$930 million transportation levy: Council vote on Monday; WSTC survey for you now

From the agenda for next Monday’s City Council meeting, that’s a revised summary of what the proposed $930 million Move Seattle transportation levy would go toward – mostly in generalities, though the Fauntleroy Boulevard project is mentioned by name. The full council votes Monday on whether to send it to the November ballot, after its committee approval this week (including rejection of a suggestion to mix up the funding – which will remain 100 percent property tax). Meantime, the West Seattle Transportation Coalition is wondering what YOU think of the levy, and launched a two-question survey today to find out. Go here to take it.

17 Replies to "$930 million transportation levy: Council vote on Monday; WSTC survey for you now"

  • Rick June 26, 2015 (4:18 pm)

    How many council members want to keep their jobs?

    • WSB June 26, 2015 (5:56 pm)

      Re: councilmembers running to be elected again (technically no one is running for “re-election” because none of the current positions will exist as of this fall – the new Positions 8 and 9 are at-large as are the current 9 positions but they’re still “new” so no incumbents):
      .
      Districts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 have current councilmembers among the candidates. – TR

  • whatsthepoint June 26, 2015 (4:48 pm)

    The questionnaire, if one choose to not vote on the levy, takes you to a next question with a long list from which you have to choose one answer on how such a levy would be paid for.

    Is that the responsibility of Joe. Q. Public with high school educations?

    This is why I vote for people with college eucations and, most often, master degrees in law or public administration.

  • Joe Szilagyi (WSTC) June 26, 2015 (5:14 pm)

    One question came up to us — why didn’t our survey include “developer fees” as a funding option for that part of the survey. The answer is straightforward: there’s little evidence that developer fees as we often talk about them could even be legally used for this levy and the type of work it’s addressing.
    .
    Developer impact fees are incredibly misunderstood on what they can be used for; they’re brought up so often by so many people that they’ve gained an almost mythical status. They cannot do a lot of the things per state law that both Bridging the Gap and Move Seattle would strive to do.
    .
    The write up and summary here by the West Seattle Blog is best/simplest to start:
    .
    https://westseattleblog.com/2014/09/happening-now-impact-fees-for-development-city-hall-talk/
    .
    “rules for impact fees:
    .
    #1 – you can’t make new development pay for an existing deficiency;
    .
    #2 – connection has to be made between development and benefits received (number of trips it generates, for example);
    .
    #3 – no double-dipping – if another source of revenue is already paying for what you want the impact fee to cover, or part of it, you’d have to figure out what part of the impact fee is offset by the money that’s already being used;
    .
    #4, state law says you cannot rely solely on impact fees – they can’t cover the entire cost of something.”
    .
    Essentially, if your “impact fee” as it’s tossed around commonly isn’t in compliance with those four points, your city can’t do it.
    .
    Here’s a report that Seattle paid a consultant to do on the topic: http://cloud3.wsbcdn.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Seattle-Impact-Fees-9-10-14.pdf
    .
    Cities that charge impact fees (map): http://cloud3.wsbcdn.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Cities-with-GMA-Impact-Fees.pdf
    .
    Another article on the topic (it’s a deeper dive): http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/Land-Use-Administration/Impact-Fees/Types-of-Impact-Fees-and-Other-Sources-of-Public-F.aspx
    .
    As a result, we left it off completely as a topic/option, because it would have just muddied and confused the waters. There was no point in bringing in an invalid (and potentially illegal!) option. Eventually, I’d like to write (when time and knowledge permits) a cheat sheet or FAQ on the subject. I suspect many of us who are pro or con various levels of using developer impact fees don’t even know the rules around them. They’re neither a mythical magical silver bullet to “fix” problems nor are they some economy-destroying apocalypse. They’re just a tool, but one that cities can only use in really, really specific ways.

  • ChefJoe June 26, 2015 (5:36 pm)

    So Joe, that means the WSTC is just being more responsible (by leaving out what’s forbidden by state law) than those (even on the city council) talking about rent control ?

  • Fire Ball June 26, 2015 (10:02 pm)

    It will pass, fools of Seattle can’t say NO!
    Just look at Metro, we need money to maintain the level of services…and then they went out and spent over $200 million on new buses. How did that save routes????. Thanks tax payers of Seattle, you just got what you voted for again…lol
    It’s only $2.50 per thousand…,they should change it to $250 Per $100K.

  • acemotel June 26, 2015 (10:04 pm)

    The levy will not pass.

  • MOVE Seattle June 26, 2015 (10:47 pm)

    This will get a no vote from me. With a modest income of $50K I am being taxed out of Seattle. The transportation levy should not be placed only on property owners to cough up the funds – plenty of non-property owners use transportation too – so spread the cost around to more community members.

  • Fourth June 27, 2015 (6:57 am)

    I’m glad WSTC is collecting some opinions (especially since our very own Tom Rasmussen has claimed he’s heard “no public outcry,” despite constituent emails to the contrary), but when you select that you are voting “no,” it only gives you one choice of why you are voting no. I’m voting no because I don’t like that it is only levied on property owners AND I don’t support money going to some of the projects AND it does very little for West Seattle. I generally support transportation and infrastructure projects, but this is just a bad proposal all around.

  • Fourth June 27, 2015 (7:33 am)

    Joe, thanks for the info. Developer fees are confusing. For example, per the Seattle Times, the city just spent $66k painting the rainbow sidewalks on Capitol Hill. “The funds came out of fees related to development, and the crosswalks were due for replacement anyway,” Mayor Ed Murray said.

    The earlier WS blog post you reference says developer fees “can’t pay for repair, renovation – (whatever you’re charging impact fees for) has to add capacity.” Hmm. I’m just not seeing how this project meets this criteria while some of the other Move Seattle items wouldn’t.

    (For the record, I’m not opposed to the rainbow crosswalks, but I am raising my eyebrows over spending money on something like this– even out of developer fees– when you’re about to ask voters for a large tax increase. It’s tone-deaf, at best.)

    Here’s a link to the SeaTimes article for reference: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/colorful-crosswalks-celebrate-gay-pride-in-seattle/

  • Neighbor June 27, 2015 (7:42 am)

    I will vote NO on this levy if it goes on the ballot as funded and written. Funding: the revenue source is deliberately not equitable across Seattle residents and businesses (currently it targets homeowners, and excludes multi-unit dwelling residents whose owners have taken advantage of property tax-breaks). As written, Move Seattle does very little for West Seattle and we need to send a message to the Mayor and City Council that we exist and need to benefit equally from these projects. The levy shows a number of line items with different projects grouped together and it’s unclear what the final mix of projects will ultimately entail. For example, at a minimum, it shows that 10.1% of spending ($94 million) will go toward more bike lanes and bike improvements, while fewer than 5% of Seattle commuters self-identify as bicycle commuters. The levy then adds additional line items for bicycle and pedestrian improvements (some fraction of approximately $132 million), so it’s entirely possible that as much as 25% of this levy will go to directly benefit 5% of Seattle commuters. Sure, there will be some indirect benefits if those bikers would otherwise drive, but based on the numbers, this levy is skewed to special-interest groups and not the average commuter in Seattle.

  • miws June 27, 2015 (7:57 am)

    Also part of Metro’s current bus buying is just a resumption of the purchase of some Diesel-Electric Hybrids from an order that was put on hold due to the recession.

    .

    Mike

  • testing123 June 27, 2015 (11:43 am)

    To Neighbor- right on! I couldn’t agree more. Maybe you should run for city council.

  • acemotel June 27, 2015 (12:29 pm)

    @Neighbor, I came to similar conclusions, looking at the charts.
    .
    Some projects are hidden, such as the so-called “safety” project (to be clear, not part of the levy) currently slated for Admiral Way, which in reality, is a bike project. It makes me think some of the “safety” projects in the levy are actually bike projects. (because they keep bikers safe)
    .
    This devious Admiral Way proposal leads me to the conclusion that SDOT is not being truthful.
    .
    I do not know anyone, not one single person, who supports the levy. If the levy would make “reducing congestion” the only goal, I may rethink my position. But SDOT’s core values: creating a city that is safe, innovative, interconnected, vibrant and affordable – don’t get anywhere close to the real problem.

  • MOVE Seattle June 27, 2015 (10:53 pm)

    Neighbor – thanks for the info. I came across Bicyclepaper June 2015 edition, found at the library, which has a long article about the Transpo Levy. Hannah McIntosh, project manager of Move Seattle strategic plan and the levy is quoted as saying “Seattle’s bike network will be about half done once the 10-year plan is finished, which will be a huge milestone.” That is based on the 20 year Bicycle Master Plan and it will be only half done!
    20 year MASTER BIKE PLAN will ONLY be HALF FINISHED for what Neighbor estimates to be 25% of the levy at $94 million….and to benefit 5% of commuters and I would guess that 5% is being very generous. I don’t have 5% of the 635 people in my office commuting by bicycle.

  • KT July 6, 2015 (1:10 pm)

    An excellent Seattle Times editorial….. http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/citys-move-seattle-transportation-proposal-needs-careful-scrutiny/
    And this from the PI…..
    http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/07/01/a-taxing-future-the-price-of-life-in-seattle-and-fast-growing-washington/#33748101=0

    In a nutshell – – – How much doubling and tripling of levies can Seattle’s middle class homeowners, small businesses and retirees take? Will city fathers (and mothers) keep piling program upon program, moving basic city budget items onto levies”?

Sorry, comment time is over.