HOUSE BILL REPORT

SHB 2854

As Amended by the Senate

BYHouse Committee on Local Government (originally sponsored by Representative Cooper)

Ratifying procedures used by certain counties for contracts for solid waste systems.

House Committe on Local Government

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (13)

      Signed by Representatives Haugen, Chair; Cooper, Vice Chair; Ferguson, Ranking Republican Member; Horn, Kirby, Nealey, Nelson, Nutley, Phillips, Raiter, Rayburn, Wolfe and Zellinsky.

House Staff:Steve Lundin (786-7127)

AS PASSED HOUSE FEBRUARY 7, 1990

BACKGROUND:

Legislation was enacted in 1986 relating to public works contracts that, among other things, established an alternative process by which counties could contract for the "design, construction, or operation of systems and plants for handling solid waste."

Legislation was enacted in 1989 relating to the procurement of local government solid waste facility and services that, among other things, amended the 1986 legislation relating to the process by which counties could establish such contracts.

Ten counties, including Clark County, have populations of over 100,000.

SUMMARY:

The 1989 change to RCW 36.58.090(3), concerning the procurement of solid waste facilities and services, is effective from the original date of enacting RCW 36.58.090 in 1986 for any county with a population of over 100,000.

The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.

EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENTS:  Any county with a population of 100,000 or more that, prior to the effective date of this act, complied with the 1989 changes to RCW 36.58.090 concerning the procurement of solid waste facilities and services, or the 1986 version of RCW 36.58.090, shall be deemed to have conformed with the 1986 version of RCW 36.58.090.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

Effective Date:The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Chuck Williams, Clark County.

House Committee - Testified Against:      No one.

House Committee - Testimony For:    This clears up questions for Clark County's contract.  All participants in the special contracting process agreed that the county had the authority to use this process, but now the contractor that did not win is suing, claiming that the county did not have this authority.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The county is trying to retroactively change the law.

VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      Yeas 92; Nays 2; Excused 4

Voting Nay: Representatives Myers H, Peery

Excused:    Representatives Appelwick, Doty, Gallagher, Meyers R