HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/29/2011 02B Public Transportation Benefit Area Local License Tab Fees for Street Preservation - Public Hearing •
• BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 2- a
For Meeting of: November 29, 2011
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA) Local License
Tab Fees for Street Preservation
SUBMITTED BY: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
Joe Rosenlund, Streets and Traffic Operations Manager
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Joe Rosenlund /576 -6430
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
At the November 8, 2011 Budget Workshop, City Council directed that a Public Hearing be held
to elicit citizen input on instituting a $20 car tab fee dedicated for street preservation purposes.
City Council held a Study Session on September 22, 2011 on street preservation funding
options. One of the alternatives presented was a $20 car tab option. Street Manager Joe
Rosenlund described in a memo dated October 13, 2011, that the city's street system has
approximated 1% of its inventory as failed ( <_15 PCI). This equals to about $12.5 million in
IIIII repair costs; of that amount $4.0 million relates to arterial streets. The attached report
describes how the projected $1.0 million per year in car tab revenues would be used to repair
those arterial street sections currently in failure over a 5 -year time period. Staff estimates from
DOL statistics that approximately 50,000 vehicles within City Limits would be affected by the car
tab fee.
This session is not the Public Hearing required to establish a Transportation Benefit District
under RCW 36.73. That is a different process and would only proceed by specific Council
direction. Relevant attachments are excerpted from the September 22, 2011 Study Session
describing the TBD in general and the car tab fee in particular.
Resolution Ordinance Other X (Specify Report and attachments
Contract Mail to: (name and address):
Phone:
Funding Source:. $20 Car T- . • ee - Po - ial
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL /, /� %���,� . / %% City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct Public Hearing and provide direction to staff.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
0
•
November 22, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of Yakima City Council
Don Cooper, City Manager
From: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
Joe Rosenlund, PE, Streets and Traffic Operations Manager
Subject: Local License Tab Fee Funding for a Limited Street Preservation Program
The City Council held a study session on September 22, 2011 to discuss street
preservation funding. Funding options put forth included a $30 million bond, 3% to 6% In
Lieu Tax, $20 Car Tab Fee, and funding from existing sources. The City Manager stated
that a level of service should be established before any real discussion of funding takes
place. The Council desired (but took no official action) that the thresholds for Yakima
street conditions are that 70% of the roads remain in the fair or higher rating category and
no roads fall into the failed category. Staff did not provide the council the cost of
maintaining that level of service at that time. Street preservation funding through bonding
was eliminated as an option but further discussions were deferred to the broader budget
workshop on November 8, 2011. Further council deliberation at the budget session did
not provide direction to pursue the In Lieu tax for street preservation.
The Executive Summary of the 2012 Preliminary Budget included a memo describing the
cost of rebuilding the one percent (1 %) of roads rated as failed today. The cost
determined was $12,575,000, of which approximately $3,908,000 was for the
reconstruction of three arterial and collector street sections. The remainder consisted of
twenty -six residential street sections. Further evaluation of the arterial roadways and
identification of alternative, less robust repair methods in lieu of reconstruction, can
reduce the estimated cost of repair for those arterial roads to $1,551,000. Because these
sections are failed, a simple grind and overlay project, in most cases, is not an
appropriate remedy but we are proposing an alternative to rebuilding as a way to extend
the amount of work we would be able to do. The negative side of this is that the roads will
likely not last as long as if we had done a full depth recycle (FDR) or reconstruction, as
originally proposed.
A car tab fee would bring in an estimated $1 million of funding for street preservation. The
accompanying list of street maintenance projects would be funded with the first five years
of car tab fees should they be enacted. Work would begin in 2013. One project, Fruitvale
Boulevard, would not be done because it could not be initiated within the $1 million
annual limit.
The current REET2 and general fund street maintenance budget would be used towards
preventive and stop -gap maintenance. We would be able to restart the annual chip seal
program and do spot repairs on failed roadway sections.
1
Currently Proposed Arterial Project List •
Street From To Sq Ft Treatment Cost, Total Cost PCI Maint
Year
3 St Arlington Beech 95000 Mill & $3.42 $324,900.00 13.23 2013
Overlay
Lincoln Av 56th Ave 66th Ave 68880 Mill & $3.42 $235,569.60 7.5 2013
Overlay
Yakima Av 12th Ave 16th Ave 81200 CIR $4.87 $395,444.00 8.91 2013
$955,913.60
D St 1st St 5th Ave 122200 CIR $4.87 $595,114.00 14 2014
25 ' Av Englewood Castlevale 31050 Mill & $3.42 $106,191.00 15.71 2014
Overlay
Lincoln Av 40th Ave 46th Ave 77000 CIR $4.87 $374,990.00 14.92 2014
$1,076,295.00
Fruitva181 21st Ave 30th Ave 256000 HIR $7.73 $1,978,880.00 14.92 ?
Peck Scenic Dr City Limit 4620 Mill & $3.42 $15,800.40 15.21 2015
Canyon Rd Overlay
Viola Av 1st St Fair Ave 35100 Mill & $3.42 $120,042.00 15.71 2015
Overlay
24 "' Av Washington Mead 122500 CIR $4.87 $596,575.00 15.94 2015 le
G St 3rd St 6th St 38400 Mill & $3.42 $131,328.00 12.66 2015
Overlay
G St 1st St 3rd St 22400. Mill & $3.42 $76,608.00 14.52 2015
Overlay
Walnut St 3rd Ave 5th Ave 36400 CIR $4.87 $177,268.00 14.71 2015
$1,117,621.40
6fl' St Yakima Pacific 220000 Mill & $3.42 $752,400.00 14.76 2016
Overlay
Scenic Dr 4202 4615 53406 Mill & $3.42 $182,648.52 14.97 2016
Scenic Scenic Overlay
Walnut St 1st St 3rd St 36400 CIR $4.87 $177,268.00 15.11 2016
$1,112,316.52
3�` Av Yakima Walnut 68000 CIR $4.87 $331,160.00 15.44 2017
Lincoln Av 24th Ave 32nd Ave 109000 CIR $4.87 $530,830.00 14.68 2017
$861,990.00
(CIR - Cold In -place Recycling, HIR - Hot In -place Recycling)
2
At the current funding level, about three percent (3 %) of the city's streets will be in the
failed category (<_ 15 PCI) by the end of next year and expected to grow to 17% by
2022. To spend the bulk of our street repair dollars chasing failed streets is not an
optimal maintenance strategy. We cannot keep up with the road maintenance needs of
•
the city by employing a "worst- first" strategy and focusing only on arterial roadways. In
2013, forty -one street segments are predicted to be in failure of which four are arterials.
By 2018, those numbers will rise to 110 segments and of which twenty -eight are
arterials. However, to begin the process, staff understands that attending to failed
arterial street segments is certainly important and would build public confidence.
In a perfect world, it is more cost effective to spend the bulk of the available funds to do
preventive and stop gap maintenance to maintain roads in a fair or better condition than
trying to repair roads that have already failed. A grind and overlay project costs $3.42
per square foot versus $9.92 to $12.47 per square foot for reconstruction. As more
streets are brought to excellent or very good condition where maintenance costs are
only $0.15 to $0.25 per square foot, more money becomes available to fix those failed
street sections. New treatment methods such as in -place recycling or full depth
recycling will help cut some of the reconstruction costs but not to the extent that it
makes a "worst- first" strategy worthwhile in the long run. The more comprehensive,
robust approach described in this paragraph, however, requires more revenue to fund
than the $20 car tab fee would provide.
•
4110
411
3
• • ® ,
Transportation Benefit District Formation Process
•
Utilizing Car Tab Funding
Determine TBD Boundary
Make Up of Board
$
Define
Transportation
Improvements
•
Set Date of Public Hearing
by Resolution
• s $20
Adopt Ordinance
Public Vote Required I Council Decision
No Yes Yes 1 No
7
•
File Notice Dpartme to Licensing Begin e &ix Months nt after Notice sing
Amend Municipal
Code
•
Develop Material
Change Policy
•
Begin Projects
•
Create Annual Report
•
•
•
a p . .
•
_ _ . . _
. . .
_ . . _
. . . _
i f - •
{
f
i Pavement Ma na *r
ment Concepts
. p e' 9
,E�ccellent Z...� ance A, *reach
..,... ..
. ,.
,. _ ....
.. ... _, ..
_ .
_ _ ..,........ . ..... .. .
. _ . _
, .
. . .. .
•
. ,
• • „...........,...„.. . , ._,, ..,
.._ . __ _ r BYs:�''n -
,.
•-• 4 I,„,,,,...,,• o f : i �•; ry
•
,CHI f�1 , �, �� ",� .. - ,.
•
� .. 40 %l ) rop
Poor
�n �aalit T . i ill
� ` � n 2 t sr `f� ' Y _ 3 r
w
y oo r < ��
L
•
- k -'' .: "' ?. r,x . x '1 13 D7 a�'a�.s,..- �`...x .� ,..,'�:rar , ? , .,c>..�v . ° ., '� ;w �s ,.x'�t...,S+'.s"&2�s,.+ r r, .,+:n ,:. .Y, _ .. x..+.. . •
i •
J u l y 2 0 1 .
aa ♦
Transportation Benefit ASSOCIATION
OF WASHINGTON
CiTiES
District Legistation- in Effect
.yr,x wa . i,' o`..:.' o - kJTl3f waext sF7:tt,!' /.ate am ti!
Through the cooperative efforts of the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and the Washington State Associations of
Counties (VVSAC), significant legislation went into effect in 2007, which resulted In the most important local transportation
tool for cities and counties in sixteen years — Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs). Newly enacted 2010 legislation
enhanced the TBD's authority.
TBDs are independent taxing districts that can impose an array of taxes or fees either through a vote of the people or through
district board action.TBDs are flexible — they allow cities and counties to work independently or cooperatively on addressing
both local and regional transportation challenges.
Frequently Asked Questions additional jurisdictions through interlocal agreements,
Background then the governing body must have at least five members,
In 1987, the Legislature created TBDs as an option for local including at least one elected official from each of the
( governments to fund transportation improvements. In 2005, Participating jurisdictions, or may be the governing b
the Legislature amended the TBD statute to expand its uses a metropolitan planning organization if the TBD boundau le�
are identical to the boundaries of the metropolitan planning
and revenue authority. In 2007, the Legislature amended
the TBD statute to authorize the imposition of vehicle fees organization serving the district
and transportation impact fees without a public vote. In What are the boundaries of aTBD?
2010, the Legislature amended the TBD statute again to The boundaries of a TBD may be less than the boundaries
clarify project eligibility, the use of impact fees, and sales tax of those jurisdictions participating in the TBD. For example,
expenditures, and make TBD governance more flexible. a county or city may choose to have the TBD boundaries
What is a Transportation Benefit District (TBD)? identical with the county or city, or it may choose just to
ATBD is a quasi - municipal corporation and independent include a portion of the county or city. However, if aTBD
taxing district created for the sole purpose of acquiring, chooses to exercise the tax authority that does not require
constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation a public vote (e.g. vehicle and impact fees), the boundaries of
•
improvements within the district the TBD must be countywide, citywide, or unincorporated
countywide.
Who may create aTBD?
The legislative authority of a county or city may create aTBD Why create aTBD if the county or city legislative
by ordinance following the procedures set forth in Chapter authority is the governing board?
36.73 RCW.The county or city proposing to create aTBD ATBD is an independent legal creature.Although aTBD
may include other counties, cities, port districts, or transit has many of the powers of a county and city (impose taxes,
districts through interlocal agreements. eminent domain powers, can contract and accept gifts,
etc.), - it is a separate taxing district Additionally, by being a
Who governs the TBD? separate legal and taxing entity,TBDs have more flexile` - .
The members of the legislative authority (county or city) For example, more than one type of jurisdiction can ix. .
proposing to establish a TBD serves as the governing body of a TBD and the boundaries can be less than countywide or
of the TBD.The legislative authority is acting ex officio and citywide. .
independently as the TBD governing body. If a TBD includes