Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 1197 - Transportation Planning Program and Coordination Requirements Ww 190$ CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 1197 _//�f A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR USING LOCAL OPTION TRANSPORTATION REVENUES AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 82.80 RCW. WHEREAS, Chapter 82.80 RCW Local Option Transportation Taxes requires that, as a condition of levying of expending any of the local option transportation revenues authorized by that legislation, counties and cities over 8,000 population must meet certain planning, programming and coordination requirements as provided in RCW 82.80.070; and WHEREAS, King County has enacted the local option vehicle license fee authorized by RCW 82.80.020 effective July 1, 1991; and the revenues from this new fee will be distributed by the State Treasurer to King County and each of its cities, pursuant to the formula established by RCW 82.80.080; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 1990, at the King County Post Legislative Session Transportation Forum, King County and city elected officials agreed that there should be a common, interim process for meeting the planning, programming and coordination requirements of RCW 82.80.070, and that the interim process should be in effect until reorganization of the county -wide and multi- county land use and transportation coordination agencies is accomplished; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of 1990 establishes certain requirements for land use and transportation planning and coordination among local jurisdictions, which requirements exceed the scope of the requirements in RCW 82.80.070, and for which new planning and coordination procedures may have to be established; and WHEREAS, King County and all cities within the county would benefit from a common framework within which to respond to the requirements of RCW 82.80.070; and WHEREAS, the intent of the 1990 legislature in authorizing these new local option transportation revenues was to foster coordinated local and regional transportation planning and to focus the use of these new revenue sources on addressing multi jurisdictional commuter congestion problems and other priorities deemed appropriate by cities and counties; and WHEREAS, transportation planning and coordination among local jurisdictions in King County is already occurring through varied mechanisms and forums which can accomplish the intent of RCW 82.80.070 until such time that other applicable procedures are established by a new county -wide and/or multi- county planning organization; and WHEREAS, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle and the Washington State Department of Transportation should also be involved in coordinated land use and transportation planning; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: The City of Tukwila shall use the interim process described in Attachment A to meet the transportation planning, programming and coordination requirements of RCW 82.80.070 until such time that other applicable planning and coordination procedures are established by a new county -wide and/or multi- county land use and transportation planning organization. With respect to the specific transportation programs required by RCW 82.80.070 to be adopted by each jurisdiction over 8,000 population, the City of Tukwila intends to use the vehicle registration revenues for use on traffic safety and capacity projects as identified in the Annual Transportation Improvement Plan Update. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF TU WILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this day of 1991. Dennis L. Robertson, Council President ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: a e E. Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY A'TT'ORNEY: Filed with the City Clerk: S/- l Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number 9 7 King County Executive TIM HILL VcD 400 Ring County Courthouse M 516 Third Avenue 1 APt 199, Seattle, Washington 98104 (Z06) 296 -1040 f i!� V Ui- 4fS l �j March 18, 1991 The Honorable Gary Van Dusen Mayor, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Interim Planning and Coordination Process to Meet Requirements of RCW 82.80.070 Dear Mayor Van Dusen: Pursuant to RCW 82.80.070, each local government with a population greater than 8,000 that levies or expends any of the new local option transportation revenues authorized by Chapter 82.80 RCW Local Option Transoortation Taxes, must meet broadly stated transportation planning and coordination requirements. The County has levied the vehicle license fee -one of the local option revenues authorized by Chapter 82.80 RCW effective July 1, 1991. Prior to July 1, 1991, the County and each city over 8,000 should adopt a process for meeting the transportation planning, programming, and coordination requirements of RCW 82.80.070. You will find enclosed an Interim Transportation Planning and Coordination Process and a Model Resolution for adopting the process. At the May 1990 Post Legislative Transportation Forum, elected officials agreed that the County and cities should have a common process for meeting these requirements, that this process should be based on existing practices to the extent possible, and that the process should be interim in nature until new intercounty and intracounty transportation planning organizations are established. Consistent with that direction, the Financing Strategies Committee (FSC), a multijurisdictional technical staff committee working on local option transportation financing issues, has drafted an interim transportation planning and coordination process to meet the requirements of RCW 82.80.070. The process has been discussed in _several forums including a technical staff meeting specifically to review and comment on the process, the Eastside Transportation Program, the Metro Council's Planning Subcommittee, and the Suburban Cities Association Growth and Transportation Committees (joint meeting). 2! The Honorable Gary Van Dusen March 18, 1991 Page 2 There are three points about the Interim Planning and Coordination process which I would like to bring to your attention. o Existing Processes Utilized Only One New Element. Jurisdictions already engage in considerable planning and project coordination. The proposed interim planning and coordination process recognizes existing procedures. The only new element is the "transportation program" which is specifically required by legislation (RCW 82.80.070 (3)). Since the statutory language is vague on how to implement this provision and it is not likely that guidance on this matter will be provided by state agencies, staff recommend that each jurisdiction respond through their transportation capital improvement program (CIP). Section III. C of the Interim Planning and Coordination Process provides guidance for a common approach within King County jurisdictions but allows each jurisdiction to tailor action suitable to its own circumstances. (See also Section 2 in the Draft Model Resolution.) o Interim Process. The proposed interim planning and coordination process is just that interim. It is intended zo be replaced as soon as possible by other procedures to implement the Growth Management Act and the reorganization of intercounty and intracounty land use and transportation planning and coordination mechanisms. It is my assessment that while there is serious work in progress towards establishing these new procedures and oroanizations, it will not occur before the July 1, 1991 deadline for meeting the planning and coordination requirements of RCW 82.80.070. Consequently, it is important that your city adopt the recommended interim planing and coordination process. o Flexibility in Lanouaae: The Interim Planning and Coordination process is not presented in the form of an interlocal agreement with formal and restrictive language requirements. It is not necessary that each jurisdiction adopt by resolution the Interim Planning and Coordination process exactly -as statzd in the draft. The process language is intentionally general in nature in order to accommodate the wide variations in planning and coordination processes among King County and its 31 cities. Jurisdictions may adopt alternative language to suit their specific needs. In fact, Section 2 of the resolution requires the city to draft and insert its own language. The only critical 'element is thatt'a= process be: adopted by July I 1991 The Honorable Gary Van Dusen March 18, 1991 Page 3 Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions about the Interim Planning and Coordination Process, please call me at 296 -4040 or County Road Engineer Louis Haff at 296 -6590. Sincerely, C. Tim Hill King County Executive TH /DG /ab Enclosures cc: King County Councilmembers ATTN: Cal Hoggard, Program Director Jerry Peterson, Administrator Cynthia Stewart, Manager, Public rr'orks and Regional Affairs John McFarland, Tukwila City Administrator ATTN: Mary Anderson, Public Works Superintendent Paul Tanaka, Director, Department of Public Works ATTN: Louis J. Haff, County Road Engineer ATTACHMENT A INTERIM TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND COORDINATION PROCESS (For Implementing RCN 82.80 Local Option Transportation Revenues) SECTION I. DEFINITIONS The "Eastside Transportation Program" or "ETP" is a transportation planning and coordination effort which includes King County, the cities of Bellevue, Bothell, Issaquah, Kirkland, and Redmond, Metro, and k'SDOT. "Local Option Transportation Revenues" include the vehicle license lee, local option gas tax, street utility, and commercial parking tax authorized by Chapter 82.80 RCW. "Metro" is the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. n 'MetroD011tdn Pl anning Organization" or "I'1P0" is an organization designated jointly by local jurisdictions and the Governor as the agency responsible for carrying Out the Cooperative, continuing and comprehensive transportation planning activities required by Section 134, Title 23 USC. "Regional Transportation and Land Use Plans" refers to those multi county and Countywide transportation and land use plans, such as VISION 2020, adopted by the Puget Sound Council of Governments as the metropolitan planning organization (if�PO) for the Central Puget Sound Pegion, until such ti ;m,e that a new agency is dESlgnated as MPO and develops new regional plans. The 'South County Area Transportation BEnef District or "SCAT BD" Steering Comimnittee is a transportation planning and coordination Effort to establish a transporLGL benefit district and includes representatiVeS from King County, the cities of Kent, Penton, SeaTac and Tukwila, Metro and WSDOT and the Valley Area Transportation Alliance. A "Transportation Plan" is a functional plan describing the existing and proposed transportation facilities and services within a jurisdiction. Such plans may be jurisdiction -wide or may encompass a smaller geographic area. "Transportation Program" refers to the specific transportation program described in RCW 82.80.070 (3), and required to be developed by each jurisdiction (with population of 8,000 or more) that levies or expends any of the local option transportation revenues. "WSD07 is the Washington State Department of Transportation. SECTION II. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY A. ADOIicability. The forums and processes described herein shall be the interim method by which King County and the cities within King County comply with the transportation planning, programming and coordination requirements specified as a condition of using the local option transportation revenues authorized by Chapter 82.80 RCW, including the vehicle licence fee which has been implemented by King County effective July 1, 1991. This interim method shall be used by King County and the cities within King County until such time as superceding procedures are established by a new Countywide and /or multicounty planning organization with transportation planning and coordination responsibilities. B. Purpose. 1. The General purpose of the Interim Transportation Planning and Coordination Process is to ensure that the transportation planning, programming and coordination requirements of RCW 82.80.070 are complied with in an orderly and efficient manner until such time that the process is replaced by new processes as may be established by new intercounty and intracounty transportation planning and coordination orGanizations. 2. The specific purpose of this process shall be t0 respond to the statutory requirements that: (a) The Transportation Program of each juri over 8,000 population indicate how the jurisdictions Transportation Plan (upon which the Transportation Program is based) is Coordinated with applicable Transportation Plar.S for the region and 'Or adjacen- jurisdictions (RCW 82.80.070 (3)(b)), and (b) JUr1Sd1Ct1CnS over 8,000 population periodically review and Update their Transportation Programs to ensure consistency with applicable local and Regional Transportation and Land Use Plans (RCW 82.80.070 SECTION III. INTERIM PLANNING AND COORDINATION Coordination among jurisdictions to ensure consistency between Transportation Plans of adjacent jurisdictions and between local plans and Regional Transportation and Land Use Plans shall be accomplished as follows: A. Subrecional Coordination. I. To the extent possible, transportation planning, coordination and dispute resolution shall be pursued through existing subrecional transportation planning groups such as the ETP and SCATBD. Each such group will determine how this is best accomplished within its geographic area V Interim Plan /Coord. Process DRAFT 5 2/1/91 Page 3 2. In geographic areas of the County where such groups do not exist and when necessary, King County shall take the lead in establishing such additional subregional transportation planning forums. B. Transportation Plans and Programs: Notification. Review and Comment. 1. The County and each city shall notify adjacent jurisdictions, applicable regional transportation planning zgencies, WSDOT, and Metro at the Earliest possible stage of development of (a) a new regional, subregional, county community land use and /or Transportation Plan or (b) revisions to such plans, in order provide timely opportunities for review and comment prior to adoption by the legislative authority. 2. Prior to legislative adoption of a Transportation Program; as required by RCW 82.80.070 (3), King County and each city shall submit to applicable regional transportation planning agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, WSDOT and Metro: (a) the proposed Transportation Program; and (b) the Transportation Plan upon which the proposed Transportation Program is based. The Transportation Program shall be transmitted to adjacent jurisdictions and 'applicable reaiona agencies no later than the same time it is ransmilted to the jurisdiction's legislative body for adoption in order that those agencies have opportunity to formally comment on the Transportation Program before adoption. J. the County and each City should notify adjacent juri!�dictions, applicable regional transportation planning agencies, WSDOT and METRO at the earliest, passible stage of development CT a project to included in their Tr ansportation Programs which will Serve a multijurisdictional function or is necessitated by existing or Toresee-able congestion. C. Transoortation Program. The Transportation Pr ogram shall be developed as an integra part of each jurisdiction's six -year transportation, Capital improvement program. At a minimum, the Transportation Program shall consist of z narrative report on the specific points required to be addressed by RCW 82.80.070 including identification of the transportation improvements and services intended to be funded in whole or in part by local option transportation revenues. SECTION IV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. A. Notification of appropriate jurisdictions at the earliest stages of a transportation planning process shall be practiced in order to identify potential problems and concerns and to seek early resolution of any dispute. B. Until such time that a specific procedure for resolving transportation planning disputes is established as part of Growth Management Act implementation, any party may use existing processes for resolving dispute including, but not limited to: (1) Appeal processes provided through the State Environmental Policy Act L, r% the Shoreline Interim Plan /Coord. Process DRAFT 5 2/1/91 Page 4 Management Act or other regulatory measures; (2) Binding Arbitration; and (3) Voluntary Mediation. Where subregional forums such as ETP or SCATBD exist, those bodies may establish an appropriate dispute_ resolution mechanism for their member jurisdictions.