AWC Legislative Bulletin - Interim Bulletin #5
December 14, 2005 (Plain Text Version)

Return to Graphical Version | Search back issues

In this issue:
From the Director: AWC Board Adopts 2006 Legislative Priorities
AWC Legislative Priorities for 2006
2006 City Legislative Action Conference (CLAC)
Energy & Telecommunications
Environment & Water
General Local Government
Land Use & Planning
Law & Justice
Municipal Finance & Economic Development
Personnel & Labor Relations
Transportation & Infrastructure

Transportation & Infrastructure

Initiative 912-Failed! Mr. Eyman Is on the Offensive

As part of a broad coalition, the city family can pat itself on the back for getting the facts out on the Transportation Partnership Package. A big "thank-you" goes out to cities throughout the state. Thirteen counties voted against the package and it was not exclusive to Puget Sound or the I-5 corridor. This should dispel the myth that transportation is a "King County only" issue.

Although the 9.5 cent gas tax will be retained, the second major component of the Transportation Partnership Package is potentially at risk. Tim Eyman has filed various versions of an initiative that would repeal the vehicle weight fee portion of the package. His objective of "$30 means $30" would eliminate $1.2 Billion of the $8.5 Billion package. These funds are for state transportation projects, local transportation projects, and for transit grant funding. It should also be noted his initiative would do the following:

Repeal Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) authority to impose a motor vehicle excise tax and vehicle fee;
Require any government imposing a motor vehicle excise tax to use a vehicle valuation schedule that is based on latest vehicle price instead of the currently used manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP); and
Require Sound Transit to retire their 1999 bonds in order to discontinue the motor vehicle excise tax they are currently imposing.

If Mr. Eyman moves past his typical initiative development or trial balloon approach and actually begins signature gathering, expect updates from AWC.

Next Session’s Crystal Ball

With one exception, both the House and Senate Transportation Committees are expected to be relatively quiet. We can expect legislation that tends to be procedural in nature: technical corrections to last year’s transportation package, supplemental budget issues, project and program delivery review, renewing commute trip reduction legislation, etc.

The one issue that will dominate both transportation committees is regional transportation in Puget Sound. Last year’s transportation package required the current regional transportation authority, RTID, to have a public vote on regional transportation projects in November of 2006. This would serve as the "match" to the new transportation package. Failure to have a vote, or a positive vote, would result in reallocating transportation project money elsewhere in the state.

This requirement, although valid in 2005, in all likelihood will be changed. This is due to the voters endorsing the Puget Sound projects through the defeat of I-912, and a general unwillingness of campaign contributors to support another transportation campaign on the heels of defeating I-912.

In addition, the current statute, commonly known as RTID, has been under close scrutiny the past two years and it will be a priority to modify it, overhaul it, or repeal it and replace it with a brand new structure.

The continuing objective is to ensure that a regional governance and transportation investment authority will be transparent to the public, and will provide the right mix of transportation investments, and taxes or revenue options that the public will support.

Local transportation as a general agenda item will receive a committee hearing, but there is no interest in advancing a tax package of any kind in any committee in this year’s session. This does not mean the legislature is unsympathetic to our local transportation needs. This is in the context of 2006 being an election year, the passage of last year’s transportation package, and the desire to resolve regional transportation in Puget Sound. We have communicated to the chairs that we believe two of our three objectives have been met (state gas tax for cities, funding for our partners), but local transportation options are a critical component to maintaining the transportation system.

SAFETEA-LU Update

Many cities were fortunate enough to receive high priority project funding in the most recent Highway Act, SAFETEA-LU. Subsequent to the announcement of SAFETEA-LU, there have been numerous questions regarding when the project funding will be provided, and how much will the project funding actually be.

As of two weeks ago, the best information available was that the first year’s (2005) priority project funding would be reduced by 14.5%. This decision has been reversed and will be restored in the 2006 budget. That is good news for all of you with earmarked projects. However, the overall federal transportation budget appears to be reduced. Therefore, restoration of individual earmarks will result in the reduction of federal funding that is administered statewide.

Public Works Board Recommends More Projects In 2006

On December 6, the Public Works Board took action to increase the number of projects they will recommend to the legislature in the 2006 session. The Board has elected to submit 75% of this biennium’s projected funding (versus 60% in August) primarily due to an increased revenue forecast and the de-obligation of project funds.

Consequently, the original recommendation of $128 million has expanded to nearly $182 million and includes 16 more projects. Although the 2007 recommendation will drop in percentage terms (25% of the estimated revenues versus the original 40%), the total dollar reduction is small because the revenue forecast and other budget factors will keep the program size relatively the same.

On a separate note, PWB member Bill Harrison’s (City of Lakewood) term will expire at the end of this year due to his retirement from city council. AWC would like to thank him for his contribution to the Board and his exemplary representation of the city family.

Capital Projects Advisory Review Board

As noted in the October Bulletin, the Capital Projects Advisory Review Board (CPARB) is underway. The CPARB is represented by local public owners, contractors, subcontractors, state legislators, and state agencies and is primarily charged with the review of General Contractor-Construction Manager (GC-CM) and Design-Build (DB) projects.

In their October meeting, the CPARB has been tasked into subcommittees to review the following: eliminating the sunset provision for this legislation, reviewing project and jurisdiction eligibility criteria, and data collection.

To date, the subcommittees have met twice. Of particular interest is the "Expansion" subcommittee. The Expansion subcommittee is beginning to review the definitions of projects and what makes them eligible on the basis of the project without filtering through population or minimum dollar thresholds.