From the Director: Infrastructure Funding for Cities and Counties and Aid for Struggling Cities
The message that city officials are sending to their legislators regarding both the need for enhanced transportation, water, and sewer capital assistance, as well as for assistance to struggling communities is being received.

This session, more than those of the recent past, there has been an increased desire to address local government problems. Legislators on both sides of the aisle want to help and they’re being creative in suggesting solutions. While it is unlikely that substantial appropriations of state general fund monies will be forthcoming, we’re guardedly optimistic that solutions to our challenges might be enacted into law.

Aid for Struggling Cities and Counties

We are pleased to note that Senators Linda Evans Parlette (R-Dist 12), Mark Doumit (D-Dist. 19), and Bob Morton (R-Dist. 7) have introduced SB 6050, establishing an ongoing program of financial assistance to financially "pressed" cities and counties.

This legislation diverts a small amount of the state real estate excise tax allocated to the Public Works Assistance Account and deposits it in a new "city-county assistance account". Monies in that account would be allocated to cities and counties deemed to have an inadequate tax base to provide basic services. The criteria for the allocation would be focused on the adequacy of the jurisdiction’s sales tax base.

The Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development would administer grants from the account consistent with the recommendations of a newly established "local government financial assistance advisory council." This proposal would reestablish a permanent, modified sales tax equalization program, funded by a growing revenue stream.

Funding for Capital Improvements

As reported in last week’s Bulletin, legislation has been drafted that authorizes an additional local option real estate excise tax for those cities and counties that choose not to collect impact fees for roads, parks, city fire facilities or schools.

This legislation is designed to accomplish two objectives. First, from the standpoint of the developers and building interests it’s intended to wean local governments away from GMA and SEPA-based impact fees for these facilities. Second, from the standpoint of cities, counties, and school districts it could provide a substantial infusion of new funding for capital improvements.

As proposed, the new taxing authority would be imposed by the legislative authority of the jurisdiction and not be subject to prior voter approval – similar to local government’s current authority to impose a local real estate excise tax. Taken in combination with SB 6050 (described above), this legislation would address the immediate needs for infrastructure funding while at the same time, assure that more fiscally stressed jurisdictions are able to provide basic services.

On the Horizon

With the mid-point of the 105-day session rapidly approaching (March 3rd), legislators are starting to focus on priorities. Clearly, filling the $2.2 billion budget hole is a priority, as is the development of a transportation funding package.

A number of other issues will surface before the end of the session that are deemed to be "must do’s". We are guardedly optimistic that they will include economic development, local government fiscal assistance, and other AWC priorities.

To date, this has been a positive session and we’re hopeful that it will remain so.

 
[ return to top ]  [ next article ]