Select Committee on 2024 Transportation Levy 6/4/2024

All right, good morning.

The June 4th, 2024 meeting of the Select Committee on the 2024 Transportation Levy will come to order.

It is 9.37 a.m.

I am Rob Sacca, Chair of the Transportation Committee.

Will the Clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Kettle?

Here.

Councilmember Moore?

Present.

Councilmember Morales?

Here.

Council President Nelson?

Present.

Councilmember Rivera?

Present.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Wu.

Present.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Chair Saka.

Here.

Chair, there are eight members present.

All right, if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Before we get started today, just want to emphasize that this is a historic moment for Seattle.

If we get this right, this levy has the power to build a safer, more economically viable, and better connected community.

We have an urgent opportunity to deliver the everyday basics in an extraordinary way.

More than that, this levy is also a vital public safety issue.

It's also no exaggeration to say that this levy has the ability to quite literally save lives.

This levy proposal, this is a levy proposal that we will build upon in this chamber that we can all be proud of.

I know I'm especially proud of the investments to keep our community safer.

Too many people are dying on these roads and our roads and our streets, and we're growing further away from our Vision Zero goals, unfortunately.

I do want to thank Mayor Harrell and his team, SDOT Director Spatz, and the entire team at SDOT, and everyone who has worked tirelessly to get us to this point.

More to come.

I want to thank our community for continuing to make their voices heard whether it's one of the hundreds who have attended our various meetings and forums on this levy so far, whether you've shared your feedback in email, whatever the way you shared and communicated your feedback, responded to surveys, whatever it is, your voice matters and I want you to know we are listening.

And I also want to thank my council colleagues for your thoughtful engagement and insights and sharing your terrific ideas so far.

More to come.

Finally, I want to make clear that we have one and only one transportation system in the city and our region.

I expressly reject the usual divisions impending one transportation mode choice against another.

Similarly, I reject counterproductive framing of us versus them and ours versus theirs and the like.

There are so many interdependencies at play here.

After all, we learned through the extended closure of the West Seattle Bridge, that impacted the entire city, not just West Seattle.

Decent roads affect everywhere you choose to walk, bike, walk, take transit, or drive.

When freight and cargo are not moving efficiently and reliably, our services, perhaps even prices of our daily necessities are directly impacted.

And that's not doesn't just hold true.

That principle doesn't just hold true right here in our economy locally here in Seattle.

It's our regional economy.

It's our state economy, national economy, and has international implications as well.

This is a world class city.

And so, you know, new sidewalks, safe routes to schools, Vision Zero goals affect everyone.

Again, we have one system, and we must work for our residents.

This system must work for our residents, first and foremost.

And it all must be coordinated, integrated, and accountable.

So one transportation system, directly in line with, I suppose, the mayor's One Seattle approach.

This is a transportation-specific implementation of that.

But ultimately, colleagues, whatever we put forth in the coming weeks ahead, wherever we land on the final levy package proposal, it's clear that the voters are the ones who must ultimately decide later this fall.

And you know, I've proposed a proposed chair's amendment package.

We'll learn more about that later today.

Just wanna tee up the conversation here.

So that said, we'll now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda and within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Speaker, sorry, Chair, we have seven in-person speakers signed up and there are two remote speakers

All right, you said seven in person?

Yes, counting the person who just signed up.

Okay, okay.

Let's see, each speaker will have approximately two minutes and we will start with the end speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

Speakers will alternate between sets of in-person and remote speakers until the public comment period is ended.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call in the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Sorry, give me one second.

Our first in-person speaker is Rita Holzman.

And following Rita Holzman is Cecilia Black.

Hello again.

I came before this committee approximately one month ago to tell you about my late husband, Steve Holzman, who lost his life last December when a driver collided with Steve while he was bicycling in our West Seattle neighborhood.

In my comment last month, I implored you to include generous funding for safety improvements in the transportation levy you will put before voters this fall so that no one else will die or be seriously injured on our streets.

I am back before you today because unimaginably, six more people, including three pedestrians, were killed in Seattle traffic in six different collisions in just seven days late last month.

It is heartbreaking to me to know that six more families are now mourning their losses as my family and I have been grieving and continue to mourn the loss of my husband.

What is even more appalling and heartbreaking is that all of these recent deadly collisions occurred on streets already identified by SDOT as belonging to a high injury network.

This is unacceptable to me.

We as a city cannot simply say that my husband and the six other people who died in Seattle traffic last month are acceptable losses.

We must do better.

The transportation levy you sent to voters this fall must prioritize safety improvements for all who travel our streets, no matter whether they are in motor vehicles, on bicycles, in wheelchairs, or on foot.

Seattle's Vision Zero team has already implemented significant and effective safety improvements in our city, but clearly, clearly more remains to be done.

So I implore you again today to increase funding for safety improvements in Seattle's upcoming transportation levy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the next speaker is Cecilia Black and followed by that will be Nicole Grant.

Hi, my name is Cecilia Black and I'm a community organizer with Disability Rights Washington.

I wanna first just thank this council and especially Council Member Saka, Council Member Moore and Council Member Morales for being such champions of sidewalks.

20 years ago, I was paralyzed when my family was hit by a 16 year old driver with a car full of friends.

They were in a community where there was no other transportation options for teenage drivers.

Every single person in my family sustained significant injuries and the driver died.

This is not what you want for your family and this is not the options that you want for your children.

I am lucky, I have money set aside for my housing, which means that I get to live two blocks from Roosevelt Light Rail Station and within several major bus lines.

This has transformed my life.

And even within those two blocks from the light rail, about a quarter of the sidewalks are so uprooted, I use the bike lanes.

But I'm lucky, I have sidewalks near me, and I'm also in a priority zone where I know that those sidewalks will get repaired.

And the reality is, is that if you are a wheelchair user, use a cane or a walker, if you're a small child or a parent of a small child and living in Lake City, in Northgate, in South Seattle, on a street with no sidewalks, sidewalks are not coming for you.

And so I ask you that...

that as you amend and think about this amendment, that you think about your friends and your family and think about where they live and who will be able to navigate the city if one of them becomes disabled.

Because I hope the goal for everyone is to live long enough where they will likely become disabled.

And the city right now is not an easy place to navigate if you are in a wheelchair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Clerk.

I'd like the record to reflect that Vice Chair Hollingsworth is here present and accounted for, answered during my opening remarks.

Thank you.

All right.

That will be noted.

Thank you, Chair.

The next in-person speaker is Eliana Horne.

Oh, sorry.

Nicole Grant, followed by that will be Eliana Horne.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair Saka and Seattle City Council.

My name is Nicole Grant.

I use she and her pronouns and I'm a member of IBEW Local 46 here to testify about the Seattle Transportation Levy.

It has been an incredible process and So inspiring to hear from all the advocates, whether it was Disability Rights Washington or Transportation Choices, the Seattle Building Trades or MLK Labor and all the individuals that came and told very moving stories about how transportation has affected their family and loved ones in Seattle.

For our part at the Electricians Union, we have been advocating for really a first of its kind investment in transportation electrification for electric vehicles in Seattle.

And we have a lot of gratitude to Mayor Bruce Harrell and to Chair Saka and all the council members who've spoken in favor of putting in accessible public EV charging in Seattle.

When I think about the investments the Washington State Department of Commerce is making to make sure that low income people can get access to electric vehicles instead of fossil fuel powered vehicles, It makes me wonder, yeah, but where do you charge it?

I mean, if you're not a single family homeowner with a big driveway who can afford the infrastructure, where do you charge it?

And that's where the city of Seattle can come in.

So an Uber driver can charge on a level three charging station.

at a community center or a park so that they can have their livelihood or so that somebody who lives in an apartment can charge without having to have a bunch of extra parking in our neighborhoods.

Should just be able to go to the park.

Thank you.

The next in-person speaker is Eliana Horn and followed by that will be Steve Rubistello.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Eliana Horn, and I'm here representing Puget Sound SAGE.

We appreciate the increased investment in this levy in Councilmember Saka's chair package, but $100 million isn't enough.

Voters overwhelmingly support a $1.9 billion package and minimally $1.7 billion, and this is a truly wasted opportunity if we don't take advantage of that.

We're also disappointed to see an additional $7 million for transit safety.

We don't need more transit police.

We need to be investing in communities, not police.

Puget Sound SAGE has worked with communities at high risk of displacement in the CID and Graham Street areas who are gonna be experiencing long awaited investments in light rail expansion.

But this light rail expansion also presents increased risk of displacement.

And this council has spoken, or we have the vision for One Seattle, but the reality is that black and brown working class people and immigrants are not going to be here if we are not actually investing in those communities and making sure that they will be able to take advantage of the investments in light rail expansion.

And these are the same communities that also are the riders and users of public transit.

So if we are not actually protecting these communities, then we will also see lower ridership, which is counter to the city's goals for climate justice and to prevent displacement.

We're asking you to increase the levy and to remove funding for transit police and invest in communities by providing just $30 million, which is not very much in the scheme of an over a billion dollar levy for these communities to lead a plan for the changes that are coming and acquire land in their communities now before the land is too expensive in the future.

Over 55% of voters are more likely to vote yes on the levy with this included.

And we also ask that you increase funding for sidewalks.

Even if the funding doubled, we have to wait 200 years for the city to be accessible and safe, and we cannot wait 200 years.

Thank you.

The next in-person speaker is Steve Rubistello, and followed by that will be Clara Cantor.

I think if you want to pass this levy, one thing to consider is to stop taking four-lane roads and making them two-lane roads.

I live on Fremont, which is right near Aurora.

And all we need is another choke point on Aurora because Fremont becomes a parking lot when Aurora is reduced.

So I would say that I had, I've been thinking of you this last week when I'm working, because I was working primarily on Cap Hill and I saw what happened to Dexter Avenue, I saw what happened to Madison.

I see what's happened to Pike and Pine.

Now, if I'm being paid by the hour and it takes me a long time to get to places, eh, that's okay.

But what about people who are going places and not being paid by the hour?

One of the reasons why I think you're seeing a increase in fatalities and injuries is frustration.

You know, this proposal, STP, is missing one letter.

It's, oh, stop Seattle.

That is a problem.

We need to get freight to move.

We need people to move.

I'm multimodal.

I came down here on transit, but When I'm working, I have to use a car.

When I'm doing other things, it depends upon what I'm doing, what is the best mode.

To sacrifice one mode for another mode is not good, especially when you're asking people to pay for it.

And I really can't see paying to make my life more difficult.

It's not in my way of doing things.

And we're talking about a lot of money here.

As Dirksen used to say, a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there.

I presume you got a lot of money.

Thank you.

The next in-person speaker is Clara Cantor, and followed by that is Erin Muser.

Can you hear me?

Hi, my name is Clara Cantor.

I'm a community organizer for Seattle Neighborhood Greenways.

I'm here to echo what we heard so eloquently from Rita and from Celia earlier.

I also have some bad news that yesterday afternoon, there was another person who was killed on our streets up in District 6. That makes seven people in the last 10 or 11 days or so that have been killed in Seattle on our streets.

Every single one of those people has a family and friends and a community that is going to feel those rippling effects.

I just want to echo Council Member Saka what you said earlier, you know, one transportation system and that every aspect of that transportation system has to prioritize safety or else people will continue to be killed on our streets.

All seven of those people were killed on freight routes on big arterial streets that we know are dangerous that we know people have been killed on before, and we continue to not do anything about it as a city.

The levee that you have before you doesn't have any safety language in the freight section.

We need to add language there to prioritize safety on all of those projects.

We need to build more bike lanes, build more sidewalks, build more safety projects, build more traffic calming in order for this to stop.

I'd like to use the remainder of my time just for 39 seconds of silence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our final in-person speaker is Erin Musser.

Good morning, council members and guests.

My name is Erin Musser.

I live in Rainier Valley and I am obsessed with sidewalk repair.

It has been published in several organizations and publications over the past years.

I've had my photo taken while rolling down bumpy sidewalks.

I have even had a GoPro attached to the bottom of my wheelchair to kind of get the real time word out to the powers that be.

I love going to take the light rail.

And first of all, I want to definitely take time to thank Council Members Saka, Morales, and Moore for trying to get this $100 million amendment to the package.

So thank you so much for that.

I have testified here maybe three or four times.

And I will do it over and over.

I'm going to come back at 4.30 so I hear the same speech again.

I might twist it up a little bit.

I don't know.

But it is so important to me because light rail gives me a lot of independence.

And it's something that's great.

But when I go over a big speed bump, so to speak, it is a speed bump if it's on a sidewalk.

my legs are very stiff because I have MS, my legs will fly out like two by fours and I cannot get them back myself.

So me going to use light rail to use it as an independent source of things I need to get done, If I need to have someone help me get my feet back on my pads, it's kind of ridiculous.

It defeats the whole purpose of having an accessible way of travel.

So thank you for the support you have and I just implore you to, I appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Chair, we'll be now moving to the remote speakers.

We have three remote speakers signed up.

Our first remote speaker is Anne Knight, and followed by that will be Emilce Sanchez.

Anne, are you there?

Okay, share with your permission.

We'll move on to the next remote speaker and then go back to Anne.

Just to remind you, you might want to push star six.

Okay, Anne, do you want to press star six?

Okay, I'm going to move on to the next remote speaker.

So, Emilce Sanchez.

I can speak now.

Okay.

And if you're ready then you can start talking.

Okay.

Thank you.

My name is Ann Knight and I'm speaking about street trees.

Street trees are a critical part of the tree canopy we depend on for the health of our city and provide essential mitigation to the most vulnerable populations living and working in heat islands.

Seattle Street Rights of Way which cover 27 percent of the city is essential in addressing Seattle's tree canopy goals, since it's owned and regulated by the city and runs throughout Seattle.

Thus, it is important that this next eight-year transportation levy has sufficient resources to plant and maintain street trees.

With climate change, we lost 10 acres of canopy in the city's right subway in five years, despite a $20 million investment in street trees in the past levy.

We need to get ahead of climate change if we are going to reduce trees.

The loss of trees in the next eight years due to new pests and diseases will set us back even further in our canopy goals.

As an example, the impact of the birch borer will cause the total loss of birch trees that line many of our streets.

That loss will likely exceed the total number of new trees that would be planted under the proposed levy.

And this is just one of the species that we will be losing due to climate change.

Thus, the current proposed levy does not make adequate investment in street trees to keep pace with the impacts of climate change and to increase the trees in the vulnerable neighborhoods.

The current proposal of $29 million represents just 2% of the levy budget.

The tree budget should, at a minimum, be doubled to 4% or $58 million if we and hope to make any progress in retaining and building the tree canopy on our street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Emilce Sanchez.

You may need to press star six to be unmuted.

Hi, finally unmuted.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

You can go ahead.

My name is Emilce Sanchez.

I'm a resident of Beacon Hill and county district number two.

My dad died biking 33 years ago in a hit and run, not in Seattle, but the same fate can befall cyclists and pedestrians if we don't invest in safe multimodal transportation.

I commute all over the city to curb my personal carbon emissions, and I know more people would to if they felt safer riding these streets.

So my ask for this council to invest in a $1.7 billion transportation levy, including pedestrian programs, adding the $32 million to reverse cuts to vital programs in sidewalk maintenance and ADA accessibility.

as well as transit corridors and connections, adding 52 million to reverse the cuts in transit capital budget capital project funding.

And of course, bike safety programs, adding 20 million to maintain bike programs and select expansion.

Neighborhood for neighborhood street improvement, adding $30 million to community-led planning and land acquisition to prepare for light rail expansion in Grand Street and Chinatown International District area.

Five, Vision Zero and school safety, adding $20 million to ensure adequate funding to support safety redesigns in the city's five most dangerous streets.

And number six, climate and Resiliency, adding $40 million to urban freeway mitigation.

And seven, focusing on people, streets, and public spaces by adding $10 million to add accessible public restrooms to transit hubs.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Our final remote speaker will be Alberto Alvarez.

Hello, my name is Alberto.

I'm a delivery driver here in Seattle.

I'm actually speaking for the transportation levy that you guys are discussing right now.

I do drive essentially around the clock, so I'm out there on the streets day in and day out, so I see the real problems that are going on.

Number one, I think bicycle transport needs to be improved a lot more than what this levy is proposing.

But beyond that, the sidewalk situation for people on foot and people with low mobility and wheelchairs and that sort of thing, that needs to be improved a lot more, like more than 50%, double of whatever it is now.

I see how they struggle just getting from point to point.

I see it every day.

It's constant, so it's a real problem.

And the fact that this levy doesn't focus on that as much as it should, it's a little concerning.

On a side note, if you guys are wanting to bring people back to the downtown core throughout the week and even on the weekends, that's the key is getting people on foot because the cost of parking, I know that it's way too high.

So anyone that's trying to make it in for the weekend for a ball game, football game, to the bars, to wherever they want to go, it limits where they go.

So people on foot, people taking the buses, people on bikes, that's how you get people back into the core.

The people that drive in for business hours, they're only there four or five days out of the week.

So if you don't focus on people being able to get there on foot, you're missing the mark.

So improve the safety for people, you know, pedestrians, people on bikes and people.

Chair, that was our last speaker.

All right.

Thank you everyone for your public comments and engagement.

We will now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read the title of item one into the record?

Agenda item one, property taxes 101 for briefing and discussion.

All right.

And thank you.

Looks like our presenter is already ahead of the curve here and has joined us at the table.

Welcome, Director Noble.

Once ready, please introduce yourself and begin your presentation.

Thank you.

Ben Noble.

Central Staff Director.

Sorry, I'm just working on getting this up the right way.

I'm struggling a little bit.

All right.

Yeah, Ben Noble, Central Staff Director.

As you consider the transportation levy and consider putting something to the voters to effectively raise their own property taxes, I thought it would be helpful to provide you some context for city property taxes overall, and in particular, why it is that the city is going to the voters to ask them to tax themselves for something seemingly as basic as transportation.

And in order to do that, I want to back up a little bit and give you some background on property taxes overall.

talk to you a little bit about the limitations that are placed on the city by the state government in terms of taxation overall and property tax in particular, and then walk you through kind of the way property taxes have evolved over the past 20-plus years.

So with that, let me dive in.

So just terms of the outline and talk to you about existing city property taxes and where the money goes essentially, then take a look at the limitations.

So as I alluded to just a moment ago, there are state limitations on city's taxing authority and what the impact of those limitations have been over time.

And then lastly, just at least mention some existing property tax exemption and deferral programs that particularly target seniors and low-income folks, in part just to raise the profile of those programs and to mention as well that they are potentially a component of the levy as well.

So with that, This first picture is kind of busy, but it's designed just to give you a background on property taxes overall and where the money goes when you're writing a check for your taxes.

And you should know if you're a renter, your landlord is indirectly writing that check, and it is undoubtedly reflected in some way in your rent as well.

On an assessed value basis, the median value of a home in Seattle is just over $800,000.

And if you were to live in that house, your tax bill in 2024 would have been just under $7,300.

And this chart is trying to show you where that money would go.

At first blush, I think people recognize that the city and probably the school district are recipients of property tax.

I think they're potentially less knowledgeable of the fact that both the port and the county and the state also get a share of your property taxes as you pay them.

In particular, the city's share is about 30% of that total, so about $2,200 of the $7,300 is going to the city.

The next slide is going to break down the city components.

If there aren't questions, I'm going to move on and do that.

But again, this is an overview of where that property tax bill goes.

This is a look at the city side.

Now it is a stacked chart.

So again, this is that same individual, that $804,000 home.

Again, their city tax bill is just over $2,200.

And this is how it breaks out.

Eight, almost $900 is for the general fund, and then you can read up and see the other component of that tax bill.

Each of the things beyond the general purpose, the general fund portion, have been approved by voters in one form or another.

Most of them have been 50% votes as the transportation one is for a levy.

An exception there is the bond debt service there at the top.

That's the bonds that were issued for the waterfront, and that's actually a 60% vote in order to get a bond measure imposed.

But again, this gives you a feel for how the city component of the tax bill breaks out.

Now I'm going to shift to talk about revenue, and this chart that I'm going to put up looks nearly identical, and it's lost one of its labels, and it's not coming back, so I'm not going to...

Sorry, I need to go backwards here, see if I can do that.

Yeah.

So, this is the same chart, but it's pivoted to show the revenue to the city.

So, because every property in the city is paying a bill like the one I showed you on the previous slide, and that then adds up to the city's revenue.

Denominations here are in millions of dollars, and it tells you how much, again, in millions that the city is collecting on an annual basis.

I don't know why the one for the general fund has disappeared, but that total is just over $300 million.

So 300-plus million for the general fund, and then each of the levies, as you can see, separately raising almost several hundred million dollars or more.

I think what's interesting to note here is that, in total, there is now more money being raised from voter-approved levies than there are from the councilmanic or the council-approved general fund.

And that, as we'll see in a moment, is not an accident.

It is a product of history and, in fact, ultimately a product of Tim Eyman and of the state legislature.

And we'll get back to that story here in just a sec.

And here we go.

So understanding the city's property tax authority, there are two key constraints on that authority.

One is that the total rate, so the city in total cannot charge its residents more than $3.60 per $1,000.

And that's a combination of the voter approved levies as well as the councilmanic, the general fund levy.

Bonds and actually the Parks District are outside this limit.

The Parks District is technically a separate taxing authority.

It's not actually the city in this very important way.

There are separate limitations for a collective local measures and it faces that constraint.

But in total, we can't charge residents more than 360 per assessed thousand for city purposes.

Currently, we're at 272, so we're well below that limit.

So that constraint is not currently binding on us in any significant way, and we're a long way from that cap.

In the slide coming up, I'll show you the difference over time between the existing city rate and that limit.

That limit has the effect of...

revenue power of that limit changes with the city's assessed valuation.

And we'll review that as well.

But the most important limitation that has been binding on the city since early 2000s is the 1% limit on revenue growth.

So each year, the city can...

increase its tax revenue collections for the general fund by 1% plus the value of new construction.

And that's a constraint that was imposed.

It was initially imposed by an initiative, voter approved initiative.

That initiative was ultimately overturned by the state Supreme Court.

but then the legislature, state legislature, adopted the same limitation.

So it's a combination of the initiative and the legislation that put this into effect.

Before that vote and that legislative approval, the city's growth rate had been capped at 6% per year, so rather than 1% plus new construction.

And the way this works at a technical level is that one of the bills that you will vote on when the budget is brought to you is the property tax levy, and you are then voting essentially to tell the assessor how much money the city wants to collect for the general fund and for each of its levies.

um but you can't just tell him any number um you can only tell him a number that is one percent more than than than the current year at one percent again plus the value of new construction in the past we were able to tell the assessor we want last year's revenue plus six percent um and that constraint over time has had a really meaningful effect on how much money the city can raise so uh and this chart is designed to illustrate that exact point So the blue, dark blue here at the bottom is general fund revenue over time.

So relative to 2002, revenue there was about $180 million to the general fund.

We are currently now again above $300 million, about $330 million.

And that growth rate there is 1% plus the value of new construction over that time.

And I would note that new construction has actually been a meaningful addition to that in some years.

And we've gotten as much as an additional 1% or even touch more during some of the boom years.

So that new construction piece has helped.

But the dotted line there shows you what the limitations would have been if the 6% rule had remained in effect.

So how much money the city could have raised for the general fund without asking voters to approve any additional increase.

The property taxes would have gone up an average of 6%, but that could have been imposed from the city.

You can see that the difference, the distance between those two lines or the line and the solid line at the bottom has grown over time.

This has been a compounding effect.

In the first year, it was a difference between 6% and 1%, which was just 5%.

In the second year, it was more.

And in the third year, it was yet again more.

And by the end here, in 2024, if the 6% rule had remained in effect, the council would have had the potential authority to collect for the general fund north of $600 million.

So there's been a big loss of effective taxing authority.

So that's part of the reason that we are going, that you may decide, and we have in the past gone to the voters to ask them for additional monies for seemingly basic city services, that the constraint on growth of this very important revenue stream has been significant over time, and its impact has been growing over time.

So it's been compounding in meaningful ways.

But that's not the only story.

And this next line that I'm going to grab will highlight that.

So, let's see if I can get this to go.

There we go.

I don't want that there.

So I've added now a light blue line, and that is adding on top of the general fund the amount of revenue raised by voter-approved levies.

And what you can see there is that we're actually above that 6% limit throughout.

And I think the narrative here, and I think it's descriptive and I think quite accurate, Way back in 2001, even essentially before this limitation was imposed, the city had gone to voters to ask them whether they'd be willing to tax themselves for city services.

At the time, the requests were really more focused on adding above and beyond services rather than basic services.

In particular, the early levies, and we've added levies over time, were for things like families and education.

It was the city stepping into education space help expand the services that were offered there.

That was above and beyond a kind of normal city function.

And the voters were asked whether or not they'd be willing to tax themselves for that, if you will, additional purpose, and they were.

Another early levy was the housing levy.

And again, there, There was a recognition that that was perhaps beyond a basic city service.

The taxing authority that was generally available from the state wasn't sufficient to make a significant investment in affordable housing.

And if we wanted to do that, we needed to go to the voters to ask them for money.

So that's why in the early years, I would argue that you see voter-approved levies beyond what had been the otherwise legal limit.

But over time, THE PRESSURE GROWS ON THE GENERAL FUND AS THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE IS ONLY GROWING BY 1%.

AND THERE ARE ADDITIONAL LEVIES ADDED.

SO THE PARKS LEVY COMES ON, SADDLE CENTER LEVY AS WELL.

THOSE INITIAL LEVIES, THOUGH, WERE STILL, AGAIN, MORE FOCUSED ON CAPITAL.

WE WERE STILL ABLE TO MAINTAIN KIND OF THE BASIC OPERATING FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENTS, BUT TO MAKE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, WE WERE SHORT ON FUNDS AND THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO REQUEST FUNDING FROM THE VOTERS.

As those levies were renewed, more of them have shifted.

So the parks levy, for instance, although initially focused on capital, has shifted more towards operating in more recent years.

And again, that's consistent with the time period when the distance between the 6% limit and the 1% limit grows, when the constraint becomes ever more binding.

So in terms of why property tax versus other ways of raising revenue in terms of requesting money from the voters, That has everything to do with the fact that our taxing authority for the city is constrained by the state.

There are limited options for the city to raise revenue.

For instance, we don't have free rein on sales tax.

The sales tax rate that we can charge is capped by the state.

Similarly, there are constraints on other forms of revenue.

Property tax is one option that we have in terms of being able to go to the voters and have them approve additional taxing.

So that is why the property tax over other taxes, it's because it is essentially one that the state has given the city authority unto itself to increase, but authority that is constrained by voter approval.

And before I move on, I make that point that when it was, put to the voters way back in the early 2000s, Initiative 747, the pitch about it was that residents shouldn't have their property tax bills increase unless they choose to do so, unless they are given a direct voice.

And that's why the 1% rule was imposed and that the message was if property taxes are going to be drove by more than this, it has to be with the approval of voters directly.

And what's happened over time is the city has taken voters up on that very directly.

And the city isn't, Seattle isn't the only city that has done this, but, and I haven't done the research, but I'm quite sure that we raise more revenue from voter approved levies than any other city in the state.

But that is the history of how those levies got into place and why even for some basic services, the city has found a need to go to the voters to ask for approval to raise property tax revenues.

I'm going to shift to talk about the 360 limit, but there may be a question.

Go ahead.

Finish.

Yeah.

So I was going to move to another slide.

Cool.

All right.

So just a little reminder, they have levies that are in place.

This next slide looks very similar.

The scale has changed, and the dotted line is a different dotted line.

You probably can't tell.

It's also a different color, but it doesn't always show on these things.

So this graph is designed to illustrate the impact of the $3.60 limit.

So there's this...

In addition to going to the voters for approval, at some point, there is a level at which we can't go beyond, even if the voters were to approve it.

So the blue lines are showing, again, the amount of revenue that we're raising from both the general fund and the voter approval.

The dotted line shows how much revenue we could raise at the absolute legal limit if there was a...

Property owners were charged $3.60 per assessed 1,000.

That's how much we could raise.

So this is the constraint, right?

The ultimate legal constraint.

And we've...

in recent years and you can see that on the right we haven't worried very much about this constraint because we are so far below that limit again we're charging the assessment is two dollars and seventy cents roughly and the limit is 360 so um a full dollar more per assessed a thousand which is as you can see here a lot of money um just for historical reasons and to try to better understand this constraint there were times um when this mattered more um because But this implies, and more than that directly shows, is that the maximum amount of money we can raise is dependent on the total assessed value of the city, because we take the assessed value of the city and multiply by $3.60 per 1,000, and you get to that maximum.

So as long as the assessed value of the city is always increasing, that limit is always increasing, and we have now some comfortable distance there, because we've had very sharp increases in property values, so that the 360 times ever-growing numbers has been a very large limit.

But I would note for you, in the early 2000s, when we first started approving voter levies, we were closer to that cap, and it was a regular part of levy presentations.

I get to say this.

I would know.

I did some of them way back when, to talk about levy capacity and to be very thoughtful about levy capacity.

Evermore, the constraint really is about voters' willingness to approve it.

But I would note another period in the 2012 to 2014 region timeframe when property values declined significantly in the city and actually the limit then lowered as assessed values dropped and we got a little bit nervous about whether or not we might hit that limit.

If we ever do hit that limit and end up above it, what happens is we can't collect the full amount of all the levies.

We're obligated to reduce the collections to stay under that 360 limit.

So that's a very theoretical concern at this point because, again, we are way, way far underneath that limit.

But I do want to highlight that it does exist as a potential constraint.

And then the last point to make was about these property tax exemption and deferral programs.

I'm not an expert on these, and they're actually quite complex.

This is a high-level summary.

Anyone who sees this, and if you're within the eligibility thresholds here, it is well worth contacting the county assessor.

They're the first point of contact for applying to take advantage of these programs.

They're actually at...

depending on the program at somewhat lower income levels are actually even greater benefits.

But these provide the opportunity to both avoid paying taxes altogether if you're, so that's what the exemption programs offer.

And then the deferral programs are ones where you can avoid payment.

In some ways, they work like a reverse mortgage.

You can avoid payment, and then the tax bill becomes a lien on the property to be repaid to the government when the property transacts.

But there are ways for those who are most financially vulnerable to avoid some of the impact of voter-approved levies.

So I wanted to highlight that those programs exist.

And again, the...

the county assessor is the first point of contact for applying for such programs.

And that's what I had on property tax.

All right.

Well, thank you, Director Noble.

This is very insightful and empowering from my perspective.

And, you know, very, very, very helpful.

Here we are today.

We're at a place where the proposed shares package is a $1.55 billion price tag.

That's $100 million more than the executive's final proposal of $1.45 billion, which in itself added another $100 million on top of the original executive proposal.

I think it's clear to me now after listening more about this presentation and reading all the staff memos and talking this through with our central staff experts over the past few months, what we're...

This is a hefty price tag, potentially the biggest in Seattle history for a levy.

But also it's clear to me that the place where we're at, we're asking the voters to approve this.

This is an intentional design feature, not a flaw.

This is not a bug in the system.

This is an intentional design feature.

And we've learned as part of this presentation, Director Noble, that because of the 1% cap, At the state level, it's limited the ability of local governments, including Seattle, to raise property tax revenue.

Again, intentional design feature, with the exception of justifying and going before voters for specific approval for certain things.

It's not a blank.

It's not intended to be under our state system.

It's not intended to be a blank check that municipalities are empowered to collect property taxes as they see fit under the 1% cap.

If you need more, you got to go and justify it.

And because of rising inflation, because of increased cost of labor, goods and services, because of the compounding effects of all of this and the 1% cap constraint, we're at a point where stuff that used to be additive started to delve into the supplemental I guess, phase, and now it's like essential and basic.

And so this is, again, what we're experiencing is a design feature of the system that we currently have.

And I understand, you know, some people who don't love this, even this price tag.

Changing the system is an option that's beyond the scope of this body.

You know, we might also consider adjusting our expectations for what transportation, what basic services, what are considered basic transportation services.

I do think the public demands that we prioritize safety and security in our transportation infrastructure.

I do think that, you know, the public expects us to prioritize the economy and, you know, climate sustainability amongst other things.

But ultimately, again, the voters are going to decide.

And for me, the arc of this journey, it is important that we understand history and how we got here.

But for me, it's clear that this kind of highlights the importance of having tight accountability and oversight controls baked into whatever levy we have.

And this is the, and I'm proud to say that this levy, this proposal that we have on the table today has the tightest controls, has the strongest guardrails and oversight and accountability provisions of any levy to date.

Very thoughtful in that regard.

Also highlights the importance of the task force.

We need a better, more sustainable plan.

The next levy after this expires, if approved, what is it, $5 billion, 10 billion?

We need a better approach.

So the task force will help get us there.

And also, that's why we created the property tax relief.

program to help connect our most vulnerable taxpayers, qualified elders, people with disabilities, disabled veterans who might not be aware currently that they qualify for certain exceptions and exemptions.

Basically the folks that were on Director Noble's chart there towards the end.

But yeah, We know that the type of taxes that under existing state law allows us to collect, create a very regressive tax structure.

And so because of that, whenever we consider creating new taxes, it's critical that we meaningfully explore ways that we can mitigate harm to our working class in any event.

So thank you again.

I welcome comments, questions from my colleagues, Council President.

Thank you very much for your comments and also, Director Noble, for this presentation.

I'm from California, so I met the 1% property tax cap with Prop 13 and saw its devastation in California as well.

So I do understand the impacts.

I wasn't clued into the fact that it was sold as the narrative that it was sold to the voters by was that you should be able to choose what you pay for.

The point of this presentation seems to be that property taxes are a necessary evil at first to fund above and beyond services, but now to fund basic services.

And so the lens through which I'm going to be looking at the discussion going forward is that we better make darn sure that we're making good decisions in this levy proposal because the people that we're serving didn't really have, perhaps, have a say in the in what happened when the cap was imposed a long time ago.

So that's background to what we have to do right now to ensure that we are protecting our vulnerable and our low-income people, residents, homeowners and renters in the city.

So since I've been in office, there have been three renewals of property tax measures.

First, there was the parks levy.

We doubled that.

And then there was the housing levy.

We tripled that from the previous one.

And this is the third one.

And so I am concerned about the increasing burden that we're putting on our residents and also how we're increasing the cost of housing during a a housing affordability crisis that's never lost on me.

So in any case, I have a couple questions for Director Noble.

If you're still there, you can...

I wanted to know about these tax relief because when I first started looking into, okay, what are we gonna do about the increased burden with the Parks District?

I learned about the property tax exemption.

Can people take advantage of more than one of these programs at the same time?

Again, I'm not the expert, but I think that there could be portions that you can get an exemption from and then others that you can get a deferral from.

So potentially, yes.

But again, I contacted the assessor's office and realized that the complexity here is very real.

So I tried to do a quick summary there, but I do encourage folks who are potentially eligible to reach out to the King County assessor.

And I would note...

for what it's worth.

The people's participation in these programs don't actually necessarily affect city revenues.

It actually just shifts the burden to those who are better able to pay because, again, we tell the assessor how much revenue we want overall, and they determine the rate accordingly.

Okay, thank you.

So the answer to that question would also inform my next question, which is how many of our residents would...

How many property owners, homeowners, would benefit in Seattle from these...

from these programs, and then that depends on whether or not you can use them concurrently or not, but maybe somebody can get that answer.

And then my final point is that when I was talking to the assessor a couple years ago about this, he noted that one of the barriers to accessing this program is not that people don't know about it, it's the backlog of applications.

And so there's a staffing issue, and I thought that it was in Olympia, but I guess it's in the county.

The point is, what good is a program to help people defray the cost of their property tax bill if they can't even access that program?

So I think there needs to be some information about that, how well that office is staffed up to actually...

I can reach back out to the assessor and get a sense of whether there's a lag or what that timeline is.

Thanks.

And great questions.

You know, I think we do need ultimate clarity on your questions.

I do, and I'm sure that potentially lack of staffing at the county assessors is one of potentially many factors, but absolutely...

lack of knowledge and understanding and awareness that these programs exist is one of those factors.

And I think it is definitely fair to debate the weight of that, I guess, in sort of the broader context.

But one thing is clear, one thing I did learn about this in deciding to ultimately create this proposed good governance standalone category that includes education and outreach effort, this new program, is that under the new 2024 through 2026 income thresholds for seniors, persons with disabilities, and disabled veterans, these new thresholds are approximately 50% higher than the thresholds that were in effect for the years 2020 through 2023. So consequently, more people are now eligible for the program, but may not be aware of their eligibility.

So you're absolutely right though, Madam Council President, we need data clarity on like what those exact numbers, including those in Seattle, what that might look like exactly.

But it's very clear that more people qualify under these new thresholds.

So anyways, thank you.

Any other comments, questions?

Council Member Moore, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you very much, Chair.

I have a question, and I don't know if you can answer it, but one of the things that was contemplated, I think, in the sidewalk task force was looking at local improvement districts as a way to raise money for sidewalks.

And I'm just wondering how that interfaces with property taxes.

So a local improvement district and city currently has a particularly large one in effect on the waterfront is a property tax.

It essentially, it acts like a property tax.

So it is paid through the property tax bill, but what it involves an assessment of the special benefits that are accrued to a property owner from a publicly available piece of infrastructure.

So I can talk about the waterfront example, because I worked on the project a good deal.

So the waterfront, linear park, if you will, that is the waterfront redevelopment, and has increased the property values, particularly of people who live and who own office space along Alaskan.

In some ways, the backs of those buildings have become their fronts, if you will.

And the city was able to show that there was an...

with hiring an appraiser, there was going to be an increase in value that was specific to, you know, we are all going to benefit, but there was a specific benefit to the property owners.

And an LID, a local improvement district, can be formed in two ways.

The residents can get together and say, hey, we want to, tax ourselves to build some improvement or they can be imposed by the city there are different rules about how that happens but so in the context of sidewalks a sidewalk obviously provides a general benefit you and i can walk them as well but for the homeowner it's just there is some particular benefit as well just in terms of access to their for their own property so an lid might help raise money to cover sort of the special benefit associated.

But my guess would be that that's only going to be a small share of the overall benefit.

So the opportunity there is probably, it's constrained.

It's not, it's certainly not zero.

But the idea would be that the homeowner would then pay so that the construction cost of the sidewalk gets divided just generalized benefit and special benefit, if you will, the portion of the special, the portion of cost assigned to the property owner can't exceed the special benefit.

And then the property owner can pay upfront for their share of the sidewalk, or the city can offer essentially a financing plan.

And that's how it ends up in your property tax.

You end up with a financing plan over say 20 or 30 years, and you pay off the, your share of the cost of that capital improvement, in this case, a sidewalk over time.

It can be very attractive to do it that way because the city can get pretty good interest rate because we're issuing, again, the debt is issued against the property owners very specifically, but that the organization of that kind of essentially a taxing structure reduces the risk to the lenders and therefore get an attractive rate.

I do not have details.

I know that the city has at various times looked at LIDs in the context of sidewalks.

One of the issues I think that could come to effect is scale.

There are significant administrative costs in an LID.

And so you'd wanna do it at an appropriate scale, but could we deliver at an appropriate scale of sidewalks in the timeframe to make that all work?

And then what is the special benefit to the homeowner versus the generalized benefit?

And again, that's an appraisal question.

And I haven't done the research to know off the top of my head whether anyone has answered that question sort of in general, but it would also need to be answered in the specifics of a particular neighborhood or set of circumstances.

So the bottom line is that if the local property owners agree to it, it is increasing their property tax.

They have to pay for their share of the special benefit.

They can do it up front, or they can take advantage of this financing scheme.

Scheme is probably the wrong word.

Financing opportunity that the city offers that effectively turns it into a string of payments.

That is, and I actually...

as I'm overreaching about whether it's actually paid with a property tax bill or sort of paid with a mortgage, but it has, it feels the same way.

It becomes an annual payment that is associated with the property itself.

So it walks and talks like property tax.

So it does increase the amount of money that they have to pay out of pocket, regardless of how you structure that.

Yeah, no, I just want to be careful of the technicalities.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

And so how does that play into this cap of the 3.60 on 1,000?

It would not apply.

It does not apply to that.

Okay.

There's, again, there's another limit to which it might apply.

There's a $5.90 limit that's across the local taxing authorities.

But again, I don't know that an LID would apply.

I'd have to do that research.

Right, so I know that in District 5, going through an LID process would have a significant...

We don't have a lot of money in District 5 unless you're along the water, so that would have a significant impact on individuals' property taxes, and we're already looking at those going up with the comp plan.

So just putting that out there is something that, in terms of thinking about...

This is an equity issue.

This is something that I don't think there's a specific special value to the homeowner.

There's a value, a communal value.

So in looking at where we should be putting our money in the levy, I think it's important to think about that we can't just wait five years and then decide we're gonna finish the financing of sidewalks through LIDs, because that will create a significant burden on communities I know in my district and Council Member Morales' as well as Sokka's who just don't have a lot of money.

So, thank you.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to prejudge the work of the task force, but I know the city has looked at LIDs for sidewalks in the past and concluded that they weren't manageable for either equity reasons or just kind of administrative reasons.

I would highlight, I can never resist because I like the story in part, The Magnolia Bridge was built in part back in the 20s or 30s with an LID for the residents of Magnolia.

So there are some bits of infrastructure where you can really distinguish generalized and specialized benefit.

I'm not picking that one in particular, except that I happen to know the story as part of research for the waterfront and encountered some of that documentation.

So to the extent that the task force is potentially looking at beyond sidewalks to other kinds of infrastructure, an LID still may be a tool that could be useful.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

And thank you again, Director Noble, for helping us level set on the history of property taxes here in Seattle as impacted by the state and helping to trace the arc of the journey and how we got to where we are today.

So thank you, colleagues, for your insightful comments and questions.

We'll now move on to our second item of business.

Will the clerk please read the title of item two into the record?

Agenda item two, proposed levy finance task force for briefing and discussion.

Yes, the task force.

So presenters, thank you for joining us at the table.

Once ready, please introduce yourselves and begin your presentation.

Looking forward to hearing all about the proposed task force here.

Thank you, Chair Saka, and thank you, members of the committee.

I'm Greg Spatz, SDOT Director.

I'm joined by Council Liaison Bill Laborde, our Equity Manager, Anya Pintak, and our Levy Manager, Megan Shepherd.

Before I begin, I just wanted to thank the members of the public who commented today, and thank you, Clara Cantor, for leading us in a moment of silence.

This has been a very difficult month for us, all of us who work in this field.

In the first four months of 2024, we had only four fatality collisions, and then we had double that number in May.

And at the appropriate time, we look forward to an opportunity to brief you on our recently released Vision Zero action plan, which aligns our work with the federal safe systems approach and builds on the recommendations in the Vision Zero top to bottom review.

Today, however, we're talking about just a few topics that were raised by committee members.

I'm gonna speak a little bit about what you can expect going forward for both outcomes and work plan related to the levy and the Seattle Transportation Plan.

Anya's gonna fill you in a little bit in how the levy was informed by equity and the city's race and social justice ordinance?

Director Spatz, I am gonna cut you off here for just a moment.

I feel like we have a good baseline on that.

And so, you were invited here today with the specific purpose and intent on talking about the task force.

So I encourage you to direct your comments and narrow them to the task force.

And I believe slide 14 is where on your proposed slide is where that starts.

Thank you.

Okay, well then I'll pass it to Megan Shepherd who's presenting that portion.

Thank you, Director Spatz, and thank you, members of the select committee.

The executive's levy proposal increases maintenance and modernization funding over the current levy to move Seattle levels.

It surges sidewalk construction, and it brings a data-driven lifecycle approach to proposed investments in bridge maintenance.

Consistently throughout our levy engagement, we heard strong public alignment around the need to invest in bridges, the need to address our missing and our broken sidewalks, and to address our paving as well.

There are significant transportation funding needs beyond the scope of the levy proposal, as well as a growing concern about the city's dependence on voter-approved measures to pay for core services, to pay for maintenance, as well as the transformational safety and growth investments that the city needs and that we've heard from so many commenters today.

technical expertise as well as broad community support will be needed to address these challenges.

So to bring those community and technical perspectives together, we have proposed the establishment of a transportation funding task force to recommend strategies related to sustainable and longer term funding for transportation.

This approach also aligns with the levy oversight committee's recommendation to go beyond this levy proposal to address our trans...

transportation infrastructure and safety needs.

So the scope of the transportation task force as approach would as a proposed would be to build consensus and to make specific recommendations to the mayor and to the city council on policy and funding strategies related to our infrastructure needs.

So key tasks would be transparently incorporating multiple community and technical perspectives, recommending policy changes to increase sidewalk repair and new sidewalk construction.

These are likely looking also at our land use policies.

Who is required to repair sidewalks?

Who is required to build new sidewalks?

Reviewing and recommending funding strategies to address funding stabilization and asset management needs to the city council and to the mayor.

So potential perspectives of the Transportation Funding Task Force.

Membership, we want broad perspectives.

I mean, we've just heard here, you know, fantastic information from Director Noble, right, about the...

impact of funding, the property taxes that people are paying right now, our property taxes over time.

You just had a conversation right now about local improvement districts.

There's been earlier work done to look at a list of current and potential funding strategies that are available to the city So to have a broad perspective of people who not only bring technical expertise to the table, but would be those people paying for any other additional property tax or measures related to our transportation infrastructure needs and to ensure that we have an equitable perspective as well as really strong technical perspective.

This broad coalition would be needed to make strong recommendations and then to continue to go on and support the mayor and city council if any of them come to pass.

We would want it to be really well supported technically with not only staff from multiple city departments, as well as a consultant facilitator and local and national experts on finance funding, as well as legal perspectives.

There is an example timeline of what this could look like.

A few things driving the timeline.

One is we need to get going because eight years of a levy will actually go by very quickly for all of us.

We've got the upcoming Seattle transit measure, which is an opportunity to think about what we're asking of the voters.

So we're looking to have the task force established early in 2025. with some preliminary or initial recommendations in the beginning of 2026 to help inform the STM, and then final recommendations at the end of 2026 to you and to the mayor.

In terms of what we'd be asking the task force to recommend, specifically building on earlier work of other task force and other entities and give a specific recommendation.

So an example of the kind of recommendation could be the size and composition of a bonding package.

that could address missing sidewalks or pavement condition or bridge replacements.

Another set of recommendations could be related to the role and composition of levees.

We've talked today about like there's this balance here, right?

Originally they were being used to pay for additional extra services and now we are increasingly reliant on them for our core maintenance and operational needs.

So how should levies in future be composed is a really critical question we could be asking of our task force as well.

So thank you for letting us bring this information to you, and we look forward to your questions.

Yeah, no, thank you.

And this is important stuff right here, and it's important that we get this task force right.

It's a critical item and it's a great idea.

I was prepared to introduce this proposal of a task force, of a funding task force of some sort myself, but the exec beat me to the punch, so to speak on this.

So naturally I support the construct of a task force of some sort, and I'm glad that it's, importantly, going to be backed by resources to make sure that they're successful.

And full disclosure, I have been in some initial productive conversations with the executive on, you know, what this should ideally look like.

I do think that this is a more substantive, meaty work item that would be appropriate, and that's why, you know, the proposed chairs package provides some initial directional guidance for what this task force looks like.

But I think the final details would be best considered outside of this task force, or excuse me, this select committee, given the timing here.

but it is really important that we get this right.

And you mentioned some, Megan, you mentioned some outcomes and specific ideas that might sort of naturally flow from this.

And another example of that is like, rather than cross-referencing a report that itself wasn't, didn't have resources and many of the items in there, you know, despite the best efforts of the 100% volunteers that led that work and performed that work, you know, like aren't actually, unfortunately due to state law implementations or a number of other legal operational challenges aren't actually implementable here.

Rather than that, let's like, you know, we need funding to make sure that all the ideas and recommendations contained in this task force, in their report, whether it's an interim report or final report, are actually, if city decision makers so choose, implementable day one.

So that'll be key to figure out.

And then also making sure that they've carefully thought through, you know, some of the ideas.

So it's not just, for example, You know, I know one of the things that keeps coming up is an idea that's on everyone's punch list.

Oh, why don't you just do impact fees, for example?

Well, we can't just do impact fees.

Well, Bellevue has them, and every other jurisdiction across the region has them, except Seattle.

And yeah, that might be true, but Seattle's the only jurisdiction that has an MMHA program.

So we still need to incentivize developers to build And so like, if to the extent impact fees are on the punch list of potential options, someone who was like, I would like the task force to carefully think through what an ideal incentive or rate structure and timeline could look like, because we don't want to, we still want to encourage development here in the city.

So in any event, it's like, there's so many nuances and layers of complexity on this task force.

That, you know, again, unfortunately, I don't think we can fully resolve in the scope of this committee.

I would consider a broader $1.55 billion package.

But, you know, I think it is appropriate for this body to provide some initial directional guidance and feedback on what that task force should look like.

In any event, thank you.

Colleagues, do you have any comments, questions, feedback?

Go ahead, Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

And I really appreciate this really goes to good governance and looking ahead and being proactive versus being reactive.

And I think it's fantastic.

I think it provides opportunities, as mentioned in the in the briefing about sidewalks.

And if Director Spatz, if you're looking for an example, lower Queen Anne, uptown area, if you go down Queen Avenue North and you hit Roy Street, you have a brand new building that has brand new sidewalks all around it.

And then just further south, as you head towards Mercer, there's what looks to be a brand new building.

Technically, the ground floor remains the same, but new facing and then upwards in terms of housing above it.

So it's essentially a new building, but...

The sidewalks are a big hit and miss.

There's a section that's good, but there's lots that are bad, but it looks like a brand-new building.

And so, I look at our friends who may be trying to go down that sidewalk, and that would be problematic.

And so, if you're looking for an example of how it shows up, go to Queen Avenue North in Uptown, Lower Queen Anne.

You'll see one.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other?

Yeah, go ahead, Madam Council President.

Can you give a sense of how much the task force will cost and what it will pay for?

I mean, we've heard $5 million, but I don't see that explicitly stated in here.

And so can you just sort of orient us to what you're thinking?

At this point in time, the proposal, the executive's proposal contains a combined $5 million related to sidewalk and infrastructure needs.

And the estimated cost of support for the task force through consultants as well as supporting members of the task force would be more in the neighborhood of one and a half to $2 million.

The other funds within the sidewalk and infrastructure element are proposed to support SDOT's current efforts around sidewalk repair.

education, outreach, enforcement, things that would support private property owners to understand their responsibilities towards sidewalk repair.

So that is where the other two and a half to $3 million in that proposed investment would go.

Can you give me an example of the policy direction that you're looking for for sidewalk repair?

I wouldn't presume the direction that we're looking for yet, but I would absolutely point back to the sidewalk audit that the Office of the City Auditor performed recently.

It contains a series of recommendations related to what the city could be doing.

in terms of making it easier to apply for a permit if you're gonna repair your own sidewalk, providing additional like, looking to create programs that would help support like low-income property owners.

There are other cities that have a model, for example, where the repair of the sidewalk is paid for when the home is sold.

And that's been successful in other jurisdictions.

So looking to create a similar program like that was a recommendation in the audit.

And I think that those recommendations would be a strong blueprint for us to follow as we look through that.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Council Member Moore, did you, are you?

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank you, Director Spatz.

Team, really appreciate this.

Very helpful, let us continue the conversation.

And yeah, if there are no other questions or comments on this agenda items, colleagues, we will now move on to our third item of business.

Will the clerk please read the title of item three into the record?

The Chair's Amendment and Companion Resolution to the Transportation Levy, Council Bill 120788 for briefing and discussion.

All right, thank you.

It looks like our presenter, Calvin, is joining us and at the table.

So please introduce yourself and once you're ready, begin your presentation.

Good morning, council members.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Calvin Chow with Central staff.

If you give me a moment, I will get my presentation on the screen.

There we go.

Again, council members, I'm Calvin Chow with Council Central staff.

Today, I'll be walking through the chair's proposed amendments to the transportation levy package that's in front of you.

This is material that I detailed in a memorandum to you that I submitted last week.

and it's attached to the agenda.

So there's more details there if people want to follow along.

There are two parts to the chair's proposal.

There is the chair's amendments, which makes changes to the legislation that's in front of you.

And then there is a proposed companion resolution that would add council guidance and other issues of interest to the council that wouldn't be specifically tied to the levy legislation, but is related to implementation or other issues that are raised in these discussions.

First, I'll go through the chair's amendment, which increases the size of the levy by 100 million to 1.55 billion over eight years, and proposes a number of spending changes.

This table is included in the memo and I'll go through it in some detail.

It does propose reducing the amount of money for the neighborhood initiated safety partnership program and distribute it to similar programs that are more administered around safe routes to schools, as well as the proposed district project fund.

In total, there is a net $1.5 million change here that does balance out with some of the other programs across the levy.

There is also a change that does not reduce the sidewalk and infrastructure solutions that was just talked about, but it renames it and it moves it into a new category that the chair is proposing.

There is an additional $10 million for electric vehicle charging stations under climate and resiliency.

There is an additional $20 million for freight programs under the freight and goods movement section.

And then there is the new good governance and equitable implementation initiative, which includes 1 million for additional oversight to support the oversight committee and 1.5 million for the property tax relief outreach and education.

And then again, the moved money that was previously called the sidewalk infrastructure solutions.

And with that, I'll turn it to Councilmember Sapa if he has some comments about his package.

Yeah, no, thank you, Cal.

So, Calvin summarized sort of the what of the proposed chair's amendment, what it accomplishes.

So, I'll share a few thoughts, kind of high-level what's and some whys from my perspective as well.

So, just to clarify and restate what this proposed amendment does is it doubles the investment in creating new sidewalks in areas that don't have them.

It also doubles the investment in creating safe routes to schools to keep our kids safe.

And it triples the funding to increase safety on public transit, amongst other things.

Again, strongest of any levy in history, accountability, oversight, and good governance controls and mechanisms, which I think is great.

So in terms of why some of the revisions Well, we increased this to $100 million and we've heard over and over from communities that they are supportive of a big bold investments in our transportation system as long as they can have confidence that whatever funding we are spending or investments we are making is being prudently spent, wisely invested.

We're seeing good accountability for outcomes And ultimately, I think making sound investments in things like, in things our community supports, like safety in our roads, accelerating economic growth and vitality, and taking more urgent action to address climate change.

High level, these are the three kind of big themes that I strongly believe warrant these type of increases.

And there's some minimum spending requirements in there as well.

We wanna ensure that our priorities are directly met in advance over the course of an eight year levy.

So in changing circumstances, we'll always allow changes with a three fourths vote by the council.

So we wanted to be prescriptive enough so that voters understand kind of what they're gonna be getting in exchange for this.

if they approve this, but also directly living up to a very specific recommendation from the Levy Oversight Committee on making sure we also preserve implementation and execution flexibility subject to council direction and feedback.

That's what that's about.

We heard over and over from countless constituents that These changes are addressing some of their most urgent concerns.

And colleagues, I heard from many of you all directly in this chamber, individually, one-on-one, and our various shared external committee work that we have together in other areas.

I've heard you all share your priorities and mention things that are really important to you all.

and areas of concern to you all.

And I've heard them loud and clear.

So broadly, this includes council members Moore and Morales.

I heard you talk over and over again about the need for new sidewalks so desperately needed in your districts.

It's a shared priority I have in mind, but we know that 100% of people, are pedestrians at some point in the journey.

It's the right thing to do from a safety and security perspective.

It's the right thing to do.

Current city policy treats people who are differently abled as if they're others and less than because of the lack of meaningful sidewalk infrastructure.

And 500 plus years to close the 27% missing sidewalk gap in our city is unacceptable.

We need to make more urgent progress.

And regardless of whatever mode you choose to take, We know, again, 100% of people are pedestrians at some point in their journey.

So this is the right thing to do from an equity perspective.

It's the right thing to do from an accessibility perspective.

It's the right thing to do in terms of a good governance perspective.

We all benefit.

We can all win.

And Councilmember Morales also heard your concerns about the disproportionate number of fatalities in your district, as in my own district, and the areas of needing traffic calming and centering equity, particularly in South Seattle.

Councilmember Kettle heard you talk over and over about the importance of freight mobility in downtown.

Paired with the, same thing with Council Member Strauss, by the way, paired with Council Member Kettle's consistent focus on the nitty gritty good governance features and controls, Council President, your strong leadership on the need for strong accountability and oversight and prudent stewardship of our dollars in all areas was heard loud and clear.

Council Member Strauss, again, you're one of the champions of cargo and freight mobility, and making sure that the backbone of our economy and sometimes the sight unseen but always appreciated is preserved and that ability to move those goods and services is expanded.

Council Member Rivera, heard you loud and clear about calling for public safety and safe routes to schools and related to your long established priorities of public safety, especially for our children.

Councilmember Wu, we all know your focus on equity and access for our most disenfranchised communities based on your lifelong work in those communities.

And I also know your steadfast commitment to climate and sustainability initiatives.

And last but not least, Vice Chair Hollingsworth, your intimate connection with constituent safety, pedestrian safety, youth safety, youth initiatives and traffic calming, especially on how all these transportation programs impact public safety in your district and the broader city.

And I should also note, when I started having these conversations with people individually about priorities, Vice Chair Hollingsworth was the first to mention to me, one of her priorities is electrification and sustainability and EV charging and the importance of that to our broader city.

And so kind of how that translates into some of these net new investments, safe routes to schools, again, with the focus and priority of education and youth, Vice Chair Hollingsworth and Council Member Rivera, they get the credit there.

The district project fund expanded So we can all, all the seven district council members have a little more control over some of these smaller scale improvements.

Think of more crosswalks.

We get those kinds of things all the time.

So, and our standard practice today is just forward it to Esti.

Hey, can we do this?

What do you need from a legislative?

Like, oh, it's on our punch list and great.

And so now we're, you know, we'll be a little more empowered to, to directly fund and advance those, which is cool.

Climate electrification, you know, again, calling out Vice Chair Hollingsworth and then Council Member Wu.

And most of the, and I understand this, you know, most of the headlines and the things, the coverage is going to center around the size, the scope, and the specific investment areas.

But one thing that I'm most proud of of this proposed chairs package is the tight accountability, good governance features and controls.

The strongest accountability provisions of any levy in Seattle history are contained in this initial proposal.

We could build upon them.

And the sort of good governance and we created a new standalone good governance and equitable implementation initiative category.

And that was directly for council members Kettle and council president and created this brand new category to up level the importance and urgency of these respective investments as its own standalone thing, not just kind of to be buried and nested within within something else.

Um, and then so district funds talked about that in any event.

That's kind of the idea, the background behind those specific investments.

I guess before moving on to the next portion, I'll pause and see if my colleagues have any comments or questions.

Hearing none, we'll move on.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Cal.

Thank you.

And I should have mentioned to the folks watching that the charts are all in millions of dollars.

So it is a large amount of money we're talking about.

The chair's amendment does include a number of text amendments to the proposed legislation.

As the chair mentioned, he is proposing minimum eight-year appropriations for four categories of spending, new sidewalks, and I believe that is intended to include alternative sidewalks as well, bridges and structures, arterial roadway maintenance, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

These requirements would include a waiver provision that would allow a change if there was a with council approval if there is an emergent need.

The chair's amendment also includes changes to the oversight committee.

It would reestablish the chair of the transportation committee back as a member of the levy oversight committee.

It would have an aspirational goal for two members of the levy oversight committee to have auditing experience and would emphasize performance evaluation of levy programs as part of the scope of the levy oversight committee's charge.

The chair's amendment includes a reporting requirement to acknowledge how dashboard reporting has become a common practice of the way that we report on our levy accomplishments and has been a valuable way for the public to keep track of the move Seattle levy.

And then the chair's amendment also makes a number of changes to the recitals.

Among the changes that it makes, which are included in the memo that I sent to you It highlights the federal safe systems approach.

It highlights electric vehicle charging needs, does talk about the impacts of initiative 747 and other cost factors, draws attention to the current pavement conditions and basic transportation infrastructure needs, and then it calls out the council's priorities that are identified as part of the Seattle transportation plan resolution, prioritizing the maintenance of roads and bridges.

once-in-a-generation investment in sidewalks, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, improvements for transit riders, Vision Zero programs, the on-time performance of transit in Deneway Corridor, and safety of Lake Washington Boulevard.

Yeah.

So to pile on there from my perspective, I'll note on the outreach and education piece, that specific program is intended to obviously help mitigate the negative costs and impacts on the levy on the working class and ensuring that those qualified for tax breaks are receiving them and are connecting them with existing resources, including many seniors, people with disabilities and disabled veterans.

My amendment would ensure, at least in part, that they are made aware of these opportunities.

And I'll emphasize something I mentioned earlier, is that under the new 2024 through 26 income thresholds for seniors, persons with disabilities and disabled veterans, Approximately, those thresholds are approximately 50% higher than the thresholds that were in effect from 2020 through 2023. As a direct result, more people are eligible for the program.

We need to gather better data on that, as was aptly pointed out.

But we do know that more people are eligible.

We're working hard to increase accountability, transparency, and good governance by creating better oversight of the spending.

Our job is to make sure that whatever the investment amount, whether it's $1.55 billion as proposed or even $1, anything in between, whatever it is, we are spending wisely and have good oversight functions and mechanisms in place.

to ensure we are achieving the desired impact.

And the Levee Oversight Committee, it needs resources to ensure that every dollar is spent wisely and efficiently.

And part of that is the Levee Oversight Committee under this is empowered with auditing ability, capability, and funding to back that.

And we also added a little known feature is explicitly added, and I heard Councilmember Rivera and so many of you all talk about performance metrics and making sure whatever the program is, you know, especially Levy is performing as intended.

And so we're explicitly adding to the remit and scope of the Levy Oversight Committee performance evaluation.

These...

These intentional design changes taken individually, eh, okay, but taken together represent a comprehensive, robust approach to accountability, oversight, and transparency.

And then finally, the task force funding, I think we talked a little bit about that, but In any event, I welcome any comments or questions from my colleagues.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Saka, Cal, Estat, everybody.

I wanna thank the chair for this important work.

As some of our commenters mentioned, we had the horrifying incidents last week of six, and now we've learned seven people being killed in different traffic incidents.

Through this levy, we have the opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to meeting our vision zero goals, to meeting our climate justice goals.

And to do that, we have to fundamentally change how we regard transportation in our city.

I think everybody has talked about the need to really plan for the rest of the 21st century and not just what we thought this century might look like back in the 50s and 60s.

So that means prioritizing the movement and safety of people over the movement of cars by dedicating more space to public transportation, a connected city-wide network of protected bike lanes, more and better sidewalks.

So I do want to thank Council Member Saka for really increasing funding for sidewalks.

Many of us know that our districts need much more of that.

And we know that some parts of our city need more investment in sidewalks, but we also know that most of the traffic fatalities we have in the city happen on arterials like Rainier Avenue and MLK and Fourth Avenue South and Aurora.

Places where sidewalks exist, but complete safety measures for pedestrians do not.

So this levy needs to be big enough to fund sidewalks and enable our Vision Zero team to make the other road safety and design changes that are needed to really bring those goals into play.

In my district, we have both the Lighthouse for the Blind and Washington State's Department of Services for the Blind.

And I can tell you that along Rainier, I regularly see folks walking with canes who are trying to navigate across the street after getting off the bus.

And if you've ever been on Rainier Avenue, you can imagine how scary that is.

Yesterday, we all received an email from a constituent who indicates that she's blind.

Her mother uses a walker.

Her sister uses a power wheelchair.

And they and thousands of other people need our consideration and that's who we should be planning for and the safety projects that they need should receive sufficient funding through this levy.

So I think this is a real opportunity for us.

We know that transportation emissions account for the majority of Seattle's pollution and this levy would be critical to achieving Seattle's climate goals while we still have time to make a dent in reaching our climate goals.

I think it should be structured to prioritize reducing climate emissions and lowering the miles traveled in personal vehicles.

Increasing investment in transit is a way to accomplish both of those things while also addressing our safety issues.

And I do want to reiterate the callers.

We had a caller who was requesting more funding for supporting our goals of planting more trees in the public right-of-way.

We hear a lot about trees in the city.

27% of the city's land is a public right-of-way, and if SDOT is going to be responsible for planting trees, then they also need the funding that goes along with maintaining those trees so we don't lose them.

So I want to thank the chair and my colleagues.

We have a lot of work to do.

I think this is an important package to consider, and I do just want to indicate, and the Chair knows this, I do have some amendments that I'll be contemplating and working with my constituents and with some community members over the next couple of weeks.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Kittle.

Yes, thank you, Chair Saka.

I just wanted to note, in terms of this updated LEVY A FEW THINGS ONE DISTRICT SEVEN REPRESENTATIVE BUT I DO RECOGNIZE DISTRICT FIVE ONE AND TWO AND THE PRIORITY THAT WE NEED TO PLACE ON YOUR DISTRICTS AS IT RELATES TO SIDEWALKS IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND IN GOING TO THE POINT THAT I MADE EARLIER JUST IN DISTRICT 7, BUT MUCH WORSE IN DISTRICTS 5, 1, AND 2, AND THE PRIORITY NEEDS TO BE THERE.

I ALSO APPRECIATE THE PRIORITIZATION RELATED TO SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL.

THE VISION ZERO PIECES OF THIS REALLY NEED TO BE FRONT AND CENTER, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I ALSO REALLY APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC TRANSIT SAFETY.

I KNOW THIS KIND OF GETS PUSHED TO ONE SIDE, BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT.

THIS IS THE INTERSECTION OF OUR COMMUNITY, TOO, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE SECURITY ON OUR PUBLIC TRANSIT, What happens to our downtown activation plan?

You know, what happens to our efforts with the arts and culture community if we don't have safe public transit to get downtown?

Our sports and the rest.

So the public transit safety piece is very important as part of this levy.

Also freight, very important.

I'm always talking about logistics, correct?

And in partnering with Mike, DISTRICT SIX COUNCIL MEMBER IN TERMS OF FREIGHT, YOU KNOW, THE 15-MINUTE CITY, BUT ALSO THE PORT OF SEATTLE.

WE HAVE TO BE SMART IN TERMS OF OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PORT OF SEATTLE AND MAKE SURE THE HEAVY HAUL AND THE REST OF IT TO INCLUDE UTILITY IN THE FUTURE, ELECTRIFICATION AND SO FORTH IS SET.

AND SO THE FREIGHT PIECE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE PORT OF SEATTLE.

AND AGAIN, OVERALL FOR LOGISTICS, IF WE DON'T ACCOUNT FOR IT, it will become ad hoc, inefficient, and unsafe, bottom line.

So I really appreciate the work on freight.

And obviously, just to close, good governance, key.

I really appreciate the elements of good governance.

And this is something that we need to work in partnership with SDOT, I think, and the task force and the other, the oversight committee.

But I think we can do a great job on that and really achieve those goals.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kittle.

Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I actually have a jar over here.

Every time you all say good governance, I'm going to be a millionaire by the end of the year.

I'm putting a dollar in every time, just playing.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I want to thank Estat, Director Spatz, and Bill Labor, Anya, who was here.

Thank you.

Two dollars.

Okay, he did say it twice.

Thank you.

You owe me like three, Chair Saka.

A hundred.

You do.

Thank Anya and Megan for being here.

Thank you, Chair.

I know that it's a heavy lift.

You have been listening to all of us and bringing...

you know, us bringing, you've been listening to us as we're bringing you information about our constituents and what's important to our district.

So really appreciate that and crafting this.

One of the most important things I know in District 3 that we have is safe routes to school.

I've been listening to people talk about sidewalks, transit, the late eight, the safety needs.

We have 50% of the people in our district who do not own a vehicle and they rely on public transportation on transit options and bike infrastructure and sidewalks.

We are pretty lucky to be in District 3 about all the transit options that we do have and modes of transportation, and wanna continue to build on those, improve on those.

I've heard about the potholes.

Praise God, Madison will be done in August.

I know I've heard a lot about that.

Every single day, I hear something about that, whether I'm at the grocery store or walking down the street.

Everyone always asks me about Madison, and I was told from our wonderful team at SDOT, August is the date, so I will be there joyously happy about Madison.

Also, I've heard about Lake Washington Boulevard.

Because we have made the investments on Rainier and MLK, a lot of some of the traffic has been pushed to Lake Washington Boulevard.

And so understanding that that is definitely an investment that we need along Lake Washington Boulevard, People speed 70 miles an hour along there.

I've been talking to residents along the lake, and so looking forward to that.

And then also about the types of safety routes to school around Garfield.

High school in different areas in the neighborhood, lighting our sidewalks, making sure that our crosswalks are well lit for kids to get safely to school.

I saw the recent investments along MLK next to, I forgot the school name, but it's right off, over there, not Juckins Park, but next to the I-90 lid, but saw all those improvements there and just creating the safety network that we need for our kids to go to school.

So looking forward to working with you, Chair, on this and getting more dollars for you saying good governance, you and Council Member Kettle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the robust discussion today and all of your work to put this package together.

There are a lot of elements that I really like, and beyond just freight, I also have worked on sidewalks.

I teed up the sidewalk slide that I think you and Councilmember Morales and Councilmember Moore are using in this package and proposal.

Beyond that, ensuring that we have safe connections for people riding bicycles throughout their city, not just the Missing Link, but in many other places.

And one of my largest priorities that during the pandemic is regarding transit.

Making sure that our transit has a reliable travel time, so that you can rely on it.

Because if you never know how long the bus is gonna take, you can't necessarily use it to get to work.

I missed my route 17 by three minutes today, and I was nearly late to committee because the D line took so long, right?

These are real world examples that we're living today.

And so I just wanted to thank you all for, and thank you, Chair, especially for all your work on this.

I will likely be bringing amendments, but I'll need to work with Cal to understand exactly what that language is.

Just wanted to say thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see, Council President.

I really appreciate how you've gone about your work, Chair Salka, by talking to all of us and getting our perspectives and our priorities.

You'll know that, yes, I've always said that we're all pedestrians, walking, rolling.

We all self-locomote first.

And just in the same sort of...

Along that same sort of principle, thinking about what unites our experience of the transportation system, our roads, no matter what the mode, have to be in good shape.

So I'll say it again that I want making sure that we're Maintaining our existing infrastructure, including bridges, is very important to me as well, and I don't know if what is anticipated is a bonding measure for that.

As we talked about earlier, that's to be discussed.

I just wanted to add, I have a couple questions about some of the items, and then when you talk about the resolution, I have an additional principle I'd like to add there.

So for the transit safety, last year council added $1 million to supplement transit, well, safety on, I believe it was metro, but it could have also been on metro and sound transit facilities.

But my point is, okay, so that was $1 million.

You're adding, I think, $9 million.

And at the same time, right?

Something like that.

Anyway, but also, I'm also keenly aware that we shouldn't let our partner agencies off the hook for doing their job.

And so I've asked Cal what has Metro committed, and I think that they have about $24 million in their budget right now, and it might be re-upped in the next biennium, so...

I found $25 million in the biennium, so about $12.5 million each year is what I see in their budget.

Okay, got it.

Second question.

Sidewalks, yes, and I want to make sure that we're getting the most out of our dollars because there are 11,000 blocks that need sidewalks in this city, and I think that the mayor's proposal funds 280 or so, and...

We're bringing it up to more than double that.

But the point is it's still a small amount.

And so is the anticipated funding using the model of the, like the soup to nuts, that's the wrong expression, but the actual traditional drainage model sidewalk or can there be a mix of alternative models of sidewalks to be able to make sure that number one, drainage is not all put through our surface water management system, that there can be some pervious surfaces, et cetera.

So can you tell me how those costs are figured?

Yeah, no, it's a great question.

And just so you are aware, the discussions that I've been having to date with the executive and with some of the champions of this, Council Members Moore and also Morales, that is definitely contemplated insofar as We are going to make investments in both traditional sidewalks, the full curb and gutter, SPU drainage kit, and which are on the spectrum, the most expensive, most costly, but also the most durable and arguably most effective as well.

And then everything, and that's on the one end of the spectrum, and then everything from literally just a barrier that separates the road from foot traffic, pedestrians.

And there's a number of things in between.

So a range of creative options, that is what is contemplated for the spending of, And again, some areas are going to get the full curb and gutter.

Some are going to get the, you know, somewhere along the spectrum.

But the idea is that we need to do something.

We can't let...

Ideally, I would love for everyone to get the full curb and gutter.

But that is the most costly, and that is...

you know, that just wait, wait approach, let's wait for the full, like that has been one of the biggest barriers, I think, to bringing sidewalks to life more urgently across the city.

So the idea is that more communities are gonna get something that future councils and future policy makers are gonna be able to build upon as needed, and that'll also help us stretch our dollar and investments in that area as well.

So anyways, great question.

Go ahead.

Thank you for that answer.

I didn't mean to interrupt your answer to my question.

I just had one more.

Sure, go ahead.

So I'm just clearing an email from a week or so ago, and I noticed that we did get an email from the chair of the Central Waterfront Committee, and he sent a letter to the mayor and city council noting that the project streetscape improvements...

bordering Alaskan Way and along the Pike Pine Corridor from the Market to the Convention Center lack a dedicated funding source.

And so I'm wondering, has there been any consideration to include, I think it's about $700,000 is the estimate.

Has there been any consideration to including dedicated funding for those elements that are essential to the, well, not essential, but they're contractually, we're contractually obligated to do it because of the connection with the LID.

have we thought about including that in here?

Or do you know what the status of that is?

It's not current.

To my understanding and knowledge, if it's included, it would be in the executive's original proposal.

And to my understanding, it's not expressly included, but I suppose we can validate and vet that with central staff.

But also, I am aware.

I've had a direct meeting with the folks you were talking about.

So I'm aware of this issue as well.

So...

So it might be covered as part of a broader kind of maintenance program.

I don't know offhand, but.

Council member, I can go and research this for you.

It may be not called out, but there may be unprogrammed funds that may be, you know, that may address that type of need.

So I'll have to find out for you.

Thanks.

All good.

All right.

Council member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I too want to join my colleagues in appreciation of all the hard work that you've done along with the department and our central staff, Cal.

And I want to say I especially appreciate the fact that you have taken so much time to meet with us individually and collaboratively on the pieces of this very big but very important package.

And one of the first things that I know you've had to take on in your new role as council member.

It does not go unnoticed how hard and collaboratively you're working on this.

I want to say in particular, I very much appreciate, as you talked about, the safe routes to schools.

There are 24 schools in District 4, and it's my interest to make sure that kids are riding the bus, walking, riding to school, and can get there safely It's been a huge issue and one that I've heard a lot from constituents in the district about.

So I very much appreciate your work on that and calling that out.

In addition to the traffic calming measures, both for pedestrians as they're walking the street with signal timing, as well as calming measures along our streets like Sandpoint Way, where there's been a lot of car racing as of late, and it poses a huge issue to pedestrians there as well.

Also, transit safety, Councilmember Kettle, thank you for raising this.

There are three light rail stations in District 4, and I want to make sure that people are riding.

We have a great public transit system in the city.

It's getting better, and we want to make sure it's not going to succeed if people aren't riding.

And so we need to make sure that it is safe for people to do so.

And some people, I didn't have a driver's license until I was 30 years old, and I couldn't afford a car.

And so it's not lost on me that a lot of people don't have a choice but to ride buses and now the light rail.

And we want to make sure that we're making it safe for them.

as well as all the youth that ride on a regular basis.

So wanted to acknowledge that as well.

And then sidewalks.

I know sidewalks or the issue of sidewalks are across the city and more prevalently so in the districts that we've talked about.

I will say even in District 4 in Wedgwood, there are a lot of missing sidewalks.

And that means that, again, the youth and our older folks and folks in general who live in those areas are not able to get about the city safely in their neck of the woods.

So it really is. an issue that is, you know, everyone cares about.

And I'm pointing those out in general for our particular district, but I will say that the entire package is something that will benefit all of Seattle.

I will borrow the executives and you raised it.

We are one Seattle and we need to make sure that all areas of the city are lockable, accessible to all our residents.

And we need to think of it as such because people move about the city no matter where you live, you move about to all areas of the city.

So all of those enhancements across the city are gonna benefit all of us regardless of where we live.

And so it's really important to make sure that we have a robust system in place for our residents and that we're doing this collaboratively and together.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Wu.

I also want to echo everyone's priorities and feeling of thankfulness.

I have a special affinity for alleyways.

And so I'm going to find you later today, and we'll have to chat more, especially for our historic alleyways.

But I am excited about this investment in transportation to make sure that our infrastructure is safe, our economy is strong, and that our environment is protected and our communities are connected and vibrant.

So thank you for all your work on this, and I'm excited for what's to come.

Thank you so much.

And last but not least, Council Member Moore.

Thank you very much, Chair.

I too wanted to echo the comments of thanking you for the tremendous thought and effort that you've put so far in your package and in dealing with this.

I appreciate the fact that you've increased the levy amounts and that you've put a lot more allocated a lot more resources to that for sidewalks.

One thing that I will be bringing forth some additional amendments around sidewalks, not surprisingly, and noting that to answer Council President's question about curb and gutter that we are, we'll be including in here new sidewalks and sidewalk alternatives.

So because we do have a commitment in our transportation plan to get tier one through five by 2024. And the only way we're going to do that is by looking at alternatives, which have been very effective in Greenwood and being creative.

So one of the things that I will be asking for is a sidewalk master plan.

And I'm hoping that the Transportation Task Force can be the place perhaps where that's put together so that we can bring SPU and SDOT together, they're already currently working in collaboration but we can really bring all the minds together around drainage and the transit pieces so that they are not working against one another but looking at how do we effectuate this and there are many creative ways to do that.

So a master sidewalk plan and a requirement that they continue to work together is something that I'm looking at as well.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

I think we've...

mostly covered some concluding remarks from most.

But I do think there were a few final slides.

I feel like I spoke to them enough adequately and jumped around here and there.

So probably limited on additional color commentary, but I will let you close out the presentation.

Oh, one final question, Madam Council President.

A couple things on the resolution.

Yeah.

Short.

Yeah.

Let's see.

So I... In your, well, one of the items that you have, I believe it is, tell me where it is, if it's in the amendment section or whatever, but in the memo, there is something about access.

construction access.

And that's a big deal for me because for a very long time, ever since 2002 when I started working for the city for the transportation chair, there has been the problem of lack of coordination between SDOT's work on this in the right of way and City Lights' work in the right of way and SBU's work in the right of way.

And so I'm hoping that that's what you're contemplating in in construction access, whatever that item is, because there is a program.

It used to be called construction coordination something or other.

Now it seems as though it's called the...

project coordination office, but the point is that it seems like we still cannot master the coordination of right-of-way work, which will decrease the impact on small businesses that see their streets being torn up over and over again.

And the maps on the website are only from 2019, so I don't know if that's being kept up, but hopefully we can flesh out that part of the resolution to accommodate that.

And then the, oh yeah, it's called right now the Project and Construction Coordination Office.

So let's look at what that work is, how that work is proceeding and if we can strengthen it.

And then the...

The asset conditions note on page 12. I would like a better information on how well we are currently monitoring our assets.

How is Estad's asset management right now?

Because there's talk about strengthening it or having oversight of it, et cetera.

And so I'd like more information about what we're talking about when we're talking about making sure that we are monitoring the condition of our assets.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All right.

So, yeah, I apologize for maybe not going through all the slides at the time because it does sound like council members are making their concluding remarks, but there is a companion resolution that is part of the chair's package.

The intent is to keep these items that we've just talked about that are not necessarily tied directly to the voter approval of the levy, but are key parts that want to be talked about So again, the proposed levy, excuse me, the proposed resolution would have three sections.

It would talk about some of these levy implementation issues.

It would talk about some of the oversight and reporting issues and would identify some of the issues that council has identified for the conversation.

The levy implementation issues does talk about how some of the specific project programs would be administered.

So particularly the district project fund, the neighborhood initiated safety partnership program, and then also give some direction on programs like transit passenger safety, electric vehicle charging, potentially the financial task force, depending on how that conversation goes with your offices.

And then the comments that Council Member Nelson made about the ADA compliance and pedestrian access, I think as currently proposed, it was more directed to managing the sites specifically and maintaining the access.

And I think there's another layer that the Council President describing, which is project coordination in general over maybe a larger area so that this incorporates, I believe, our utility cut work so that the same areas aren't all cut up at the same time and that the cumulative impact of multiple projects is identified.

I think that is a bit of a difference from what is in your proposed resolution right now.

The proposed resolution would highlight some oversight reporting issues.

I think the intent of the asset condition piece for this is to make sure that the oversight committee is keeping all its work grounded in understanding what the condition of the asset management is.

Asset management is fundamentally a management decision, a tool for SDOT to understand where it is in its management of what it's responsible for.

And I think this is just calling out very specifically your intent that the oversight committee needs to follow along with what those tools are and where we're going.

This section of the levy would also talk about more specificity about the performance evaluation.

It would also ask for initial readiness assessment and ask SDOT to provide annual levy delivery plans as well.

And then lastly, there would be a section to identify some issues that council members might have, might desire to signal their interest in future discussion.

Chair Saka has identified Vision Zero and the integration of the Federal Safe Assistance Approach.

he's also identified the scoping of how paving and corridor projects is done so issues like how we deal with complete streets policy and and how we make funding efficiency decisions uh how we incorporate community input into project making decisions and how council approves individual project budgets as compared to how we approve program budgets.

And so what that level of oversight looks like.

And finally, he's also identified future consideration of the general fund as a transportation, in support of transportation resources.

And so that concludes my presentation.

Unless there's anything further, I think you've all spoken to the entirety of it.

Yeah, no, thank you, Cal.

Really appreciate that.

Quick note on one of the items for future council exploration there is, you know, I'll call out specifically Division Zero.

I'm encouraged about the top-to-bottom review.

Director Spatz, looking at you.

Top to bottom review.

Kurt, great.

Yeah, good, good, good work there.

And the recent, a couple weeks ago, I think SDOT released a Vision Zero action plan, a three-year plan with some priorities and specific investments.

I'm encouraged by the recent elevation of a chief safety officer within SDOT, which is great.

And...

The unfortunate fact remains, we are still moving not in the right direction on some of these goals.

And so the idea there with that item is I wanna work with you all to figure out what else you might need from a legislative perspective to help us be more successful.

So I don't know what that looks like today, but it's a concept that I will wanna further explore.

In any event, well, Also, I want to quickly call out transit safety.

It's been mentioned a few times here, and it's really, really important that we do that.

I take transit all the time to and from work and took it this weekend with my young kids to the Mariners game.

It's great, but the fact remains that not everyone feels safe comfortable enough and safe enough and secure enough to take transit today.

And what I'm referring to specifically, Council Member Rivera, is those who don't rely on it as their only mode of transportation, like I did growing up, to be honest, didn't have a car, didn't have...

And so we wanna increase ridership, we wanna, which will help boost...

You know, transit revenues, obviously, but most importantly, it will help us make more urgent progress on our climate goals.

And I think transit is one of those things where we can't just, it's not one of those things where we can just, if you build it, they will come.

We can't just expand in a vacuum service and reliability without also creating conditions where people want to take it.

and we're simultaneously improving the conditions.

And excellent point, Council President.

This isn't intended to replace or let anyone off the hook, whether it's Metro or otherwise, for their responsibility to create a safe, secure environment for all workers and riders and everyone.

But also I think it recognizes that we do need to be additive.

Now more than ever, we want to build this out, make more progress.

And oh, by the way, there's a little thing called the 2026 FIFA World Cup coming.

We need as many people wanting to take that as possible and safe on that.

And so anyways, really, really important.

And I've heard a couple of you all emphasize that.

So I want to speak directly on that.

In any event, well...

Thank you, central staff.

Calvin, really appreciate your excellent work here, your partnership and collaborations behind the scenes and putting all this together and patience and grace with me as somewhat of a moving target on some of these pieces.

Complex, all of them, components, but I appreciate your expertise and utmost professionalism and helping me and this body keep it moving so we can put a final package together before voters.

Again, voters are ultimately going to decide.

And so I appreciate your expertise and professionalism here.

Also want to take the time as well while I'm here to specifically acknowledge and thank Director Spatz, who is in the room, and members of the SDOT team for for taking the time to be here and share with us your initial thoughts on the task force, more to come there.

Let's continue the collaboration there.

And I wanna also thank the many constituents who have taken the time to be here, who have shared your thoughtful emails, phone calls, comments, Got some great feedback at a Little League game last night from a parent in multiple ways.

We're hearing feedback, and it is greatly appreciated.

And I also want to acknowledge the lives lost that we lost this past week and honor and pay tribute to the families of the victims We need to do better.

And I think through the plan and investments and programs and areas for further exploration that we're talking about today, I think we're well positioned to make better progress and we'll do better even after that as well.

So that said, and obviously thank you to my council colleagues for your thoughtfulness and patience your patience through this two and a half hour long meeting.

This new proposed chairs package is the new baseline proposal.

And just wanna note that, and I welcome continued collaboration and partnership with each of you all.

I know some people might have amendments, some people might not, and that's totally fine.

If there are any district specific amendments related to attachment A, I will disclose, I will have my own district specific amendment to attachment A, but my amendment will basically reallocate and reprioritize some of the projects, existing call-outs in there, rather than creating a brand new sort of punch list of things.

So to the extent you have any attachment A call-outs, you know, like, I hope it's similar to kind of the model that I'm creating for mine.

And then for the accompanying legislation, whatever ideas you have, let's make sure it's additive to this and builds upon.

And I heard a lot of great ideas now from, for example, from council president and council member Strauss and council member Moore on some of the sidewalk pieces, master plan.

So I think we're in line and on track and on progress there, but I look forward to the continued conversations there and more to come.

But again, thank you, Cal.

Really appreciate everything.

Can't thank you enough.

So yeah, any final comments, questions, colleagues?

You guys are looking at me like, come on.

All right, all right.

Well, thank you again.

We have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Hearing no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned.

It is 1155 a.m.