[0:11] >> Good morning,

[0:12] everybody. I would like

[0:13] to welcome you and call

[0:14] to order this meeting of the

[0:16] Transportation Policy Board.

[0:17] I'm filling in for the Dana

[0:20] this morning who's online and

[0:22] so since I'm in person,

[0:24] I'm going

[0:25] to run this morning's meeting.

[0:26] So if you've called in, we.

[0:29] Let's see here. A call

[0:31] in number has been provided

[0:32] on the meeting agenda

[0:34] for members of the public

[0:35] to call

[0:36] in and live stream the meeting.

[0:37] If you've called in,

[0:38] we ask that you mute your

[0:39] device to avoid interfering

[0:40] with the meeting. If a

[0:41] participant fails to mute their

[0:43] audio and causes description

[0:44] to the meeting, the connection

[0:46] will be muted and possibly

[0:47] disconnected.

[0:48] For remote participants who

[0:50] wish to speak, please use the

[0:52] raise the hand feet function

[0:54] in zoom. For those of us

[0:56] in person, you will need

[0:57] to turn on your microphone

[0:58] for everyone

[0:59] to see and hear you. The

[1:00] activation button is located

[1:02] at the base

[1:03] of the microphone. Gently tap

[1:04] or swipe the button which I

[1:06] failed to do earlier. And this

[1:09] button is located

[1:11] at the base. Please tap or

[1:12] swipe that button. This button

[1:14] will display green light and

[1:16] one is on and red one is off.

[1:18] Please turn off your mic when

[1:20] you're finished talking. So,

[1:22] Alex, you're going to do the

[1:23] roll call.

[1:30] >> I'll be going

[1:31] through the list on the screen

[1:32] for alternates. You may

[1:33] participate and vote. If your

[1:35] members not present,

[1:36] we'll be starting in Seattle.

[1:39] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]

[7:05] >> Thank you.

[7:13] >> So we have a quorum and we

[7:15] can start our meeting. Then

[7:17] we're to public comment. Is

[7:19] there anyone in the room or

[7:22] online that wishes

[7:23] to address the Regional

[7:24] Council?

[7:25] >> The board did not receive

[7:26] any written comment. No one

[7:28] signed up for online or

[7:30] in person comment.

[7:31] >> Okay, I will close the

[7:32] public comment period. Then we

[7:34] are to our consent. Chair

[7:39] reports. I guess I just broke

[7:41] the pen. All right,

[7:46] I don't have any remarks.

[7:48] Dana, do you have anything?

[7:50] >> Just would defer to Kelly

[7:51] to catch everybody up

[7:52] to speed.

[7:54] >> All right, well then go to

[7:55] Kelly and her director's

[7:56] report.

[7:58] >> All right. And I will be

[7:59] brief, but I did have a few

[8:00] things I wanted to share

[8:01] with you first. Last week was

[8:04] the week without driving. And I

[8:05] know many

[8:06] of your organizations may have

[8:08] participated. We did have a

[8:09] fair number

[8:11] of PSRC staff participate

[8:12] in that. And I think that staff

[8:14] would like to come back in

[8:15] November, learn a little bit

[8:17] more about what's happening

[8:18] around the region. But just a

[8:19] few quick observations that I

[8:20] was asked to share on that.

[8:21] From our perspective that it

[8:24] was. There are certainly some

[8:26] challenges,

[8:27] especially when you need to go

[8:29] grocery shopping and carry

[8:30] things when you have children

[8:32] with you. It takes a little bit

[8:33] of extra time. Also

[8:34] acknowledging that we are very

[8:36] fortunate here at PSRC. We have

[8:38] a very flexible work from home

[8:40] policy here and we also work

[8:42] in downtown Seattle where

[8:45] transit and access to transit

[8:47] is plentiful and acknowledging

[8:48] that we're fairly privileged

[8:50] in that.

[8:51] But when you get further out,

[8:52] things,

[8:54] things change a little bit

[8:55] in terms of what's available,

[8:56] levels of service, frequencies

[8:58] of service and things

[8:59] of that nature.

[9:00] But they also wanted, you know,

[9:01] just to make sure that we

[9:02] acknowledge that especially

[9:04] for those who've been

[9:05] in the region and lived

[9:06] in the region a fair bit,

[9:07] there is a lot happening.

[9:08] There's been a lot

[9:09] of improvements over the years

[9:10] and there continues

[9:11] to be improvements

[9:12] over the years. So it was a. I

[9:13] think everyone enjoyed kind of

[9:14] doing that experiment and we'll

[9:15] keep learning more.

[9:17] But I think it's very relevant

[9:18] to the work that we're doing on

[9:19] the regional transportation

[9:21] plan. Two other things I wanted

[9:22] to note is one, in the spirit

[9:24] you will see we have a climate

[9:25] presentation this morning,

[9:28] but I also wanted to share with

[9:29] you because I don't think I

[9:30] have done this yet that the

[9:32] South Central Puget Sound

[9:34] region was selected by the.

[9:37] It's C2ES. It is the. Let me

[9:40] find their acronym here,

[9:42] the center for. Where did I. I

[9:45] already lost it. Center for

[9:47] Climate and Energy Solutions,

[9:48] formerly the Pew center on

[9:49] Global Climate Change. They

[9:51] have what they call a Climate

[9:52] Resilient Communities

[9:54] Accelerator program. It's

[9:56] pretty exciting. And they

[9:57] selected the South Central

[9:58] Puget Sound region

[9:59] to participate in that. It's a

[10:01] two year program and it's

[10:02] really. They bring their

[10:03] resources to bring a lot

[10:05] of folks together

[10:06] from the public sector,

[10:08] the private sector communities.

[10:09] They have a lot

[10:11] of convenings that Year one is

[10:12] really about coordination and

[10:13] learning and identifying needs

[10:15] and potential actions. Year two

[10:17] is taking all

[10:19] of that and really zooming in

[10:21] on implementation of some

[10:23] of those actions. So we've

[10:24] already had two convenings.

[10:26] One on kind

[10:28] of setting the stage in

[10:29] Climate Resilient Economies

[10:30] Roundtable and then we had a

[10:32] Resources Connector forum which

[10:33] was really,

[10:34] really interesting. And the two

[10:35] hazards that are being focused

[10:37] on for our region are extreme

[10:39] heat and wildfire risk. So, so

[10:40] it's a really exciting program.

[10:42] Many of your organizations are

[10:43] involved as well. And I will

[10:45] continue to Share information

[10:46] and maybe invite C2ES

[10:49] to come give a presentation

[10:50] on that. And then last

[10:52] but not least, I did you

[10:53] received an email this morning

[10:54] from Alexa. We did have a

[10:56] revision to one item

[10:58] on the consent agenda. There

[10:59] was an additional project added

[11:01] to the routine amendment

[11:03] to our regional

[11:04] Transportation Improvement

[11:06] Program. And this was really.

[11:07] There was a bit

[11:09] of a misunderstanding

[11:10] of some programming timelines.

[11:11] And

[11:12] since this is the last

[11:13] amendment of the year,

[11:14] we needed

[11:15] to squeeze that project

[11:16] in so that that would allow

[11:17] them to the project schedule

[11:19] to stay on track. And it is

[11:20] number seven on the revised

[11:22] attachment that was sent

[11:23] to you this morning for the

[11:25] North Bend South Fork extension

[11:26] bypass. And happy

[11:29] to answer questions,

[11:31] but otherwise we can move on

[11:32] to the consent.

[11:33] >> All right, any questions

[11:34] for Kelly? Don't see any hands

[11:38] raised. So we'll move on

[11:40] to our consent agenda. We have

[11:42] a couple of items. One is

[11:45] minutes and then a routine

[11:46] amendment

[11:48] of the transportation

[11:49] Improvement program. Is there a

[11:50] motion to approve the consent

[11:51] agenda?

[11:52] >> I move to approve the

[11:54] consent agenda. Councilman

[11:55] Daughtry.

[11:58] >> Is there a second?

[12:00] >> Second. Dana Ralph.

[12:02] >> All right, thank you, Dana.

[12:04] To catch those both. All right,

[12:05] we have a motion and second

[12:06] to approve the consent agenda.

[12:08] All in favor,

[12:09] please say aye.

[12:10] >> Aye.

[12:13] >> Is there anyone opposed?

[12:16] Hearing on the consent agenda

[12:17] has been approved. We have a

[12:19] number of discussion items,

[12:22] the first of which is the 2026

[12:25] recommendations

[12:27] to the state legislature.

[12:29] Robin, this is you.

[12:31] >> Good morning, everybody.

[12:32] We'll first start out

[12:33] with a little bit

[12:34] of a federal and state update

[12:36] to sort of set the stage for

[12:37] our state legislative

[12:39] discussion. Of course,

[12:41] I'm sure everyone is aware

[12:42] we're in day nine

[12:44] of a federal shutdown.

[12:46] Democrats are demanding

[12:47] extension to Affordable Care

[12:49] act subsidies, while

[12:50] Republicans are saying that

[12:51] they will not negotiate until

[12:53] the government is reopened.

[12:54] And at this point,

[12:55] people are still pretty much

[12:57] in their corners. Of course,

[12:59] as the shutdown continues,

[13:01] the impacts continue to show up

[13:03] and become much more impactful.

[13:08] So Secretary Duffy held a press

[13:11] conference this week

[13:12] of DOT warning of the impacts

[13:14] on air traffic controllers and

[13:16] signaling that new project

[13:17] approvals will not happen. It

[13:18] is our understanding that most

[13:21] transportation funding is being

[13:23] reimbursed, both on the FHWA

[13:24] side and the FTA side. Again, I

[13:28] think the new projects are the

[13:29] area where you might see some

[13:30] delay with federal employees

[13:32] not reporting to work.

[13:33] In some cases, House members

[13:36] have begun to work on a bill

[13:37] to pay military

[13:38] before run funds run out on

[13:40] October 15. But at this time,

[13:43] House leadership is not

[13:44] supporting that move. And then,

[13:46] of course, the White House

[13:47] continues to threaten firings

[13:48] of federal workers,

[13:50] which is a Little different

[13:51] than past shutdowns where we've

[13:52] seen workers furloughed and

[13:54] then paid once the government

[13:56] reopens. One impact that we've

[13:59] seen here, that's fallout

[14:01] from the shutdown, was a cut to

[14:02] energy programs that included

[14:04] the Northwest Hydrogen hub and

[14:08] that had some impacts

[14:09] in our region to jet fuel and

[14:10] maritime that would have been

[14:13] part of that hub. I put up here

[14:15] a link to the New York Times

[14:17] article that sort

[14:18] of shows agency by agency how

[14:19] the shutdown is affecting

[14:21] various federal agencies and

[14:22] workers. And then another thing

[14:25] that we're watching that isn't

[14:27] germane necessarily

[14:28] to this body, however, I think

[14:31] will just have great impact in

[14:32] local communities is a

[14:34] continuum of care reductions

[14:36] that have been posed. The

[14:37] administration appears

[14:38] to be moving toward making

[14:39] changes that would impose time

[14:40] limits and therefore

[14:42] significantly reduce funding

[14:44] by about a third. And estimate

[14:46] estimates are that about

[14:48] 170,000 people would be

[14:49] at risk of homelessness. So

[14:51] we're watching this closely.

[14:53] National alliance and

[14:54] Homelessness is promising some

[14:56] additional information as they

[14:57] get it. And so we'll make sure

[14:58] to share with you on that.

[15:00] Turning over to the state side

[15:03] of things, you know,

[15:04] setting the scene

[15:06] before we talk about our state

[15:08] legislative recommendations.

[15:09] Overall, you know, there's some

[15:11] pretty significant impacts that

[15:13] are at play impacting our

[15:16] revenue collection,

[15:17] which include trade policy and

[15:19] tariffs, changes to federal

[15:21] government spending and

[15:22] employment levels,

[15:23] slow employment growth, slower

[15:25] revenue growth and high

[15:26] interest rates and continued

[15:27] geopolitical conflict. All

[15:30] in the good news category

[15:33] for my reports as

[15:34] of usual lately. So the overall

[15:37] revenue forecast that includes

[15:38] the General Fund, Education

[15:40] Trust and a few other accounts

[15:42] is looking at about a $900

[15:45] million decrease or about 6%

[15:47] for both the 2527 fiscal year

[15:52] and then the 2729 fiscal year.

[15:55] And I also have included a link

[15:58] to an article here. I always

[15:59] suggest as local government

[16:01] in particular elected officials

[16:02] to just take a look at this.

[16:04] It's actually a really good

[16:05] overview of where we are with

[16:06] the economy both nationally and

[16:08] at the state level. You can go

[16:11] on to the next slide. Last year

[16:13] we also started giving reports

[16:15] on a transportation revenue

[16:17] forecast. The good news is, I

[16:19] guess I do have some good news

[16:20] today is that as a result of

[16:22] revenue actions that the

[16:24] legislature took last year, we

[16:26] didn't see as significant

[16:27] decreases

[16:28] in the transportation budget,

[16:29] a very small one over the 23

[16:31] to 27, four year period of 19

[16:34] million and then about 125

[16:36] million for 2729 collections.

[16:38] You know,

[16:42] gas consumption does continue

[16:43] to decline, but

[16:44] of course we had that increase

[16:46] in the gas tax that went

[16:48] into effect this year. So we

[16:50] are seeing the impact

[16:51] of that compensating for the

[16:53] consumption decline. EV

[16:55] registrations continue

[16:56] to be up. Ferry ridership is

[16:58] down. However, fares are up.

[17:00] So there is a revenue increase

[17:02] in that account overall. And

[17:03] I've also included a link

[17:04] to that. So I'll pause there.

[17:07] That's pretty much the end.

[17:08] Except I'll just say, you know,

[17:09] I think going

[17:10] into the legislative session,

[17:11] we really are going

[17:12] to see a rough time. I think,

[17:15] you know, there just isn't very

[17:17] much funding. And of course,

[17:18] the federal cuts have an impact

[17:20] on what state legislators are

[17:21] going to do. So I think

[17:22] everyone's kind

[17:23] of bracing themselves for a

[17:24] very difficult year this year.

[17:27] State Legislature.

[17:31] >> Questions for Robin?

[17:35] Thank you for your report,

[17:36] Robin.

[17:38] >> So I guess we'll roll right

[17:39] into the recommendations to the

[17:41] state legislature. I'm joined

[17:42] today by Alyssa Quinn, who

[17:44] hopefully most of you know,

[17:46] who's our senior government

[17:47] relations specialist, just

[17:49] to do a little bit of a review

[17:51] of how we do this. We develop

[17:53] the recommendations and we

[17:55] consult with the executive

[17:56] board and then all

[17:57] of the policy boards

[17:59] during the month of October.

[18:00] And then the executive

[18:02] committee will make final

[18:03] recommendations

[18:04] to the executive board. And we

[18:05] try to really make sure that

[18:08] the recommendations are based

[18:10] on our adopted plans and

[18:11] policies that will help us

[18:13] achieve our regional priorities

[18:15] at the state level. And we try

[18:17] to keep them fairly broad

[18:19] in order to make sure that we

[18:22] can reflect what our regional

[18:24] attitudes are and also so that

[18:25] we can be nimble and react

[18:29] to things that occur, since

[18:30] things will definitely change

[18:32] between now and the beginning

[18:33] of session in January. And

[18:35] of course, you know,

[18:36] we're beginning to meet with

[18:38] state legislators right now.

[18:40] We met with Chair Fy a couple

[18:43] of weeks ago, and we have

[18:44] several others scheduled. So

[18:46] we'll be using that to inform

[18:47] how we approach the legislative

[18:49] session, of course. And now

[18:52] I'll just shift over to Alyssa

[18:54] to talk

[18:55] about the policy areas that are

[18:56] in our recommendations.

[18:58] >> Thanks, Robin. Hi, everyone.

[18:59] So these are the

[19:01] recommendations that were made

[19:03] to the state legislature last

[19:04] year. And PSRC staff recommend

[19:06] keeping the same four buckets.

[19:08] So keep the region moving,

[19:10] increase housing choices and

[19:12] affordability, significantly

[19:14] reduce greenhouse gas emissions

[19:16] and sustain a strong economy.

[19:18] And then Robin and I will go

[19:19] into a little bit more detail

[19:21] on the transportation and

[19:22] climate side.

[19:24] >> So last year,

[19:26] we did make a few changes

[19:28] to the recommendations

[19:30] to prioritize a number

[19:31] of different things. Those

[19:33] changes included prioritizing

[19:34] safety and then highlighting

[19:37] certain things that we really

[19:39] wanted to see in transportation

[19:40] investments that included

[19:41] stable revenue, making sure.

[19:43] We're able

[19:44] to complete projects of

[19:45] regional significance and then

[19:46] adequately funding maintenance

[19:48] and preservation, which

[19:49] of course, is showing up in our

[19:50] regional transportation plan

[19:52] discussions as well. And then

[19:53] we also have the road usage

[19:55] included on recommendations,

[19:57] as well as ferry funding.

[20:02] >> And then

[20:03] on the climate side,

[20:04] we're looking at reducing

[20:05] emissions and preparing

[20:06] for climate impacts. And now we

[20:08] will turn it over to you to see

[20:10] if anyone has any suggestions

[20:11] or recommendations they'd like

[20:12] to make.

[20:15] >> Any comments or suggestions

[20:19] for staff. Go ahead,

[20:26] Christine.

[20:28] >> Good morning. This is

[20:29] Christine Cooley from the

[20:30] Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. I

[20:31] had a minor ask that we add the

[20:34] Comprehensive Climate Action

[20:35] Plan along the Vision 2050

[20:37] messaging because I am so

[20:38] grateful for the coordination

[20:39] between Puget Sound Regional

[20:41] Council and the agency when it

[20:42] comes to our climate goals.

[20:44] And I think it's important

[20:45] to show that to legislators

[20:48] that were coordinated and we

[20:49] agree

[20:50] on the plans put forward.

[20:53] >> We can certainly make that

[20:54] change to make sure we're

[20:56] indicating our great

[20:58] collaboration.

[21:01] >> Councilmember Schneider, go

[21:02] ahead.

[21:03] >> Thank you. I'm wondering if,

[21:05] as part of this presentation

[21:08] to the legislature, are we

[21:10] including is probably related

[21:12] to the climate, the climate

[21:15] change plan. I've been really

[21:17] interested

[21:19] to hear the PSRC analysis

[21:22] of the levers that we have.

[21:25] And is that part

[21:27] of what we're presenting? Does

[21:29] the legislature know what's

[21:31] really needed in order

[21:33] to move the needle?

[21:36] >> So we have been doing

[21:37] extensive outreach. Alyssa and

[21:40] I have both been contacting our

[21:41] state legislators as part of

[21:43] our regional transportation

[21:44] plan outreach,

[21:46] outreach process. And we have

[21:47] had several state legislators

[21:48] attend. I believe the King

[21:50] county meeting we had two,

[21:51] two legislators attend.

[21:52] But we're making sure

[21:54] to email them so that they're,

[21:55] you know, they're aware

[21:56] of what we're doing as kind

[21:57] of a step one. And certainly

[21:59] when we're sitting

[22:00] down and meeting

[22:01] with legislators,

[22:02] we're talking about the

[22:03] regional transportation plan.

[22:04] We have a plan to meet

[22:05] with all of the legislators

[22:07] in our region to make sure they

[22:09] know what we're doing and what

[22:10] the plan is, you know,

[22:11] for newer legislators who may

[22:13] not be familiar

[22:14] with what we do here at PSRC.

[22:16] So I don't think we're going

[22:17] to actually put it

[22:18] into the legislative agenda,

[22:20] but we're. That's exactly what

[22:22] we're talking to people

[22:23] about when we're meeting

[22:24] with them.

[22:27] >> Other comments? Deputy

[22:30] Mayor Arnold, go ahead.

[22:32] >> Thank you. And I think we're

[22:33] on the right track

[22:34] on the policy piece. Just

[22:36] looking at how we present this

[22:37] in the future, shorter and more

[22:38] concise is better. And if

[22:40] they're, especially

[22:41] in a short session. If there's

[22:43] a way that we can get this

[22:44] down to a single page instead

[22:45] of a single page, front and

[22:47] back, that'd be our only

[22:49] feedback.

[22:51] >> We'll receive that feedback

[22:53] at the executive board. It's a

[22:54] little difficult to pare it

[22:55] down when we have all these

[22:57] long plans. If you spell them

[22:59] out, it take up a long time.

[23:00] We are thinking

[23:01] about doing some kind of like a

[23:02] cover page document maybe that

[23:03] has sort

[23:04] of the very high points

[23:06] of what we're talking about.

[23:07] And we'll do our best to edit

[23:10] as much as we can because we do

[23:11] understand that, you know,

[23:13] legislative attention span is

[23:15] limited. So thank you

[23:16] for that.

[23:21] >> Anything from online?

[23:24] Senator, Go ahead.

[23:26] >> Thank you. Now, you

[23:27] mentioned the preparing for

[23:28] climate impacts and being new

[23:30] to the board, is there a

[23:33] document that you've got online

[23:34] there that you see what, what

[23:36] you're actually addressing?

[23:37] And quite honestly, having sat

[23:41] on the Senate budget Cabinet

[23:44] and looking at the numbers, I

[23:47] mean, I think we need

[23:48] to be really realistic as

[23:50] to what we can do. As far as,

[23:52] you know, when you talk about

[23:53] maintenance and preservation,

[23:54] we, you know, as you are well

[23:56] aware, we're over a billion

[23:57] behind in annual, you know,

[23:59] repairs. So, you know, it's

[24:03] important that we really take a

[24:05] good hard look at what's the

[24:06] practical application moving

[24:08] forward, how do we balance,

[24:10] you know, what we want to see

[24:12] with what we have to do. So is

[24:15] that document online?

[24:20] >> I believe the legislative

[24:21] recommendations

[24:23] from last year are

[24:25] in your packet. So you can look

[24:26] at the climate, which is

[24:28] of course very limited.

[24:29] But we can certainly follow up

[24:31] with you, Senator, to give you

[24:32] some more information

[24:34] on what we're doing here

[24:35] around climate at PSRC. But our

[24:37] climate asks are fairly limited

[24:38] on the legislative side.

[24:41] >> Thank you.

[24:45] >> Any other comments or

[24:46] questions? All right,

[24:50] hearing none. We're going

[24:51] to move on

[24:52] to our next discussion item.

[24:54] This is Kelly with the Ad Hoc

[24:56] Committee on Board

[24:57] Representation.

[25:02] >> Good morning. Let me go

[25:04] to my cover slide here. Okay,

[25:13] good morning. Thank you and

[25:14] thanks, Robin and Alyssa. So I

[25:17] believe you all received an

[25:18] email from Sheila Rogers

[25:21] on behalf of Josh related

[25:23] to this ad hoc committee

[25:25] on board representation

[25:26] with some, with some background

[25:27] and some options. And so today

[25:29] we just want to give you

[25:30] another very brief kind

[25:32] of introduction

[25:33] to it and take, we're going

[25:34] to take a quick poll just

[25:35] to kind of take a temperature

[25:37] of the room on this.

[25:38] But as a quick background, our

[25:40] interlocal agreement does call

[25:41] for membership to be

[25:44] reconsidered every three years

[25:45] specifically for the

[25:47] Executive Board and the, the

[25:49] Executive Committee Said, let's

[25:51] go ahead. It's been some time

[25:53] since we looked at our,

[25:55] our membership parameters

[25:56] for our policy board. So we're

[25:57] also taking a look this time

[25:58] for that. And, and an ad hoc

[25:59] committee on board

[26:01] representation has been pulled

[26:02] together. We tried

[26:03] to bring members from all

[26:04] around the region, but also

[26:06] representing our four boards

[26:07] and several transportation

[26:09] policy board members, including

[26:10] our chair and vice chair are,

[26:14] as well as many others I can

[26:15] see on the list here,

[26:16] are represented

[26:18] on that ad hoc committee. So

[26:19] I'm sure that they are going to

[26:20] appreciate whatever comments

[26:21] and polling you have today. So

[26:25] in the both in the packet and

[26:28] in the email that was sent out,

[26:29] I believe some alternatives

[26:31] were looked at. And in

[26:32] particular the executive board

[26:33] has a provision that cities

[26:36] with a population than greater

[26:38] than greater than 80,000

[26:39] receive a seat. And so the

[26:41] alternative, looking

[26:42] at the policy board membership,

[26:43] is also considering an

[26:45] alternative that would provide

[26:46] a voting seat on each

[26:48] of the policy boards

[26:49] in the same manner cities

[26:50] with greater than 80,000

[26:52] residents. Given that we do try

[26:54] to have a board that's not

[26:56] overwhelmingly large, but also

[26:58] to achieve geographic balance,

[27:00] the proposed alternative that

[27:02] was put forth would modify the

[27:04] number

[27:06] of other cities and towns

[27:07] for three

[27:08] of the four counties.

[27:09] Since many of the, I think all

[27:12] of the cities over 80,000 that

[27:13] are being added are in King

[27:14] County. It would reduce the

[27:16] number

[27:17] of other cities and towns in

[27:18] King county, but it would

[27:19] increase other cities and towns

[27:20] in Pierce and Snohomish

[27:22] counties by one again to

[27:23] maintain that geographic

[27:24] balance. And this you can see,

[27:28] while you probably can't see

[27:29] that because it's very, very

[27:30] small,

[27:31] but the yellow highlight is

[27:32] kind of showing those cities

[27:33] that are now above 80,000

[27:34] population and how it would be

[27:36] modified again. So King county,

[27:40] other cities and towns, 1, 2,

[27:41] 3, 4, 5, I believe are being

[27:44] added six, excuse me. And then

[27:46] reducing the other cities and

[27:48] towns down

[27:49] to one and then again

[27:50] for geographic balance,

[27:52] increasing the other cities and

[27:53] towns in Pearson Snohomish. So

[27:55] the overall number

[27:56] of voting members

[27:57] on the TPP would increase

[27:59] under this alternative. And

[28:03] again, in the spirit of keeping

[28:05] the board a manageable size and

[28:07] also quite frankly reflecting,

[28:10] you know, overall attendance

[28:11] patterns,

[28:12] there was also a part

[28:15] of the proposal was

[28:16] to modify the non voting seats.

[28:18] And you can see that currently

[28:20] we have 16, we have a fair

[28:21] number of seats for our

[28:24] associate members and public

[28:26] agencies and PSR PSRC

[28:27] committees, as well as six

[28:29] for business, labor, community

[28:33] and environment seats. And the

[28:34] alternative under consideration

[28:36] would reduce the overall number

[28:38] to 10. So we would have three

[28:40] standing seats

[28:43] for our partners at The Clean

[28:44] Air Agency, our equity advisory

[28:45] committee and Public Health.

[28:47] And then we, we would have two,

[28:50] seven total at large. Two

[28:51] representing our public

[28:53] agencies and associate members

[28:54] who would submit for those

[28:55] seats and then reducing our

[28:57] community seats by one down

[28:58] to two, five. So again this

[29:01] was. This is just some

[29:02] alternatives that are being put

[29:04] forth for consider. We are

[29:05] looking to hear from you. So

[29:09] I'm happy to take feedback. I

[29:12] know the next step is the ad

[29:14] hoc group is going to meet

[29:15] again and where they're going

[29:16] to be making a recommendation

[29:18] to the executive board

[29:20] for final action.

[29:21] But definitely would like

[29:23] to hear some feedback. But

[29:24] maybe we could go ahead. I know

[29:26] this is a bit quick,

[29:27] but hopefully you had time to

[29:29] evaluate the email that was

[29:30] sent out. But Alexa has created

[29:32] a quick poll. Just taking a

[29:33] temperature for the next ad hoc

[29:35] committee meeting

[29:36] to see if you want to keep the

[29:38] status quo or discuss an

[29:40] option, whether it's this

[29:41] option or some other. So

[29:42] Alexa, if you could go ahead

[29:44] and start that poll. I think

[29:48] this is an. It is in a Zoom

[29:51] poll. So what we can do is

[29:55] for the, for the four members

[29:57] in the room,

[29:58] maybe we could just do kind

[29:59] of a verbal.

[30:04] >> So those online are asked

[30:06] to complete the Zoom poll and

[30:09] then we're going

[30:10] to do the others. Unless you've

[30:12] got Zoom open or not.

[30:15] Probably not.

[30:16] >> So you can either just let

[30:18] us know in the room or you can

[30:19] also email me separately.

[30:21] >> But the questions there.

[30:24] >> So yeah, basically. Yeah,

[30:25] it's. Basically the first

[30:26] question is regarding the

[30:27] voting seats. Do you prefer to

[30:28] keep the seats as they are or

[30:29] are you interested

[30:31] in discussing an alternative?

[30:33] And then the same question

[30:34] for the non voting seats.

[30:38] >> All right,

[30:40] I'll let folks online vote.

[30:41] Deputy Mayor Arnold?

[30:42] >> Yeah. Interested

[30:43] in discussing both topics.

[30:44] >> Christine. Puget Sound

[30:48] Clean Air Agency is a

[30:49] non-voting member.

[30:51] So we're here for however we

[30:52] can be helpful.

[30:55] >> Councilmember Schneider, how

[30:56] do you feel

[30:57] about this?

[30:59] >> I don't feel like I really

[31:00] have enough background. It

[31:02] seems like it's not going

[31:04] to affect Kitsap County. Is

[31:05] that true? Okay, thank you. It

[31:08] does not. Sorry, I didn't turn

[31:10] my microphone on. So

[31:13] at least you're open

[31:14] to discussion. Anyway, it

[31:17] appears.

[31:20] >> And Alexa, should I end?

[31:24] >> Yeah, let's go ahead and do

[31:25] that.

[31:30] >> So it looks like 63% on the

[31:34] first question are interested

[31:36] in discussing and 56% also

[31:39] interested in discussing the

[31:40] second question. Looks like

[31:44] further discussion is needed.

[31:48] >> Perfect. So we will take

[31:49] this short poll and again,

[31:51] if there are any initial

[31:53] feedback, please feel free to

[31:56] Share that or send us an email.

[31:57] But we will take all

[31:58] of this feedback

[31:59] to the next meeting of the ad

[32:00] hoc committee and we'll go from

[32:02] there. I beg your pardon? I do.

[32:06] I almost forgot. We did get an

[32:07] email and I promised

[32:09] to share that. Council member

[32:11] King County Councilmember

[32:13] Barone was not able to attend

[32:14] today and he did send us an

[32:15] email. And the overall message

[32:19] that he. He was saying is that

[32:21] he thinks it's important that

[32:25] no entity loses representation.

[32:28] It's critical that we find a

[32:29] solution that ensures fair

[32:30] representation and balance

[32:32] for all the bodies represented

[32:33] at the PSRC without diluting

[32:35] anyone's voice. He does not

[32:36] support moving forward

[32:38] with the options currently

[32:39] under consideration and

[32:40] suggests that we just simply

[32:42] need more time to consider the

[32:44] proposals and give members the

[32:45] opportunity to better

[32:47] understand perspective. So

[32:49] essentially advocating

[32:51] for some additional time. So we

[32:52] will also share that

[32:53] with the ad hoc committee.

[32:55] >> Deputy Mayor Arnold, are you

[32:56] looking

[32:57] for feedback right now? If we

[32:58] have it?

[32:59] If you have it, happy

[33:00] to take it now.

[33:01] We're also happy if you want

[33:02] to send it.

[33:03] Responding to the email,

[33:04] that was okay.

[33:06] >> Well, very briefly,

[33:07] just thinking

[33:08] about other towns in King

[33:09] county within sound cities,

[33:11] just that there are a variety

[33:13] of different needs and

[33:14] perspectives in the discussions

[33:15] that we have had. And when you

[33:17] look at the breakdown

[33:20] of cities above 80,000 and

[33:22] below that we're talking about,

[33:24] this proposal would have only

[33:25] one seat

[33:26] for the cities below. And

[33:28] for many

[33:31] of the things that we do here

[33:33] in looking at plan eligibility

[33:36] criteria and things

[33:37] like that,

[33:38] there's a vast amount

[33:39] of differences

[33:40] in needs and resources

[33:41] available

[33:42] for the smaller cities. And so

[33:44] it's going to be important

[33:45] for them to have a voice. And

[33:47] we've got concerns

[33:48] of only one vote

[33:50] for all the cities

[33:56] in the other towns of King

[33:57] counties at that size.

[33:59] >> Thank you. Appreciate that

[34:00] feedback.

[34:03] >> Other comments and Kelly,

[34:05] of course,

[34:06] welcomes and we all do the.

[34:07] And email back also

[34:10] with your feedback

[34:12] to the email that was sent out.

[34:16] Okay. We ready

[34:17] to move on?

[34:18] >> Yes.

[34:19] >> To our next discussion item,

[34:20] which is the Regional

[34:21] Comprehensive Climate Action

[34:23] Plan. And Sarah Hetrick is

[34:26] going to present that.

[34:31] >> Good morning all. Thank you

[34:32] for having me. I'll just share

[34:34] my screen. So this morning I'm

[34:42] really looking forward

[34:44] to sharing an update

[34:45] with you all on the Puget

[34:46] Sound region's draft

[34:48] Comprehensive Climate Action

[34:49] Plan. So briefly, here are the

[34:53] topics that I'm going

[34:54] to cover today. First, I'm

[34:56] going to provide you

[34:57] with an overview of the

[34:58] Climate Pollution Reduction

[35:00] Grant Port program as well as

[35:01] the agency's role. I'm going to

[35:02] discuss the partners that we've

[35:03] worked with to develop the

[35:04] draft climate plan and share

[35:07] opportunities for public input

[35:08] using our online engagement

[35:10] hub. I'm then going to discuss

[35:11] the plan's emission reduction

[35:13] analysis,

[35:14] including a high level overview

[35:17] of the climate strategies that

[35:18] are in the plan,

[35:19] and really how to understand

[35:21] each strategy's emission

[35:22] reduction potential. And then

[35:24] finally, we're going to end

[35:25] with an opportunity

[35:26] for you all to ask questions.

[35:30] So by way of some background,

[35:32] in 2023, the agency received a

[35:33] grant from the federal

[35:35] Climate Pollution Reduction

[35:36] Grant Program

[35:38] to lead climate action planning

[35:39] for the Seattle, Tacoma,

[35:40] Bellevue Metropolitan

[35:41] Statistical Area, which covers

[35:43] King, Pierce and Snohomish

[35:45] counties.

[35:47] But it was incredibly important

[35:48] to the agency that the climate

[35:49] plan was really truly regional

[35:51] in nature. And so we worked

[35:53] with EPA

[35:54] to actually expand the coverage

[35:55] of the plan

[35:56] to include all four counties

[35:57] in the Puget Sound region. So

[35:59] that includes Kitsap County.

[36:02] So this climate plan must be

[36:03] completed and submitted to EPA

[36:04] by December of this year. So

[36:10] here we can see the primary

[36:11] goals of the climate plan. So

[36:12] first, we want to create that

[36:14] long term regional climate plan

[36:16] to achieve our region's climate

[36:17] goals and help our region do

[36:20] its part to meet the state's

[36:21] climate goals. We want

[36:23] to ensure that we're aligning

[36:24] with and complementing state

[36:25] and local climate planning

[36:27] efforts. And importantly,

[36:29] we want to build and maintain

[36:31] the regional collaborations

[36:32] that are necessary for that

[36:33] collective climate action. So

[36:35] in doing so,

[36:37] our goal is really to make our

[36:38] region more competitive

[36:39] for grant applications to

[36:40] really increase that available

[36:42] climate funding

[36:43] to our region. And then, as

[36:45] always, we want to make sure

[36:46] that we're aligning priorities

[36:48] that foster equity

[36:49] across our region. So the

[36:52] purpose

[36:53] of this climate plan is to

[36:54] identify high impact regional

[36:55] strategies and actions

[36:56] to reduce climate emissions

[36:58] through those coordinated

[36:59] efforts with a focus

[37:01] on maximizing the benefits

[37:02] for overburdened communities.

[37:04] And the climate strategies that

[37:05] we've presented

[37:07] in this plan are

[37:08] in the draft plan, are built

[37:09] on years of emission analysis

[37:10] and public engagement here

[37:12] in the Puget Sound region. And

[37:15] they will also all the

[37:16] strategies be implemented

[37:17] at either the local,

[37:18] regional or state level. So a

[37:22] little

[37:23] about the agency's role. We are

[37:25] serving as the lead

[37:26] organization for the region's

[37:27] climate pollution reduction

[37:28] grant program. We are

[37:29] responsible for working with

[37:30] government partners and the

[37:32] communities we serve

[37:33] to develop this climate plan.

[37:35] So over the past two years,

[37:37] we work closely with the

[37:38] Washington Climate

[37:39] Partnership, which consists

[37:41] of state Departments of

[37:42] Ecology and Commerce,

[37:43] to really stay aligned

[37:44] with their efforts to develop

[37:46] the state's own comprehensive

[37:47] climate action plan

[37:48] under the CPRG program. We are

[37:49] Also coordinating

[37:52] with tribal grantees through

[37:53] the state's climate pollution

[37:54] reduction grant tribal work

[37:56] group. And

[37:58] of course we continue

[37:59] to coordinate closely with

[38:00] regional jurisdictions and

[38:01] partners like PSRC

[38:02] to stay aligned with local

[38:04] climate planning efforts,

[38:05] which are I think really

[38:07] in many ways the backbone

[38:08] of this regional climate plan.

[38:12] So here we have a list

[38:14] of just some of the many

[38:15] partners that we have worked

[38:16] with in developing the draft

[38:17] climate plan. So this includes

[38:18] cities and counties,

[38:19] subject matter experts

[38:21] across the region, utilities,

[38:23] transit providers, community

[38:25] organizations, ports,

[38:26] and as I previously mentioned,

[38:28] the Washington Climate

[38:29] Partnership. And then

[38:31] of course EPA region 10 state

[38:32] and tribal grantees. So let's

[38:37] briefly discuss what's included

[38:38] in the draft climate plan

[38:40] itself. So first we have some

[38:42] climate specific analyses. So

[38:43] this includes the greenhouse

[38:45] gas inventory for the four

[38:46] county region as well as

[38:48] emission projections and

[38:49] climate reduction targets

[38:50] for both the near term 2030 and

[38:52] longer term 2050 time frames.

[38:53] Importantly, it also includes a

[38:57] comprehensive list

[38:59] of strategies and actions to

[39:00] achieve these greenhouse gas

[39:02] reduction targets

[39:03] across all sectors

[39:04] of the region's economy. And

[39:07] later in this presentation

[39:08] we're actually going

[39:09] to discuss some of the specific

[39:10] emission reduction strategies.

[39:15] The draft climate plan also

[39:16] includes several other

[39:17] important analyses which are

[39:19] going to help make the plan

[39:20] strategies as actionable as

[39:21] possible for decision makers

[39:23] in our region. So in addition

[39:25] to estimating the emission

[39:27] reduction potential

[39:29] for each strategy, the plan

[39:30] also includes information

[39:31] on things like costs,

[39:33] potential funding sources and

[39:34] co benefits, again

[39:36] with a focus on overburdened

[39:37] communities as well as an

[39:38] understanding of workforce

[39:41] development implications

[39:42] for implementation

[39:44] of the strategies.

[39:45] Importantly, it also identifies

[39:47] some of the strategies that are

[39:48] well posed

[39:50] for regional implementation.

[39:51] And so the goal of this

[39:53] additional information is

[39:54] really

[39:56] to provide jurisdictions

[39:57] in our region

[39:58] with the information they need

[39:59] to make these effective climate

[40:00] planning decisions and

[40:01] investments. And so it's our

[40:03] ultimate goal that local and

[40:05] regional governments are going

[40:06] to refer

[40:07] to this climate plan regularly

[40:08] over the coming years as they

[40:10] prioritize, select and

[40:12] implement climate strategies

[40:14] and actions in our own

[40:15] jurisdictions. I'll also

[40:20] mention here that we are

[40:21] at the very beginning of a

[40:23] three week public input period

[40:24] for the draft climate plan.

[40:26] This public input period

[40:27] actually began just a few days

[40:29] ago on October 6th and ends

[40:30] on October 26th. So

[40:31] to solicit public feedback, we

[40:35] developed an online engagement

[40:36] hub through the Conveyo

[40:38] platform, which some of you

[40:39] may be familiar with,

[40:41] but effect this. This platform

[40:43] allows folks to review the

[40:44] draft plan and comment

[40:45] on specific sections

[40:46] of the document. We just hosted

[40:48] a workshop this past Tuesday

[40:50] to kick off the public in input

[40:52] period and if you weren't able

[40:53] to join US. A recording

[40:54] of this workshop can be found

[40:56] on the online engagement hub.

[40:57] I'll also mention that the

[41:01] agency and regional partners

[41:02] held four workshops earlier

[41:03] this year in March and April

[41:05] to invite a first round

[41:08] of feedback on the draft

[41:09] climate strategies and actions.

[41:11] And then this draft plan also

[41:12] recently underwent technical

[41:14] review in July by our CPR

[41:17] Director Steering committee

[41:19] members, as well as technical

[41:20] work groups and state partners.

[41:22] And so all of this feedback has

[41:23] been incorporated into the

[41:24] draft plan that's available

[41:25] online right now. And so the

[41:28] link to that online engagement

[41:30] hub is here on this slide.

[41:32] Pscaa.conveyo.com we would love

[41:36] your help in promoting the

[41:38] public input period. We have a

[41:40] communications toolkit

[41:41] with example, social media

[41:43] posts, graphics, email

[41:44] language, things

[41:45] like that that we would be

[41:46] happy to share with this group

[41:48] so that you can help us get the

[41:50] word out to your networks and

[41:52] constituents. So what exactly

[41:57] what are we looking for

[41:59] from the public input period?

[42:00] Some types

[42:02] of input can be seen

[42:03] on this slide. So we're looking

[42:05] for things or areas that need

[42:07] clarification as well as ideas

[42:09] or considerations

[42:11] for strategy implementation.

[42:13] But I think importantly, this

[42:15] climate plan is really intended

[42:16] to serve as a guiding roadmap

[42:18] for local and regional

[42:19] governments

[42:21] to address climate change. And

[42:22] so with that in mind,

[42:23] we would really like to hear

[42:24] what information folks think is

[42:25] important to share with

[42:26] decision makers as they are

[42:28] prioritizing climate planning

[42:29] efforts and investments

[42:31] in their own jurisdictions. So

[42:37] before we discuss the draft

[42:38] plans emission reduction

[42:40] strategies, I just want to

[42:41] finish up this background

[42:43] section

[42:44] by sharing a high level

[42:46] timeline for development

[42:47] of this climate plan. So as I

[42:48] previously mentioned,

[42:49] technical review

[42:50] of the plan took place in

[42:52] July. Staff incorporated this

[42:53] feedback, the technical

[42:54] feedback that we heard in

[42:55] August, and we are now, as I

[42:57] mentioned, accepting additional

[42:58] public input on the draft plan

[43:00] through October 26th. We will

[43:03] incorporate any final edits

[43:05] into the climate plan this

[43:06] coming November, and then we

[43:08] will plan to submit the plan

[43:09] by the December 1st deadline.

[43:16] Okay, so now let's switch gears

[43:18] a little bit to get to sort

[43:19] of the meat of the plan,

[43:20] which is that list of emission

[43:22] reduction strategies that are

[43:23] going to help us

[43:24] to meet our climate targets.

[43:26] But before,

[43:27] before we do that,

[43:28] I think it's important

[43:29] to talk a little bit about what

[43:30] the plan's analysis does and

[43:31] does not do. So

[43:33] for each strategy

[43:34] in the plan, we calculate the

[43:35] emission reduction potential,

[43:36] or gap, which effectively is

[43:40] the difference between the

[43:41] current greenhouse gas

[43:42] emissions and the 2030

[43:44] reduction target. So in order

[43:46] to do this, staff estimated the

[43:47] maximum potential climate

[43:49] impact of each strategy. And

[43:51] really we assume the largest

[43:53] realistic scale

[43:55] of action possible. So we did

[43:56] this for each sector

[43:58] until the gap to 2030 or 2050

[43:59] is approximately closed. I want

[44:05] to, I think it's important to

[44:07] note that the emission

[44:08] reduction estimates are not,

[44:09] they're not planned,

[44:11] they're not predictions, and

[44:12] they importantly do not specify

[44:13] policy mechanisms or

[44:14] responsible parties. For each

[44:15] strategy implementation,

[44:21] we do provide a list

[44:22] of actions which are sort

[44:23] of examples of policies or

[44:24] programs that could reduce

[44:26] greenhouse gas emissions and

[44:27] furtherance of the strategy or

[44:28] enhance carbon sinks. And we

[44:30] also provide other information.

[44:33] As I mentioned,

[44:35] this could include things

[44:36] like estimated cost per ton

[44:38] of emissions reduced,

[44:39] as well as information

[44:41] on CO benefits. So with all

[44:43] of this in mind, I just wanted

[44:44] to be clear that the main goal

[44:46] of this analysis is to help

[44:48] decision makers see which

[44:49] strategies can help contribute

[44:50] most to meeting our region's

[44:51] climate goals. This plan is not

[44:53] an implementation plan, and

[44:55] implementation considerations

[44:58] are going to need

[44:59] to be identified as part

[45:01] of future planning phases

[45:02] for climate action

[45:04] in our region. So

[45:09] for those who are visual

[45:10] like me,

[45:11] this chart which is included

[45:12] in the plan presents, I think,

[45:14] a nice summary of the analysis

[45:15] that we conducted. So the top

[45:18] pink shading that you can see

[45:19] in this bar chart represents

[45:21] the existing policies

[45:23] to reduce emissions. And then

[45:24] if you go to the bottom

[45:26] of this chart, that gray shaded

[45:27] area represents the remaining

[45:28] emissions that are allowed

[45:30] under that 2030 target. So the

[45:33] middle shading here,

[45:35] that multicolored shading,

[45:37] really represents that gap

[45:38] to the 2030 target. And as you

[45:41] can see, it is broken up by

[45:42] each major sector's relative

[45:43] contribution

[45:45] to reducing emissions

[45:46] to reaching that goal. So the

[45:51] estimated maximum potential of

[45:52] each strategy that I previously

[45:54] mentioned is effectively

[45:55] staff's assume largest

[45:57] realistic scale of action. And

[45:59] those are listed in the call

[46:00] out box that we see here

[46:01] to the right. So you can see

[46:04] specific assumptions

[46:05] for the built environment

[46:06] in yellow, for industry here

[46:09] in brown, for transportation

[46:12] in blue, for refrigerants

[46:16] in that purple color,

[46:17] for waste, the waste sector

[46:19] in gray, and then land use

[46:22] in teal. So here we have that

[46:28] same bar chart for 2050. And

[46:30] like before, all

[46:31] of the assumptions

[46:32] in the analysis are

[46:34] in that call out box

[46:35] to the right. And collectively,

[46:37] again, all of these help

[46:38] to close that gap to the 2050

[46:40] target. So for example, for

[46:43] 2030, in the last slide,

[46:45] we assumed that 900,000 homes

[46:46] were going to be weatherized.

[46:49] But for 2050, we now assume

[46:50] that 2.4 million homes would

[46:52] need to be weatherized to meet

[46:54] that goal. I'll also just

[46:57] mention here that right now the

[46:59] draft plan does include a more

[47:00] detailed analysis of for the

[47:02] for meeting that 2030 target.

[47:04] However, we do anticipate

[47:05] including a similar analysis

[47:08] for 2050

[47:10] in that final climate plan.

[47:14] Okay, so all of that is some

[47:16] additional context.

[47:17] But now I do want to dive into

[47:18] the emission reduction

[47:20] strategies themselves. I'm

[47:22] going

[47:23] to provide some example actions

[47:24] for implementation and again

[47:25] discuss the assumptions that

[47:27] were used in the analysis for

[47:28] 2030. I'll just mention I'm

[47:31] only going to cover a few

[47:32] of the strategies

[47:33] for each sector,

[47:34] but the full list

[47:36] of strategies can be found in

[47:37] the draft climate plan that we

[47:39] have online. So here we can see

[47:43] a total of three of the eight

[47:45] of the climate strategies that

[47:47] are available

[47:48] for the built environment. So

[47:50] 1.1 is to build low carbon new

[47:52] buildings. So some example

[47:54] actions include strengthening

[47:56] building codes or providing

[47:58] education and outreach

[47:59] for developers and builders.

[48:01] And then again, this assumption

[48:03] is that the vast majority of

[48:05] new housing units that are

[48:07] built in the region have fully

[48:08] non greenhouse gas emitting

[48:11] space and water heating

[48:14] systems. Our next strategy

[48:16] example is

[48:17] to reduce energy use

[48:19] in existing buildings. So this

[48:20] is through things

[48:21] like weatherization programs,

[48:22] upgrading appliances,

[48:23] appliances upgrading lighting,

[48:24] supporting utility demand

[48:26] response programs, things

[48:27] like that. And the assumptions

[48:28] are here in the last column

[48:30] which assumes that 900,000

[48:33] homes are weatherized, 1

[48:35] million appliance, 10 million

[48:36] appliances are upgraded.

[48:37] Excuse me. And 5 million light

[48:39] bulbs are changed out. Last we

[48:42] have 1.3 as an example,

[48:43] electrify or decarbonize

[48:45] existing buildings. So this is

[48:47] things

[48:48] like electrifying a appliances,

[48:49] developing renewable

[48:52] electricity and battery storage

[48:53] systems, or developing building

[48:54] emission performance standards

[48:56] or building decarbonization

[48:58] plans. And so this assumption

[49:00] is that 800,000 residential

[49:02] dwelling units and 100,000

[49:03] residential water heaters are

[49:05] converted to electric along

[49:07] with the entire commercial

[49:09] water heater heating sector.

[49:14] So now let's move on

[49:15] to transportation. And again

[49:16] here we have three

[49:17] of the total

[49:18] of eight strategies

[49:20] to give you an example

[49:21] for the transportation sector.

[49:23] So 2.1 is to reduce the vehicle

[49:25] miles traveled for

[49:26] on road passenger gas vehicles.

[49:31] And so example ways to do this

[49:32] would be implementing

[49:34] continuing to implement transit

[49:35] oriented compact growth and

[49:37] development,

[49:38] developing a congestion pricing

[49:40] program, things like that. And

[49:42] the assumptions here are that

[49:43] VMT each year was reduced by

[49:44] 1.1 billion miles,

[49:46] which does account

[49:47] for approximately 4%

[49:48] of the annual total. Another

[49:50] example strategy here is

[49:51] to increase sales of on road

[49:53] passenger electric vehicles and

[49:55] promote low carbon alternative

[49:57] vehicles. So things like

[49:59] supporting charging

[50:01] infrastructure electrifying

[50:03] fleets and then supporting EV

[50:05] car sharing programs. And so

[50:08] for this assumption we assume

[50:10] that the ED adoption rate

[50:12] occurred one year quicker One

[50:13] year ahead

[50:15] of the current projected ramp,

[50:18] above and beyond the state's

[50:19] current ZEV mandate. So that's

[50:21] approximately 137,000

[50:22] additional electric vehicles

[50:24] on the road, or approximately

[50:26] 780,000 in total. Lastly, we

[50:29] have the strategy to electrify

[50:31] or reduce the carbon intensity

[50:33] of on road medium and heavy

[50:34] duty vehicles. And so here

[50:38] example actions are

[50:40] to support the electrification

[50:41] of public and private fleets,

[50:43] supporting the state's advanced

[50:45] clean trucks and advanced clean

[50:47] fleet rules, and supporting

[50:49] charging infrastructure. And

[50:51] here we assume that 15,000

[50:52] heavy duty electric vehicles

[50:54] are on the road and 15 million

[50:55] gallons

[50:57] of lower carbon fuels are used.

[51:00] So here we have the solid waste

[51:02] and wastewater sector. So we

[51:04] have three of the four total

[51:06] reduction strategies shown

[51:08] here. First is to divert

[51:11] construction and demolition

[51:12] materials from landfills. And

[51:13] this assumes 30,000 additional

[51:16] tons of both steel and wood are

[51:17] diverted. Another strategy is

[51:20] to divert other types of

[51:21] recyclable and compostable

[51:22] materials from landfills. So

[51:25] this assumes that 156,000

[51:27] additional tons

[51:28] of general waste and 90,000

[51:29] tons of organic waste are being

[51:31] diverted by 2030. Again, this

[51:32] is an analysis for 2030. And

[51:34] then another strategy,

[51:37] for example is

[51:38] to increase methane capture at

[51:40] landfills. I'll also just

[51:43] mention here that we did

[51:45] identify two additional

[51:46] strategies

[51:47] for the consumption sector.

[51:48] And these effectively relate to

[51:51] reducing the food waste and

[51:52] promoting low emission dietary

[51:54] choices as well as promoting

[51:56] circular economies

[51:57] for general goods. And while

[52:00] these are very important,

[52:01] they're very complex to

[52:03] calculate when you're thinking

[52:06] about consumption based

[52:07] emissions. And so we don't

[52:09] actually quantify these

[52:10] in our climate plan,

[52:12] but they are there. Next, let's

[52:15] move on

[52:17] to the land use sector. And

[52:19] here are the two main

[52:20] strategies that we have

[52:21] included

[52:22] in the clinical climate plans.

[52:23] First, we have stewarding

[52:24] natural lands

[52:25] to reduce tree loss. And

[52:26] Effectively this assumes 50

[52:27] million new trees are planted.

[52:29] And then strategy 4.2,

[52:31] stewarding natural lands to

[52:33] increase that carbon

[52:35] sequestration and reduce

[52:36] emissions. What this assumption

[52:37] is that 50,000 hectares of land

[52:39] are protected or otherwise

[52:41] enhanced

[52:43] to stop that carbon loss. And

[52:49] then we get

[52:50] to our final sector here,

[52:52] which is refrigerants. And here

[52:54] are both of the strategies that

[52:55] we have identified

[52:56] for this sector. The first is

[52:57] to reduce the use of those high

[53:00] global warming potential

[53:01] devices as well as increasing

[53:03] the recovery of the high global

[53:04] warming potential refrigerants

[53:06] they use. And this assumes that

[53:08] 100,000 devices have been

[53:11] replaced with zero or low

[53:15] global warming potential

[53:16] devices and that 100,000 old

[53:18] devices with high global

[53:21] warming potential refrigerants

[53:23] have had those refrigerants

[53:25] recovered. And then last, we

[53:27] have reducing refrigerant leaks

[53:29] from the commercial and

[53:31] industrial systems. And that

[53:33] assumes an additional 10,000

[53:35] systems are inspected and leaks

[53:37] are repaired. So again, that

[53:42] presents a very high level

[53:44] overview of the emission

[53:45] reduction strategies that are

[53:46] contained in our current draft

[53:48] climate plan. I'm going

[53:50] to be happy to take questions

[53:51] in just a second, but

[53:52] before I do, I just wanted to

[53:53] briefly mention the other

[53:54] discussions and analyses that

[53:56] are in this draft plan that

[53:59] contain important information,

[54:00] again, you know, for decision

[54:02] makers and jurisdictions

[54:03] to think about when they're

[54:04] undertaking climate planning

[54:06] moving forward. So these

[54:08] analyses include, or

[54:10] discussions include

[54:13] implementation considerations,

[54:14] again, which is a future phase

[54:16] in this effort, as well as

[54:17] important utility

[54:19] considerations. They are a huge

[54:20] partner, obviously,

[54:22] in climate planning. We have a

[54:24] benefit analysis with a focus

[54:26] on our region's overburdened

[54:28] communities that talks

[54:29] about co benefits,

[54:31] for example, air quality,

[54:33] quality improvements

[54:34] from climate actions, and then

[54:35] a workforce development

[54:37] analysis which helps us

[54:38] to understand the workforce

[54:40] sort of planning needs that are

[54:42] associated with a sort

[54:44] of clean economy transition.

[54:48] And then lastly,

[54:49] we also have a brief

[54:50] discussion, a broad discussion,

[54:51] excuse me, of next steps

[54:53] for climate planning processes

[54:55] for our region. So that does

[55:01] conclude my slides. I want to

[55:04] make sure that you all have my

[55:06] contact information here and

[55:08] just mention that you can all

[55:10] stay in touch with us at the

[55:12] agency and the draft climate

[55:15] plan

[55:16] through our CPRG listserv,

[55:17] which you can access

[55:19] on the site at the URL shown

[55:22] on this slide, please.

[55:26] >> Thank you, Sarah. A lot of

[55:27] great information there. I see.

[55:29] Council member Daugherty,

[55:33] you got your hand raised. You

[55:34] have a question?

[55:36] >> Yes, thank you, Sarah.

[55:37] Thank you

[55:39] for the presentation. Can I'd

[55:40] like to ask who did the

[55:41] technical review?

[55:44] >> So our technical review was

[55:45] done

[55:46] by our CPRG steering committee,

[55:47] technical work groups,

[55:49] as well as our state partners.

[55:51] So we have a CPRG steering

[55:53] committee that we've been

[55:54] working with

[55:55] for the past two years,

[55:57] of which Kelly McGurdy is a

[55:59] participant. And so that is a

[56:03] group that consists

[56:05] of representatives

[56:06] from all four counties in the

[56:07] region as well as major cities.

[56:09] And then we have, I believe,

[56:12] five technical work groups. So

[56:14] that includes subject matter

[56:16] experts across the region

[56:18] from built environment,

[56:20] transportation and consumption

[56:21] and waste,

[56:23] as well as equity and workforce

[56:24] development, excuse me,

[56:26] and utilities. So there are

[56:28] six, and then again our state

[56:29] partners at the Washington

[56:30] Climate Partnership. So that's

[56:32] ecology and commerce.

[56:35] >> And where does the data come

[56:36] from that you're making

[56:37] decisions on?

[56:38] >> Yeah, so it has been sort

[56:39] of a lot of different places.

[56:43] So we have our technical folks

[56:45] at the agency who, you know,

[56:48] we're really responsible for

[56:49] putting this analysis together.

[56:51] We've had lots

[56:53] of conversations

[56:54] about what assumptions to put

[56:56] into this analysis. And as I

[56:58] mentioned, you know,

[57:00] I think we are really looking

[57:03] to folks to help us refine and

[57:05] enhance the assumptions to make

[57:07] this plan as actionable as

[57:09] possible. So I think that's

[57:11] part of this public input

[57:13] period is kind of looking to

[57:16] refine those assumptions.

[57:19] >> Okay, thank you.

[57:22] >> And I would just jump in and

[57:23] say I have been hyping this

[57:25] document for quite some time

[57:27] now and I'm super excited that

[57:29] it's finally here. And

[57:30] Council Member Daughtry

[57:31] to your point, Sarah, correct

[57:33] me if I'm wrong, but this isn't

[57:34] a decision document. This is a

[57:36] document that's really trying

[57:37] to identify what is it going

[57:39] to take to achieve the goals

[57:41] that we have. We get that

[57:42] question a lot. And you know,

[57:43] here at PSRC and our,

[57:45] my fingers are definitely all

[57:46] over this thing. So we,

[57:47] everything that we do and the

[57:48] analysis on our Vision 2050 and

[57:51] Regional Transportation plan is

[57:52] certainly fed into that.

[57:53] But we share with you,

[57:55] if we're doing these types

[57:58] of things,

[57:59] what are the emission results?

[58:00] And this document is really

[58:01] looking at, given all

[58:02] of that,

[58:03] if there's still a gap

[58:04] to the target,

[58:05] what will it take? And so that

[58:06] list

[58:07] of strategies is really kind

[58:08] of the best,

[58:10] the best estimate based on

[58:12] everything we know and

[58:13] projections into the future

[58:14] about if we want

[58:15] to achieve the goals. We have

[58:16] to do all

[58:17] of these different things

[58:18] across all of these sectors,

[58:19] but not a decision,

[58:22] but really it's just

[58:23] information

[58:24] on what it will take. Sarah,

[58:25] did I get that right?

[58:26] >> You nailed it. Yeah.

[58:27] Thanks, Kelly. And as I

[58:29] mentioned earlier, it does not

[58:32] assign specific policy

[58:33] mechanisms or responsible

[58:37] jurisdictions or anything

[58:39] like that. We wanted

[58:41] to provide decision makers

[58:43] with the information

[58:45] to make decisions that are

[58:46] right for their jurisdiction.

[58:47] And so we provide example

[58:49] strategy,

[58:52] example policies and things

[58:53] like that,

[58:54] but they are not prescriptive.

[58:55] Again, it's really the largest

[58:56] realistic scale of action that

[58:59] we think is possible

[59:03] for each strategy.

[59:05] >> Well, the only reason I'm

[59:06] asking is the best available

[59:08] science on climate change is

[59:09] changing constantly. Recently

[59:13] they have finally figured

[59:14] out what some of us in the

[59:16] science community know is the

[59:17] carbon CO2 only has a certain

[59:20] effect and we've already passed

[59:21] that certain effect and has no

[59:23] more effect on climate change

[59:24] that's recently come

[59:26] to light. So with the best

[59:29] available science,

[59:30] the same thing that happens in

[59:31] our biologies or streams and

[59:33] stuff, but the best available

[59:35] science is continually changing

[59:37] and then it continually gets

[59:39] into our policies and

[59:41] procedures. At that point which

[59:43] ultimately makes everything

[59:45] more expensive to get down,

[59:46] right down to the bottom line

[59:47] of it. And so I just caution

[59:49] ourselves to understand where

[59:53] these policies are coming

[59:55] from and who is directing based

[59:56] on the best available science.

[59:59] That's changing constantly.

[1:00:03] >> Okay, we're going to move

[1:00:05] on to Councilmember Walker.

[1:00:07] You have your hand raised.

[1:00:09] >> Thank you, Sarah. Thank you

[1:00:11] for all this great work and all

[1:00:13] the great information. I have

[1:00:15] not spent very much time

[1:00:16] digging into it, so I may ask a

[1:00:18] question that I just haven't

[1:00:20] dug far enough in.

[1:00:22] But my question is around the

[1:00:23] land use strategies and I was

[1:00:25] surprised not to see anything

[1:00:27] on there about zoning. And

[1:00:29] that's. I think land use

[1:00:31] transportation, we talk

[1:00:32] about that all the time. How we

[1:00:33] zone our cities for buildings

[1:00:37] and roads makes a huge

[1:00:38] difference in our ability then

[1:00:40] to conserve open space and

[1:00:43] plant more trees. And I'm

[1:00:44] curious if there's something

[1:00:45] more because I know you do

[1:00:47] mention zoning,

[1:00:48] but it's specific to zoning

[1:00:49] for trees. Is there anything

[1:00:51] in that category about zoning

[1:00:53] for buildings and

[1:00:55] transportation or what? I find

[1:00:56] that deep in the transportation

[1:00:58] section and the built

[1:00:59] environment section. But I

[1:01:01] didn't really see that

[1:01:02] specifically. And I just want

[1:01:03] to be a broken record about

[1:01:04] land use and transportation

[1:01:06] always going hand

[1:01:07] in hand and get through one

[1:01:08] without the other. Thank you.

[1:01:10] >> So that is captured in the

[1:01:13] transportation sector

[1:01:14] strategies, if memory serves.

[1:01:17] 2.1 is where we talk

[1:01:18] about reducing VMT. And so that

[1:01:21] is where those zoning changes

[1:01:24] come in as example actions and

[1:01:25] strategies. So that is where

[1:01:29] those are captured. Land use, I

[1:01:32] think we're really specifically

[1:01:33] talking about natural and

[1:01:34] working lands is kind

[1:01:36] of what we were thinking

[1:01:37] of when we were talking

[1:01:38] about land use.

[1:01:39] But what you are talking

[1:01:41] about is included in the

[1:01:42] transportation sector

[1:01:44] strategies.

[1:01:49] >> Other questions or comments?

[1:01:53] In the room?

[1:01:56] And I don't see any hands

[1:01:57] raised. So I think we're going

[1:01:58] to move on

[1:01:59] to our next discussion item.

[1:02:00] Actually it's an action item.

[1:02:03] >> Thank you.

[1:02:04] >> So our next item is the

[1:02:06] regional transportation plan

[1:02:07] scenario decision. And Kelly

[1:02:08] and Craig, that's you.

[1:02:11] >> Yes. And Sarah, thank you so

[1:02:12] much for the presentation. And

[1:02:14] just to close that out,

[1:02:16] we are certainly now that it is

[1:02:18] out and the timing is

[1:02:20] December, we will definitely be

[1:02:21] talking in the RTP about how

[1:02:23] our two documents fit together.

[1:02:28] We are ahead of schedule,

[1:02:29] which is great. Which means

[1:02:30] we've got a lot more time

[1:02:31] to talk about RTP. So we are

[1:02:34] here. We did warn you last

[1:02:36] month that we are here

[1:02:39] to get a, an action from you

[1:02:41] to identify kind of that final

[1:02:42] scenarios that we could move

[1:02:44] forward into developing the

[1:02:45] regional transportation plan.

[1:02:46] So we're going to just walk

[1:02:47] through a few quick background.

[1:02:49] I know we've been,

[1:02:51] you have all been

[1:02:52] on this journey with us.

[1:02:53] But a short reminder on the

[1:02:54] scenario development process.

[1:02:55] We do want

[1:02:56] to share the public feedback

[1:02:57] to date

[1:02:58] with you and I just want

[1:02:59] to acknowledge we have had

[1:03:00] three out of the six public

[1:03:02] meetings so far. We've had

[1:03:03] surveys, we've had done a lot

[1:03:05] of other interviews. Public

[1:03:07] engagement is going

[1:03:08] to continue even up to the

[1:03:10] point where we release the

[1:03:12] draft plan. But we are at a

[1:03:13] moment right now where we do

[1:03:15] need this decision point so we

[1:03:16] can develop the draft plan. But

[1:03:17] we will have that constant

[1:03:18] feedback scenario and share

[1:03:20] that information with you.

[1:03:21] We'll do a quick reminder of

[1:03:23] the scenario analysis and some

[1:03:25] additional metrics that we

[1:03:26] included in the packet based

[1:03:28] on feedback

[1:03:29] from the last meeting. There is

[1:03:30] a requested project correction.

[1:03:32] It was brought up at the last

[1:03:34] meeting and I'll walk through

[1:03:35] that again this morning. And

[1:03:36] then really we want to hear

[1:03:37] from you and hone in

[1:03:38] on that final,

[1:03:41] final scenario. And I have

[1:03:42] brought my phone

[1:03:43] of friends again

[1:03:44] for our next two topics.

[1:03:45] Craig Hellman and Ben Vacanta

[1:03:48] is at the table with me. So

[1:03:49] this is not new. You have seen

[1:03:50] this before. As a reminder we

[1:03:51] had our four scenarios, our

[1:03:53] four plan scenarios that ran

[1:03:54] the gamut of different levels

[1:03:58] of funding source, new funding

[1:03:59] sources that might be required,

[1:04:01] new revenues,

[1:04:03] new as well as different

[1:04:04] Councilmember Schneider

[1:04:05] mentioned them,

[1:04:06] different levers

[1:04:07] of investment. And based

[1:04:08] on the we did a poll

[1:04:10] at your meeting in September

[1:04:12] and from that poll the majority

[1:04:14] preference was leaning towards

[1:04:15] scenario 2B. And as a reminder

[1:04:19] this is what's

[1:04:20] in scenario 2B. So we looked

[1:04:22] at for those larger scale

[1:04:24] regional capacity projects

[1:04:26] looking at only looking

[1:04:28] at those that will start

[1:04:29] before 2040. And as my never

[1:04:30] ending reminder we develop a

[1:04:31] new plan every 4 years. This

[1:04:34] not a one and done proposition.

[1:04:36] There were a lot

[1:04:38] of programmatic improvements.

[1:04:40] So these are more local

[1:04:41] localized investments things

[1:04:42] that are off the regional

[1:04:44] system or they're not changing

[1:04:45] capacity

[1:04:46] of the regional system. With

[1:04:47] updated planning documents

[1:04:48] there is a quite a vast amount

[1:04:50] of need that had been

[1:04:52] identified not able

[1:04:54] to be fully funded. And so

[1:04:55] scenario 2B said we are going

[1:04:56] to assume that 70% of all

[1:04:59] of those needs could be funded

[1:05:00] with this

[1:05:01] through this planning. But

[1:05:02] importantly this was the kind

[1:05:05] of the board crafted scenario

[1:05:07] where even with all

[1:05:09] of that they want to maximize

[1:05:10] our maintenance and

[1:05:12] preservation levels and

[1:05:14] maximize our assumed increase

[1:05:15] in local transit service growth

[1:05:17] at 2% per year. And with all of

[1:05:18] those investments it would

[1:05:20] require just under $49 billion

[1:05:22] of new revenues

[1:05:24] to be identified. So this was

[1:05:25] the scenario that was kind

[1:05:27] of leading the charge in

[1:05:28] September. So I do want

[1:05:32] to pivot a little bit and share

[1:05:34] with you what we've heard

[1:05:35] from the feedback

[1:05:36] from our public meetings,

[1:05:37] which has been very consistent

[1:05:38] with what we've been hearing

[1:05:39] around this table. So we've had

[1:05:40] three

[1:05:41] of them and we've had a number

[1:05:42] of elected officials,

[1:05:43] including board members,

[1:05:44] attend those. So thank you

[1:05:45] to all of you that have been

[1:05:46] attending. It has been very

[1:05:48] much appreciated. And we have

[1:05:49] three more coming up next week

[1:05:51] in Tacoma, the week after in

[1:05:53] Tukwila, and then our last one

[1:05:54] in Bremerton. And it's been,

[1:05:59] it's. They've been really

[1:06:00] valuable public meetings.

[1:06:02] We've had over 170 people show

[1:06:04] up to the three that we've held

[1:06:06] so far. And as we walked them

[1:06:07] through, it's been a very

[1:06:09] engaging and interactive

[1:06:11] process. So when folks come

[1:06:13] into the room, we have stations

[1:06:15] set up and we ask them to, at

[1:06:16] that point we give them

[1:06:18] information on what's in the

[1:06:21] regional transportation plan,

[1:06:23] what is their preferred mode

[1:06:24] of travel, talking

[1:06:26] about the investments, and then

[1:06:28] we do put the four scenarios

[1:06:31] in front

[1:06:33] of them and we ask them at that

[1:06:35] stage what is their preference.

[1:06:36] But then we gather everybody.

[1:06:37] After that we have table

[1:06:38] discussions and each table

[1:06:40] talks through the different

[1:06:41] scenarios and comes up

[1:06:42] with a consensus

[1:06:43] for each table. And so these

[1:06:44] percentages is a culmination

[1:06:45] of all

[1:06:46] of those table discussions

[1:06:47] at each

[1:06:48] of the three public meetings.

[1:06:50] And as you can see,

[1:06:51] Interestingly enough,

[1:06:52] scenario 2B is still kind of

[1:06:53] leading the leading preference

[1:06:56] from the members of the public

[1:06:57] that we've heard so far as

[1:06:59] well. And we wanted to share

[1:07:01] with you. This is this, these

[1:07:02] are paraphrased and there are

[1:07:04] certainly many more comments.

[1:07:06] And we are gathering all of

[1:07:07] that and we will certainly

[1:07:08] share that and publish it when

[1:07:09] the draft plan comes out. But

[1:07:11] there were some key quotes that

[1:07:12] we thought we would share that

[1:07:14] just kind of gave the flavor

[1:07:15] of the conversation. And so

[1:07:16] I'll just read

[1:07:17] through these fairly quickly.

[1:07:19] One, we did ask folks to share

[1:07:20] with us information

[1:07:21] on both their priorities

[1:07:23] in terms of infrastructure, but

[1:07:24] also how they feel the system

[1:07:25] is doing. I think mostly we

[1:07:28] heard roads are failing, but

[1:07:30] interestingly we also heard

[1:07:31] very much an acknowledgement

[1:07:32] that the roads support all

[1:07:35] of the other modes. The roads

[1:07:37] support transit, they support

[1:07:38] bikes,

[1:07:39] they support sidewalks. A lot

[1:07:40] of interest

[1:07:41] in prioritizing transit. So

[1:07:42] that came out very clearly and

[1:07:44] I thought this quote was great.

[1:07:46] Transit should be prioritized

[1:07:48] because it serves everybody

[1:07:49] regardless of income.

[1:07:51] But again, acknowledging that

[1:07:52] buses cannot run where there

[1:07:53] are bad roads. So feeding into

[1:07:55] that maintenance and

[1:07:56] preservation theme, sidewalks

[1:07:58] are important because they

[1:07:59] address accessibility and help

[1:08:00] connect people to transit. And

[1:08:01] this one was very much what we,

[1:08:04] what we think about here at

[1:08:06] this table is new projects get

[1:08:07] a lot of attention,

[1:08:08] but we need more attention to

[1:08:09] maintenance. A few other quotes

[1:08:12] kind of acknowledging that the

[1:08:14] first two quotes here, there

[1:08:15] isn't enough infrastructure to

[1:08:17] serve everyone and housing

[1:08:18] growth is out outpacing

[1:08:20] transportation capacity. And

[1:08:22] then some interesting, you

[1:08:24] know,

[1:08:26] as the conversation flowed

[1:08:27] between whether it was scenario

[1:08:29] one, for example, which is just

[1:08:31] use existing sources versus the

[1:08:32] other scenarios which required

[1:08:33] new revenue,

[1:08:34] it was interesting

[1:08:35] to see that coalescing

[1:08:36] around the middle Scenarios and

[1:08:38] Scenario 2B and some comments

[1:08:41] about I don't mind being taxed,

[1:08:43] but I want it to go to

[1:08:44] dependable sources and people

[1:08:45] are willing to dig into their

[1:08:46] pocketbooks if they're,

[1:08:48] if they're going

[1:08:49] to see results. And then I

[1:08:51] think we've also talked

[1:08:52] at this table that as you move

[1:08:53] out from core areas,

[1:08:55] the quality and quantity

[1:08:56] of infrastructure declines. So

[1:08:59] some high level feedback from

[1:09:00] our really fabulous public

[1:09:02] meetings. But we've also been

[1:09:05] in front of our equity advisory

[1:09:07] committee. So we've had several

[1:09:09] presentations with them. But we

[1:09:10] had a very similar presentation

[1:09:12] to them last week. Their

[1:09:13] feedback is a little bit,

[1:09:16] a little bit different in that

[1:09:18] they are not surprisingly,

[1:09:20] really focused on accessibility

[1:09:21] and affordability. While some

[1:09:25] of them did express a

[1:09:26] preference for scenario tb,

[1:09:28] more of the EAC members

[1:09:30] expressed a preference for

[1:09:31] scenario one and it was really

[1:09:33] about the cost burden when it

[1:09:34] came down to it. So they very

[1:09:36] much acknowledge that

[1:09:37] additional infrastructure is

[1:09:38] certainly needed,

[1:09:39] but they're very much worried

[1:09:41] about the additional cost to

[1:09:42] households and acknowledging

[1:09:44] that the cost burdens not only

[1:09:45] will be,

[1:09:46] will not be equally distributed

[1:09:49] across households and

[1:09:50] communities, but some comments

[1:09:51] about the existing funding

[1:09:52] sources are not being equitably

[1:09:53] distributed and have an impact.

[1:09:55] A couple

[1:09:59] of paraphrased comments from

[1:10:00] the EAC members which were very

[1:10:02] helpful talking about this

[1:10:06] first comment is talking about,

[1:10:07] as we know, their displacement

[1:10:09] occurs and so folks have

[1:10:10] to move further away from where

[1:10:11] facilities are and they have

[1:10:13] to drive. And then if we're

[1:10:16] looking at new revenue sources

[1:10:17] that are increasing the gas

[1:10:18] tax, for example, the sentiment

[1:10:19] that it's further punishing

[1:10:21] those community members who

[1:10:22] have

[1:10:23] to drive because they live

[1:10:25] in areas. So it's a bit

[1:10:26] of a circular,

[1:10:27] circular issue there also. And

[1:10:29] again, this was kind

[1:10:30] of a key theme. Our

[1:10:32] transportation infrastructure

[1:10:33] needs to meet the needs

[1:10:35] of people with low income,

[1:10:36] seniors and people of color.

[1:10:37] But these communities also

[1:10:38] experience the highest

[1:10:39] financial burdens. So again,

[1:10:43] recognizing they're very,

[1:10:44] very concerned about equity

[1:10:46] considerations and the pursuit

[1:10:49] of new funding sources and how

[1:10:50] that will impact folks that are

[1:10:51] already feeling burdened.

[1:10:53] But if a new scenario,

[1:10:54] or excuse me, if a scenario

[1:10:55] with new revenues is pursued,

[1:10:56] really be clear

[1:10:58] about what benefits are going

[1:10:59] to be received from the

[1:11:01] for those community members

[1:11:02] from the additional cost. And

[1:11:04] again emphasizing the

[1:11:05] importance of equitable funding

[1:11:06] mechanisms. And as we heard

[1:11:08] that feedback,

[1:11:09] I think as we move forward with

[1:11:10] this discussion and as we spend

[1:11:11] more time with you talking

[1:11:13] about the financial strategy,

[1:11:15] which is the next presentation

[1:11:16] and a good chunk of November,

[1:11:18] we will definitely bring these

[1:11:19] sentiments and these comments

[1:11:21] back. And I'm going to turn it

[1:11:23] over to Craig

[1:11:24] for the scenario analysis.

[1:11:26] >> Yeah, and this will be

[1:11:27] pretty brief because we

[1:11:28] provided all the information

[1:11:29] in the packet, so. And we also

[1:11:31] shared a bunch of it

[1:11:33] with you last month as well.

[1:11:34] But just to kind

[1:11:36] of reiterate, as we've talked

[1:11:37] about all these four scenarios,

[1:11:39] we have definitely seen modest

[1:11:40] differences between the

[1:11:41] scenarios when we look at the

[1:11:42] model performance metrics. And

[1:11:43] just as a reminder, that's

[1:11:45] because our modeling can look

[1:11:46] at the regional capacity

[1:11:48] projects and it can look

[1:11:49] at transit.

[1:11:50] But programmatic investments,

[1:11:51] we don't have a list

[1:11:53] programmatic investment,

[1:11:55] so we can't model those. And

[1:11:56] the maintenance and

[1:11:57] preservation stuff is the same.

[1:11:58] And so that was really

[1:11:59] interesting as we were hearing

[1:12:00] feedback

[1:12:01] at the public meetings,

[1:12:02] we're hearing

[1:12:03] about the importance of

[1:12:04] maintenance and preservation as

[1:12:05] a policy.

[1:12:06] But also we heard information

[1:12:07] about kind of those local

[1:12:08] projects or the things that

[1:12:09] people interact

[1:12:10] with and they see

[1:12:11] in their communities. And so

[1:12:12] there was a lot of interest

[1:12:13] in that. And we definitely see

[1:12:15] greater distinctions between

[1:12:16] the scenarios when we look at

[1:12:18] the spatial qualitative

[1:12:20] measures and that one. And you

[1:12:22] can see on the next slide,

[1:12:23] we just decided

[1:12:25] to take one highlight

[1:12:26] from all the data we provide

[1:12:27] in packaging just to really

[1:12:29] reinforce that as we kind

[1:12:31] of look at this transit gaps as

[1:12:33] a reminder,

[1:12:34] this is places we looked at

[1:12:36] places that have a density that

[1:12:38] could support different levels

[1:12:39] of transit and whether or not

[1:12:42] they have that level

[1:12:43] of transit. So

[1:12:44] in this case it's the gap. So

[1:12:45] this is saying you have a

[1:12:47] density that could support that

[1:12:48] level of transit,

[1:12:49] but you don't have it available

[1:12:50] in those places. And so you can

[1:12:53] kind of see how that varies

[1:12:54] by today

[1:12:55] with our four transit types.

[1:12:56] Some

[1:12:57] of the biggest gaps being kind

[1:12:59] of in that really local or all

[1:13:00] day service and you can see how

[1:13:02] much different scenario 2b is.

[1:13:04] For instance,

[1:13:06] as we added those hours. So

[1:13:07] that that focus here

[1:13:09] to make sure you put the hours

[1:13:11] into transit has a big

[1:13:12] difference in terms of how much

[1:13:13] people would have access

[1:13:15] to those, those amenities,

[1:13:17] those facilities to be able

[1:13:19] to go about and travel. You can

[1:13:21] see as an example, the local

[1:13:22] transit gap is more than half

[1:13:23] of what it is today. And so

[1:13:26] that's a percentage wise and

[1:13:27] that's with a lot more people

[1:13:28] in places that have that level

[1:13:31] of transit as well. So it's a

[1:13:32] pretty significant reduction

[1:13:34] in those gaps.

[1:13:38] >> So that's just a quick high

[1:13:40] flyover, kind of a summary of

[1:13:42] the same information that was

[1:13:43] presented

[1:13:44] across the scenarios last month

[1:13:46] with a few additional metrics

[1:13:47] that were included

[1:13:48] in the packet. Again mostly

[1:13:50] focused on access to transit.

[1:13:51] You may remember that WSDOT had

[1:13:55] requested one correction at the

[1:13:57] last meeting and we just wanted

[1:13:58] to formalize that and put that

[1:14:00] in front of you. So the project

[1:14:01] is the i5 Thorn Lane to 38th

[1:14:03] Street Core HOV project. And

[1:14:05] the correction is that the

[1:14:07] start year

[1:14:08] of the project had been

[1:14:10] in error submitted for 2042.

[1:14:12] It is actually hoped to start

[1:14:13] in 2034. And so that would then

[1:14:16] bring that project over

[1:14:18] into scenario 2B. And this

[1:14:19] project of course is going to

[1:14:21] complete the HOV system missing

[1:14:22] link in Pierce county as well

[1:14:25] as I believe from King county

[1:14:27] three through to dupont. And

[1:14:29] the project does have current

[1:14:31] funds committed as well as

[1:14:32] future funding through Move

[1:14:33] Ahead Washington. And just full

[1:14:34] disclosure,

[1:14:35] by moving this project, by

[1:14:36] making this corrections and

[1:14:38] acknowledging that the project

[1:14:39] is anticipated to start

[1:14:40] before 2040, it does slightly

[1:14:41] increase the funding gap. The

[1:14:43] new revenues required

[1:14:45] for scenario to be instead of

[1:14:47] 48.9 billion, it would be 49.3

[1:14:49] billion. So we went

[1:14:53] through that pretty quickly.

[1:14:54] But there's been a lot

[1:14:55] of conversation

[1:14:56] over the last several months

[1:14:57] on these scenarios. And again

[1:14:58] last month we took a poll

[1:14:59] of you and the majority of you

[1:15:02] were leaning towards scenario

[1:15:03] 2B with a focus

[1:15:05] on maintenance and transit.

[1:15:06] Obviously there's a lot

[1:15:08] of conversations

[1:15:10] about that pursuit of new

[1:15:11] revenues will add some cost to

[1:15:12] households and we will again

[1:15:14] start queuing up that

[1:15:15] conversation

[1:15:16] on the financial strategy

[1:15:17] in a little bit.

[1:15:18] But we are asking

[1:15:19] for an action today to land on

[1:15:20] the one scenario that we will

[1:15:21] finalize the analysis for and

[1:15:25] have that be the draft plan

[1:15:26] that gets released

[1:15:27] for public comment. And

[1:15:29] before I ask for the action,

[1:15:30] just know that this is still an

[1:15:32] iteration. So we will release

[1:15:33] the draft plan

[1:15:35] for public comment hopefully

[1:15:36] in December through the end

[1:15:38] of January and we will come

[1:15:39] back. We will continue

[1:15:40] to have conversations with you

[1:15:41] about actions, policy

[1:15:43] statements, key messages

[1:15:44] for the draft plan and

[1:15:46] depending on what we hear and

[1:15:47] more thought, we can certainly

[1:15:49] modify as we move forward

[1:15:52] before we get

[1:15:53] to the final plan adoption in

[1:15:55] May. But this is just kind

[1:15:56] of an important moment in time

[1:15:57] for us. And so

[1:15:58] with that we took the liberty

[1:16:01] of assuming that it would be 2B.

[1:16:03] But if there is a difference,

[1:16:04] we can certainly modify that.

[1:16:06] We're just looking

[1:16:07] for an action today. Right.

[1:16:09] >> Thank you. Kelly and Craig.

[1:16:10] I know that we have put a lot

[1:16:12] of time and effort

[1:16:13] into this and many meetings.

[1:16:19] So hopefully we can move this

[1:16:20] the scenario forward and

[1:16:24] continue this body

[1:16:25] of work and move on

[1:16:27] to other things. So the

[1:16:29] questions for Kelly or Craig

[1:16:32] first and then

[1:16:35] after that we'll look

[1:16:36] for a motion.

[1:16:37] >> So Councilmember

[1:16:38] Schneider, thank you very much.

[1:16:39] I support to be what I would

[1:16:41] ask is when this is being put

[1:16:46] out there could there be some

[1:16:48] examples of what it does not

[1:16:49] fund and is that already

[1:16:51] in it? Because I think it's

[1:16:53] important

[1:16:54] to know what you're getting,

[1:16:56] but also what you're not

[1:16:58] getting. Absolutely. And so

[1:16:59] we've published that for each

[1:17:00] of the scenarios. So we'll

[1:17:01] definitely keep referencing

[1:17:03] that

[1:17:04] in the draft plan and we'll

[1:17:05] talk about how we got

[1:17:06] to scenario 2B and we'll talk

[1:17:08] about what's still not included

[1:17:10] and what's to come.

[1:17:11] Absolutely.

[1:17:13] >> Okay. Other comments or

[1:17:15] questions? Is there a motion?

[1:17:25] Don't all speak at once.

[1:17:27] >> So moved.

[1:17:29] >> Was that Dana?

[1:17:30] >> Yes.

[1:17:31] >> Okay. Okay. That was

[1:17:32] Council member Zarlingo with

[1:17:34] the second and the motion was

[1:17:37] by Jared Dana Ralph. Further

[1:17:41] discussion? We're

[1:17:44] with the moving forward

[1:17:45] with scenario 2B. Don't hear

[1:17:48] any. All in favor,

[1:17:49] please say aye.

[1:17:50] >> Aye.

[1:17:54] >> Is there anyone opposed?

[1:17:58] That passes unanimously. Thank

[1:17:59] you. All right. We are

[1:18:05] to item 10, the Regional

[1:18:07] Transportation plan financial

[1:18:08] strategy. Kelly, that's the

[1:18:10] next step.

[1:18:15] >> Well, this is great. We are

[1:18:16] having. We were a little

[1:18:17] worried that we wouldn't have

[1:18:18] terribly much time

[1:18:20] on this topic. And so we were

[1:18:21] really planning on queuing up

[1:18:22] this discussion today, but

[1:18:25] really coming and hitting you

[1:18:26] hard in November. But we've got

[1:18:27] a little bit more time,

[1:18:28] which is great. So you may

[1:18:32] remember we had numerous

[1:18:34] conversations

[1:18:35] on the RTP financial strategy

[1:18:37] in the fall of 2024. We

[1:18:39] identified some parameters,

[1:18:40] then we kind of put a pin

[1:18:42] in that and then started moving

[1:18:43] to what are all of the

[1:18:46] investments being proposed,

[1:18:47] what are our funding levels?

[1:18:49] And the work that we just did

[1:18:50] with you to identify the

[1:18:52] scenario had a lot

[1:18:53] of really great information.

[1:18:54] Now we have a level

[1:18:55] of new revenues that we need

[1:18:56] to go identify the details

[1:18:59] of what should that look like?

[1:19:01] And so that's what where we're

[1:19:02] going

[1:19:03] to start the conversation

[1:19:04] with you today and then

[1:19:05] continue into November. So

[1:19:07] we'll do a couple of reminders

[1:19:08] on the requirements.

[1:19:09] In the background,

[1:19:11] we'll remind you on the

[1:19:12] approach that you all landed

[1:19:13] on for pursuing new revenue

[1:19:15] sources. Craig had done some

[1:19:17] previous sensitivity analysis

[1:19:21] that we'll remind you of. We

[1:19:22] have a little bit of additional

[1:19:23] background and then really talk

[1:19:24] about. We've got some key

[1:19:26] discussion points and some

[1:19:27] decision points maybe that we

[1:19:29] want to work with you on as we

[1:19:30] build the financial strategy

[1:19:31] and include that

[1:19:33] in the draft plan. So you have

[1:19:38] seen this a couple of times.

[1:19:39] But just a quick reminder, as

[1:19:40] the, as the MPO

[1:19:42] under federal law, as the

[1:19:43] Regional Transportation

[1:19:44] Planning Organization

[1:19:45] under state law, we have

[1:19:46] certain requirements as it

[1:19:47] relates to this. So all

[1:19:48] of the levers and the,

[1:19:50] and the buckets of investment

[1:19:51] that we've talked about,

[1:19:52] we are required to have a

[1:19:53] regional transportation plan

[1:19:55] that identifies all

[1:19:57] of those investments on the

[1:19:59] transportation system as well

[1:20:00] as how we are going to pay

[1:20:02] for them, including

[1:20:04] maintenance,

[1:20:05] preservation and operations.

[1:20:06] So we have to have what we call

[1:20:08] a financially constrained plan.

[1:20:10] We've said this a few times and

[1:20:11] I think we're kind

[1:20:12] of past this point. But I'll

[1:20:13] just do a quick reminder. This

[1:20:14] is not an adopted budget. It is

[1:20:15] not saying that, you know,

[1:20:18] for programmatic investments,

[1:20:19] for example, we don't,

[1:20:20] we don't have a way of saying

[1:20:21] it's this investment first or

[1:20:23] this city has

[1:20:24] to do certain things. This is a

[1:20:26] long range vision of these are

[1:20:27] the investments that are needed

[1:20:30] and desired. This is how much

[1:20:31] it will cost

[1:20:32] to get there and how would we

[1:20:35] go about doing that. So when it

[1:20:37] comes to the new revenues which

[1:20:39] is going to be the focus

[1:20:40] of this conversation, we have

[1:20:41] to include some strategies and

[1:20:43] a little bit of detail. They

[1:20:44] have to be feasible and

[1:20:47] somewhat realistic

[1:20:49] to move forward. And you may

[1:20:51] remember we shared information

[1:20:52] on the history and the state

[1:20:54] and the region of pursuing new

[1:20:55] revenue sources. And I can't

[1:20:58] remember already. I think I'm

[1:21:00] still going before I pass it

[1:21:01] over to you. So this is a great

[1:21:03] follow up to the climate

[1:21:06] conversation that we just had.

[1:21:07] We spent a lot of time talking

[1:21:09] about our improved fleet fuel

[1:21:11] efficiency of the vehicles as

[1:21:16] well as the continued

[1:21:18] advancement in electric

[1:21:19] vehicles. I looked this

[1:21:21] morning, Craig, at our

[1:21:22] dashboard and I believe as of

[1:21:24] January the, the new sales of

[1:21:26] both zero emission vehicle

[1:21:28] electric vehicles and hybrids

[1:21:29] was about 43% of all sales

[1:21:31] in the region. So that just

[1:21:33] continues to grow. And that

[1:21:36] does obviously have an impact

[1:21:37] on the gas tax. The we've been

[1:21:38] saying that the gas tax is a

[1:21:40] declining revenue source for

[1:21:41] quite some time and it's just

[1:21:43] getting more so in addition

[1:21:45] to fuel efficiency,

[1:21:47] also just the impact

[1:21:49] of debt service requirements.

[1:21:50] And so this is just a reality

[1:21:52] that when we're planning on

[1:21:54] to 2050 that we have

[1:21:55] to acknowledge. And you may

[1:21:58] remember that for all of the

[1:22:00] investments that were

[1:22:01] identified and the gap to fully

[1:22:03] funding those investments,

[1:22:04] it is not the same

[1:22:07] across sponsor categories. And

[1:22:08] there's some pretty stark

[1:22:09] differences. And the bold

[1:22:10] highlights, really,

[1:22:12] the majority

[1:22:13] of the gap is falling

[1:22:14] on cities, followed

[1:22:15] by local transit. And that is

[1:22:16] also something that now is the

[1:22:18] time for us to really dig

[1:22:20] in and talk

[1:22:21] about not just filling the

[1:22:22] $49.3 billion gap,

[1:22:24] but filling it in a way that

[1:22:26] actually addresses the sponsor

[1:22:27] categories. I think this is

[1:22:31] where I'm passing it over

[1:22:32] to you.

[1:22:33] >> And so as we talked

[1:22:34] previously in kind

[1:22:36] of maybe a pivot

[1:22:37] from previous plans,

[1:22:38] as we definitely heard, an

[1:22:40] interest and being a bit more

[1:22:41] focused on our financial

[1:22:43] strategy and really focusing on

[1:22:44] those sources that one can do

[1:22:46] bigger things, the kind

[1:22:48] of bigger bang for your buck,

[1:22:50] but also ones that be

[1:22:51] implemented consistently

[1:22:52] across the region. Having said

[1:22:55] that, we are definitely

[1:22:57] in the financial strategy going

[1:22:58] to continue to have that kind

[1:22:59] of list of all the other

[1:23:01] strategies that locals can

[1:23:02] implement and do.

[1:23:03] But we really wanted to kind of

[1:23:05] hit and we had these five

[1:23:06] sources that were identified

[1:23:07] and some of it as we kind

[1:23:08] of get

[1:23:09] through this conversation,

[1:23:10] we want to see if this is still

[1:23:11] the same five that we want

[1:23:13] to continue to have. So we've

[1:23:15] heard definitely road usage,

[1:23:17] charge changes

[1:23:19] in vehicle fees. And so those

[1:23:20] can be weight fees,

[1:23:21] registration fees,

[1:23:22] motor vehicle excise tax, all

[1:23:24] those things that we're just

[1:23:25] kind of lumping together as

[1:23:27] vehicle fees. A look

[1:23:29] at increased sales tax rates

[1:23:30] for local transit,

[1:23:32] increased county road levy,

[1:23:34] which is currently capped at a

[1:23:35] 1% increased annual increase.

[1:23:37] And just so if folks remember

[1:23:38] this is actually

[1:23:39] in the legislature this year,

[1:23:41] they were looking

[1:23:42] at possibly lifting that to I

[1:23:44] believe they looked I think

[1:23:46] The House looked at 3%, the

[1:23:47] Senate looked at 6%. Neither

[1:23:50] passed at this point, but it's

[1:23:51] definitely been something the

[1:23:52] legislature is actively looking

[1:23:53] at right now. And then Deputy

[1:23:55] Mayor Arnold appointed us to

[1:23:56] some work that their joint

[1:23:57] transportation committee had

[1:23:58] done

[1:23:59] on a retail delivery fee. And

[1:24:01] so that was also something that

[1:24:02] we heard were five sources

[1:24:03] to kind of consider. So we had

[1:24:07] gone ahead and done some

[1:24:09] sensitivity tests. This was

[1:24:10] before we knew what the need

[1:24:12] was going to be

[1:24:13] for the revenue. And so this is

[1:24:14] just a reminder as we kind

[1:24:15] of looked at different,

[1:24:17] different levels of things,

[1:24:18] we now know the gap based

[1:24:20] on what you just selected

[1:24:22] with scenario 2B is about $49

[1:24:23] billion. So as we kind of look

[1:24:25] at those, good news,

[1:24:27] we don't have to go

[1:24:28] with the high versions

[1:24:29] of these to generate that

[1:24:30] somewhere combination

[1:24:32] of the low and medium. We could

[1:24:33] actually fill the gap. We can,

[1:24:35] we can find a gap, find a way

[1:24:36] to fill the gap based

[1:24:38] on these,

[1:24:39] these sources that we have.

[1:24:41] This is just kind

[1:24:42] of a reminder of when we kind

[1:24:44] of looked at those,

[1:24:45] roughly what you could generate

[1:24:46] by those. And you can see road

[1:24:47] usage charges definitely have a

[1:24:49] big bang for their buck. But

[1:24:52] you can generate a lot as well

[1:24:53] with, say, sales tax. That's

[1:24:56] why sales tax is pretty easy

[1:24:57] to implement,

[1:24:58] but it gives you that kind

[1:24:59] of rough order of magnitude

[1:25:00] in terms of what the big kind

[1:25:02] of bang for your buck is

[1:25:03] by these different sources.

[1:25:05] Next one. So, kind

[1:25:07] of as we continue to move the

[1:25:08] conversation forward,

[1:25:10] we thought we'd start

[1:25:11] to share too. As we look

[1:25:12] at these five sources,

[1:25:14] some are constrained in

[1:25:15] different ways that you can

[1:25:16] spend them. And I think this

[1:25:17] goes back

[1:25:18] to when we saw that gap that

[1:25:19] Kelly was showing and we talked

[1:25:21] about the percentage. 85%

[1:25:22] of the gap is for counties,

[1:25:24] cities and local transit. 15%

[1:25:27] is for the state. So when we

[1:25:29] look at a road usage charge as

[1:25:31] an example,

[1:25:32] that can be implemented

[1:25:33] for the state, if it was

[1:25:34] implemented same way gas tax

[1:25:36] is, that can go to the state,

[1:25:37] that can go to counties,

[1:25:38] that can go to cities,

[1:25:40] can't go to transit. As an

[1:25:41] example, right now,

[1:25:43] the current gas tax

[1:25:44] distribution, last year, 80%

[1:25:46] of the gas tax went

[1:25:47] to the state and 20% went

[1:25:51] to cities and counties.

[1:25:52] So as you start to think

[1:25:53] about what that gap is

[1:25:54] for moving forward,

[1:25:56] when the gap is 85%. So it's

[1:25:57] almost the exact reverse

[1:25:59] of this. As we think

[1:26:00] about that road usage charge,

[1:26:02] there's nothing that says it

[1:26:03] has to be distributed 20 this

[1:26:05] way. That's one of the things

[1:26:07] to think about. But definitely

[1:26:08] it can help fill those holes.

[1:26:10] But current distributions would

[1:26:12] make it really, really tough to

[1:26:13] use that source and that

[1:26:14] current distribution that same

[1:26:17] way. We look at vehicle fees,

[1:26:18] vehicle fees actually currently

[1:26:19] can be used by the state,

[1:26:21] by counties, by cities,

[1:26:22] and also by transit, both local

[1:26:24] transit and regional transit.

[1:26:25] Sound Transit has a motor

[1:26:27] vehicle excise tax, but also

[1:26:28] local transit gets a small

[1:26:30] share of Vehicle fees as well.

[1:26:32] And you can kind

[1:26:34] of see that distribution. When

[1:26:35] we look at existing vehicle fee

[1:26:36] distributions

[1:26:37] in the last couple of years,

[1:26:38] that one's close to about 70%

[1:26:40] to the state,

[1:26:42] little more than 28%

[1:26:44] to counties and cities,

[1:26:46] and roughly about 4%

[1:26:48] to local transit. So definitely

[1:26:49] a little bit bigger share.

[1:26:51] But just as that reminder,

[1:26:52] again, as we look

[1:26:53] at those ones, as we think

[1:26:54] of newer fees,

[1:26:56] this distribution would. And

[1:26:57] you can kind of see that the

[1:26:59] top line up there. We were

[1:27:01] saying if we look at those

[1:27:02] current distribution methods,

[1:27:04] it would be tough to. For us

[1:27:06] to meet the needs, the gaps for

[1:27:07] the cities and the counties,

[1:27:09] especially if those same

[1:27:10] distributions are the same.

[1:27:13] When you look

[1:27:14] at the transit sales tax,

[1:27:15] this is one of the ones.

[1:27:16] On that previous slide,

[1:27:17] when we talked about levers, we

[1:27:19] just did what if everybody was

[1:27:20] at a certain level? So we did a

[1:27:21] scenario, the middle one,

[1:27:23] where what if everyone was

[1:27:25] at 1.4% for local sales tax?

[1:27:27] We picked 1.4 because that's

[1:27:31] what sound trans is. Sales tax

[1:27:32] rate is. So what if all local

[1:27:33] transit was at that kind

[1:27:34] of regional level?

[1:27:35] But having said that,

[1:27:37] that's a bigger lift for some

[1:27:38] of our transit partners than it

[1:27:39] would be for others. When you

[1:27:41] look at Pierce and Everett, as

[1:27:42] an example, are currently

[1:27:45] at 0.6%,

[1:27:46] that would be more than

[1:27:47] doubling to go to 1.4%.

[1:27:48] Whereas you can see for

[1:27:50] community transit as an

[1:27:51] example,

[1:27:52] it's a little smaller lift.

[1:27:54] But one of the things we know

[1:27:55] that's important for us

[1:27:56] to highlight is some

[1:27:58] of these things take action at

[1:27:59] the local level and some take

[1:28:00] action

[1:28:01] at the legislative level. This

[1:28:04] would require action at both.

[1:28:06] If it goes over 1.2%,

[1:28:08] you'd have to have the

[1:28:09] legislature authorize it. And

[1:28:11] then you'd also have

[1:28:12] to have your locals voted

[1:28:14] in as you think about that. So

[1:28:15] as we think about how we want

[1:28:17] to package these things and

[1:28:18] think about what those levels

[1:28:19] of them are, kind

[1:28:21] of give the framework for.

[1:28:23] For kind of that idea. We

[1:28:25] already mentioned the county

[1:28:26] road levy. It's currently

[1:28:27] capped at 1% annual growth.

[1:28:29] There's lots of different ways

[1:28:31] to do that. We've kind

[1:28:32] of showed different levels.

[1:28:34] And I had mentioned the state

[1:28:35] legislature has already started

[1:28:36] looking at other levels,

[1:28:37] whether it's somewhere

[1:28:38] between 3 and 6% as we go

[1:28:39] there. And that's definitely

[1:28:40] specific

[1:28:42] for those county needs. The

[1:28:43] retail delivery fees,

[1:28:44] you'll see that not applicable.

[1:28:46] And to be determined,

[1:28:47] because that doesn't exist yet.

[1:28:49] And so sort of to be determined

[1:28:51] how that could. Could be used

[1:28:52] or generated.

[1:28:57] >> And I think this is back

[1:28:58] to me. So we would love

[1:28:59] to especially since we have

[1:29:00] some time this morning,

[1:29:02] we would love to hear from you

[1:29:03] but I'll just go

[1:29:04] through a couple of slides

[1:29:05] about some of the topics that

[1:29:06] we think are going

[1:29:07] to be most relevant. One is

[1:29:10] while we had a fair amount

[1:29:12] of discussion in late 2024, are

[1:29:13] these the five sources that

[1:29:15] should still be included

[1:29:16] in our financial strategy? And

[1:29:18] as Craig mentioned, we will

[1:29:20] still have a plan document that

[1:29:21] lists all

[1:29:23] of the different types of

[1:29:24] sources that could be pursued.

[1:29:25] But in terms of our financial

[1:29:27] figures and our focus, are

[1:29:28] those five still the right

[1:29:31] ones? What levels or rates

[1:29:33] should we kind of assume And I

[1:29:35] do want to I will tease up the

[1:29:37] next slide. We do have one

[1:29:38] decision point that we need

[1:29:39] to get your feedback on

[1:29:41] to today. But our and Ben maybe

[1:29:42] help me out on this. Our

[1:29:44] financial strategy. We want

[1:29:47] to build something that is kind

[1:29:48] of builds the box so

[1:29:51] to speak. We need to identify

[1:29:53] the feasible sources. We need

[1:29:55] to identify how they would be

[1:29:56] pursued. But we don't need to

[1:29:57] say we think it should be

[1:29:58] exactly this and this is what

[1:30:00] we want to go advocate for.

[1:30:01] We've talked about a future

[1:30:03] work program action item and

[1:30:04] maybe we could take more time

[1:30:06] to dig in. So it's, it's our

[1:30:07] financial strategy is a little

[1:30:09] bit of a balance

[1:30:10] between identifying kind

[1:30:13] of the strong parameters

[1:30:14] of this is what it's going

[1:30:15] to take to fund this plan. How

[1:30:17] do we go about it but

[1:30:18] without landing on something

[1:30:20] that you would go take and

[1:30:21] implement tomorrow. We also

[1:30:24] know and as we heard

[1:30:25] from the EAC members in

[1:30:27] particular and some

[1:30:28] conversation at this table,

[1:30:29] equity and fairness

[1:30:30] consideration is certainly

[1:30:32] at top of mind. So folks are

[1:30:34] already excited experiencing

[1:30:36] impacts in the world today

[1:30:37] with their with financial

[1:30:39] considerations not necessarily

[1:30:40] a currently fair system when it

[1:30:44] comes

[1:30:45] to transportation finance. And

[1:30:46] so we definitely need

[1:30:48] to have that conversation.

[1:30:49] While PSRC and some of you

[1:30:51] maybe don't have the

[1:30:53] implementation authority we do

[1:30:54] we can provide information on

[1:30:55] things that should be

[1:30:57] considered and called out when

[1:30:59] implementation does occur.

[1:31:00] We've talked a fair bit

[1:31:02] about meeting the gaps

[1:31:03] by sponsor category. We don't

[1:31:04] want to just say the sum

[1:31:06] of all of these can fund

[1:31:07] everything when we know that

[1:31:09] there's still a large city gap

[1:31:11] we want

[1:31:12] to address that head on. We've

[1:31:13] talked about the changes to the

[1:31:14] current distribution methods

[1:31:15] and then on that future action

[1:31:17] we've talked

[1:31:18] about this a couple of times

[1:31:19] and I think we're still we'll

[1:31:21] be curious

[1:31:23] to see where you all are

[1:31:24] on that. But it does Seem time,

[1:31:25] given all of the uncertainty

[1:31:26] that's happening, Robin's

[1:31:28] information on,

[1:31:29] on the state budget,

[1:31:31] what's happening

[1:31:32] at the federal level and all of

[1:31:33] these issues maybe actually

[1:31:34] taking some time once the plan

[1:31:36] is adopted to we,

[1:31:37] we are the long game. We are,

[1:31:39] we are looking at 2050. We are

[1:31:40] not looking out

[1:31:41] at something that's

[1:31:43] to be immediately implemented

[1:31:44] in the next, you know, two

[1:31:46] to five years. So maybe it is

[1:31:48] time to build the box with this

[1:31:49] financial strategy and set up a

[1:31:51] work program where we reconvene

[1:31:52] and we really talk

[1:31:53] through some of all of these,

[1:31:54] these details. And

[1:31:56] before I turn it over to you,

[1:31:58] if I may, there is one kind

[1:31:59] of nuance that we do need from

[1:32:01] you is we will definitely

[1:32:03] continue this conversation in

[1:32:05] November and December if

[1:32:06] necessary. But in order for

[1:32:08] Craig to finalize the modeling

[1:32:09] and move that forward

[1:32:11] into the draft plan,

[1:32:13] we do need some guidance on the

[1:32:15] road usage chart so that we can

[1:32:17] finalize that. And our kind of

[1:32:19] baseline assumption is if

[1:32:20] should we assume the state rate

[1:32:22] that has been looked

[1:32:24] at right now. And we also have

[1:32:25] assumed maybe that begins in

[1:32:27] 2035, which is our interim

[1:32:30] year. So that's one thing. So

[1:32:32] we definitely want to kind

[1:32:34] of get some head nods from you

[1:32:35] on that so that we can move

[1:32:36] forward for that assumption

[1:32:37] in the,

[1:32:38] in the plan that goes out.

[1:32:39] But then also talking

[1:32:40] to you about, we think in

[1:32:41] November we'll try to bring

[1:32:42] back as much information as

[1:32:43] possible. Maybe we come back

[1:32:46] on a couple of different

[1:32:47] updated revenue scenarios

[1:32:49] to meet the $49 billion gap,

[1:32:50] referencing some of the sponsor

[1:32:54] category and really talk

[1:32:55] through the policy issues,

[1:32:56] what direction you want

[1:32:58] to include, what policy

[1:32:59] statements or actions you want

[1:33:00] to include in the,

[1:33:01] in the plan. Anything that I

[1:33:04] missed?

[1:33:07] >> Not that you missed,

[1:33:08] but just

[1:33:09] to add the reason we're asking

[1:33:10] about the road usage charges

[1:33:11] of all these ones,

[1:33:12] that's the one that has impacts

[1:33:14] on the performance and the

[1:33:16] modeling. We'll see changes

[1:33:17] in VMT, which will then change

[1:33:19] other performance metrics. So

[1:33:20] that's really where we're

[1:33:21] trying to kind

[1:33:22] of get your feel for that now

[1:33:24] so that we could move forward

[1:33:25] with the now that we know what

[1:33:26] scenario it is,

[1:33:28] if we know what level that is,

[1:33:29] it allows us to move forward

[1:33:30] with the modeling stuff now as

[1:33:32] well, while we continue

[1:33:33] to work

[1:33:34] on what all the other kind of

[1:33:36] financial inputs would be.

[1:33:38] >> Not trying

[1:33:39] to steer this too much, but

[1:33:40] acknowledging that the biggest

[1:33:42] need is in

[1:33:44] for local government. Is it

[1:33:46] realistic that we're going on

[1:33:47] the gas tax or road usage

[1:33:52] charge is to change the

[1:33:56] distribution methodology Is

[1:33:58] that realistic and where the

[1:34:02] retail delivery fee really does

[1:34:03] probably more impact our local

[1:34:07] community roads more than the,

[1:34:11] the regional system. So just my

[1:34:13] thoughts there,

[1:34:15] and I see some hands raised.

[1:34:16] Council Member Kettle, go

[1:34:18] ahead.

[1:34:20] >> Yes, thank you. I just

[1:34:21] wanted to thank you

[1:34:24] for the briefing. And I just

[1:34:26] wanted to make one note that,

[1:34:27] you know, when we're talking

[1:34:29] about the sales tax,

[1:34:30] it was said kind of casually,

[1:34:31] but I'm here to tell you that

[1:34:33] we're pretty much maxed out.

[1:34:34] And, you know, we just had the,

[1:34:37] you know, the state approved

[1:34:39] the public safety sales tax

[1:34:40] increase, which here in King

[1:34:41] county, both the city, Seattle

[1:34:43] and the county have pushed

[1:34:44] forward on, but we're pretty

[1:34:46] much capped out. So this idea

[1:34:48] that we can use continually

[1:34:49] increase the sales tax

[1:34:50] percentage, I think is, is

[1:34:52] something that shouldn't be

[1:34:55] assumed because the, I think at

[1:34:57] this point we're the point

[1:34:59] where we're going to have to

[1:35:00] start pushing back and not

[1:35:02] supporting these kinds of

[1:35:04] things because the cumulative

[1:35:06] effect over the years

[1:35:07] of keep adding and adding,

[1:35:09] we're pretty much at a point

[1:35:10] now where we can't keep doing

[1:35:11] so and we can't just say, okay,

[1:35:13] this is what we're going

[1:35:14] to do. And this applies

[1:35:16] to us, too. We had a vote

[1:35:17] against it yesterday or two

[1:35:19] days ago, and

[1:35:20] for good reason,

[1:35:22] and overall it did pass.

[1:35:25] But again, I think we're pretty

[1:35:27] much maxed out. So I put a big

[1:35:29] caveat

[1:35:30] on the retail sales tax piece.

[1:35:32] Thank you.

[1:35:34] >> Thank you. Council Member

[1:35:36] Daugherty.

[1:35:38] >> I just need some

[1:35:39] clarification

[1:35:40] on the road use discharge. Is

[1:35:41] the road uses charge. If we're

[1:35:43] talking about is it going

[1:35:44] to take the place of, or is it

[1:35:46] in addition

[1:35:47] to the current gas tax?

[1:35:50] >> It would be replacement

[1:35:51] because the gas tax will

[1:35:52] eventually decline

[1:35:54] to the point of no return. So

[1:35:55] this would not be additive. It

[1:35:56] would be a replacement.

[1:35:58] >> And we're not really looking

[1:35:59] for this to happen until

[1:36:00] 2035.

[1:36:02] >> Correct. Our current plan

[1:36:03] assumed maybe starting in

[1:36:04] 2030, but given that 2030 is

[1:36:06] going to be four years away

[1:36:07] here pretty soon, and 2035 is

[1:36:09] our interim year, we thought

[1:36:11] that that was a bit more

[1:36:12] realistic,

[1:36:13] give us a little bit more time,

[1:36:14] 10 years or so before maybe

[1:36:15] implementing that.

[1:36:17] >> And I understand this would

[1:36:18] be up to the legislature,

[1:36:19] but does that take

[1:36:20] into consideration the bonding

[1:36:21] of the gas tax?

[1:36:25] >> Yes, it does. Yes. Thank

[1:36:27] you.

[1:36:30] >> Thank you, Chair Ralph.

[1:36:32] >> Thank you. I know that the

[1:36:34] retail delivery fee is

[1:36:35] down there

[1:36:37] with a TBD and an na,

[1:36:39] but I would be, I would be not

[1:36:43] doing my job if I didn't

[1:36:44] highlight it at Every

[1:36:46] opportunity that I can. One

[1:36:47] of the concerns I have with the

[1:36:49] retail delivery fee is because

[1:36:51] of streamlined sales tax. The

[1:36:53] change the state made back in

[1:36:54] 2008, taking all

[1:36:56] of the sales tax away

[1:36:57] from cities like Kent that have

[1:37:00] the distribution hubs costing

[1:37:02] us money, we're still Kent is

[1:37:04] $20 million

[1:37:06] in the hole because

[1:37:07] of that change. My concern

[1:37:09] with retail delivery fees,

[1:37:10] unless they are somehow divided

[1:37:13] among cities that are providing

[1:37:15] the infrastructure for those

[1:37:17] retail deliveries and the city

[1:37:19] that they are going to,

[1:37:21] it just is a piling on

[1:37:23] of those that are receiving all

[1:37:25] of the revenue are going

[1:37:27] to be receiving more. And those

[1:37:29] of us that are providing the

[1:37:30] infrastructure so that everyone

[1:37:31] can receive that revenue are

[1:37:33] going to get further behind.

[1:37:34] So I just want to highlight

[1:37:36] that and it will not be the

[1:37:38] last time that you hear me

[1:37:40] raise that concern

[1:37:41] about the retail delivery fee.

[1:37:42] Thank you.

[1:37:46] >> Excuse me, Mr. Chair, can I

[1:37:47] offer up a little bit

[1:37:48] of information? We'll be

[1:37:49] sending out to the board the

[1:37:53] paper that the study that the

[1:37:54] Joint Transportation Committee

[1:37:56] commissioned a couple

[1:37:58] of years ago. But one thing

[1:37:59] in response, Chair Ralph, is

[1:38:02] they looked in particular

[1:38:04] at the two places

[1:38:05] in the country, Colorado and

[1:38:07] Minnesota, where a retail

[1:38:08] delivery fee is in effect. And

[1:38:10] just as an example,

[1:38:12] they use factors

[1:38:13] like population, roadway miles,

[1:38:15] vehicle miles traveled,

[1:38:16] equal share distribution.

[1:38:19] There are a lot

[1:38:20] of different ways

[1:38:21] to address some

[1:38:22] of the inequities in

[1:38:23] application that you're

[1:38:24] pointing out in terms

[1:38:25] of understanding how to make

[1:38:29] sure that all jurisdictions

[1:38:31] actually benefit

[1:38:32] from these types of fees. And

[1:38:34] also there are some limitations

[1:38:36] in terms of the

[1:38:37] like they're only,

[1:38:39] I believe it's in Minnesota

[1:38:41] only on purchases that are

[1:38:45] $100 and above and it's a 50

[1:38:47] cent fee. So thanks anyhow.

[1:38:49] There's a lot more information

[1:38:50] about this,

[1:38:51] but we've been thinking about

[1:38:52] the comments that you've been

[1:38:54] making.

[1:38:55] >> I appreciate that. Thank

[1:38:56] you.

[1:38:57] >> This might be a good time

[1:38:58] since we're

[1:38:59] on retail delivery fee.

[1:39:00] Council member Hamilton from

[1:39:01] Bellevue could not attend, but

[1:39:02] he also submitted some comments

[1:39:03] specific

[1:39:04] to the retail delivery fee.

[1:39:05] And I won't read everything,

[1:39:07] but it's really pointing

[1:39:08] out that the needs, especially

[1:39:10] since we talked

[1:39:11] about the needs

[1:39:12] for cities and local transit,

[1:39:13] that new or replacement revenue

[1:39:14] sources should be equitable,

[1:39:16] less regressive, support

[1:39:17] economic development and

[1:39:19] minimize impacts

[1:39:20] to small businesses. And

[1:39:21] because of that, he, he did not

[1:39:23] endorse the retail delivery

[1:39:25] fee. He thinks that that retail

[1:39:27] delivery, he does not meet

[1:39:29] those specific criteria.

[1:39:31] But again in November. So I

[1:39:33] wanted to make sure I got that

[1:39:34] on the record. And in November

[1:39:35] we will provide as much more

[1:39:36] information

[1:39:37] to help the conversation

[1:39:38] on each one of these funding

[1:39:40] sources so we can have a

[1:39:42] broader conversation. Thank

[1:39:43] you.

[1:39:44] >> Thank you for that input.

[1:39:46] Council member Walker, go

[1:39:47] ahead.

[1:39:49] >> Thank you. Really

[1:39:51] appreciating this conversation.

[1:39:52] And I think everyone's

[1:39:54] comments so far have

[1:39:55] highlighted how different

[1:39:56] jurisdictions utilize different

[1:39:57] tools.

[1:39:59] But I just wanted to make

[1:40:01] sure.

[1:40:02] Council member Kettle.

[1:40:03] I don't disagree with you

[1:40:04] on the sales tax piece, but

[1:40:05] in Pierce county we have not

[1:40:08] taken advantage of our entire

[1:40:11] transit sales tax authority and

[1:40:13] so we are eager to do that. So

[1:40:15] just making sure that as we

[1:40:18] look at these, we do recognize

[1:40:19] how different each jurisdiction

[1:40:20] is. You know, for that one,

[1:40:22] for example. Maybe Seattle

[1:40:24] wouldn't take advantage,

[1:40:25] but we would be able to. And

[1:40:26] wondering as we model that how

[1:40:32] do we take those sorts

[1:40:33] of things into account, sort

[1:40:34] of the other factors,

[1:40:35] because it's a great point. We

[1:40:37] have the arts and culture sales

[1:40:39] tax, we have the community

[1:40:40] safety,

[1:40:43] law enforcement sales. You

[1:40:44] know, all these pieces are

[1:40:45] adding up and it does make a

[1:40:46] huge difference. We can't keep

[1:40:48] passing sales tax over and

[1:40:49] over and over again. So how do

[1:40:51] we model that

[1:40:52] from the staff perspective?

[1:40:55] >> That is a great question.

[1:40:56] And I'm looking

[1:40:57] to my phone-a-friends next

[1:40:58] to me, I think so. I don't know

[1:41:00] that we would model that,

[1:41:01] but we can come back. And one

[1:41:02] of the options that Craig

[1:41:03] talked about is we don't need

[1:41:05] to apply, particularly

[1:41:06] for transit sales tax. We don't

[1:41:07] need to apply. Apply the same

[1:41:08] assumption for each transit

[1:41:10] agency. I think we have a

[1:41:12] massive spreadsheet with

[1:41:13] revenue information and I

[1:41:15] believe we have it broken down

[1:41:17] by agency. So one of the

[1:41:19] conversations that the board

[1:41:20] could have is assuming

[1:41:22] different increases per agency

[1:41:25] if that was the route that

[1:41:27] would want to go. We could

[1:41:29] also, again,

[1:41:30] since we are talking about a

[1:41:31] little bit higher level

[1:41:33] approach of we're trying to

[1:41:34] identify these are the needs.

[1:41:36] Kind of

[1:41:37] like the conversation we had

[1:41:38] on the climate plan. These are

[1:41:39] the needs. What is it going

[1:41:40] to take to get there? So we

[1:41:42] could also craft something

[1:41:44] about, you know,

[1:41:45] a more average increase in

[1:41:46] transit sales tax would be

[1:41:47] necessary to achieve that 2%

[1:41:51] local transit growth that is

[1:41:52] now embedded in transit

[1:41:54] to be that we say we want. And

[1:41:56] the details could be worked

[1:41:57] out maybe more in this future

[1:41:58] action item or we could have

[1:41:59] more qualitative information

[1:42:01] talking about some

[1:42:02] of those challenges. I will go

[1:42:04] out on a limb and ask my

[1:42:05] colleagues, could we come back

[1:42:07] with more information

[1:42:08] to council member Kettle's

[1:42:09] concern? More information

[1:42:10] on sales tax

[1:42:11] in general and how an increase

[1:42:12] to the transit sales Tax would

[1:42:13] impact that.

[1:42:15] >> I was going to say the same

[1:42:16] thing, Kelly. My mind was going

[1:42:17] there too as I were, you know,

[1:42:18] here I was fixated

[1:42:20] on the transit sales tax piece.

[1:42:21] But and it makes a lot of sense

[1:42:24] is that we should actually show

[1:42:25] what once it gets added

[1:42:26] with everything else,

[1:42:28] if you end up

[1:42:29] with a 15% sales tax,

[1:42:31] it's getting really hard.

[1:42:33] Right. And so, and we see those

[1:42:35] differences where some places

[1:42:36] it's already 10.5% once you add

[1:42:38] in everybody. So I think that

[1:42:40] would be really helpful and we

[1:42:41] could definitely do that.

[1:42:43] We'll have to find a good way

[1:42:44] to do it because I know it.

[1:42:46] It varies a lot places

[1:42:48] but we can find a way to try

[1:42:49] to highlight that

[1:42:50] at a higher level.

[1:42:51] >> So we understand it maybe

[1:42:52] based on some of the

[1:42:53] conversations we're hearing

[1:42:55] here, it maybe rising raising

[1:42:57] the folks that aren't

[1:42:59] to the level that others are,

[1:43:00] you know, to,

[1:43:02] to an even playing field. So

[1:43:04] there's invest similar

[1:43:06] investments

[1:43:07] in all communities.

[1:43:09] >> Brady delang, go ahead.

[1:43:17] >> Oh, sorry about that. My

[1:43:18] camera is not working. Okay,

[1:43:19] well thank you, Mr. Chair. So I

[1:43:21] just wanted to quickly share

[1:43:23] some information

[1:43:24] with this group as it relates

[1:43:25] to the retail delivery fee.

[1:43:27] During my time at AWC,

[1:43:28] we worked with the JTC

[1:43:31] to spearhead this concept

[1:43:33] around the retail delivery fee

[1:43:35] specifically

[1:43:36] with the intention

[1:43:38] of having a distribution

[1:43:40] between cities and counties.

[1:43:41] And one thing I would just

[1:43:42] share with staff

[1:43:44] at PRC is that we also. PSRC,

[1:43:46] excuse me, my dyslexia. We

[1:43:49] asked the GTC to come up

[1:43:52] with a mechanism, a tool

[1:43:54] to help kind of demonstrate

[1:43:59] different distribution levels

[1:44:00] among cities and counties, but

[1:44:01] with the intent of a direct

[1:44:03] distribution specifically

[1:44:04] to local governments,

[1:44:06] regardless of location,

[1:44:07] regardless of direct impact.

[1:44:09] So part of that is intended

[1:44:11] to really kind

[1:44:13] of offset some the, of the

[1:44:14] potential impacts. I think

[1:44:15] there's a lot of flexibility

[1:44:18] in how you might change some of

[1:44:20] that distribution and how you

[1:44:21] might kind

[1:44:23] of adjust specifically

[1:44:24] for infrastructure impacts or,

[1:44:26] you know, kind of other

[1:44:27] elements. I think that some

[1:44:29] of the staff that still is

[1:44:30] at AWC might be talking

[1:44:32] about this. So I would

[1:44:33] encourage you to work

[1:44:34] with them and to chat

[1:44:35] with them about some of the

[1:44:37] different opportunities that

[1:44:38] create could be on the table

[1:44:41] in the future related

[1:44:42] to how this,

[1:44:43] this tool might work. The other

[1:44:45] thing I'll just quickly note

[1:44:46] too is that the different,

[1:44:47] the distinctions between

[1:44:48] Colorado and Minnesota

[1:44:50] in particular, Minnesota's fee

[1:44:52] really was directed

[1:44:56] specifically

[1:44:57] at local governments, but

[1:44:58] with a lot of caveats. So they

[1:44:59] wound up generating far less

[1:45:01] revenue than Colorado's.

[1:45:03] Conversely, Colorado went back

[1:45:05] to a year or two later

[1:45:06] to adjust some

[1:45:07] of the impacts. So equally,

[1:45:09] we took that into account and

[1:45:10] with the mechanism,

[1:45:12] the tool that we created

[1:45:13] in conjunction with JTC,

[1:45:14] you can adjust for some

[1:45:15] of these,

[1:45:16] like clear distinctions

[1:45:17] on impacts to businesses,

[1:45:19] impacts to infrastructure,

[1:45:20] and kind of the categorical or

[1:45:23] sequential elements that folks

[1:45:27] might want to try to address as

[1:45:28] you're creating policy

[1:45:30] to implement,

[1:45:31] implement something

[1:45:33] like this. So I would be happy

[1:45:34] to chat

[1:45:35] with folks a little bit more

[1:45:36] about the work that we did or

[1:45:37] put you in contact with the

[1:45:38] folks. I think they're kind

[1:45:39] of carrying on this torch,

[1:45:40] if you're so interested.

[1:45:41] But I just wanted

[1:45:42] to share a little background

[1:45:43] since I was

[1:45:45] on this call and frankly, kind

[1:45:47] of created the mess, so

[1:45:48] to speak.

[1:45:51] >> Thank you, Brandy. We will

[1:45:52] definitely reach out. Thanks

[1:45:53] for that.

[1:45:54] >> And Council Member Jacob

[1:45:56] Walker.

[1:45:57] >> Thank you. Had we got any

[1:45:59] indication last year or is

[1:46:01] there any idea going

[1:46:03] into the next session about how

[1:46:05] that gas tax distribution may

[1:46:07] change or may not change at all

[1:46:09] if the ROC charge is adopted?

[1:46:15] >> That is a great question.

[1:46:16] I'm looking to bend to see if

[1:46:18] you have more details. I know

[1:46:19] that when we incorporated

[1:46:20] assumptions

[1:46:22] about a road usage charge

[1:46:23] in our core current plan, we

[1:46:24] very much were assuming and

[1:46:26] basically stating that the

[1:46:27] distribution needed

[1:46:29] to be broadened to be able

[1:46:31] to fund multimodal investments,

[1:46:32] but. Ben, do you have a better

[1:46:34] answer to that?

[1:46:35] >> I don't recall exactly. I

[1:46:37] don't remember there being a

[1:46:39] lot of discussion

[1:46:40] on any changes

[1:46:41] of the formula distribution of

[1:46:43] the existing gas tax. I mean,

[1:46:45] of THE RUC. It would replicate

[1:46:48] the same distribution

[1:46:50] percentages as the current gas

[1:46:52] tax. That's my recollection.

[1:46:54] >> Thank you.

[1:46:57] I just want to,

[1:46:59] I know we just voted on, on

[1:47:00] to be, but just going

[1:47:03] through this presentation,

[1:47:04] again, being newer

[1:47:06] to the board,

[1:47:08] but having always dealt with it

[1:47:09] as a taxpayer. I'm starting

[1:47:13] to have a curiosity if, if the

[1:47:16] revenue gap that we're trying

[1:47:18] to address is more

[1:47:20] of a reminder of our need

[1:47:23] to kind of reconsider our

[1:47:26] spending expectations or

[1:47:27] resource expectations. I think

[1:47:34] that obviously we all want to

[1:47:36] make sure that we're ensuring

[1:47:37] safety and keeping our

[1:47:39] commitments realistic.

[1:47:42] But I'm just starting to wonder

[1:47:44] if the shortfall is not a

[1:47:45] revenue problem but more of a

[1:47:47] spending expectation problem.

[1:47:48] So I just wanted to throw that

[1:47:51] out there. Thank you guys.

[1:47:56] >> Appreciate that input.

[1:47:57] >> Councilman Schneider.

[1:48:01] >> Thank you. I appreciate it.

[1:48:03] So I in general am, you know,

[1:48:07] very interested in the Ruchy

[1:48:09] and remembering back

[1:48:12] to that being one

[1:48:13] of the major levers that we

[1:48:16] have for reducing Miles

[1:48:17] traveled and you know,

[1:48:18] our getting

[1:48:19] to our climate action goals,

[1:48:20] I'm wondering if it is

[1:48:21] considered, is it regressive?

[1:48:26] In other words, based on,

[1:48:28] based on the comment that we

[1:48:30] heard earlier today

[1:48:32] about displaced workers, you

[1:48:33] know,

[1:48:34] leaving the cities and having

[1:48:35] to travel further to get

[1:48:36] to jobs, is it sort of,

[1:48:42] is it going to be sort

[1:48:44] of more punitive

[1:48:45] for folks who, you know,

[1:48:49] are traveling for work in that

[1:48:51] way that are lower income?

[1:48:53] It's a great question and

[1:48:54] again, I'll ask Ben to help me

[1:48:55] out here. I think that the

[1:48:57] commission has done some really

[1:48:58] great work showing that the gas

[1:49:00] tax is actually more regressive

[1:49:03] than the RUC, that the RUC

[1:49:05] could be set up either to, you

[1:49:06] know, things could be built

[1:49:08] in related

[1:49:09] to low income provisions,

[1:49:11] for example, but also just

[1:49:12] recognizing the gas tax,

[1:49:14] I'm going to fumble my way

[1:49:16] through this. So correct me if

[1:49:17] I get it wrong. The gas tax is

[1:49:19] set up that everybody pays the

[1:49:20] same regardless of, of the, the

[1:49:21] vehicle that they drive and a

[1:49:24] road usage charge. It is really

[1:49:25] based on how much you drive and

[1:49:27] provisions could be built in.

[1:49:29] That takes into account,

[1:49:30] I think that,

[1:49:31] I think the argument was, or

[1:49:32] the, or the explanation was

[1:49:34] that they would actually be

[1:49:35] paying less in a road usage

[1:49:36] charge than they would

[1:49:37] under the gas tax.

[1:49:39] But I probably fumbled that.

[1:49:40] So Ben, help me out.

[1:49:41] >> I think you covered it well.

[1:49:42] Kelly, one

[1:49:43] of our assumptions,

[1:49:44] we've had an assumption

[1:49:45] about having a RUC

[1:49:46] in the future in the region

[1:49:47] in the last couple

[1:49:49] of plans that we've adopted.

[1:49:50] And the assumption has been

[1:49:52] that you could design

[1:49:54] implementation of Iraq

[1:49:55] to address many of the equity

[1:49:56] concerns that people have

[1:49:57] raised in terms of is does

[1:49:59] somebody actually have any sort

[1:50:02] of alternatives to driving?

[1:50:04] Does the nature of say, the

[1:50:07] work that they're doing or the

[1:50:09] reason for the trip, say

[1:50:12] for deliveries and so forth,

[1:50:16] you have to drive in order to

[1:50:18] actually accomplish that work.

[1:50:20] So it's all in the details

[1:50:21] in terms of how these are

[1:50:22] designed and implemented. But

[1:50:24] the assumption has been that we

[1:50:25] can do that and we can look at,

[1:50:26] as the rep

[1:50:29] from FEMSIB was saying

[1:50:31] about the, the retail delivery

[1:50:32] fee, that you can look

[1:50:34] at impacts

[1:50:35] to small businesses,

[1:50:36] you can look at impacts

[1:50:38] in different parts

[1:50:39] of the region and it will be,

[1:50:40] have to, have to be very,

[1:50:41] very carefully designed.

[1:50:42] But you know, entering into it

[1:50:44] with eyes wide open is really

[1:50:45] the approach we should take.

[1:50:48] >> So given that, I think that,

[1:50:52] and also given that we're

[1:50:54] looking 10 years out,

[1:50:55] we should go big on, you know,

[1:51:00] it's going to take a long time

[1:51:01] for the culture to sort of

[1:51:03] shift and appreciate that this

[1:51:05] is a necessary direction. And

[1:51:07] then of course,

[1:51:09] the all the techie problems on

[1:51:10] collecting revenue and so

[1:51:12] forth. But I think we should,

[1:51:14] you know, we should go

[1:51:16] at least moderate if, if not

[1:51:18] higher, as with at the same

[1:51:22] time promoting this as a much

[1:51:25] more socially just way of

[1:51:27] collecting the necessary

[1:51:31] revenue for the roads and also

[1:51:33] towards our climate goals.

[1:51:35] Let's not negotiate

[1:51:38] against ourselves. Thank you.

[1:51:40] >> All right. Sake

[1:51:42] of time here. We're getting

[1:51:43] close to the end

[1:51:44] of our meeting time and I'm

[1:51:45] at a, I'm going to call on

[1:51:46] Council Members Arlingo and

[1:51:47] then I'm going to go to

[1:51:48] Deputy Mayor Arnold

[1:51:50] after that and then we're going

[1:51:51] to move on. Go ahead, Council

[1:51:52] member.

[1:51:54] >> Yeah, I'll make this quick.

[1:51:55] >> Is it fair to assume that

[1:51:57] the road usage charge could be

[1:51:58] based on road wear and vehicle

[1:51:59] weight? It could definitely be

[1:52:06] based on vehicle weight,

[1:52:07] for sure. I mean,

[1:52:09] it all depends

[1:52:10] on how you collect it. It could

[1:52:11] be an odometer read when you

[1:52:13] submit your registration where

[1:52:15] you could do that. And it could

[1:52:17] incorporate vehicle weight,

[1:52:18] could be higher. So, yeah,

[1:52:21] there's lots of opportunities.

[1:52:23] I'm not sure the,

[1:52:24] the road wear one, I,

[1:52:26] if it was tied to the,

[1:52:27] the weight of the vehicle,

[1:52:28] I guess I could see that.

[1:52:29] But otherwise, I'm not sure if

[1:52:31] I'm following that one as

[1:52:32] closely. But there's lots of

[1:52:33] details that you could

[1:52:35] definitely get into with a

[1:52:36] reducer's charge that differ

[1:52:37] from, say, the gas tax. You

[1:52:39] definitely have a lot

[1:52:41] of options.

[1:52:42] >> Thanks. Go ahead. Deputy

[1:52:43] Mayor Arlen

[1:52:44] >> Thank you. And I hope we

[1:52:45] capture a lot

[1:52:46] of these policy discussions

[1:52:48] in the RTP for future

[1:52:50] consideration and

[1:52:51] implementation. To Council

[1:52:53] Member Schneider's point, you

[1:52:55] know, philosophically I think

[1:52:55] there's really opportunities

[1:52:56] with the road usage charge,

[1:52:58] but I want to be realistic.

[1:53:00] As Ben has mentioned,

[1:53:01] we've had this in the plan with

[1:53:02] some assumptions that said the

[1:53:04] legislature was going to act

[1:53:06] and the legislature is going

[1:53:07] to act, and it hasn't up

[1:53:08] to this point. And so I think

[1:53:10] we need to be realistic. And I

[1:53:11] like the idea of what staff has

[1:53:14] put up here as being super

[1:53:15] conservative because the

[1:53:18] assumptions we made

[1:53:19] in previous plans

[1:53:20] about the legislature starting

[1:53:21] to put the road usage

[1:53:23] charge in place

[1:53:24] haven't happened. And

[1:53:25] so I'm concerned

[1:53:26] about doing anything at a

[1:53:28] higher level or doing anything

[1:53:29] earlier than 2035.

[1:53:31] >> Good point.

[1:53:34] >> All right, we. We're going

[1:53:36] to move on now

[1:53:38] to information items. And

[1:53:39] unless you have anything else

[1:53:40] to wrap

[1:53:41] on this.

[1:53:42] >> [ INAUDIBLE ] to close out,

[1:53:43] thank you for that. And I think

[1:53:44] I'm looking to my colleagues

[1:53:45] got a little bit

[1:53:46] of a mixed message. So I think

[1:53:48] what we could do is maybe let's

[1:53:49] run both we'll we'll and come

[1:53:52] back with that information. So

[1:53:54] we have scenario 2B already

[1:53:57] kind of modeled as is. We'll

[1:53:59] work under the assumption that

[1:54:01] the draft plan would include a

[1:54:02] state level rough beginning

[1:54:03] in 2035.

[1:54:04] But we we're not going to

[1:54:05] release the plan so maybe we

[1:54:06] run that and then

[1:54:08] but we'll talk about it more

[1:54:09] in November and see we'll be

[1:54:10] ready for both. If I'm not

[1:54:12] gonna if Craig might want

[1:54:13] to smack me right now but we'll

[1:54:15] give you a little bit more time

[1:54:16] to and we'll come back with

[1:54:18] that information because there

[1:54:19] will be and again as Craig

[1:54:20] mentioned the reason that we

[1:54:22] need this is there that will

[1:54:24] definitely impact demand. So we

[1:54:25] want to make sure that we

[1:54:27] capture that. So we already

[1:54:28] have one run if we go ahead and

[1:54:29] assume it and we run it.

[1:54:30] But we'll come back in

[1:54:31] November and there will still

[1:54:32] be if you if you want

[1:54:33] to pull us back,

[1:54:34] we'll still have time

[1:54:35] to do that. Thank you.

[1:54:38] >> All right. And what do you

[1:54:39] have to share

[1:54:40] on the information items?

[1:54:45] >> Just our ongoing work work

[1:54:47] program progress tracker. So

[1:54:49] things still outside of the RTP

[1:54:50] things still keep moving

[1:54:52] forward. So nothing nothing new

[1:54:54] to report on that.

[1:54:56] >> Okay, with that we our next

[1:54:59] meeting date is Thursday

[1:55:03] November 13th and hope to see

[1:55:04] you all here that our meeting

[1:55:05] is adjourned.

Transportation Policy Board

Agenda

Transcript