Transportation & Infrastructure

Governor’s Economic and Workforce Development Conference

The Governor’s Economic and Workforce Development Conference was held during the first week of September. One of three tracts was infrastructure. We are also expecting Infrastructure as a component of economic development to be a primary policy objective for the Governor in the 2007 session. In the draft document: The Next Washington: Growing Jobs and Income in a Global Economy, it identified public infrastructure as the third of six key assumptions:

. . . The public sector should lay the foundation for private sector success.

"Infrastructure" means more than the traditional sense of roads and sewers, though those are important. In a modern economy, the foundation for economic growth includes transportation, energy, water and electronic connections to markets and suppliers.

As part of our participation in the conference, we agreed whole heartedly that investing in infrastructure is critical to economic development. Our messages during the sessions were:

• Increase funding for existing state programs-oversubscription of current programs is our biggest challenge. Only $1 is available for every $2 to $10 state dollars that are requested.
• Expand and modify Local Infrastructure Finance Tool legislation.
• Expand the property tax exemption for multi-family housing for all cities. This is a critical tool for ensuring a diverse workforce in a community.
• Provide increased technical assistance for all cities-this can be negotiating regulatory red tape or assistance with community visioning.
• Expedite the grant and loan process—from first notice to actual award can take one to three years before state funds are available.
• Provide permanent funding for the Community Economic Revitalization Board.
• Allow more council decision making. The 2006 Transportation Benefit District legislation requires cities to have voter approval for impact fees, 2/10% sales tax, and up to a $100 motor vehicle fee. TBD’s that are city wide should have council authority to impose impact fees and impose the first $20 of the motor vehicle fee.
• Target state grants and loan programs to cities that are implementing GMA or are regional centers.

Initiative 917

Initiative 917 failed to qualify for the November ballot. The initiative fell 5,705 valid signatures short of certification for the ballot. This was an invalid rate of 17.6%, slightly below the random sample projected invalidation rate of 17.96%. Now that the Initiative 917 has failed, the Governor, legislature, and Washington State Department of Transportation can get back to business.

Regional Transportation Commission

The nine member Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) completed the first part of its work plan September 15. The RTC is charged with evaluating transportation agencies within Central Puget Sound and making recommendations on transportation governance. General themes that are emerging is that substantial coordination already exists between transportation agencies, transit is working well, and keep local transportation investment strategies out of state and regional governance authority. Not surprisingly, another theme is limited funding. Limited funding contributes to funding complexity (many small pots cobbled together for a project) and is a significant reason why there is intense competition for projects and the broader question of what should be a regional priority. Recommendations are due out for comment by November 15, 2006 with a report due to the legislature in January 2007.

Alternative Public Works Legislation

The Capital Projects Advisory Review Board (CPARB) is continuing its effort to revise and update alternative public works legislation. This includes General Contractor-Construction Manager (GC-CM), Design-Build, and Job Order Contracting legislation. The current authority expires in June, 2007. To date, there has been a great deal of fine-tuning on technical aspects of this authority.

The more difficult policy debate on expansion for cities, as well as the changing of the current $10 million threshold, remains unresolved. The current draft proposes the following eligibility criteria for public owners (cities, counties, ports, and higher education, public utility districts, hospital districts)

Please note this is still a work in progress. There are still members of the CPARB about the need or validity to use GC-CM or Design Build for projects under $10 million. We have continued to state that if a Project Review Committee is created, this Committee should determine the validity of a project based on its complexity, management team, etc. and not be held to an arbitrary dollar threshold.

[ previous article ] [ return to top ]