This bill (Substitute House Bill 1823) modifies existing transportation law by amending several RCWs (47.26.084, 47.26.086, 47.26.121, 47.26.140), repealing two RCWs (47.26.170 and 47.26.300), and creating or affirming a transportation improvement account within the motor vehicle fund. It takes effect immediately as an emergency act. The statutory changes focus on funding procedures, program priorities, governance of the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), and definitions for program terms. The bill makes procedural changes to how TIB funds are allocated and administered: it directs TIB to allocate funds from the transportation improvement account by June 30 each year for the ensuing fiscal year to urban counties, cities, and transportation benefit districts; requires a county, city, transportation benefit district, or lead agency to provide written certification of pledged local and/or private funding within one year after board approval of an application (funds not certified within a year may be reallocated); and specifies that TIB staff and travel costs are to be paid from the transportation improvement account as determined by the biennial appropriation, removing prior reference to the public transportation systems account. The bill lists project eligibility and priority criteria (including consistency with the Growth Management Act, Clean Air Act conformity, Commute Trip Reduction Law, adopted high capacity transportation plans, congestion and safety considerations, and prioritizing projects with the largest percentage of local or private contribution). The bill also restructures TIB membership and governance by specifying a 21-member board, appointment sources, term lengths (four-year terms with limits of two consecutive four-year terms, staggered expirations), and officer election (chair for two years). It adds definitions for "active transportation" and "public transit system" and identifies affected agencies and stakeholder nominating organizations. The text provided does not include the full prior statutory language for comparison, specific funding allocation formulas or amounts, or the definitions of some referenced terms (for example, "transportation benefit district," "lead agency," and "high capacity transportation plan"), so the precise scope of changes in relation to prior law and detailed implementation mechanics cannot be fully assessed from these facts alone. The extracted material does not indicate any creation of new criminal offenses or changes to penalties.

If enacted, the state will centralize a new transportation improvement account and require the Transportation Improvement Board to decide each year, by June 30, how much to send to urban counties, cities, and transportation benefit districts for the next fiscal year. Local governments and other project leads will need to secure and formally certify any promised local or private matching funds within one year of the board’s approval or risk having the state money reallocated; projects that bring a larger share of local or private money are likely to move ahead first. The board’s staff and travel costs will be paid from that account, and the board’s membership, appointment process, and term limits are changed in ways that may shift who controls project selections. Cities, urban counties, transportation benefit districts, ports, public transit systems, and the Department of Transportation are the most affected parties: recipients face tighter deadlines and a stronger incentive to find local or private funding, and the board gains clearer annual allocation authority and a dedicated funding source for its operations. The law takes effect immediately, so these changes could be implemented quickly, but important details — like exact allocation formulas, dollar amounts, and some statutory definitions (for example “lead agency” or specific program scopes) — are not provided here, leaving some operational questions unresolved.