This bill amends existing ferry-related statutes. It revises RCW 36.54.120 to authorize a ferry district to construct, purchase, operate, and maintain ferries or wharves and related landside facilities within or bordering the district, and revises RCW 36.54.130 to permit the district governing body to levy an annual ad valorem tax on all taxable property in the district up to $0.75 per $1,000 of assessed value (with a lower cap of $0.075 per $1,000 in counties with population of 1,500,000 or more). The tax is limited to specified ferry-related uses (vessels, docks, operation, maintenance, landside shuttle and related personnel). It also amends RCW 36.54.135 to allow county ferry districts to incur general indebtedness and issue general obligation bonds for ferry and terminal projects, with the creating ordinance required to state the intent to incur debt and the maximum contemplated amount. The bill reenacts and amends RCW 47.60.120 to add a ten-mile restriction: if the (unspecified) department acquires, constructs, maintains, or operates a ferry crossing or toll bridge on Puget Sound or its connecting waters, no other ferry crossing or bridge may be constructed, operated, or maintained within ten statute miles (measured by airline distance comparing termini) of that state-operated crossing, except for crossings or bridges lawfully franchised and operating at the department’s location time. The Washington utilities and transportation commission may grant a waiver to this ten-mile restriction on written petition by a commercial ferry operator certificated or applying under chapter 81.84 RCW, after notice and hearing, if not detrimental to public interest; the commission must act on a waiver within 90 days after the hearing, a granted waiver is effective for five years and becomes permanent unless appealed within 30 days by the commission on its own motion, the department, or an interested party. The amendment requires the department to acquire franchise rights before operating in a franchised location and specifies that the ten-mile rule does not apply to ferry service operated by public transportation benefit areas meeting RCW 36.57A.200 or to ferry districts. The changes affect ferry districts, their governing bodies, county legislative authorities that create county ferry districts, the unnamed department referenced in RCW 47.60.120, the Washington utilities and transportation commission, commercial ferry operators under chapter 81.84 RCW, and public transportation benefit areas. The excerpt does not name the referenced department, does not include the full text or context of the deleted/strikeout language shown, and does not provide the full related statutes cited, so those specifics are uncertain from this text alone.

If enacted, county ferry districts would have clear authority to build, buy, run, and maintain ferries, docks, terminals, and related landside facilities and to charge tolls or provide service for free as their governing body decides. Districts would be able to raise money with an annual property tax levy up to $0.75 per $1,000 of assessed value (but only $0.075 per $1,000 in counties with populations of 1.5 million or more), use those dollars for vessel and dock purchase, operation, maintenance, landside shuttles, and personnel, and issue general obligation bonds to finance construction or preservation with repayment possible from the levy; the county ordinance creating a district must state the intent to incur debt and the maximum amount. The bill would also impose a 10‑mile buffer around state-operated ferry or toll-bridge crossings on Puget Sound and connecting waters, effectively limiting new private or local crossings within that distance unless the utilities and transportation commission grants a waiver after a hearing (the commission must decide within 90 days and can issue a five‑year waiver that becomes permanent unless timely appealed). Commercial ferry operators, the state ferry system, and existing franchise holders are most affected: operators face a new geographic restriction but can seek waivers, franchise holders gain protection against department encroachment, and the unnamed “department” and large-county taxpayers face changed responsibilities and funding limits. The text leaves two practical questions unclear here: which specific department is meant, and whether deletions noted in the draft (for example around “passenger-only” service) change exactly which services are covered.