Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2014-01-27 Item 5B - Discussion - Sound Cities Association King County Transportation ProposalCOUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Meeting Date Prepared by i;orprew Council review 01/27/14 LH ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 5.B. STAFF SPONSOR: KATE KRULLER 0 RIGINAI AC; INDA DATE: 01/27/14 AGENDA ITEM Mu,. Discussion on Sound Cities Association Proposed Policy Position on King County Transportation Benefit District. CATEGORY Discussion Mtg Date 1/27/14 [1] Motion Alts Date El Resolution AfigDale Ordinance Mtg Date 0 Bid Award Mfg Date D Public .Hearing Mtg .Date LI Other Mt& Date SPONSOR Council fl Mayor L HR DCD LJ Finance L Fire El IT LI P&R my SPONSOR'S SUMMARY The Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee has asked its members to seek input from their Councils on a proposed policy position regarding the formation of a countywide Transportation Benefit District, with 60% of the funds going to Metro for transit funding and the remaining 40% being distributed to the County and cities based on population. REVIIAVED BY LI COW Mtg. 0 Utilities Crrite DATE: N/A CA&P Crnte A.rts Comm. LJ F&S Cmte 0 Transportation Cinte 0 Parks Comm. El Planning Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: SPoNsoR/ADmiN. City Council COMMITTEE COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDI FUR]: RI ]1t11 $0 AMOUNT BUDGETED $0 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0 Fund Source: C0171MentS: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 1/27/14 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 1/27/14 Informational Memorandum dated 1/22/14 Excerpt from 1/8/14 SCA PIC meeting packet, item 9 Excerpt from draft 1/8/14 SCA PIC meeting minutes, item 9 Draft King County 2015 Transportation Benefit District distribution estimates 51 52 City of Tukwila Jim Nagger-ton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Kate Kruller, City Council Representative on SCA Public Issues Committee DATE: January 22, 2014 SUBJECT: Proposed Policy Position on County Transportation Benefit District Proposal— SCA Public Issues Committee ISSUE The Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee has asked its members to seek input from their Councils on a proposed policy position regarding the formation of a countywide Transportation Benefit District, with 60% of the funds going to Metro for transit funding and 40% being distributed to the County and cities based on population for other transportation needs as determined by the local jurisdiction. This proposed policy statement will be on the February PIC agenda for further discussion and possible vote. BACKGROUND Support of SCA policy statements by the City does not require a Council vote, Discussion and consensus will provide the appropriate direction for the City's Representative, Councilmember Kruller, to report back to the Committee. It is important to remember that SCA advocates for and collaborates to create regional solutions for its membership. This means that policy statements are reflective of mutual support, respect, trust, fairness and integrity for the greater good of the association and its membership. Additionally, a policy statement supported by the SCA may not necessarily be a policy statement support by the City of Tukwila. According to its operating policies, the PIC does not make policy recommendations to the SCA Board that are divisive among the members of SCA, and SCA does not take policy positions that are harmful to the interests of any member city, even if favored by a supermajority of members. ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpt from January 8, 2014 SCA PIC meeting packet — Item 9 2. Excerpt from draft minutes from January 8, 2014 SCA PIC meeting — Item 9 3. Draft King County 2015 Transportation Benefit District Distribution Estimates 53 54 January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Potential Future Action Item SCA Staff Contact Deanna Dawson, Executive Director, offlce 206-433-7170, Deannasoundctesorg Monica Whitman, Senior Policy Analyst, office 206'433'7169, Potential future action: Background On June 19, 2013 the Sound Cities Association Board unanimously adopted a position of support for passage of a statewide transportation package in order to address our state's critical transportation infrastructure needs. The Board also adopted a position of support for additional local options to address the transportation needs of counties and cities. Specifically, SCA urged the legislature to give local jurisdictions an additional funding mechanism in the form of authority to enact an up to 1.5% Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. SCA also supported the legislature designate that in King County, 60% of revenues raised by this funding mechanism be allocated to transit, with 40% allocated to cities and the county (distributed based on population) for Iocal transportation needs. Despite numerous negotiating sessions, the legislature was unable to come to agreement on a package in 2013. (See attachment A, Joint Statement from the Governor and bipartisan House and Senate transportation negotiators on transportation revenue package negotiations.) January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 19 of 72 Meanwhile, our cities and King County face significant transportation needs. While sales tax projections and labor negotiations with Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 587 have been encouraging, King County still faces the need for significant cuts to service at Metro Transit without additional funding sources. These cuts would be particularly devastating to residents of SCA member cities. As noted in past discussions, the bus is the family car for many residents in our cities. Substantial cuts to bus service would make it difficult or impossible for residents to get to their jobs, and needed community services. The need for additional transportation funding for local roads and other local transportation infrastructure is similarly critical. Cities in King County maintain five thousand five hundred miles of streets plus bridges, sidewalks, drainage systems, traffic signals, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and trails. Revenue sources currently available to cities are not keeping pace with the costs of replacement and expansion to meet growth. King County cities have experienced a substantial downturn in revenues in the past decade. Many cities in King County have been forced to supplement their road funds with general fund dollars, which have themselves not been keeping pace with inflation. Using general fund dollars to maintain roads and other transportation infrastructure means that there are fewer dollars available to fund public safety, parks, human services, and other critical city services. A lack of dedicated funding for transportation projects has made it increasingly difficult for King County cities to raise matching funds to compete for State and Federal transportation grant dollars, and State and Federal transportation grant opportunities have dwindled. King County cities are beset by failing roads and bridges, congested corridors and bottlenecked interchanges, which undermine the mobility of vehicles, buses and freight carriers to transport people and goods. Cities in King County have over $1.3 billion in maintenance and preservation needs alone over the next six years, and have identified a need of over $3 billion for mobility projects over the next six years. Cities in King County are responsible for the repair and replacement of 22 bridges in King County with a sufficiency rating of fifty or less, equating to more than $775 million in bridge repair /replacement costs over the next six years. The lack of adequate transportation funding for Cities is a public safety crisis in King County. In 2013, the State Legislature balanced its operating budget in part by transferring all available funds from the Public Works Trust Fund, and directed most of the future tax revenues for the Public Works Trust Fund into K -12 education for the next six years. The Public Works Trust Fund provided grants and low- interest loans to local governments for the repair and maintenance of infrastructure. This action by the Legislature has resulted in a substantial reduction of funds available for King County cities, and has been a particular blow to smaller cities in King County. January 8, 2014 56 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 20 of 72 Without an additional source of revenue, many transportation infrastructure projects planned by cities will not be able to move forward. Many member cities have indicated that they cannot afford to wait for additional funding to maintain their transportation infrastructure. Due to these needs, the King County Council is looking at moving forward with a ballot measure in 2014 to provide additional funding for transit, roads, and other transportation infrastructure. Existing State law would enable the King County Council to create a Transportation Benefit District (TBD), and (with voter approval) to raise revenues through funding sources including a sales tax, and a vehicle license fee. The County Council and Executive have proposed bringing this forward to the voters as a ballot measure as early as April 2014. Prior to going on recess in 2013, the County Council introduced two ordinances which would (if approved) establish a countywide TBD (see attachments B and C). The language is very similar in both ordinances. The second ordinance, attachment C, includes a resolution (see attachment D) authorizing the TBD to impose a sales tax and vehicle license fee with voter approval. Existing State law enables a County to form a TBD and to enact (with voter approval) a sales tax of up to .2% and a vehicle license fee of up to $100. Many cities in King County have formed their own TBD and enacted a vehicle license fee of $20. A vehicle license fee of $80 or less would not interfere with these already enacted TBDs, or cities that may wish to create a TBD within their cities in the future. A .1% sales tax would raise approximately $50 million annually, and a $60 vehicle license fee would raise approximately $80 million annually. Combined, these sources would raise over $130 million, which is similar in scope to the approximately $140 million that would have been raised by the local option sought by SCA from the legislature in 2013. (According to recent estimates, the total allocation to King County cities based on this funding source and the 60/40 revenue sharing proposal would amount to over $53,000,000 in 2015.) The proposal before the PIC is to bring forward a public policy position similar to that approved by SCA in 2013, and to support formation of a countywide TBD, with 60% of the funds going to Metro for transit funding and 40% being distributed to the County and cities based on population for other transportation needs. These would include local roads, but may also include sidewalks, bike paths, additional transit, or other transportation purposes, as determined by the particular needs of the local jurisdiction. In order to ensure that dollars can be used as effectively and efficiently as possible to address the pressing transportation needs of each individual jurisdiction and to avoid the creation of additional burdensome bureaucracies, it is proposed that the funding raised be provided to local jurisdictions through a direct distribution. January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 21 of 72 57 The proposal supported by SCA in 2013 was born of much collaboration and compromise between SCA's member cities, the City of Seattle, and King County, who worked together to come up with a package that could serve the needs of citizens and jurisdictions throughout our county. It is a balanced package that ensures that transportation needs are addressed holistically, with a healthy mix of funding for transit, rural roads, city streets, and other transportation needs in cities. We recognize that we cannot view our infrastructure needs in isolation, and that we need to partner together to make strategic investments now as a region in order to keep our economy growing. The proposal has been supported by a broad coalition of local leaders, and SCA has been working in close partnership with a countywide coalition of regional community, business and labor leaders, and environmental, transit, education, social services, and social justice advocates known as Move King County Now. Due to the fact that the legislature did not pass a statewide transportation package or give local jurisdictions new tools to address their transportation needs in 2013, this coalition is now focused on moving forward with using existing tools to solve the transportation funding crisis in King County. The County Council is on recess until January 13, 2014, and may move quickly upon returning if an April ballot date is chosen. PIC Chair Bernie Talmas, SCA Vice President John Marchione, and SCA Executive Director Deanna Dawson will keep SCA members informed of ongoing developments and need for possible action between the January 8, 2014 PIC meeting date and our next regularly scheduled PIC meeting on February 12, 2014. Attachments A. Joint Statement from the Governor and bipartisan House and Senate transportation negotiators on transportation revenue package negotiations B. TBD Ordinance 2013 -0527 C. TBD Ordinance 2013 -0526 D. Resolution authorizing sales tax and vehicle license fee January 8, 2014 58 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 22 of 72 JAY St„ft GOvernot Dec. 18, 2013 Contacts: firrArE OF WASIIINGTON Office of the Governor Attachment A to Item 9 David Postman, Governor Ins lee's Communications Office 1 360-902-4136, david.postman_Egov.wa,gov Joint Statement issued tonight from Governor Jay Ins lee and the bipartisan House and Senate transportation negotiators on the next phase of transportation revenue package negotiations "Through 12 negotiating sessions we made progress on finding a compromise package of statewide transportation improvements. But today it has become clear this phase of the process has run its course and we have not reached an agreement. "We agree that transportation infrastructure is important to our state and we remain committed to finding a solution in the regular legislative session that works for everyone. "The next step in this process will be to continue this dialogue in the legislative process." # # # www,...governor.wa,vpv 03ovIn.slee :(c!. -aStateGov www.t3cetokc1 nl_PA■a5,.,tateGov January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 23 of 72 59 Attachment B to Item 9 Date Created: 12 -16 -13 Drafted by: jr Sponsors: Rod Dembowski, Kathy Lambert, Larry Phillips Attachments: 1 ..title 2 3 4 ..body 5 AN ORDINANCE creating a countywide transportation benefit district as authorized by chapter 36.73 RCW. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 6 SECTION 1. Findings: 7 A. The 2008 recession had a deep and enduring impact to the economy in King 8 County, causing property and sales tax revenues that fund government transportation 9 services to drop unexpectedly. 10 B. As the largest labor market in the state, failure of the transportation system in 11 King County will have far reaching economic impacts across Washington. 12 C. The King County transit division ( "Metro ") is vital to the region's economic 13 health. Metro provided over one hundred fifteen million passenger trips in 2012 with 14 ridership expected to grow, more than one thousand five hundred companies provide 15 transit passes to their employees; over half of Metro's passengers are commuters and 16 current service levels keep approximately one hundred seventy -five thousand cars off our 17 roads every weekday. 18 D. Sales tax currently provides for sixty percent of Metro's operating fund, and 19 reductions in property tax revenue and the lack of growth in gas tax revenue will limit 20 key funding sources for city and unincorporated King County transportation projects. January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 24 of 72 60 Attachment B to Item 9 21 E. The twenty - dollar congestion reduction charge authorized in 2011 was a 22 temporary measure while sustainable funding solutions were developed. The authority 23 for this implemented funding source expires at the end of May 2014. 24 F. In 2011, the King County council adopted the landmark King County Metro 25 Transit Strategic Plan for Public Transportation and Service Guidelines that established a 26 new course that prioritizes productivity, social equity and geographic value in the 27 ongoing development of the Metro system. 28 G. To respond to decreased revenues during the recession, Metro undertook a 29 number of measures to preserve service. Metro implemented system -wide reforms, 30 including restructuring the transit system to improve productivity and effectiveness and 31 discontinuing the Ride Free Area in downtown Seattle, saving nearly eight hundred 32 million dollars over five years. Metro has also increased revenue for transit through 33 property tax changes, through the implementation of the temporary congestion reduction 34 charge and through multiple fare increases raising fares by eighty percent since 2008. 35 H. Metro still faces an ongoing annual revenue shortfall up to seventy -five 36 million dollars to maintain existing service levels. Without new revenue, Metro will face 37 up to a seventeen - percent cut in service, or approximately six hundred thousand annual 38 hours of service cuts beginning m fall 2014. 39 I. The King County road services division ( "road services ") is responsible for an 40 unincorporated area road system that supports more than one million trips per day. The 41 system consists of about one thousand five hundred miles of county roads and one 42 hundred eighty bridges, plus munerous sidewalks and pathways, traffic signs and signals, 43 drainage pipes and culverts and other critical transportation infrastructure. January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 25 of 72 61 Attachment 8 to Item 9 44 J. Road services' funding for maintenance of roads and bridges has declined by 45 more than one -third since 2009 due to annexations, declining property values, less state 46 and federal grant support and lower gas tax revenue. At the same time, the volume of 47 county road miles has not dropped proportionally while transportation safety, 48 preservation and other needs are increasing due to aging infrastructure, population 49 growth; development and changing travel patterns. 50 K. Property tax is road services's primary funding source, and property values in 51 unincorporated King County have declined significantly since the start of the recession. 52 The ability of property tax revenue to recover from its depressed levels is impeded by 53 statutory constraints limiting growth in tax collections to one percent per year, lower than 54 the rate of inflation. 55 L. Gas tax revenues, another major source of firnding for road services, will not 56 increase with the rate of inflation as gasoline consumption stagnates due to more fuel 57 efficient cars and fewer vehicle miles travelled and because the tax rate per gallon is 58 fixed and does not adjust with inflation. 59 M. Future grant funding for capital projects is also uncertain as federal and state 60 decision- makers choose between competing interests for limited dollars. 61 N. The Strategic Plan for Road Services was approved by the council in 2010 to 62 provide key guidance to the agency about work priorities, including infrastructure service 63 and investment decisions. The plan gives top priority to basic goals: comply with legal 64 requirements; meet critical safety needs; and maintain and preserve the existing road 65 network. January 8, 2014 62 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 26 of 72 Attachment B to Item 9 66 0. Road services is reducing costs through reductions in management and 67 administrative costs, space consolidation and reductions to fleet equipment, and has 68 already reduced division staff by forty percent and implemented changes to service 69 priorities. 70 P. It is the county's responsibility to maintain, preserve and operate the 71 unincorporated area road system, and without dedicated fiuiding to stabilize the declining 72 road system, roads services expects to close thirty -five bridges before they become 73 unsafe, restrict access to seventy -two miles of failing roadways and reduce storm service 74 on snowy and icy roads. 75 Q. Cities in King County maintain five thousand five hundred miles of streets 76 plus bridges, sidewalks, drainage systems, traffic signals, bicycle and pedestrian facilities 77 and trails. Existing facilities are aging. 78 R. King County cities have experienced a substantial downturn in revenues in the 79 past decade. Many cities in King County have been forced to supplement roads funds 80 with general fund dollars, which have themselves not been keeping pace with inflation. 81 Using general fund dollars to maintain roads and other transportation infrastructure 82 means that there are fewer dollars available to fund public safety, parks, human services, 83 and other critical city services. 84 S. A lack of dedicated funding for transportation projects has made it 85 increasingly difficult for King County and King County cities to raise matching funds to 86 compete for State and Federal transportation grant dollars, and State and Federal 87 transportation grant opportunities have dwindled. January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 27 of 72 63 Attachment B to Item 9 88 T. King County cities are beset by failing roads and bridges, congested corridors 89 and bottlenecked interchanges, which undermine the mobility of vehicles, buses and 90 freight carriers to transport people and goods. 91 U. Cities in King County have over $1.3 billion m maintenance and preservation 92 needs alone over the next six years, and have identified a need of over $3 billion for 93 mobility projects over the next six years. Cities in King County are responsible for the 94 repair and replacement of 22 bridges in King County with a sufficiency rating of fifty or 95 less, equating to more than $775 million in bridge repair /replacement costs over the next 96 six years. The lack of adequate transportation funding for Cities is a public safety crisis in 97 King County. 98 V. In 2013, action by the State Legislature related to the Public Works Trust 99 Fund resulted in a substantial reduction of funds available for King County cities, 100 including a greater relative impact on smaller cities in King County. Without an 101 additional source of revenue, many transportation infrastructure projects planned by cities 102 will not be able to move forward. 103 W. With new funding for transportation investments throughout King County, 104 there is an opportunity to catalyze construction jobs, enhance freight mobility for our 105 ports and create a pathway for retaining and growing new jobs for key industry sectors. 106 X. It is in the best interest of the citizens of the county to establish a 107 transportation benefit district to work together and regionally fund, acquire, construct, 108 operate, maintain and preserve roadway, public transportation or other mobility facilities, 109 services and programs, and any other project or program contained in the transportation 110 plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, a city or a county, and January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 28 of 72 64 Attachment B to Item 9 111 to exercise any other functions or fund any other transportation improvements authorized 112 by chapter 36.73 RCW. Such a transportation benefit district should focus its 113 investments in local mobility and connecting within the district. 114 SECTION 2. There is created a transportation benefit district, to be known as the 115 King County transportation district, with geographical boundaries comprised of the limits 116 of the county, which shall have the authority to exercise the statutory powers in chapter 117 36.73 RCW. 118 SECTION 3. 119 A. The governing board of the transportation district shall be the King County 120 council acting in an ex officio and independent capacity, which shall have the authority to 121 exercise the statutory powers in chapter 36.73 RCW. 122 B. The King County treasurer shall be the treasurer of the transportation district. 123 C. The board shall develop and implement a material change policy for projects 124 that the district is implementing. The material change policy shall address major plan 125 changes that affect project delivery or the ability to finance the plan, in accordance with 126 RCW 36.73.160(1). 127 D. The board shall issue an annual report, in accordance with chapter 36.73 RCW. 128 SECTION 4. The district shall be dissolved in accordance with RCW 36.73.050. 129 SECTION 5. The district shall fund, acquire, construct, operate, maintain and 130 preserve public transportation facilities, services and programs, roads and any other 131 project contained in the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning 132 organization, a city or the county, and exercise any other functions or fund any other 133 transportation improvement authorized by chapter 36.73 RCW. When authorized by January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 29 of 72 65 Attachment B to Item 9 134 statute or by the voters in accordance with chapter 36.73 RCW, the board may impose any 135 one of or a combination of taxes, fees, charges and tolls, for purposes consistent with 136 chapter 36.73 RCW. 137 SECTION 6. For the purposes of defrung a "transportation plan" under chapter 138 36.73 RCW and section 5 of this ordinance: 139 A. The transportation plan of the county includes the Transportation Element of 140 the King County Comprehensive Plan, the King County Metro Transit Strategic Plan for 141 Public Transportation, the King County Metro Transit Service Guidelines, the King 142 County Department of Transportation Strategic Plan for Road Services, the Transportation 143 Needs Report, the King County Roads Services CEP and any other plan concerning 144 transportation that is adopted by the metropolitan King County council; and 145 B. The transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning 146 organization or a city shall be as defined by each such entity. 147 SECTION 7. As authorized under chapter 36.73 RCW, this ordinance shall be 148 liberally construed to permit the accomplishment of its purposes. 149 SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to 150 any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance or the 151 application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 30 of 72 66 Attachment C to Item 9 Date Created: December 13, 2013 Drafted by: Wes Edwards, Transportation Planner, Regional Transportation Planning Sponsors: Attachments: None 1 ..title 2 AN ORDINANCE creating a countywide transportation 3 benefit district in King County, Washington, in order to 4 finance the acquisition, construction, operation, S maintenance and preservation of public transportation 6 facilities, services and programs, roads and any other 7 projects authorized by chapter 36.73 RCW. 8 ..body 9 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 10 SECTION 1. Findings: 11 A. The 2008 recession had a deep and enduring impact to the economy in King 12 County, causing property and sales tax revenues that finance government transportation 13 services to drop unexpectedly. 14 B. As the largest labor market in the state, failure of the transportation system in 15 King County will have far reaching economic impacts across Washington. 16 C. The King County transit division ( "Metro ") is vital to the region's economic 17 health. Metro provided over one hundred fifteen million passenger trips in 2012 with 18 ridership expected to grow; more than one thousand five hundred companies provide 19 transit passes to their employees; over half of Metro's passengers are commuters; and 20 current service levels keep approximately one hundred seventy -five thousand cars off our 21 roads every weekday. January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 31 of 72 67 Attachment C to Item 9 22 D. Sales tax currently provides for sixty percent of Metro's operating budget, and 23 reductions in property tax revenue and the lack of growth in gas tax revenue will limit 24 key firndung sources for city and unincorporated King County transportation projects. 25 E. The twenty- dollar congestion reduction charge authorized in Ordinance 17169 26 in 2011 was a temporary measure while sustainable funding solutions were developed. 27 King County's authority for this implemented fiunding source expires May 31, 2014. 28 F. In 2011, the Kung County council adopted the landmark King County Metro 29 Transit Strategic Plain for Public Transportation and Service Guidelines that established a 30 new course that prioritizes productivity, social equity and geographic value in the 31 ongoing development of the Metro transit system. 32 G. To respond to decreased revenues during the recession, Metro undertook a 33 number of measures to preserve service. Metro implemented system -wide reforms, 34 including restructuring the transit system to improve productivity and effectiveness and 35 discontinuing the Ride Free Area in downtown Seattle. Metro has also increased revenue 36 for transit through property tax changes, through the implementation of the temporary 37 congestion reduction charge and through multiple fare increases raising fares by eighty 38 percent since 2008. As a result, Metro realized nearly eight hundred million dollars in 39 savings and new revenues combined to support the system. 40 H. Metro still faces an ongoing annual revenue shortfall up to seventy -five 41 million dollars to maintain existing service levels. Without new revenue, Metro will face 42 up to a seventeen percent cut in service, or approximately six hundred thousand annual 43 hours of service cuts beginning in fall 2014. January 8, 2014 68 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 32 of 72 Attachment C to Item 9 44 L The King County road services division is responsible for an unincorporated 45 area road network that supports more than one million trips per day. The system consists 46 of about one thousand five hundred miles of county roads and one hundred eighty 47 bridges, plus numerous sidewalks and pathways, traffic signs and signals, drainage pipes 48 and culverts and other critical transportation infrastructure. 49 J. The road services division's funding for maintenance of roads and bridges has 50 declined by more than one -third since 2009 due to annexations, declining property 51 values, less state and federal grant support and lower gas tax revenue. At the same time, 52 the volume of county road miles has not dropped proportionally while transportation 53 safety, preservation and other needs are increasing due to aging infrastructure, population 54 growth, development and changing travel patterns. 55 K. Property tax is the road services division's primary funding source, and 56 property values in unincorporated King County have declined significantly since the start 57 of the recession. The ability of property tax revenue to recover from its depressed levels 58 is impeded by statutory constraints limiting tax collections. 59 L. Gas tax revenues, another major source of funding for the road services 60 division, will not increase with the rate of inflation as gasoline consumption stagnates due 61 to more fiiel efficient cars and to fewer vehicle miles travelled, and because the tax rate 62 per gallon is fixed and does not adjust with inflation. 63 M. Future grant funding for capital projects is also uncertain as federal and state 64 decision- makers choose between competing interests for limited dollars. 65 N. The Strategic Plan for Road Services was approved by the council in 2010 to 66 provide key guidance to the agency about work priorities, including infrastructure service January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 33 of 72 69 Attachment C to Item 9 67 and investment decisions. The plan gives top priority to basic goals: meet critical safety 68 needs, comply with legal requirements, and maintain and preserve the existing road 69 network. 70 0. The road services division is reducing costs through reductions in 71 management and administrative costs, space consolidation and reductions to fleet 72 equipment, and has already reduced division staff by forty percent and implemented 73 changes to service priorities. 74 P. Without funding to stabilize the declining road system, the roads services 75 division expects to close thirty -five bridges before they become unsafe, restrict access to 76 seventy -two miles of failing roadways and reduce storm service on snowy and icy roads 77 by two- thirds during the winter season. 78 Q. Cities in King County maintain five thousand five hundred miles of streets 79 plus bridges, sidewalks, drainage systems, traffic signals, bicycle and pedestrian facilities 80 and trails. Existing facilities are aging. Revenue sources currently available to cities are 81 not keeping pace with the costs of replacement and expansion to meet growth. 82 R. King County cities also are beset by failing roads and bridges, congested 83 corridors and bottlenecked interchanges, which inderrnine the mobility of cars, buses and 84 freight carriers to transport people and goods. 85 S. With new funding for transportation investments throughout King County, 86 there is an opportunity to catalyze construction jobs, enhance freight mobility for our 87 ports and create a pathway for retaining and growing new jobs for key industry sectors. 88 T. It is m the best interest of the citizens of the county to establish a 89 transportation benefit district to fmance any transportation improvement authorized by January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 34 of 72 70 Attachment C to Item 9 90 chapter 36.73 RCW, including but not limited to, the acquisition, construction, operation, 91 maintenance and preservation of public transportation facilities, services and programs, 92 roads and any other project contained in the transportation plan of the state, a regional 93 transportation planning organization, a city or the county. 94 U. The transportation benefit district is intended solely to finance transportation 95 improvements authorized by chapter 36.73 RCW, and is not intended to directly acquire, 96 construct, operate, maintain, preserve or otherwise provide transportation improvements. 97 It is further intended that local jurisdictions receiving funding from the transportation 98 benefit district will directly acquire, construct, operate, maintain, preserve or otherwise 99 provide any transportation improvement authorized by chapter 36.73 RCW. 100 V. The King County council anticipates that, in an effort to provide an efficient 101 operation of the transportation benefit district and avoid the potential for creating 102 duplicative staffing functions, the transportation benefit district will contract with King 103 County to utilize existing King County staff to provide administrative functions required 104 by the district to the extent allowed by applicable law. 105 SECTION 2. There is created a transportation benefit district, to be laiown as the 106 King County transportation district, with geographical boundaries comprised of the limits 107 of the county. The district shall have the authority to exercise the statutory powers in 108 chapter 36.73 RCW. 109 SECTION 3. A. The King County council shall be the governing board of the 110 transportation district, acting in an ex officio and independent capacity, which shall have 111 the authority to exercise the statutory powers in chapter 36.73 RCW. January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 35 of 72 71 Attachment C to Item 9 112 B. The King County executive services finance director shall be the treasurer of 113 the transportation district. 114 C. The board shall develop and implement a material change policy for projects 115 that the district is implementing. The material change policy shall address major plan 116 changes that affect project delivery or the ability to finance the plan, in accordance with 117 RCW 36.73.160(1). 118 D. The board shall cause to be issued an annual report, in accordance with chapter 119 36.73 RCW. 120 SECTION 4. The district shall be dissolved in accordance with RCW 36.73.050. 121 SECTION 5. The transportation district is formed to finance, but not directly carry 122 out, any transportation improvement authorized by chapter 36.73 RCW, including, but not 123 limited to, the acquisition, construction, operation, maintenance and preservation of public 124 transportation facilities, services and programs, roads and any other, project contained in 125 the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, a city 126 or the county. When authorized by statute or by the voters in accordance with chapter 127 36.73 RCW, the board may impose taxes, fees, charges or tolls, or any combination 128 thereof, for the purposes consistent with chapter 36.73 RCW. 129 SECTION 6. For the purposes of chapter 36.73 RCW and section 5 of this 130 ordinance: 131 A. "Transportation plan" includes the Transportation Element of the King County 132 Comprehensive Plan, the King County Metro Transit Strategic Plan for Public 133 Transportation, the King County Metro Transit Service Guidelines, the annual King 134 County Metro Transit Service Guidelines Report, the King County Department of January 8, 2014 72 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 36 of 72 Attachment C to Item 9 135 Transportation Strategic Plan for Road Services, the Transportation Needs Report, the 136 King County Roads Services CIP and any other plan concerning transportation that is 137 adopted by the King County council; and 138 B. The transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning 139 organization or a city shall be as identified by each entity. 140 SECTION 7. As authorized under chapter 36.73 RCW, this ordinance shall be 141 liberally construed to permit the accomplishment of its purposes. 142 SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to 143 any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance or the 144 application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 37 of 72 73 Attachment D to Item 9 Date Created: December 13, 2013 Drafted by: Wes Edwards, Transportation Planner, Regional Transportation Planning Sponsors: Attachments: 1 ._title 2 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION of the King County Transportation District; submitting a ballot measure regarding transportation funding to the qualified electors of the King County Transportation District at a special election to be held on (DATE) and submitting a 6 proposition to district voters to authorize the district to fix and 7 impose a (RATE) sales and use tax within the district and a 8 (AMOUNT) dollar vehicle fee on all vehicles within the district to 9 finance the King County transit division ( "Metro Transit ") and city 10 and unincorporated county transportation improvements in the 11 district; requesting that the King County Prosecutor prepare a ballot 12 title for the proposition; and appointing committees to prepare the 13 pro and con statements for the local voters' pamphlet. 14 ..body 15 WHEREAS, in the last several years, new transportation challenges have emerged 16 affecting the funding of transportation improvements for King County Metro transit and all King 17 County cities and unincorporated King County, including a prolonged recession, and declined 18 gas -tax, property tax, and sales tax revenues; and 19 WHEREAS, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 36.73, provides for the 20 establishment of transportation benefit districts by cities and counties and authorizes those 21 districts to levy and impose various taxes and fees to generate revenues to support transportation January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 38 of 72 74 Attachment D to Item 9 22 improvements that benefit the district and that are consistent with state, regional or local 23 transportation plans and necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels; and 24 WHEREAS, King County Ordinance ( # # # #) established the King County 25 Transportation District to finance, but not directly carry out, any transportation improvement 26 authorized by RCW chapter 36.73, including but not limited to, public transportation facilities, 27 services and programs, roads, and any other project contained in the transportation plan of the 28 state, a regional transportation planning organization, a city, or the county; and 29 WHEREAS, the King County Transportation District is intended solely to finance 30 transportation improvements authorized by RCW chapter 36.73, and is not intended to directly 31 acquire, construct, operate, maintain, preserve or otherwise provide any transportation 32 improvements. It is further intended that local jurisdictions receiving funding from the 33 transportation benefit district will directly acquire, construct, operate, maintain, preserve, or 34 otherwise provide any transportation improvement authorized by RCW chapter 36.73. 35 WHEREAS, the King County Transportation District may fix and impose up to a one 36 hundred dollar vehicle fee pursuant to RCW 82.80.140 with approval of a majority of district 37 voters; and 38 WHEREAS, the King County Transportation District may fix and impose up to a two - 39 tenths of one percent (0.2 %) sales and use tax within the district pursuant to RCW 82.14.0455 40 with approval of a majority of district voters; and 41 WHEREAS, a vehicle fee up to eighty dollars imposed by the King County 42 Transportation District does not preclude individual cities and unincorporated King County from 43 continuing to collect or authorize future collection of a twenty dollar councilmanic vehicle fee 44 pursuant to RCW 82.80.140; and January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 39 of 72 75 Attachment D to Item 9 45 WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of the King County Transportation District to 46 distribute revenues; less administration costs, to jurisdictions in the district's boundaries by 47 providing sixty percent of the combined revenues from the vehicle fee and sales and use tax 48 revenues to support King County Metro Transit; and the remaining forty percent of combined 49 revenues to be distributed to cities and unincorporated King County in a share equal to their 50 percentage of countywide population; and 51 WHEREAS, the King County Transportation District cannot impose a voter approved 52 sales and use tax that exceeds a period of ten years, unless extended by an affirmative public vote 53 per RCW 82.14.0455. 54 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE KING COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT: 55 SECTION 1. Fee and tax submittal to voters_ To provide necessary financing for the 56 purposes identified in section 3 of this resolution; the King County Transportation District shall 57 submit to the qualified electors of the district a proposition authorizing the district to fix and 58 impose a (AMOUNT) dollar vehicle fee to be added to any existing fees and to fix and impose a 59 (RATE) of one percent (0._ %) to the sales and use tax. 60 SECTION 2. Distribution of revenues. The district sales and use tax and vehicle fee 61 revenue shall fast pay any administrative costs to the state Department of Licensing; state 62 Department of Revenue, and any other administrative costs associated with the district's 63 operations. The remaining combined revenue will be distributed in the following manner: sixty 64 percent to King County Metro Transit; and forty percent to the cities within King County that 65 enter into agreements with the district to participate and to unincorporated King County in shares 66 equal to each entity's respective percentage of countywide population. January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 40 of 72 76 Attachment D to Item 9 67 SECTION 3. Use of revenues. If approved by the qualified electors of the district, the 68 sales and use tax and vehicle fee revenue, less the administrative costs identified in section 2 of 69 this resolution, shall be used consistent with RCW chapter 3633 to finance, but not directly carry 70 out, any transportation improvement authorized by RCW chapter 36.73, including but not limited 71 to, the acquisition, construction, operation, maintenance, and preservation of public 72 transportation facilities, services and programs, roads, any other project contained in the 73 transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, a city or the 74 county. Further, the activities carried out with the sales and use tax and vehicle fee revenue will 75 include, but not be limited to: 76 A. the operation, maintenance and capital needs of Metro Transit; 77 B. the provision of Metro Transit public transportation services; 78 C. the acquisition, operation, maintenance and repair of Metro Transit vehicles and 79 equipment; 80 D. the implementation of transportation demand management programs; 81 E. the planning associated with transit service operations, technologies, and public 82 engagement to improve performance and reduce costs when possible; 83 F. the planning, design and implementation of capital improvement and preservation 84 projects for road system facilities, including facilities such as roads, bridges, signals, guardrails, 85 drainage systems, and pedestrian and bicycle pathways; 86 G. the operation, maintenance, repair, preservation and restoration of road system 87 facilities; 88 H. the provision of emergency responses to protect road system facilities and public 89 health and safety; January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 41 of 72 77 Attachment D to Item 9 90 I. the enhancement of user safety while also maintaining existing safety standards and 91 legal requirements; 92 J. the management of intelligent transportation systems in including traffic cameras, 93 control equipment, and new teclmologies to optimize the existing transportation system; 94 SECTION 4. For the purposes of defining a transportation plan under RCW chapter 95 36.73 and section 3 of this resolution: 96 A. the transportation plan of King County includes the Transportation Element of the 97 King County Comprehensive Plan, the King County Metro Transit Strategic Plan for Public 98 Transportation, the King County Metro Transit Service Guidelines, the annual King County 99 Metro Transit Service Guidelines Report, the King County Department of Transportation 100 Strategic Plan for Road Services, the Transportation Needs Report, the King County Roads 101 Services CIP and any other plan concerning transportation that is adopted by the Metropolitan 102 King County Council; and 103 B. the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization or 104 a city shall be as identified by each such entity. 105 SECTION 5. Call for special election. The King County Transportation District hereby 106 requests that the King County director of elections call a special election on (DATE) . to 107 consider a proposition authorizing the district to fix and impose a vehicle fee in the amount of 108 (AMOUNT) dollars and to fix and impose a sales and use tax in the amount of (RATE) of one 109 percent (0._ %) for the purposes described in this resolution. The King County director of 110 elections shall cause notice to be given of this resolution in accordance with the state constitution 111 and general law and to submit to the qualified electors of the district, at the said special county 112 election, the proposition hereinafter set forth, in the form of a ballot title substantially as follows: January 8, 2014 78 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 42 of 72 Attachment D to Item 9 113 KING COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 114 115 PROPOSITION NO. 116 117 The Board of the King County Transportation District passed Resolution No. ( # # #) concerning 118 fimding for public transportation, roads and other transportation improvements. If approved, this 119 proposition would provide fimding for King County Metro Transit, and city and unincorporated 120 Kung County transportation improvements. It would authorize the district to fix and impose a 121 sales and use tax of (RATE) of one percent (0._ %) to be collected from all taxable retail sales 122 and uses within the district under RCW 82.14.0455 for a term of ten years, and an annual vehicle 123 fee of (AMOUNT) ($_.00) dollars per registered vehicle under RCW 82.80.140. 124 125 Should this vehicle fee and sales tax increase be approved? 126 127 Yes 128 No 129 130 SECTION 6. RCW 29A.32.280 provides that for each measure from a jurisdiction that is 131 included in a local voters' pamphlet, the legislative authority of that jurisdiction shall formally 132 appoint a committee to prepare argtunents advocating voter approval of the measure and a 133 conunittee to prepare arguments advocating voter rejection of the measure. 134 January 8, 2014 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 43 of 72 79 Attachment D to Item 9 135 SECTION 7. Pursuant to RCW 29A.32.280, the following individuals are appointed to 136 serve on the voters' pamphlet committees, each committee to write a statement for or against the 137 proposed measure. 138 139 FOR AGAINST 140 1. 1. 141 2. 2. 142 3. 3. 143 144 SECTION 8. Ratification. Certification of the proposition by the clerk of the district to 145 the King County director of elections in accordance with law before the election on (DATE) , 146 and any other act consistent with the authority and before the effective date of this resolution are 147 hereby ratified and confirmed. 148 SECTION 9. Severability. If any provision of this resolution or its application to any 149 person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the resolution or the application of the 150 provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. January 8, 2014 80 Item 9: Transportation Funding Page 44 of 72 The motion passed. Algona, Auburn, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Kent, Normandy Park, North Bend, and Pacific voted no. Kirkland and Renton abstained. Following additional discussion, the original motion, as amended, was called for a vote. The motion passed. Algona voted no. ED Dawson asked which if any members had a conflict with the March 12 date. Only three PIC members indicated a conflict. With no further discussion or motion, the PIC meeting date for March 2014 will be held on March 12. 9. Transportation Funding ED Dawson noted that transportation was a major priority for SCA in 2013. Dawson reminded members that in 2012, SCA member cities, Seattle, and King County were unable to come to agreement on the parameters of a local option component of a transportation package and, as a result there were competing bills in Olympia. Legislators advised that unless the parties were able to resolve their differences, no local option would be available. In 2013, after extensive negotiation, SCA members, Seattle and King County worked hard to come to terms on a local option that all three entities could support. In addition, all three entities (as part of a countywide coalition that also included business and labor, and environmental and transit advocates) came together to support a statewide transportation package. Despite these efforts, a state transportation package did not pass in 2013 and the likelihood of the state passing such a package in 2014 is unclear at best. King County is now considering a local option for transportation funding using existing authority under state law. This includes the ability to form a countywide Transportation Benefit District (TBD) utilizing a sales tax (of up to .2 %) and a vehicle license fee (of up to $100). Combined, these sources would raise over $130 million, which is similar in scope to the approximately $140 million that would have been raised by the local option sought by SCA from the legislature in 2013. Additional detail may be found in the staff memo provided to PIC members. Mayor Dave Hill, Algona, moved, seconded by Councilmember Kingston Wall, Snoqualmie to bring the following policy position back for adoption at the next PIC meeting: In order to address the critical transportation needs facing King County and cities throughout the County, the Sound Cities Association supports the formation of a countywide Transportation Benefit District (TBD), with 60% of the funds going to Metro for transit funding and 40% being distributed to the County and cities based on population for other transportation needs including local roads, sidewalks, bike paths, additional transit, and other 81 transportation purposes as determined by the particular needs of the local jurisdiction. In order to ensure that dollars can be used as effectively and efficiently as possible to address the pressing transportation needs of each individual jurisdiction and to avoid the creation of additional burdensome bureaucracies, the funding raised should be provided to local jurisdictions through a direct distribution. A number of members spoke to the motion. Mayor Dave Hill, Algona noted although the amount of roads funding is relatively small for a city of Algona's size he urged cities to take into consideration the impact that transit cuts will have on their community. Hill requested additional financial accounting from Metro. He spoke about the impact that Metro cuts will make in Algona and Pacific, reiterating that Metro is the family car for many. Hill urged members to save transit. Deputy Mayor Catherine Stanford, Lake Forest Park, questioned whether the County's proposal could affect Lake Forest Park's Transportation Benefit District. Stanford commented Lake Forest Park would like to consider raising their Transportation Benefit District amount. ED Dawson noted that cities existing TBD authority of $20 would not be affected, nor would any future proposals to increase the councilmanic authority to $40. The total Transportation Benefit District authority is $100. King County is considering $60 rather $100 to allow cities to maintain their existing and proposed future authority. Councilmember Ross Loudenback, North Bend noted that it appeared that under the proposed ordinances, there would be no specific allocation to cities. ED Dawson noted that this was an issue that the County Council is considering. The policy position submitted to PIC would ask that the County Council adhere to the past agreement reached between the County, Seattle, and SCA member cities, and to designate 60% of revenues to Metro, with 40% of the revenue raised allocated to jurisdictions based on population for other transportation needs. Councilmember Tola Marts, Issaquah noted that Issaquah had raised concerns in the past about imposition of regressive taxes. He asked for clarity about the split of the $130 million between sales tax and license fees. In response, Dawson noted that a .1% sales tax would raise approximately $50 million in the first year, while a $60 vehicle license fee would raise approximately $80 million. Dawson also noted that the less regressive tax option supported earlier by member cities was not authorized under existing state law. SCA staff distributed a handout illustrating the amount of revenue that would be raised for jurisdictions if 40% of total TBD revenue would be allocated to cities and the unincorporated area based on population. Councilmember Andy Rheaume, Bothell pointed out a typo on the handout, the heading Total Allocation to Cities (40 %) should read Total Allocations to Jurisdictions as unincorporated King County is included. A revised handout (Attachment B) is included with these minutes. 82 Mayor David Baker, Kenmore reiterated concerns about cities supporting formation of a TBD without an assurance of a share of revenues being devoted to city transportation needs, given that 90% of residents reside in cities, and the bulk of revenues are being raised in cities and from city residents. Councilmember Toby Nixon, Kirkland shared the concern about whether cities could support a ballot measure if the County did not adhere to the agreement that 40% of revenue be devoted to local jurisdictions for their transportation needs. Nixon stated that Kirkland may consider passing a resolution against the formation of a TPB if this agreement were not maintained. Deputy Mayor Chris Eggen, Shoreline noted that the continued partnership with the County as to this agreement on shared revenues was important. He however wanted to ensure that cities were able to fully discuss the position, and not to pre- commit cities to support until that discussion had been had. He also noted the Regional Transit Committee is still working with Metro to improve service. Eggen proposed moving the position forward to the next PIC meeting. Councilmember Kate Kruller, Tukwila, felt the proposed position was consistent with the voice of SCA in the past. She also shared that she felt it was consisted with the National League of Cities (NLC) approach, recommending moving transportation decision - making to the local level. Mayor Dave Hill, Algona also supported bringing this item forward to the next meeting of the PIC. He reiterated that while the dollars allocated to Algona would not have a large impact, they may have a large impact on his neighboring cities, which was also important to Algona. The potential of transit cuts are also a major concern to Algona. He urged PIC members to look at the impacts of transit cuts across the region. Diane Carlson of King County noted, in response to a question from Chair Talmas, that the formation of a TBD is up for consideration at the County Council. In the ordinance the Executive transmitted, he respected the agreement that was made with the cities as to the 40% allocation to jurisdictions, and included that percentage in his transmittal to the County Council. Members concurred that maintaining this agreement with the County was critically important in getting their cities to support the TBD. Councilmember Hank Margeson, Redmond noted that the PIC may wish to be more specific in the policy position that they ultimately adopt. He suggested, for example, that SCA may want to consider specifying support for a 0.1% sales tax and $60 vehicle license fee. Margeson supported the position moving forward but noted that the position may evolve between now and February. He also noted that King County needs to be accountable and cities will need some level of commitment of where the money is going. Chair Talmas called for a vote on the motion. 83 The motion passed unanimously. 10. Review of SCA Policy Positions — 2005 -2013 ED Dawson provided an overview of this item. She asked that members give feedback on which items are of continuing vitality, which are outdated and /or should be revised, and which should be archived. ED Dawson requested that members contact staff with suggestions related to specific policies. Members made note of policies regarding the King Conservation District which may need to be archived. Tola Marts of Issaquah requested that SCA staff bring back potential policies regarding combatting human trafficking, based on an earlier presentation to PIC. 11. Future Training Opportunities for SCA Members Chair Talmas reviewed the 2013 trainings opportunities held for PIC members and requested input from members on trainings they would like to see in 2014. Members' suggestions for training topics in 2014 included: city use of social media; continued public records training; municipal goal setting and council metrics, Redmond's budgeting process — budgeting by priorities; giving effective presentations (including but not limited to how member cities give updates to their councils on PIC issues); how to engage with legislators; and how to effectively utilize the Washington State Legislature website. ED Dawson noted that based on member feedback, members indicated that they prefer to have trainings over in -depth presentations at pre -PIC meetings. Members concurred. 12. Upcoming Events a) SCA Board Meeting — Wednesday, January 15, 2014 — 10:00 AM, Renton City Hall b) Newly Elected Officials Workshop — Wednesday, January 15, 2014 — 4:00 PM, SeaTac City Hall c) 2014 Board and Committee Orientation — Wednesday, January 15, 2014 — 6:00 PM Dinner, 6:30 Orientation, SeaTac City Hall d) SCA Woman's Leadership Breakfast — Thursday, January 16, 2014 — 7:30 AM Puget Sound Skills Center — Burien e) SCA Board Retreat — Friday, January 31, 2014 - Exact Time and Location TBD f) SCA Pre -PIC Workshop with Ann Macfarlane, Jurassic Parliament Wednesday, February 12, 2014— 6:00 PM Renton City Hall g) SCA Public Issues Committee Meeting — Wednesday, February 12, 2014 — 7:00 PM Renton City Hall h) SCA Networking Dinner — Wednesday, February 19, 2014— 5:30 PM Renton Pavilion Events Center —Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, Keynote Speaker 13. For the Good of the Order Councilmember Melissa Musser, Des Moines, reminded members of the Women's Leadership Breakfast on January 16 at 7:30 at the Puget Sound Skills Center in Burien. 84 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT King County 2015 Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Distribution Estimates Updated 1/6/2014 Major Assumptions TBD revenue is based on the implementation of a $60 license fee and 0.1% countywide sales tax. 40% of total TBD revenue would be allocated to cities and the unincorporated are based on population. Jurisdiction Population Population Estimate (2013)1 Percentage Allocation to Local Jurisdictions $52,218,600 2015 TBD Distribution Algona 3,075 0.2% $81,000 Auburn (KC portion) 64,320 3.2% $1,694,700 Beaux Arts 290 0.0% $7,600 Bellevue 132,100 6.7% $3,480,500 Black Diamond 4,170 0.2% $109,900 Bothell (K.C.portion) 23,440 1.2% $617,600 Burien 48,030 2.4% $1,265,500 Carnation 1,785 0.1% $47,000 Clyde Hill 2,980 0.2% $78,500 Covington 18,100 0.9% $476,900 Des Moines 29,730 1.5% $783,300 Duvall 7,120 0.4% $187,600 Enumclaw 11,100 0.6% $292,500 Federal Way 89,720 4.5% $2,363,900 Hunts Point 395 0.0% $10,400 Issaquah 43,249 2.2% $1,139,500 Kenmore 21,170 1.1% $557,800 Kent 120,500 6.1% $3,174,900 Kirkland 81,730 4.1% $2,153,400 Lake Forest Park 12,680 0.6% $334,100 Maple Valley 23,910 1.2% $630,000 Medina 3,000 0.2% $79,000 Mercer Island 22,720 1.1% $598,600 Milton (K.C.portion) 840 0.0% $22,100 Newcastle 10,640 0.5% $280,300 Normandy Park 6,350 0.3% $167,300 North Bend 6,020 0.3% $158,600 Pacific 6,675 0.3% $175,900 Redmond 55,840 2.8% $1,471,300 Renton 95,540 4.8% $2,517,300 Sammamish 48,060 2.4% $1,266,300 SeaTac 27,310 1.4% $719,600 Seattle 626,600 31.6% $16,509,500 Shoreline 53,670 2.7% $1,414,100 Skykomish 195 0.0% $5,100 Snoqualmie 11,700 0.6% $308,300 Tukwila 19,160 1.0% $504,800 Woodinville 10,990 0.6% $289,600 Yarrow Point 1,015 0.1% $26,700 Cities Total: 1,745,919 Uninc. King County: 235,981 11.9% $6,217,600 King County 1,981,900 1 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013 estimate, adjusted for annexations. 85