SSB 5839
In CommitteeSenate
County ferry districts
Concerning county ferry district authority.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill expands the authority of county ferry districts in Washington to operate a broader range of ferries (not just passenger-only), increase local property taxes to fund services, and issue bonds for capital projects. It updates tax limits, spending rules, and borrowing authority for ferry districts statewide.
- Allows county ferry districts to operate any type of ferry (not just passenger-only) across streams, lakes, estuaries, and bays within or connecting districts.
- Raises the maximum property tax levy for ferry districts from 75 cents to $75 per $1,000 of assessed value (or up to $1.50 per $1,000 in counties with 1.5 million+ residents).
- Expands allowable uses of ferry tax revenue to include shuttle services, landside improvements, and general maintenance and improvement of vessels and terminals.
- Permits ferry districts to issue general obligation bonds to finance ferry purchases, construction, and preservation, repaid using tax revenues.
- Requires the ordinance creating a ferry district to specify the intent to incur debt and the maximum debt amount authorized.
Who is affected
- Residents and commuters in county ferry districts — Residents and commuters in ferry districts benefit from expanded ferry service options and potentially improved or expanded ferry routes and facilities, especially where bridges or roads are impractical.
- Property owners in ferry districts — Property owners in ferry districts may pay slightly higher property taxes (up to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, or up to $1.50 per $1,000 in high-population counties) to fund ferry operations and infrastructure.
- County governments and ferry district governing bodies — County governments and ferry district governing bodies gain expanded authority to operate ferries (including non-passenger-only vessels) and use local taxes and bonds to fund ferry services.
- State transportation agencies — State agencies like the Department of Transportation may see increased coordination with local ferry districts, especially regarding safety, environmental standards, or integration with regional transit.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (4)
Expanding ferry district authority to operate any type of ferry (not just passenger-only) enables more flexible and cost-effective transportation solutions in areas where bridges are impractical — potentially reducing commute times, improving access to jobs and services, and supporting rural connectivity for everyday residents.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 1, RCW 36.54.120Permitting use of ferry tax revenue for shuttle services and landside improvements (e.g., parking, pedestrian access) improves accessibility and convenience for commuters — especially seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income riders who rely on multimodal connections to reach ferries.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 2, RCW 36.54.130(2)(c)Authorizing general obligation bonds to finance ferry purchases and infrastructure upgrades allows local governments to make long-term capital investments without waiting for state funding cycles — potentially accelerating service improvements and reducing deferred maintenance backlogs in critical ferry corridors.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3, RCW 36.54.135(1)Expanding allowable uses of tax revenue to include vessel purchase, lease, and maintenance improves reliability and safety of ferry services — helping to modernize aging fleets and reduce breakdowns that disrupt daily commutes for working families.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2, RCW 36.54.130(2)(a)-(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill raises the maximum property tax levy for ferry districts from 75 cents to $75 per $1,000 of assessed value in most counties (a 100× increase), and up to $1.50 per $1,000 in high-population counties — effectively allowing a 200% increase over current law in counties like King or Pierce. This significantly increases property tax burden for homeowners and businesses in ferry districts, especially those with lower incomes or fixed incomes (e.g., seniors on fixed incomes), without requiring a local vote or cap on total debt service.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 2, RCW 36.54.130(1)The expansion of allowable uses of ferry tax revenue to include “landside improvements” and “shuttle services” creates broad discretion for ferry districts to spend taxpayer funds on projects that may benefit commercial real estate developers (e.g., parking structures, transit-oriented developments near terminals) rather than core ferry operations — shifting public funds toward private land-value capture.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 2, RCW 36.54.130(2)(c)The authorization of general obligation bonds backed by property tax revenue increases local government debt obligations without requiring independent fiscal impact assessments or debt service coverage requirements — raising risk of fiscal strain or future tax hikes to service debt, especially in districts with low ridership or declining property values.
Local GovernmentLean industryRef: Sec. 3, RCW 36.54.135(1)By removing the “passenger-only” restriction and allowing operation of “any type of ferry” (including vehicles, cargo, or mixed-use vessels), the bill introduces new safety and environmental risks — such as fuel spills, vehicle fire hazards, or stability issues — that may not be adequately addressed by existing local regulatory capacity or funding, especially in small districts without dedicated marine safety staff.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1, RCW 36.54.120Allowing tax revenue to be used for “related personnel costs” without specifying minimum staffing standards for vessel operators, maintenance crews, or safety personnel may lead to under-resourced operations in smaller districts, potentially compromising service quality and emergency response capacity.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2, RCW 36.54.130(2)(d)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income property owners in ferry districts face the largest relative tax burden increase — especially seniors or fixed-income households — since the tax cap rises 100× with no income-based exemptions or hardship provisions.
Commuters benefit from expanded service options and improved access — particularly in areas where bridges are infeasible — but may face higher property taxes and potential service changes if ferry types shift (e.g., vehicle ferries replacing passenger-only).
County governments gain new fiscal and operational flexibility, but also increased liability and debt risk — especially if bond issuance outpaces ridership growth or property value increases.
Real estate developers and commercial property owners near ferry terminals may benefit from landside improvement spending (e.g., parking structures, transit hubs), capturing value from public infrastructure investments.
State agencies (e.g., WSDOT) may face increased coordination demands and potential liability exposure as local ferry operations expand into new vessel types and service areas without uniform state oversight standards.