FUNDING SEATTLE'S TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

In the course of adopting the 2003 Seattle budget, the Council adopted my proposed Statement of Legislative Intent to develop new funding resources for our streets and bridges. Over the last two months, I have been exploring this issue with stakeholders around the City.

Funds to repave Seattle arterials, build new sidewalks, bike paths, and traffic calming, redesign intersections and synchronize lights, and take care of Seattle's aging bridges come mostly from local resources, with some State and Federal grants. Grants are getting scarcer, and local resources aren't enough. State and regional funding resources are required for crucial projects such as maintaining state highways and bridges, replacing and improving the Seawall-Viaduct and the 520 bridge, and providing more transit options. However, the billions of dollars needed for these projects will not address Seattle's local transportation network.

Seven per cent of Seattle's arterials are rated low enough to be essentially failing, and about one-third of arterials are older than their design life. Basic maintenance is funded at $5.4 million in 2003, $10.4 million below what would be required to keep up. Additional funds would be required to catch up on the backlog. At the current rate, it will take 150 to 200 years to repave concrete streets whose normal life is 50 to 80 years. Completing Seattle's bicycle paths and arterial sidewalk system will take many years at current funding levels. Seattle voters have shown their commitment to growth management and neighborhood plans by funding parks, community centers, and libraries. However, there has been no new funding for neighborhood transportation improvements. Freight mobility is a high priority for economic development, but investments are lagging behind.

In the mid-1990's, a panel of Seattle civic and neighborhood leaders recommended major increases in investment in Seattle's transportation infrastructure. Two proposed sources failed: a Street Utility was declared unconstitutional, and a property tax levy submitted to the voters in 1997 received 57% of the vote, short of the required 60%. After these failures, the City Council decided to dramatically increase general fund resources for transportation infrastructure, which rose from $26.6 million in 1998 to $43.3 million in 2002. With other revenues added in, in 2002 the Seattle Transportation budget actually reached the $96.1 million target level of investment set by the citizen panel. Some new investments were made, pavement conditions stabilized and actually improved slightly.

Then the recession hit. The proposed 2003 budget reduced general fund support by $5.6 million in 2003. Passage of Initiative 776 cut Seattle's share of Vehicle License Fees, another $5 million (which may come back if the Supreme Court decides that the Initiative was unconstitutional). The proposed budget included $20 million that would have come to the City if Referendum 51 had passed. After taking into account other adjustments and changes in accounting, Seattle Transportation can spend about $25 million less in 2003 than in 2002 on local maintenance and improvements.

Transportation infrastructure is not glamorous. Roads, bicycle paths, and sidewalks deteriorate quietly and slowly, and catastrophic failures don't happen for a long time. But they will happen eventually, and in the meantime, we will suffer from the slow decay and the shortfall in improvements. State and County governments are both struggling to address shortfalls, and the federal government has moved from surplus to deficit.

The Mayor and Council must commit to maintaining current levels of general fund support for transportation infrastructure, and to continuing to improve the management of Seattle Department of Transportation to make the most of the funds available. If Seattle had an additional $30 million per year, we would be able to invest $15 million in maintenance, enough to stabilize conditions and begin to gain some ground. The other $15 million, combined with leveraged grant funds, could support transportation improvements. There are at least three options that could be used separately or in combination:
1. A transportation improvement levy. Such a levy would only require a 50% vote rather than the 60% required in 1997, thanks to the increased value of the City's property tax base as a result of the boom of the 1990's. Raising $30 million per year would cost the average homeowner about $50.
2. A new Street Utility. City lawyers believe that it would be possible to structure a utility that would pass the Constitutional tests set by the Supreme Court. A Street Utility is currently limited to $24 per household under state law, so this could raise perhaps $15 million.
3. A tax on commercial parking (one of the few options that the legislature has specifically granted to local governments). This could shift the tax onto vehicle drivers, some of whom are from outside the city, but will not raise very much money, may have negative impacts on retail, and may be difficult to administer.

I plan to continue talking to business, labor, neighborhood, and environmental leaders over the coming weeks, and then convene a more formal process, possibly a revived community work group representing all constituencies, to create a plan to take back to the Council and voters.

Back to Contents

AURORA BUS EXPRESS

The Seattle Department of Transportation is proposing several changes on Aurora Avenue through north Seattle, many of which would improve pedestrian access and traffic flow and appear to have widespread support. The changes are initial steps towards implementing an Aurora Bus Express system, which would combine bus priority lanes with expanded service to dramatically increase the availability and usage of transit on Aurora.

Aurora Avenue merchants have raised concern about one element of the current proposal, limitations on parking in the south-bound curb lane during the evening rush hour between N 72nd and N 110th in order to facilitate transit flow. They believe this step will negatively impact businesses that rely on this parking.

I plan to walk this stretch of Aurora during the affected time to see the impact for myself. The change will improve the return time for buses going back towards downtown, but in the early stages only about 9 buses will actually benefit, and it is not clear to me whether this is an adequate improvement to warrant this. While the decision to remove parking is an administrative action made by the Mayor and Department Director, I can make recommendations on the issue.

In the farther future, the increased level of transit access would make a much stronger case for limiting parking. However, there are also policy questions about whether the regional access role of Aurora Avenue North should be expanded without thoroughly reviewing the operation of the street as a whole.

There are at least three competing visions for the future of Aurora: a through route from north to south in parallel with Interstate 5, both for cars and transit; an auto-oriented business district; or a series of more pedestrian-oriented urban villages and neighborhood commercial districts. Because of the potential incompatibility of these visions, the two neighborhood plans that were originally centered on Aurora moved their proposed main streets one block away (Linden for the Broadview Neighborhood Plan and Stone Way for the Licton Springs Neighborhood Plan).

As planning continues for expanded transit access on Aurora, I believe that the Council should convene a process to work with stakeholders to determine a long-range plan that will maximize the compatibility of the three competing visions. This would include working through the issues in cooperation with community members to address key concerns. I hope to begin this process later this year.

Back to Contents

CREEKS INITIATIVE

Initiative 80, which creates regulations and incentives to restore and daylight creeks in the City of Seattle, will be on the September ballot. I am very sympathetic to the goals of the Creeks Initiative, but when initiatives come to Council, the Council has the choice of voting them into law, placing them on the ballot alone, or placing them on the ballot with an alternative. The Municipal League, which reviewed the initiative at the request of the Council, asked the Council to try to craft a Council alternative to go on the ballot with I-80.

In response, Councilmember Heidi Wills and I decided to try to develop an alternative that could offer some common ground on which the supporters of I-80 and those who felt it went too far might agree. Both the environmental community and other stakeholders generally warmly received our alternative, Council Bill 114496.

CB 114496 took some elements of I-80 and added provisions that clarified issues and set priorities. Our philosophy was to respect the ecological, cultural, and historical significance of creeks and their watersheds. The City would be required to identify objectives for creek restoration and daylighting on high priority creeks, and implement restoration and daylighting on City property. The City would also develop indicators of creek health and measurable performance targets, and identify opportunities and potential incentives for restoration and/or daylighting of creeks on both public and private property. The proposal also included a pesticide reduction plan, a specified funding source, and some requirements for private property owners.

As the timeline for placing the alternative on the ballot ran out, there were a few issues that needed more work. There was also a range of opinions about placing an alternative on the ballot, with some concern that voters would find an alternative too complex and would suspect it as an attempt to confuse them.

We concluded that a majority of Councilmembers would not agree on what we had developed, and that there was not enough time to resolve the issues before the deadline. The effort that went into developing the alternative, however, has created a very good draft from which to work on creek protection issues in the future.

Back to Contents

MERCURY THERMOMETER BAN AND FARMER'S MARKET FEES

Two of my initiatives were successfully implemented this month by the Seattle & King County Department of Public Health. The Board of Health unanimously adopted a ban on the sale of mercury thermometers, a proposal I sponsored at the request of the Washington Toxics Coalition and several other environmental groups. Mercury thermometers can cause nerve damage in children if they are broken and the mercury is ingested either directly or when particles become part of house dust, and create mercury pollution if disposed improperly. Fortunately, there are alternatives available, and several progressive retailers have voluntarily discontinued them. Publicity urging people to turn in thermometers at household hazardous waste collections will accompany the formal ban.

Last year, I successfully persuaded the Board to reduce inspection fees charged to farmers at Farmer's Markets. Last month the Department took administrative action to reduce the fees for sale of cheese from $87 to $25, acknowledging that the sale at markets requires minimal regulation and inspection. Market farmers operate at very low margins for limited hours, so even relatively small fees can make their participation infeasible. This fee reduction continues my work to support continuation and expansion of Farmer's Markets in Seattle.

Back to Contents

QUOTE:
"The only way out is through."

-- Robert Frost

DEEP THOUGHT:
"Indecision is the key to flexibility." -- Anonymous

Citizen participation and engagement are critical for maintaining democracy -- fostering it is a key task of elected officials. It's my hope that this newsletter will inform you about issues, inspire you to get involved, and that together we can make things work better in this great city. Please send me your feedback, so we can keep things lively, interesting, and useful. And please forward it along to friends who might be interested.

Richard Conlin
Your Seattle City Councilmember

To subscribe to this list, send a message to: Majordomo@lists.speakeasy.org
In the body of the message, type: subscribe makingitwork
To unsubscribe, send a message to: Majordomo@lists.speakeasy.org
In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe makingitwork

Back to Contents

Back to MAKING IT WORK Newsletters