A recent Congressional mandate has instituted the use of electronic devices to ensure truckers throughout the country comply with rules that regulate the hours drivers may operate their vehicles. Proponents say the technology helps level the economic playing field by making it harder to skirt the rules to gain an unfair advantage.

There are 16,000 Washington-based trucking companies, all of which must comply with the recently enacted federal regulations on how drivers log their hours. The electronic logging device (ELD) rule requires truckers to use ELDs to track records of duty status (RODS) data, along with physical logbooks.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) policies regulate the number of hours truckers and passenger vehicles can operate. Under FMCSA rules, truckers are only allowed to drive 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty, and they are restricted to driving 60 or 70 hours in 7 or 8 consecutive days.

Prior to ELDs, truckers only relied on a physical logbook to track their hours. Although the ELD rule was finalized in December 2015, some companies have recently raised concerns about its financial impact and decreased productivity, enough so that President Donald Trump last year allowed more time for truckers to comply.

However, industry members testifying at a January 11 work session of the House Transportation Committee argued that ELDs have helped better enforce the rules by preventing truckers from “cheating” by working beyond the hour restrictions and falsifying their logbooks.

“It is an electronic log book that you cannot cheat on – at least not yet,” Washington State Patrol Captain Michael Dahl said. He is with WSDP’s Motor Carrier Safety Division, which enforces trucking regulations.

There are 72 approved ELD devices available on the market today, which activate when the vehicle ignition key is turned on. However, the device only tracks hours under certain conditions, including when the truck is idling or moving at less than five miles per hour.

“They can still drive the same number of hours in a day and in a week,” Dahl said. “The difference is …humans can’t change what the computer says. When it says you’re done at 11 hours, you can’t cheat on your paper log book. You’ve got to stop driving, and we can check that.”

Additionally, complaints that the rule was added suddenly doesn’t fit with the timeline, he said. “Anyone now that says: ‘We didn’t know this was coming,’ that is just not accurate.”

He added that ELDs protect drivers pressured by their employers to break the rules that regulate work hours.

“Some of these drivers are taking a load from point a to point b, and they call their dispatcher and say: ‘Listen I’m out of hours’. And they (dispatchers) say: ‘Actually no, you’re not out of hours; if you want to get paid finish the drive,’ and now they’re driving past hours. This thing (ELD) helps us help that driver say: ‘I’m not going anywhere,’ and it can’t harm them with the company.”

Dahl also mentioned that there is leeway for truckers stuck in bad traffic. “If you’re a little over, we let officers decide or have discretion on how to deal with that. We’re not going to hit them with a big, fat ticket.”

Dahl’s observations were matched by testimony provided by Washington Trucking Association Executive Vice President Sheri Call, who told panel members that for some carriers complaining about productivity loss, the reality is that “their drivers were speeding everywhere.”

“In other extreme cases, we’re hearing of companies losing 20 to 50 percent productivity,” she said. “And the first question you really have to ask yourself is: ‘If they’re losing 50 percent productivity…were (they) actually operating legally within hours of service? Because, again, nothing has changed about the hours of service. It’s the way we’re logging.”

ELDs have helped “level the playing field,” Call said. “Not only do we compete among those motor carriers (in Washington) but we compete with motor carriers outside the state. Logging truck driver hours is a science, not an art, and our members look forward to harder enforcement. All carriers subject to the mandate are operating on the same level.”

The post Electronic monitoring levels economic playing field appeared first on Lens.

Washington is the only state in the country without a dedicated statewide tourism agency – and this has been the case since 2011.

To address the issue, state lawmakers have put forth a bill which would set up the structure and funding for a replacement. Proponents of the measure say it will bring a substantial return on investment and will help Washington better compete with neighboring states for attracting visitors.

On January 18, State Sen. Dean Takko (D-19) told his colleagues in the Senate Economic Development and International Trade Committee that he saw a need for a statewide tourism agency, especially while competing with states with largely funded tourism authorities.

“I have a lot of tourism in my district, so I am very much concerned about the fact that we don’t have a statewide tourism promotional program going on (while) most states around us spend $10 million, $20 million, $30 million to promote their state.”

SB 5251 would create the Washington Tourism Marketing Authority to manage statewide tourism marketing efforts. Takko is prime sponsor, and cosponsors include State Sens. Judy Warnick (R-13), Christine Rolfes (D-22) and Hans Zeiger (R-25).

Under the bill, 0.2 percent of retail taxes on lodging, car rentals and restaurants would fund the development of the statewide tourism marketing plan beginning July 2018. The bill also sets up the framework for private-public investment into its marketing account with $1 of state funding released for every $2 of private dollars donated.

The bill was introduced last session but did not receive a floor vote and stalled in Rules. The most recent version of the legislation changed the tax percentage from 0.1 to 0.2 percent and would allow the collection of up to $1.5 million in funding for fiscal year 2019 and up to $5 million for future bienniums.

“This is an important bill not only for my district but for the state,” said Takko. “The thing that is really critical to me is that it has the verbiage in there that the rural areas need to be concentrated on because some of us live in rural areas that depend on tourism.”

State Sen. Keith Wagoner (R-39) agreed that the bill would be essential for putting Washington’s tourism efforts back on track with the rest of the country.

“I get a flier from Alaska that says, ‘come see our eagles’ and it’s beautiful and it’s professional. I get one from Colorado that says, ‘come see our mountains.’ Well we have eagles and mountains, and it’s about time we solve this problem.”

In 2011, budget cuts forced the statewide tourism office to close, leaving Washington as the only state in the nation without a dedicated statewide tourism authority. In 2014, the Legislature directed the Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA) to assume the role of a statewide tourism authority in the absence of a state office.

“A state like Oregon spends $31 million marketing Oregon to the outside world,” Becky Bogard, lobbyist for the WTA, told committee members. “The appropriations that WTA has gotten since 2011 has been in the area of half a million dollars a year, so we need this injection of dollars in a marketing program to really get this going.”

The investment made by the state would be a wise investment, according Bogard. She added that studies show that for every dollar invested in a marketing program, there is between a $2.50 to $20 return in state taxes.

In 2016, the tourism industry ranked 4^th among Washington’s largest economic sectors, bring in $21 billion in visitor spending, which created 170,500 jobs and brought in $1.8 billion in state and local tax revenue.

“The importance of tourism in the economy is it is a sector that can expand rapidly, especially in the rural areas which have the assets we need to get people there to enjoy them. That in turn promotes jobs for people to manage those assets and manage those people,” said Bogard. “We really need to get this bill moving so we can get back in the game of bringing tourists into the state of Washington.

Andi Day, Executive Director of the Long Beach Peninsula Visitors Bureau, told panel members the bill will have a large effect on the state’s rural economies.

“In Pacific County, for example, while we are small in terms of population with only 25,000 residents, we are blessed with natural beauty and resources and many tourism assets,” she said. “Tourism has a tremendous impact on, and is the cornerstone of, our economy.”

In 2016, $0.52 of every taxable dollar spent in Pacific county was by a visitor, she added. That year, visitors spent $172 million, equating to $12 million in state and local taxes. Also, 30 percent of jobs in the county are related to tourism.

“The rural areas, with our limited marketing resources and heavy reliance on tourism, continue to suffer the losses as Washington continues to lose market share to our neighboring states.”

With the passage of SB 5251, Day said:, “It is those same rural areas that have everything to gain in terms of visitor spending, state and local taxes and creation of jobs and careers.”

The Senate Economic Development and International Trade Committee approved the measure and sent it to Ways and Means.

The post Tourism bill draws strong support appeared first on Lens.

Washington has a growth problem, but the problem differs depending on where you live.

In the Puget Sound region, an exploding population has led to increased traffic congestion, rising real estate prices and new employment centers. That is an experience not shared by most Washington counties, however, many of which are more rural and have the opposite: decreasing population and higher unemployment.

Complicating the landscape are provisions in the state Growth Management Act (GMA) that are applied statewide, with little to no recognition of a region’s unique challenges.

This divide between rural and urban regions was articulated during a January 18 public hearing for SB 6186 in the Senate Local Government Committee. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Guy Palumbo (D-1), whose district includes part of Snohomish County, which is currently undergoing tremendous growth in unincorporated urban communities – a trend not accounted for in local government planning documents.

During the hearing, Palumbo said the intent is to ensure infrastructure and transportation projects go where people actually are. “The idea here is that when we do these planning documents under GMA, we say: ‘We’re going to plan for growth in Everett, because …we’re going to get light rail in 2041. The Puget Sound Regional Council takes the federal dollars, it puts it along with that plan. That’s always good to plan for future transit. But in the meantime…the free market is choosing where people want to live,” he said.

If passed, SB 6186 would require counties to complete and review an annual growth monitoring report, currently a voluntary option under GMA. A public hearing would also be required. If by the fourth year the county discovers growth in a subarea is 65 percent or more of its projected growth within the eight-year timeframe, then the county, regional transportation planning authority and any relevant transit authority must revise their planning documents, which among other things ultimately impact where and how federal transportations grants are allocated by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).

However, how the counties do that would be left to the local lawmakers, Palumbo said.

Among other issues, Palumbo said: “One of the problems I see with GMA is there’s no teeth. At no point in time is there any mechanism in GMA that makes, for example, a county or the Puget Sound Regional Council or transit agency look at what’s happening on the ground and say ‘You know what, we didn’t plan for this and there’s no infrastructure there to support this growth. Let’s do something different.”

The proposal drew a neutral stance from Futurewise, a Seattle-based growth management advocacy organization that supports shifting populations into urban areas. Futurewise State Policy Director Bryce Yadon told panel members that “I think one of the concerns is…if there is growth … how do we find them funds to support them in this process?”

Chair Dean Takko (D-19) asked Yadon whether there was a process already for cities, counties and transit agencies dealing with this kind of unanticipated growth.

Yadon said that capital facilities planning from the state traditionally used to support county infrastructure is negligible. “It’s been hard to update and keep many of those capital facility plans because the funding’s not there. We would prefer that growth and infrastructure go in at the same time.”

Notably, Palumbo said: “We’re not going to hope and pray that our planning document from eight years ago matches the free market. That is a choice that they can certainly make, but is not being made.”

Further discussion indicated likely bill revisions, including exemptions for counties that aren’t growing at the same rate. It was a point raised by Laura Berg, policy director for the Association of Washington Counties. She told lawmakers that when GMA was passed, there were expectations for how funding would be provided to the counties. “Originally, there was money to implement and you had counties that opted in. Since then, there has been little to no money for ongoing operations…and there is no…long-term funding.”

“When we don’t get money for updates, we are really stuck,” she said.

Requiring annual updates for Puget Sound-region counties makes sense, but not for others with so few people the local government is lucky to have one planning staffer, she added. “They don’t have that data available to them. It’s not as easily garnered by some of the smaller growing counties.”

“A majority of counties have very small growth,” she added.

Palumbo said that an “easy fix” could have the law only apply to relevant counties.

Not among “relevant counties” would be Grays Harbor in the 19^th District, which experienced a 1.6 percent population decrease. The county also has an unemployment rate of 6.9 percent, compared to 3.9 percent in King County and 4.3 percent in Snohomish, respectively.

When that discrepancy was mentioned, Takko replied: “And there’s a reason we have negative growth. We won’t get into that here.”

No further action is scheduled for the bill at this time.

The post Recalibrating local growth management plans appeared first on Lens.

After 18 months of stakeholder meetings and debate, the Washington State Legislature passed and Governor Jay Inslee signed into law a bill to address the negative effects stemming from the 2016 Washington Supreme Court decision in Whatcom County v. Eric Hirst.

“While far from perfect, this bill helps protect water resources while providing water for families in rural Washington,” said Inslee in an online statement.

Senate Bill 6091 was first heard during a January 8 Senate Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Park Committee public hearing. The measure was then sent to Rules and the Senate floor where it received a 35-14 vote. The bill then received a 66-30 vote in the House, and was signed into law January 19.

Under the bill, a building permit applicant must pay permitting authorities $500 to build on a plot of land reliant on well water. Applicants building in basins with existing watershed planning may then be approved to use a permit-exempt well for domestic use for up to a yearly average of 3,000 gallons per day. Outside of those basins, the wells may draw up to 950 gallons per day.

The measure clarifies that counties and cities may rely on Ecology’s instream flow rules when complying with Growth Management Act (GMA) water availability standards. The bill also establishes a watershed restoration and enhancement account with the goal of $300 million in appropriations for mitigation efforts until 2033.

Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) President Kevin Russell said in an online statement that the association fully supports the measure’s passage. “In the bill…rural areas can continue to rely on the Department of Ecology as the state’s resource manager, which creates certainty and predictability for home builders, property owners and families that rely on household wells to build on rural land.”

The legislation’s prime sponsor is State Sen. Kevin Van De Wege (D-24), and cosponsors include State Sens. Christine Rolfes (D-23) and David Frockt (D-46).

During the January 18 Senate floor debate, Van De Wege spoke to the importance of the legislation for the future of landowners and water users across the state.

“This legislation solves a big problem that has been a stumbling block for a lot of legislation and for the state for the past 18 months,” he said. “It really does ensure water and allows development.”

Van De Wege added that the bill also provides substantial funding for mitigation projects.

“I think the big part of this legislation…is slowing down the water that comes out of streams and trying to make sure we can make up some of the ground we lost and put water back in streams.”

The mitigation money would be used to fund salmon recovery while still allowing Washingtonians to have a reliable source of water, he added.

State Sen. John McCoy (D-38) opposed the bill, arguing that it leaves out requests made by one key stakeholder, and cited concerns with permit issues related to building and drilling for water.

“The tribes throughout these years since the court case have tried to work with others to try to come to a reasonable solution, but in my opinion, they were ignored. There is not much in here that supports what was needed.”

For State Sen. Barbara Bailey (R-10), the piece of legislation will bring great change, but requires Skagit County to adhere to additional requirements under state law.

“We talk about controlling water and making sure everyone has water; this bill will go a long way about doing that,” she said. “I think planning for the future is good, but what about Skagit?”

State Sen. Judy Warnick (R-13), another Hirst bill sponsor, was prime sponsor of last session’s SB 5239, which would have allowed  counties and cities to once again rely on Ecology guidelines to meet GMA water quality standards.

“This bill provides a path forward to the people that just want to build a home on their few acres, it protects people already using wells and it provides certainty to our local governments and to their customers and their residents moving to a new building or a new home.”

She continued: “It sets up a process to continue working on water supply for our municipalities, and that is essential for accommodating the growth in many of our communities.”

Warnick added that the provision for the mitigation account demonstrates that lawmakers “show a commitment to putting significant resources to protecting the environment and helping improve our salmon runs.”

The bill contained an emergency clause and is effective immediately.

The post Hirst fix update: Water bill becomes law appeared first on Lens.

One Washington telecom provider wants all state residents to have high-speed internet access by 2028. It’s a goal driven primarily by uneven broadband access, which creates a divide between rural and urban Washingtonians – a problem that state lawmakers, industry members and local governments have sought to change in recent legislative session.

A new bill seeks to reduce that figure by allowing rural counties to tack on an extra sales tax in order to fund infrastructure in areas currently beyond the reach of broadband providers.

Rep. Ed Orcutt (R-20) is the prime sponsor of HB 2749. At a January 23 public hearing of the House Committee on Technology & Economic Development, he told panel members that while many residents in his district have internet, it’s not sufficient speed for any practical use. “You can tell when the kids get on to do their homework.”

“Those who really need the economic development need to break away from their long commutes into town,” he added. “When you’re starting up, you can’t afford to pay rent or to buy an office in town, so you have to work out of your home, and if they don’t have broadband or decent internet access in their home it’s very difficult to start a business.”

Orcutt’s observations match the findings of the Federal Communication Commission’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, which found counties such as Lewis and Cowlitz have disproportionately higher underserved communities. Approximately 200,000 Washingtonians do not have high-speed internet, but nearly all of them are in rural areas.

One of the challenges of extending internet access to these areas has been the cost involved to expand the infrastructure far enough to reach those residents. “I think we’ve got a good proposal here that will help actually accomplish that objective…that last mile where it’s really needed,” Orcutt said. “I want to get the infrastructure out there, because that’s the biggest barrier right now.”

If passed, the bill would allow qualifying counties to impose a .05 sales and use tax as a credit against the statewide sales tax. That revenue could only go to the development of high-speed internet infrastructure. The proposal defines a rural county as one that has a population density of fewer than 100 people per square mile – or that the county is smaller than 225 square miles.

The legislation drew questions from Chair Jeff Morris (D-40) as to why the legislation didn’t encourage local public-private partnerships. As written, the bill would ultimately divert state sales tax revenue coming from these counties in order to fund the infrastructure projects.

Orcutt explained that these counties can’t afford it. “If they did, we could supplement it that way.  Some are still using their reserves even this long after the Great Recession. It’s a very big struggle for those counties, and that’s why this approach is so important.”

In support is the Association of Washington Business (AWB), the state’s oldest and largest statewide business association with 8,000 members. Government Affairs Director Mike Ennis told panel members: “It’s sometimes hard to bring telecoms and our members together on broadband issues. We believe this bill does it.

“You cannot have a conversation on rural jobs without a focus on rural broadband,” he added. “Washington state rural areas have struggled to keep pace in many key economic measures…when compared to urban centers around the Puget Sound. It has become such a pervasive and necessary component of our lives that those without it risk getting left behind.”

HB 2749’s public hearing coincided with a work session in the Senate Economic Development & International Trade Committee also discussing rural broadband for communities in Eastern Washington counties such as Lincoln, which has only 10,000 residents and a density of 4.6 people per acre.

One potential option to achieve these goals is through the Spokane-based wholesale telecommunications provider Northwest Open Access Network (NoaNet), which in 2012 built a fiber optics network in Lincoln. The organization’s goal is for all Washingtonians to have high-speed internet by 2028. In those areas, public utility districts have also combined their networks using the Bonneville Power Administration public-purpose fiber.

NoaNet Outreach and Communications Director Angela Bennink told panel members that thegoal is to have high-speed internet for all Washingtonians by 2028. “Truly our vision is to provide these services and bridge the digital divide between rural and urban areas.”

HB 2749 is scheduled for committee action on February 1.

The post Tax credit proposed to aid rural broadband appeared first on Lens.

Business representatives are touting HB 2830 as way to increase training opportunities within restaurants and grocery stores across the state, saying the measure allows employers to further their efforts to train young people to fill jobs in those sectors and other industries.

HB 2830 would expand employment opportunity training programs for restaurants and grocery stores. The prime sponsor is State Rep. Carolyn Eslick (R-39), and cosponsors include State Reps. Liz Pike (R-18), Dan Griffey (R-35) and Luanne Van Werven (R-42).

During a January 29 House Labor and Workplace Standards public hearing, Eslick told colleagues that she recognizes the need for her bill in those industries, as she was a restaurant owner in the city of Sultan for 20 years. In the 1990s, the state legislature began increasing the minimum wage annually, and she had to raise wages for busboys, dishwashers and waitresses in response. However, every time the minimum wage employees got a bump, the chefs lobbied for the same wages.

“It seems easy enough that when wages are increased that you would raise prices on menus. Well, it isn’t that easy because you can price yourself right out of the market…” said Eslick. “I’m asking for a small relief for our grocery stores and our restaurants in rural areas.

“They need the help,” she continued. “The net profits on both of those industries are so small that every time there is an increase, it takes a huge hit for them.”

The bill would require the Director of the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) to create and allow the distribution of special training certificates which would allow employees within their training period to earn 75 percent of the state or federal minimum wage. These would only apply to employees working at a restaurant or grocery store.

The certificates may be used for training periods lasting up to 680 hours of work and for employees either 25 years old or younger or those reentering the workforce after five years of unemployment. An employer may only have up to 10 percent of his or her employees working under the certificates. The bill also includes provisions on what to do should an employee receiving benefits from the credentials leave the company.

Jan Gee, CEO and President of the Washington Food Industry Association (WFIA), told panel members: “Our supermarkets are a gateway for entry-level, on-the-job training positions that can lead to some great careers in our industry.”

According to Gee, the independent grocery industry has the lowest profit margin out of any industry in the state, at 1 to 1.5 percent. The bill would work to lessen this burden, she added.

“You can imagine with the low profit and the increasing minimum wage that a lot of those entry level jobs are disappearing.”

According to Gee, the grocery industry hosts an educational foundation that takes entry-level employees and pays for all, or most, of their community college tuition so they can obtain their retail management certificates. She added that this prepares them so that employers can move them up through the ranks.

“There are so many opportunities in our industry and we prepare a lot of people for other industries.”

However, Samantha Grad, Political and Legislative Organizer for United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 21, took a different view, claiming it would cost workers.

“For the majority of jobs in the grocery industry, the amount of training needed to be proficient at your job is substantially lower than the proposed 680 hours. Having such a lengthy training period and continuing to keep workers classified as a trainee in that time means that workers are being paid less.”

Sheila Ashe, owner of the Darrington IGA supermarket, spoke to the benefit her business brings to local youth, and how the bill would further those opportunities.

“We provide them with work experience: the experience of holding down a job, learning responsibility, commitment, customer service and the value of hard work,” she told panel members. “Most of those who we employed in their youth refer to us as ‘IGA University,’ the place where they were, in a sense, able to start on becoming good employees or entrepreneurs.”

Ashe added that her business considers the cost of training young workers, however, as a small store in a small town, the store’s profit margins are easily affected by new laws or regulations.

“The cost of training just one person is really a double cost to us,” she said. “We pay the new person because we have to pay someone else to train them.”

Last year, the business’ payroll rose $17,000 and the store’s man hours went down 1,000 hours. Ashe said she projects an additional $30,000 cost with the new minimum wage and the paid time off and sick leave.

“With the new minimum wage, we have serious discussion as to whether or not it is economical for us to take the extra time it takes to train youth. Most have none to minimal experience.”

“That’s why we like the bill…it will give us the incentive to keep training our youth with the qualities they can use once they move on to bigger and better things.”

HB 2830 is not currently scheduled for additional hearings or executive action.

The post Employers support grocery, restaurant training bill appeared first on Lens.

Tourism agency representatives are finding fault with the lead agency listed in a House bill that would establish a statewide agency for managing tourism efforts. Although the measure would create a dedicated statewide tourism agency, stakeholders argue that the lead agency proposed by the bill is not a good fit.

HB 2924 would reestablish the Washington Tourism Marketing Authority to oversee statewide tourism marketing. The prime sponsor is State Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-32); there are no cosponsors.

The bill would require 0.2 percent of retail taxes on lodging, car rentals and restaurants to fund the statewide tourism marketing plan, with a July 2018 start date. The legislation also includes a mechanism for private-public investments, where $2 of private dollars would be matched with $1 of state funding.

In the Senate, SB 5251 received a January 30 public hearing in front of the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The legislation would also create the authority and includes slight differences in management.

In 2011, the Legislature decided to cut funding on the statewide tourism office, which left Washington as the only state in the nation without a dedicated statewide tourism authority. In its place, lawmakers directed the Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA) to manage statewide tourism efforts.

On January 30, Ryu told colleagues in the House Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs Committee that her bill was identical to others heard this session, except it requires that the State Parks and Recreation Commission serve as administrator over the statewide tourism authority. She argues that the agency has its own tourism program and would have the capacity to manage a statewide version.

“If we want to take a look at the wonderful work that they are doing with the cabins and the campgrounds and so on, and if we want to balance what we have going along in the Puget Sound area, we have a really vigorous market,” she said. “We have a lot of people coming, we obviously need some sort of a statewide program so that people throughout the world will know that we are here and ready for business.”

Ryu added the statewide tourism program should emphasize rural areas, where the state parks and other “gems” are.

However, tourism stakeholders testified in opposition to the bill because they believe Parks and Recreation would not be the best fit.

“Tourism is a part of economic development, generally, and we think that Commerce is a better place for that,” Becky Bogard, Lobbyist for WTA, told lawmakers. “Remember that rural areas not only have parks, but they have food and wine, they have other cultural attractions.”

Last year, the legislature approved $500,000 for a marketing program emphasizing rural economic tourism, rural tourism development, as well as international and outdoor recreation.

Bogard cited that fact: “In your budget, you approved the designation of a tourism sector lead in the department of commerce because that person would work not only with tourism entities…to incorporate tourism as part of their overall economic development program,” and added that Parks and Recreation would be part of the advisory committee for the program.

Shiloh Schauer is member of WTA and is the Executive Director of the Wenatchee Valley Chamber of Commerce. “In Wenatchee, we utilize tourism as a way to tell our community story, and to attract not just visitors, but hopefully additional industry.

Schauer emphasized Wenatchee’s many outdoor recreation assets, ranging from parks to trails to water.

“We are on nature’s doorstep in so many different ways, but it is really the essence of community, and community comes from the great craftsmanship in our valley from winemakers to breweries to those who are doing arts and culture.”

Schauer said the Chamber is requesting that the legislation include a broader agency to oversee the statewide tourism program.

“We do value state parks and we do value their input in this effort, but really being able to look at an entire community and the economic impact of tourism throughout that community is really important.”

Representing lodging and restaurant businesses, Morgan Hickel, Government Affairs Manager for the Washington Hospitality Association (WHA), said: “We have some challenges with Parks and Rec administering this, not because they are not a great commission, they are just not the right fit.”

HB 2924 is scheduled for possible executive session on February 1.

The post Stakeholders say tourism bill needs another lead authority appeared first on Lens.

As House lawmakers consider two similar net neutrality bills, another proposal has been introduced in the Senate that would apply the two-year federal policy to Washington state. SB 6423 would reinstate net neutrality restrictions on internet service providers (ISP) in an effort to prevent censorship and charge different rates, also known as “throttling.” The bill received a brief public hearing January 30 in the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment & Technology, where broadband leaders warned against reclassifying their industry.

“ISPs understand that an open internet is a profitable internet,” Broadband Communications Association of Washington Executive Director Ron Main said. “Degrading the internet by blocking speech and trampling what consumers have come to expect would not be profitable.

“Our members have made legally enforceable public pledges in support of the principles embodied in this bill,” he continued, “namely that we do not nor will not take actions to block legal content, we will not engage in throttling, and we will not unfairly discriminate – in other words creating internet traffic lanes and the like.”

Implemented in 2015, net neutrality changed the way ISPs were classified under federal regulations from “information services” and under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission to “telecommunication services” and subject to the FCC common carrier regulations under Article II of the Communications Act of 1934. Late last year, the FCC reversed this two-year policy.

Critics of this decision say that if not addressed, the reversal will lead to ISPs blocking content or using paid prioritization. At the January 20 public hearing, SB 6423 prime sponsor Sen. Kevin Ranker (D-40) told panel members that “We recognize that the repeal of net neutrality is a consumer violation and threatens our free speech. The idea that an ISP or anyone would be able to throttle the internet or limit access in certain areas is unacceptable, un-American and unconscionable,” adding that the bill would protect free speech.

Supporters testifying at the hearing included Logan Bowers, a software engineer with 20 years’ experience in the industry. He told lawmakers “as a consumer this is important to me and to others.”

“The insidious part is when they (ISPs) charge another business for internet access, or to access me as a customer, I am paying for it… it’s a way to charge me more.”

However, Main argued the legal pledges by industry members demonstrates their fears are unfounded. “That’s why we, together along with other ISPs, are working in Congress to codify these rules.”

Another mark against net neutrality proponents is that many of their fears were never realized prior to 2015, particularly with the use of “throttling.” That was the conclusion the FCC reached in its Restoring Internet Freedom Order: “There is scant evidence that end users, under different legal frameworks, have been prevented by blocking or throttling from accessing the content of their choosing. If anything, recent evidence suggests that hosting services, social media platforms, edge providers, and other providers of virtual Internet infrastructure are more likely to block content on viewpoint grounds.”

Main also said that the problem with net neutrality is how it would classify ISPs using “the regulatory framework for the telephone monopoly in the 1930s. I think our primary position is that the internet is an interstate service, it’s difficult for states to regulate on a state-by-state basis that which travels around the world. For those reasons, we would ask that you not advance this bill.”

If consumers and others are concerned about unfair pricing they should favor less, not more, regulations. That’s according to Adam De Gree, a Prague-based economics teacher writing in Mises Wire. “Rather than erect barriers to competition and resort to administrative determinations of ‘fair’ pricing, we should instead allow the pressures of the market to foster innovation. That way, ISPs can follow the lead of energy production and begin the long path toward decentralization.”

Also signed in opposed to HB 6423 but not testifying were Verizon, AT&T and Centurylink.

The two net neutrality House bills HB 2282 and HB 2284 received a January 18 public hearing in the House Technology & Economic Development Committee. Both received a “do pass” recommendation and have been referred to Appropriations, though no public hearings have been scheduled.

No further action is yet planned for SB 6423.

The post Net neutrality bills advance appeared first on Lens.

The Washington state Senate has approved a bill which would specify how prevailing wages must be set. Although the majority of lawmakers are supportive of SB 5493, one voiced concern that the legislation would not improve the process for rural counties.

Under state law, hourly wages for workers constructing or maintaining public buildings may not be lower than the prevailing wage in the location for the same hourly work. The prevailing wage includes the hourly wage rate, benefits and overtime paid. The rates are set by the Department of Labor and Industries’ (L&I) industrial statistician, who may conduct wage and hour surveys to determine and set those wage rates.

Under the new proposal, L&I’s industrial statistician would adopt prevailing wage rates based on the local jurisdiction for occupations that include collective bargaining agreements. If there are multiple collective bargaining agreements in one location, the higher rate will be used. In trades without those agreements, the L&I industrial statistician must conduct wage and hour surveys to set the prevailing rate of wage in that county.

The bill’s prime sponsor is State Sen. Steve Conway (D-29), and its cosponsors include State Sens. Bob Hasegawa (D-11), Mark Miloscia (R-30) and Karen Keiser (D-33).

During February 12 Senate floor debate, most lawmakers agreed the change would simplify the process of surveying for prevailing wages.

Sen. Conway told colleagues that prevailing wage surveys have “always been a problem.”

“This particular approach simplifies the process. Eight other states are using this process, and it adds cost efficiency for the Department.”

Conway added that he was impressed that many contractors have indicated the bill would be a move in the right direction.

State Sen. Curtis King (R-14) agreed the bill allows for an important change.

“We have worked this bill to allow prevailing wages to be set in as a fair and equitable manner as we can.”

However, State Sen. John Braun (R-20) rose in opposition to the legislation, citing concern with how the bill would affect rural counties, particularly those that do not have collective bargaining agreements.

“I think we made a lot of progress, and I am very hopeful we will continue to make progress in the other chamber, but I don’t think it’s quite there now. I think it holds rural counties at a little bit of a disadvantage.”

On January 22, the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee elected to send the bill to Rules. On February 12, the Senate approved the measure in a 32-15 floor vote, with two excused. The legislation is not currently scheduled for a public hearing in the House.

The post Prevailing wage bill clears the Senate appeared first on Lens.

Senate lawmakers overwhelming approved legislation on Monday that supporters hope will create further momentum for full high-speed internet deployment in Washington state.

ESSB 6034 creates a pilot program between the Kitsap Public Utility District (PUD) and private telecommunication companies to extend broadband access to the county’s rural communities.

“This bill has been years in the works,” prime sponsor Sen. Christine Rofles (D-23) told colleagues February 12 on the Senate floor. “The issue of access to high speed internet is one that has been identified across the nation as an impediment to rural economic development — and even in this case suburban economic development.”

Her district includes Bainbridge Island and parts of the Kitsap Peninsula. Under ESSB 6034 , a PUD that only provides sewer, water and telecom services in a county with area less than 500 square miles and located west of Puget Sound may provide end-user internet services on its broadband network if it receives a petition from customers requesting it. The PUD is authorized, but not required, to hold several meetings to determine if there is sufficient demand for the internet services. The bill uniquely applies to Kitsap PUD because it does not provide electrical services. Thus, the issue over pole attachments plaguing other parts of the state also lacking high-speed internet is moot.

An amendment proposed by Rofles and approved on the Senate floor allows companies regulated under the state Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) to choose the UTC for resolving disputes over adequate internet service.

“It should be cost effective, it should be efficient,” Rofles said. “It has been worked out with the local cable companies and the PUDs and the citizens of the county, many of whom are looking forward to receiving high-speed internet in their homes.”

One of the cosponsors is Sen. Tim Sheldon (D-35), who also represents parts of Kitsap. “We have to do as much as we can, we’re getting started, but this has to be the year we have a real broad look at a comprehensive bill that helps telecommunications deploy statewide.”

Other bills introduced this session aimed at improving rural broadband include HB 2749. However, the legislation failed to clear its home committee by the cutoff date after a January 23 public hearing.

On the cusp of approval in the Senate is SB 5935, sponsored by Sheldon and Sen. Reuven Carlyle (D-36). That bill aims, in part, to address controversy over the use of local poles. Introduced last year, it received a November public hearing and was reintroduced this session. It is now awaiting a Senate floor vote after clearing Ways and Means.

Microsoft last year announced plans to bring broadband to two million people nationwide via its Rural Airband Initiative, mostly through the use of TV white spaces. In the meantime, many parts of rural Washington still lack adequate internet service.

ESSB 6034 cosponsor Sen. Jan Angel (R-26) told colleagues: “It’s so bad…in our rural area of Kitsap County that our students have to go to the mall to an internet connection room just to be able to do some homework, because they can’t get service in any of their homes.”

ESSB 6034’s companion bill is HB 2662, sponsored by Rep. Drew Hansen (D-23). The bill received a January 30 public hearing but did not clear the Committee on Technology & Economic Development before the cutoff date.

The post Senate approves rural broadband pilot program appeared first on Lens.

In the ongoing push to extend broadband across Washington, all of the state’s 75 port districts will be able to build and operate high-speed internet infrastructure if the Senate approves a bill unanimously approved by House lawmakers February 14.

HB 2664 will extend to urban districts a state policy adopted nearly two decades ago for rural port districts, which supporters say will hasten access to broadband.

Prime sponsor Rep. Mary Dye (R-9) told colleagues on the House floor that “The cost of broadband fiber can be very daunting, and we have many areas in our state that have low population density not just on the eastside, where my district is, but across the state.”

That includes the Port of Ridgefield, located in Clark County along the Columbia River. Under the state law passed in 2000, rural ports are allowed to build telecom infrastructure and use unlit (dark) optical fiber for wholesale telecom services. However, the policy defined a “rural” port as one located in a county with a population density of 100 people per square mile.

That means ports like Ridgefield with a “rural” population density within the district, but located in counties well above that threshold, aren’t allowed to build the infrastructure.

The absence of high-speed internet makes it difficult to entice companies, says Port of Ridgefield’s Vice President of Innovation Nelson Holmberg. The port envisions constructing fiber optic infrastructure along its “Discovery Corridor,” a nine mile stretch along Interstate 5 between Vancouver and north Clark County, which they then would lease to providers such as Comcast or CenturyLink.

“That whole Discovery Corridor area is kind of the economic growth outlet valve for the Portland Vancouver metro area,” he said. “We refer to ourselves as a ‘community port.’ We do infrastructure and real estate for the creation of jobs. We’re really more of an economic developer than a marine terminal.”

However, he said they often hear a common complaint from employers interested in the corridor: “Where’s the broadband? We’re missing the kind of broadband we need.”

“The construct of ‘rural’ in the current statue is kind of a force fit,” Dye said. “It limits those rural communities” with population densities just above that threshold “from having this avenue of receiving access to broadband infrastructure.”

“It is a true public-private partnership,” she added. “Ports have successfully constructed broadband networks. They have a great story to tell.”

Last session, Dye proposed another public-private partnership to improve broadband access via HB 1702. The legislation would have allowed port districts to extend their telecommunication services to customers outside their districts through an exclusive contract with a private telecom company operating the facilities. That bill failed to clear the Committee on Technology & Economic Development.

Rep. Jeff Morris (D-40) is chair of the Technology & Economic Development committee, where HB 2664 received a “do pass” recommendation earlier this month. He told colleagues on the House floor that the legislature approved the 2000 state law in “the hope was that it was going to bring more broadband access to rural Washington.” HB 2664 will be “another tool in the tool box,” he added.

Rep. Paul Harris (R-17) said that “I think sometimes we do things here (and) we don’t realize the importance of it. For the Port of Ridgefield, this is an important bill.”

Earlier this week, the Senate approved legislation creating a pilot project between the Kitsap Public Utility District (PUD) and private telecommunications companies to improve broadband access.

The bill is scheduled for a February 20 public hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Technology.

The post Bill would promote broadband access appeared first on Lens.

State lawmakers behind a bipartisan proposal to reduce the business and occupation (B&O) tax rate for manufacturers say they want to help rural Washington catch up with the rest of the state and boost the state’s struggling manufacturing sector. But some legislators say the legislation’s definition doesn’t match what one would normally consider “rural.”

The dispute led several Republicans on the House Finance Committee to vote against HB 2992 Feb. 19, just days after its introduction.

“Being on one side or the other of the White River, or the crest of the Cascades does not define rural,” Rep. Drew Stokesbary (R-31) remarked. “I would challenge any of you to come back to my district and tell me that I do not represent rural areas.”

His district includes Carbonado, a town of 700 people with a dilapidated, century-old sewage system made of clay. “That is not an urban problem, that is a rural problem,” he said.

House Minority Floor Leader J.T. Wilcox (R-2) made a similar comment. “My whole district is left behind in this bill. I live on a 1500-acre farm down a half mile gravel road, and imagine my surprise to find it’s not rural. I represent nothing but small towns.”

HB 2992 gradually lowers the B&O manufacturing tax rate from 0.484 to 0.2904 percent by 2024. If by then the aggregate unemployment rate in rural counties is no greater than 1.5 percent higher than the rate in urban counties, then the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee is directed to recommend extending the expiration date.

HB 2992’s prime sponsor is Assistant Majority Whip Mike Chapman (D-24), who introduced the bill Feb. 16 with two Republican cosponsors. The bill is a variation of a statewide proposal included last year in the 2017-19 operating budget and eventually vetoed by Governor Jay Inslee. Chapman’s bill has drawn support from other House Democrats who favor its restricted application and finite timeline.

“It’s no news to anyone here that I represent one of the most urban districts in the state of Washington that is enjoying a tremendous amount of prosperity now,” Finance Vice Chair Noel Frame (D-36) told colleagues at the Feb. 19 meeting. “We’d love to see the rest of Washington to do as well as the greater Seattle King County area is doing. It’s a better bill than last year because it is targeted, it is aimed at rural Washington, it is transparent.

“Frankly there’s a lot of folks in rural Washington that don’t have access to jobs right now,” she added. “The dignity of work is a really important part I think of anybody’s life experience and being a fully participating member of our civic society.”

Also in favor of the bill was Rep. Gerry Pollet (D-46), who said “by targeting this and making sure that it is actually performing to create jobs, I think this is a sensible investment in the state of Washington.”

But panel members like Stokesbary argued the bill excludes parts of counties that are rural but under the definition are swept under too broad a brush. The bill language defines rural as a county that has either a population density of less than 100 persons per square mile, or is smaller than 225 square miles and has a population no greater than 100,000.

Although the city of Enumclaw is classified urban and in an urban county (King), Stokesbary said that its three largest employers are city itself, the Enumclaw School District and St. Elizabeth Hospital. “That is what life looks like in rural areas.”

Rep. Ed Orcutt (R-20) unsuccessfully proposed an amendment to add more of these areas, saying it would help reduce the strain on urban infrastructure. “We’re trying to do some work…in south Thurston county…where we’re trying to do an agricultural business park…trying to get more and more of the processing done in the rural areas. There are other areas in Pierce and King and Snohomish that would benefit from this.”

He added: “Quite frankly the cities would actually benefit a little bit from this too, because if we can get some manufacturing facilities out in those rural area, maybe we’ll reduce the number of people who have to commute in the city and we can take some of the stress off of our roads.”

One Republican who voted in favor of it was Rep. Cary Condotta (R-12) though he remarked, “I just wish it was a winner for everybody in the state of Washington.”

Another bill that would apply the tax reduction statewide is HB 2393, introduced by Rep. Brandon Vick (R-18). In the Senate, similar legislation was introduced by Sen. Michael Baumgartner (R-6) via SB 6542. Neither has received public hearings.

HB 2992 has yet to be referred to its next committee.

The post Is your county “rural” enough? appeared first on Lens.

A frequent debate among legislators is whether excluding an industry or business from a state tax is an incentive that brings more jobs and growth to Washington, or merely a tax break that benefits an employer at the expense of state revenue.

A proposed Senate bill that has garnered overwhelming support to date may help clarify that for all 650 tax incentives currently on the books – -along with any others that may be added by the legislature. SB 5513 would revamp the process by which these incentives are evaluated by lawmakers and make more information accessible to the public. It cleared the Senate unanimously on Feb. 13 and received a “do pass” recommendation in the House Finance Committee Feb. 26 following successful amendments.

House Minority Leader J.T. Wilcox (R-9) and a Finance committee member said, “I think that this bill in the long run has potential to be very positive. It is a good thing if we can reveal what tax preferences make a positive impact on a state both in terms of revenue and in terms of economic activity and employment in the state.”

The bill is sponsored by Ways and Means Vice Chair David Frockt (D-46) and backed by 13 Democrats, as well as Sen. Mark Miloscia (R-13). Its House companion is  HB 1500, sponsored by House Finance member Rep. Gerry Pollet (D-46), who referred to SB 5113 at the Feb. 26 meeting as a “work in progress.”

Presently, the state Department of Revenue (DOR) must publish a Tax Exemption Report every four years for the legislature that lists all tax incentives and the estimated revenue that may result. The next report is due in 2020. In 2006, the Citizen Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences (CCPMTP) was created to schedule reviews by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) at least once every decade. JLARC offers recommended action two years prior to a tax incentives expiration date.

SB 5513 would accelerate the DOR’s report, requiring it to be produced every two years. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) would set up a work group with House Finance and Senate Ways and Means to come up with recommended ways to promote greater transparency with tax incentives and their attendant impact on the state budget writing process.

Finance Committee member Rep. Larry Springer (D-45) argued that this would help make tax incentives not only visible to the public, “but also (makes) the recognition that that’s not the whole story. In addition to listing the preferences, we should make an attempt to list what the return on investment is for that preference. That’s a difficult task, but this recognizes that’s the other half of that task.”

Prior to the bill vote, Wilcox unsuccessfully proposed an amendment that would have had the OFM work group also look at ways to highlight the impact of tax incentives on the state economy and job growth. It also would have had the prime sponsor of a tax incentive bill included in the reports.

“We have a little challenge of pointing fingers with these, and we might as well be transparent about who is sponsoring tax preferences from either side,” Wilcox said.

However, some reservations were expressed by Rep. Terry Nealey (R-16) over the cost and implementation. “We want to continue to work with this no matter what. We need to find that fine line where we disclose these tax exemptions but without disclosing very important financial information of businesses and companies.”

Also opposed was Rep. Cary Condotta (R-12), who raised the issue of  how a tax incentive’s “benefits” are decided. Speaking in opposition to the bill at the Feb. 26 meeting, he told colleagues the server farm tax preference has drawn criticism despite being “the best tax preference we’ve probably ever put in this state.” He argued that looking only at the industry jobs created doesn’t tell the whole story.

For one city in his district, the tax incentives brought “an unbelievable success” in terms of new revenue, with an “all new city hall, all new library, all new fire station, police station; went from an $800,000 a-year-budget to a $4 million-a-year budget, seven new schools under construction. These are the things that need to be included when we do these reports, and I’m not sure this bill gets there.”

SB 5513 has yet to be referred to its next committee.

The post A “report card” for tax cuts appeared first on Lens.

Two state lawmakers from central Washington are expressing the need for statewide tourism marketing, as they say Washington is overshadowed by other states’ efforts. On the horizon are two companion bills which re-create a statewide authority to help bring in more tourists and pump additional revenue into small businesses and local economies.

In 2011, the Legislature cut funding to the statewide tourism office due to budgetary cuts. Six year later, State Rep. Cary Condotta (R-12) told Lens that there has been a noticeable market share change and it is past due to reinstate efforts to promote Washington as a travel destination.

“We tend to think that our tourists move within the state…but we are not getting the people from out of state that we should be getting,” he told Lens. “They are going to Montana…. Utah…California where they (states) spend tens of millions of dollars on these advertising programs.”

Condotta is the prime sponsor of HB 1123, which would create the Washington Tourism Marketing Authority to oversee the statewide tourism marketing plan. Under the bill, 0.1 percent of the sales tax collected on car rentals, restaurants and lodging would fund the implementation of the plan. The bill has not yet received a public hearing this year.

Its companion, SB 5251, was sent to the Rules Committee on Feb. 26. That measure would take 0.2 percent of sales tax to fund statewide tourism efforts. The Senate has approved and fully funded the effort in its operating budget. The House budget also includes funding for the Authority, however it is currently held on the floor.

“The good thing about this program is that it’s really going to help the entire state,” said Condotta. “I think the beauty of Washington is that it has so much variety, so much change. You can go to one state and see it all.”

He added that Washington has much to offer, including the Olympic Peninsula, Hoh Rainforest, San Juan Islands, eastern Washington’s deserts and various wineries across the state. His own district is home to Lake Chelan, Leavenworth, Methow Valley and Mission Ridge.

Condotta said that the 12^th district’s second-largest industry is tourism, which directly influences the stores, small businesses and rental companies handling housing, equipment and car rentals.

“Everything revolving around tourism will benefit and it’s mostly in the smaller towns like Chelan and like up in Methow Valley. If they didn’t have tourism, they wouldn’t have much of anything.”

Condotta said HB 1123 is not a spending bill when you look at the return in investment, where the program should give back a return of three to four times the investment in two years.

Also beneficial is the two-to-one match of private-public funding.
“I think it’s a great investment,” Condotta continued. “We have money on the table, this is the time to get it going and just keep building that revenue line.”

Also from the 12^th district is State Rep. Mike Steele (R-12), who is Executive Director of the Lake Chelan Chamber of Commerce. He agreed the legislation would work to put Washington back on the map for tourism efforts compared to the rest of the country.

“We are losing market share on a daily basis,” he told Lens. “You’ve got places like Oregon and California spending millions and millions on tourism, and Washington is spending zero dollars outside of local jurisdictions.”

He added that the Chamber was fortunate to have a large operating budget to promote its tourist sites. Where the statewide tourism office had less than $1 million to spend on overhead, administrative costs and marketing, the Chamber spent $1.3 million on direct marketing.

Steele said the statewide marketing efforts should focus on working with feeder markets like Texas, Maine and California to encourage travel to Washington.

He also said that the sales tax goes up when people who come to the state end up purchasing a second home. Those taxes are then used to pay for roads, hospitals and schools, lowering the amount the local community would have to pay.

“I think a state tourism office is essential…I don’t know why it’s taken so long to recognize the need, so hopefully this year will be the year to change that.”

The post Revitalizing statewide tourism efforts appeared first on Lens.

After a brief but spirited debate, the Washington state Senate approved the first state-level net neutrality legislation in the nation.

SHB 2282 imposes several regulations on internet service providers (ISP’s) previously found in the Federal Communication Commission’s 2015 order, which was repealed late last year under the Trump administration.

Though passed with a solid majority (35-14), it was less decisive than the House’s 93-5 vote, perhaps reflecting the unease of some lawmakers who say the policy will stymie further broadband expansion by telecommunication companies. And that’s if it doesn’t get overturned in federal court after an expensive lawsuit.

For these legislators, the canary in the coal mine is T-Mobile’s recent announcement of the first five cities where they intend to roll out the new 5G network. Though headquartered in Bellevue, the city is not among the five – nor is any Washington city.

Sen. Doug Ericksen (R-42) told colleagues on the Senate floor Feb. 27 the coincidence is unlikely. “I think one of the reasons is when they look at legislation like this…(they) say Washington state is not a good place to do business. We’re going to look at other states that are going to work with us…instead of going into a state where you know you’re going up against a regulatory nightmare.

“You’re going to go to court, and you’re going to pay for it,” he added.

T-Mobile plans to add 25 other cities to its 5G plan by the end of the year. 5G has been described by Forbes as the nation’s greatest infrastructure project since the interstate highway system.

Ericksen added that although he considered SHB 2282 to be superior to the 2015 net neutrality policy, he said the bill is unnecessary and based on “speculative” fears of things companies have yet to do.

“We don’t need this legislation right now in Washington state,” he said. “Internet services in America have grown and thrive with minimal government involvement and regulation. I think that should be our goal. Which is to allow the internet to thrive outside the burdensome, constricting regulations of the federal bureaucracy…allow it to grow and expand.”

A contrasting viewpoint was offered by Sen. Reuven Carlyle (D-36): “We have a right to open and free internet, and the public has a right to information. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the most underappreciated amendments that exist. We can have regulations of the internet at a national level, but that in no way says that we shouldn’t have a framework of regulatory control that makes sense here at a state level.”

Sen. Kevin Ranker (D-40) agreed. “This bill quite simply makes sure the consumers have access to lawful content on the internet. At this point in time we have learned a valuable lesson, which is states must act to protect the internet. States must act to protect net neutrality.”

Carlyle’s remarks drew a response from Senate Minority Leader Mark Schoesler (R-9), who said “I think I must have turned on the oldies channel by mistake this afternoon. I hear people talking about Tenth Amendment rights that I haven’t heard in 20 years, and it wasn’t from that side of the aisle. While we’re waiting to get sued for this, I urge you to vote no.”

SHB 2282 will now be sent to Governor Jay Inslee, who has already indicated his intent to sign it. If signed into law, the bill will either take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends or the effective date of the FCC’s December ruling.

The post Legislator: Fear, speculation driving net neutrality action appeared first on Lens.

After the election of Sen. Manka Dhingra in the 45^th legislative district gave Democrats control of both legislative chambers and the governorship, some wondered if 2018 was also the year for a carbon tax. Those hopes have proved premature; even though the bill managed to clear two critical committees, its backers recently announced they had insufficient votes in the Senate to carry it through.

In a Facebook post, Sen. Reuven Carlyle (D-36) wrote: “I’m extremely proud that your legislature tackled climate change head on with a historic carbon pricing plan. Our bill passed two major committees–a first in a legislature nationwide–and will impact future bills and initiatives for years to come. We fell short this year, but progress is unstoppable.”

Carlyle was the prime sponsor of SSSB 6203, which would have imposed a tax on carbon emissions in the state. The legislation was introduced at the request of Governor Jay Inslee, whose State of the State speech at the beginning of the session centered around enacting new climate change-related policies.

Yet opponents shouldn’t break out the champagne quite yet; environmentalists plan to turn once more to the ballot initiative process after I-732 was defeated in 2016. One of the reasons for its defeat was division among environmentalists over its revenue-neutral approach, which they are unlikely to replicate the next time around. The Seattle-based environmental group Front and Centered had already announced in a January blog post their plans for an initiative co-written with the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy.

Unlike a bill, the “all-or-nothing” nature of voter-approval means there won’t be any opportunities to amend or revise flaws. That reality is what drove lawmakers such as Sen. Tim Sheldon (D-35) to vote in favor of SSSB 6203 while it was in the Senate Energy, Environment & Technology Committee. He is the only Democrat who caucuses with Senate Republicans and is a former commissioner with the Mason County Public Utility District.

He told Lens that “I was hoping that there might be a little more common sense” with any possible initiative based on “the discussion that we’ve had on the bill.”

In its present form, SSSB 6203 would have caused the price of a gallon of gas to immediately go up by 12 cents. By 2029, it would have added an extra 30 cents to every gallon of gas pumped. Although touted as a tax on carbon, the bill included dozens of exemptions that effectively made it a gas tax hike; the transportation sector makes up around half of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The exemptions were intended to offset potential economic blowback from the tax, as one Senate lawmaker said the proposal was akin to putting a “do not enter” sign on Washington state for manufacturers.

Though Washingtonians aren’t ready to pay for another de facto gas tax increase on non-transportation projects, Sheldon noted positive changes to the bill that included dedicating the tax revenue to forest health work and more focus on rural economic development. “So (it had) better ideas and change of title, which I think was helpful.”

Yet, the bill’s exemptions may not get included in a potential initiative, warns Todd Myers, the environmental director at the Washington Policy Center. In a blog post, he writes that “In an effort to win votes, the bill had become a Christmas tree upon which lobbyists and special interests could hang their requests for subsidies. It is not, however, the last word on carbon taxes this year. Washington voters will likely have their say this fall. Left-wing environmentalists have said they will put an initiative on the ballot. Groups like The Nature Conservancy, which is organizing the initiative drive, have already warned that the cost of their initiative will be much higher than the legislative proposal.”

He adds: “Additionally, while the legislative proposal carved out many energy-intensive industries in Washington – which is both good and bad – the initiative will likely protect fewer industries, increasing the risk that they leave Washington state for locations that are more regulatorily friendly.”

Sheldon’s fears are similar to Myers. “It (ballot initiative) won’t be finely-tuned. It will be a blunt instrument that the authors will try to pass with talking points and exaggerations.”

However, Olympia insiders suggest that carbon tax opponents are confident a ballot measure calling for a tax increase won’t find favor among Washingtonians, particularly those already paying a higher state property tax to pay for new basic education spending.

Sheldon said, “It may do worse than the last initiative (I-937) because while our Puget Sound area is doing well, the rest of the state is still struggling, and people are feeling overtaxed – even in the Puget Sound area.”

The post The dark side of carbon tax’s demise appeared first on Lens.

State lawmakers disagreed over the need for a bill which would predict changes in Washington industries and work by creating the future of work task force. Representatives in favor of the measure argued it will help the state prepare decades in advance by analyzing and tweaking job training efforts made by employers and the educational system. Opponents said that while its efforts would be helpful, the bill runs the risk of duplicating advances made by other stakeholder groups.

SB 6544’s prime sponsor is State Sen. Maralyn Chase (D-32), and cosponsors include State Sens. Sharon Brown (R-8), Bob Hasegawa (D-11) and Keith Wagoner (R-39). The Senate approved the measure on Feb. 8, in a 36-11 vote.

During Mar. 2 floor debate, State Rep. Gerry Pollet (D-46) told colleagues: “The world is changing and this bill, as a task force working with the work force board, (would) examine what is the future of work in Washington state.”

He continued that the task force would analyze needs for advancing training and post-secondary education, as well as make suggestions on revamping the K-12 system to prepare for 20 years down the line.

“This is a very important look forward that will give us a roadmap to reshape our educational system, our apprenticeship system and our higher education systems.”

Under SB 6544, the task force would identify current and future drivers of changing industries and work in Washington. It would also identify and make recommendations on policies that would economically benefit business owners, workers and communities while also considering technological advances.

Several Republican lawmakers found fault with the proposal’s use of taxpayer funds for efforts they argue is already being done elsewhere.

State Rep. Jeff Holly (R-6) argued the bill takes from money already running out to perform functions currently performed by the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board “which has about 16 different programs that are administered right now at the current cost of one billion dollars in the workforce development system.

“This is just redundant or an expansion of something that is already being done…and can be done within existing resources.”

State Rep. Andrew Barkis (R-2) agreed. “This is another establishment of yet another task force.”

He read from the bill summary which states the bill would help Washington’s young people to navigate careers and workplaces of the future and help workers maintain up-to-date skills.

According to Barkis, the Economic Development Council and the state’s school programs are already focusing on those goals.

“I don’t think we need to spend $700,000 of the taxpayers’ dollars to authorize a task force to study something that we are already doing. I think it would be much more appropriate to take those dollars and appropriate them to these actual programs.”

Also weighing in was State. Rep. J.T. Wilcox (R-2): “I have no confidence that we are going to spend $700,000 and have an accurate picture of what the economy is going to do.”

Instead, he suggested lawmakers work on “the things that we know today,” by building a system that adjusts to the economy and events to make sure Washington youth are not stuck in “some obsolete idea that we formulated in the next year about what 2040 is going to be like.”

After putting the decision on hold, the House passed out the measure in a 50-48 vote.

The post Lawmakers: Future of work proposal “redundant” appeared first on Lens.

Lawmakers and stakeholders are praising a proposal which would help encourage competitiveness of the state’s fishing and seafood processing sectors by establishing a preferential tax rate for vessel manufacturers.

Proponents say HB 1154 would supply needed jobs for the local community and help Washington renovate its fleet. One stakeholder has also suggested expanding the rate to benefit other types of manufacturers.

Currently, vessel manufacturers pay a Business and Occupation (B&O) tax rate of 0.484 percent of the gross receipt of their business activities.

This bill would lower the rate to 0.2904 percent for manufacturers of qualified vessels or their components.

The measure’s prime sponsor is State Rep. Gael Tarleton (D-36), and its cosponsors include State Rep. Norma Smith (R-10) and Sharon Tomiko Santos (D-37).

During a Mar. 6 public hearing, Tarleton told the Senate Ways and Means Committee that she has been working with the maritime trades and fishing industries to determine how to build the next generation of fishing vessels for Washington state – and the rest of the country. Lawmakers made efforts in the 1970s to plan for the future of sustainable fisheries, however those vessels are now 40 years old.

“This very small tax preference for…those industries will ensure all of those students and all of those individuals who we collectively have been supporting through career and technical education, apprenticeship programs and workforce development initiatives in our communities are now going to be the pipeline to build these vessels, to maintain them and to go to sea.”

She added that the bill will support the companies working around the state on fitting fishing fleets with sensors, engines, marine biology systems and other technologies.

Trent House, lobbyist for the port of Seattle, said the Washington Maritime Federation (WMF) supports the measure to “build the next generation of their vessels right here in our state.”

He referenced a 2016 port of Seattle and WMF economic opportunity analysis on the North Pacific fishing fleet which found that the fleet could spend upwards of $1.6 billion to modernize its fleet. “We want that construction, and we want the jobs that go with that,” he added.

Gordon Baxter, Vice President of the Puget Sound Maritime Trades Council, spoke to the bill’s benefit for the labor community.

“We need this bill to modernize our yards and train our next generation of workers…we need the shipping, which needs the shipyard, which needs the fisher folks as well as the suppliers. This bill will mean several hundred family wage jobs in the yard.”

Clay Hill, Government Affairs Director for Association of Washington Business (AWB), agreed the bill would benefit labor and businesses, but suggested lawmakers consider expanding its reach.

“It’s about family wage jobs and seizing a great marketing opportunity for our manufacturers. It’s about a win for labor and a win for business, which means a win for Washington.”

He then asked the committee to consider allowing the rest of the manufacturing sector to also benefit for a preferential tax rate. Hill cited businesses across the state from pizza oven manufacturers to furniture makers which would not be included under this bill.

“What is the distinction? They are manufacturers, they want to compete and win. They want a historic opportunity to compete against low-cost states and achieve extra market share and help labor by providing good family-wage jobs, so we’d ask you with the time left in session to also consider that broader win for Washington.”

Following public comment on other bills, lawmaker sent the measure to the Rules Committee. It has since been placed on second reading.

The post Modernizing the state’s fishing fleet appeared first on Lens.

Lens sat down with State Rep. Cary Condotta (R-12) to discuss the future of tourism in Washington state. Lawmakers are pushing to reopen a statewide tourism agency, as they say the move would benefit small businesses and rural areas of the state.

The post Lens Video: Revitalizing Washington’s tourism program appeared first on Lens.

A company with a focus on powering supercomputers has set its sights on Longview, Washington as its potential location for operations. Both the company and the Longview City Council agree the move would pump additional economic activity into the local community and pave the way for future industrial investment.

Last month, the city council gave British Columbia-based MiningSky, Inc. conditional approval for the Fisher’s Lane property, which is located at the edge of the Columbia River. The site is where the city’s old water treatment facility for municipal water supply was operated.

According to Longview City Councilmember Mike Wallin, the site is dilapidated with unusable tanks and pipes. He added that engineers estimate it would cost millions of dollars to demolish the structures and make the site usable again.

“We would love to see some industrial development in Longview. We are hungry for industrial…and manufacturing growth, and we would love more jobs.

“We are really excited by this perspective tenant, MiningSky, because around the state and the nation we are seeing a lot of tech industries start up and develop and grow. We don’t really have that in Longview.”

Wallin added the community is “hungry for jobs and growth,” especially tech jobs.

“We believe this could be the door that opens this industry and the first step to attract some of those industries to our area.”

Wallin said the company showed interest in the location because of the existing electrical infrastructure in place from the treatment plant.

Eric Lundgren, Chief Operating Officer for the company, told The Daily News that the business would power supercomputers by harnessing leftover power plant energy and storing it in “hosting cubes.”

“When we plant ourselves, we have to make sure we are staying long-term,” Lundgren said. “This is a long-term play and you need to have a good imagination because that facility needs a lot of work.”

The business would bring some 8,000 supercomputers to the new location within the first 35 days, according to Lundgren. To run its operations, the company will hire local contractors, welders and information technology (IT) technicians.

“We’re starting in Longview and hopefully we can stay in Longview.”

Lundgren estimated that the company would create between 30 and 100 jobs, depending on how much power the Cowlitz Public Utility Department (PUD) allows. The business projects an average hourly wage of $20, which would rise to close to $100 for specialists.

Currently the site’s location is classified as a single-family residential zone under the city’s comprehensive plan. According to Wallin, the city is contemplating changing the zoning of the site to open it up for several uses, including apartments with a view of the Cowlitz River.

Once the lease is finalized, city council staff will work with the planning commission to consider the zoning changes. The parties would then put together draft language and consider recommendations before proceeding.

Wallin said he expects the city to decide to make the area a general commercial zone because it would help the potential tenant and allow for local amenities such as retail spaces and residential spaces above commercial buildings.

He added that MiningSky will make tremendous investments and improvements to the property which will have lasting effects on the local economy. “You take a property with no tax value or tax benefit and turn it into a tax-paying property.”

The city is currently trying to finalize the lease so the company can secure the property. There isn’t currently a timeline, however Wallin said he expects there to be developments on the lease over the next few weeks.

“We hope others can see the potential. We experienced this with the timber product industry where a lot of suppliers and the entire supply chain supports that industry.

“We are hopeful in the same regard for this industry that we can really build additional opportunities in that field. The hope is that it ignites the interest of locals in that field.”

The post Longview: Tenant would feed city’s tech appetite appeared first on Lens.