FINANCING LOCAL TRANSPORTATION

When the new Legislature opens in January, a strong coalition will ask for new state funding to maintain and improve local road and bridge networks. Washington cities, counties, major businesses, and the three regional organizations of King County cities will carry the same message. Local government transportation resources have been cut by about 65% since the mid-1990's by tax limiting initiatives, legislative inaction, and court decisions. As a result, our transportation network is seriously at risk.

The creation of this coalition was jump-started by my Resolution 30683, seeking state legislative action to address funding for municipal transportation infrastructure, which was passed unanimously by the City Council in June. The Association of Washington Cities asked other cities to follow Seattle's lead, and Mayor Nickels and I have worked to persuade other organizations to join us. Resolution 30683 was based on the very effective work of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee II (CTAC II).

When I became Chair of the Transportation Committee in 2002, I discovered that not only were we falling behind in maintaining our roads and bridges, but we were not funding transportation improvements called for in our 38 Neighborhood Plans. In 2003 I sponsored a resolution establishing the CTAC II to review our progress in the eight years since an earlier advisory committee had recommended major additional transportation funding.

The City did increase general fund resources for transportation infrastructure in response to the earlier CTAC report, from $26.6 million in 1998 to $43.3 million in 2002. In 2002 the Seattle Transportation budget actually reached the target level of investment set by CTAC. Some new investments were made, and pavement conditions stabilized and actually improved slightly.

But the recession reduced Seattle's available resources, and we can no longer make up for the loss of state funding mechanisms. We lost the Street Utility Fee in the State Supreme Court; Eyman initiatives cost us the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, the Vehicle License Fee, and the City's ability to increase property taxes beyond 1% per year; and the State has not approved additional gas taxes for local governments. While I persuaded my colleagues to add about $2 million a year to the 2005-2006 transportation budgets, this is only a band-aid where major surgery is required.

CTAC II confirmed that Seattle's transportation system is overburdened and underfunded, and that the City needs new tools. The report found that 16 percent of Seattle's major streets are in poor condition or worse and 37 percent of the City's bridges are in poor condition or worse. The longer maintenance on infrastructure is delayed, the more it costs to fix it.

• The backlog of deferred maintenance for Seattle streets, arterials, bridges and sidewalks is currently about $500 million. To eliminate the backlog would require about $40-$50 million in additional funding each year over the next 20 years. More would be required to meet neighborhood mobility needs.
• Seattle should be replacing one bridge every year, but current funding allows replacement of one bridge every 3 or 4 years.
• Seattle would need to triple the annual amount of paving and reconstruction in order to reverse the net deterioration of streets.
• Currently 16 bridges have weight restrictions due to critical deficiencies. Many traffic signs and control systems need replacement or upgrading.
• Since 1990, the City has actually lost transportation revenue sources, while the need for transportation infrastructure maintenance and improvement is growing.

The committee put forth a menu of funding options for the City to consider. Our first step will be to ask the state for help to replace the revenues we have lost. Even if the Legislature acts, it is unlikely that they will provide enough resources to stabilize our transportation budget and meet current maintenance requirements, make progress on the significant backlog, and implement neighborhood transportation improvements. CTAC II recommended that the City also consider a transportation levy, asking the voters for about $25 million annually for a 7 or 8 year period (similar in size to the successful 2003 Levy), with about $20 million per year dedicated to maintenance and the other $5 million dedicated to neighborhood plan projects. I will explore this option with the Mayor, Council, and public, to decide whether to proceed with a levy in 2005.

Back to Contents

IMPROVING THE CITY'S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WORK

The City of Seattle is about to adopt its second domestic violence strategic plan. I have long been concerned that our domestic violence programs needed some improvements. A formal review by outside consultants was completed in December 2003, and recommended major changes in the City's response system. Over the last year, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that the City responded proactively and rapidly to this critique, and I am pleased that the proposed new strategic plan embraces the concerns and forthrightly addresses them.

Seattle has taken consistent steps, many recognized nationally for their innovation, to work towards the reduction of domestic violence. However, the review noted a number of areas that need work, and the City has committed to the following:

1. A comprehensive City victim advocacy service plan that includes community advocacy and service linkages.
2. An effective batterer intervention policy.
3. An enhanced police response to children, seniors and vulnerable adults at the scene of a domestic violence related incident.
4. Improved collaboration across systems and agencies, locally and regionally, that work with special populations (i.e., children, seniors, vulnerable adults, people of color, and refugees and immigrants).
5. Enhanced regional, state and federal funding, services and policies to assist those victimized by domestic violence, including members of special populations.
6. Confiscation of firearms from domestic violence offenders and individuals prohibited from possessing them due to criminal domestic violence conviction.
7. Enhanced domestic violence investigations.
8. Prosecution that serves the best interest of victims and their children.
9. Sanctions with improved compliance, and appropriate alternatives to confinement for domestic violence offenders.
10. Improved response and service to victim defendants.

These will be implemented with a series of specific actions over the next several years, with the goal of making sure that domestic violence is addressed efficiently, effectively, and with full respect and culturally sensitive services for the victims and their children. Early in 2005, there will be a public forum on the Strategic Plan to provide an opportunity for public input on this important step.

Back to Contents

REWORKING STREET VACATION POLICIES

On Monday, October 18, the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution 30702, revising and updating the policies for street vacations, the legal term for returning public rights-of-way to other uses.

About 30% of Seattle's land area was dedicated for public right-of-way when property lines were drawn. Unlike city buildings and other property, the City cannot buy and sell right-of-way. It can only be used for other purposes if it is no longer needed for public purposes. The City must receive full payment for the value of the land and additional 'public benefit' to compensate the public for the loss of air, views, and other attributes of the area held in trust.

In an average year, some 5 to 10 vacations move through the Council, and the procedure has been governed by a fairly arcane process that has been difficult for both the proponents of a vacation (usually an entity that wants to develop a building that would extend over or onto the right-of-way) and for surrounding communities that want to have a say in the decision. Often the process has bogged down because the basis for making a decision about the nature and size of the 'public benefit' has not been clearly enunciated.

In 2003 I initiated a review of these policies, with three goals:

1. Revise and update the Policies: delete dated references; include references to important policies such as the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plans.
2. Clarify the Policies to reflect current Council interpretations and priorities.
3. Update review procedures and materials to make the process clearer, more understandable, and more predictable to decision makers, developers and the public.

After working with a variety of interested parties, the result was a new set of policies that:

• Specify that street/alley vacation proposals must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and relevant Neighborhood Plan.
• Provide that SDOT makes a threshold recommendation as to whether a street/alley vacation works from a transportation standpoint at an early stage. The threshold recommendation gives the applicant a clear response as to whether the street vacation seems viable. While the Council retains the final say, the objective is to make the final decision more predictable.
• Make the City's policy position clear that aerial vacations are strongly discouraged and will only be considered in very limited circumstances.
• Encourage street use permits as an alternative to street/alley vacations when a vacation is not a necessary element of the development proposal and the objectives can be achieved by a permit.
• Establish a five-year time frame for completion of the vacation process, require regular updates to staff, and provide for additional City Council review if conditions are not met in a timely manner or there are questions about compliance.
• Outline what the City will consider to determine if the public benefit proposal balances the loss of right-of-way with the added value to the applicant, based on data such as the assessed value of adjacent property, lease rates in the general vicinity for similar projects, development potential from the vacation, and additional density in terms of square footage of usable space. The intention is to, in the long run, build a body of data and precedent that will allow applicants and communities to have clearer expectations of the approximate range of value for the public benefit requirements for a given vacation proposal.
• Clarify what the City considers to be acceptable public benefits. Add language outlining what does not constitute a public benefit, such as providing a mitigation of the adverse effects of a vacation, meeting code requirements for development, paying the required vacation fee or facilitating economic activity.

These revisions did not make any headlines, but they are a good example of how to streamline regulation while protecting the public interest, and I hope that they will significantly improve the process for the future.

Back to Contents

QUOTE
"Privilege is addictive. The most natural thing in the world is for each human being to view the privilege he enjoys as, well, the most natural thing in the world."

-- Roger Wilkins

DEEP THOUGHT:
"In politics, no one is truly dead and no one is truly alive."

--Mexican saying

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. You can get more information or send me feedback through the City Council website at http://cityofseattle.net/council/

Richard Conlin
Your Seattle City Councilmember

Back to Contents

Back to MAKING IT WORK Newsletters