Engrossed House Bill 2588 amends multiple sections of chapter 36.54 RCW and reenacts and amends RCW 47.60.120. It clarifies that a county ferry district is a municipal corporation and an independent taxing authority, allows a county legislative authority to create a county-wide ferry district by ordinance after a public hearing and a finding that creation is in the public interest, and states that the county legislative authority serves as the district’s governing body ex officio. The bill preserves corporate powers for ferry districts (hiring, contracting, suing or being sued) and defines voters as registered voters who reside in the district. The bill changes fiscal and financing rules for ferry districts: it authorizes an annual ad valorem tax up to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed value generally, but caps the rate at 7.5 cents per $1,000 for ferry districts in counties with population of 1,500,000 or more. For districts created after the effective date (except in those large counties), levies above 10 cents per $1,000 require majority voter approval. Tax revenues are limited to ferry-related capital and operating costs, landside improvements directly related to ferry service, shuttle services to terminals and related personnel costs. The bill also authorizes districts to incur general indebtedness and issue general obligation bonds for ferry capital and terminal purposes, and requires the creating ordinance to state intent and maximum contemplated indebtedness. RCW 47.60.120 is reenacted and amended to create a 10-mile restriction (ten statute miles measured by airline distance) around state-operated ferry crossings or toll bridges over Puget Sound and connecting waters, with limited exceptions and a waiver process administered by the Washington utilities and transportation commission (WUTC). The WUTC must act on a waiver request within 90 days after the conclusion of the hearing; a granted waiver is effective for five years and becomes permanent at the end of five years unless appealed within 30 days. The bill also adds a new section to chapter 36.54 requiring counties that establish a ferry district to appoint a five-member advisory committee with specified staggered terms, composition requirements (at least three frequent-user representatives and two from other county areas), vacancy and compensation rules, and an encouragement to appoint at least one federally recognized Indian tribe member; if a county transitioning from a county-owned system already has a local ferry advisory committee, that committee may be designated to satisfy the requirement. The bill affects county legislative authorities, county ferry districts and their governing bodies, newly required county ferry district advisory committees, the governor and legislature for certain historical business-plan submission requirements, the WUTC for waiver authority, commercial ferry operators certificated under chapter 81.84 RCW, and federally recognized Indian tribes. Important context is missing or unclear in the extracted text: portions show deletions or edits that are not fully viewable, the subsection that references deadlines and approvals contains dates in 2007–2008 whose current applicability is unclear, the agency referred to as “the department” in RCW 47.60.120 is not identified here, and no effective date for the bill or its amendments is provided.

If enacted, counties could create countywide ferry districts that act like their own taxing authorities and can buy, build, run, or charge for ferry service and related landside facilities. County governments would serve as the district governing body, must hold a public hearing before forming a district, appoint a five-member unpaid advisory committee with specified user and geographic representation, and would be able to levy property taxes up to set limits (with a high-end cap and a much lower special cap for very large counties), issue general obligation bonds tied to those levies, and use revenues only for ferry-related capital, operations, shuttles, parking, and personnel. Operations could be free or tolled and the utilities commission would have a formal waiver role for a new 10-mile restriction around state crossings. The people most affected are county governments (new responsibilities to create and run districts, appoint committees, and manage debt), local taxpayers (who could face new levies up to the statutory caps and carry the risk of debt repayment), and ferry service partners (who must coordinate operations and may be subject to new district control or WUTC waiver decisions). The bill leaves some important details unclear here — notably an undefined “department,” several route-specific deadlines from 2007–2008 whose current relevance is uncertain, and no effective date — so it’s not fully clear which historical requirements would still apply or when the new rules would take effect.