Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 04/18/2000 CITY OF 0\,LC!j�� INVICTA Jim White, Mayor COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA The Council Workshop will meet in Chambers East in Kent City Hall at 5:30 PM on Tuesday, April 18, 2000. Council Members: President Leona Orr, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton, Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Judy Woods, Rico Yingling Sneaker Time 1. Conference Center Study Report Jacki Skaught/Geoff Graham 40 minutes 2. Intergovernmental Update Dena Laurent 20 minutes The Council Workshop meets each month on the first Tuesday at 5:OOPM and the third Tuesday at 5:30 PM in Chambers East unless otherwise noted. For agenda information please call Jackie Bicknell at (253) 856- 5712. ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (253) 856-5725 IN ADVANCE. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL THE WASHINGTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388. 220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 FULL REPORT TO KENT CITY COUNCIL 2000 SESSION(S) OF THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE �. APRIL 11, 2000 NOTE: At this writing, the Legislature has been through one 30-day special session and will be called into a second special session when a group of negotiators has ironed out all differences between Supplemental and Operating Budgets passed by the House vis-a- vis the Senate. We do not yet know on which day or days this 2"d Special Session will occur. Accordingly, we have attempted to note below where issues are still unresolved due to the absence of a final budget package. Brief Background: This report comes on the heels of an active presence by the City in the 2000 Legislature. The City maintained a physical presence nearly every single day of the 2000 Regular Session. Weekly reports were provided to the Mayor, City Council, and various Department Heads and senior staff. Area legislators and other key legislators were contacted regularly, and the City used e-mail communications in addition to face-to- face contacts. Hundreds of hours were spent in an effort to enable the City to play a more direct role in legislative matters and, hopefaffy, to derive some benefits from that direct involvement. While this report focuses on the City's Legislative Agenda and bills directly related to it, the City tracked,worked on, and in a number cases helped to pass or defeat, bills with either beneficial or adverse overall impacts on local government. FORMAT FOR THIS REPORT • Focus primarily on City Legislative Agenda 2000 Action issues for "actively work on and lobby" (also will address a sampling of`support'and `track' issues) • Statement of what was noted in legislative agenda • Statement of bills/budget provisions addressing the issue (Bill numbers often will be assigned a `substitute, ' `second substitute'or `engrossed' coding if they are revised in the legislative process. For simplicity, this report simply uses the house of origin and bill number of origin—e.g. HB 2505, or SB 6423) • Description of legislative role played by City of Kent through its Government Affairs Manager and Contract Lobbyist, directed and supplemented via Mayor/Council • Outcome of bill—or unresolved issues, if special session resolution pending • Description of direct/indirect benefits to Kent, if any ISSUE: UNFUNDED MANDATES �"' • Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: "Local revenue needs must be recognized when new programs are enacted or if the state revenue system is restructured...Kent strongly urges the Legislature to cease imposition of additional financial or operating burdens on cities unless such mandates are compelled by an overriding state interest and are accompanied by financial resources to accommodate the costs of compliance." • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: *HB 2395 and House Joint Memorial 4018 called for a one-year moratoria on the imposition of new unfunded mandates; *HB 2397 directed changes in the Local Government Fiscal Notes process, in an effort to shed more light on fiscal impacts of proposed legislation on local government, and to help prevent future unfunded mandates *HB 2392 directed formation of a Task Force to conduct a detailed study of local government financing and service delivery, then come back to the Legislature with a report on how the financing and delivery may be undertaken more efficiently and future mandate problems avoided. • Role played by City of Kent: Supported HB 2395/HJM 4018 and testified on original bill; testified on and actively lobbied HB 2397; tracked HB 2392 • Outcome of bills: HB 2397 and HB 2392 signed into law. HB 2395 moved �-- through a policy committee of origin but did not pass. There were not any significant unfunded mandates imposed on cities by the 2000 Legislature (however, see Shorelines Funding under `Planning') • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: 2397 helps the City significantly, by providing more time for Local Government Fiscal Notes to be compiled, specifying that they must be revised as bills are amended, "truth-testing" enacted bills to see how their actual fiscal impact matches up with projected fiscal impact, and, importantly for Kent, stating a legislative intent that differing impacts of legislation on different cities, areas, and regions be factored into fiscal notes. 2392 will be an important study/process item for City to track ISSUE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS `— Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: "The City of Kent supports efforts to provide additional financing tools for economic development and redevelopment efforts...Kent supports legislation allowing the City to become eligible for a program that stimulates multi family housing in downtown cores by providing 10- year property tax exemptions to prospective developers...could be a helpful tool in the ongoing downtown revitalization effort." • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: *HB 2505/SB 6157—Legislation authorizing cities such as Kent to use 10-year property tax exemption bill described above. *HB 2315, 2687, and 2852 —Various versions of bill providing state funding and funding tools for `community revitalization' and allowing the use of new increments of sales tax revenue in a given area to be devoted to an economic development project in the area. • Role played by City of Kent: On HB 2505/SB 6157, initiated and helped draft legislation, found sponsors, brought Councilman Tim Clark in to testify, actively lobbied bill throughout session, and helped initiate a parliamentary maneuver on the Senate Floor to pull the House bill out of Committee and onto the floor when it appeared to be `dead' for the session. On 2687/2852, lobbied in support of the bill, helped with drafting and revisions, brought Economic Development Manager Jacki Skaught to Olympia to testify in support. • Outcome of bills: HB 2505 passed Legislature and signed into law March 31, 2000. HB 2687/2852 suffered same fate as every single bill in a House Economic Development Committee with deep partisan divisions—died in process. • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: 2505 provides the City with an important tool for downtown revitalization. The 10-year property tax incentive can be provided to developers and could trigger mixed-use development downtown or elsewhere that otherwise would not have occurred or would not `pencil out.' Additionally, City's Finance Department estimated that, if 200 multi- housing units brought in under this measure, overall 20-year property tax revenue to city and other taxing districts would be about $3 million. Bill also showed value of City devoting its own resources to legislative efforts, as one AWC lobbyist commented, regarding the parliamentary maneuver to rescue the bill: "We would not have done that...we would not have gone to those lengths for Kent." ISSUE: INITIATIVE 695 �`— • Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: "If 695 passes, Kent will be urging legislators to redirect and reprioritize funds to protect police and fire funding,public health funding utilized by counties, and transportation investments made through Referendum 49 and previous legislative enactments. " • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: *SB 6404/6088—Supplemental Operating Budget *SB 6499/6080, SB 6856, HB 2788—Supplemental Transportation Budget and bills related to it • Role played by City of Kent: On SB 6404/6088, worked on I-695 `backfill' funding for cities, testified before fiscal committees, initiated meeting of cities with Senate Ways/Means Chair Valoria Loveland, etc. On 6499/6080, 6856, 2788, pushed hard for freight mobility funding(particularly the 277'h Street corridor in Auburn and the IV Street project in Tukwila), highway project funding,Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) bonding capacity under HB 2788, etc. Mayor White and Councilman Clark traveled to Olympia to speak to funding needs on 277"' and for Kent's SR 516/228"' Street corridor. City used frequent face-to-face and e-mail contacts to keep area legislators apprised of its issues on 695-related matters. • Outcome of bills: Still unresolved, awaiting a 2"d Special Session. It looks as if on public safety/criminal justice funding, Kent would receive anywhere from $380,000 to $630,000 over an 18-month period, with a possibility that these funding streams could be made ongoing. Public Health Districts stand to recoup 90% of their 695 losses and �— receive ongoing funding. Transit agencies stand to receive $77-80 million in one-year `bridge' funding—with King County METRO slated to get about$35.9 million of that amount. The freight mobility program will be maintained and $40-50 million worth of projects funded—but$13.8 million for 277`h Street is not yet certain (funded in one budget and not the other). The new bonding capacity for TIB to address local project needs is also unresolved at this time—with provisions in one budget and not the other. Also uncertain are level of funding for Commute Trip Reduction, establishment of a new "Corridor Program" for cities and counties. On highway projects, $859,000 in Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)contributions to a Kent Highway 99 project will be maintained. • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: 6404/6080. when finalized, will offer at least 18-month relief from City's MVET losses under 695 —and the lower amount of$380,000 is a) $380,000 more than offered in Governor's Budget proposal and b) $313,000 more than in an early House Democratic Budget proposal. State's stepping in to address public health means City of Kent and other cities will not be asked to do so. Transit `bridge' funding could help avoid service cuts to things such as the Shopper Shuttle through Kent. 6499/6856/2788 is virtually certain to offer assistance with the aforementioned Highway 99 project, maintain a freight mobility program in the state, maintain some needed highway funding. ISSUE: HOUSING Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: Low-income and affordable: "Kent supports efforts to ensure that an adequate supply of low-income housing is available in the city and in the county....supports efforts to ensure that more residents can afford median priced homes in King County. `Buildable Lands' requirements: "Kent will actively oppose legislation that uses sanctions or overly prescriptive measures to mandate housing targets for cities. The City is currently exceeding its housing targets under the Growth Management Act and does not believe that the state needs to mandate any new targets or measures for all cities. " Pre-emotion on manufactured housing: "Kent will actively oppose legislation that pre-empts local zoning authority by attempting to mandate, at a state level, the inclusion of manufactured housing in single-family zones. Such zoning questions should be left to individual communities... " • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: *HB 6562, Buildable Lands bill—Originally contained possibility of sanctions or punishments for those failing to meet housing density targets—these later softened. Contained new data gathering, reporting requirements for local government. Housing Tax Credit and infrastructure tax credit provisions. *HB 5481 and HB 2306—Mandating, respectively, that manufactured housing be placed in single-family zones in newly annexed areas; and that underlying zoning for mobile homes remain in place for up to 30 years �-- *SB 6689—Would have provided local governments with local-option flexibility to use Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds for low-income housing • Role played by City of Kent: On SB 6562, active in discussions as bill being drafted and formulated. Opposed the idea of prescriptive requirements for housing density targets. Joined others in insisting any new requirements on local government be funded—and bill amended to include `null and void' provision that bill would not be adopted without adequate funding. On 5481 and 2306, actively opposed, contacted legislators, successfully worked with others to defeat 2306 in committee and keep 5481 from passing off Senate floor. On 6689, helped support bill in committee, unsuccessfully joined AWC and others in promoting Senate Floor passage. • Outcome of bills: SB 6562 died in the Senate Ways & Means Committee. SB 5481 died on Senate Floor. HB 2306 did not make it out of House. SB 6689 narrowly defeated on Senate Floor. • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: Defeat of SB 6562, SB 5481, HB 2306 means City avoids having to deal with costly requirements, pre-emptive housing and zoning mandates. ISSUE: PLANNING Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: Shoreline Funding- "While Kent has recently updated its shoreline management plan, it is updating the shoreline element of its GMA plan. Kent, as will many other cities, will need significant state funding in order to finance the cost of these plan updates. Thus, Kent will actively support a supplemental budget request for shoreline updates that the Department of Ecology has worked on with local government representatives. " • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: *Supplemental Operating Budget- SB 6404/SB 6088 *Several Policy Bills-most notably SB 6446 and SB 6776 • Role played by City of Kent: On both budget and policy bills, support role on funding for shorelines updates and for providing additional time for local governments to comply with new shoreline rules being issued by state this summer. • Outcome of bills: Shoreline Funding uncertain at this point- Senate budget has $3.4 million for complying with rules, and $5 million in its capital budget for shoreline, critical area acquisitions for those who have completed updates; House budgets have neither provision. House budget contained a special $20 million/year, 5-year fund for purchase of development and corridor rights in shoreline areas-and, as part of a political trade for Sound Transit, made it �- unavailable to King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties and the jurisdictions within them. SB 6446 and 6776 never taken up'in House. Other bills impacting land- use planning included HB 2450, which would have pre-empted use of pre- annexation agreements by cities on water/sewer service; and HB 2847, which may have increased the number of court challenges by developers dissatisfied with handling of their land-use permits under a 120-day processing requirement. • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: Unknown at this time on shorelines. If no money is provided, a number of cities and counties have discussed filing an unfunded mandates lawsuit against the State. Defeat of HB 2450, HB 2847 means City not saddled with loss of tool that helps it address GMA (2450). 120- day permit processing requirement goes away with demise of 2847-this was not a big `problem' issue for Kent per se as it was for some cities and counties. ISSUE: WATER RIGHTS & BASIN PLANNING ~" • Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: "Kent will actively work to ensure that legislation addressing water resources and water rights does not impair a municipal utility's ability to perfect its unused or `inchoate' water rights...Additionally, the City supports increased funding for the DOE in order to help the agency better and more expeditiously process water right applications..." • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: *HB 2966, 6525, 6872 —"Two lines" water bills intended to expedite DOE processing of water rights changes/transfers *SB 6404/6080 — Operating Budget bills, containing $1.1 million for DOE for water rights change/transfer processing—contingent on passage of aforementioned policy bill *HB 2185 —Discussed by House Co-Chairs as bill to try and reinforce water rights and `place of use' for water service delivery. Major disagreements among interest groups resulted in bill never being actively pushed through process, however • Role played by City of Kent: On 2966, SB 6525, SB 6872, supportive, testified in favor of bills, spoke in support of DOE funding needs via budget. • Outcome of bills: SB 6525 died on the Senate Floor the final night of the regular session, redrafting and revision has continued to take place and SB 6872 would be the new vehicle to be considered upon the Legislature commencing its 2°d Special Session. Budget provisions not settled—although both House and Senate budgets contained funding (House $925,000; Senate $1.1 million) contingent on passage of policy bill. • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: Uncertain at this point. To extent City has water rights changes in the queue in coming years, the "two lines"bill and funding would be helpful to getting these changes processed and approved more expeditiously. ISSUE: ESA Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: "Kent supports: Direct state and federal grants to assist cities...broad-based city involvement in financing and decision- making...ongoing evaluations of the actions of federal, state, and local efforts to address ESA issues...enhanced funding for ESA enforcement. " • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: *Operating Budgets—primarily on indirect items such as forest/fish management, hatchery strategies, marine fish recovery efforts. *HB 2406—Technical bill to clarify time limits for implementation of salmon recovery projects; *HB 2589 —Technical bill clarifying that private projects, under spelled out conditions, could be eligible for salmon recovery funds. • Role played by City of Kent: Somewhat limited, as budget provisions and bills considered in 2000 did not have much direct effect on City. (1999, conversely, was a major "ESA year" during which the Legislature established a Salmon Recovery Funding Board and provided streams of revenue for ESA). • Outcome of bills: HB 2589 was passed and signed into law by the Governor. • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: To the extent that private developers or entities in the City or nearby are undertaking ESA/salmon recovery projects, they may have additional capacity to finance and complete the projects. ISSUE: INFRASTRUCTURE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS �.. Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: Infrastructure: "Kent will actively support efforts to increase and enhance funding for local government infrastructure needs, on the heels of a legislatively-directed study which shows an infrastructure funding gap of at least$3.05 billion." Freight mobility: "Kent will actively pursue...inclusion of projects to improve the movement of rail and truck freight." Rights-of-wav: "Kent will support legislative proposals to increase permitting certainty for telecommunications providers who propose to use public rights of way, as long as proper levels of compensation are provided for the use and degradation of such right of way, and provided telecommunications providers relocate to accommodate local projects in the right-of-way at no cost to the municipality. " • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: *SB 6423 on infrastructure—Authorizing use of up to 1 cent of the state sales tax for infrastructure needs; *SB 6689 on infrastructure—Local-option flexibility to use REET monies on maintenance, as well as for low-income housing, if cities desire *SB 6748 on infrastructure—Within allowable debt limits for financing capital facilities, 'convention center' facilities may now be financed *SB 6676 and HB 2060—Specifying permitting times, compensation, relocation provisions, etc., for telecommunications service providers' use of public rights-of-way *SB 6499/6080, SB 6856, HB 2788—Transportation Budgets(freight mobility) • Role played by City of Kent: Active in all areas. On the infrastructure bill, SB 6423, initiated the legislation, helped get it drafted, found sponsor, helped ensure a hearing and bill moving out of Senate State and Local Government Committee. Supported SB 6748 and SB 6689. On rights-of-wav, involved in dozens and dozens of hours of negotiation with industry, meetings with key legislators, committee testimony, etc. On freight mobility, significant face-to-face and e-mail contacts with legislators on 277"' Street freight project in particular—also worked on coordinating e-mail from Chambers, letters from Mayor White and Mayor Booth of Auburn, etc. • Outcome of bills: SB 6423 died in the Senate Ways & Means Committee. SB 6748 was passed and signed into law. As previously noted, SB 6689 was narrowly defeated on the Senate Floor. SB 6676 on rights-of-way was passed and signed into law. • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: 6676,the rights of way bill, contains relocation language drafted by Kent's Assistant City Attorney—specifying a timeline by which telecommunications providers must relocate their facilities to accommodate a public works project. This could help the City save considerable time and money on future projects. Further, the bill protects compensation authority for'wireline' uses of the right-of-way and provides some new compensation authority for `wireless' structures in the rights-of-way. 6748 could provide a new debt-financing tool. As previously noted, 277"' is one of the freight mobility projects where final budgets and funding are unresolved. ISSUE: PARKS & THE ARTS Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: WWRP: "Kent will actively support and lobby for additional funding in the Year 2000 supplemental budget that is being requested for the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). " Arts Funding: "Kent will work to educate legislators on the statewide importance of its proposed arts center, and seek capital funding to assist with the project. " • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: There were none. It was a Supplemental Budget year, and capital budget `course corrections' were not really necessary. Thus, the Legislature worked on a very minimal capital budget. The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition (WWRC), the leading state alliance in support of WWRP funding, withdrew a $5 million supplemental budget request after it was determined that pressing the case for the $5 million might do more harm than good in coming years. Additionally, on Building for the Arts funding in the capital budget, there was no activity in the Supplemental Budget. • Role played by City of Kent: Given the inaction on capital budgets, the City's role was educational. We briefed several key legislators and area legislators on the City's WWRP projects—one for the `Valley Floor' and one to expand Clark Lake Park. On the Arts Center front, we discussed progress on the private-sector financing cost-share, and reasons for pursuing the project. • Outcome of bills: N/A. • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: Educating legislators as the City makes a run at funding in the 2001-03 biennium. ISSUE: WELFARE REFORM & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: Welfare Reform: "Kent supports legislative action to successfully implement welfare reform programs in the state..." Domestic Violence: "Kent supports refinements to current domestic violence law which will afford additional protection to victims, enable improved enforcement and prosecution of domestic violence cases, provide additional housing and shelter for domestic violence victims and their children, and provide domestic violence victims with access to welfare programs. " • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: *Operating Budgets—contain funding provisions for welfare-to-work efforts and `skills-gap' training, as well as funding for domestic violence prevention awareness and training *SB 6400/HB 2402—Governor's bill on domestic violence • Role played by City of Kent: Support role in working to ensure funding, and passage of policy bill on DV. Coordinated e-mails, letter from Mayor White, etc., when it looked as if welfare-to-work and skills-gap training was in danger. Also actively communicated with legislators, and provided e-mails, on DV funding discrepancy between House and Senate budgets. • Outcome of bills: While budgets remain unsettled, it looks as if$5.7 million for welfare-to-work efforts and contracts will be in place. Funds for skills-gap training—helping to provide skills to ensure private employment success for welfare recipients is unsettled ($600,000 in one budget, $800,000 in other). Senate Budget on DV prevention awareness/training is over $1 million; House is $250,000. On policy bills, SB 6400 delivered to Governor and signed into law— bill does have some additional restrictions on DV offenders and stiffens penalties, but the new funding aspects of it were gutted in order to save some other parts— .HB 2589 was passed and signed into law by the Governor. • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: Kent has about 30 percent of the caseload for ALL of King County in terms of welfare-to-work contracts— so this funding will be critical. DV prevention dollars, and policy bill, will provide some assistance—more needed. ISSUE: LEGAL ISSUES & PUBLIC SAFETY Statement of Legislative Agenda Policy: Liability immunity for pre-trial and post-trial supervision of misdemeanor offenders— "Kent will actively support proposed legislation to remedy a recent State Supreme Court decision (the Hertog case) on liability for local governments in the case of offenders who are in a pre-trial supervision setting. " Court Operations and Certification Rule-Making: "Kent will actively oppose draft rule-makings by the State Supreme Court and the Office for the Administrator of the Courts (OAC) which seek to prescribe how court operations will be conducted, and require 'certification'standards to be established and met. " Photo Radar—"The City of Kent supports local-option legislation being developed for the 2000 session of the Legislature which would explicitly provide cities and counties the authority to use photo radar as a tool to ensure safer speeds on local streets; safer red-light stops and railroad crossings, etc. " Pipeline Safety— "The City of Kent supports legislative initiatives that will strive to ensure a safer environment for cross-state pipeline operations which impact cities and their communities. Kent's citizens who have Olympic Pipeline routes in or near their neighborhoods should be provided with the most assurance possible that pipelines will be inspected regularly, tested, operations plans reviewed, etc. " • Legislative bills and budget provisions on this issue: *HB 2715, liability immunity—established some immunity, less than some wanted; *Agency rule-makings, not legislation, on court operations and certification *HB 1385/SB 6278, and Senate Transportation Budget, on photo-radar authority. *HB 2420/SB 6441 on pipeline safety. Provided authority, and budgets provided some companion funding, for establishment of a State Office of Pipeline Safety—still contingent on passage of federal legislation to authorize states to do so. • Role played by City of Kent: Active participant in discussions on the liability immunity issue. On the court operations/certification rule-makings, actively tracked issues, provided input for what became an AWC letter on the certification rule. On photo-radar, supported policy bills and budget provisions. On pipeline safety,consistently supported and signed in in favor of legislation. • Outcome of bills: HB 2420 on pipeline safety passed and signed into law. The liabilitv immunity bill. HB 2715 died due to sharp disagreements among local government, crime victims advocates, and trial lawyers—and will be an informal interim study issue. The photo-radar provision is still unsettled due to the lack of a final Transportation Budget— authority is IN the Senate Budget but NOT IN the House Budget. The pending court rules have not been finalized—an AWC letter contending the certification rule unfairly and improperly usurps legislative authority, and the Washington Bar Association weighing in with opposition, could help defuse the certification rule. • Direct/Indirect Benefits to City of Kent: 2420 could lead to enhanced community safety, public awareness, and oversight of pipeline construction in future. Defeat of`cert' rule would preserve local Municipal Court flexibility. ISSUE: SAMPLING OF `SUPPORT' AND `TRACKING' ITEMS The City's Legislative Agenda for 2000 contained a wide array of legislative items and issues for general support, monitoring, and tracking. Here is an explanation of outcome, or at least an update pending resolution of budgets,for several of these: • "Local Government Revenue Preservation"—Support Item: The City's Legislative Agenda noted that"the State should preserve local government revenue sources to ensure essential services can be delivered to our community." As usual,there were a number of bills put before the Legislature that could have had significant negative revenue impacts on local government—fortunately, none survived the process. Additionally, the Legislature is working to take a positive step on a tax fairness/revenue item impacting cities in particular. Of note: --The Legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, SB 6357, providing a substitute funding source for the Municipal Research Services Council, which saw most of its funding decimated by the passage of I-695; --Task forces to look at Local Government Financing and revenues, as well as post-695 distributions of state funds to local government, will be established. The 16-member Local Government Financing Task Force, as previously noted, is via HB 2392. The interim task force to look at post-695 `backfill' distributions to local government, and how/whether they should be treated on an ongoing basis, is in the budget bills—SB 6404/6080; --HB 2850, legislation to crack down on out-of-state companies which provide �•— laundry and linen services to Washington State companies, yet avoid paying any sales tax, passed, was vetoed by Governor Locke to a technical drafting flaw, and will be back as a revised HB 3173 during the 2"d Special Session. Kent's Finance Department believes that passage of such a bill, by changing the method of taxation on laundry and linen services, may result in additional revenue of $120,000 for the City. --SB 6333/HB 2940, providing broad exemption from sales tax for machinery used in the manufacturing of`molds,' was revised, then later rejected. Because the legislation was really meant to apply to a boat manufacturer in Arlington and not in a broad manner, Kent worked with Senate Ways & Means Committee staff and Department of Revenue on amending language to clarify and tighten the definition of'manufacturing molds.' --SB 5745, which would have significantly restricted bingo and raffle taxation, did not receive a hearing and `died.' --HB 2862— legislation applying to aggregate phone services and containing some provisions negatively impacting local revenues, was unsuccessful. --SB 6399 and HB 2626—Two measures to extend funding for Commute Trip Reduction programs, are now wrapped up in the larger Budget bills, which are not yet finalized. There is a$734,000 discrepancy between the Senate(higher amount)and House budgets. • Fiscal Notes—Support Item: Along with the `unfunded mandates' active lobbying item `— noted earlier in this report, the City's `support' section of the 2000 Legislative Agenda contained an item in support of Local Government Fiscal Notes reform legislation. As previously noted, HB 2397 passed and was signed into law and has beneficial process improvements for Kent and other cities. As an example, there were dramatic changes from original bills to amended bills in the case of 1995 and 1996 legislation providing sales tax exemptions for manufacturing activity—yet fiscal-impact notes on the bills were never updated. Under HB 2397, such an oversight would no longer occur. • Pension Systems—Support Item: The Support section of the 2000 Legislative Agenda included an item noting that, "Kent supports adequate and financially sound pension systems and opposes any attempt to shift state financial responsibility for employee pensions to cities and towns." The Legislature passed SB 6530—setting forth new pension enhancements for LEOFF II police and firefighters. In doing so, it attempted to offset the costs of the enhanced benefits—at least in the short run—by specifying that pension fund savings through the investment market and a recent actuarial study should be used to pay for the richer benefits under LEOFF II (which include retirement age change from 55 to 53 and reduced early-withdrawal penalty from about 8 percent down to 3 percent). Additionally, in its pending budgets, the Legislature inserted a provision that eliminates emplover and employee contributions to the aging LEOFF I system and specifies that surpluses in the system be used to pay medical costs arising out of LEOFF I. It is likely that a study as to how best to do that, and set up things such as an extraordinary medical care fund, would be necessary. • Regionalization of law enforcement— 'Track' Item: The City's Legislative Agenda noted that Kent would track and monitor"efforts of the law enforcement community to move for a regionalization of law enforcement services." Legislation to study such a concept was embodied in SB 6369/HB 2370. While these bills did not pass, there is funding in the legislative budgets to carry out such a study. Kent worked on a) assurances that any study group would have equal places at the table for city police chiefs —which it received, in the form of a letter, from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC). The City also pressed for WASPC to include Kent Police Chief on its Steering Committee for undertaking the study—which it has. • Health Insurance Access for Public Agency Retirees—'Track' Item: The City's Legislative Agenda noted that Kent supports the concept of providing access to health insurance plans to retirees who are not yet at a Medicare-eligible age. However, the City wants to ensure such access is provided in a cost-effective manner. SSB 5607, put forth in both the 1999 and 2000 sessions, had language provisions spelling out not just the access but also coverage responsibilities that could be very costly. Kent drafted amendments to this bill to tighten the language and make it more workable. Ultimately, 5607 passed out of the House Health Care Committee and died in the House Appropriations Committee. On a related note, Kent staff is involved in an effort by about a dozen self-insured cities, working in concert with a consultant and with AWC,to develop a cost-effective, workable program for retiree access in which the self-insured cities can participate. L • Miscellaneous Items: A few other items of note from the 2000 Session: ■ Another attempt by water-sewer districts to alter laws relating to cities assuming water-sewer districts, by forcing public votes on the matter, failed. This was HB 2477. ■ Efforts by Sound Transit to obtain a 6-year sales tax credit for capital facilities needs are wrapped up in budget negotiations. ST originally sought a$214 million tax credit which would have enabled it to steer additional dollars toward projects such as the Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage. However, the latest House Budget approved$80 million and the latest Senate Budget only$10 million. The matter is still unresolved—and any amount granted at this point would likely be absorbed into the cost of extending light rail to Northgate. ■ Efforts to provide `local option' authority for city transportation needs and transit agency service needs were put forth. The cities' local-option financing bill, HB 3 05 1, contained a number of things such as sales tax and property tax increases for roads, subject to voter approval. It never made it out of Committee. The transit local-options tax authority, allowing an increase in sales tax for transit from a maximum 6/10 of a cent to a maximum 9/10 of a cent, subject to voter approval, was part of HB 3074 and now is part of the negotiations on the Budgets—but is likely to be approved. In the House Budget, it had been accompanied by a controversial, King County-only provision specifying that up to 20 percent of the increased transit money could be devoted to road needs. However, the language laying this out, and the timelines for action, were problematic and led cities such as Bellevue and Kent to question how workable it was. It now looks as if the 20 percent for roads provisions will be removed.