Loading...
02/07/2012 08 Transportation Benefit District Establishment A' yu h` IE air f BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: February 7, 2012 mignmeagemses -41;. ITEM TITLE: Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Public Hearing and Ordinance to hear from the public on the creation of a TBD, comprising the corporate limits of the City, to fund and complete the projects listed in the City's 5- Year Failed Arterials Repair Program SUBMITTED BY: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works Joe Rosenlund, Streets & Traffic Operations Manager CONTACT Joe Rosenlund, Streets & Traffic Operations Manager (575 -6005) PERSON /TELEPHONE: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: At the January 10, 2012 City Council Business Meeting, a resolution was passed to hold a public hearing on the issue of creating a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) for pavement preservation. The next step is to hold a public hearing on the ordinance that creates the TBD, its boundaries, composition of its board and defines the transportation improvements the district is to accomplish. This action does not enact a car tab fee or other funding mechanism. Per RCW 36.73 050, the Council must hold a public hearing prior to determining if a TBD should be created. After the public hearing, the Council may create the district by ordinance, set another time to create the TBD or take no action. A draft ordinance is attached for reference Resolution Ordinance X Other (specify) Contract: Mail to: Contract Term: Amount: Expiration Date: Insurance Required? No Funding Source: Various Local Funding Sources Phone: APPROVED FOR City Manager SUBMITTAL: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Click to download ❑ Discussion Points Memorandum ❑ Memorandum ❑ Ordinance ❑ Resolution R- 2012 -11 ❑ TBD Proposed 5 -Year Proiect List ❑ MSRC TBD Information ❑ AWC TBD Legislation in Effect ORDINANCE NO. 2012 - AN ORDINANCE of the City of Yakima, Washington, relating to a Transportation Benefit District;. establishing a Transportation 'Benefit District, specifying that the boundaries will coincide with the City boundaries; and specifying the transportation improvements to be funded by the district. WHEREAS, RCW 35.21.225 authorizes the legislative authority of a city to establish a transportation benefit district ( "TBD "), for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation improvements within the TBD, subject to the provisions of chapter 36.73 RCW; and WHEREAS, the improvement, maintenance, , and protection. of = public ways requires building sufficient capacity to adequately accommodate existing congestion and anticipate future congestion, and also requires maintaining and preserving existing transportation improvements to avoid catastrophic failure which would result in costly reconstruction; and WHEREAS, the City has limited transportation funding to . pay for necessary transportation projects that may alleviate congestion and preserve and maintain existing infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City's 5 -Year Failed Arterials Repair Program, attached as Exhibit "A," identifies projects that also constitute transportation improvements that may be funded by a TBD; and WHEREAS, the City provided proper notice, conducted "a public hearing on February 7, 2012 and took public comment regarding the proposed establishment of a TBD in accordance with RCW 36/3.050; and WHEREAS, the City 'Cotihcil desires to form a TBD which includes the entire City of Yakima as the boundaries currently exist or as they may exist following future annexations; and WHEREAS, - the City Council finds it to be in the best interests of the City to_ establish a citywide TBD to provide for .. preservation and maintenance of the city's transportation infrastructure consistent with RCW Chapter 36.73; and WHEREAS, the City Council shall establish a governing body.for the TBD comprised of the City Council acting in an ex officio and independent capacity; Now, Therefore; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA: Section 1. - The City Council finds it is in the public interest to provide adequate levels of funding for transportation improvements through the establishment of a TBD. The City Council further finds that the City's 5 -Year Failed Arterials Repair Program constitutes transportation improvements that may be funded by a TBD and did consider the criteria listed in RCW 36.73.020(1) when selecting these projects. Section 2. The City, pursuant to RCW 35.21.225 and Chapter 36.73 RCW, hereby establishes and creates a TBD to be known and referred to as the City of Yakima TBD, subject to the following; 1 1. Establishing a Transportation Benefit District. There is created the City of Yakima TBD with geographical boundaries comprised of the corporate limits of the City, as these boundaries may be amended following future annexations. 2. Governing Board. a. The governing board of the City of Yakima TBD shall be the Yakima City Council acting in an ex officio and independent capacity, which shall have the authority to exercise the statutory powers set forth in Chapter 36.73 RCW. b. The treasurer of the transportation benefit district shall be the City Finance Director consistent with RCW 36.73.020(4). c. The board shall develop a material change policy to address major plan changes that affect project delivery or the ability to finance the plan, pursuant to the requirements set forth in RCW 36.73.160(1). At a minimum, if a transportation improvement exceeds its original cost by more than twenty percent, as identified in the district's original plan, a public hearing shall be held to solicit public comment regarding how the cost change should be resolved. 3. Powers of the District. The City of Yakima TBD shall possess only the powers of a transportation benefit district provided by law, as it now exists or is hereafter amended. 4. Transportation Improvements Funded. The funds generated by the City of Yakima TBD shall be used for the TBD projects described in Section 1 of this ordinance. The TBD projects may be amended in accordance with the material change policy described in Section 2(2)(c) of this ordinance and in accordance with the notice, hearing and other procedures described in Chapter 36.73 RCW, as it now exists or is hereafter amended. 5. Annual Report to the Public. As required by RCW 36.73.160(2), the Board shall issue an annual report, indicating the status of transportation improvement costs, transportation improvement expenditures, revenues, and construction schedules, to the public and to newspapers of record in the City of Yakima TBD. 6. Dissolution of District. The transportation district shall be automatically dissolved when all indebtedness of the district has been retired and when all of the district's anticipated responsibilities have been satisfied. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, phrase, or word of this chapter should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, phrase or word of this chapter. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective and shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its passage and publication in accordance with law. 2 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 7 th day of February, 2012. Micah Cawley, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Publication Date: Effective Date: 3 Exhibit A Transportation Benefit District Proposed 5 -Year Project List Street From To Sq Ft Treatment Cost/ Total Cost Maint. SF Year Year 1 3rd St Arlington Beech 95000 Mill & Overlay $3 42 $324,900.00 2013 Lincoln Av 56th Ave 66th Ave 68880 Mill & Overlay $3.42 $235,569.60 2013 Yakima Av 12th Ave 16th Ave 81200 CIR $4 87 $395,444.00 2013 $955,913.60 Year 2 D St 1st St 5th Ave 122200 CIR $4.87 $595,114 00 2014 25th Av Englewood Castlevale 31050, Mill & Overlay $3 42 $106,191 00 2014 Lincoln Av 40th Ave 46th Ave 77000 CIR $4.87 $374,990 00 2014 $1,076,295 00 Year 3 Pecks Canyon Rd Scenic Dr City Limit 4620 Mill & Overlay $3 42 $15,800 40 2015 Viola Av 1st St Fair Ave 35100 Mill & Overlay $3.42 $120,042 00 2015 24th Av Washington Mead 122500 CIR $4.87 $596,575 00 2015 G St 3rd St 6th St 38400 Mill & Overlay $3 42 $131,328.00 2014 G St 1st St 3rd St 22400 Mill & Overlay $3.42 $76,608 00 2015 Walnut St 3rd Ave 5th Ave 36400 CIR $4 87 $177,268 00 2015 $1,117,621.40 Year 4 6th St Yakima Pacific 220000 Mill & Overlay $3 42 $752,400 00 2016 Scenic Dr 4202 4615 53406 Mill & Overlay $3.42 $182,648.52 2016 Scenic Scenic Walnut St 1st St 3rd St 36400 CIR $4.87 $177,268 00 2016 $1,112,316.52 Year 5 3rd Av Yakima Walnut 68000 CIR $4 87 $331,160.00 2017 Lincoln Av 24th Ave 32nd Ave 109000 CIR $4 87 $530,830 00 2017 $861,990 00 Unfunded 24th Av Mead Nob Hill 127400 CIR $4 87 $620,438.00 Walnut St 5th Ave 7th Ave 36400 CIR $4 87 $177,268.00 Pierce Av Summitview Lincoln 40000 Mill & Overlay $3 42 $136,800 00 Fruitvale Blvd 2100 3000 256000 HIR $7.73 $1,978,880.00 Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Blvd 3000 4000 276000 HIR $7.73 $2,133,480.00 Fruitvale Fruitvale $5,046,866 00 D Street is not an arterial but is critical for emergency response. TBD Discussion Points January 18, 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From. Joe Rosenlund, PE Streets & Traffic Operations Manager Subject: Transportation Benefit District Public Hearing The February 7 public hearing is to determine, after public input, if the city council wishes to create a Transportation Benefit District (TBD). Establishment of the TBD requires identification of the boundaries, make up of the governing board and the projects the district is to accomplish. The district boundaries are proposed to be the existing Yakima City limits. The board members are to be the Yakima City Council. The projects proposed are included in the council packet. A separate public hearing will be required to determine the funding mechanism if the council enacts the legislation to create the TBD. That hearing would be conducted by the City Council acting as the TBD Board. A $20 vehicle registration tab fee has been has been discussed by the council as an option but it is only one of several options available to the council. Funding options to consider that do not require a public vote are: • Up to a $20 per vehicle license registration fee • A transportation impact fee on commercial and industrial buildings Funding options that require voter approval are: • Vehicle license registration fee over $20 per vehicle up to $100 per vehicle • Property tax - a 1 -year excess levy • Property tax - an excess levy for capitol purposes • Up to 0.2% sales and use tax • Tolls In addition, any change in funding after the after a funding mechanism is implemented requires voter approval. The City Council established a desirable level of service for city streets as "no failed arterials" and an average overall condition of fair (Pavement Condition Index between 40 and 55). The existing network PCI is 49. Projects selected to be accomplished 1 through the Transportation Benefit District are arterial or collector streets that are rated as failed or are projected to rate as failed by 2018. The funding level is based on the $1,000,000 annual revenue a $20 car tab fee would generate. A question has been raised as to whether the selected streets are or will soon be in failure and whether they are the appropriate streets to be repaired. The strategy of fixing the most severely distressed streets first is not the most of efficient method of allocating street repair dollars. The roadways were selected using the level of service directed by the city council and PCI values generated through our pavement inspection process. Failure does not mean that the streets are undriveable. Failure is determined by a visual inspection of the roadway where the types and quantity of pavement distresses indicate that the road base has failed and the most cost efficient method of repair is reconstruction. The PCI rating of a failed street is15 or less. Mill and overlay or surface repairs will not be cost effective because the base of the road is =inadequate to support the pavement surface. Reconstruction of the roadway is required to repair the structural base of the roadway: The Transportation Benefit District is the one mechanism the state legislature has given cities to acquire additional funding for transportation improvements. The traditional revenue sources of gas tax, REET2, and the general fund fluctuate with the economic trends. They have proven to be inadequate to keep up with maintenance needs for the existing street system. Federal and state grants are inconsistent in dollars received and the city's ability to obtain them and are most always used to towards capacity improvement or new roadway projects. The Transportation Benefit District would provide a consistent funding stream for necessary street maintenance projects. 2 C11Y OF YAK MA LEGAL DEPARTMENT 2COSailhilittae$Yakitre,W m99901 (145 MEMORANDUM December 9, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Bronson Faul, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Transportation Benefit District /$20 Vehicle License Fee The legislature has authorized jurisdictions to create a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) as an independent taxing authority to fund identified transportation projects. The process to create a TBD and institute a supporting tax is strictly regulated by statute and provides for built in oversight provisions. Steps to Create a TBD Initially, transportation improvements are identified using a number of criteria defined by statute.' Once the projects are identified, council must conduct a public hearing prior to forming a TBD. The notice of hearing shall specify the functions or activities proposed to be provided or funded. Following the hearing, the legislative authority may establish the district if it finds the action to be in the public interest. The ordinance establishing the TBD shall specify the functions and transportation improvements to be funded and shall also establish the boundary of the TBD as described in the notice of public hearing. The boundaries shall be the city limits. If the legislative authority wishes to expand the TBD, a new notice must be issued and another public hearing must be held. The members of the legislative authority establishing the TBD act as the ex officio independent governing body of the district. Funding Once the TBD has been created, the district can then pass legislation to provide funding. Among several funding options is the imposition of a vehicle license fee of $20, which can be implemented without a vote of the public. Additional funding options are available with a vote of the public. Some jurisdictions have included this funding RCW 36.73.020(1). 2 RCW 36.73.050. 3 Defined in RCW 36.73 015 4 RCW 82.80.140. Memorandum January 31, 2 012 Page 2 legislation in the original ordinance creating the TBD while others have specific legislation to address funding If the TBD chooses the $20 vehicle license fee as its the funding mechanism, the fee cannot be collected until six months after the approval of the fee. The department of licensing will collect the fee and deduct a percentage, not to exceed one percent, then remit the remaining proceeds to the state treasurer. The state treasurer will distribute the proceeds to the TBD on a monthly basis. Since the TBD is independent, the funds are held by the district and can only be used on the identified projects. TBD Changes and Requirements The TBD shall develop a material change policy to address major plan changes that affect project delivery and financing. At a minimum, the policy must provide a public hearing to solicit comment from the public if a transportation improvement cost will exceed its original projected cost by more than twenty percent. There is also a requirement that the TBD issue an annual report provided to the public and newspapers of record indicating the status of the improvement costs, expenditures, revenues, and construction schedules. Because the TBD is created for specific identified projects and purposes, the statute provides the TBD will terminate and dissolve within 30 days of the completion of the identified projects and retirement of any debt service or financing. Timeline The time to establish the TBD and a funding source will be dictated by council. Council can act to pass the TBD and funding source at the end of the first public hearing or separate the creation of the TBD and if passed, move to the funding decisions at a subsequent time. 5 RCW 82.80A40(4). 6 RCW 36.73.170. RESOLUTION NO. R- 2012 -11 A RESOLUTION setting the time and place for hearing on February 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM in the City of Yakima Council Chambers to hear from the public on the creation of a Transportation Benefit District, comprising the corporate limits of the City, to fund and complete the projects listed in the City's 5 -Year Failed Arterials Repair Program. WHEREAS, the City of Yakima proposes creating a Transportation Benefit District as authorized by RCW 35.21.225 and governed by the provisions of Chapter 36.73 RCW; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held prior to the creation, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: That said Transportation Benefit District shall be presented for hearing and determination on Tuesday, February 7, 2012, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Yakima, at Yakima City Hall, Yakima, Washington, or as soon thereafter as the same may be heard, and that notice of such hearing be given as approved by law. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 10 day of January, 2012. /s/ Micah Cawley Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Deborah Kloster City Clerk Z -' ,;5 • .t �E: ...kF -x,. - . � �- r v, s _ . � iN Ye i °".� �. �YTMi � %�} 1 -h� �.� a �` � � z X ��"y'� rr 1; Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington Lk At Working Together for Excellence in Local Government Updated 12/2011 Transportation Benefit Districts Contents • About Transpa r °a icpn Benefit Districts • Transportation Benefit District .:Legislation • Quick View of Jurisdictions with Transportation Benefit. Districts • List of Transportation Benefit_ D ist°r"ir., s,..lnciuding Proposals About Transportation Benefit Districts Transportation benefit districts (TBDs) are quasi - municipal corporations with independent taxing authority, including the authority to impose property taxes and impact fees for transportation purposes. RCW 36.71,2M governs formation by counties, and RCW 35.21.225 governs formation by cities. In 1987, the Legislature created TBDs as an option for local governments to fund transportation improvements.' In 2005, the Legislature amended the TBD statute to expand its uses and revenue authority. In 2007, the Legislature amended the TBD statute to authorize the imposition of vehicle fees and transportation impact fees without a public vote. In 2010, the Legislature amended the TBD statute again to clarify project eligibility, the use of impact fees, and safes tax expenditures, and make TBD governance more flexible. For an overview, see the following items: • Trine, r,rtation Benefit Districts Naps) (E1) in the Transportation Resource Manual, Joint Transportation Committee, updated 2011 • • Transportation Benefit .Le_ iislation in Effect (n), AWC Fact Sheet, 07/10/2010 Transportation Benefit District Legislation • Laws of 2007, ch, 329 (ESHI3 1858) CET) • Final Bill Report (n) • la of 2010, . ch. 2501 1I=SSB 677 #) (n) • Final Bill Reward ( • Local Transportation Benefit District Fees, Department of Licensing • Transag_gaticn Benefit _District (RCW 36.73), in Local/Regional .lurisdictions, Transportation Resource Manual, Joint Transportation Committee, updated 2011 Quick View of Jurisdictions with Transportation Benefit Districts Jurisdictions are listed in the table below by the year the transportation benefit district was created. The funding source is noted as vehicle license fees or sales tax. The date the funding was first collected is noted in parenthesis. The name of each jurisdiction is linked to related documents and websites listed in the next section. Vehicle Jurisdiction Sales u S�►h es 1 ax License Fee TBDs Passed in eon 1 1 1 Grandview $20 (02/01/2012) ,,. Mabton $20 (12/01/2011) ;) IALLIL3id $0.002 sales tax (on ballot 11/2011) ShohorniSh.Countv $0.002 sales tax (passed 08/2011) Spokane, $20 (09/01/2011) TBDs Passed in 2010 $0.002 sales tax an car dealers and teasing Beilinoharn, companies (04/01/2011) Kirin County Leavenworth $0.002 sales tax (04/01/2011) Lynnwood $20 (07/01/2011) Seat ilf $20 (05/01/2011) Snoliorni5h $0.002 sales tax (01/01/2012) Shonualrnie _ $20 (03/01/2011) 1 TBDs Passed in 2009 Bremerton $20 (12/07/2011 res. , passed) . . den $10 (02/01/2010) $20 (11/01/2009) Shoreline $20 (02/01/2010) University Place TBDs Passed in 2o68 Des Moines $20 (09/01/2009) Edmonds $20 (09/01/2009) Lake Forest Park $20 (09/01/2009) 0Iyrnnia $20 (10/01/2009) Ridgefield $0.002 sales tax (04/01/2009) . Sequins - $0.002 sales tax (04/01/2010) TBDs Passed Prior to aoo8 lLiberty Lake (2002) Point Roberts,, Whatcom County (1992) Special gas tax $0.01/gallon (1992) , J1 of Transportation Benefit Districts, Including Proposals • 8- it.in - TT) ' Benefit - Funded by $0.002 sales tax • Bellingham Otdinance No. 2010 - 07-240 (fl) - Establishing a TBD; specifying that the boundaries of the district will coincide with city boundaries; and specifying the transportation improvements to be funded by the district, passed 07/2010 • Bellingham TBD No. 1 Resolution #201 - al) - Concerning a sales and use tax to fund transportation improvements - Proposition No. 1 (11/2010 ballot) • Bremerton Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle license Fee • Ordinance No, 5076 (n), passed 02/04/2009 • Proposal to impose an annual $30.00 vehicle fee to finance transportation improvements for a period of three years was voted down in November 2009 general election. • Resolution No. 005 (Q) - Authorizes a $20 vehicle license fee, pass 12/07/2011 • Burien Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle license Fee • Burien Ordinance No. 516 (n) - Creates district and provides for election to pass a $30 vehicle license fee, passed 07/20/2009 • Vehicle license fee of $30 voted down at November 2009 election. • Vehicle license fee of $10 • Covington - Proposed • Pr�sentatiori on Trginsb 'o nefit Giisttict (0), Council Meeting Packet, 01/12/2010 - Includes Power Point Presentation • Covington fifty Council Decides Against Transport Benefit District, by Kris Hill, Covington Reporter News, 01/27/2010 • Des Moines Trans ortation Benefi istrict - Funded by vehicle .license fee • Des Moines Ordinance No._ 1147 (a , passed 11/20/2008 • Rules of Procedure • Des Moines TBD Board Resolution _ No. 00�71..TBD (E I), passed 12/2008 • Edmonds Belief" istrict - Funded by vehicle license fee • .mrn ents. • Edmonds Ordinance No. 3707 (0), passed 11/18/2008 • Edmonds Resat [on NO: 118I. (n) - Sets public hearing date for TBD • Staff Report, ("-), 11/13/2008 • TBD Presentation (tJ), 11/18/2008 • Edmonds TBD Qrdinance Nip. 2 ('f}) - Proposal to raise vehicle license fee by $40; measure was defeated at the November 2010 general election, passed 08/2010 • Grandview Transportation Benefit District • snn rtation .Etenefit fistiict Dvcument5 • King County Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle license fee • King County Ordinance NO, ..16742 (ft) - Created a TBD in unincorporated King County, passed 01/04/2010 • Documents relating to formation of King County TBD • Lake Forest Park Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle license fee • Lake Forest Park Orcillonce ._ No. 983 on), passed 10/23/2008 - Excerpt from Lake Forest Park Council Packet, 10/09/2008, re: Transportation Benefit Distract • Leavenworth Transportation Benefit District - Funded by $0,002 sales tax • Leavenworth Ordinance No. 1372, codified as Leavenworth Municipal Code Ch. 3.92 - Creates a TBD, passed 07/2010 • Index of Leavenworth TEED. docurrbents • Liberty Lake Transportation Benefit District • Liberty Lake Ordinance No. 82 ), passed 2002 • Lynnwood_Trancoortation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle license fee • Lynnwood Ordinance h1 2.637 (t) - Establishes a TBD, passed 05/2010 • Mabton - Vehicle license fee • Mabton Ordinance No. 954.(M) - Establishes a Transportation Benefit District; adds Ch. 3.30 to the Mabton City Code, passed 23/28/2010 • Mabton OrdInnce. No, .955 fl) - Imposes a $20 vehicle licensing fee, passed 01/11/2011 • North Bend Transportation Benefit District No. 1 - Created July 19, 2011 - Proposition to voters to increase sales tax two tenths of one percent (0.002) in the November 2011 General Election. Measure passed: Yes 60.53 %, No 39.47% • < >Olvrnoia Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle license fee 1 • Olympia Ordinance No: 661.1: ('), passed 12/16/2008 • Transoarta ion. Benefit "District' Charter (El) • Olympia Ordinance N. 1, passed 63 /2009 oint Roberts (Whatcom County) - Funded b $0.01 gas tax available to border towns • Whatcom County Resolution Ng, 917036 () - Sets hearing on proposed Point Roberts TBD • Whatcom County Ordinance No'. 91. -643 (1n) - Creates Point Roberts TBD • Whatcom County Resolution N�. 9105 () - Proposition to voters to impose gas tax on the retail sale of fuel within the Point Roberts TBD • Whatcom County Resof ition No. 92 -0_92 (Et) - Adopts gas tax on the retail sale of fuel within the Point Roberts TBD • Whatcom County Resolut on No, 92 -013 (in) - Establishes bylaws for governing body of the Point Roberts TBD • Prosser: Transportation Benefit District, - Funded by vehicle license fee • Prosser Municipal Code Ch. 3.9Q, passed 01/20/2009 - TBD • Ridgefield Transportation Benefit District - Funded by $0.002 sales tax • Ordinance Nei. 998 (1), passed 06/26/2008 and Pr:.es_Release, 11/05/2008 - Passage of TBD at general election • Seattle Trans Benefit District - Funded by vehicle license fee • Seattle Ordinance No. 12337, passed 09/2010 - Creates a TBD • Seattle TBD Resolution No. 1 - Authorizing a $20 vehicle license fee pursuant to RCW 36.73.065 • Proposition No. 1, a measure to authorize a $60 increase in the Vehicle License Fee beginning in 2012, at the November 2011 General Election. Measure failed: Yes 43.88 %, No 56.12% • atilu im ans ortation Benefit i3i5 :'1 - Funded by $0.002 safes tax • Sequim Q_rdiria nr`e_Nt 2008 -008 ( ) - Creates a TBD, passed 07/2008 • Sequim Ordirtalroce No 2 i -012 ( - Amends Ordinance No. 2008 -008 • al oposition 1, the sales and use tax levy for the TBD did not pass, 11/05/2008 (49.08% Yes /50.92% No) Sequim TBD Resolution- No. 2009-10 (n), passed 07/2009 - Sales and use tax levy proposition tiorefine. Transdrtatibn Benefit District - Funded by vehicle license fee • Ordinance No_ 550' (t passed 06/22/2009 • Snohomish Transr�ortation Benefit Distrlc - Includes documents • Snohomish Municipal Code Ch. 12.52 - Transportation Benefit District (Ordinance No. 2197, passed 09/2010) • Snohomish County - The voters voted for a 0.2% sales tax increase with a yes vote of 58% in August 2011. • Ordinance 101 -103 (ffi') - Establishes a Transportation Benefit District, passed 07/13/2011 • Snonuainiie Transportation Benefit [ istrrc - Funded by vehicle license fee • Snoqualmie News R.elc1se, 06/15/2010 • Snoqualmie Ordinance No. 1 i61 (n), passed 06/14/2010 • Snoqualmie Agenda (a) for meeting of August 9, 2010 and TBD Draft Agenda Bills: AB 10 -001'C ) - Resolution No 001, approving Charter; AB 10 -0p2 (a) - Resolution No. 002, approving bylaws; AB 10 -003 () setting a hearing date on $20 license fee; AB 10-004 (0) setting a hearing date an TBD projects; AB: 10 -005 (mil) - Resolution No. 003, adopting the $20 license fee; AB -t0 -006 (n) - Resolution No. 04, approving interlocal agreement between TBD and the Washington State Department of Licensing; AB 10-007 (tI) - Resolution No. 005, approving certain transportation improvement projects; AB 10 -098 (:) - Resolution No. 006, approving interlocal agreement between.TBD and city, for city to provide staff support; AB 10. -0a CO) - Resolution 007, approving a material change policy; and AB 10 -010 (at), approving appendix No. 88 -10 of interiocal agreement creating the Washington Cities Insurance Authority wherein TBD agrees to be bound by that agreement. • S. kaneTransCfortc tion Benefit C istriCt • Spokane Municipal Code Ch. 08:16 - Transportation Benefit District • Spokane County Regional Transportation Benefit District (Proposed) Draft Iralerboral' eerrien (t1), Washington State Department of Transportation tiversity Place Ordinance. No. 562 - Establishes a TBD, passed 12/07/2009 • Woodland - Proposed ordinance tabled by the city council until January 2012 • Yakima tSJotice of Public Hearing (CI), Creation of Transportation Benefit District, 02/07/2012 • Yakima County conducted an advisory vote November 2007; based on the vote, the county did not form the TBD 1. Historical Note: Prior to the 2007 legislation, only three TBDs had been formed - Fords Prairie (Centralia and Lewis County) in 1993, Point Roberts (Whatcom County) in 1992, and Liberty Lake in Spokane County In 2002. Fords Prairie was dissolved after two attempts to obtain voter approval of the funding package. Funding was approved by the majority of the voters, but the requirement of a three - fifths majority was not met. See history in Trartipnrtation Bene ort (n), Washington State Department of Transportation, 1998; and Centralia TBD Ordinances (M). Related MRSC Resources MRSC Index - Formation of special.districta, cr ` atitsn. of speciaLdjst►`icts MRSC Index - Special- Purpose Districts. General MRSC.. Index - T iispc�rta'tion _ ii n at district. (Ch. 36,73 RCW,..Ch; .;0.7 Laws 19871 1 J u t y 2 0 1 0 PIA Transportation Benefit ASSOCIATION OF WASH.INGTbM Ci Ti ES D Legislat i n Effect voiginwmpwamealemimwex Through the cooperative efforts oftheAssociation ofWashington Cities (AWC) and the Washington State Associations of Counties (WSAC), significant legislation went into effect in 2007,*hich resulted in the most important local transportation tool for cities and counties in sixteen years — Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs). Newly enacted 2010 legislation enhanced theTBD'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 fiveanembers, 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 body of the Legislature amended the TBD statute to expand its uses a metropolitan planning organization if theTBD boundaries 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 theTBD statute again to Th boundaries of aTBD 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 aTransportation 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 die 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 theTBD 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 hoard? 3673 RCW.The county or city proposing to create a TBD 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 districtAdditionally,by, being a Who governs the TBD? separate legal and taxing entity,TBDs have more flexibility. The members of the legislative authority (county or city) For example, more than one type of jurisdiction can be part proposing to establish aTBD serves as the governing body of aTBD and the boundaries can be less than countywide or of the TBD.The legislative authority is acting ex officio and citywide. independently as theTBD eovernine body. if a TBD includes • • Can aTBD be created without imposing fees or proposing What transportation improvements can be funded voter approved revenue options? by aTBD? Yes,A county or city takes legislative action through the The definition of transportation improvements is broad.Thls ordinance process to create aTBD.The ordinance must an include maintenance and improvements to city streets, include a finding that the creation of a TBD is In the public's county roads, state highways, investments in high capacity interest. describe the boundaries of the TBD, and specify the transportation. public transportation, transportation demand activities or functions to be implemented or funded by the management and other transportation projects identified in districtThe county or city ordinance creating theTBD mayy a regional transportation planning organization plan or state also specify and authorize what fees or revenues that the plan. TBD may pursue.TheTBD, acting in its own official capacity, In developing criteria for a transportation improvement, it has the authority to identify proposed fees or revenue can include one or more of the following: reduced risk of options. transportation facility failure and improved safety; improved travel time; improved air quality; increases in daily and peak AreTBD revenues required to be spent as they are period trip capacity; improved modal connectivity; improved collected? freight mobility; cost - effectiveness of the investment; optimal No.The governing body which creates aTBD must develop performance of the system through time: and other criteria, a plan that specifies the transportation improvements to as adopted by the governing body. be provided or funded by the TBD As part of this plan, the TBD's governing board can indicate if the funds will be used Note: In 2010, cities within King County are specifically irnmediatety, or if they will be collected for a specified period, authorized to provide or contract for supplemental prior to spending the accumulated funds.Typicaily, funds that public transportation improvements to meet the mobility are collected for a specified period before being expended needs of the city, and may contract for such Improvements are used to fully fund large projects, when bonding, or serve with private and nonprofit entities and may also form public - as a match for state or federal funds that may only become private partnerships. available in a specified time frame. If a jurisdiction uses the SEPA process to collect Does aTBD have to meet certain tests? impact fees, would this preclude aTBD from using There are three threshold tests for transportation impact fees? improvements in aTBD: 1) the type of transportation No. However, the law requires die jurisdiction to provide improvement contained within the boundaries of the TBD, a credit to commercial or industrial developments that are 2) whether the improvements are identified in any existing subject to SEPA, or transportation impact fees authorized state, regional, county, city or eligible TDB jurisdiction's (port under GMAThis is commonly called a "no double- dipping" or transit) transportation plan and that the improvements provision. are 3) necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels. The definition of "congestion" does not have a set standard in law; each TBD has the discretion to tailor and make its own determination of congestion levels when implementing its TBD ordinance, continued What revenue options do TBD's have? after enactment of the 2007 Iegislation.Today,a county that TBD's have several revenue options subject to voter creates a countywideTBD (incorporated and unincorporated approval; areas) and proposes to impose up to a $20 non -voted Property taxes -- a I -year excess levy or an excess levy vehicle fee should first attempt to impose a countywide • for capital purposes; fee to be shared with cities by interlocal agreement. Sixty percent (60%) of the cities representing seventy -fie (75 %) • Up to 02% sales and use tax, of the incorporated population must approve th'e interlocal • Up to $140 annual vehiclefee per vehicle registered in agreement for it to be effective.The Legislative expectation is the district; and , that if an interlocal agreement cannot be reached between a • Vehicle tolls.. county and city or cities, the county is authorized to create a Please Note There are exemptions or unique requirements TBD and Impose the fee only in the unincorporated area of when using the vehicle fee or vehicle tolls. the county. TBD's have two revenue options that do not Credits must be provided for previously imposed TBD require voter approval, but are subject to vehicle fees. Credits are not required for voter approved vehicle .fees. additional conditions: I. Annual vehicle fee up, to $20.Ths fee is collected at Commercial and IndustrialTransportation the time of vehicle renewal,and cannot be used to fund Impact Fees: passenger-only ferry service improvements. ATBD that is either countywide or citywide must provide a 2 Transportation impact fees on commercial and industrial credit for a commercial or industrial transporption impact buildings. Residential buildings are excluded. In addition, a fee if the respective county or city has already imposed a county or city must provide a credit for a commercial or transportation impact fee.Th {s is commonly called a "no industrial transportation impact if the respective county double- dipping" provision. or city has already imposed a transportation impact fee. if we create a countywideTBD for the up to $20 Please Note: Foregoing a vote is an option only. A county vehicle fee, how is the revenue distributed to or city still has the option placing either the annual fee of cities? up to $20 or the Impact fees to the vote of the people as an The revenue must be shared according to the interlocal advisory vote or an actual requirement of imposition. agreement.The law does not prescribe what the interlocal agreement contains. Consequently, the revenue can be shared What are the additional "conditions required to b population, number of vehicles within each jurisdiction. impose revenue options not subject to voter project list. a combination of these. or whatever the county approval? and cities can reach agreement on. To impose either fee, theTBD's boundaries must be countywide or citywide. or if applicable, in the What happens if a city imposes the up to $20 unincorporated county. vehicle fee and then the county imposes a countywide fee without voter approval? Vehicle Fees: The law requiresTBDs to provide a credit for vehicle fees When the Legislature revised the TBD authority in 2007 to previously imposed by aTBD. enable councilmanic vehicle fees, it was intended to ensure a county -wide or regional approach for first consideration of this new option.That is why counties had the exclusive authority of the $20 vehicle fee for the first six months continued For example, if a city was the first to create aTBD and What other requirements should 1 be aware of? impose a $20 vehicle fee and subsequently its county Revenue rates, once imposed. may not be increased, unless creates a countywide TBD imposing a $20 vehicle fee, the authorized by voter approval. countyTBD must provide a $20 credit against its fee for vehicles registered within the city.As a result, no fee would If project costs exceed original costs by more than 20 pertent,a public hearing must be held to solicit public be collected by the county from vehicles registered within the city.Additionally, the city would not be part of the comment regarding how the cost change should be resolved, interlood agreement with the county or be included in the This Is typically called a material change policy number /percentages needed for the interlocal agreement to TheTBD must issue an annual report to include the status be effective. of project costs, revenues, expenditures, and construction However, if in the same example, the city TBD imposed only schedules. $10 of the $20 vehicle fee and the countyTBD imposed TheTBD must be dissolved upon completion of the a countywide $20 vehicle fee, only a $10 credit would be project(s) and the payment of debt service. provided for vehicles registered within the city.The county TBD would collect $10 from vehicles registered in the city Who has imposed aTBDT Consequently, the countyTBD would need to Include the The tides of Lake Forest Park, Edmonds, Des Moines, city in the Interlocat agreement discussions and the city is Olympia, Prosser, and Shoreline imposed the $20 vehicle included in the number /percentages needed for the Interlocai fee. Ridgefield and Sequim passed the 2/10 sales tact agreement to be effective. Point Roberts and Liberty Lake formed TBD`s prior to the legislative changes in 2005. If a county or city is considering the $20 vehicle fee, how does a county or city estimate revenues? Currently, no TBD has been in effect for an entire year and therefore revenue estimates and histories are incomplete. Checklist What TBDs around the state have learned to date: vehicles per household calculations vary significantly around the For a checklist that highlights many of the important state, Statistical data shows that there tends to be about considerations when creating aTransportation Benefit one vehicle per person in rural areas and 0.8 vehicles per District (TBD), please see wrvw.awtnet.argftbd. person in urban areas. Another factor to strongly consider Eligibility requirements vary. For additional questions on is seasonality; vehicles sales are not evenly distributed Transportation Districts, please contact AWC staff throughout the year and this will affect monthly receipts. Ashley Probart at ashleyp ©awcnetorg Finally, a city or county must understand and recognize that Sheri Sawyer at sheris©awcnetorg. other factors such as people failing to register their vehicles, - and data accuracy can affect actual revenues when compared to forecasted revenues. Transportation Benefit District — Alternative Project List Classified. Roadways, Poor Condition or Lower, > 5000 vpd Street From To Classification Surface Area (SF) 2012 PCI Repair Type Cost/SF Total Year1 40th Avenue 600 (Tieton) 130 (Summitview) Principal AC 132,500.00 31 Cold In -Place Recycle $4.87 $645,275.00 Yakima Avenue 1600 1200 Minor AC 81,200.00 10 Cold In -Place Recycle $4.87 $395,444.00 $1,040,719.00 Year 2 1st Street 1800 (Mead) 1400 (Nob Hill) Principal AC 192,000.00 35 Cold In -Place Recycle $5.02 $963,091.20 Year 3 40th Avenue 1100 (Nob Hill) 600 (Tieton) Principal AC 130,000.00 37 Cold In -Place Recycle $5.17 $671,655.79 5th Avenue 200 (Walnut) 10 (Yakima) Minor AC 61,610 00 11 Cold In -Place Recycle $5.17 $318,313.18 $989,968.97 Year 4 5th Avenue 10 (Yakima) 300 (Lincoln) Principal AC 80,600.00 37 Mill & Overlay $3.74 $301,212.38 Walnut Street 500 (5th Ave) 300 (3rd Ave) Minor AC 36,400.00 24 Cold In -Place Recycle $5.32 $193,705.53 Walnut Street 700 (7th Ave) 500 (5th Ave) Minor AC 36,400.00 28 Cold In -Place Recycle $5.32 $193,705.53 3rd Avenue 200 (Walnut) 10 (Yakima) Minor AC 68,000.00 26 , Cold In -Place Recycle $5.32 $361,867.47 $1,050,490.92 Year 5 16th Avenue 600 (Englewood) 1100 (Madison) Principal AC 171,600.00 38 Cold In -Place Recycle $5 48 $940,578.71 Walnut Street 100 (1st St) 300 (3rd St) Minor AC 36,400.00 28 Cold In -Place Recycle $5.48 $199,516 70 $1,140,095.40 Alt 5 Year Project List 120206.doc 2/6/2012