Washington Administrative Code Title 399 - Commerce, Department of (Public Works Board)

Overview of Washington Administrative Code Title 399 (Commerce, Department of - Public Works Board)

WAC Title 399 establishes the rules and procedures for the Public Works Board (PWB), a division within the Washington State Department of Commerce. The PWB’s primary mission is to manage funding and programs related to public works projects in Washington State, especially those focused on local infrastructure improvements.

Key Functions of the Public Works Board:

Administer grants and loans to cities, counties, and special districts for infrastructure projects.

Focus on water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste projects.

Implement the Public Works Assistance Account (PWAA) to support economic development through infrastructure.

Ensure projects meet eligibility, application, and reporting requirements.

Establish rules for fund allocation, loan repayment, and oversight.

Structure and Content of WAC Title 399

WAC Title 399 includes multiple chapters; some of the most important ones are:

399-20: Public Works Board — Loan Program Rules

399-40: Public Works Board — Grant Program Rules

399-60: Procedures for Application, Funding, and Reporting

Eligibility and Application (example from WAC 399-20)

Eligible applicants include municipalities, public utility districts, and tribal governments.

Projects must address water, sewer, stormwater, or solid waste needs.

Applicants must demonstrate economic benefit, environmental protection, and readiness to proceed.

Funding Priorities

Projects that protect public health and safety.

Projects that promote economic development or job retention.

Projects demonstrating compliance with state environmental and health standards.

Legal and Policy Context

The Public Works Board operates under statutes set forth in RCW 43.155 (Revised Code of Washington), which authorizes the board and its funding mechanisms.

Case Law Relevant to WAC Title 399 and Public Works Board

There is no vast body of case law directly interpreting WAC Title 399 specifically, but several cases touch on administrative law principles, funding disputes, and procedural due process relevant to similar public works and grant programs in Washington State.

Here are some key legal principles illustrated by relevant Washington cases:

1. Administrative Discretion and Judicial Review

In Puget Sound Action Team v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 143 Wn.2d 703 (2001), the Washington Supreme Court discussed the limits of judicial review over administrative decisions. This is important because Public Works Board decisions—like grant approvals or denials—are generally given deference unless they are arbitrary or capricious.

Key takeaway:
The Public Works Board has broad discretion in awarding funds, but its decisions must be based on criteria set forth in WAC Title 399 and must not be arbitrary or unlawful.

2. Procedural Due Process

In McAllister v. Spokane County, 106 Wn.2d 245 (1986), the court held that when a government agency makes decisions affecting significant interests (like public funding), the agency must follow fair procedures, including notice and opportunity to be heard.

Application:
Applicants to the Public Works Board are entitled to a fair application process and reasonable notice if their applications are denied.

3. Contract and Funding Disputes

Cases such as Seattle Housing Authority v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 238 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2000) (though federal) illustrate principles relevant to public funding disputes, emphasizing strict compliance with funding terms and conditions.

Summary

WAC Title 399 sets forth detailed rules governing the Public Works Board’s administration of public works funding in Washington.

It covers eligibility, application, funding priorities, and oversight.

Courts recognize the Board’s discretion but require it to follow its own rules and fair procedures.

While case law specifically on WAC Title 399 is limited, principles from administrative law and procedural due process are applicable.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments