Brief Summary of Substitute Bill

Eliminates the requirement that a city or town provide preservation rating information on a certain percentage of its arterial network during the 2017-2019 fiscal biennium.
Requires the Washington State Department of Transportation, in consultation with cities, towns, and the Washington State Transportation Commission, to review existing pavement preservation rating reporting requirements and recommend to the Legislature whether a repeal of the pavement preservation rating report is warranted. The report is due by December 1, 2017.

Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 24 members: Representatives Clibborn, Chair; Farrell, Vice Chair; Fey, Vice Chair; Wylie, Vice Chair; Orcutt, Ranking Minority Member; Hargrove, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Harmsworth, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Chapman, Gregerson, Hayes, Irwin, Kloba, Lovick, McBride, Morris, Ortiz-Self, Pellicciotti, Pike, Riccelli, Shea, Stambaugh, Tarleton, Van Werven and Young.

Background:

Roadway preservation is the periodic replacement or restoration of highway system components to renew service life. Examples of preservation work include repaving highways before surface wear and tear lead to subsurface deterioration, painting bridges, replacing bridge deck pavement, and replacing deteriorated culverts. A preservation rating report provides information on the condition of various assets, typically using a rating system to categorize the different asset conditions (i.e., excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor). Currently, there is no standard metric across state and local agencies to define asset conditions.

In 2003, finding that the state's investment in its transportation infrastructure represented public assets worth over $100 billion but that many of these facilities were in poor condition, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5248 (SB 5248), intended to create stronger accountability to ensure that cost-effective maintenance and preservation is provided for transportation facilities. Among other mandates, for the 2003-2005 biennium, SB 5248 required cities and towns to provide to the Washington State Transportation Commission (Transportation Commission) preservation rating information on at least 70 percent of the total city and town arterial network. After the 2003-2005 biennium, the preservation rating reporting requirement increased at a rate of 5 percent per biennium.

In 2011 House Bill 1748 pushed out the reporting requirement until the 2013-2015 biennium and capped the rating reporting requirement at 80 percent. Subsequently, the 2013-2015 Biennial Transportation Budget, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5024 (704) exempted cities and towns from reporting during that biennium. In the current biennium, cities and towns are required to report to the Transportation Commission on pavement conditions.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Summary of Substitute Bill:

The requirement that a city or town provide preservation rating information on a certain percentage of its arterial network is eliminated during the 2017-2019 fiscal biennium. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) must, in consultation with cities, towns, and the Transportation Commission, review existing pavement preservation rating reporting requirements and recommend to the Legislature whether a repeal of the pavement preservation rating report is warranted. The report is due by December 1, 2017.

Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:

The substitute bill:

eliminates the requirement that a city or town provide preservation rating information on a certain percentage of its arterial network for the 2017-2019 fiscal biennium instead of permanently eliminating the requirement; and
adds the requirement that the WSDOT must, in consultation with cities, towns, and the Transportation Commission, review existing pavement preservation rating reporting requirements and recommend to the Legislature whether a repeal of the pavement preservation rating report is warranted.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony:

(In support) The existing statute is outdated and redundant. City data differs across the state, and there is no funding to help pay for carrying out the reporting requirements. There are new federal reporting requirements that will soon be available that move towards a different accountability framework. Additionally, the current data provided is comparing apples to oranges due to data consistency issues. The repeal of the current statute would result in some savings to local governments.

(Opposed) None.