As formally announced on Friday, previewed by The Urbanist on Thursday, and briefly reviewed on PubliCola on Saturday, Seattle City Council Transportation Committee Chair Rob Saka (District 1) is proposing an amendment to the 2024 Transportation Levy adding $100 million across several categories for a total levy amount of $1.55 billion over eight years, and adding more oversight processes. Tomorrow, the Seattle City Council’s Select Committee on the 2024 Transportation Levy will meet twice to discuss the proposed levy and this amendment: first at 9:30am, and then again at 4:30pm for a Public Hearing of the proposed Levy.
At its 9:30am meeting, the Committee will receive an overview of the City’s property taxing authority, (“Property Taxes 101”), hear a proposal from SDOT for a “Transportation Funding Task Force” which would spend 2025-2026 working on recommendations for improving stability and efficacy of transportation funding, and review the Transportation Levy including the proposed amendment. The 4:30pm meeting is tagged as a “Public Hearing” although public comment will be taken at both meetings.
The proposal adds funds for sidewalks, a “freight program”, EV charging, and reportedly includes language to increase oversight of Levy projects by not only the Levy Oversight Committee, but the City Council itself.
Reductions, Additions, and Shifts
In the presentation set to shown on the Committee on Tuesday morning, Councilmember Saka’s proposed modifications to the various project funding buckets are tabulated:
Most notably, the amendment doubles the spending on new sidewalks, nearly doubles spending on freight movements with the addition of an otherwise-undescribed “Freight Program”, and increases funding for “Climate and Electrification” (mainly EV chargers) by about 45%.
Additionally, the proposed text of the amendment would require the following minimum spending on certain categories:
- $126 million for New Sidewalks
- $221 million for Bridges and Structures
- $350 million for Arterial Roadway Maintenance
- $27 million for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
The amendment does include a provision that these minimum spending requirements can be modified or cancelled on review by the Levy Oversight Committee.
A Bigger Oversight Committee
The current body overseeing the Levy to Move Seattle consists of 16 people: one member from each of the four modal advisory boards, the City Budget Director, the Chair of the Council’s Transportation Committee, five Seattle residents selected by the Council, and five residents selected by the Mayor. From the Committee’s agendas:
“The Levy Oversight Committee is an advisory body that monitors revenues, expenditures, and program and project implementation. The Oversight Committee advises the City Council, the Mayor, and SDOT on responding to program and project cost savings or overruns. The Oversight Committee reviews SDOT’s program and project priorities and financial plans and makes recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding the spending of levy proceeds.”
The Mayor’s proposal for the 2024 Transportation Levy updates the committee to add two residents appointed by the Council for a total of seven (one per district), and “a young member selected through the Get Engaged program”, but excludes the Transportation Committee Chair, totaling 18 members. Councilmember Saka’s amendment adds the Chair of the Transportation Committee (currently Councilmember Saka) back as a member of the Levy Oversight Committee, for a total of 19 members.
The scope of responsibilities for the committee described in the Mayor’s proposal largely matches that of the 2015’s Levy to Move Seattle, in that the group is expected to focus on the fiscal aspects of the Levy’s implementation. The proposed amendment adds “performance evaluation of levy programs” to the scope of oversight, but “performance” is not defined in the summary presentation or the Central Staff memo. In an ideal world, performance would refer to how the project achieves policy goals set in the Transportation Plan, Vision Zero, and Climate goals, but that isn’t articulated.
Even More Oversight
In a companion resolution proposed for the Transportation Levy, Saka also seeking to get the City Council more involved in the implementation of the Transportation Levy. This resolution would establish Council direction for overseeing the financial implementation of the levy and direction on oversight and reporting of plans and performance evaluations for Levy projects.
While many of the issues listed for Council or Oversight Committee review seem well-founded, an alarming pair of issues are identified for future Council consideration: “Paving/Corridor Project Scoping”, and “General Fund Support”:
I have a hard time imagining these reviews having any result other than reducing the scope of multi-modal projects to exclude critical non-car infrastructure, and reducing SDOT’s general fund allotment.
Modest Incremental Change, Now
While Councilmember Saka is supporting an “All Modes Matter” approach to implementing the next Transportation Levy, I’ll be thinking of this quote from Councilmember Morales as recorded by Ryan Packer during a recent Transportation Committee meeting:
“I am tired of coming to briefing and talking about my constituents who have been killed because our roads are not safe. I want us to remember that we’re here for all of our constituents, but we are really here for the folks who are not typically at the table, and really not able to advocate for themselves because they have busy lives trying to do other things. And I think it’s going to be very important for us to step into our leadership and make sure that we’re protecting everybody in the city.”
I think we could be planning more investment in streets that don’t prioritize heavy cars and semi-trucks, and avoiding consideration of watering down SDOT’s general fund budget or how we decide to implement Complete Streets during repaving projects. In early May, the Northwest Progressive Institute released polling results showing that a majority of Seattle voters, when given the option between levies totaling $1.7B and $1.9B, would prefer the larger levy.
Last week, six people were killed on Seattle streets. Although this proposal shows some tiny steps towards some of the goals of a safe, equitable, and sustainable transportation system, we can and should still do much more, and quickly.
Join Seattle Transit Blog in taking action to support a better Transportation Levy.
The most glaring aspect of this amendment I see is that it doesn’t increase transit infrastructure at all. That’s what we wanted an increase for, so I don’t see why I would support this amendment. However, there are some positive things in it, and some of the negatives could be less bad than Nathan fears.
Safety sounds good, and I would give secondary support to “Vision Zero”, “Safe Routes to School”, and “Aurora Avenue N Safety”. But that’s not what the amendment increases. It increases the “Neighborhood-Initiated Safety Partnership Program”. What is its track record? If the only difference between this and the other three is who nominates hotspots, then that would be OK. If it does something else, then it would depend on what that thing is.
The general fund issue is in the context of a major funding shortfall this year. If we don’t move some projects out of the general fund, then they may go away entirely. So this is not necessarily bad. It’s part of the general trajectory of moving things to levies because an Eyman initiative forces cities/counties to reduce their general funds every year relative to inflation. (Initiatives 601 and 602 in 1993.)
Thanks to Nathan for pointing out a potential trojan horse to give nimbys more power to reduce scope and bias it in favor of cars/parking space. But 23rd Avenue, 35th Ave NE, and NE 65th Street were watered down without this amendment, so how much worse can it get? It may end up just moving the decision earlier and making it more visible.
For freight, we do need to spend more money on it. We all need the goods it transports and the jobs it creates. Washington is the state whose economy is most dependent on international trade. Having freight sit in SOV congestion is almost as bad as having transit sit in it. SDOT is currently piloting a transit-and-freight-lane project on Westlake Ave N, so the upshot may be more of that. That’s fine as long as there aren’t so many trucks it slows down the buses. It’s not bringing large trucks to every street; they’re limited to a few “truck routes”. I think we need to learn more about this “Freight Program”.
Where is Rob Saka on the transit spectrum? Is he rabidly pro-car or against spending more money on transit, or just indifferent to transit?
Saka has repeated stated that he “supports all modes,” but it’s unclear if he thinks that we should support all modes equally, or equitably.
Before being elected Councilmember, Saka compared the hardening of the centerline (physically preventing already-illegal left turns on a stretch of Delridge) to the wall on the southern border, so it’s hard to believe he’s really that supportive of infrastructure that would equitably trade SOV access for transit access.
https://publicola.com/2023/11/17/councilmember-elect-saka-compared-8-inch-road-divider-to-trumps-border-wall/
Although this proposal shows some tiny steps towards some of the goals of a safe, equitable, and sustainable transportation system, we can and should still do much more, and quickly.
Yes, and that includes more transit funding. I’m getting a little tired of people ignoring the fact that improving transit improves safety. The evidence is pretty clear, and yet we treat transit and “safe streets” as if they don’t achieve the same goals.
Seattle Times coverage. It says some of the money would go toward transit security in the form of more police and new civilian “navigators”.
Thanks Nathan for this update.
When Nathan first reported on the increase in the levy to $1.45 billion my suspicion was Harrell was trying to use the levy to backfill cuts to SDOT due to the budget deficit in the general fund. The key to me was how much control the council would try to exert over how the levy funds were used, and the vagueness in the actual projects.
Now that Harrell is increasing the levy again, and the council is signaling it will exert greater oversight over the projects the levy will fund that remain vague which to me look more and more like regular SDOT budget expenditures, and the council is struggling with where to cut the general fund while hiring 500 new police officers, I am more convinced Harrell is using the levy as a general fund tax increase, especially to fund the new police officers and standard SDOT projects like bridges and roads.
It will probably work. With the right title there are few levies Seattleites won’t pass. Key phrases like road maintenance, “public safety”, “neighborhoods”, sidewalks, climate, green, bikes, and the levy will pass even at $1.55 billion (half of Seattleites rent so don’t see the property taxes they pay).
Seattle can’t ignore these SDOT maintenance projects but also can’t afford them with non-levy revenue sources so the levy is the source to fund those projects, which doesn’t leave a lot for major transit projects as one might hope for from a $1.55 billion levy, that is no doubt underestimated per project like the last levy.
So really we are talking about a $775 million transportation levy when the project costs are realistically priced that will mostly go toward standard SDOT maintenance projects but will allow the council to avoid a general tax increase or draconian cuts to the general budget.
The 1% property tax increase limit was designed to slowly kill government in a stagnant housing construction market, and it’s working. The exemption for new development, though, is probably the only thing keeping cities afloat.
I often wonder why cities like Seattle don’t consider widespread upzones as a potential fundraising strategy. It would be an interesting tax policy geography research project to compare property tax rolls in cities that have upzoned significantly, like Shoreline, to cities which haven’t.
Nathan raises a good point about the 1% cap on the property levy. It was originally an initiative by Eyman that was overturned by the supreme court, but then adopted by the legislature because the legislature was concerned the next initiative would be even more restrictive and would also pass with a large percentage of voters. Still the law allows a city to increase the cap by a vote.
He is correct that in the past it has incentivized cities to balance budgets through development, and that upzoning incentivizes “new” construction that is exempt from the cap as opposed to remodels, as well as voter approved levies for things like parks and transit. It helped that this region experienced an increase in population and average income which also incentivize new high end construction.
Two downsides from upzoning however are displacement when older and more affordable housing is converted to brand new construction, and the utility costs to a city due to the new increased density (water, sewer, sidewalks, streets, schools, etc.) which is why new construction is exempt from the cap.
From the period 2010 to 2022 smaller Puget Sound cities averaged around a 3% increase in the cap when the 1% increase allowed without a vote and new construction are combined, which exceeded inflation.
The big change of course since 2022 is skyrocketing inflation, which in this region has run from 7% to 10%/year, and even higher for any kind of capital or construction project. This inflation is also baked into many CBA’s for union employees, and recently Seattle granted both police and regular workers very large pay increases due to inflation despite the pending budget deficits.
Urban cities in the past have had a big advantage since that is where employers were located and so employed commuted to the urban centers. The biggest advantage is the B&O tax, then property taxes on commercial office properties that offset property taxes on other property owners under the levy system, sales tax on commercial development, and sales tax from the workers, many of whom commuted in from outside the city. WA cities by and large don’t have huge legacy pension and healthcare costs which helps.
It really is a combination of inflation and declining tax revenues that are putting the squeeze on Seattle, along with a large increase in programs and expenditures over the last ten years.
From 2010 to 2022 Seattle’s general fund budget exploded as tax receipts exploded, although past councils ignored some very expensive capital needs like bridges. Work from home, and declining commercial property values, are reducing tax revenues just as inflation is increasing staff and capital costs. Seattle’s head tax helped postpone this disconnect between revenues and costs, but even that is not enough anymore. Ironically smaller local cities are seeing an increase in tax revenue due to sales tax from online shopping and work from home, although construction is slowing region wide, which affects large cities like Seattle and Bellevue more than small cities with small commercial centers.
I think the transportation and housing levies are Harrell’s and the council’s way of passing a tax increase without calling it a tax increase. The Chamber and DSA are opposed to any increase in business taxes, and Harrell is desperately trying to revitalize downtown Seattle but commercial property values are dropping like a stone. The best way to postpone budget cuts is to increase tax revenue, beginning with B&O tax, then commercial property values, then sales taxes from construction and shoppers/diners, which I think is Harrell’s hope. Until then look for levy money to basically cover basic maintenance costs and budget deficits. Unless this council wants to place a large general property tax increase in addition to the specific levies in front of Seattle voters.
“ The most glaring aspect of this amendment I see is that it doesn’t increase transit infrastructure at all”
Part of the problem is there weren’t that many proposed transit projects to even advocate for. Outside of the combined 36+49 rapidride. I do wish the Seattle transportation plans transit section listed more concretely what should be implemented aka like the transit master plan back in 2016.
I’m including street improvements for one or several blocks. There were lots of those in the candidate projects list.
All the transit projects are “multimodal corridors”. I think SDOT has learned that branding transit projects is easy to sell to the taxpaying city as a whole, but hard to get through public feedback. The Route 40 TPMC project is the most recent example.
Also, SDOT is “piloting” the Bus+Freight (FAB) lanes on Westlake in that same project, so they won’t propose future projects using FAB lanes until the pilot project is assessed. Like you mention, there are RapidRide lines that the City can help Metro implement, but it seems to me that the City is actually following Stephen Fesler’s advice of quitting moonshot rapidride projects and transitioning to simply upgrading transit corridors. The problem with this approach is that it is susceptible to meddling from “all modes matter” pols who disagree with taking space and connectivity away from SOVs in order to make space and safer connections for everyone else.