LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FINANCING RESOLUTION

On Monday, July 14, the Council voted 8 to 1 (Pageler) to adopt my resolution establishing a Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) II to look at ways to provide funding for Seattle transportation infrastructure and improvements.

The new panel will be appointed by the Mayor and Council in November, and will report back by mid-March with recommendations for ways to increase the funding available for addressing street maintenance, promoting freight mobility, implementing neighborhood plan transportation recommendations, and completing the City’s bicycle and pedestrian access networks. We anticipate that the Committee may identify better ways to fund transportation from existing resources, suggest changes in state law that might provide additional resources, and consider whether to submit to the voters a Transportation Improvements Levy.

The original CTAC met in 1996, and recommended both increasing general fund support for transportation and adopting two new funding mechanisms, a street utility and a transportation improvement bond. The Council was able to take the first step by increasing general fund support for transportation, from $26.6 million in 1998 to $43.3 million in 2002. However, the street utility ran into constitutional problems, and the bond received only 57% of the vote in 1997, short of the 60% required for passage.

Because of the recession and the impact of Initiative 747, there is no realistic chance that general fund allocations can be further increased. Nor is there much prospect for increased state, federal, or regional funding for the kind of local investments that Seattle is short on: 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, as noted in an earlier newsletter (Making It Work, Volume V, Issue 3).

Over the last few months, I have presented this issue to Seattle’s District Councils and to business, labor, civic, and environmental organizations. There has been virtually unanimous agreement that there is a need for more funding, although there have been different opinions on the amount of funding needed and on what the best set of alternatives would be. The new CTAC II will look at the numbers, sift through these opinions, and examine possible options. I look forward to receiving their recommendations and leading the Council process to ensure that Seattle takes the appropriate care of one of its most valuable assets, our transportation infrastructure.

Back to Contents

520/I-90 UPDATES

On Tuesday, July 15, two regional planning groups made recommendations for improvements in the two routes connecting Seattle and the Eastside. Over the last year, Seattle elected officials have been working to improve our relations with Eastside cities and to find mutually acceptable ways to address regional transportation issues that affect both sides of the Lake.

Generally, Seattle has advocated for increased transit service over Lake Washington, while many Eastside cities have pressed for more automobile lanes. The two sides have been at loggerheads over the proposed replacement for the 520 bridge and over reconfiguration of the I-90 bridge to provide for two-way transit operations.

There are no perfect solutions to either of these, and stalemate should not be an option. Our economies are interdependent, and people live and work on both sides of the Lake in almost equal proportions – about 55% of commuter traffic is into Seattle, and 45% from Seattle to the Eastside.

The compromise on 520 expands the options in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process to the full range of possibilities, from replacing the existing 4 lanes and adding only High Capacity Transit, to doubling the automobile capacity by adding 4 more lanes. Seattle is quite confident that the 8-lane option sinks of its own weight, simply displacing congestion onto I-5 while costing far more than the other options. We are prepared to look realistically at all of the other options (none of which would add capacity for single occupancy vehicles), and see what makes the most sense. While replacing the bridge is imperative from a safety standpoint, no final decision will made until after completion of the EIS.

I-90 has two center lanes that were designed for a future light rail system, but which are currently operated as reversible HOV/Transit lanes, going into Seattle in the morning and out in the evening. As noted above, this pattern is obsolete, and changing it to 2-way transit operation has been envisioned for a long time. While Seattle advocated simply implementing that in the center lanes, the Eastside proposed reconfiguring the other lanes to add an additional lane in each direction. Seattle was concerned that this compromises safety by narrowing lanes and shoulders, increases the number of vehicles entering Seattle’s crowded arterials, and has negative impacts on freight mobility and bicycle and pedestrian travel. The Council unanimously passed a resolution on Monday, July 14, critical of this option, but expressing our willingness to consider it if it was implemented simultaneously with construction of light rail over I-90.

The added lane scenario makes sense if combined with light rail, as the additional lanes would be necessary for the displaced bus/HOV traffic that now uses the center lanes. The compromise offered was that the Eastside would agree to commit to center lane light rail, if Seattle would agree to move forward with the lane reconfiguration. The two sides will continue to circle each other warily over the next several years as planning proceeds, but the concessions are real. If they can be formalized in a legally binding agreement, and if they are kept in good faith (and if some of the other problems can be effectively mitigated by good design), this may represent a very significant regional achievement.

Back to Contents

FIRE FACILITIES LEVY

On Monday, July 21, the City Council voted unanimously to place a Fire Facilities levy on the November ballot. The levy would raise some $167 million over a nine-year period, with the cost for the median home averaging about $74 per year.

If voters approve the levy, the funds would be used to upgrade, renovate, or replace 32 neighborhood fire stations, construct a new training facility, and upgrade the Fire Alarm Center. It would also construct a modern, seismically safe Emergency Operations Center and provide for emergency community supplies, emergency shelter power generators, and emergency water supply capacity for fire fighting in the event the City's fire hydrants are disabled. Finally, the ballot measure would upgrade marine fire safety with two new boats and the rehabilitation of the Chief Seattle fireboat. The Council reaffirmed the City’s policy direction that all newly constructed or renovated facilities in excess of 5,000 square feet will meet the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design's Silver Rating for environmentally sustainable design.

The Council debated the Mayor’s proposal for several weeks before coming to an agreement on a package approximately 30% smaller than that originally proposed by the Mayor. I was particularly concerned that an initial revision to the Mayor’s proposal reduced it by leaving the 14 most recently constructed stations out, even though studies had identified the need for seismic and safety upgrades at all of them. I strongly supported amendments offered by Councilmember Richard McIver, which restored these stations while reducing costs for some of the other, more costly, renovation projects by eliminating the construction of new bays for fire engines that the City is unlikely to add for many years, if ever.

While I have limited enthusiasm for asking the voters to pass another levy in these difficult times, there is no question that there are serious issues of design, safety, and operational efficiency at our neighborhood stations, and that there is a need for upgrading and improving Seattle’s ability to respond to marine fires and emergency response capability. The Council’s careful scrutiny resulted in appropriate cost savings, especially in reducing administrative costs, and ensured that all stations receive core safety and seismic upgrades.

The package is a reasonable one to place before the voters. It’s important to note that the City can only increase property tax collections by 1% annually without a public vote, under Initiative 747 (an initiative that Seattle voters rejected), which means that the general fund budget will fall farther and farther behind even what is needed to keep up with inflation. Consequently, we cannot sustain this kind of core building program from general fund revenues, as we have done in the past with buildings such as the new West Seattle Police Precinct, Justice Center, and City Hall. We hope that voters will understand these limitations, and will support levies like this that will partially fill the gap in our resources.

Back to Contents

NEW CITY HALL OPENS

Throughout the summer, City offices have been moving from the old Municipal Building into the new City Hall while the final construction has been taking place. On September 5 we will celebrate the official public opening of the building, with a Community Open House from 5 to 7 PM. Come see for yourself the wonderful public spaces in the building, the original public artworks, and the sustainable features of the building design, and tour the Council and Mayor Offices.

The opening of City Hall marks an important milestone in the completion of Seattle's Civic Center. Demolition of the Muni Building will begin shortly, and by next year, a landscaped open space will be created in its place, providing much-needed breathing space in central downtown. If you need help locating a City office that has moved, please call 684-CITY.

Back to Contents

QUOTE:
"I realize that every time I turn on an electric light, or ride on a Pullman, or pocket the unearned increment on a stock, or a bond, or a piece of real estate, I am 'selling out' to the enemies of conservation. When I submit these thoughts to a printing press, I am helping cut down the woods. When I pour cream in my coffee, I am helping to drain a marsh for cows to graze, and to exterminate the birds of Brazil. When I go birding or hunting in my Ford, I am devastating an oil field, and re-electing an imperialist to get me rubber. Nay more: when I father more than two children I am creating an insatiable need for more printing presses, more cows, more coffee, more oil, and more rubber, to supply which more birds, more trees, and more flowers will either be killed, or what is just as destructive, evicted from their several environments. "What to do? I see only two courses open to the likes of us. One is to go live on locusts in the wilderness, if there is any wilderness left. The other is surreptitiously to set up within the economic juggernaut certain new cogs and wheels whereby the residual love of nature, inherent even in 'Rotarians', may be made to recreate at least a fraction of those values which their love of 'progress' is destroying..."

-- Aldo Leopold

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

Back to Contents

Back to MAKING IT WORK Newsletters