Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTrans 2007-04-09 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET City of Tukwila Transportation Committee �x Pam Carter, Chair Joe Duffle Pam Linder AGENDA Monday, April 9, 2007 Time: 5:00 p.m. Place: Conference Room No. 1 NO. ITEMN NO. ACTION TO BE TAKEN I. Current Agenda Review I. II. Presentation(s) II. III. Business Agenda III. A. Regional Transportation Commission A. Discussion. Page 1 (Regional Transportation Commission Final Report provided separately to Committee members.) IV. Old Business Next Meeting: Monday, April 23, 2007 Future Agendas: 1. The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities. Please contact the Public Works Department at 433 -0179 for assistance. S INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director 't Date: April 5, 2007 UU Subject: Regional Transportation Commission ISSUE Proposed state legislation creating the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). DISCUSSION Attachment III.A. The RTC, appointed by the Governor in June 2006, was charged to "develop a proposal for a regional transportation governing entity more directly accountable to the public, and to develop a comprehensive regional transportation finance plan for the citizens of the Puget Sound metropolitan region." The charter also included a task to analyze the situation, provide conclusions, and suggest recommendations. The final report was issued December 31, 2006 (Attachment 1). The report concluded, "Our current transportation governance delivers inadequate results and will need fundamental systemic change to meet our region's transportation needs in the future." The report recommended three interrelated strategies that need to be implemented: Employ user fees (tolls, fares, parking charges) to manage demand for transportation. The thinking is that if the tolls, fares are high enough, then demand will decrease and the funds received will help pay for construction. Raise more money from a combination of tax increases and user fees. Prioritize projects throughout the region and across modes so that the most important projects get built. The challenge with prioritizing is establishing who is in charge. Today there are 128 agencies that manage aspects of transportation in the four county region. If 128 agencies are theoretically in charge, then it can reasonably be assumed that no one is in charge and capable of prioritizing projects. Senator Haugen introduced SB 5803 in the 2007 legislative session to create a seven member Regional Transportation Interim Commission to negotiate the transition to a new Regional Transportation Commission (Governor appointed). The RTC would consist of five publicly elected commissioners that would represent the four county area and there would be four members appointed by the Governor. A number of amendments to this bill have been I 2 Mayor Mullet Page 2 April 5, 2007 attempted, including a striker (copy upon request) that was to be heard at 3:30 p.m. April 3. Puget Sound Regional Council has taken a position (Attachment 2) and SCATBd has sent a letter to Senator Haugen (Attachment 3) on the creation of a separate commission. AWC has provided comments on the proposed legislation (Attachment 4). RECOMMENDATION For discussion. attachments: 1. Regional Transportation Commission Final Report dated December 2006 (Committee Members) 2. February 22, 2007, PSRC position paper on RTC 3. March 29, 2006, SCATBd letter to Senator Haugen and Representative Clibbom 4. AWC comments (P:alice\TC 040907 RTC) Attachment 2 Puget Sound Regional Council Position on Legislation to Implement the Regional Transportation Commission Recommendations February 22, 2007 We agree that we need to have this discussion. A primary and fundamental concern of the jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region is the successful implementation of our regional transportation plan. We've made real progress on this in the last few years, with Sound Transit's High Capacity Transit programs coming on line, additional state funding for needed corridor improvements, and local initiatives for both roads and transit. Better coordination, integration of implementation efforts, and prioritization approaches, along with more resources, are all necessary parts of implementing the region's plan. However, reorganizing governing authority is a big step and needs to be done thoughtfully and carefully. We would encourage the legislature not to go into this process with the predisposition that a new agency is needed. The region's citizens need to be assured that any changes actually improve the ability to implement needed transportation projects and programs. We need to be sure that a new structure is efficient, brings more resources to the table, can be seamlessly integrated with existing and continuing processes, and adds real value. The region would benefit from fully vetting the framework for a new structure to be sure that it adequately addresses the region's transportation problems. We need to be part of the discussion. Transportation governance in the Puget Sound region directly affects the jurisdictions in this region. The local governments will have to have a role establishing a new regional entity (whether through action by county legislative authorities as outlined in SB 5803 or to get federal approval for a re- designated Metropolitan Planning Organization that requires agreement of local jurisdictions representing 75% of the region's population, the City of Seattle and the Governor). The mechanism, authorities, incentives, relationships, and structure need to be well thought through, and need to have the support of the region's local governments to be successful. Concerns: 1. 2007 Ballot. Changes in regional transportation governance should not delay progress in delivering regional transportation projects and should not interfere with the 2007 RTID/ST ballot. 2. Funding. The funding provided to the Regional Transportation Commission is not significantly different than current mechanisms, and therefore does not appear to help the region implement its transportation plan. To fill the regional funding gap, a sizeable, stable, predictable, and additional regional funding source is needed, not just reallocating existing funding. The region supports the bill's intent to give the region more say over state investment in the region, and in overseeing regional tolling proposals, but these authorities need to be linked to significant new resources to create a clear incentive for the region. 3 4 3. Silos. In a related issue, much of the current inefficiency in funding transportation projects has to do with state and federal funding silos which have strict rules on what the money can be used for. The bill does nothing about breaking down these silos to help the region prioritize investments in the most important projects. 4. Regional Impact Fees. The bill includes authority for the Regional Transportation Commission to impose regional impact fees but provides no direction or implementation authority related to these new fees. 5. Inconsistent Boundaries. The bill allows two counties to form a Regional Transportation Commission, but for state and federal planning purposes we are a four county region (King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish) there should not be inconsistencies with our federal MPO designation and the Regional Transportation Commission's authority to create a less than four county organization. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) need to be the same organization (as currently required by state law) to avoid duplication and further confusion. 6. Ferries. Ferries are an integral part of the region's transportation system, and need to be reflected in a governance proposal. It is not clear in the bill whether the Regional Transportation Commission has any authority over non -state ferry services, such as local ferries and proposed cross -Sound passenger -only ferries. Is it the intent of the bill to give the region control over investment in state highways, but no say in priorities on the Washington State Ferries? 7. Clarification of Roles. The roles of the Commission and the Policy Advisory Board need to be clarified. The bill appears to give authority to the Policy Advisory Board to amend the voter approved plan, approve employee compensation, and decide on including local initiatives in the regional plan. It appears these should be functions of the Commission, not the Policy Advisory Board. Also, it is not clear what compensation is meant for Commissioners. 8. Providing Local Jurisdictions a Voice. The Policy Advisory Board seems to be the only place in the proposed structure for local jurisdictions to officially provide input into Regional Transportation Commission activities. We are concerned that the size of this board is constrained and that Regional Transportation Commission commissioners can be appointed to the Policy Advisory Board as local elected officials. Elected representatives of local general purpose jurisdictions need to have a meaningful and substantial voice in setting regional investment priorities. While we appreciate that the bill recognizes that certain MPO functions need to be addressed through the Policy Advisory Board, we are concerned that many local perspectives will not get reflected at the Regional Transportation Commission table. 9. SEPA/GMA Exemption. The bill exempts the Regional Transportation Commission plan approval from SEPA and GMA. We would like to understand the intent and the implications of this exemption. 10. Commission Authority Related to Initiatives. The initiative process has had a large impact on funding, prioritization and planning of transportation projects. How would a new governance entity prevent its authority and progress from being eroded by initiatives? March 29, 2007 The Honorable Mary Margaret Haugen Chair, Senate Transportation Committee Washington State Legislature 305 John A. Cherberg Building P.O. Box 40410 Olympia, WA 98504 -0410 The Honorable Judy Clibborn Chair, House Transportation Committee Washington State Legislature 435 John L. O'Brien Building PO Box 40600 Olympia, WA. 98504 -0600 Dear Senator Haugen and Representative Clibbom: Attachment 3 South County Area Transportation Board MS: KSC -TR -0814 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 -3856 Phone: (206) 263 -4710 Fax: (206) 684 -2111 On February 26, we sent a letter on behalf of the South King County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd), expressing our concern about Senate Bill 5803, and its potential adverse impact on the regional transportation ballot measure. We also expressed concemed about the apparent lack of integration of land use and transportation planning represented in the bill, and the reduced involvement of local elected officials in the planning and decision making process. We understand that substitute legislation that is currently under consideration attempts to address some of our concerns about the involvement of local elected officials. Since they are in the best position to ensure a strong link between transportation investments and land use development, we believe that they should continue to have a major role in the decision process. We appreciate that modifications from the original bill and hope that those elements continue to be improved as you revise the legislation. SCATBd members remain concerned, however, that approving legislation now to create a new entity for transportation planning and programming could have adverse effects on the Roads Transit fall ballot. SCATBd has been working hard with Sound Transit and RTID for months to refine the regional package. Radical changes in regional transportation governance structures at this juncture could compromise success in November. It is hard to imagine how the public would be willing to support a significant tax increase without clarity on who would be making decisions about how those revenues will be spent. Algona Aubum Black Diamond Burien Covington Des Moines Enumclaw Federal Way Kent King County Milton Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Normandy Park Pacific Renton SeaTac Tukwila Pierce Transit Port of Seattle Sound Transit Transportation Improvement Board Puget Sound Regional Council Washington State Department of Transportation 5 6 The Honorable Mary Margaret Haugen and The Honorable Judy Clibborn March 29, 2007 Page 2 We have made good progress in achieving a high level of consensus on the regional package and believe that conditions are promising for a positive vote this fall. We urge you to carefully consider any changes to the transportation decision making process in this region to ensure that the ballot measure is allowed every chance for success. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, John Wise Suzette Cooke Mayor, City of Enumclaw Mayor, City of Kent Chair Vice Chair South County Area Transportation Board cc: South King County legislators SCATBd members Comments on 2SSB 5803 Regional Transportation Commissions (RTC) Provisions Initial Comments, from AWC and other Stakeholders Creates a seven member Regional Transportation Interim Commission (RTIC) to negotiate the transition to a new Regional Transportation Commission (Governor appointed). Creates a new Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). The RTC would consist of five publicly elected commissioners that would represent the four county area of King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap Counties. In addition, four members are to be Governor appointed. Concern raised that terms are six years and that there is limited criteria for appointment of commissioners. The RTC would also contain a Policy Board. Policy Board has been characterized as similar to existing to Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) board. The Policy Board is a forum for state, regional, local officials and stakeholders to discuss regional transportation planning, project prioritization, and funding issues. Although intent is for the Policy Board to work collaboratively with RTC, the Policy Board may or may not have a diminished (rubber stamp) role. The RTC would, upon recertification: 1) assume the responsibilities and powers of the federal Metropolitan Planning Organization, and; 2) the state GMA components of the Regional Transportation Planning Organization. This is similar to the PSRC. The RTC is charged with prioritizing transportation investments on regional corridors. Until an RTC plan is adopted, it is unclear how this will differ from current project selection within PSRC's existing mechanisms. Any one county within the four county region can "trigger" the formation of an RTIC. However, absent the formation of an RTIC /RTC, local jurisdictions are denied TIB and CRAB funding. In addition, access to the Transportation Benefit District Authority is denied. AWC testified with strong concern that local funding would be withheld absent the formation of the RTIC /RTC.