Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Infrastructure Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County reviews options for '0.09' public infrastructure fund, considers competitive grants and set‑asides
Summary
A consultant told commissioners the county—ridal/0.09 fund brings in roughly $2.5–2.8 million annually and holds about $11.3 million; he outlined options (competitive grants, formula allocations, hybrid models) and urged transparent consultation with cities, ports and the state auditor.
At a Dec. 17 workshop, consultant Eric Johnson reviewed the county—ridal/0.09 public infrastructure fund (RCW 82.14.370) and offered options to revitalize the program. He said the fund historically brought in about $2.5 million to $2.8 million per year and that the county currently has an estimated balance of roughly $11.3 million.
Johnson summarized eligible uses under the statute — public facilities supporting economic development, affordable workforce housing infrastructure, and personnel in economic development offices — and described reporting and planning requirements that can trigger state auditor scrutiny if projects are not listed in required planning documents. "You need to consult with the cities, towns, port districts... to make sure expenditures are consistent with the RCW," Johnson said.
He outlined three common allocation approaches: a competitive grant program with an evaluation committee (the most common), formulaic entity allocations (used by a small number of counties), and hybrid models that reserve funds for emergent opportunities or debt service. Several commissioners said they favored a competitive grant program with a set‑aside for emergency needs; one suggested holding back funds for emergent opportunities so the county can act quickly.
City of Pasco officials, represented by City Manager Harold Stewart, told the board the city would welcome a partnership and said its capital improvement projects include work that could align with the county fund. Commissioners discussed possible local priorities such as congestion and safety improvements on Road 68/Taylor Flats and the need to update the county's economic development and capital facilities plans before allocating funds.
Next steps discussed included drafting a competitive‑grant program and evaluation criteria, defining any emergency set‑aside percentage or dollar amount, and continuing consultation with cities and ports before formal adoption.
