HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-29-2018 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONCity Council Study S ession
J anuary 29, 2018 - 5:30 P M
City Hall Council Chambers
AGE ND A
Watch the meeting v ideo
Meeting videos are not available until 72
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I .C A L L TO O R D E R
A.R oll Call
I I .A NNO UNC E ME NT S , R E P O RT S , A ND P R E S E NTAT I O NS
A.A uburn C ommunity and P revention C oalition (30 Minutes)
I I I .A G E ND A I T E MS F O R C O UNC I L D I S C US S I O N
A.R egional Transportation S ystem I nitiative (RT S I ) B riefing (20 Minutes) (S nyder)
I V.O T HE R D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
V.NE W B US I NE S S
V I .MAT R I X
V I I .A D J O UR NME NT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail . Complete agenda packets are available for revi ew
at the City Clerk's Office.
Page 1 of 39
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Regional Transportation System Initiative (RTSI) Brief ing (20
Minutes) (Snyder)
Date:
January 23, 2018
Department:
Community Development &
Public Works
Attachments:
Exhibit A
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
City Council to discuss and provide input on Regional Transportation System Initiative (RTSI )
Background Summary:
Mayor Backus is scheduled to attend a meeting of the Regional Transportation System
I nitiative (RTSI) on Friday, February 2, 2018 and will represent the City of Auburn at this
meeting. Mayor Backus has asked staff in advance of this meeting to brief City Council to
obtain its input to assist in representing the City’s interest at the February 2nd meeting.
Please note that the February 2nd meeting date was recently confirmed af ter consideration of
several other dates.
According to the project website, “The Regional Transportation System I nitiative" (RTSI) is
jointly convened by King County and the Sound Cities Association to define the regional
transportation network and its unmet needs, and to identify ways to improve network
perf ormance on the roads, streets and routes that connect communities.” The RTSI project
began in March 2017. Two advisory bodies were created for the project: a) a Technical
Committee composed of individuals f rom the incorporated cities of King County, Sound
Cities Association, Puget Sound Regional Council, W ashington State Department of
Transportation, regional transit agencies and King County; and b) an Elected Officials
Committee composed of elected officials f rom King County and cities within King County.
The Technical Committee has met 7 times with the most recent meeting occurring on
November 3, 2017. Ingrid Gaub and Kevin Snyder have participated in the Technical
Committee meetings. The Elected Officials Committee met once in 2017 on June 3, 2017.
To assist Council in providing input, City staff will provide an overview of the RTSI project at
the Council’s January 29th study session. Brian Parry, Senior Policy Analyst, Sound Cities
Association (the Sound Cities Association staff representative f or the RTSI project) will
attend the meeting to assist Council and staff in the discussion.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Snyder
Page 2 of 39
Meeting Date:January 29, 2018 Item Numb er:
Page 3 of 39
DRAFTv 1-17-18
Regional Transportation System Initiative
Elected Officials Committee Meeting
Friday, February 2, 2018; 10:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m.
Mercer Island Community and Event Center -Mercer Room
Meeting purpose: Review RTSI work; share RTSI network needs/costs estimates, revenue gap and
revenue options; and discuss ideas, solutions, and potential next steps with elected officials.
AGENDA -DRAFT 1/17 /18
10:00 a.m. (10 min) Introductions and Agenda Review (Facilitator)
10:10 a.m. (10 min) Presentation on RTSI Work (Facilitator)
10:20 a.m. (20 min) -Presentation on RTSI Network Needs/Costs Estimates, Revenue Gap and
Revenue Options (PSRC-Ben Bakkenta)
10:40 a.m. (45 min) -Lightning Round with Ideas and Interests from Each Jurisdiction (Facilitator)
•Each jurisdiction has 1 minute to address the following questions:
o What other steps do you believe are necessary at this point?
o What thoughts and ideas do you have about potential revenue sources?
11:25 a.m. {30 min) -Group Discussion on Potential Solutions (Facilitator)
11:55 a.m. (5 min) -Next Steps
12:00 p.m. Adjourn meeting
1
Exhibit A
Page 4 of 39
DRAFT 1-17-18 SCA w Regional Transportation System Initiative 2017-2018
Solving Regional Transportation Issues SOUND CITIES ASSOCIATION King County .38 Cities. A Million People. One Voice.
Background
The regional network of major and minor arterials and other co1mecting roads in King County is at a critical
juncture with aging infrastructure, declining revenues and an expanding economy. This network supports millions
of trips each day from people traveling to work, school, and recreational activities. Regional roads are relied on by
businesses and fanners to deliver goods and services, first responders to deliver life-saving aid, and utilities to
deliver critical infrastructure. Regional roads are essential for communities to function. However, with historic
levels of growth-more than 83,000 people moved to this region last year -congestion on our regional roads is
increasingly a serious problem.
Cost is a major challenge in addressing needs of the regional road network. hnportantly, the system for funding
regional roads has not been visited in nearly 30 years, and it no longer works. Washington State laws and
regulations control county and city revenue approaches for funding transportation needs, and local agencies do not
currently have the authmity to raise sufficient resources to support the regional road network. New idea;; are needed
for sustainably maintaining and preserving the critical regional network of bridges and roads.
What is the Regional Transportation System Initiative (RTSJ)?
RTSI was convened in 2017 for jurisdictions to share challenges and pminering opportunities to solve problems on
the regional road network. King County, Sound Cities Association, and Puget Som1d Regional Council invited all
agencies with roads in the county to discuss declining funding and the long-term regional road network needs.
A Teclmical Committee of public works directors, engineers, transpmiation planners and city managers met
throughout 201 7 to identify key roads that connect communities, quantify the revenue shortfall for maintaining
these roads and to accommodate increased traffic, and identify potential revenue sources. Figure 1 shows roads
identified by the RTSI Technical Conunittee as part of the RTSI regional road network.
Figure 1: RTSI Regional Road Network*
RTSIRoad
Classifications Legend
Federal Principal Arterial
Federal Minor Arterial
Tl & T2 Freight Routes
National Highway System
Frequent Transit Route
King County Arterial
*A larger RTSI regional road netvvork map
can be downloaded from the "Meeting
Resources" page of the RTSI website:
www.regionaltransportationsystem.org
The RTSI Technical C01m11ittee's effo1is suppo1ied decisions of an RTSI policy committee composed of elected
officials from all RTSI jurisdictions. Elected representatives from all 39 cities in King County, WSDOT and the
County are considering Technical Cmmnittee findings and detennining next steps.
1
Page 5 of 39
Regional Transportation System Initiative 2017-2018 -Solving Regional Transportation Issues (DRAFT 1-17-18)
What did local experts find through the RTSI?
•An estimated $1 7 billion in maintenance, preservation, and capacity needs,
through 2040, for city and cmmty-maintained roads.;
•Approximately 57% of city and county regional road needs are projected to
be met by cmTent law revenues.
•An estimated $7-8 billion in unmet revenue needs for city and county
maintained roads, based on current revenue sources.
Figure 2: RTSI Network Estimated Need and Unmet Need Based on Current Law Revenue through 2040
$18 Total Need: $17 Billion r------------
$16
$14 Unmet Need:
$7.5 Billion
$12
Ill $10 .E
C0 $8
$6
$4
$2
$0
RTSI Network Need Current Law Revenue
How could the RTSI road network be funded?
Implementation of various taxes and fees could be used to fund the umnet need. These options were originally
identified in the draft Regional Transpo1iation Plan's financial strategy and presented to the RTSI Technical
Committee in November 2017. Some may require changes or approval by the State Legislature. •Increasing the local option fuel tax •Raising transpmiation impact fees•Indexing the fuel tax to inflation •Lifting the county road levy•Implementing a carbon tax on motor fuels •Increasing the street maintenance•Increasing the sales tax on motor fuels utility/transportation utility fee•Raising parking fees/taxes •Putting a road usage charge in place•Increasing vehicle license fees
Next steps for the RTSI in 2018?
The RTSI Elected Officials Committee will meet again in early 2018 to chaii a path for sharing this info1111ation
with the State Legislature, and others. and for continuing: discussions about potential funding solutions.
Questions about RTSI?
Please contact Susan West at susan.west@kingcounty.gov or 206-477-8361. Additional info1111ation and all past
meeting resources are found on the RTSI website: ww w .regionaltranspo1iationsystem.org.
; Capacity needs were calculated from the Regional Transportation Plan Regional Capacity Project List and from the PSRC Local
Projects Database {based on local comprehensive plans). Maintenance and preservation costs were for pavement, structures,
ITS, storm water, street lighting, roadside development, and other miscellaneous categories.
2
Page 6 of 39
•Tax Rate Per
Gallon•Could be
Excise Fuel Tax Indexed to:
0 Cost of
Inflation
0 Fleet Fuel
Efficiency
•License/title fees
Motor Vehicle Title 1 • Weight and
and Registration Fees commercial fees
•Rental Car Fees
•Tax on
Motor Vehicle Excise depreciated
Tax value of the
vehicle
•Tax on sales of
retail goods
Sales Tax I • Primarily local
sales tax for
transportation
•Single corridors
•Convert HOV
I systemTolled Express Lanes S t .d •ys em-wI e
approach?
Transportation 2040 Finance Working Group
PSRC-2/28/17
Transportation Funding Glossary
Currently Usecl. Puget Sound Region
$0.01 state fuel
tax generates
$17 million per
year in Puget
Sound region. (1)
$1 increase in
vehicle license
fee generates
$2.5 million per
year statewide. ill
0.1 % generates
$25 million per
year in Sound
Transit region. (2)
1 % generates
about $760
million in Puget
Sound region. (3)
New revenue
would be project
specific.
The state fuel tax is set at a fixed rate per gallon of fuel (gasoline and diesel) and collected at
the wholesale level (termed the "rack"). Consumers pay as part of the price shown at the
pump. The current state fuel tax is 49.4 cents per gallon and generates about $1.6 billion a
year (about $32 million per penny) with funds limited to use on highways by Washington
State Constitution. Part of the state fuel tax is allocated to cities and counties (about 11 cents
of the state fuel tax) and is limited to use on highways. The Federal fuel tax is 18.4 cents for
gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel and helps support Federal funding allocations to WSDOT
(about $1 billion per year) and public transit entities in the Puget Sound region (about $264
million in 2013).
The state motor vehicle fees primarily include title fees paid when a vehicle is transferred
from one owner to another, vehicle registration fees paid annually and fees paid at the time of
vehicle rental. The fees vary by vehicle type such as autos or large trucks. These state fees
generate about $622 million per year.
Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes (MVET) are a percentage applied to the depreciated value of the
vehicle. This same concept could be applied to a select part of the vehicle such as the engine
type or size to foster key goals such as the use of more fuel efficient vehicles.
There is a state sales tax and local/regional sales tax on retail goods and services as defined
in state law with only a very small portion of the statewide sales tax (0.3% on the sale of
motor vehicles or about $42 million per year) dedicated to transportation. Various Local and
regional sales tax have been dedicated primarily for public transit projects such as Metro and
Sound Transit that collectively generated about $1.3 billion in the Puget Sound region in
2013.
Toiled express lanes are special use lanes on expressways that allow free use for buses,
vanpools, and high occupancy vehicles and all others pay a toll based on the level of
congestion in the corridor. The tolled express lanes operate adjacent to non-tolled "general
lanes". Those in operation on SR-167 are estimated to generate about $7 million per year in
toll revenues. Express lanes are primarily designed to "provide choices and support a
Page 7 of 39
Tolled New
Capacity/Bridges
General Property
Taxes
Project Specific
Property Fees
•Pre-construction
tolls
•Congestion
based pricing
•Tolling for
rehabilitation and
replacement
•Rates set by
local
governments•Must choose to
use part on
transportation
among many
program choices
• Limited use in
region•With law
changes could
I • expand use
Not a major
funding source•Can be effective
on urban
projects
Transportation 2040 Finance Working Group
PSRC -2/28/17
Transportation Funding Glossary
Assumed to fully
or partially fund
project being
tolled.
I TBD
New revenue
would be project
specific.
minimum level/ vehicle speed for the toll rate paid" as an alternative to congested corridors
�nd not necessarily to generate excess revenues above the cost of the express lanes.
The State of Washington has used tolls to help finance the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and SR-
520 Bridge System. Tolls on these bridges generate about $125 million a year. Other growth
states have created toll systems such as Florida and Texas where tolls form a major source
of transportation revenue. Tolls may be charged at fixed rates such as per mile or per bridge
crossing or these can vary during the day based on the peak periods. Currently toll facilities
must be authorized by the General Assembly, toll rates set by the Washington State
Transportation Commission, and the facility implemented and operated by WSDOT.
Property taxes are a tax on real property owned as homes and businesses. The tax is set as
a percentage (or "millage") of the property value to be paid annually to the collecting agency.
The millage is set by local governments such as counties, cities, schools and other groups
authorized to assess property tax. The collecting agency distributes the tax collections to the
assessing local government for uses authorized in law for that local government. Any uses for
transportation generally occur through the annual budget process for the respective local
government, normally being the county or city.
While not widely used for transportation projects in the Puget Sound region, local
governments in the U.S. enact a number of different fees on property that benefits from a key
'infrastructure project, which may include roads, public transit, water/sewer systems, schools,
and related items. These fees may include a special assessments against the property,
impact fees when permits are authorized for development, and/or the dedicated of future tax
increments generated by the project and associated development. In large urban areas these
tools may be enacted and implemented by a community redevelopment authority created by
the local government through state authorization to. focus on key areas of the city for
development or redevelopment. These tools can be effective for specific projects such as
adding a new transit station, extension or redevelopment of roads, new or improved
interchanges or intersections, "livability" improvements such as sidewalks, bike lanes, trails,
landscaping, traffic calming, signal system improvements and related items. These fees are
not useful for major transportation program funding needs.
2
Page 8 of 39
Street Maintenance
Utility/Transportation
Utility Fee
Sales Tax on Motor I Fuels
•Calculated utility
fee based on
road network
usage.
•A percentage
rate applied to
price of motor
fuels
•Flat toll for peak
trip Expressway I • Variable price perCongestion Tolls segment and time
of day
•Pre-pay or post-
pay•Options range
from:•Based on
Road Usage Charges I odometer•Based on
GPS, on
public
roads only
Transportation 2040 Finance Working Group
PSRC-2/28/17
Transportation Funding Glossary
I TBD
At$3.00 per
gallon a 1 % sales
tax generates
about $102
million statewide.
32
$.01 per mile
generates an
estimated $140-
$160 million per
year in Puget
Sound region. (4)
$0.01 per mile
generates an
estimated $275-
$350 million per
year in Puget
Sound region. (4)
Street Maintenance Utility (SMU) legislation is based upon the legal theory that users of the
street system should pay according to the burden they place on the street system. Agencies
forming SMU's would be required to set utility rates equitably based on the number and
impacts of trips generated by various land use types. It is in the interest of all cities that
choose to establish a SMU that rates be based upon the actual financial needs to achieve a
community's desired level of service for the street system.
In recent years as the price of motor fuels have increased, a small group of states have
implemented a sales tax on motor fuels that operates in the same manner as a general sales
tax where the tax rate is a percentage of the price of motor fuels charged at the pump (retail
level). In most cases the sales tax on motor fuels replaced an existing state excise tax on
motor fuels.
In recent years there has been discussion of tolling the "Interstate" or "Expressway" system
as an alternative to traditional funding sources such as the fuel tax. Studies have been or are
_being conducted in states such as Connecticut, North Carolina, and Virginia to consider
tolling part or all of the Interstate or Expressway system in those states. To date no state has
instituted a major system of tolling the existing Interstate or Expressway system. Tolls could
be set as fixed rates or could vary based on the level of congestion.
Due to concerns the fuel tax is not sustainable a number of studies have been conducted on
a new concept termed "Pricing or Road Usage Charges" for use of the transportation system.
Concepts include a "per mile charge" that could be assessed and collected using a range of
methods from very low-tech methods such as periodic reading of motor vehicle odometers to
high tech GPS-based systems with pricing set to exact roadway and time of use. The
discussion for this source normally includes a roll-back of the fuel tax and possibly other
revenue sources so there is not the concern of "double taxation" for user fees. Oregon has
the most developed research on Road Usage Charges including multiple pilot programs. The
Washington State Transportation Commission has been studying Road Use Charges since
2012, at the direction of the state legislature. At this time the policy and approach to Road
Usage Charges in Washingto_n is in the study and pilot project development stage.
3
Page 9 of 39
Applies to many
carbon emitters
and industries
Use on
transportation
competes for
available funds
among many
policy and
p(ogram choices
Applies to
carbon emission
from motor fuels
Flat rate per
employee per
month or year
Rates based on
hours of
employee work
Transportation 2040 Finance Working Group
PSRC-2/28/17
Transportation Funding Glossary
TBD
Similar rate to
state fuel tax of
$0.01 generates
about $17 million
per year in Puget
Sound region. (1)
A region-wide tax
rate of $1.00
(2021-2030) and
2.00 (2031-2040)
per employee per
month would
generate about
$460 million
between 2010-
2040. (1
Many other countries have implemented carbon "cap and trade systems" where major carbon
emitters such as utilities, major industrial plants, and motor fuel wholesalers must meet the
caps or purchase carbon credits from those that have credits available, many of which are
owned by the government. The government credits being sold might be termed a "carbon
tax". The government that collects the carbon tax for carbon credits must decide how to use
the collected funds. As an example, the State of California has implemented a carbon cap
and trade system in phases over several years. State elected leaders (Governor and
legislative members) have established policies for fund uses which support carbon reduction
goals. These include like high speed rail and local carbon reduction initiatives with limited
funds for transportation. California added motor fuels in 2015 to the phase-in plan so it is
unknown how much carbon tax revenue might be generated from the sale of state carbon
credits related to motor fuels. Prior to the implementation of motor fuels in the carbon cap and
trade system, California state carbon credits purchased totaled about $970 million between
November 2012 and November 2014.
The Province of British Columbia has implemented a "carbon tax" on motor fuels province
wide that is assessed as cents per liter and collected very similar to the fuel tax in the State of
Washington. The amounts enacted are higher in urban areas such as Vancouver and
Victoria. Funds are primarily allocated to highways and transit uses. The carbon tax rate on
motor fuels in British Columbia is equivalent to a tax rate in excess of 50 cents per gallon.
Employee taxes can be applied in a variety of ways, such as charging businesses defined
amounts per employee per year, or by setting rates based on hours of employee work.
Typical tax rates range from $15-$25 per employee per year. Employers often are taxed at
reduced rates for part-time workers
Page 10 of 39
Parking
Charges/Taxes
Notes for Revenue Estimates
•
•
Metered
curbside parking
charges
Flat or
percentage
taxes on
commercial
parking
providers
Transportation Funding Glossary
A region-wide
parking
surcharge of
between 2.5%
(2021-2030) and
5.0% (2031-
2040) on
commercial
parking spaces in
regional centers
would generate
about $1.45
billion between
2010-2040. (1)
Parking charges, taxes, and fees can take a variety of forms, and are used both to raise
revenue and to achieve policy objectives, such as managing parking supply and reducing
congestion in specific areas. Commercial parking taxes are a special tax on parking rental
transactions. Per-space parking levies are a special property tax applied to parking facilities.
Pricing of public-owned parking can be used as a way to manage parking demand, manage
vehicle traffic, and generate revenue.
Revenue potential can vary widely based on the types of parking charges or taxes used.
(1)Developed from the revenue estimates supporting the Puget Sound Regional Council 2040 Transportation Plan.
(2)Developed from actual revenues reported on the Sound Transit internet portal.
(3)Estimates developed by Clary Consulting in 2015 from available data sources including State of Washington Department of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional
Council, King County, Sound Transit, State of Washington Department of Revenue and other relevant sources.
(4)Estimates developed by COM Smith in 2015 from data sources including State of Washington Department of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Council, and other
relevant sources.
Transportation 2040 Finance Working Group
PSRC-2/28/17
5
Page 11 of 39
Page 12 of 39
Agenda
•10:00 arn: Welcome and Introductions
•10:10 am: RTSI Schedule
Regional Transportation
System Initiative
•10:15 arn: RTSI Final Needs and Cost Estimates Presentation
•10:40 am: Revenue Recommendations
•11:30 am: Information for Elected Officials
•11:55 am: Next Steps
•12:00 pm: Adjourn
Page 13 of 39
Meeting Summary
Page 14 of 39
Page 15 of 39
RTSI Needs and Cost Estimates
- - -----�
Page 16 of 39
Maintenance & Preservation
Expenditure Estimates
•Pavement•Structures•Other: ITS, stormwater, street lighting , roadside development ,
nonmotorized and other miscellaneous maintenance and preser vation
categor ies
Projected Costs
Pavement
Structures
Other
TOTAL
*In 2018 Constant Dollars
$3.0 Billion
$1.3 Billion
$4.8 Billion
$9.1 Billion
Page 17 of 39
RTSI Capacity Costs through 2040
Two sources
•Transportation 2040 Regional Capacity Project List
•Local Projects Database (Based on Local Comp Plans)
Projected Costs
T2040 Project List
Local Projects Database
TOTAL
*In 2018 Constant Dollars
$4.2 Billion
$6.4 Billion
$10.6 Billion
Page 18 of 39
Regional Capacity Project List
Background
•Projects adding capacity to the regional system
•Thresholds set for each mode
•If above threshold, must be identified on the T2040 project list
Methodology
1)Used GIS to identify and flag projects that intersect with the RTSI Network
2)Summed total cost for flagged projects (Sound Transit and Limited Access
Highway projects excluded)
Regional Capacity Project List Cost: $4.2 Billion
Page 19 of 39
Local Projects Database
Background
•Reviewed and logged information for 82 Local Comprehensive Plans
•Summarized total Local System Expansion costs for input into the T2040
Financial Strategy
Methodology
1)Summed total cost of local projects in King County
2)Used GIS to determine% of classified network in King County that is on the
RTSI network (43%)
Local Projects Database Cost: $6.4 Billion
Page 20 of 39
Projected Cost Summary
Capacity Costs
T2040 Project List
Local Projects Database
Sub-Total
M&PCosts
Pavement
Structures
Other
Sub-Total
$4.2 Billion
$6.4 Billion
$10.6 Billion
$3.0 Billion
$1.3 Billion
$4.8 Billion
$9.1 Billion
GRAND TOTAL $19. 7 Billion
*In 2018 Constant Dollars
Page 21 of 39
Page 22 of 39
Discussion
•Do jurisdictions have specific ideas and/or approaches
that you would like to be considered and discussed?•Are there other potential new revenue sources that
should be considered?•Are there any revenue sources you think are not
feasible?
Page 23 of 39
City County New Revenue Assumed
Sources Rate
Index Existing Fuel Tax Indexed to
Inflation
$20/Ton
Carbon Tax on Fuel Indexed to
Inflation
Paid-Parking Surcharge 5%
Vehicle License Fees $40
(Transportation Be nefit Districts)··· Indexed to
Inflation
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax 2%j
$2900/unit &
T ransport.ation Imp act Fees $2.50/sqft
Indexed
County Road Levy Lift Lift Lid (3%)
$2
Street Utility Tax Indexed to
Inflation
User Fees
TOTAL ..
• May nor sum due ro rounding
• • In fTN/fions .of yedr 2018 dollars
.... Assume fong-ierm roll b;;ck of new increm�m
Total
Revenue
Potential��
2,100
$ 5,200
2,500
$ 300
1,700
2,500
1,200
900
11,000
27,300
Street Utility Tax, 3%
County Road Levy Lift, 4%
Regional Level
Estimates
Transportation Impact Fees,
9%
Vehicle License Fees
(Transportation Benefit
Districts), 1%
_ Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, 6%
Page 24 of 39
Carbon Tax on Fuel
Strengths
•Tied to policy objectives (e.g.
greenhouse gas reduction,
nexus with-system use, etc.)
Weaknesses
•Requires Legislative action &
direction to program towards
local needs
•High costs to administer/collect
7 new revenue source
•Potential revenue might be
impacted by changes in vehicle
fleet ( ex. electrification of fleet)
Page 25 of 39
Paid Parking Surcharge
Strengths
•Can be tied to policy objectives
(e.g. greenhouse gas reduction,
nexus with system use, system
management, etc.)
•Low cost to administer/collect
Weaknesses
•Only available where
market-based pricing is
implemented
•Resistance to priced parking
•(Long-term) Uncertainty
due to impacts of emerging
technologies (ex.
autonomous vehicles) on
parking and associated
revenue
Page 26 of 39
Transportation Benefit Districts (TBD)
Strengths
•Cities and counties have existing
authorization to form TBDs and
fund transportation
improvements usually through
councilmanic vehicle license fees
and/or voter approved sales tax
•Flexible revenue source 7 allows
cities/counties to work
independently or cooperatively
Weaknesses
•Can be difficult to
implement and limited
revenue potential
Page 27 of 39
County Road Levy Lift
Strengths
•Allows revenues to grow more
consistently with costs
•Low-cost of collection
•Frees resources to be allocated
to other jurisdiction needs
Weaknesses
•Requires Legislative action to
I ift levy I id
•Potential voter opposition
and property tax fatigue
Page 28 of 39
Street Utility Charge
Strengths
•Revenue indirectly tied to
system use
•Revenues typically used to
address street maintenance
and operations
•Can be tied to policy
objectives (e.g. sys tem
management, greenhouse gas
reductions, equity, etc.)
Weaknesses
•Legal issues related to
constitutiona I ity
•Not a true "utility" since based on
estimates of trips 7 question of
"fairness"
•High costs to collect/administer 7
might be easier to pursue user fees
such as road usage charges
Page 29 of 39
New Revenue Assumptions: City Streets & County Roads
City & County New Revenue Assumed
Sources Rate
TOTAL·
-" .. Assume long-rerm rof! back of new ,ncrem._"¥ft
Total
Revenue
Potential ..
$
$
$
27,300
Street Utility Tax, 3% ...
County Road Levy Lift, 4% _
Regional Level
Estimates
Transportation Impact Fees,
9%
Vehicle License Fees
(Transpo1tation Benefit
Districts), 1%
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, 6%
Page 30 of 39
Elected Officials Meeting
•Friday, December 1 from 10 a.m. -Noon
•Mercer Island Community and Event Center
•Likely agenda topics:
o Revenue and funding options to address needs and costs for the RTSI network
o Elected officials discussion and decisions on next steps
o Any additional work requests for the Technical Committee
Page 31 of 39
Page 32 of 39
Regional Transportation System Initiative
Technical Committee Meeting #7 Summary -DRAFT v 11/7 /17
November 3, 2017, 10:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m.
Puget Sound Regional Council -1011 Western Ave #500, Seattle
Welcome and Introductions
Bob Wheeler (facilitator-Triangle Associates) called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and Regional
Transportation System Initiative (RTSI) meeting participants did a round of introductions. The facilitator
reviewed the meeting agenda and then participants accepted the September 8 Technical Committee
meeting summary.
RTSI Timeline
The facilitator reviewed the RTSI timeline moving forward. Elected officials from jurisdictions in King County
would meet on December 1, 2017 to make decisions on next steps for addressing the needs and costs of
the RTSI network. Elected officials' recommendations would start being implemented in January 2018 and
the RTSI Technical Committee may be reconvened later in 2018.
RTSI Needs and Cost Estimates Presentation
Gary Simonson (PSRC) reviewed PSRC's estimate of needs and costs for the RTSI network. The estimates
showed the dollar amount of maintenance, preservation and capacity improvements needed for the RTSI
network, through 2040, in 2018 dollars. Estimated capacity costs are $10.6 billion, estimated maintenance
and preservation costs are $9.1 billion, and total estimated costs for the RTSI network, through 2040, are
$19.7 billion. Capacity cost estimates come from the Transportation 2040 (T-2040) Regional Capacity
Project List and the Local Projects Database (based on local comprehensive plans). Maintenance and
preservation costs include pavement, structures, and other features such as stormwater infrastructure and
street lighting. Additional details about PSRC's cost estimate methodology are found in the slides presented
at the meeting -found on the 'resources' page of the RTSI website at
https://www.regionaltransportationsystem.org/.
Following PSRC's presentation, the Technical Committee developed and accepted the following motion:
The RTSI Technical Committee accepts the needs and costs estimate for the RTSI network presented at the
11/3/17 RTSI Technical Committee meeting. This data is accepted with the understanding that it is a rolled
up cost, for a rough order of magnitude, and not broken down by jurisdiction or by project. It is an estimate
of around $20 billion. This data is intended for the RTSI elected officials meeting on December 1, 2017.
Questions and Comments about RTSI Network Needs and Cost Estimates:
•How much of the RTSI network capacity, maintenance and preservation costs are covered by current
law revenue?
o Region-wide for all PSRC counties, 70 percent of the need is covered by current law revenue
and approximately this same percentage is assumed for King County.
•Do PSRC's current law revenue assumptions include revenue sources that have not been implemented?
o PSRC's current law revenue assumptions exclude some revenue sources, such as certain impact
fees, that are not yet implemented.
•. Could PSRC show the total potential revenue from all currently authorized revenue sources?
o PSRC will work to provide this data on potential revenue from all authorized sources.
•Where is the detailed data supporting PSRC's cost estimates presented at this meeting?
o PSRC will make supporting data available on its website.
•What is the revenue gap profile of individual jurisdictions within King County? Is this data available?
-1-IP agePage 33 of 39
o PSRC will check to see if jurisdiction-level revenue gap data is available, but this data is difficult
to calculate for individual jurisdictions.
•How will the needs and cost estimates data be conveyed to elected officials and how will it be used?
o The needs and cost estimates data will be presented to elected officials as the estimated costs
associated with the RTSI network map elected officials accepted in June 2017. At this time, the
needs and cost estimates accepted at this meeting will be presented to local elected officials
for the December 1 meeting, and local elected officials can determine how to present this data
to state legislators.
RTSI Revenue Options Presentation
Ben Bakkenta (PSRC) presented the regional-level (PSRC counties) individual and relative revenue
generating potential of several possible revenue sources that might be explored through the RTSI. Ben also
presented the strengths and weaknesses of a few specific revenue sources, including:
•Carbon Tax on Fuel
•Paid Parking Surcharge
•Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs)
•County Levy Lift
•Street Utility Charges
PSRC's revenue estimates came from the T-2040 Finance Working Group. Specific details about each
revenue source presented by PSRC are found on the 'Resources Page' of the RTSI website at:
https://www.regionaltransportationsystem.org/.
Questions and Comments about RTS/ Revenue Options:
•Do some revenue options restrict certain types of projects from receiving tax revenue?
o The T-2040 Finance Working Group did not specify restrictions on specific projects, but some of
the revenue options reviewed by the Working Group were assumed for just local projects.
•At a recent City of Kirkland Public Works Parks and Human Services Committee meeting, several
members felt the funding sources discussed through RTSI should be part of a broader policy discussion
about taxes.
•Is it correct that PSRC presented a county-level needs/cost estimate but a regional level estimate, for all
PSRC counties, of different revenue sources?
o This is correct.
•Is it correct that the revenue options presented by PSRC are not currently included within PSRC's
current law revenue estimates?
o This is correct.
•Do the TBD revenue-generating potential estimates from PSRC only include potential TBDs that have
not been implemented?
o This is correct.
•The local option fuel tax and regional TBD should be considered through the RTSI. If bonded over 20
years a regional TBD could generate a lot of money.
o A local option fuel tax or TBD could certainly be suggested to elected officials. Elected Officials
could also consider revenue options beyond what the T-2040 Finance Working Group studied.
•When will T-2040 Finance Working Group data be released?
o T-2040 Finance Working Group data will be released in Mid-December 2018 and adoption is
expected in May 2018.
•Is a street utility charge a county tax on local utilities?
o No, a street utility charge is where jurisdictions can estimate the number of trips generated by
different land uses and use those estimates to assess fees for different land uses.
-2-IPagePage 34 of 39
•What are user fees?
o User fees can include several types of fees on road users, such as tolls.
•Can PSRC share with the Technical Committee which jurisdictions are currently using different revenue
options, such as TBDs and impact fees, that were presented?
o Yes, that data has been presented in the past and can be re-shared.
•When there is a funding gap, jurisdictions can either find more revenue or cut costs. Have jurisdictions
looked at ways to cut costs as well? It seems like the RTSI is only taking a one-way approach focused on
increasing revenue. Also, tolls and the cost of culverts for fish protection are a concern.
o The 2015-2016 King County Bridges and Roads Task Force took a close look at several ways in
which the King County Road Services Division has cut costs to address its revenue gap.
•When considering new revenue, jurisdictions need to be flexible to changing technologies,
transportation modes, and regulations.
•Political considerations should be factored into the revenue options considered through the RTSI.
•Revenue estimates should be determined specifically for the RTSI network.
•On holidays, roadway capacity is not an issue. Perhaps elected officials should consider how to better
stagger workers' hours to address capacity issues.
Revenue Options Straw Polling Discussion and Decision:
As a result of PSRC's revenue options presentation, Technical Committee participants discussed whether to
conduct a straw poll at this meeting to better understand the preference among jurisdictions for different
revenue options. While a few jurisdictions were unsure or did want to conduct the straw poll, most
jurisdictions did not. Those against conducting the straw poll thought voicing a preference for new revenue
was a political decision better left for elected officials. The Technical Committee ultimately decided not to
conduct a revenue options straw poll at the November 3 meeting.
Planning on the December 1, 2017 Elected Officials Meeting
The facilitator reviewed proposed slides on what could be presented to elected officials at the December 1,
2017 elected officials meeting. The proposed slides addressed what the RTSI is and its purpose, what has
been accomplished to-date through the RTSI, an RTSI timeline going forward, a summary of RTSI network
cost estimates and revenue options from PSRC, and decisions needed from elected officials.
Through its discussion, the Technical Committee developed the following list of brainstormed topics and
desired outcomes from the December 1 elected officials meeting:
•Clarify the purpose of the RTSI.
•Clearly identify what the RTSI Technical Committee has done to-date.
•Share pros and cons of different revenue sources and identify where there has been political
opposition in the past to specific revenue sources.
•Educate elected officials with information about problems within the RTSI network.
•Review the RTSI time line and be clear that it is a longer-term effort.
•Ensure there is time for elected officials to have conversations.
o Explain what revenue tools jurisdictions are currently using and pros/cons associated with those
revenue tools.
•Ensure longer-term flexibility for revenue tools (accounting for new technology, regulations, other
transportation modes, etc.)
•Show a broader list of revenue options than what was presented to the Technical Committee on
11/3/17.
•Show apples-apples needs and costs estimates and revenue estimates.
-3-JPa gePage 35 of 39
Additional Questions and Comments about the December 1 Elected Officials Meeting:
•Will the December 1 elected officials meeting result in an ask of the state legislature?
o To-date the RTSI has focused on getting jurisdictions to talk about their common transportation
problems as a first step. It is not expected that local elected officials will be ready to come up
with an ask of the state legislature for the 2018 session.
o Jurisdictions should not go to the state legislature without a clearer definition around what
they are being asked to do.
•If local elected officials do not have buy-in from their respective city councils, then they may not be
freed up to share what they feel at the December 1 elected officials meeting. January might be a better
timeframe for the elected officials meeting.
•By January 2018 there may be significant turnover among elected officials.
•While it is difficult for PSRC to obtain current law revenue estimates for specific jurisdictions, through
extrapolation PSRC could come up with a current law revenue estimate specific to King County.
•In revenue information provided to elected officials, the words "strengths" and "weaknesses" should
be changed to "pros" and "cons".
ITS Resources
Jay Osborne (King County Road Services Division) reported out on a conversation he had with Azim Sheikh
Taheri from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) about Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS). WSDOT led a project called "Traffic Busters" a couple years ago that included new traffic
control software and a new traffic control center that better communicated with King County's Traffic
Control Center. While several individual cities have their own traffic control centers, they are not linked
together, and some jurisdictions do not have any traffic control center, so there is room for ITS to improve
regional traffic. WSDOT has offered to convene a meeting about ITS for interested jurisdictions.
Additionally, WSDOT has engineers available to provide expertise to King County and other jurisdictions, as
they currently are for the City of Issaquah regarding traffic reduction measures on Issaquah-Hobart Road.
As a follow up, Triangle will send the Technical Committee information from WSDOT about ITS resources
for local jurisdictions.
Questions and Comments about ITS:
•If jurisdictions are pursuing ITS grant funding, the next round of grant proposals is due in February
2018, so it may be too late to obtain ITS funding this go-around.
•ITS is a great concept and the sooner cities get ITS done the better.
Next Steps
1.Triangle will email the Technical Committee the following:
a.Briefing materials for the December 1 elected officials meeting, including a clearer framework
on what elected officials will be asked to discuss and decide at the meeting.
b.WSDOT information about ITS resources for local jurisdictions.
2.PSRC will address the following requests from the November 3 RTSI meeting:
a.Provide data on potential revenue from all authorized sources.
b.Provide, on the PSRC website, supporting data for all of PSRC's RTSI needs and costs estimates.
c.Check if jurisdiction-level data is available on the revenue gap for maintenance, preservation
and capacity improvements.
d.Re-share which jurisdictions are currently using different revenue options.
3.Hold the elected officials meeting at the Mercer Island Community Center on December 1, 2017 from
10 a.m. -noon.
-4-IP agePage 36 of 39
Attachment 1: November 3, 2017 RTSI Technical Committee Meeting Participants
Name Position .. .·· Affiliation
Will Appleton Public Works Director City of SeaTac
Genesee Adkins Chief of Staff City of Seattle, Department of Transportation
Boyd Benson {phone) City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Duvall
Kathy Brown Public Works Director City of Kirkland
April Delchamps Senior Transportation Planner City of Kent
Ingrid Gaub Assistant Public Works Director and City Engineer City of Auburn
Scott Hanis {phone) Capital Projects Manager 'City of Black Diamond
Bob Harrison City Administrator City of Issaquah
Tracy Krawczyk Policy and Planning Director City of Seattle, Department of Transportation
Steve Leniszewski Public Works Director City of Sammamish
Erin Leonhart Interim Deputy City Manager City of Bothell
Robert Lindskov City Engineer City of Covington
Jeff Lincoln Public Works Director City of Enumclaw
Andrew Merges Transportation and Engineering Services Manager City of Des Moines
Alex Morcos (phone) Mayor City of Medina
Jim Morgan Public Works Manager City of Pacific
Beth Mountsier Planner/Policy Analyst City of Redmond
Heather Mundon (phone) Councilmember City of Snoqualmie
Rick Perez City Traffic Engineer City of Federal Way
Jamie Reavis Senior Planner City of Tukwila
Brian Roberts Assistant Public Works Director City of Burien
Jim Seitz Transportation Director City of Renton
Kevin Snyder Community Development and Public Works Director City of Auburn
Nytasha Sowers Transportation Services Manager City of Shoreline
Jude Willcher Capital Programming City of Seattle, Department of Transportation
Meeting Staff
Name Position Affiliation .·
Chris Arkills Government Relations Officer King County Road Services Division
Ben Bakkenta Program Manager Puget Sound Regional Council
-5-IP agePage 37 of 39
Name Position Affiliation
Craig Heimann Senior Program Manager Puget Sound Regional Council
Evan Lewis Associate Triangle Associates
Jay Osborne Deputy Director King County Road Services Division
Susan Oxholm Intergovernmental Relations King County Road Services Division
Susan West Strategic Communications Specialist King County Road Services Division
Brian Parry Senior Policy Analyst Sound Cities Association
Gary Simonson Associate Planner Puget Sound Regional Council
Bob Wheeler Senior Facilitator Triangle Associates
Other Meeting Attendees
Name Position Affiliation .·.
Lise Kaye Analyst King County Council
Kathy Lambert Councilmember King County Council
Doug Levy Lobbyist Outcomes by Levy, LLC
Graydon Newman Transportation Planner King County Department of Transportation
-6-IPa gePage 38 of 39
Regional Transportation System Initiative
Elected Officials Meeting
June 13, 2017
King St. Center 8th Floor Conference Room -201 S Jackson St., Seattle
Purpose of the RTSI: To develop a cohesive regional approach to the transportation system
challenges within King County
Objectives of the meeting
•Review the work done to date by the technical committee
•Develop a better understanding of regional transportation needs and priorities in your
communities
•Provide feedback on proposed next steps for the technical committee and on
developing a regional strategy for the network challenges.
Agenda
•Welcome and purpose for the RTSI {Executive Constantine and Mayor Nancy Backus)
•Introduction
o One minute lightning round: What does the regional transportation system
mean to you and what are your city's biggest concerns when it comes to the
regional system?
•State of the regional system {PSRC}
o Growth, travel patterns and issues affecting mobility
o Transportation 2040 -how this fits in
o Review work of Technical Committee to identify a King County regional network
ACTION: Confirm network map
•Propose next steps {All}
o Discussion
o One minute lightning round: Feedback on proposed next steps and identify if we
are we missing anything you want to see as part of this process
Page 39 of 39