Bill would let counties perform city paving/striping without counting toward city public‑works caps; industry raises concerns

House Bill 15 29, heard by the committee on Nov. 25, would clarify that county‑performed roadway striping and paving on behalf of a city is not subject to a city’s public‑employee work percentage limits. The bill also would allow county employees to undertake city street projects of $10,000 or more when bids fail to materialize or when the county can do the work more cheaply than the lowest bid.

Sponsor Rep. Dan Griffey described a Mason County pilot where county paving and striping equipment enabled efficient repairs for the city of Shelton at roughly $75,000, and argued the bill would provide small cities practical options to maintain safe streets without the delay and expense of repeated bidding.

Supporters included county officials and some cities. Axel Swanson (Association of Counties) said the bill aligns with intergovernmental cooperation and can create efficiencies when county crews are already operating near city boundaries. Mary Heather Ames (Pasco deputy public works director) urged the committee to remove statutory barriers that discourage such partnerships.

Industry and labor representatives opposed or urged caution. Mike Ennis (Washington Asphalt Pavement Association) said county employees may not face the same contractual requirements as private contractors and warned of unfair advantage, potential quality differences and lost private work; he asked for stakeholdering and sideboards (for example, carving out major paving work, requiring bids, or setting caps). Ray Dumas (Operative Plasters and Cement Masons) said expanding public self‑performed work reduces prevailing‑wage opportunities for local workers.

Committee members and stakeholders discussed triggers that could limit the bill’s reach (small jurisdictions, bid requirements) and agreed to continue stakeholder conversations; the committee adjourned without voting.