Washington Archives - Page 16 of 22

Washington’s GMO labeling flop, two weeks later: What it means

Ever since Washington state voters rejected a measure to label genetically engineered food earlier this month, I’ve been trying to understand what the vote meant.

On election night, I stressed the importance of advertising, but people on Twitter and in comments have questioned that emphasis. Political advertising rarely changes opinions; it generally sets people more deeply in their convictions. So perhaps what the Washington vote shows us is that fewer people care about GM food than it seems.

Why the measure lost is also related to the question of who voted. In the end, only 45 percent of registered voters cast their ballots — the lowest turnout in a decade. What does that mean? And what’s the significance of the fact that the race tightened up as officials counted ballots: The measure was losing by 10 percentage points in early tallies, but that margin eventually narrowed to 2 percentage points, with 49 percent voting for, and 51 against.

The answers to these questions have interesting implications for future labeling campaigns. The Washington vote seems to be telling us that concern about GM food is broad and shallow. That is, lots of people are vaguely worried about transgenics, but it’s not a core issue that drives majorities to the polls.

“This was a solution looking for a problem,” said Stuart Elway, president of the Seattle-based polling company Elway Research. “People were not highly agitated about GMO labeling.”

Let’s dig into the evidence that this vote gives us to suggest that conclusion:

Money

With nearly all the votes counted, I stand by my initial impression that money made all the difference in this vote. I did, however, get the precise amounts wrong: I wrote that opponents spent more than $30 per “No” vote, but more ballots came in than I’d estimated. In fact, they spent just under $25 per vote (that’s $22 million over approximately 890,000 votes). Still, that $22 million is a lot of money — more than has ever been spent before in either opposing or promoting a ballot measure in the history of the state [PDF].

And as soon as the money began to flow, Elway saw a shift in his polling numbers: The measure had a huge 45 percent lead in September. Then the ads began to run, and that lead dropped to 4 percent in October.

“There was a 41 point swing in six weeks, which is unprecedented,” he said. “I’ve been tracking politics in this state for 30 years and I’ve never seen such a big swing in such a short amount of time.”

Among the people who had seen the ads, the measure was losing.

“When we asked them why they were voting no, people were reciting the talking points from the ads back to us,” Elway said.

It’s clear that, in this case, advertising swayed public opinion. But at the same time economists have established that it’s hard to change opinion with political spending. So what gives? Well, there’s an exception to the rule. While it’s nearly impossible for advertising to shift core values — like getting a lifelong Democrat to vote Republican or vice versa — it is possible for advertising to change the mind of someone who hasn’t fully committed. When people haven’t encountered the arguments on each side, those arguments tend to work.

One poll found that 93 percent of Americans favor labeling GM food. But half of the people questioned in that poll weren’t aware that GMOs were already widespread in processed foods — in other words, they were concerned, but brand new to the debate. In previous Washington polls Elway conducted on food safety, GMOs had come in sixth out of six potential problems with the food supply. So, while it’s clear that there’s widespread anxiety about GMOs, it doesn’t seem to be deep-seated.

Voter turnout

The low voter turnout is especially remarkable since Washington sends a vote-by-mail ballot to every voter. From one perspective, this means that 55 percent of voters cared so little about GMOs that they ended up throwing out their ballots. Just 22 percent of all registered voters in the state sent in a ballot voting yes on the measure.

But look at it another way: If all the voters in King County, where the measure passed, had turned out, the initiative would probably have passed.

“Low turnout votes do tend to be more conservative,” said David Ammons, communications director for the Washington Secretary of State’s office. And Democrats had shown they were more likely than Republicans to favor the initiative.

In Elway’s October poll, the measure was trailing among people who had voted in all of the last four elections, but it was winning among those who voted less than half the time. All this suggests that a higher voter turnout could have led to the initiative’s passage. Perhaps if more people were motivated to vote by a concurrent presidential election, for instance, they would have checked “Yes” on this initiative a little farther down the ballot.

Perhaps. Or maybe those non-voters would be swayed by the same ads. When California voted on a similar initiative in 2012, during a presidential election, 72 percent [PDF] of registered voters showed up, but the initiative still failed by an infinitesimally wider margin than in Washington.

Either way, it turned out that Washington’s labeling initiative relied on infrequent voters — they favored the proposition 49 to 37 percent, according to Elway — and they couldn’t be bothered to vote this time. GMOs aren’t driving people to the polls. Once again, concern about GM food looks shallow.

Timing

Lots of votes came in late. “We did see a general trend toward people keeping their ballots longer,” Ammons said. “I think a lot of people were still studying the GMO issue. There was a lot of media on this, a lot of explanatory journalism. I think there were a lot of people seriously trying to understand if this was the right answer, weighing it, and holding onto their ballots up until Election Day.”

The later voters were more likely to favor the initiative, but Ammons said, “We don’t have a good working hypothesis on that yet.”

He pointed out that later Seattle-area ballots elected a socialist councilmember while also voting down a minimum wage hike. It’s hard to tell what, if anything, can be learned from the timing of the votes.

What’s the lesson here?

Advocates in Oregon are already preparing a similar initiative for the 2014 election in that state. If the pattern holds, we’ll see widespread support early on (they’ll have no trouble getting the signatures necessary to put it on the ballot). Then the food industry will wade in and begin buying up advertising slots, and sentiment will shift. In the end, the proposition will lose by a couple of points.

Of course, that pattern could break. Businesses could decide they don’t want to be forking over cash every year to defeat propositions. The seed-company Syngenta, for instance, stayed out of the Washington contest after contributing in California.

But if that pattern holds, I have some advice for labeling advocates: It’s not enough to raise the specter of danger. You’ve already got the populist base, so simple, broadly appealing arguments won’t be sufficient. You’ll need more sophisticated arguments that stand up to scrutiny — the kind of arguments that convince newspaper editorial boards (they almost all advised voting no in Washington) and scientific organizations, rather than alienating them.

Panic-free GMOS: See the full story list

Initiative 522: Washington State Throws Out GM Food Labeling Measure

Employees stock shelves near a sign supporting non genetically modified organisms, or GMO, at the Central Co-op in Seattle on Oct. 29, 2013. Reuters/Jason Redmond

By Amrutha Gayathri, International Business Times

Washington state rejected on Tuesday an initiative to mandate the labeling of genetically-modified food items, bringing to an end an expensive campaign that pitted several out-of-state players against each other and drew criticism for failing to make clear the merits behind such a measure.

Initiative 522 was thrown out after 54.8 percent of the state’s voters opposed the labeling while 45.2 percent voted in favor, USA Today reported. The opposition raised $22 million, setting a record for fundraising by one side in the state, with the biggest donations coming from Washington, D.C.-based Grocery Manufacturers Association, and corporations that produce genetically-modified foods such as St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto Company (NYSE:MON), Johnston, Iowa-based DuPont Pioneer and Germany’s Bayer CropScience Ltd (FRA:BAYN).

A majority of donations supporting the measure also came from out-of-state entities such as Escondido, Calif.-based Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, an organic retailer and Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food Safety. The state’s residents donated about $550 against the measure while about 10,000 individuals, including residents of the state, donated funds ranging from as little as $2 to $20,000 in support of the initiative.

Currently, there is no federal or state law that requires labeling foods produced by using genetic engineering, and the initiative was based largely on the premise that botched genetic engineering could cause “unintended consequences.”

As many as 49 countries, including Japan, China, Russia, and the European Union, have laws requiring the labeling of genetically-modified foods, according to official text supporting the initiative, which also argued that U.S. food exports to several foreign markets had been hurt from concerns about genetic engineering and due to a lack of labeling of such foods.

A majority of genetically-engineered produce such as corn, canola, soybean and cotton, are largely used as ingredients in other food products including soups, sauces, mayonnaise, breakfast cereals, breads and snacks, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA.

Food manufacturers can voluntarily label whether foods of both plant- and animal-origin contain genetically-engineered ingredients based on guidelines issued by the FDA, according to information on the FDA’s website.

“However, if food from a GE animal is different from its non-engineered counterpart, for example if it has a different nutritional profile, in general, that change would be material information that would have to be indicated in the labeling,” according to the FDA.

The cultivation of genetically-modified herbicide-tolerant versions of several crops has jumped in the U.S. since 1996, and according to the latest statistics provided by the Department of Agriculture, 93 percent of soybean, 85 percent of corn, and 82 percent of cotton acreage in the U.S., as of 2013, is genetically modified.

Four epic green ballot battles to watch today

By John Upton, Grist

It’s an off-year election so there are no congressional races today, but some state and local battles are of immense interest to environmentalists. Here’s a quick rundown of the key green fights to keep an eye on:

Virginia governor’s race

In the gubernatorial election in Virginia, the leading candidates are virtual caricatures of their political parties when it comes to climate change. The Democrat, Terry McAuliffe, is concerned about global warming and supports renewable energy. He also used to run a (now quite troubled) greentech company. The Republican, Ken Cuccinelli, is a climate skeptic who’s been trying to score political points by whining about the Democrats’ “war on coal.” Cuccinelli previously led a witch hunt of a prominent climate scientist, Michael Mann, trying, unsuccessfully, to force the University of Virginia to turn over emails and other records related to Mann’s time at the school. (You’ll never guess who Mann has been supporting in the governor’s race.)

President Obama called out Cuccinelli’s climate illiteracy while stumping on Monday for the Democrat. “It doesn’t create jobs when you go after scientists, and you try to offer your own alternative theories of how things work and engage in litigation around stuff that isn’t political,” Obama said. “It has to do with what’s true. It has to do with facts. You don’t argue with facts.”

Virginia, a coal-producing state, used to be solidly red, but in recent years it’s turned purple. The state’s voters went for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and they look very likely to lean blue in this race. McAuliffe is firmly up in the polls.

Orcas Spotted in Puget Sound near Seattle

Credit Elaine Thompson / AP PhotoA pair of orca whales swim in view of a state ferry crossing from Bainbridge Island toward Seattle in the Puget Sound Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013, as seen some miles away from Seattle. — Credit Elaine Thompson / AP Photo
A pair of orca whales swim in view of a state ferry crossing from Bainbridge Island toward Seattle in the Puget Sound Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013, as seen some miles away from Seattle.

Source: Associated Press, October 30, 2013

Whale spotters say dozens of killer whales are still in Puget Sound where they have been seen by ferry passengers as well as people on shore.

Howard Garrett of the Orca Network at Freeland says 30 to 35 were spotted again Wednesday from the ferry on the Edmonds-Kingston route. The killer whales had been spotted in the same area at sunset Tuesday after swimming past Seattle.

The Orca Network reports members of the J and K pods have been in Puget Sound since Sunday.

Will GMO Labels Alter Consumers’ Perception Of Specialty Foods?

Northwest News Network, source: OPB

In the food business, everything comes down to that moment when a shopper studies a label and decides whether to buy or move on. That’s why food producers have a big interest in Washington’s Initiative 522 on the ballot next month.

It would require foods with genetically engineered ingredients to have a label on the front of the package. Supporters say consumers have a right to know what’s in their food. But some companies worry the law could dramatically change how their products are seen.

Updating labels

Tubs of veggie dip go three-by-three through a labeling machine on the production floor at Litehouse Foods in Sandpoint, Idaho. They pop out the other side with “Country Ranch” stickers stamped on the lid.

None of the elements on that label are there by accident says Kathy Weisz, the head of graphic design for Litehouse.

“We’re trying to convey to the consumer what it might taste like,” she says. “Kind of the feel of that product.”

Litehouse markets to “foodie” shoppers. The side of the label says “made fresh.” The company uses raw ingredients, without preservatives — which is why the dressings are refrigerated.

Weisz says the label involves a constant dance between pictures of sliced tomatoes and sunflowers and the stuff on the label that has to be there legally — like nutrition content, and ingredients.

So, Weisz says it’s not that big of a deal to add one more thing to the label. “Label updates happen all the time.”

When was the last one?

“Today, yesterday … it’s always something,” says Weisz.

But the initiative before Washington voters would create a labeling rule that’s a little bit different from others. The label saying “genetically engineered” or “partially produced with genetic engineering” would have to go on the front of the package and it would be specific to one state.

“I mean we already do sell to Canada and Mexico and that’s difficult enough,” says Weisz. “But starting to treat a state like a country – I would think that most manufacturers are just going to do it across the board, rather than making certain labels going to certain states or whatever.”

Meaning that people in Idaho and Oregon would be seeing the same thing as consumers in Washington.

That worries Paul Kusche, the senior vice president of Litehouse. He says the supply of non-genetically engineered canola and soybean oil just isn’t large enough to overhaul the company’s entire product line. If Initiative 522 passes, consumers will see labels on most of Litehouse’s products.

“I don’t know what the reaction is,” Kusche says. “I really don’t.”

“Our right to know”

Research shows price, not labeling, is the most important factor for many shoppers. But companies like Litehouse cater to a particular crowd: the label readers — people who are willing to pay more for a product they perceive as healthier.

Andie Forstad, who lives outside of Spokane, helped gather signatures to put the labeling initiative on the ballot. To her, it’s about having information about her food – just like the calorie count on a box of cookies or whether her juice comes from concentrate.

“For transparency, for our right to know. So that we can make an informed decision,” says Forstad . “I know people still buy genetically engineered products, but for those who wish not to, we can make that choice.”

Forstad cut genetically engineered foods out of her diet eight years ago. But she says it’s hard. In fact, as we’re looking through her refrigerator, Forstad spies a bottle of raspberry syrup.

“Okay, so this one, most likely is genetically engineered,” she says. “And I just noticed it in our fridge, but it hasn’t been used! [I know] because it says sugar. Most sugars are sugar beet and sugar beet is genetically engineered. That shouldn’t be in our fridge.”

An unnecessary warning?

The problem, says Jim Cook, is that raspberry syrup may actually be identical to raspberry syrup considered GMO-free.

Cook is a retired plant pathologist from Washington State University. He’s thrown his support behind the effort to defeat the measure.

“Sugar. You take a bag of sugar, you look on the label, and it says zero protein. And of course it’s zero protein because it’s pure sugar.”

Cook says the original sugar beet plant was genetically engineered to produce a certain protein.

“But that’s the green plant,” he explains. “And that protein’s not in that sugar. Why would you put a label on sugar that says it’s genetically engineered? Because it’s not.”

Even if the initiative were written differently, Cook would still be concerned about what he considers a warning for food he says doesn’t need one.

“How do you process that information?” he says. “What do you think when you see ‘genetically engineered’ on the label? Are you going to buy it anyway?”

Supply and demand

Back at Litehouse Foods, Paul Kusche is already looking beyond the November election. Litehouse has started sourcing non-genetically engineered ingredients and has submitted 21 products for non-GMO certification.

Kusche says, the demand for foods that don’t come from genetically engineered sources is undeniable.

“Whether it happens tomorrow or whether it happens 10 years from now, we know it’s coming.”

And for now, at least he knows that if Washington does require Litehouse to label its products, they’ll have lots and lots of company on grocery store shelves.

Inslee Wants To Explore State-Only ‘Cap and Trade’ Scheme

Source: OPB.org

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Gov. Jay Inslee on Monday laid out his wish list for how he’d like Washington state to combat global warming pollution.

It includes eliminating any electricity generated by coal and putting a statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Legislative Republicans immediately raised concerns.

Back in 2008, the Washington Legislature set ambitious goals for reducing the state’s carbon footprint. But they’re just goals, without enforcement mechanisms. Subsequently, a pact between 11 Western states and provinces to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions fell apart.

Now Inslee chairs a bipartisan legislative work group tasked with recommending policies to achieve the state’s climate goals. He says on its current course the state will fall far short.

“That shows the necessity in my view of having a belt-and-suspenders, economy wide approach to capping emissions in this state,” the Democratic governor said.

By that Inslee means a “carbon cap and trade” system for industrial polluters along with requirements to increase use of alternative fuels in transportation.

Republican legislators flanking the governor at a workgroup meeting weren’t shy about raising the fear that this could drive businesses to leave Washington for less regulated neighboring states.

“How do we address for Washington state going it alone on certain issues in terms of the economic impact to manufacturing, job base and agriculture,” Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, rhetorically asked.

The four legislative members of the work group also offered proposals Monday.

Ericksen talked up nuclear power. Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy, suggested focusing on energy conservation incentives, especially to increase energy efficiency in buildings. Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Burien, echoed the governor’s call to “transition off fossil fuels” in transportation.

Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, joined Inslee in proposing to wean the state’s electric utilities off of coal-fired generation. The State of Washington has already signed a deal with the energy company TransAlta to phase out the only large coal power plant inside the state’s borders – that located in Centralia. Now the Democratic politicians are targeting what they call “coal-by-wire,” meaning utility purchases of electricity generated from coal at out-of-state power plants. The bipartisan workgroup aims to produce a prioritized set a recommendations by December for how the state can curb carbon emissions in the future.

The goal is the get the state back on track to meet the following targets set by the 2008 Washington Legislature:

By 2020, reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 1990 levels;
By 2035, reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 25% below 1990 levels;
By 2050, reduce overall emissions to 50% below 1990 levels, or 70% below the state’s expected emissions that year if it were to continue with business as usual.

Citizens can offer their two cents for how the state should try to cut global warming pollution at two upcoming public hearings. The first is Wednesday evening in Spokane. A second hearing is scheduled for Oct. 23 at the Seattle waterfront.

This was first reported by the Northwest News Network.

EPA sued over fish consumption in state

By Gene Johnson, Associated Press

SEATTLE — A fight over how much fish people eat in Washington — and thus, how much toxic pollution they consume — is now in federal court.

Conservation and commercial fishing groups sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday, saying the agency has for too long let state officials underestimate fish consumption, resulting in weaker anti-pollution standards than are needed to protect the public.

The groups, including Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Columbia Riverkeeper and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, reason that if the estimates were more realistic, the state would have to more strictly regulate emmissions of mercury, lead, copper and other toxins — a prospect that concerns industry groups and that emerged as a sticking point in budget talks in Olympia last spring.

Businesses must obtain permits before they can discharge pollutants into the state’s waters under the federal Clean Water Act, and increasing the estimate of how much fish people eat could result in those permits becoming more restrictive.

The state Ecology Department has worked for years on updating the fish consumption estimates, but Janette Brimmer, an attorney with the environmental law firm Earthjustice, which filed the lawsuit, said it has amounted only to so much dithering. EPA’s failure to make the state update its consumption estimates violates the Clean Water Act, she said.

“Washington has known for years their estimates are inappropriate and inaccurate,” she said. “They keep having task forces and roundtables, and nothing is happening. My clients finally said enough is enough.

The EPA could not be reached for comment because of the federal government shutdown.

Washington’s estimate is that average fish consumption amounts to just 8 ounces — roughly one fillet — per person, per month. That figure originally came from federal guidelines published in 1990, but the EPA began backing away from that more than a decade ago and urging states to adopt more realistic estimates.

Surveys show that actual fish consumption rates in Washington are vastly higher, especially among certain populations such as American Indian tribes, sport and commercial fishermen, Asians, and Pacific Islanders — some of which average as much as the equivalent of a moderate-sized fillet per day, rather than per month.

Ecology recognizes the estimate is too low and continues working on developing new standards, said spokeswoman Sandy Howard. The department is pushing toward issuing a draft rule early next year.

“This is very difficult work. The business community has been very vocal; they believe it’s impossible work,” Howard said. “We think we can have a balance where we can have environmental protection and a thriving economy.”

During the special session of the Legislature last spring, Ecology’s efforts to update the fish consumption estimate surfaced as a late point of contention holding up a budget deal. Following concerns voiced by Boeing Co., one of the state’s largest employers, the Senate proposed doing a larger study on the issue. The study would have derailed Ecology’s efforts, but ultimately was not funded.

Jocelyn McCabe, a spokeswoman for the Association of Washington Businesses, said the members of her organization remain concerned about how the consumption estimates could ultimately affect them.

“Health and human safety is of course the first priority,” McCabe said. “But there are competitveness issues going forward. It’s natural for us to look at new regulations that will affect industries’ capability to keep their doors open and people employed.”

Last month, Washington and Oregon officials announced that people should limit how much non-migratory fish, such as bass, bluegill and perch, they eat from a 150-mile stretch of the Columbia River, based on new data about contamination from mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. That prompted an angry response from some tribes, who said the states should focus on cleaning up the river rather than telling people to limit what they eat.

High-risk sex offender wanted in Canada crossed into U.S. at Blaine

Michael Sean Stanley photos from Edmonton Police ServiceClick image to read more — Michael Sean Stanley photos from Edmonton Police Service
Click image to read more

October 10, 2013

ASSOCIATED PRESS

BLAINE — Canadian police say a violent, high-risk sex offender who has been missing for more than a week has been located in the United States, but he can’t be arrested because he’s not wanted on any charges in the U.S.

Edmonton, Alberta, Detective Chris Hayduk said U.S. border officials were warned that Michael Sean Stanley might try to cross into their country, but Stanley still managed to make it through at Blaine on Monday night, Oct. 7.

“We have no authority to go get him,” Hayduk said Thursday. “We are investigating his crossing, taking a look at the details of his crossing, into the United States. … For us, it would have been the best outcome to have caught him prior to that, so for him to be in the States is a concern that those agencies are going to follow up for sure.”

The Canada Border Services Agency referred calls on the matter to U.S. officials. The Washington-based spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was not returning phone messages because of the federal government shutdown and an email seeking comment wasn’t immediately answered.

Stanley has a long history of sexual offenses against women and children and has been missing since Oct. 1, when the electronic monitoring bracelet he was wearing was cut off and found in Lloydminster, on the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary.

Last week, schools in several west-central Saskatchewan communities locked their doors and kept children inside after police got multiple, unconfirmed sightings of the Edmonton man.

He’s wanted in Canada on charges of breach of recognizance and mischief and driving offenses, but he isn’t wanted in the United States, so Hayduk said police have no authority to arrest him.

“The extradition process — we are still exploring those options,” he said.

Hayduk said officers know Stanley’s specific whereabouts, but he wouldn’t release those details.

“We can take some comfort that police know where he is and will be taking the appropriate steps to ensure the communities remain safe.”

Hayduk said there is no evidence that Stanley has reoffended while he has remained elusive. “At this point it looks like he was just fleeing from us,” he said.

Stanley was released from jail in April 2011 after completing a 32-month sentence for assault and forcible confinement.

Stanley was being monitored by police under a peace bond, which authorities can get to impose conditions on individuals in the community. His peace bond has 20 conditions, including one ordering him to stay away from children.

Marysville adopts one-year moratorium on marijuana businesses

By Kirk Boxleitner, The Marysville Globe

MARYSVILLE — Marysville has given itself a year to work out how it will handle marijuana businesses within its city limits.

By a 5-1 vote on Monday, Sept. 9, the Marysville City Council approved an ordinance adopting a one-year moratorium “on the establishment, siting, location, permitting, licensing or operation of marijuana cultivation, production of marijuana or marijuana derivatives,” with Council member Rob Toyer casting the lone dissenting vote out of expressed concerns that the Council might wait to make its decision until shortly before the moratorium would be set to sunset.

According to Marysville Chief Administrative Officer Gloria Hirashima, the city needs to conduct local reviews of its zoning and licensing before it can even consider entertaining applications or licenses for marijuana businesses, especially since she expects the Washington State Liquor Control Board to release draft rules on the production, processing and retailing of marijuana for comment as early as October.

“We’ll be working through a local committee to conduct those reviews, with representatives from the City Council, the Planning Commission, local businesses and local citizens,” Hirashima said. “We’ve already done detailed mapping, according to the boundaries outlined in Initiative 502, of where marijuana retailers can’t be in Marysville, so we need to look at the remaining areas within the city, where they’re not restricted under I-502, and determine which of those areas we want to see those retailers allowed in, and under what conditions.”

Although Hirashima noted the number of citizens who have already expressed strong interests in this issue at Council meetings, which she believes is good for prospective members of a local review committee, she also acknowledged that the city would need to ensure that the interests of the citizens who do become members of the committee are relatively balanced.

“A couple of people who have come to Council meetings and followed this issue closely are also looking to open their own marijuana businesses, so their interests are obviously going to be different from those citizens who might be next-door neighbors to such establishments,” Hirashima said. “We need to make sure various opinions and perspectives are represented.”

Hirashima anticipates that the committee’s lineup will be finalized during the month of October, and reassured the rest of Marysville’s citizens that their voices would also be heard.

“We’re tentatively looking at potentially adopting our marijuana rules as soon as April of next year,” Hirashima said. “Before we do that, those proposed rules will go up for public comment in front of first the Planning Commission, then the City Council. It’s important that this process remain public and involve our citizens’ participation. This is a fast-moving area. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, but the state is initiating a system of licensing for it, so there’s still a wide range of opinions on this issue.”

Revenue forecast for state increases by $368 million

Recovering economy, tax code changes boosting numbers

By BRAD SHANNON, The Olympian

Washington’s top economic forecaster, Steve Lerch, says the slow-recovering economy and tax changes approved by the Legislature are expected to generate $368 million more revenue for state operations than he last predicted the state would collect by mid-2015.

The better financial outlook includes $123 million that is largely the result of tax code changes approved by lawmakers.

The overall gain to the state’s accounts means that most state workers are more likely to qualify for a 1 percent cost-of-living pay adjustment in July 2014. Most contracts for general government workers had a conditional 1 percent raise built in that would be triggered by how much next February’s forecast attributes higher general-fund revenues to increased economic activity.

“If we get any kind of positive in November (when the next forecast is scheduled), it’s likely that salary increase will be part of our budget. It’s a mathematical calculation,” state budget director David Schumacher said after Lerch announced the revenue forecast Wednesday during a meeting of the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council. “We’re very close.”

Said Tim Welch, spokesman for the Washington Federation of State Employees, which represents roughly 40,000 state and college employees: “It’s headed in the right direction, but we’ll have to wait and see until February 2014.”

Lawmakers who serve on the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council said the new revenue is good news but not enough to alter the way they must approach their 2013-15 supplemental budget plan during the next legislative session starting in January. The Legislature is under court order to improve funding for K-12 schools, and lawmakers still do not know if this year’s increased investment of almost $1 billion is enough to satisfy the state Supreme Court.

“My take is it’s a relatively small move, and it helps us have an ending fund balance that’s larger than 47 cents,” said House Appropriations chairman Ross Hunter, D-Medina. “I don’t think this creates a big opportunity to spend, or changes anything we were doing.”

Said Senate Ways and Means chairman Andy Hill, R-Redmond: “I think you just bank that money.”

In fact, the new money gives the state about $862.7 million in total general-fund reserves for the current budget.

Hunter did warn there is a litigation risk — involving two lawsuits going before the state Supreme Court next month — on state employee pensions. In a worst case, these could cost $1.3 billion, according to the state actuary.

In his forecast, Lerch said the economy is continuing to slowly improve since the Great Recession began more than five years ago. But he told the forecast council that the way forward has many risks.

He noted that job growth had been slower nationally in August and said forecasters in his office are “more than a little concerned about what is going on in the other Washington” — particularly with congressional votes yet to occur on a federal budget or to increase the federal government’s debt ceiling.

“Should either one of those things not happen, we know that will have a big impact on consumer confidence and on the economy,” Lerch said. “So that’s certainly a risk we’re watching. We’ve become a bit more concerned about housing affordability, and Europe is … still very weak.”

Lerch’s forecast included a prediction that revenues in the 2015-17 budget period also would be up by a total of $342 million. But he said $249 million of that was due to legislative action and the smaller share because of economic improvement.

Before adjourning their second special session June 29, lawmakers authorized about a dozen changes in tax law, including changes to a telephone tax and to the estate tax laws after state Supreme Court rulings opened unintended loopholes in those tax codes.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2013/09/19/2730646/revenue-forecast-for-state-increases.html#storylink=cpy