HOUSE BILL REPORT
ESHB 2871
As Amended by the Senate
Title: An act relating to regional transportation governance.
Brief Description: Modifying regional transportation governance provisions.
Sponsors: By House Committee on Transportation (originally sponsored by Representatives Murray, Dickerson, Appleton and Simpson).
Brief History:
Transportation: 1/17/06, 2/6/06 [DPS].
Floor Activity:
Passed House: 2/21/06, 71-26.
Senate Amended.
Passed Senate: 3/1/06, 36-10.
Brief Summary of Engrossed Substitute Bill |
|
|
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 24 members: Representatives Murray, Chair; Wallace, Vice Chair; Woods, Ranking Minority Member; Skinner, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Appleton, Buck, Campbell, Clibborn, Curtis, Dickerson, Flannigan, Hudgins, Jarrett, Kilmer, Lovick, Morris, Nixon, Rodne, Schindler, Sells, Shabro, B. Sullivan, Takko and Upthegrove.
Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 5 members: Representatives Ericksen, Hankins, Holmquist, Simpson and Wood.
Staff: David Bowman (786-7339).
Background:
Overview - Regional Transportation Governance and Planning
Numerous agencies are charged with the planning, funding, development and operation of
transportation facilities in the central Puget Sound region. Agencies involved in the
planning, funding, and operation of local and regional transportation systems are wholly
separate governmental units with few laws or rules requiring coordination of their efforts.
There is no overarching governing entity overseeing regional transportation system planning
or controlling ballot measures submitted to the people for approval.
The establishment and maintenance of regional governing bodies to oversee and implement
transportation planning in metropolitan areas is a prerequisite to the state's receipt of federal
transportation funding, including highway funding. Federal law requires that metropolitan
areas greater than 50,000 persons have a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and that
designation is made by the Governor and local government officials. State law authorizes
local governments to voluntarily form regional transportation planning organizations
(RTPOs). In urbanized areas, an RTPO and MPO are one and the same entity.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations
Metropolitan areas greater than 50,000 persons must have a MPO under federal law. This
designation is made by the Governor and must have the concurrence of local government
officials representing 75 percent of the population within the area, including the central city;
or as otherwise provided for by state or local law. The formation of MPOs is a precondition
for receiving federal highway and transit funds. There are currently 11 MPOs in Washington.
Federal law requires MPOs to develop a metropolitan transportation plan with a 20-year
horizon, and a three-year financially constrained transportation improvement program.
Federal law also requires MPOs to have a transportation policy board which includes local
elected officials, officials of agencies that administer or operate major modes or
transportation systems and appropriate state officials.
State law, meanwhile, authorizes the voluntary association of governments for transportation
planning purposes in the form of RTPOs. The federally-mandated MPOs are designated as
the RTPOs under the state's 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA). State requirements for
regional transportation planning largely mirrored federal requirements and also include a
requirement to certify that the transportation elements of local comprehensive plans conform
with the GMA and are consistent with the regional transportation plan.
The MPO and RTPO for King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties is the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC). The PSRC develops a metropolitan transportation plan with a
20-year horizon, and a three-year financially constrained transportation improvement
program. Under state law, RTPOs are required to certify that the transportation elements of
local comprehensive plans conform with the GMA and are consistent with the regional
transportation plan. Pursuant to both federal and state laws, the PSRC has a Transportation
Policy Board which includes local elected officials, officials of agencies that administer or
operate major modes or transportation systems and appropriate state officials. The PSRC
also scores projects for distribution of federal funds for which it is responsible.
Within the PSRC area, transportation planning, funding, development and/or services are
provided by numerous public agencies. These include: the Department of Transportation,
responsible for state highways within the region; four county governments; over 65 cities; six
public transportation agencies including the Seattle Monorail Authority; the three-county
Regional Transit Authority (RTA, or Sound Transit); Washington State Ferries, a division of
the Department of Transportation, operating both auto and passenger-only ferry service; and
several port districts. In addition, in 2002, a Regional Transportation Investment District
(RTID) was authorized for the purpose of planning, funding, and building projects to address
highway corridor needs in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.
Regional Transportation Investment District
Implementation of the RTID requires at least two contiguous counties forming the district,
and requires the establishment of a planning committee to develop a plan for transportation
investments in the three-county district and identification of revenue options to fund them.
The planning committee comprises the council members of King, Pierce, and Snohomish
counties. County council members' votes are weighted proportionally to population. The
Secretary of Transportation is a non-voting member.
The RTID boundaries are coextensive with the boundaries of the contiguous counties that
established the district. Currently there is no opportunity for a portion of the district to be
exempt from the district, once it is created.
Projects eligible for the RTID funding, and which may be included in a regional
transportation investment plan, are capital improvements to: (1) highways of statewide
significance including new lanes and earthquake repairs; (2) highways of statewide
significance which may include High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and associated
multimodal capital improvements which support public transportation, vans, and buses; and
(3) under specified conditions, certain city streets, county roads, or highways that intersect
with highways of statewide significance; however, not more than 10 percent of district funds
nor more than $1 billion may be expended on local projects and one-third local matching
funds for the projects are required. The use of funds for operations, preservation, and
maintenance of the RTID projects is prohibited.
The county legislative authorities within the district may certify the plan to the ballot, as a
single ballot measure to approve or disapprove the regional transportation investment plan.
County legislative authorities are not required to adopt or not adopt, by ordinance, the plan
prior to submitting a measure to the voters.
The RTID was initially granted various tax options including, up to: 0.5 percent sales tax;
$100 annual vehicle license fee; 0.3 percent Motor Vehicle Exise Tax (MVET); employer
tax; parking fee; and limited tolling authority. In 2003, the RTID was authorized to sell
bonds and the RTID, or counties for RTID purposes, were authorized a local option fuel tax
at 10 percent of the state fuel tax rate. A RTID and counties, for city and county road
purposes, may not impose the tax at the same time. The RTID is authorized to collect tolls
on facilities where lanes are added or the lanes are reconstructed by the RTID. Such tolls
need not be approved by the state Transportation Commission. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) may construct toll facilities that are sponsored by a RTID. A RTID is
not authorized to impose a network value pricing charge based on vehicle miles traveled for
users in the district.
The RTID executive committee began developing a plan for improvements and adopted a
revenue plan in March 2004. This plan identified a $13.2 billion revenue package, which
included a joint ballot proposition with Sound Transit. A draft investment plan was adopted
by the executive board in April 2004. After the business community advised the RTID
executive committee that it would not support a fall 2004 ballot measure, and Sound Transit
did not vote to join the ballot issue, the 2004 plan did not go to the ballot. As of January
2006, the executive board is developing a new plan. No date has been set to go to the ballot.
Regional Transit Authority Governance
Two or more contiguous counties each having a population of 400,000 persons or more may
establish a RTA to develop and operate a high capacity transportation system. A high
capacity transportation system is an urban public transportation system that operates
principally on exclusive rights-of-way and provides a substantially higher level of passenger
capacity, speed, and service frequency than traditional public transportation systems
operating mainly on general purpose roadways. Sound Transit is the RTA established by
King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.
In the 1990s, Sound Transit developed and adopted a system and financing plan which,
among other things, identified revenues expected to be generated by corridor and county,
phasing of construction and operation of high capacity system facilities, and the degree to
which revenues generated within each county would benefit the residents of that county
including when such benefits would accrue. Sound Transit is currently preparing the second
phase of its development and finance plan.
Local Transit Agency Governance
Local transit agencies such as King County Metro, Community Transit, Everett Transit, and
Pierce County Transit, are established by and subject to separate statutory provisions. They
are not subject to any centralized governance.
City Transportation Authority
In 2002, the Legislature enacted laws allowing the City of Seattle to create a city
transportation authority for the development, planning, construction and operation of a public
monorail transportation facility. By citizen petition submitted to city voters in 2002, the
citizens of Seattle created the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority as the city transportation
authority and established a nine-member board to be the governing and policy-making body
over the authority.
The Seattle Popular Monorail Authority currently has the power to levy excess levies within
constitutional limits, for operating funds, capital outlay funds, and cumulative reserve funds,
issue bonds; issue general obligation bonds equal to 1.5 percent of value of taxable property
within the authority area, and up to 2.5 percent with approval by three-fifths of voters in the
area; issue revenue bonds payable from other revenue sources; levy and collect special excise
tax up to 2.5 percent; fix and impose motor vehicle fee of $100; and impose annual property
tax levies equal to $1.50 or less per $1,000 of assessed value of property within the authority
area.
Coordination of Regional Transportation Governance and Planning
The number of agencies involved in transportation planning and delivery of services has
significantly added to the complexity of transportation programs. Public polling and focus
group results indicate public confusion regarding transportation decision making, planning,
and funding, and public concern over ensuring efficiency, accountability, and coordinated
action among transportation planning entities.
Currently, agencies involved in transportation planning, funding, and operation are separately
governed and not required to coordinate their development of regional transportation
investment plans or submission of ballot measures to the people.
Summary of Engrossed Substitute Bill:
The Regional Transportation Commission (Commission) is created with several powers and
duties related to developing a regional transportation governance proposal and a finance plan.
The Commission is comprised of nine members, six of whom are appointed by the Governor
and three comprising the elected executives of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.
The Commission must:
Subject to the approval of voters within the city and regionwide, the City of Seattle will
assume the Monorail's taxing authority, to fund non-monorail transit within Seattle city
limits.
The RTID statutes are modified in several respects.
Neither the RTID nor Sound Transit may submit a new ballot measure to the voters prior to
the 2007 general election. For a county to participate in a RTID plan, the county legislative
authorities must adopt an ordinance indicating that county's participation in the plan.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) must reach agreements with local communities to
address mitigation issues prior to commencing the 520 bridge project. The DOT must also
designate the preferred alternative and complete other environmental planning and project
finance requirements on both the SR 520 and Alaskan Way Viaduct project prior to any
public vote on a regional transportation ballot measure.
EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENT(S):
The Commission's duties and composition are modified. The Commission is to develop a
regional transportation governance proposal, but not an integrated regional transportation
finance plan. The Commission comprises seven voting members appointed by the governor,
all of whom must be private citizens not currently holding public office. The Secretary of the
DOT is added as a nonvoting member.
Project eligibility for the RTID is narrowed to the scope provided by current law, with the
following additions: (1) operations, preservation, and maintenance of toll facilities, (2)
transit operations for construction mitigation, and (3) passenger-only ferry service funded
specifically by the sales tax. The peninsula portion of Pierce County is prohibited from
inclusion in the RTID.
Any finance plans submitted by Sound Transit and the RTID prior to December 2007 must be
submitted together to the voters; however, the approval of one measure is not dependent upon
the approval of the other. A ballot measure by Sound Transit and the RTID is permitted
beginning in 2006. If a multiple-county RTID is not approved by voters by December 1,
2007, an individual county may form an RTID under the same statute. County legislative
authorities are not required to approve an RTID plan by adoption of an ordinance.
Accordingly, county executives do not have the right to approve or reject an RTID plan prior
to its submission to the voters.
The RTID's revenue authority is modified. The maximum sales and use tax which the RTID
may impose is increased from 0.1% to 0.5%, the same as current law. The RTID's authority
to impose a motor vehicle excise tax is increased from 0.6% to 0.8%. The RTID must obtain
approval by the Washington Transportation Commission prior to implementing system-wide
pricing as a revenue source.
Provisions conditionally transferring the Monorail's taxing authority to the City of Seattle, for
funding nonmonorail transit in Seattle, are eliminated.
The requirement that the DOT reach certain agreements with affected cities and towns, prior
to commencing construction on the SR 520 bridge project, is clarified. Instead of assuring
citizens that "no further degradation will occur" to the use and enjoyment of their properties,
the agreements are to assure citizens that any degradation in their use and enjoyment "will be
addressed" through one or both of the stated measures.
The requirement that the DOT complete environmental and financial plans on the Alaskan
Way viaduct and SR 520 bridge projects prior to a regional transportation public vote does
not apply to utility relocation on the Alaskan Way viaduct project and pontoon construction
for the SR 520 project.
Boundaries of a transportation benefit district, which may be created by a county or city to
fund local transportation improvements, need not include all territory within the boundaries
of the jurisdiction where the district was formed.
In addition to its current authority to annex a new area by submitting an annexation measure
to the voters, Sound Transit may submit an annexation measure as part of a region-wide vote
on a proposal for an additional financing phase. The annexation, and the finance plan, would
be approved by a simple majority of the combined electorate within the region and in the
proposed area to be annexed.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed, except section 27 which reinstates prior law related to earnings of investments on the State Treasurer's Income Account after a scheduled expiration and takes effect July 1, 2006.
Testimony For: (In support of original bill) The public has made clear that it wants
multi-modal transportation planning, both roads and transit, by a centralized governing entity
with full accountability to the voters. This bill meets that public directive in several ways.
By establishing a regional governing entity comprising directly elected officials, with the
flexibility to adjust its boundaries, the new governing entity will achieve transparency in
regional transportation decision making. The new entity will be authorized to fund a
broadly-defined scope of transportation projects of both statewide and regional significance,
drawing upon a variety of revenue sources - minimal sales and use taxes, expanded excise tax
authority, broad tolling authority, and value pricing.
(With Concerns on original bill) Folding local public transportation agencies into Sound
Transit goes one step too far in this first major effort to define regional governance, because a
regional entity would lack responsiveness to local transportation needs. Eliminating the
RTID is premature in light of tentative agreements reached between the RTID and local
jurisdictions such as Seattle and King County. The Legislature should not get in the way of a
2006 ballot measure by Sound Transit, or the RTID, if either decides that a ballot measure is
ready.
Testimony Against: None.
Persons Testifying: (In support of original bill) Representative Murray, prime sponsor; and
David Hopkins, King County Executive's Office;
(With Concerns on original bill) Charlie Howard, Puget Sound Regional Council.