(new content added 17 Mar. 2009 and video link revised 12 Mar. 2009)
Those words "[S]treet utility advisory committee must be appointed by the mayor . . ." I was for or supportive for a ‘Streets Municipal Utility’ formation concept created for defined services of streets maintenances, but allowing any mayor to select the people for oversight of any new 'Streets Municipal Utility' kills this concept for me because placing local government appointees for oversight by existing local government officials should be outside of arm-length reach of already local government control and oversight. It just follows, were considering a 'Streets Municipal Utility' because city government have failed to invest the necessary 'Taxpayers' money into street and roadway maintenance required in past years, else we would not be discussing this HB 1947. 1
Let’s take a look at who is saying what when addressing the content of HB 1947
wwwTVWorg House Transportation Committee Public Event
wwwTVWorg Event Date: February 17, 2009 3:30pm, Event Description: Public: HB 2072, HB 1947 Work Session: Special Needs Transportation Study, possible executive session.
So, now we have been able to review just who has said what about the suggested ability for cities within Washington State to create streets utilities for repair of Streets for example:
“Street utility service” means actions by a city established street utility to design, condemn, construct, own, manage, maintain, operate, and preserve all or any described portion of its roads, streets, sidewalks, and other transportation improvements as a separate enterprise and facility. These improvements may include traffic control devices, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, parking facilities, and drainage facilities. Street utility activities may further be identified by ordinance consistent with these purposes. Street utility services may also include (a) repayment of revenue or general obligation bonds repayable from charges listed in section 5 of this act issued in accordance with chapter 35.41, 35.92, or 39.46 RCW, or (b)other evidences of indebtedness issued to pay costs for which street utility service revenues may be used.
Id HB 1947 at 4
And also is inclusive for:
[M]eans a city’s public right-of-way within the outer boundaries of areas used for pedestrian, bicycle, or motor vehicle traffic. . . .
- includes bridges;
- gutters;
- curbs; and
- sidewalks, including those that have barrier-free design features and are wheelchair and stroller accessible.
Id HB 1947 at 4
City of Tacoma doing what for streets 'potholes'?
Well let’s review by reading Derek Young, The Blog, A Plan for Potholes?, 11 Mar. 2009, Exit133 LLC (Tacoma), (where "Public Works Director Dick McKinley laid out a three step plan for addressing the pothole problems on our arterial streets . . .")2
After reading Derek Young’s article A Plan for Potholes?; as a result, it’s good City of Tacoma has a current plan how to fix streets that need repairs now and where sources of money just-might-be found that could help with these current Tacoma streets repairs by Tacoma Public Utilities and private contractors to get this work needed done.
I would also, suggest reading this article’s comments, and those comment include my own comments made about and related to the possible Wash. Leg. Sess. 2009-10 and its consideration of allowing an city just-like the City of Tacoma permission to form it’s own "Streets Utility Service' as funded by 'Ratepayers', but think carefully about the formation and operation of any new utility permitted to become created within City of Tacoma that just might be similar to other City of Tacoma operating now Municipal Public Utilities defined services delivery; for example, just thinking-delivered defined services-who’s excluded as 'ratepayer', 'Ratepayers' taxation, 3, and how much should management cost for a simple utility that’s just tasked with the simple task of fixing streets within City of Tacoma?
Association of Washington Cities presents this summary report
(content added 17 Mar. 2009)
Just another informative article related to HB 1947 and its applied application to cities within Washington State Street Utility – A New Local Option for Cities (HB 1947), Feb. 2009, Association of Washington Cities (Olympia, WA 98501), (www.awcnet.org) available at http://www.awcnet.org/documents/StreetUtility0209 (last visited 17 Mar. 2009).
.pdf
Endnotes
- See Wash. Leg. Sess. 2009-10, HB 1947: Concerning the regulation and preservation of urban streets through a local option street utility, (first read 3 Feb. 2009), ("AN ACT Relating to the regulation and preservation of urban streets through a local option street utility; . . .") (By Representatives Simpson, Wood, Flannigan, Upthegrove, and Ormsby) available at
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1947see also, HB 1947, (Original Bill), (Adobe PDF document), available at (last visited 15 Mar. 2009). ↩ - Available at
http://www.exit133.com/5147/a-plan-for-potholes(last visited 17 mar. 2009). ↩ - See, A Plan for Potholes? n.2 Supra., cmt.7, par.4 "you might have already considered it, with our present City of Tacoma Municipal Public Utilitie(s) ratepayer charges there are utility taxes just tacked on-top of the ‘Ratepayers’ bills, so I would hope that with a new ‘Streets Utility’ the City of Tacoma would not add a tax to the ‘Ratepayers’ street utility bills?" and at the same time City of Tacoma might be furnishing 'Taxpayers' funded general government overhead expenses to a utility for its operating management; as a result, just a reminder to understand and review what is a City of Tacoma utility tax applied and what is contained within and 'Ratepayers' fees then taxed by City of Tacoma, just like now. ↩
Tags: HB 1947, Legislature, new utility, ratepayer for streets, ratepayers, roadways, street fixing utility, street repairs, street utilities, streets user fees, Washington State