HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 07/18/2000 CITY OF �L��
Y
INVICTA Jim White, Mayor
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
AGENDA
July 18, 2000
The Council Workshop will meet in Chambers East in Kent City Hall at 5:30 PM on Tuesday, July 18,
2000.
Council Members: President Leona Orr, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton, Tim Clark,
Connie Epperly, Judy Woods, Rico Yingling
Speaker Time
1. Transportation Issues—County/State Doug Levy 60 min.
The Council Workshop meets each month on the first Tuesday at 5:OOPM and the third Tuesday at 5:30 PM
in Chambers East unless otherwise noted. For agenda information please call Jackie Bicknell at (253) 856-
5712.
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (253) 856-5725 IN ADVANCE. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL
THE WASHINGTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388.
220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200
KENT CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT ISSUES
TUESDAY, JULY 189 2000
REALITY #1: We can appreciate the Legislature 's effort to
restore transportation funds this year in the wake of Initiative
695 — but a significant gap remains.
$1 .5 billion in MVET funding eliminated in 1999-01 and
2001-03 biennia;
o Legislature steps in, utilizes $35 million/year in ongoing
revenue from interest on the state's reserves (and sells
bonds off of that revenue stream), reallocates $33 million in
sales tax from rental cars, transfers another $22 million in
ongoing license fees from Washington State Patrol to
transportation. $800 million+ revenue package.
o And yet, the overall level of investment is $766 million
LESS than what was programmed post-Referendum 49 and
f.� pre-Initiative 695
REALITY #2: The City 's transportation needs are
immense —particularly on state facilities running through
Kent, and on our major arterials.
o Six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for state
routes in Kent, arterial projects, grade separations, transit
center, signal improvements, etc: $171 .5 million — or $28.5
million per year!
o There is simply no revenue source available to address that
magnitude of needs, so projects will take longer, end up
costing more — or perhaps not get done at all.
REALITY 43. Kents y' early share of revenues from the Gas
Tax, one of the principal ways in which the state distributes
dollars down to the local level for projects and for maintenance,
is flat and in some cases has declined.
d er-capita basis, it has declined — city was
Measure on a p
receiving $23,67 per person in 1997, that's down to $21 .95
in 1999.
Overall g
as tax dollars — basically flat: $974,022 in 1997,
$1 .093 million two years later
Dol
lars which can be devoted to arterials — basically flat:
$493,793 in 1997, $511,054 two years later
Why is this ?
More cities — more distributions that earn a share of gas tax �-
money;
Gas tax rate has not been increased since 1990;
Better fuel efficiency — less gallons of gas purchased. In
1968, vehicles were traveling an average of 12 miles per
gallon of gas. By 1998, that average had increased to 18
MPG.
Cost of inflation not taken into account with gas tax, e.g., it
is not "indexed." Even Initiative 601 has growth and
inflation factors built into it.
REALITY #4: The Central Puget Sound
a "donor " area — meaninga Region has long been -
1,1,e pay more tax money "in "coffers than we get transportation improvements
However, in the wake of I-695, the equity is "out. " to state
to the point where, accordingto disparity gets worse —
a recent study done for the
PSRC, we can only expect to receive SO cents back-for
tax dollar invested. every $1
o See Attached Slides
ti I. CURRENT REGIONAL ACTIVITIES METRO'S "TRIP 21"
o King County METRO lost 30 percent of its operating
revenues with I-695 elimination of Motor Vehicle Excise
Tax — did receive $36 million in one-time `bridge' funding
from 2000 Legislature.
o Using authority granted by 2000 Legislature to increase
sales tax for transit up to 3/10 of 1 percent, King County
METRO looks at initiative for November ballot ("TRIP
21 " — See Handout)
2/10 of 1 percent — combined with 25 cent fare increase and
$14+ million administrative reductions — promoted as
offset to $110 million in projected service cutbacks
1/10 of one cent is bonded to create a $700 million revenue
stream and steered primarily toward Sound Transit projects
— including nearly 50% toward extension of light rail to
Northgate
What's in the package for Kent: METRO promotes
*6 million to assist with Kent and Auburn
commuter rail parking garages (Sound Transit)
*'Maintain and expand' bus service — Pacific
Highway, new all-day route between Auburn-
Kent-Sea-Tac Airport
H. CURRENT STATE ACTIVITIES—
FREIGHT BOARD AND THE
COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
o Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB),
created by Legislature to lend direct oversight, momentum,
and money to better move rail/truck freight, has 33 existing
projects which need ongoing funds
o FMSIB also calling for new projects, looking to fund needs
in `emerging corridors' — such as 2281h Street
o FMSIB hopes for $120 million in 2001-03 biennium —
about 3/4 of that to fund ongoing needs, remainder to begin
funding new projects
Transportation Commission — prepared to recommend to
Legislature a series of strategic corridors it ought to
concentrate its investment on — including I-5 and SR-167
HOV, new capacity on full length of SR-167
II. CURRENT STATE ACTIVITIES—
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON
TRANSPORTATION
(WEB SITE = http://www.brct.wa.gov)
Created by 1998 Legislature in tandem with establishment
of transportation funding package that became
Referendum 49.
o Acknowledgement that Referendum 49 was a Band-Aid,
not a long-term solution, and a long-term vision was
needed for funding, investments, efficiencies, etc.
0 48-member body appointed by Governor — business,
state/local government, labor, environmental groups.
Includes bank executives (John Rindlaub), developers
(Skip Rowley) to airline executives (Alaska Air CEO John
Kelly.
o Unwieldy size of Commission led to formation of a
Steering Committee and three "workhorse" committees —
Revenue, Investment, Administration.
Convened in Fall 1998 — asked to report to Legislature by
Dec. 1, 2000.
COMMISSION ADOPTS 73 "FINDINGS"
After a little over a year of organization, fact-finding,
presentations, etc., the Commission adopted a series of 73
`findings' on the state of transportation in Washington, and
finalized them following public hearings in January 2000. Here
is a snapshot of some of them:
o Freight movement key to state's economy;
o Environmental issues strong impact on project delivery and
cost in future;
o Needs exceed funding — over $50 billion unfunded needs
next 20 years;
o Dedicated funding makes it difficult to optimize dollars —
modes get their "share"
Planning — too many different organizations — 468
governmental entities
o Strengthen linkage between transportation & land-use
o Other large areas have created regional governments to
coordinate transportation and land-use
Permitting requirements too complex and expensive —
needs thorough reform
o Some transportation project delivery should be via a
"design-build" framework
Gas tax revenues do not keep pace with inflation
Gas tax levels allocated to cities and counties don't reflect
actual roadway responsibilities, changing demographics;
per capita to cities appears to penalize them
o User fees supported in concept, but any specific proposal
meets with strong opposition
o Most states have tax-increment financing — Washington
doesn't due to constitutional restraints — one less tool
COMMISSION DEVELOPS 64 "OPTIONS"
The Commission then spent four months developing and
refining a series of"options" within their Committee structures.
These include:
o Administration Committee — Ways to take fresh look at
governance, project delivery, permitting — everything from
early `banking' of right-of-way to suggestions of `managed
competition' and private-sector delivery of some projects to
coordinating mitigation across several jurisdictions to
authorizing greater use of `design-build/General
Contractor-Construction Manager (GCCM)
o Investment Committee — Recommends minimum
maintenance commitments and standards, model
ordinances on utility cuts, more focus on a "corridor
approach" to funding, more aggressive use of
Transportation Demand Management (commute trip
reduction, carpools, telecommute, 4-day work week), and
complete ban on studded tires
o Revenue Committee — Suggested equity formulas for new
funding, growing and larger cities receive larger share of
gas tax, state fund baseline allocation for maintenance and
preservation out of gas tax and allow congestion-relief to
be funded from more flexible monies; allow "single-
source" funding of projects so not always held hostage to
`local match' and `leveraging' requirements.
o Revenue Committee, Continued: The Revenue Committee
also recommended a series of new revenue options,
including:
--Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax —
10,000 miles in region = $100/year;
--Increase state sales tax and dedicate the
increase to transportation;
--Dedicate share of general fund surplus to
transportation;
--Sales-tax-based tax increment financing;
--Commuter Parking tax;
--Increase allowable local-option vehicle license
fee (Used in 4 counties, including King) from $15
to $45
--Tolls
o "Regional Approach"/Regional Entity — All three of the
Committees recommended that the state look at more
regional approaches to funding transportation needs. The
Administration Committee specifically recommends the
Legislature authorize creation of new regional entities
which could, upon voter approval, have new sources of tax
money to use within their regions.
CLOSER LOOK AT REGIONAL ENTITY CONCEPT
• Significance of Droposal: Fundamental change from
current transportation funding hierarchy in Washington
which has the state — with the exception of Sound Transit —
as provider and decision-maker on transportation funding
needs.
Basic premises
• State does not have enough money to go around, particularly
in populated and congested Central Puget Sound. Post-
Initiative 695, the State has state and federal funding
expectations — under current revenue sources — of$50 to $55
billion over the next 20 years. This equates to $2.5 billion a
year — enough to cover maintenance, safety, and preservation
-� (the state 's No. I transportation priority) of all modes of the
current system, cover local M&O, and maintain current
functions.
• Other states/regions have authorized the creation of regional
entities to derive a percentage of funding which can then be
utilized within a region. California (where 75 percent of
funds for congestion relief goes to regions and 25 percent is
kept by the state), Georgia, and Vancouver, B.C., are
examples.
• In urban areas, A) not enough state funds to address the
problems; and B) some of the problems are at intersections
and chokepoints which are not necessarily on the state system.
PSRC $1 in/51 cents back a factor.
REGIONAL ENTITY CONTINUED...PROS/CONS?
• An `additive' concept and not an in-lieu-of concept. Cities
and counties continue to receive their current funding
streams and opt for the regional entities to target solution of
problems, corridors, etc., that current funding streams
simply are not addressing and cannot address under current
funding constraints.
To summarize what a new three-tiered funding system
might look like:
Existing System/Current Sources (perhaps all regions
receive a guarantee of 90 cents back on each tax dollar
-- 91% is a benchmark in federal TEA-21 legislation)
o New dollars that still need to go to the state system
o New dollars which are locally raised/locally used
POSSIBLE PROS AND CONS
*CON - Relies on public voting at time when voters have been
reluctant to approve tax increases, dedicated or not;
*CON -- Governance not defined —Jurisdictions such as Kent
would need to feel comfortable that we have voice at the table;
*CON -- Could lead Legislature to believe it has `solved the
problem' — lets state off hook on transportation funding;
*PRO — Ill-defined, so opportunity to come in and mold and
ensures flexibility;
*PRO — It is correct that there will never be enough money in
Puget Sound. Think of I-5, 405, SR-167, numerous freight
corridors, interchanges which must be overhauled — and it
becomes painfully obvious;
*PRO — Doesn't attempt to undermine current funding system
and take anything 'away'.
OK — SO WHAT'S NEXT???
o Commission on verge of culling all committee options and
merging into one list of core options
Traveling "road shows" — go out to public between now
and October
o Availability to meet separately with large groups — large
cities have had one meeting with BR Commission
leadership
o Will be taking public and written testimony as go out on
road
SUGGESTED PRINCIPLES FOR CITY
For Discussion
Significant new investment needed;
o Needs to be comprehensive and multi-modal;
o Freight mobility absolutely vital;
o Investment staged and well-thought-out — limited chances
with voters;
o More attention to urban population and employment
centers — makes little sense to have GMA on one hand, and
not have `money follow growth' on other
o Regionalism — Is "a" tool, but shouldn't be "THE" tool
o Equity must be addressed
SUGGESTED ACTION STEPS FOR CITY
For Discussion
1. METRO'S TRIP 21
o Package does very little for roads, may not meet
`comprehensive and multi-modal' test;
• Significant dollars steered to Sound Transit
o Business community has raised concerns with a sales
tax at 9.2 cents on dollar in King County vs. 8.6 or 8.9
in Pierce and Snohomish (Pierce is 8.6; Snohomish is
8.9 in most of county, 8. 6 in Everett) . . . `durable
goods purchases' impacted?
o Now in hands of King County Council — does City
want to take a position?
o COMMENTS B Y MA YOR WHITE
II. BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
o Get on the record — if we don't say anything, we can't
affect anything;
Help initiate meeting of large city elected officials with key
members of Commission
o Help initiate meeting of South County elected officials with
Commission
o Express concerns with "regional entity" proposal — ensure
it is not seen as a solution unto itself but rather, one
possible tool that should not forestall or overshadow others,
and does not remove state obligations
o Push regional `equity' — Council resolution and coalition
within Puget Sound
o Hard push for significant state funding commitment — and
revision of formulas so that dollars better follow growth
and infrastructure needs