AWC Legislative Bulletin - Volume 31, No. 2
January 18, 2008
(Plain Text Version)
Return to Graphical Version | Search
back issues
In this issue:
What you Need to Know Now
From the Director: I-960 Causes Chilling Effect for Introduction of Tax or Fee Legislation
Energy & Telecommunications
Environment & Water
General Local Government
Infrastructure, Transportation & Economic Development
Land Use & Housing
Law & Justice
Municipal Finance
Personnel & Labor Relations
Online Legislative Advocacy Tools
AWC Legislative Contacts & Officers
City Legislative Action Conference (CLAC)
Infrastructure, Transportation & Economic Development
This Week in Transportation
The first week of session has begun with its customary review of interim studies and the Governor’s budgets. The supplemental transportation budget is a reflection of the current environment: increased infrastructure costs coupled with an historic number of highway projects that are underway translates into a very tight budget with no new initiatives. The flood event in Lewis County is being funded in the capital budget and not in the transportation budget. The respective chairs of the transportation committees have already signaled their budgets will not significantly deviate from the Governor’s proposed supplemental budget.
These bills were heard this week in their respective Transportation Committee. This legislation establishes the mechanism for the imposition of tolls on state-owned facilities. Either the Legislature or the Transportation Commission (if so delegated) can impose tolls, including variable pricing, on a facility or corridor. All revenue from a tolled facility or corridor must be used only to improve, preserve, or operate the facility or corridor on or in which it is collected (public mass transit operations are limited to a maximum 10% of collected toll revenue).
A facility or corridor is defined as:
- A bridge, highway, or roadway;
- A vessel, bus, vehicle, or other conveyance of people or goods; or
- A system of facilities or corridors as defined by the tolling authority.
The bills require cities, towns, and ports to get approval from the tolling authority before imposing or changing tolls that would have a significant impact on the operation of a state facility. AWC supported the bill and requested the House Transportation Committee include streets in addition to bridges as eligible toll facilities.
Transferring Certain Responsibilities from TIB to WSTC (HB 2502)
Since the early 1990’s, cities that wished to transfer a city street to a state highway, or petition for a state highway to become a city street would require Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) approval. This legislation proposes to transfer this authority to the Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC).
Preserving Rail Corridors (SHB 2344)
The legislation identifies passenger and freight rail as a system of statewide significance. In addition, it requires a public notice process as part of sale, surplus or change of use of a railroad system. A panel comprised of state and locally elected officials and state agencies is to review the proposed change. If the panel finds the proposed abandonment would adversely affect the area being served, the Department of Transportation must transmit a report of its findings to the United States Surface Transportation Board.
Exempting Regional Growth Centers from Concurrency Centers (HB 2577)
This bill will be heard in the House Local Government Committee on Friday, January 25 at 1:30 p.m. Cities planning under GMA would now have the following option:
"Local jurisdictions may approve development that causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below standards adopted in the transportation element if:
- The proposed development is within a designated regional growth center;
- The legislative authority of the jurisdiction exempts the regional growth center from certain concurrency requirements; and
- The proposed development utilizes transferred development rights originating from a rural area within the same or an adjoining county."
AWC is seeking comments on this proposed legislation. Please contact Ashley Probart at ashleyp@awcnet.org or Sheri Sawyer at sheris@awcnet.org.
This Week in Infrastructure
On January 15, the House Capital Budget Committee had a session reviewing recommendations from the Study Committee on Public Infrastructure Programs and Funding Structures. AWC testified in support of the recognition that the Community Economic Revitalization Board needs permanent funding, but raised concerns about the proposal to include additional categories to the Public Works Assistance Account without identifying additional revenue streams. The combination of the 60-day session and the chilling effect of Measure 960 has stifled the ability to discuss new revenue options this year.
Authorizing Public Works Board Projects (HB 2437)
The House Capital Budget Committee heard and passed the Public Work Board Project List on January 15. As recommended by the Board, 52 project loans totaling $278 million are authorized for the 2008 loan cycle. All of the appropriation available for construction loans in the 2007-09 biennium is being used for the 2008 loan list. Cities represent 32 projects totaling $182 million. Please see www.pwb.wa.gov/ for more detailed project information.
Concerning Funding for Jobs, Economic Development, and Local Capital Projects (SSB 5762)
SSB 5762 will be heard in the Senate Economic Development, Trade and Management Committee as this Bulletin goes to print. AWC, the Counties, Ports, and the Washington Economic Development Association strongly supported this bill last year. Effective, July 1, 2009, this bill would accomplish the following:
- Eliminate the 2009-2011, $50 million Public Works Trust Fund diversion to the Job Development Fund;
- Provide ongoing funding for the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) at $50 million/biennium;
- Replace the current laundry list of private investment (industries) eligible for CERB assistance with recommendations by the State Economic Development Commission;
- Add as part of the CERB prioritization process that jobs must pay at least the average countywide hourly wage or offer health insurance to employees and identify if investments accomplish projected population and employment growth or other GMA requirements; and
- Eliminate the Job Development Fund program.
The funding source is to redirect 3.3% of the state Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) from the state general fund to this dedicated purpose. Although this bill was widely supported in the policy committee last year, the general fund reduction will result in strong resistance in the Ways and Means Committee.
Underground Economy in the Construction Industry
In 2007 the Legislature enacted SB 5926, which established the Joint Legislative Task Force on the Underground Economy in the Construction Industry. The purpose of the Task Force is to formulate a state policy to establish cohesion and transparency between state agencies to increase the oversight and regulation of the underground economy practices in the construction industry in the state. As part of that effort, the task force is to determine the extent of and projected costs to the state and workers of the underground economy.
On January 15, the Task Force presented their preliminary findings to the House Commerce and Labor Committee. A similar hearing will be held on Thursday, January 24 in the Senate Labor, Commerce, Research & Development Committee at 3:30 pm. The Task Force’s proposed recommendations can be found at www.leg.wa.gov/Joint/Committees/UECI/.
Storm Event Work Session
AWC has been asked to participate in a work session along with WSAC, to provide suggested legislative responses to the December 2007 storm event and to future storm events. This work session will take place in the Senate Transportation Committee on Monday, January 21 at 3:30 pm.
Modifying Definitions of Rural Counties (HB 2527)
The House Community & Economic Development & Trade Committee has scheduled a hearing on HB 2527 for Wednesday, January 23. This bill would modify the definition of "rural county" for certain economic development programs, allowing counties smaller than 225 square miles to be considered rural.
|