal corporations under -"(Type In brief litIe exactly as it appears on back cover of original hill) Article XI, section 16 of the Constitution. reported by Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT (13) AJORITY recommendation: Do Pass. l:l TY recommendation: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bit! do pass. l:l MAJORITY recommendation: Do pass with the following amendm entfs): Signed by . (- i 5-) Representa ERELARD HRUBACK or! . "?ring - Arr 21"? tint-J-?mu? 1 WW 4% 0?3 2e mac. LUVEN Em raw/mm gt? ATTACHMENT: Committee Roll Call Vote Check here if Minority Report mm .m . Page 293 Requested (see back) Exhibit 3 Page 294 . ALIS 133813 asvand 113 133313 . i MID . -l333i5 asvawa (112 L0 . 133m -- . - mad asva? 612 I ?3 A113 133315 asvai?L 1 All? 133315 A133 - . 133315 ?Wedg? pom/W 15593 1. g2}; ?ag 43192); - f/ng?fwj 4mm? ibe, - All: - - 38V31d alz .1 - 35 .5 aw? {9 i333i3 (ouxsax) ss3uauv SNIWIVH juvn ?os 31 . . 01 HSIM 1 3% .40 9L Llomaas 714V JBPUH [pdgagunw Klunog 5:;3 331808 9L0 9141 Eugzwoqany iEl'uIl 4935!. menugp 331W ai?was 'on 1119 :jr?m-wu The President deelered ine quesiien hetere the Senate ie be ?'l-El tell eel]. en 1mg]. el Eneresseti Seneie Bill Me. 43W. ROLL CALL. The Severeltnt'tr celled ihe re]! en tit-tel pessn?e eJ Enereesee Senate Bill He. dam. and the bill petri?ed ihe Senu'le bat the fellew'ing vele: items. 45: new. ED: absent. mu??d. vgmv; yen: Eeneiet': Burr. Bauer. Bender. Herd-11. Blue-she]. Ee'liieel'. meme. Cute-er. Hamel], Fuller. Gusher-1. Guile. 9mm. tie-ass. Henley. Hun-eels. Hews-er. ?me. We. Heine-1r. Knitted-den Lee. hieEJenTI-eli- Mime?id. Heidenue. Meteell. [-te Hewitt-WEE: Entree. Fe?erpen- Pelei-sei-L Fu?en. ?ing-e. Emssem Jib-teem. Seller. Tuwunge, ?cheeses-en. Veg-mild. sren Eeiehheuei'. Wes-eke. mums. Weid'm. Hire-ester. :tn - 443-. Excuse-:1: Seneiet' - l. SENATE BILL ND. 430'}. 1'1.me remitted 1he was declared ens-see- There being ne ehjeei'ten. ihe [the el the bit] was. erdered te slm'llil as the the 11:1. {m metten e: Senn?tm Shinee-eh. the Bennie advanced te the eighlh ereier e! nueiness. Cm ef Seneier ihe EernIni?ttee en we: relieved. ei fu?hal' eensieereiien el Seneie Hilts hie. anti. den. dust-TE. ens and d'i'?tl. {in mehen el Seneier Shinpeeh. Senate ems Ne. sit-TU. de'i' l. ease. sane and amt} were reiet'reti ie the Genet-thee en Seeiel end Heellh Serene: Dr: e! Seneiet' Ethpeeh. ihe en Seeiel end Heeilh Semees was relieved el tunhet censieeretien ei Seneie Bill He. 4:555. ten metten e1 Sene1ei? Senate Bill hie- 4.5.155 was referred Ie the Cem- mttlee en Judicial-3". Dru t-neiien el Bennie? ihe CeInImilee en Sieie Eevetnmeni sires relieved e1 hit-the: eensteetetlen ei Senate Eli]. He. neat? and Senete em Ne. 41'31. metten ei Senate: Set-tale Blur-1e- 415-3? end Senate Bill: Ne- d'i'el were relen-eci ie ihe Cemittee en Wears and Means. There being he eeiectlen. ihe Preeielen'l reverted ll'te Bernie ie the iirsl elder e-i busineE-S. REPORTS GP EIMQDWE January 13. west 5E 42:} Prime Spenser. Eeneier Seep-ere: Exempiing lish in?nite: irem emiee lieialien. Repertee. hi? e11 Wears and Hem-Ins MAJORITY Due puss. Signed hi3.r Senaters Metlen'neii. Chair- men: vice Chairmen: Bauer. Bettlget- Cremell. Fleming. Hummer. Hughes. LEE. Me?endld. Rimhem Shinpeeh. Tennedg?. Thempsen. Weenhn. Wendy. Passed ie en Rules ier reacting. Janeen-if NBA 53 4313 Prime Spenser. Bennie: Thempsen: null-teeming Ihe ieri'nniien et enm- hine-d eilr'tr end eeunt'tr municipal eerperu'liere under Mille'le see?en 1e eJ the Cens'liluiien. Reperteti he cemmi'liee en Lee-e1 Gevemneni Thett Euheiimie Senate He- 4313 he seine-ii- iuied iheteies. tart-e ihe ?eiJl de pass. Signed be Eeneiers Thempsen. Che-ir- men; Butter. 1tuftiuze chairmen: Evenlune. Weedv. Pressed ie en Rules ier teatime. Jenuenr W54 EB ?13.39 Prime Spenser. Feietsen'. Medierine Iui'tlen end fees ier inehin- tlens et higher Reperteti he Ceh'enillee en Went! anti hieens Lie pess. Signed by Bennie-1'5 Cheru- Eespnni 1?ee Cheirrn?n.? Banner. Fleming. Hughes. F?iehe?. Ethp-eeh, Tulle-edge. Theme-sen. Wetnite. ?Hejehn. Weede. Page 305 El?? THE SENATE flay: ?51!an Burr. marl-Ia. Craven. Huhr. Mt?mun. Malibu-rum? ME: mum - H. [mm Aha-n1: 5&an Lava - l. 52;: Exmugd: 54-an 1. SUBSTITUTE SENATE ND. 43W. hqun-g racewad tha mung-?WI a; was declared pun-ad. Thar-E.- bang m: ?hlec?m'a. 1113 11119 DI bill was lard-Had slun? a: Ina 11119 a! Ihe Incl. mums . SENATE BILL HID. 32m. by 5mm: Lee {by Jain: Hulaa 1:53,; {laminae request} 501me Juhh'grisl eruplmrer renal-ling requirement with tubby-151 '?F'm'ling 3f?: reqm'remanh. The 131]] Was read [he Sac-and lime. MDTIDH Cm mutton ul San-alur Wurnka. Ihe rules were mpan-ded, Emma Bin He. amt-I?g was advance-cl tn third reading, the second Ta?dlng c-arns?dared than ?thrd. and tha- bill was placed an thin] passage The Frasidanl declared Ina Iqtil??hcun barium 1m: Hermie to be mg ml] can: an?? Imtrl p-uasmga- Er: Handle Bill Ha. 32:11}, HULL 133-11. The Eetralm?? callad 1M on ?nal mange. til-I Sanme Em Na. 32le and lb bill the 55mm "3'3 mll?m?g vma: Vans. 33; mars, W: autism-II. excused, DI. . . ?ul'G'?nu m: Eanutal'a Elan. Emmr. Brunch-at. Emma-er, mama. Samar. Emir-all. Denim Fund-r. Gaspard. Gum. Guam: l-I-ntla'r, Hansen-I. Haj-mar. Hamish-d. Elsi-Jam. Lea, Mai-hum, Human. Maura. Hawhnuaa. ?ux-an. Fatima-an. Fataram. FulJen, ?namwsan. Salim. 115mm- Vum?ld- van Raichbu'uar, ka?. Wc-juhn. Wendy. Elma-mm new: [lama-n. Hmm. Grmum-Id. Hughes. Hm?i?yr. Manama-1t RIM I I Tam-chm. William: - Absam: - 1. Elm?ui?-ED?far?-ar??- I. SENATE BILL HID. 3240. hem-ling- rucet-uad the cmmu?aml w? declared passed. ?15:3 h?j?g the 11113 [[19 11111 was man-ad t4: slut-Ii us 111:! tin-an: Ina ., READING SENATE BILL HID. 4313. 1:1; Senmm': Thumpmm Emmrm L'Ir'l Mu?re - $11th the mmhined cihr rind mum-r mumlpm uncle: Ar?cla JILL Sauclicrn th- nf Canslihmun. . Page 306 DAY. 19'54 er. meuee at Seneler Theme-see, Substitute Senate Bill He. sets were sub-Emmet]. 4m. Serif?IE Ettll Ne. #313 and the substitute Watt- en $1311le and Stir-sud me time- {3n metten el Seneter Thempsen, the rums were suspenders. Substitute Senate :"Esll ?le. 4313 was Ind-Vented te- reedtne, the reading cersshier-ed the a mini and the hill was placed the line] peesrsee. The President declared the euestten hetere the Seattle in he the tell eel] en passage et Substitute Sen-site Bill Me. 11.313. ls- hj 'l'he Secretary sense the retl en ?nal el Substitute Senete St]: He. sets Ems [he Pressed the Senate tier the tell-2min: vete: Tem. 413: ems. til-S: :1th m; ?rmed. Ul- _e Venn-a Tat-:11 Bert-elm Bauer. Bender, Blueehet. Betti-Jar. ?atten. Carmen am?; Fuller. Emmi-Etc]. Gull-1:. Euess. Halley. Human, Hay-nu: [-Tamstu'd. Flu-ghee n'Etl?El'tr- ??eddm. Lee. Liam. Hen-terms. Meet-e. Hummus-El. Ewen. Perle-?are. Eela??t'l- Rasmussen. [-hnel'tert. Seller. Ethane-eh. Tellrte?ee. ?Drummers. 's'eumld. 'tren angel-de?nes. titernke. ?t't'tiljllerre. Wejehn, Wee-?at. 11mm? 11.3. trump Seneters Bree-rel]. muslin. Met-amt. Pullers. Glut-ml .5. Benits II. M. .. 5.11m SENATE BILL HID- #4313. having received the translilutierml me-jnril'yt. ?was declared passed. There hem-n :ne ehjeeh'en. the titte e! the hull wee erdered te- stenrt :Is the tltle et the net. READINE- EEHATE HILL by Een?let?s Thempem. Eimmermen met Herr Madmen-g the quetltiesttiens ter the entree e1 eeunt'f she-rill HUNG-NS 5.1.. Cm when at Sennter Thm't'tpsm't. Substitute Senate Bill He. was substituted .1131." Senate Bill Me. 4?322 end the substitute but we: pieced en seeding end. tread the terte. {tn met-ten et Sea-setter the rules were suspended. Substitute Senate $311.1 He. 1?32: tees east-Fenced. third reacting, the seabed renew cen?tdemd the :Ihl'l'd. end the was place-rt en tine! passage. st? Debate ensued. it. 2 PDEHT titF lN?UlR?s? fi' Senate: Pettersen: ?Senetet Thernpsen. I meted that there was ne ?seet nete :rernsesled. Hes-t. unth the eelueelienet requirements in this httl. I we'uld hepe err-ct ts weer-standing that all the tee-?15 DI the annual tt'etning ell the urn-? training that rru'ghl he required. ssI'tJJ he tent-rte by the eheri??s. e?tee er ?lms it the tlntent that the state legislature W?uld eppreprtete menetr ler this there-ease? Ear-ates ?Seneter Fetterse-It. this leeteletien weuld net require an? urbane-?ute Seme at the eduetrttentsl requirements 1?trill have been ehtetned in?ll! the TEL-SWISS pmh?blf expended hetere a candidate? ever Dean's. [1 in. the et the WEE-Stenel development et the that these that are ?llet-?ne incumbents? he heme he the Iu.1.ntt e1 eetremrnerttf t1. . Further detente ere-nee. gs Th5 President declared the uuestten hetere the Senate tn he the rell cull en tin-St matinee at Substitute Senete Bus Ne. arse. Eter- seLL CALL "Ti-Th! Seaetuw celled the mtt. en. ?nal et Substitute Senate Bill Ne. 4H: -e the hill ?55:1 the Senate by the lullewing vet-s.- ?t'ede 2s; 22; ulseer'st. _usert. m. m- Saneter: see. :Eteneter. Betti-?ler. center, Fuller. emu. Es'anlund. Hetw. I'D-rusted. Hugh-t5. Hurley. He?usltn. h'lielL'I-ennett. Melcu?. Hue-re. Welt-them. EI'tI-rltn. . nu: .. . 1151:5131. Sg?gl? T?'lj'n?dqa. W?jdl'u't 1b. Page 307 5:54 JCIURNAL CJF THE HDUSE SEMI-I. See. ft} There 13 elem-ed the Inter Sale-:1 nn puhue nmuh 115,. I in?ll twin of the Inna-Mm; members: {at} THE: members am! We Member: er the emu-tn. be be anew-net] by the pure-skier! e: the stride: I Eh} 'T?tn-n member: and We mineI-jl'yr members :the Spit-uh: the heuee nr I The n1 1he stale beard nl health at The chair?; design-nee: id] The chm: at If?! slate henil?n enuneu er1he ehnirs dengue-e: The dinethar at 1he drip-af?uent nE val-13mm amen-e nr Ihu lie-enters design-ma: ml The aeerelnrv n1 :n-z'lnl and henuh. Jena-bees the neared-err: {93 A label pub-lee health Indie-int be apple-wed by Ihe Reamer-1 11-: 1h: nenme and the meal-tar ?E1he heme nl renrneemntives acting jeinmr; nu] a navel-?an. unanm uTrIieI Inn-?rmer 1531 new tn he app-numbed by me Weald-ahl a! e, senile and lb: weaker nt 1he hens-e n: neunn and Turn Barman-a Mm haw dame-reunited nn imereei in Dunn: henuh. ?ne :31 Ihene perm; shall be app-aimed by [he meander! e11!? terme- uncl the nth-er man be by lhe speaker '11 the heme nr remesente?va. f2} leeBFIIlv-a mama-:3 e1 1he it'll-Ell] be mime-man Inr Lru'I-rel Emma; by meme new-ea as pmuinad under RCW Hmemelntwe member-5. n: th mm man be fer lrmre] expenses u: In HEW 41.3mm denim ml .3 I rr-nvel expat-nee 1e:- memhere nppninled under sub-5mm and! ft] n! We eneunn shall. he paid 12-? the FEW-TIE 4::an 1he hm?e a! representa?vei. the end; rn be madden gm me twe inn-uses. {:13 The nemmirlee ehnlJ study- issue: p-rlnirnna rn public heellh and repel-l- it,- tummy? and be me Jeg'?ldlure bar :In which nnle lhe Dam-[33m ht: eli?.? ?nned hr Representnuves Mien-Li. Chair; Val-um. vine their; Eel-Cher. Bend. Lal Hunkins. Jenna-en. Runner. R. King. LIE-II, Nettle-5r, El. Nelsen. 591mm gimn Tn?er end Wail-n. Venting new: Representa?ue Twlc-l'. Put-sen! Represelmn?va J. WiLIj-nms. I. a. In Camillee en Rulee seennd reacting- if February 19.94 ESE 4:113 Prune en Leenl Gnvemmenl: hull-Lemmy the lane: ?1mm? 31W and munnr mur?einn] ?ma-egg Article In 431 lhe Canshluu?n. Rape-?ed b1; :3anin m??lf Lucul Envemment -. Etna-?5. MAIDEN marld?lI-Eln' Fl?? h? PETE Eil'I'E'l'l'a' Chair: Mlen. Brennan. Churnfeyr. Ebersnle. Equine-Tim Grimm. Hiner. Tame-emu, Emllhe-rmun. ?a'un Dyken and Van Lumen. . 'r Verb-In new: Hewesenlnuves Ere-ugh. Chandler and Van Brice-n. 35:5? Absent: I PIE-155M an Rules 5a?un? rngg?g Fem-um 533 4335 Prime Spenser. Eternn'dttee en Cnmmeree Lube-r. Rede?ning." pullii?ut actlv?les In sacun'?r den-I ment may engage. Renewed hy- en Cause ?nn. E?aclim'ts E: Emile: . 5? Dn puss. Signed . .. Chili-T1 l:55'3'3- V555 Leena Fnh'ick. Sch-nee. Summers and I ll Absent HEDr-Hentu?ves Barnes, Fn'ner. Mallet: and vender Eta-513:; Passed tn Enmrn?tee en Rules fer senend reemnn. 3' SE 4333 Prune Spenser. Peterson: Remnuinn reme?ens an malf?' tile renew-2m. Renamed h? an Trnnapnrfe?nn Page 311 7"452 JDURHAL DP THE G'B?en. Paddm. Patrick. Pee-rare. Pruitt. East Sanders. Swan. Schmidt. Set-term. Seal-i. E-threr. Smith C. Smith L- Semmers. Etre?llen. Lemme. Tanner. Taylor. 1111?. Teaa. 1Jen Luv-en. Stale. Welt. Wang. West. I.'I.ril'.l.'iarns El. Williams J. Wilmn. and ML Speaker ill. 1feline near" Flares-Melina: Elem. Chandler. Clement Diehje. Humane. Haehnge. lender-m. Henley. Prince. Sh'uther: ll. Excuse-cl: King R. Eran WEED. veneer. .3 Enameled Senate Mammal Me. 1.31. licmng received the censl'ttul'tencrt wee declared pleased. The Speaker declare-:5 the HeuEe t: he at ease. The Speaker (Mr. G'Elrten celled. the Heuee le ureter. SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL MCI. 4.113. by Cemmiltee an Lace! Government {arlgi- hall'.? enamel-ed 1:1; Senaters Thempsen. ?mmennert. Heme-ted encl hie-ere} Ihe termatien ct cit}r enct ccutimyI munictpei ecrperattens under Art. median let an? the Canetltut'ten The bill was react [he secencl LiIne- Mr. veri?er Steep meved adapl'ten e! the lellawing amendment I351 page 3. after line ll insert Wet-tr SEIJEIH. Sec. .5. There is added 1e chapter HEW ct new eectlen Ic- reed a: turtle-we: There is Let-flea and there ehcr.tl he cellecled cm aadttuceal la: en each relau eele tn harder ceuntlee in this state ecruat1e ehe and ene?lenth percent er1he price. The rate presided irt this eecllen cue-plies tc taxes hnpceecl under 32.12 HUN as pram-Sect HEW 32.13.1331} FDR-1T DP CIRDI-IR Mr. Heck: "Mr. Speaker. 1 maul-I21 net: that Fen rule en WhethEIr er he! this ere- ppeed crrnenelment l3 within the scape crud chiecl ct Suleetitute Serrule Bill 4-3] :17 RUIJNE {tell-t. The Speaker ?air. D?Brten preetdingj.? Heck. veer petnl is wett laten. The bill p-ert-nihe te eensah'aetten et eeunty' creel et the methecl et gliecalirtg slate revenue tr: eennecllan with the cansel'tde?hen. amendment per- tain: te herder ennui-tea and the cellectlen cf eeles tar-t and increasing that tax. ?a'per peint 15 well tcritenr the amendment IS cut e1 ureter." De meHc-n ef Mr. Wang. the rules were suepenaea. the secret-ta reading cut-Isid- ered the end the hill we: placed an tlnal Representelivee Heep end Ereueh spelte in item el pamge el me hill. HELL CALL The Clerk. cattert me rel] en me ?nal p-ctmege Senate Bill Me. ALE-IS. {met the bill passed lhe Heuse leyr the teller-hing Irate: ?Fees. Itil-I1: have. 1: excused. 3. fee: neprgenre?ees halitec-n. Alien. Appelwiek. Annetremg. Ballard. Barnes. Barrett. Belch-er, Bethe-zen. Bend. Bred-dealt; Hell-IE. Elm-Duck. Emu-9h. Berna. Eartha. creme. Emanuey. Ela'lrleh. Crane- Believe. [Elie-?e. Ebereele. Egger. Ellie. Fteher. Flske. Pulmcn. Gallagher. Emu-perm. Summit. t-lclerrn. Huntlre. l-lrrugert. Heck. Hme. HDJI-DIIEI. lseecnen. inmate-en. Iehnsen. heater. King J. Fina F. Bireidler. Let-rte. lecl-tc. Len-g. Lu: HeCIur-e. Mullen. In?ll-er. Mend-hen. Helen. Henley. ?atten D. Nelsen E. t-illen'u. G?Ell'ien. PeederL Fertricl. Peer-ere. PHI-nee. Fruit-I. Rust. Sane-ere Serge-n. Selle-en, Seen. Elle-er. Smith C. Smith L. Stern-eaters. Stretlm. Sutherler?. Tanner. Teeter. 'l?IJt'gr. Ted-I1. 1fen Lure-n. Valuer Sleep. Waite Ware}. Wee. Emitter-e El. thualrls .1. Was-en. and Mr. Epemmf Ski. Vetting Represemmwe 1. Esme-ed: Representative: El?n-gr R. Van Dyken. Vela-jet: .5. Substitute Senate Bill Me. dala. having received the certstimtlenel mcrjenl'gr. was deelcrrecl passed. There being rte ehje-ctia-rt. the title at the hill were entered he stated the e1 1115' Page 312 SMITH & LOWNEY September 23, 2019 - 2:40 PM Transmittal Information Filed with Court: Appellate Court Case Number: Appellate Court Case Title: Court of Appeals Division I 79447-7 City of Seattle, Appellant/Cr-Respondent v. S. Michael Kunath, Respondent/CrAppellant The following documents have been uploaded: 794477_Answer_Reply_to_Motion_20190923143636D1879803_7460.pdf This File Contains: Answer/Reply to Motion - Response The Original File Name was EOI Resp to Mot for Reconsider_Final_190923.pdf A copy of the uploaded files will be sent to: Dawn.taylor@pacificalawgroup.com EStahlfeld@freedomfoundation.com JFlesner@perkinscoie.com aharksen@ci.olympia.wa.us bth@pacificlegal.org cindy.bourne@pacificalawgroup.com ddunne@orrick.com edwardss@lanepowell.com ewb@pacificlegal.org galexander@bgwp.net greg.wong@pacificalawgroup.com hgreenwo@cityofpa.us hstrasberg@comcast.net hstrasberg@me.com iglitzin@workerlaw.com jamie.lisagor@pacificalawgroup.com jdefrang@cityofpa.us kathy@johnstongeorge.com kent.meyer@seattle.gov knoll@smithandlowney.com lawyer@stahlfeld.us lise.kim@seattle.gov matt@davisleary.com matt@tal-fitzlaw.com matthew@davisleary.com mbarber@ci.olympia.wa.us mcbrider@lanepowell.com owens@workerlaw.com paul.lawrence@pacificalawgroup.com phil@tal-fitzlaw.com rmahon@perkinscoie.com rmckenna@orrick.com robbins@workerlaw.com scot@johnstongeorge.com sea_wa_appellatefilings@orrick.com sheilag@awcnet.org spitzerhd@gmail.com tricia.okonek@pacificalawgroup.com wbloor@cityofpa.us woodward@workerlaw.com Comments: Sender Name: Kai McDavid - Email: kai@smithandlowney.com Filing on Behalf of: Claire Elizabeth Tonry - Email: claire@smithandlowney.com (Alternate Email: ) Address: 2317 E John St Seattle, WA, 98112 Phone: (206) 860-1570 Note: The Filing Id is 20190923143636D1879803