Transportation & Infrastructure

Infrastructure/Economic Development

Over the past month, AWC staff and several cities have met with Governor’s staff and various legislators to discuss and propose ideas on infrastructure funding. This is occurring under the umbrella of economic development (see the Municipal Finance & Economic Development section). Governor’s staff will assemble the many ideas and proposals and work through their internal Priorities of Government (POG) in late October and November. As part of this discussion, we have asked for emphasis in the following areas:

• Increase funding for existing state programs-oversubscription of current programs is our biggest challenge.
• 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.

As part of the discussion, we have been very clear that taking funding out of existing programs, such as the Public Works Trust Fund are not ideas that we can support.

Transportation

Transportation has been a light touch during the latter half September and early October. It will change in the next few weeks. What we can expect to see:

• More information on project cost escalations. Transportation project costs across the board have skyrocketed, with many increases over 30%. Consequently, cities that are either partners or have a vested interest in WSDOT projects should engage with your regional WSDOT office to find out the current status of your respective project. Because most of the high profile WSDOT projects are line itemed in the "Nickel Package" and the "Partnership Act of 2005," the projects cannot change without the legislature reopening and changing these lists. Because there will be limited or no new state funding, we can expect tough choices from the legislature in 2007.
• The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) draft recommendations are due November 15. The RTC is charged with evaluating transportation agencies within Central Puget Sound and making recommendations on transportation governance.
• Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Improvement District (RTID) are still grappling with joint ballot and boundary differences. They will need to resolve these soon in order to prepare for the upcoming legislative session.

Alternative Public Works Legislation

As noted in previous Bulletins, the Capital Projects Advisory Review Board (CPARB) is continuing to work on proposing a new bill that will modify the existing General Contractor-Construction Manager (GC-CM), Design-Build, and Job Order Contracting legislation. The current authority expires in June, 2007, and has population eligibility thresholds for cities (70,000 plus two other cities) and a $10 million or greater project threshold for almost all public owners. For the past few months, the policy debate has focused on two items:

1. Expansion of this authority for public owners. Currently, cities over 70,000 population have this authority, and two cities, Bremerton and Puyallup, had this authority until recently. Counties, Ports, and other public owners have unique thresholds that must be met before they can use this authority.
2. Removal, or modification of the current threshold for projects to be $10 million or greater. The general consensus among public owners is that the merits of the individual project, not the arbitrary assignment of $10 million, should determine whether or not use of this authority is the best contracting tool. Members of the contracting community have raised concerns that projects under $10 million tend to have fewer cost saving or time saving advantages.

Eligibility Criteria for Alternative Public Works Contracting

[ previous article ] [ return to top ]