Posición Estadounidense sobre el Programa Nuclear de Irán.

Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs End of Session Report

7

Lewis Street Overpass

The City of Pasco has worked with the legislative delegation for several years to secure funding for the Lewis Street Overpass project. In the 2015 Connecting Washington package, the Legislature appropriated $15 million for the project, and directed the city to look at grant and local funds for the remaining funding needed to complete the project then estimated to cost $30 million. Over the past five years, the City used $1.251 million of the $15 million appropriated to complete design work for the project and worked diligently to secure grant funding.

As part of the City’s efforts to secure grant funding, the City applied for and received a $4.4 million grant from the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB). However, for FMSIB to award the grant, the Legislature needed to approve the grant as part of the grant agency’s LEAP list. When the City developed its Legislative Agenda in early fall of 2020, the City’s top priority request was to request that the Legislature authorize this $4.4 million FMSIB grant.

In November 2020, voters approved I-976, causing a $453 million revenue shortfall in the 2019-21 Transportation Budget. The Governor responding by pausing projects to provide the Legislature with flexibility on identifying how best to address the revenue shortfall. One of the many projects put on pause was the $13.749 million for Lewis Street Overpass project. Ensuring that the project was “un- paused” and that the $13.749 million appropriated then also became a top legislative priority for the City.

Early in the legislative session, City Manager Dave Zabell traveled to Olympia and testified before both the House and Senate Transportation Committees indicating the importance of authorizing the Lewis Street Overpass project to proceed forward on-schedule. Much of Mr. Zabell’s testimony was captured by local media outlets, which provided further momentum and support for the City’s

advocacy efforts. In addition to testifying, the City met with Rep. Jake Fey (D-Tacoma), Chairman of the House Transportation Committee. Rep. Fey understood the importance of the project, but also expressed from concern that, in his opinion, FMSIB did not have a good track record of appropriately administering grant funds.

The City worked with its legislative delegation; however, no members of the City’s legislative

delegation serve on the House or Senate Transportation Committees. However, Rep. Matt Boehnke (R-Kennewick) in the neighboring 8th _{legislative district serves on the House Transportation}

Committee. Ms. Murray and Mr. Zabell met with Rep. Boehnke prior to the beginning of the legislative session, as well as throughout the legislative session. As a member of the House Transportation Committee, he was helpful in advocating for Lewis Street Overpass.

When the House and Senate each released their proposed 2020 supplemental transportation

budgets, both proposals provided the necessary funding for Lewis Street Overpass; however, did so in slightly different ways:

 The House budget proposal allocated $4.4 million on the LEAP ALL PROJECTS list under

“Lewis Street Bridge” and allocated $13.749 million on the LEAP ALL PROJECTS list under “Lewis Street Overpass.” (i.e. rather than allocating the funds through FMSIB, the $4.4 million is allocated directly to the City)

Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs End of Session Report

8

 The Senate budget proposal allocated $4.4 million FMSIB LEAP LIST under “Lewis Street

Overpass” and allocated $13.749 million on the LEAP ALL PROJECTS under “Lewis Street Overpass.”

The Mayor sent a formal letter to the House and Senate Transportation Committee Chairs, thanking them each for fully funding the project, and encouraging them to ensure that the final 2020

supplemental transportation fully fund the project through one approach or another. Ms. Murray followed up with the House and Senate Transportation Committee Chairs confirming their receipt of the letter.

The final 2020 Supplemental Transportation budget adopted by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor included a combined appropriation of $18.149 million in state funds to the City of Pasco for the Lewis Street Overpass project; thereby authorizing the project to proceed forward on schedule.

This should be considered a great success, and the City should express thanks to the legislative delegation and the chairs of the House and Senate transportation committees. The City has also developed a strong working relationship with Rep. Matt Boehnke to assist in navigating the City’s future transportation needs.

Funding for Improvements to the Process Water Reuse Facility

Recognizing that the 2020 legislative session would be a “short” legislative session with limited funding opportunities, the City developed a funding request for improvements to the Process Water Reuse Facility expecting it to be a multi-year, long-term funding request. As such, the legislative agenda states that the City requests $5 million over the next two years to contribute to the public- private partnership.

Prior to the beginning of the legislative session, Ms. Murray and Mr. Zabell met with the 9th district legislators and discussed this funding request with them. They indicated that there would be limited funding opportunities, and to revise the request to make it smaller and reflect an initial phase of the project. Ms. Murray worked with city staff to revise the request to $500,000 for designing the project. Early in the legislative session, we once again met with the 9th _{district legislators. They indicated that}

funding was even more limited than initially understood. They offered to submit a funding request for $50,000. However, rather than submitting a request for that small amount, the City instead indicated that it would be best to work on a larger request for the 2021 legislative session.

Moving forward, the City will need to work with the 9th _{district legislators in the months leading up to}

the 2021 legislative session.

Downtown Revitalization

To build on investments into the Lewis Street Overpass and Peanuts Plaza, the City requested $2 million to revitalize downtown Pasco to widen sidewalks for outdoor cafes, improve pedestrian- friendly access, and construct plazas and gathering places. The City did not anticipate receiving the full $2 million requested given the limited funding but was hopeful to receive funding for the initial phase.

Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs End of Session Report

9

Mr. Zabell and Ms. Murray met with the 16th _{district legislators prior to the beginning of the legislative}

session. Rep. Skyler Rude (R-Walla Walla) agreed to champion the request, with support from Sen. Maureen Walsh and Rep. Bill Jenkin. Rep. Rude submitted the funding request for $2 million to

House capital budget writers. As a result of his work with the budget writers, the project was allocated $400,000 in the House proposed capital budget.

After the House budget proposal was released, the 16th _{district legislators learned of the need to fund}

an emergency levee project in Starbuck for $50,000. The only way to fund the project was to reduce the $400,000 appropriated to the Downtown Revitalization project to $350,000 and appropriate the $50,000 project to Starbuck. The 16th _{district legislators were appreciative of the City’s understanding}

of the emergent need.

The final supplemental capital budget that was adopted by the Legislature and approved by the Governor included $350,000 for the Downtown Revitalization project. In future years, the City will need to identify specific project components for which to request funding.

Economic Development Tools

The City requested that the Legislature authorize economic development tools for cities to spur private development within their communities. This was also an Association of Washington Cities’ legislative priority. There were three different proposals considered this session. While none of them passed, they each advanced further this session than previous sessions. Below is a description of each proposal:

 Local Revitalization Financing (LRF): House Bill 2804, sponsored by Rep. Davina Duerr (D- Bothell) would have provided a competitive process for cities to receive Local Revitalization Financing awards. The awards are a credit against the state sales tax of up to $1 million/year for 20 years for the city to invest in infrastructure that is likely to spur economic development. The Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) program was originally authorized by the Legislature in the mid-2000s but has been remained unfunded since. Projects that were awarded in the mid-2000 have resulted in a significant increase in state and local tax collections,

demonstrating that these awards present a good return on investment for the state. The bill was introduced early in session and had two public hearings in the House Local

Government and House Finance committees with panels of local government officials testifying to the value of such a tool. The bill did not make it out of the House prior to the House of Origin cutoff, but leadership indicated it was necessary to implement the budget (NTIB) and therefore not subject to cutoff. When the House operating budget was released, it referenced House Bill 2804 and the NTIB designation was confirmed.

In the final week of the legislative session, the bill was voted out of the House with near

unanimous support, 94-3. The Senate Ways & Means Committee held a public hearing on the bill. There were over two dozen other organizations signed in support of the bill and no one was opposed. The bill was scheduled to be voted out of committee the same day as the hearing, but the committee chose to not vote on the bill. In speaking with several members of the committee afterwards, it was shared that concern over a looming recession in response to

Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs End of Session Report

10

the COVID-19 outbreak caused hesitation in supporting a proposal that would have committed the state to $15 million investment each year for the next 20 years.

When the bill passed the House, it did so after release of the strong economic revenue forecast. The day the bill was to be voted out of the Senate committee, the stock market plunged, and COVID-19 continued to spread in Washington, causing Senators to make fiscal decisions in light of a potential recession. Although the bill did not pass, significant progress was made, and momentum was built for a revisit to the policy in the 2021 session.

 Tax Increment Financing (TIF): House Bill 2778 and House Joint Resolution 4212, both sponsored by Rep. Pat Sullivan (D-Covington) would have authorized tax increment financing in Washington State – most other states already have tax increment financing. Article IX Section, 2 of the State Constitution requires that the state tax for common schools be applied exclusively to the support of the common schools. Previous Supreme Court rulings have found that tax increment financing is unconstitutional because it diverts property tax revenues from the common schools. For this very reason, introduction of House Bill 2778 was accompanied by HJR 4212 which would have amended the state constitution to allow for tax increment financing. Both proposals had favorable public hearings in the House Finance committee and were voted out of the committee only to die in the House Rules committee. If HJR 4212 had passed both chambers with a 2/3 majority, it would have to be approved by a majority of Washington voters. Although this is an ambitious objective, the Washington State Constitution has been amended 107 times, so it is not impossible. Over the interim months, Ms. Murray will continue working with the Association of Washington Cities and other cities to educate state legislators on the value and importance of tax increment financing for local economic

development. Unlike local revitalization financing (described above), tax increment financing does not require funding from the state budget.

 .09 Credit Against the State Sales Tax for Counties: The City of Pasco joined other

counties, cities, ports, and other stakeholders in requesting that the .09 credit against the state sales tax for economic development be renewed. Franklin County currently receives funding under this program and appropriates it to many economic development efforts that benefit Pasco and the greater Tri-City community.

The statutory authority for this program is due to sunset in 2023. This was a statewide effort led by the Washington Economic Development Association (WEDA) and Greater Spokane Inc. (GSI), although GTH-GA remained engaged in on-the-ground lobbying and strategizing to advance the bill.

Sen. Mark Mullet (D- Issaquah) introduced legislation last year, Senate Bill 5899; however, efforts focused on House Bill 2494, sponsored by Rep. Monica Jurado Stonier (D- Vancouver). The bill received strong support from the House Finance Committee. However, once passing out of committee, the bill did not advance. Legislative opposition to the bill is largely based on budget writers’ reluctance to commit any portion of state sales tax revenues. This reluctance was already strong when the Legislature had $1.5 billion in new revenue and was

Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs End of Session Report

11

Moving forward, the City of Pasco should work closely with other coalition partners through the interim to determine whether it will be fruitful to pursue this again in the 2021 session, and if so, what the appropriate legislative strategy will be.

Defend Local Control

Like the 2019 legislative session, several legislative proposals were introduced in 2020 that would have preempted the City’s authority to regulate land use. Fortunately, most of these bills did not pass into law, in large part due to a group of legislators in the House of Representatives referred to as the “Local Government Champions Caucus.” This group of legislators strongly opposed proposals that preempted local control, and instead encouraged the advancement of proposals that provided local governments with incentives or options on how best to accomplish public policy objectives.

Below are the bills that were discussed this legislative session, with those that passed into law listed first, and italicized:

 Incentivizing Density: House Bill 2343, sponsored by Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-Burien), expands options for actions cities may take to increase density. The bill is a “sequel” to House Bill 1923, which passed during the 2019 legislative session. House Bill 1923 provided cities with a menu of options to increase density or prompted cities to complete a housing action plan; this bill expands this list of options and adjusts parking requirements. The bill also extends SEPA and GMA appeals from April 1, 2021 to April 1, 2023. The bill was approved by the Legislature, has been signed into law by the Governor, and is effective June 11, 2020.

 Regulation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Senate Bill 6617, sponsored by Sen. Marko Liias (D-Lynnwood), removes the ability for cities to require on-site parking for accessory dwelling units within ¼ mile of a major transit stop receiving service at least every 15 minutes. Cities may implement off-street parking requirements for ADUs in areas that lack access to street parking capacity, physical space impediments, or other parking infeasibilities. Cities are also exempt from this requirement if they have amended or adopted ADU regulations within the last 4 years. New ADU requirements take effect July 1, 2021. Senate Bill 6617 began as a strict mandate around ADU regulations that was strongly opposed by cities. Cities opposed the bill throughout the session, and the version that passed is significantly narrower than any of the previous iterations. The bill passed the Legislature, has been signed into law by the Governor, and is effective June 11, 2020.

 Preemption on Duplex, Triplex, etc. in Single-Family Neighborhoods:House Bill 2780

sponsored by Rep. Nicole Macri, (D-Seattle), and Senate Bill 6536, sponsored by Sen. Mona Das(D-Covington), would have mandated that most cities and counties fully-planning under the GMA eliminate single-family zoning within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). The bill was opposed by cities and counties but supported by builders, Futurewise, and housing advocates. While stakeholder negotiations resulted in amendments to the bill that slightly narrowed the scope of the zoning mandates, the bill remained highly preemptive for most cities and fully- planning GMA counties. Ultimately local government opposition was enough to prevent both versions of the bill from passing into law, but only with concerted effort.

Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs End of Session Report

12

 Regulating Number of Unrelated Persons in a Home: Senate Bill 6302, sponsored by Sen. Christine Rolfes (D-Bainbridge Island), would have limited a cities' ability to regulate the number of unrelated persons in a home. The bill was introduced as an attempt to remove barriers to affordable housing options for individuals who would not be able to afford a housing unit on their own, which is a noble aim. However, the drafting of the bill would have prevented use of reasonable criteria such as septic system capacity to regulate the number of occupants in a home. Cities developed an amendment to retain the authority to regulate the number of people in a home based on square footage, but the bill was never brought up for a vote in the House and did not pass into law. Although this bill did not advance this session, it is likely to return in 2021.