Loading...
LUTC PKT 09-25-2000September 25, 2000 5:30 pm · ... City cOUndl '.!.:.'.. .... Land Use/TransportatiOn Committee .. City Hall Council Chambers 2. 3. 4. NEE'rING AGENDA CALL TO ORDER Approval of Minutes of the September 11, 2000, Meeting PUBLIC COIVlHENT (3 minutes) BUSINESS ITEIVlS A. Blue Ribbon Report Action Perez/60 min o FUTURE HEET[NG AGENDA [TENS. 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan Update Windswept Preliminary Plat (October 2) SWM/CIP West Hylebos Channel Stabilization 6. AD.1OURI'~ Committee Members: Phil Watk/ns, Chair Jeanne Burbidge Dean McCo/gan City Staff: Stephen C//fton, D/rector, Comrnun/ty Deve/oprnent Services Sandy L y/e, Administrative Assistant 253.661.4116 I:\LU-TRANS\Sept 25, 2000 LUTC AGN.doc September 11, 2000 5:30 pm City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/TransPortation Committee City Council ,, Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins, Chair, Jeanne Burbidge and Dean McColgan; Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar; City Manager David Mosely; Deputy Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Principal Planner Greg Fewins; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Streets Project Engineer Al Empter; Senior Planners Lori Michaelson and Margaret Clark; Senior Engineering Plan Reviewer Jim Femling; Traffic Analyst Sarady Long; Assistant to the City Manager Derek Matheson; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Watkins called the meeting to order at 5:34 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the August 7, 2000, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment on any item not included in the agenda. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Selection Process - The Committee heard each site- specific request for a change in comprehensive plan zoning in the order listed in the staff report. Public comment for each request was heard following a detailed synopsis of the location and specific details of each request. The Committee agreed to recommend to Council to go forward with further analysis on Site Specific requests 1,2, 4, and 6. The Committee did not recommend Requests #3 and #5 be considered for further analysis by the Council. The public and proponents of each project will be able to comment further at a future public hearing. Consideration of Request #7 is being deferred until completion of both a market analysis and a transportation model. Gil Haltsman spoke in favor of Site Specific Request #1. Bessie Danilchick was a proponent of Site Specific Request #2. Wayne Carlson, Linda Peterson, Wilma Taylor, and Alan Woida favored Request #3. Susie Horan spoke in favor of Request #4 while Kaitlin Taylor supported Request # 5. Comments by Len Schaadt and Dick Borcini supported comprehensive plan zoning changes on Site Specific Request #6. Their concerns are that the expense of redevelopment along Pacific Highway is so expensive that businesses cannot afford it, and without necessary redevelopment, blight will occur. Tresden Place Preliminary Pla~t - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the City council at its September 19, 2000, meeting of the Tresden Place Preliminary Plat. The project is a 48-1ot single-family residential subdivision at South 298th Street and Military Road South. The project includes the vacation of the present South 298th Street and its relocation to eliminate it's offset intersection with Military Road, if approved by the Council. Transit Pullouts on SR99 and South 320t~'- The Committee directed staff to include bus turnout lanes in all future road projects. Based on staff analysis, transit pullouts are not cost-effective on Pacific Highway South, South 320tI' Street, or South 348~h Street corridors. Right-of-way acquisition costs are the biggest obstacle to cost-effectiveness. To reduce the cost of pullout construction, it is recommended that staff continue to implement the Comprehensive Plan policy TPI0, using redevelopment to acquire right-of-way to the fullest extent allowable. When potential sites redevelop and when capital projects are designed, locations should be subject to a site- specific analysis. SR99/South 312th Street to South 324th Street Improvement Project & 85% Design Status Report - The Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I (South 312th to South 324th Streets) Widening Improvement Project includes adding HOV lanes north and southbound, adding curb, gutter and sidewalk, adding lighting and landscaping to meet the Downtown standards, adding planted medians, restricting left-turn movements to intersections as much as possible, and consolidating driveways where possible. The purpose of the project is to improve aesthetics and traffic flow, to reduce accidents, and to promote transit and carpool use. Many properties are non-conforming for Type III landscaping, parking, and setback distance to the sidewalk and right-of-way. This project will increase the number of properties that will be non-conforming. The City is attempting to accommodate conformance as is practical. Electrical transmission lines will be relocated to behind the sidewalk south of the electrical substation. North of the substation, the transmission system poles would be relocated to the planter strip behind the curb line. The new line would reuse the existing conductors and would result in a shorter construction time with fewer construction impacts. Wood poles are standard except in certain circumstances where galvanized steel poles are required. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the City Council at its September 19, 2000, meeting with the understanding that if money is available from budget savings, galvanizedpoles are a first priority for consistency of appearance at an additional cost of $60,000. Sound Transit Update - Staff updated the Committee on recent progress by Sound Transit related to Federal Way projects. On September 15, 2000, Sound Transit is scheduled to review two proposals related to financing the Transit Center. One of those proposals was to group all Federal Way Transit projects into one package. By combining the projects, the total budgeted amount of $84,394,000 for all the projects is sufficient to cover the projected costs of $83,731,000. Another alternative was to transfer all cost savings directly to the Federal Way Transit Center. The Department of Public Works continues to coordinate with Sound Transit identification of appropriate street, traffic, and surface water mitigation, proposed street frontage improvements on rd th th 23 Avenue South, new traffic signals on South 317 and South 316 Streets, onsite and offsite surface water quantity/quality, and pro-rata share traffic mitigation. KPFF and their associate4d subcontractors were selected as the Design Team for Phase II. Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant Acceptance - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the City Council at its September 19, 2000, meeting of the CMAQ grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to be used to offset the funding shortfall for the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with King county Metro and for Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) enhancement programs. OTHER A brief introduction of prepared material and slides contained in the Blue Ribbon Report on Transportation was presented. This item will appear as an item for discussion on the next Land Use/Transportation meeting agenda. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held in Council Chambers at 5:30 pm on September 25, 2000. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:05pm. I:kLU-TRANS\Septl 1,0~ LUTC sum.doc CITY OF~ DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: September 19, 2000 Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use and Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director ~ David H. ~ose ager Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Draft Accords and Options BACKGROUND The Public Works Department staff provided a brief presentation and draft comment letter on the Blue Ribbon Commission Transportation Draft Accords and Options at the September 11, 2000 LUTC meeting. Given the complexity of the topic and the sheer number of agenda items at the September 11th meeting, staffrequested to place this topic on the September 25th agenda for further discussion and consideration. INFORMATION As presented at the September 11th meeting, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation report is divided into two distinct elements. The first being the accords section which are broad based policy statements that are generally sound principals of how the overall state and Puget Sound regional transportation systems need to be managed. The second element is the options section, which are intended to support the seven accords by providing potential approaches to solve critical problems in the areas of investment, revenue, and administration of the statewide transportation system. Staff has focused on two particular accords and their correspondingoptions that we believe will have the most impact on how the tranportation system in our region as well as the state will be managed in the future. The first accord and supporting options deals with making transportationfunding simpler and more flexible. The second accord and options allows regions to solve their own transportation problems. Simpler and more flexible transportation funding is critical to solving our regions and statewide transportation system problems. Not only are more funds needed but providing more flexibility in revenue sources, more equitable distribution of funds, and increased local decision making for the use of funds. The Blue Ribbon Commission provides five viable options that support this important accord. These include options: No. 29- ensure the preservation and maintenance of city and county streets and roads through new funding distributions of the gas tax that takes into account not only population but also centerline miles, lane miles, arterial miles, functional classificationor some other equitable means of distribution, No. 30- Increase of the statewide gas tax periodicallyto meet needs for basic maintenance, preservation, and safety, No. 46 - create a funding structure that is efficient, rational, and understandable, No. 47 - change the formula for distribution of future gas tax funds to cities and counties taking into account incorporation and annexations, and No. 49 - keep funding sources predictable and at pace with the economy. Allowing regions to solve their own transportation problems could be an important tool because it could provide a mechanism to raise regional revenues that would remain in the region to fund regional projects and not be exported to other portions of the state. However, this accord also suggests the creation of a new regional entity which is a point of concern, particularly considering how regional governance has worked in the Puget Sound region to date (i.e. Puget Sound Regional Council with the airport and federal transportation funding decisions and King County on a variety of issues including Public Safety, 800 MHz communication system and jail costs, Solid Waste, and Surface Water Management to name a few!). ACTION Staff has prepared the attached draft letter for the Committee's review and comments. The letter has been revised from the previous draft letter presented at the September 11 LUTC meeting to be more focused and streamlined on the accords and corresponding options that are of specific interest to the City of Federal Way. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends after review and comment by the LUTC of the attached revised draft letter, that the letter be sent to the Blue Ribbon Committee in order to meet the October 1, 2000 deadline for comments. In addition, that the letter be placed on the consent agenda for the City Council meeting on October 3, 2000. If the full Council has substantial changes to the letter from which the LUTC recommends, that a revised letter be sent to the Blue Ribbon Committee reflecting the full Council comments. CMR:tj attachments: Draft - South County Area Transportation Board Letter Dated September 7, 2000 from Stan Finkelstein of the AWC Testimony by the Honorable Jim White, Mayor, City of Kent KSLUTCL2000\000925 - BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION DRAFT ACCORDS & OPTIONS.DOC September 20, 2000 Mr. Doug Beighle, Chair Blue Ribbon commission on Transportation 411 University Street, Suite 120 Seattle, WA 98101-2515 Dear Mr. Beighle: The City of Federal Way appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Draft Accords and Options. We applaud your efforts and support the balanced approach the Commission has taken in recommending transportation reforms while at the same time recognizing the significant shortfall of transportation funding at all levels of government. The following comments are intended to provide a summary response to the accords and corresponding options that are of specific interest to the City of Federal Way. Invest for an Efficient and Effective Transportation System The City strongly supports the concept of making investments in the Transportation System that result in an efficient and effective transportation network. Specifically we support the following options; No. 1 - to utilize a corridor fipproach to transportation planning and funding with emphasis on the most heavily traveled corridors with the understanding that there are needed transportation improvements that do not fall within these specified corridors but nevertheless have a significant benefit to the transportation system as a whole. As such, we would like to request that these types of projects are not precluded from being funded. Option No. 2 - preservation, maintenance, and safety of the existing and future transportation infrastructure should be the top priorities for investment. Option No. 3 - strengthen the linkages between transportation and land use. One of the most important links that we believe is missing is that highways of statewide significance are not required to be compliant with transportation concurrency. Be Accountable and Efficient We agree that transportation agencies at all levels need to be accountable and provide efficient cost effective programs and projects. Specifically we support Option No. 18 - the use of benchmarks to assess and monitor administration costs in the delivery of transportation programs and projects. However, it would be helpful to develop a consistent set of standards in order to accurately compare performance of agencies within the state as well as external to the state as suggested in Option No. 20. We also support No. 23, with particular emphasis on cost-sharing for the construction, operation, and maintenance of state highways with a population over 22,500. RCW 47.024.020 in its current state places a disproportionate burden on cities with a population over 22,500. Take Care of What We Have As we noted in our previous support of Option No. 2 (preservation, maintenance, and safety) the City firmly believes in the importance of taking care of the transportation infrastructure we have. To this end, we also support the following options; No. 24 - reduce highway wear and tear through higher pavement standards where it is cost-effective, No. 25 - phasing in a studded tire ban, No. 26 - which would require a strict model ordinance for utility cuts on roads and streets to reduce pavement damage, and finally No. 31 - creation of a statewide weight-based vehicle fee to account for increase pavement impact associated with 80,000 pound gross vehicle weight trucks. Make Transportation Funding Simpler and More Flexible The City endorses the Commission's position on the need to develop additional and flexible revenue sources that will provide a more equitable distribution of transportation funds and provide enhanced local decision making for the use of those funds. We feel the Blue Ribbon Commission has identified several excellent options that if implemented would go a long way towards funding the existing as well as the future transportation needs of our state. The City supports the following op,tions: No. 29 - Ensure the preservation and maintenance of city and county streets and roads through new funding distributions of the gas tax that takes into account not only population but also centerline miles, lane miles, arterial miles, functional classification or some other equitable means of distribution, No. 30 -Increase of the statewide gas tax periodically to meet needs for basic maintenance, preservation, and safety, No. 46 - create a funding structure that is efficient, rational, and understandable, No. 47 - change the formula for distribution of future gas tax funds to cities and counties taking into account incorporation and annexations, and No. 49 - keep funding sources predictable and at pace with the economy. Allow Regions to Solve Their Own Transportation Problems The City has concerns with the creation of a new Regional entity, however, we support the concept proposed in Option No. 33 - which states "the intent is to simplify and minimize structural redundancy rather than to add new (government) layers." Any regional governance approach must include cities, counties, ports and the state in the decision making process in order to be successful. It is our position that regional coordination and cooperation is taking place and in fact, in order to be competitive for grant funding inter-jurisdictional coordination is virtually required in the Puget Sound Region. We believe there are numerous examples of successful regional projects that have been planned, funded and constructed and that the most important next step is to ensure adequate revenue to fund regional projects. In closing, the City of Federal Way believes that the most important issue is to ensure that significant additional revenues are a part of any transportation reform package. We understand that a balanced approach is required to make changes to our transportation policies and funding structure that will satisfy the diverse needs and opinions of our region as well as the state. Thank you again for taking on this important task and for allowing our City the opportunity to provide comments. We look forward to working with the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Governor, and the Legislature as this process moves forward. Sincerely, Michael Park Mayor, City of Federal Way MP/CMR:O k:klutc~2000\000918 - blue ribbon.doc DRAFT SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Policy Options Discussion Questions for SCATBd Meeting of August 15, 2000 (original distribution date) 1. Should preservation and maintenance be the highest priority? What about mobility/capacity improvements for all modes? 2. Should a new entity be created to improve the delivery of the transportation infrastructure? · If so, shouId it have comprehensive authority for planning, funding and implementing projects? Authority for operations? · Should it be one county or multi-county? · What are the issues that would need to be addressed? 3. If a new entity is not supported, what changes to an existing entity or entities could be made to improve the delivery of the transportation infrastructure? 4. What additional statewide changes in funding should be considered? · Should the statewide gas tax periodically be increased to meet needs for basic maintenance, preservation and safety of the highway, bridge and auto ferry systems, as well as city streets and county roads? Should the gas tax be indexed to inflation? If so, should there be a cap on increases? · Should a sales tax on gas be imposed on the underlying commodity price, not on the full price that includes state and federal fuel taxes? · Should sales tax revenues generated by transportation be shifted from the General Fund to transportation purposes? 5. What additional local options for funding should be considered? · Optional regional vehicles license fee up to $100 per vehicle · ff regional transportation authorities are not created, increase the existing county- authorized vehicle license fee from $15 to up to $45 per vehicle · Create a two-tiered user charge consisting of a fiat fee portion per vehicle plus a variable portion based on miles traveled · Increase the existing local option gas tax from 10% (currently 2.3 cents to a fiat rate of up to 5 cents per gallon) · Authorize tolls to pay for new facilities Authorize an additional local option gas tax to c'ities over 100,000 at a rate of up to 2 cents per gallon. · Authorize to counties and cities tax increment financing based not on the property tax but on the sales tax Brct/roymemo 1 BACKGROUND: The Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation was authorized by the 1998 Legislature and appointed by the Governor. Its charge was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of: statewide transportation needs and priorities; existing and potential transportation funding mechanisms; and policies and practices of governmental entities, private businesses and labor that may affect the delivery of transportation programs and projects. Three committees were established: Administration, Revenue, and Investment Strategies. After lengthy deliberations by all three committees, the Commission issued findings in the fall of 1999. Based on these findings, the Commission issued draft Accords and Policy Options in May 2000. The intent of the Accords and Policy Options is to engage in a dialog that will help the Commission formulate its final recommendations by December 2000 so that they can be useful to the 2001 Legislature. The Accords follow (Policy Options attached.): L Washington's transportation system should be guided by a set of simple, understandable, measurable goals that are supported by the public and are practical to implement. The public requires accountability. They want to know what their transportation dollars are buying. This includes the assurance that transportation projects will be built on time and on budget. We must protect the investment already made in the multimodal transportation system and ensure the integrity of the statewide system. IH. We must do things differently to respond to growth and demand. IV. Regions must be empowered to solve regional transportation problems.. V. The public requires a specific set of investments that will achieve the goals for a first-class transportation system. Roads and highways will be safer, more choices will be provided for travelers, and delay and congestion will be reduced. VI. Transportation agencies must make the most efficient use of public funds. VII. Transportation decisions and investments must respect the environment. The subarea transportation boards in King County (Eastside Transportation Partnership, South County Area Transportation Board, and SeaShore Transportation Forum) continue to focus their attention on identifying priority transportation improvements for their respective subareas. The King County Executive has scheduled a joint meeting of the subarea transportation boards for September 8 to provide an opportunity to discuss countywide priorities. Some of the issues raised through the efforts of the subarea transportation boards relate to the draft governance and local options included in the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation's work.. Discussion of these issues by the subarea boards will be helpful to the Executive's Regional Transportation Task Force as it develops advisory findings on governance and a 2001 legislative strategy. Brcffroymemo 2 Attachment A: Benchmarks and Indicators I. Accord: Washington's transportation system should be guided by a set of simple, understandable. measurable goals that are supported by the public and are practical to implement. Preliminary Benchmarks: 1. No city street, county road or state highway will be in poor condition by 2020. 2. No bridge will be unsafe by 2020. 3. Congestion and delay will be no worse than the national mean by 2020. 4. Vehicle miles traveled per capita will stay at year 2000 levels. 5. The non-auto share of commuter trips by transit, bicycles and other choices will increase by X% by 2020. 6. The administration of Washington State Transportation Agencies will be in the top 25% most efficient nationally by __ Public transit operating costs will be at or below the national average by Preliminary Indicators: 8. System Safety: Fatal Accidents 9. - Environmental Impact: Air quality (carbon monoxide and ozone) 10. Freight Mobility, growth in trade-related freight movement Attachment B: Options for Accord II II. Accord: The public requires accountability. They want to know what their transportation dollars are buying. This includes the assm'ance that transportation projects will be built on time and on budget. (Preli~ninary Options to achieve this are shown below.) 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Conduct a thorough review of WSDOT administration practices. Use and apply benchmarks to assess and monitor efficiency. Cap and monitor other transportation administrative costs. Improve data collection and cost allocation. Change and expand the Transportation Commission's role to a single point of accountability for reporting on or monitoring the state transportation system at all levels. a. Transportation commission would be responsible for policy and budget, recommend legislation, and select DOT Secretary b. Commission would act in advisory role to the governor c. Eliminate transportation commission Change the selection process for the DOT Secretary a. Retain the current system, with the transportation commission selecting the secretary b. The governor will appoint the secretary c. The secretary will be elected by popular vote Revenue measures should contribute to streamlining and simplifying the existing transportation funding structure and avoid further layering of fund restrictions. Create a funding system that makes sense to the public. The revenue structure should be understandable and sources should be clearly linked to functions in ways that are easy to explain. Attachment C: Options for Accord lll Brct/roymcmo 3 III. Accord: We must protect the investment ah'eady made in the multimodal transportation system and ensure the integrity of the statewide system. (Preliminary Options to achieve this are shown bclow.) 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Preservation and maintenance is the top priority. All jurisdictions should make preservation and maintenance of the existing transportation infrastructure the top priority. Ail existing transportation modes should be maintained at least at a minimum standard throughout the system. All jurisdictions should invest in transportation safety as a priority. Develop a new funding framework based on two categories: maintaining the current system and improving the system to meet the needs of growth, economic initiatives and changing circumstances. Provide a baseline allocation for state highway operation, inaintenance, preservation and safety programs, for operation of the basic auto ferry system and for WSDOT agency overhead from state gas tax funds. Direct funds beyond the baseline to priority decision-making processes in which modes compete on a regional basis. Determine adequate levels of funding for basic operation and maintenance of public transit, passenger-only ferry service, passenger and freight rail services and trip reduction programs and ensure a basic fund allocation to these modes that keeps pace with inflation. Provide baseline allocations for roadway preservation to cities and counties from gas tax funds. In addition to existing distributions, convert some competitive grant programs into pass-through distributions to accomplish this. Increase the statewide gas tax periodically to meet needs for basic maintenance, preservation and safety of the highway, bridge and auto ferry systems, as well as city streets and county roads. Index the gas tax to inflation with a cap on increases. Reduce highway wear and tear through higher pavement standards where it is cost-effective. Phase in a studded tire ban. Require a strict model ordinance for utility cuts on roads and streets to reduce pavement damage to be used throughout the state. Attachment D: Options for Accord IV IV. Accord: We must do things differently to respond to growth and demand. (Preliminary Options to achieve this are shown below.) 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Take a new regional approach to investing. There should be better coordination of transportation planning, funding, investments, and decision making in all jurisdictions. Use a corridor approach to transportation planning and funding to invest in the most effective mix of strategies in the most heavily traveled corridors. Use cost-benefit analysis as an investment aid to select the most effective transportation investments. Strengthen the link between transportation investments and land use planning. Evaluate WSDOT's jurisdiction a. Increase WSDOT's responsibility b. Keep WSDOT as is c. Reduce WSDOT's responsibility Create a funding structure that is rational and efficient. Simplify most state grant funding programs. Ensure that access to funds among governmental jurisdictions and transportation modes is equitable and does not favor certain parts of the system. Use a new mileage-based distribution formula for converted/new gas tax funds for maintenance and preservation. Counties assume jurisdiction of all streets in cities under 5,000 in population. Change the formula for distribution of gas tax funds to cities. Adjust future county and city gas tax distributions such that direct distribution dollars for basic functions follow road miles upon incorporation of annexation. Brct/roymemo 4 40. Jointly program/administer state competitive and pass-through funds. Attachment E: Qptions for Accord V V. Accord: Regions must be empowered to solve regional transportation problems. (Preli~ninary Options to achieve this are shown below.) 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. There should be better coordination of transportation planning, funding, investments, and decision- making in all jurisdictions. Create a regional entity (choices follow): a. Create a regional entity with comprehensive authority for planning, funding, project selection, and project implementation (including some ownership and operation?) b. Create a regional entity with planning, funding and project selection authority only c. Create a regional entity with funding and project selection authority only d. Increase county government role Empower regional authorities with permit responsibility Transportation investment equity can be achieved through the regional approach to investing. Adopt a new regional equity principle for taxes and fees based in part on where they are generated. a. In order to address more specifically varying transportation needs throughout the state, some state transportation mobility funds should be shared with regions. Grant regions revenue authority to address their high priority needs. Develop new joint regional progranuning of federal funds. In addition to federal funds, include state funds in the regional prioritization process. This could entail competitive grant pro,ams run at the regional level. Create an optional regional vehicle miles traveled charge. Create an optional regional vehicle license tee at any level up to $100 per vehicle. a. If regional transportation authorities are not created, increase the existing county-authorized vehicle license fee from $15 to $45 per vehicle. New local option regional funds would be added to the joint pool of federal and/or state funds. Create a two-tiered user charge consisting of a flat fee portion per vehicle plus a variable portion based on miles traveled. Authorize tolls for use of congested facilities. Authorize tolls to pay for new facilities. Create a regional weight-based vehicle fee. Examine the feasibility of creating HOT lanes on 1-405 and SR 167 in King County. Use public private initiative. Authorize an optional increase in the local sales tax to be dedicated to transportation purposes at the local level. Increase the existing local option gas tax from 10% (currently 2.3 cents) to a flat rate of up to 5 cents per gallon. Authorize an additional local option gas tax to cities over 100,000 in population at a rate of up to 2 cents per gallon. Authorize cities and counties to impose a new commuter parking tax on employers. Authorize a local option ride sharing tax credit to cities and counties to provide an incentive to employers to develop and fund trip reduction programs and to offset the burden of new parking taxes on businesses. Authorize to counties and cities tax increment financing based not on the property tax but on the sales tax. Attachment F: Options for Accord VI vi. Accord: The public requires a specific set of investments that will achieve the goals for a first-class transportation system. Roads and highways will be safer, more choices will be provided for travelers, and delay and congestion will be reduced. (Preliminary Options to achieve this are shown below.) Brct/roymemo 5 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. Preservation and maintenance is the top priority. Use a corridor approach to transportation planning and funding to invest in the most effective mix of strategies in the most heavily-traveled corridors. Invest in Traffic System Management techniques and Intelligent Transportation systems to provide for a more efficient flow of traffic in congested areas where effective. Invest in Traffic Demand Management to reduce demand on the highway system. Authorize congestion pricing in congested urban areas. All jurisdictions should invest in transportation safety as a priority. Invest in human resources needed to sustain the transportation system. Funds should be able to be used across all modes for the best possible mix of projects. Funding sources should be predictable and keep pace with the economy. Authorize an increase in the state sales tax, the new revenue to be dedicated to transportation improvements, including roads, ferries, freight mobility, transit and trip reduction. Authorize a sales tax on gas, to be imposed on the underlying commodity price, not on the full price that includes state and federal fuel taxes. Shift sales tax revenues generated by transportation from the General fund to transportation purposes. Increase the statewide gas tax periodically to meet needs for basic maintenance, preservation and safety of the highway, bridge, and auto ferry system. Index the gas tax to inflation with a cap on increases. Attachment G: Options for Accord Vll vii. Accord: Transportation agencies must make the most efficient use of public funds. (Preliminary Options to achieve this are shown below.) 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. Re-engineer the workplace. Used managed competition for operations and maintenance functions. Authorize and encourage jurisdictions to share resources, Improve project management. Take measured (appropriate) risks. Reduce overall construction costs. Use enhanced team planning/partnering. Do environmental review early. Incorporate the design-build process and its variations into construction projects. Increase education and training in alternative project delivery concepts. Use the private sector to deliver projects. Attachment H: Options for Accord VIII VIII. Accord: Transportation decisions and investments must respect the environment. Preliminary Options to achieve this are shown below.) 87. Create one-stop permitting with decisions that stick. Brcffroymemo 6 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. a. Delegate authority. Empower local governments with certified agency status to make final decisions on permits. b. Authorize permit reviews to be conducted by certified jurisdictions to avoid multiple reviews. Require early agreements. a. Require early interagency agreements early in decision-making process b. Provide early involvement by stakeholders c. Involve resource agencies early in planning, design, and critical area designation Create project teams. Establish permit assistance centers. Coordinate mitigation across jurisdictions. a. Coordinate environmental mitigation strategies with other agencies b. Use watershed based planning Encourage pilot projects Empower regional authorities with permit responsibility. Make better use of current environmental processes Brct/roymemo 7 !1)76 Franklin SL SE 75%4 i37, FAX 753-z~96 ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES. INC. September 7, 2000 Mr. Doug Beighle, Chair Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation 411 University Street, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98101-2515 Dear Mr. Beighle, The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) is pleased to have the opportunity to formally comment on the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Draft Accords and Options. AWC would like to commend your efforts and endorses the themes and direction the Blue Ribbon Commission has proposed. The attached document provides a summary response to the accords and addresses some specific options. We would like to thank the Blue Ribbon Commission for its balanced approach of recommending administrative reforms while concurrently acknowledging that significant revenue shortfalls exist at all levels of government. The State Legislature's 1999 Local Government Infrastructure Study identified a conservative six-year $1.69 billion funding gap for roads and bridges, with most of this gap occurring in cities. As noted in one of our presentations to the Commission, the state gas tax and other federal and state pass throug2a monies accounts for less than one-third of city transportation revenues. Nearly forty percent of transportation revenues are from local general fund revenues that must compete for basic city services. This underscores our difficulty in addressing basic road preservation and concurrency requirements. The approval of Initiative 695 has made our ability to pay for transportation even more difficult. Cities need a menu of options to meet transportation needs. A combination of traditional transportation revenues, new flexible transportation revenues, and regionally imposed taxes in some areas of the state are all necessary mechanisms to fund transportation. The Blue Ribbon Commission's leadership has provided both a public and private perspective on how to sustain and improve our transportation system. We are committed to working with you as you finalize your recommendations. AWC will also work with the Governor and the State Legislature to make positive steps towards addressing administrative retbrm, and transportation investments. Sincerely, Stan Finkelstein AWC Executive Director Cooperation fl)r Better Communities The lbllowing document addresses the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation's prollosed options. AWC has chosen to respond to the accords and their respective options in summary form. Invest for an efficient and effective transportation system. Cities are already taking a series of steps to develop efficiencies and are committed to developing a more efficient transportation system. We endorse corridor planning and better linkages between transportation and land use. Corridor investments provide an effective tool for improving mobility throug, hout cities, counties, and on a statewide basis. Projects completed or underway through the City and County Corridor Congestion Relief programs, the Transportation Improvement Board, and the Freig!tt Mobility Strategic Investment Board are examples of how cities have participated in the corridor approach to transportation. The Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation to strengthen the link between land use and transportation is timely. Many cities will be required to have a major update of their comprehensive plans in 2002 and some are already beginning this process. As these comprehensive plans are developed, cities will want to work closely with the state to help assure the next 10 year plans strengthen the nexus between transportation and land use. Ways to better emphasize the need for transit service to employment centers and simplifying methods to measure concurrency will likely be a major part of comprehensive plan updates. Without new revenues, it is critical to acknowledge corridors investments or better land use linkages will remain unmet in many cities. Guided Bv Goals. Measured by Results We would like to specifically address Option 7: No city street, county road, or state highway will be in poor condition. As noted in the description of this option, a benchmark for local arterials should be added as data becomes available. Cities continue to make preservation, maintenance, and safety a top priority, which includes local arterials. We do support benchmarks that help identify the status of our system, but we are concerned that any benchmark that does not acknowledge local jurisdiction responsibilities for competing transportation and general fund needs creates an unfunded mandate. Be Accountable and Efficient Washington's cities support the continuing need to be efficient and effectively monitor expenditures on transportation. Benchmarking against a national mean or artificially capping administrative costs may fall short of the real objective: measuring the costs associated with meeting the transportation needs of the public. Our state has concurrency requirements, relatively strict environmental standards, unique labor requirements, and is faced with geographical constraints that must be taken into account. As a responsible step forward, the Association supports partnering with the county and the state to develop commonly understood definitions of administration. Current reporting to the State Auditor's Office provides an excellent foundation for defining what should be defined as administration versus what should be designated as operational costs that are associated with the transportation system. In addition, the State Auditor's office will require comprehensive accounting changes in year 2002 for cities over 25,000 in population and counties with over 50,000 in population. These proposed changes, which will be commonly known as GASB 34, will require the inclusion of long term capital assets, including roads, bridges, and sidewalks. The intent is to include a charge for 2 deoreciatio:~, or an ex.~ianation :~bout 7~.e ..T, ainz::nanca oro'_'ram :!:at ':<]1 prevent dete~erat,ion of the identified infrastructure. As the State Auditor's Office develops new accounting codes to address this requirement? this is an opportune time tbr ail affected jurisdictions ro report on transportation administration, and such transportation infrastructure investments as preservation and maintenance. {Note: some cities under 25.000 in :~or2ulation wi!l choose to reoorr under ©ASB 3a3 Althouoh= GASB 34 will help provide a state perspective on how well laro_er_ cities are maintaining their infrastructure, a reporting gap remains for many smaller jurisdictions. We support augmenting an existing state or local agency with technical staff that can develop pavement management systems for our smaller jurisdictions. The intent would be to provide a snapshot of sfreet conditions on a periodic basis that could be included as part of a statewide inventory, on the status of the transportation system. T'akine Care of What We Have The Association of Washington Cities supports a funding framework that will maintain the current system and provides funding to improve the transportation system. Funding mechanisms will be addressed in the last section of this response document. AWC would like to specifically respond to Option 29b: Have counties assume jurisdiction and fimding of ci~. streets in cities under 5, 000. The AWC supports fostering city. and county relationships, but objects to this mandatory requirement. This blanket policy would affect 178 cities, many of which successfully manage their transportation systems. In addition, many cities already take advantage of existing laws that allow cities to develop interlocal ageements for services with their respective county. Be efficient The proposed options under this accord have re-emphasized many long standing objectives of reducing costs and increasing project delivery. AWC has supported such efficiencies as partnering with the private sector, and both the extension and broadening of design build oppommities for other forms of infrastructure. One example of an efficiency improvement involves partnering with the private sector. Developers are often required to build or modify specific streets xvithin a limited scope. If a city wants to include an additional component, such as a landscape median, the city is required to go through a separate bid process. This separate bid process can result in project delays, or a rebuild of the existing facility. AWC supports working on a mechanism to ensure the bid limit process is protected while also allowing the flexibility to partner with the private sector on projects that can reduce administrative costs and impacts to the traveling public. Allow re,,2ions to solve their own transuortation problems We support the proposal in Option 33 that states the intent of re~onal funding is "to simpliJS;, and minimize str~tcturat redundancy rather than to add new (governmenO lavers." A re~onal approach must include cities, one or more counties, ports, and the state as part of the re~onal decision making process. Our state's diverse population centers such as the cities in Puget Sound in comparison to Colville in Stevens County underscores the need to allow re~onalism to be self- determined. Existing law already addresses re~onal governance, planning, and mechanisms for the distribution of regional funds. The next step is ensuring adequate revenue can be generated to fund regional projects. As a package, the proposed regional options largely addresses this concern. We endorse this in the context of providing one more flexible tool tbr funding transportation projects. We would emphasize that regional authority is not a substitute for a statexvide transportation program. Make trans,vortation ~ndin_- simoier and more flexible ', The Blue Ribbon Comanission has done an admirable.job of identi .fying the complexities of transportation funding, including the need to have unrestricted revenues. AWC shares the goal of providing a clear nexus be~veen transportation revenues and where they are spent. Cities strongly support the need for additional and more flexible revenues, and to look at ways to ensure a base level of maintenance, safety, and preservation funding for all jurisdictions. As noted in the section on regional governance, the proposed menu of revenue options are supported as providing one or more tools for funding transportation projects. We would like to address the proposals on grants and agency consolidations. Grant programs should receive enoug~h funding to meet their intended goal, or should be combined with other similar programs or reinstated as a direct distribution. Direct grants that reduce administrative costs and fully fund small projects are supported. An example of this is the WSDOT-Highways and Local Programs' Small City Pavement Preservation Program. On large -scale projects, partnerships are an important component of grant programs. This shows local commitment to projects, and frequently allows multiple partners to pool enough funding to complete a project that has both local and regional benefits. AWC has historically benefited from the Transportation Improvement Board, and more recently, from the Frei~mht Mobility Strategic Investment Board. Both agencies have a clear mission that benefits cities and they are not subject to the many statewide trade-offs the Department of Transportation is required to address. Cities strongly support continuation of the TIB and FMSIB programs. We strongly support the Blue Ribbon Commission's conclusion that the current gas tax revenues are not keeping up with inflation and should have periodic increases. In addition, we appreciate the Commission's conclusion that the current gas tax distribution formula appears to penalize cities. Option 47 is a good starting point for discussion on this revenue source. However, additional criteria are required to take into account demands on the transportation system. This could include average daily traffic, lane miles, population served, and vehicle miles traveled. AWC is committed to working with the legislature, state agencies, and counties on a better distribution mechanism for the gas tax. In conclusion Our organization of 279 cities is a diverse one, and there is a diversity, of opinion on which revenue options, what revenue approach, and what mix of revenues makes the most sense. The most important objective for AWC's membership is to ensure significant revenues will be part of any transportation reform package. We also understand that a careful balance must be struck in reforming our transportation system, our policies, and our funding structure. AWC's members have worked hard to develop efficiencies, accountability, and in the case of some of the larger cities, tracking and monitoring systems. As we have identified in our response to the proposed options, we are committed to doing more. However, there must be a continuing recognition that cities are facing sigmificant revenue shortfalls. We are committed to working ~vith the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Governor, and the Legislature as this process goes forward. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your report. 4 WASHINGTON )FFICE of the MAYOR Jim White, Mayor Phone: 253-856-5700 Fax: 253-856-6700 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 TESTIMONY BY THE HONORABLE JIM WHITE, MAYOR, CITY OF KENT BEFORE THE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION (BRCT) ON THE LIST OF 64 OPTIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE COMMISSION Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission: One of the most important things I can do is applaud you for who you are and the mission you've been on for nearly t~vo years. For cities such as the one I serve, there is no more important issue than transportation. There is no bigger problem than congestion that chokes our roads and delays our freight and often infuriates the people who came here in the first place to get a "two-fer" - the promise of jobs and a health economy on the one hand combined ;vith the attractiveness of quality of life on the other. As your report and options have accurately portrayed, our economy and our quality of life are in jeopardy because our transportation system is indeed "on a collision course with reality." Your efforts to find some answers in terms of funding, in terms of efficiency, and in terms ora long-range vision, are not only welcome but a priority No. 1 - a "must-do" item. I provide you with testimony that does three things: I) Tells you where Kent agrees with and supports your options; 2) Tells you where ~ve have concerns with certain options, or believe additional/clarifying detail is needed; and 3) Provides you with thoughts and recommendations as to priorities and actions in the 2001 Legislature. Within these listings and recommendations, I am including some specific suggestions from members of the Kent City Council. These recommendations and suggestions underscored by the City Council are in bold and italics. 1. Support for a number of options The City supports the objectives in No. 1 - to invest in the most heavily- traveled corridors and encourage a "corridor" funding approach; No. 3 - to stren~hen linkages bet~veen land-use planning and transportation; No. 5 - to provide more flexibility in funding so it can be used "across all modes; and No. 16, to set a goal of accommodating the growth in trade-related freight movement (a significant issue in Kent, where 25 percent of ottr industry is import/export related, the warehousing distribution hub is one of the nation's largest, and two rail lines bisect the City). Kent Councilmembers cited as a specific example on No. 3 - linkages between land-use and transportation -public transit service. The City strongly believes that cities designated urban population and employment centers under G;FL4 should have more local authority and determination as to transit service to adequately serve that population and employment base. In terms of the gas tax, the City strongly support your Options 29 and 47 to look at population and miles of roarlway in redefining and reallocating the gas tax, as ~vell as ensuring that gas tax allocations take annexed roadways into account. Further, we appreciate the intent in Option 30, recommending that the gas tax be increased periodically to account for inflation and population growth. It should be noted that even Initiative 601, which sets forth a state expenditure limit, accounts for inflationary and growth factors. A Kent City Councilmember specifically emphasized the need for Option 30 on indexing the gas tax~ City Councilmembers also emphasized that a factor to be added to gas tax allocation formulas would involve populations served by cities - not just a static residential population. In Kent's case, the City's population of 75,000 essentially doubles with daytime employment and traffic. The City also strongly supports Option 50, specifying the need for equity in transportation funding. A recent Porter & Associates report provided to the Puget Sound Regional Council noted that over the next 20 years, unless fundamental changes are made in transportation funding policy, the disproportionate Initiative 695 impacts upon our region in congestion relief, transit, and ferry funding could lead to a situation in which our region's get only 51 cents back in investment for every $1 in transportation-related taxes paid to the state. This 50 cents on the dollar scenario is unacceptable to the elected bfficials in the Puget Sound, and more importantly, to the citizens we represent. We must incorporate equity principles and components into our state transportation funding policy, just as we have incorporated them into the federal "TEA-21" law and the regional Sound Transit system. The City also appreciates the objectives set forth in Option 51 - that a series of new local/regional funding options be created; and many of the ideas in Options 29, 46, and 49, in terms ora new funding structure and funding approaches, as well as more flexible funding (however, note a caution expressed below, in our list of concerns). We specifically call out increases in the gas tc~r - indexed with inflation; credits against the state sales tar to allow for use of surplus state dollars; and sales tax exemptions on road construction projects as three options which ought to be more seriously pursued Lastly, the City of Kent supports the following options and the intent behind them: No. 43, incorporating the 'design-build' and other alternative contracting approaches; the tax-increment financing tool, specifically, in No. 51; the phasing in ora studded-tire ban in No. 25, and the model ordinance idea on Utility Cuts set forth in No. 26. 2. Some concerns, need for additional/clarifying detail There are a few items in your options which cause the City concern, or need additional/clarifying details, or both. Option No. 3, specifying the need great transportation-land-use linkages, should be augmented with specific examples. As noted above, one such example is transit service, where there is virtually nothing in state la~v tying the provision of transit service to the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act and its call for high density, iobs and population to be concentrated in urban and employment centers. We would urge that a greater linkage between transit service and land use be set forth in statute. In Options 32-34, the Commission recommends more revenue empowerment and decision-making for regions to solve their own problems. Certainly, the City of Kent can agree with the premise that the state will never be able to solve all of the problems a region may have - particularly in the Central Puget Sound, given the magnitude of the problem and the cost of addressing it. However, our fear is that these Options A) could be perceived as relieving the state of its obligations; and B) subject regions to the vagaries ora public vote in order to get anything accomplished - at a time when taxpayers feel strained by property taxes and sales taxes and have just voted to unload the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) formula in place in Olympia. We would urge that the regional empowerment options are stressed as "a tool" rather than "the tool," that they are not in any way to be viewed as relieving the state of its core obligations, and that they be part of a menu of options rather than positioned as a solution unto themselves. In Option 46a, the recommendation is that "grant programs should be consolidated." We would suggest that the 'devil is in the details' for such an option, but that the state ought to exercise great care in how it consolidates grant funds. For example, the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) was created to give greater attention to, and oversight of, problems involving freight movement. The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), on which I have been privileged to serve, was established to provide a greater linkage ~vith local government needs and arterials which were not being funded by the state. 'Consolidating' these grant programs could well do more harm than good. We would suggest that Option 46a be revised to indicate that there may be instances where grant programs can be consolidated, alone with language indicating that others bring an appropriate focus, accountability, and oversight to the system. Lastly, we wish to add a note of caution to the "Be Efficient" Options 35-45. Without a doubt, we can deliver transportation services more efficiently. Without a doubt, we welcome ideas on how to do so in our cities - and ~ve have already acted to improve the systems. And, we realize that, politically, segments of the public will demand efficiency items be part of the mix if funding is to be the other part of that mix. However, we cannot emphasize enough that the funding deficiencies in our transportation system are the No. I problem we face today. We would remind you of, and ask you to continually reiterate, the Chairman's point that, "our view is that reforms are essential but not sufficient. Alonq with reform must come additional money. Not in a flood, but in a sta~ed increase that is married to specific investments and tied to specific results." 3. Recommendations for Actions and Priorities If we in Kent could recommend a list of priorities and key action items to you, it would be as follows: · There MUST be a bold initiative in terms of additional funding and additional funding options. The Legislature should not and cannot be timid in its response to your strong call for funding reform. · The system of distributing the gas tax.2 and updating it, must be overhauled. Your options for having gas tax monies better follow growth · and road miles and annexation are welcome. Please consider our recommendation to look also at a criteria of population served by a jurisdiction. · Transportation funding equity simply must be achieved. We understand that our region is the leading job producer and economic engine in the State of Washington, and that transportation funds must be spread across our ~eat state. But we cannot allow our region's taxpayers to so dramatically subsidize all other areas ofthe state. It is not fair, it is not just, and it must be remedied. · Freight mobility and corridor approaches must continue to be emphasized. · There must be additional flexibility in transportation funding and delivery, and some of the additional tools and steps you recommend must be implemented. In closing, let me again say thank you to the Commission, for taking on this most important job and taking it on thoroughly. We look forward to working with you over these next few months and appreciate your efforts to reach out to elected officials and the public in general. KENT CITY OF KENT SUMMARY OF POSITION STATEMENTS -- BLUE R1BBON COMMISSION DRAFT-OPTIONS REPORT & 2001 LEGISLArI'URE ACTION .Ov e r ~a~ll Themes · Full agrecmcnt with "Act Now": The statc, cities, and counlies can no longer wait for piecemeal solutions or comprehensive action "tomorrow." Revenue as critical component and part of package: Kent has historically looked for transportation efficiencies and account, ability and will continue to do so - but these actions will not solve the transportation problems facing the city, King County, the region, and the state, Injecting new revenue into the system is paramount. Also, the Legislature must look at 2001 action as a package - we cannot have revenue components drop out while other components remain. Continued focus on freight mobility (O?tion No. I6) is critical to the Valley and South County. Kent is a critical intersection point and conduit for freight. Specific Itei~ Give meaning to "Link Transportation and Land Use" (Option No. 3). One specific example is transit service. The City of Kent believes that cities and other urban areas which must act as "urban centers" and "employment centers" under the Growth Management Act (GMA) should have additional flexibility and authority to enhance local and shuttle service if they so desire. "Money must better follow growth": Much of the congestion that is choking the state's transportation system can be found in its most urban areas, particularly King County. Thus, on things such as gas tax distribution (O, vtio~s 29, 30, 47), the City supports as a good start the BRCT's recommendations for reviewing not only population but center- lane miles. The City believes this option should be both refined and augmented -to include lane miles in relation to number of vehicles using them; to add a criteria of population served to acknowledge the transportation burdens of employment centers (Kent's daytime £opulafion nearly doubles), and to look at other 'g~'ow~h' criteria. Regional Authority and Empov,'erment (Options 32-34 and elsewhere): The City has general supporl for these options but wants to ensure they are "a tool" vs. "the tool" - they certainly should not be a substitute for the state assuming its significant revenue responsibilities, Additionally, the City strongly believes that a "region" need not be a county or larger. Flexibility should be left in place for formation of "Sub-Regions" such as the South King County area- which has more population than a few states. (See Back Side of Tl~is Pi~gO Agreement with Options 63 and 64 regarding improved environmental processes and substantive standards to streamline permitting. The City strongly supports these options and recommends the state look for ways to reduce what is currently a painfi~lly time-staking process which adds delays and costs. Option 46A - Streamline Grants: This must be a case-'by-case effort. For example, lhe City strongly supports the work of the Transportation .Improvement Board (T1B) and the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) and sees both adding important oversight, accountability, focus and efficiency to the system. Conversely, the establishment ora new program for removing fish-passage barriers- which includes only $2 million statewide for cities - makes little to no sense. In these case, rather than start a new program, the state should simply incorporate it into the work of agencies with a good and efficient track record - such as the TIB. Regional equity (Option 50) must be a component ofthe 2001 package. The BRCT's suggestion of a "3-tiered" structure -basic maintenance, safety and preservation for all; an equity return on mobility and improvement monies; and 100% return for regionally raised dollars - is a good place to start. The following elsewhere): revenue ideas are suggested by the City (Option 51 and *Increase existing gas tax; *lndea the gas tax and subject it to peripdic revic.w, so that there can be legislative oversight and not simply a blanket approval of all increases; *Use some met, hod of,targeting a. portion of sales tax toward the Transportation Fund and transportation needs; *Exempt the sa.les tax from highway construction projects on statc facilities; *Provide local-option authority to increase the $15 vchiclg license fee being collected in four counties (including Ki~zg)