>> Good morning,
everybody. I would like
to welcome you and call
to order this meeting of the
Transportation Policy Board.
I'm filling in for the Dana
this morning who's online and
so since I'm in person,
I'm going
to run this morning's meeting.
So if you've called in, we.
Let's see here. A call
in number has been provided
on the meeting agenda
for members of the public
to call
in and live stream the meeting.
If you've called in,
we ask that you mute your
device to avoid interfering
with the meeting. If a
participant fails to mute their
audio and causes description
to the meeting, the connection
will be muted and possibly
disconnected.
For remote participants who
wish to speak, please use the
raise the hand feet function
in zoom. For those of us
in person, you will need
to turn on your microphone
for everyone
to see and hear you. The
activation button is located
at the base
of the microphone. Gently tap
or swipe the button which I
failed to do earlier. And this
button is located
at the base. Please tap or
swipe that button. This button
will display green light and
one is on and red one is off.
Please turn off your mic when
you're finished talking. So,
Alex, you're going to do the
roll call.
>> I'll be going
through the list on the screen
for alternates. You may
participate and vote. If your
members not present,
we'll be starting in Seattle.
>> [ CALLING ROLL ]
>> Thank you.
>> So we have a quorum and we
can start our meeting. Then
we're to public comment. Is
there anyone in the room or
online that wishes
to address the Regional
Council?
>> The board did not receive
any written comment. No one
signed up for online or
in person comment.
>> Okay, I will close the
public comment period. Then we
are to our consent. Chair
reports. I guess I just broke
the pen. All right,
I don't have any remarks.
Dana, do you have anything?
>> Just would defer to Kelly
to catch everybody up
to speed.
>> All right, well then go to
Kelly and her director's
report.
>> All right. And I will be
brief, but I did have a few
things I wanted to share
with you first. Last week was
the week without driving. And I
know many
of your organizations may have
participated. We did have a
fair number
of PSRC staff participate
in that. And I think that staff
would like to come back in
November, learn a little bit
more about what's happening
around the region. But just a
few quick observations that I
was asked to share on that.
From our perspective that it
was. There are certainly some
challenges,
especially when you need to go
grocery shopping and carry
things when you have children
with you. It takes a little bit
of extra time. Also
acknowledging that we are very
fortunate here at PSRC. We have
a very flexible work from home
policy here and we also work
in downtown Seattle where
transit and access to transit
is plentiful and acknowledging
that we're fairly privileged
in that.
But when you get further out,
things,
things change a little bit
in terms of what's available,
levels of service, frequencies
of service and things
of that nature.
But they also wanted, you know,
just to make sure that we
acknowledge that especially
for those who've been
in the region and lived
in the region a fair bit,
there is a lot happening.
There's been a lot
of improvements over the years
and there continues
to be improvements
over the years. So it was a. I
think everyone enjoyed kind of
doing that experiment and we'll
keep learning more.
But I think it's very relevant
to the work that we're doing on
the regional transportation
plan. Two other things I wanted
to note is one, in the spirit
you will see we have a climate
presentation this morning,
but I also wanted to share with
you because I don't think I
have done this yet that the
South Central Puget Sound
region was selected by the.
It's C2ES. It is the. Let me
find their acronym here,
the center for. Where did I. I
already lost it. Center for
Climate and Energy Solutions,
formerly the Pew center on
Global Climate Change. They
have what they call a Climate
Resilient Communities
Accelerator program. It's
pretty exciting. And they
selected the South Central
Puget Sound region
to participate in that. It's a
two year program and it's
really. They bring their
resources to bring a lot
of folks together
from the public sector,
the private sector communities.
They have a lot
of convenings that Year one is
really about coordination and
learning and identifying needs
and potential actions. Year two
is taking all
of that and really zooming in
on implementation of some
of those actions. So we've
already had two convenings.
One on kind
of setting the stage in
Climate Resilient Economies
Roundtable and then we had a
Resources Connector forum which
was really,
really interesting. And the two
hazards that are being focused
on for our region are extreme
heat and wildfire risk. So, so
it's a really exciting program.
Many of your organizations are
involved as well. And I will
continue to Share information
and maybe invite C2ES
to come give a presentation
on that. And then last
but not least, I did you
received an email this morning
from Alexa. We did have a
revision to one item
on the consent agenda. There
was an additional project added
to the routine amendment
to our regional
Transportation Improvement
Program. And this was really.
There was a bit
of a misunderstanding
of some programming timelines.
And
since this is the last
amendment of the year,
we needed
to squeeze that project
in so that that would allow
them to the project schedule
to stay on track. And it is
number seven on the revised
attachment that was sent
to you this morning for the
North Bend South Fork extension
bypass. And happy
to answer questions,
but otherwise we can move on
to the consent.
>> All right, any questions
for Kelly? Don't see any hands
raised. So we'll move on
to our consent agenda. We have
a couple of items. One is
minutes and then a routine
amendment
of the transportation
Improvement program. Is there a
motion to approve the consent
agenda?
>> I move to approve the
consent agenda. Councilman
Daughtry.
>> Is there a second?
>> Second. Dana Ralph.
>> All right, thank you, Dana.
To catch those both. All right,
we have a motion and second
to approve the consent agenda.
All in favor,
please say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Is there anyone opposed?
Hearing on the consent agenda
has been approved. We have a
number of discussion items,
the first of which is the 2026
recommendations
to the state legislature.
Robin, this is you.
>> Good morning, everybody.
We'll first start out
with a little bit
of a federal and state update
to sort of set the stage for
our state legislative
discussion. Of course,
I'm sure everyone is aware
we're in day nine
of a federal shutdown.
Democrats are demanding
extension to Affordable Care
act subsidies, while
Republicans are saying that
they will not negotiate until
the government is reopened.
And at this point,
people are still pretty much
in their corners. Of course,
as the shutdown continues,
the impacts continue to show up
and become much more impactful.
So Secretary Duffy held a press
conference this week
of DOT warning of the impacts
on air traffic controllers and
signaling that new project
approvals will not happen. It
is our understanding that most
transportation funding is being
reimbursed, both on the FHWA
side and the FTA side. Again, I
think the new projects are the
area where you might see some
delay with federal employees
not reporting to work.
In some cases, House members
have begun to work on a bill
to pay military
before run funds run out on
October 15. But at this time,
House leadership is not
supporting that move. And then,
of course, the White House
continues to threaten firings
of federal workers,
which is a Little different
than past shutdowns where we've
seen workers furloughed and
then paid once the government
reopens. One impact that we've
seen here, that's fallout
from the shutdown, was a cut to
energy programs that included
the Northwest Hydrogen hub and
that had some impacts
in our region to jet fuel and
maritime that would have been
part of that hub. I put up here
a link to the New York Times
article that sort
of shows agency by agency how
the shutdown is affecting
various federal agencies and
workers. And then another thing
that we're watching that isn't
germane necessarily
to this body, however, I think
will just have great impact in
local communities is a
continuum of care reductions
that have been posed. The
administration appears
to be moving toward making
changes that would impose time
limits and therefore
significantly reduce funding
by about a third. And estimate
estimates are that about
170,000 people would be
at risk of homelessness. So
we're watching this closely.
National alliance and
Homelessness is promising some
additional information as they
get it. And so we'll make sure
to share with you on that.
Turning over to the state side
of things, you know,
setting the scene
before we talk about our state
legislative recommendations.
Overall, you know, there's some
pretty significant impacts that
are at play impacting our
revenue collection,
which include trade policy and
tariffs, changes to federal
government spending and
employment levels,
slow employment growth, slower
revenue growth and high
interest rates and continued
geopolitical conflict. All
in the good news category
for my reports as
of usual lately. So the overall
revenue forecast that includes
the General Fund, Education
Trust and a few other accounts
is looking at about a $900
million decrease or about 6%
for both the 2527 fiscal year
and then the 2729 fiscal year.
And I also have included a link
to an article here. I always
suggest as local government
in particular elected officials
to just take a look at this.
It's actually a really good
overview of where we are with
the economy both nationally and
at the state level. You can go
on to the next slide. Last year
we also started giving reports
on a transportation revenue
forecast. The good news is, I
guess I do have some good news
today is that as a result of
revenue actions that the
legislature took last year, we
didn't see as significant
decreases
in the transportation budget,
a very small one over the 23
to 27, four year period of 19
million and then about 125
million for 2729 collections.
You know,
gas consumption does continue
to decline, but
of course we had that increase
in the gas tax that went
into effect this year. So we
are seeing the impact
of that compensating for the
consumption decline. EV
registrations continue
to be up. Ferry ridership is
down. However, fares are up.
So there is a revenue increase
in that account overall. And
I've also included a link
to that. So I'll pause there.
That's pretty much the end.
Except I'll just say, you know,
I think going
into the legislative session,
we really are going
to see a rough time. I think,
you know, there just isn't very
much funding. And of course,
the federal cuts have an impact
on what state legislators are
going to do. So I think
everyone's kind
of bracing themselves for a
very difficult year this year.
State Legislature.
>> Questions for Robin?
Thank you for your report,
Robin.
>> So I guess we'll roll right
into the recommendations to the
state legislature. I'm joined
today by Alyssa Quinn, who
hopefully most of you know,
who's our senior government
relations specialist, just
to do a little bit of a review
of how we do this. We develop
the recommendations and we
consult with the executive
board and then all
of the policy boards
during the month of October.
And then the executive
committee will make final
recommendations
to the executive board. And we
try to really make sure that
the recommendations are based
on our adopted plans and
policies that will help us
achieve our regional priorities
at the state level. And we try
to keep them fairly broad
in order to make sure that we
can reflect what our regional
attitudes are and also so that
we can be nimble and react
to things that occur, since
things will definitely change
between now and the beginning
of session in January. And
of course, you know,
we're beginning to meet with
state legislators right now.
We met with Chair Fy a couple
of weeks ago, and we have
several others scheduled. So
we'll be using that to inform
how we approach the legislative
session, of course. And now
I'll just shift over to Alyssa
to talk
about the policy areas that are
in our recommendations.
>> Thanks, Robin. Hi, everyone.
So these are the
recommendations that were made
to the state legislature last
year. And PSRC staff recommend
keeping the same four buckets.
So keep the region moving,
increase housing choices and
affordability, significantly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and sustain a strong economy.
And then Robin and I will go
into a little bit more detail
on the transportation and
climate side.
>> So last year,
we did make a few changes
to the recommendations
to prioritize a number
of different things. Those
changes included prioritizing
safety and then highlighting
certain things that we really
wanted to see in transportation
investments that included
stable revenue, making sure.
We're able
to complete projects of
regional significance and then
adequately funding maintenance
and preservation, which
of course, is showing up in our
regional transportation plan
discussions as well. And then
we also have the road usage
included on recommendations,
as well as ferry funding.
>> And then
on the climate side,
we're looking at reducing
emissions and preparing
for climate impacts. And now we
will turn it over to you to see
if anyone has any suggestions
or recommendations they'd like
to make.
>> Any comments or suggestions
for staff. Go ahead,
Christine.
>> Good morning. This is
Christine Cooley from the
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. I
had a minor ask that we add the
Comprehensive Climate Action
Plan along the Vision 2050
messaging because I am so
grateful for the coordination
between Puget Sound Regional
Council and the agency when it
comes to our climate goals.
And I think it's important
to show that to legislators
that were coordinated and we
agree
on the plans put forward.
>> We can certainly make that
change to make sure we're
indicating our great
collaboration.
>> Councilmember Schneider, go
ahead.
>> Thank you. I'm wondering if,
as part of this presentation
to the legislature, are we
including is probably related
to the climate, the climate
change plan. I've been really
interested
to hear the PSRC analysis
of the levers that we have.
And is that part
of what we're presenting? Does
the legislature know what's
really needed in order
to move the needle?
>> So we have been doing
extensive outreach. Alyssa and
I have both been contacting our
state legislators as part of
our regional transportation
plan outreach,
outreach process. And we have
had several state legislators
attend. I believe the King
county meeting we had two,
two legislators attend.
But we're making sure
to email them so that they're,
you know, they're aware
of what we're doing as kind
of a step one. And certainly
when we're sitting
down and meeting
with legislators,
we're talking about the
regional transportation plan.
We have a plan to meet
with all of the legislators
in our region to make sure they
know what we're doing and what
the plan is, you know,
for newer legislators who may
not be familiar
with what we do here at PSRC.
So I don't think we're going
to actually put it
into the legislative agenda,
but we're. That's exactly what
we're talking to people
about when we're meeting
with them.
>> Other comments? Deputy
Mayor Arnold, go ahead.
>> Thank you. And I think we're
on the right track
on the policy piece. Just
looking at how we present this
in the future, shorter and more
concise is better. And if
they're, especially
in a short session. If there's
a way that we can get this
down to a single page instead
of a single page, front and
back, that'd be our only
feedback.
>> We'll receive that feedback
at the executive board. It's a
little difficult to pare it
down when we have all these
long plans. If you spell them
out, it take up a long time.
We are thinking
about doing some kind of like a
cover page document maybe that
has sort
of the very high points
of what we're talking about.
And we'll do our best to edit
as much as we can because we do
understand that, you know,
legislative attention span is
limited. So thank you
for that.
>> Anything from online?
Senator, Go ahead.
>> Thank you. Now, you
mentioned the preparing for
climate impacts and being new
to the board, is there a
document that you've got online
there that you see what, what
you're actually addressing?
And quite honestly, having sat
on the Senate budget Cabinet
and looking at the numbers, I
mean, I think we need
to be really realistic as
to what we can do. As far as,
you know, when you talk about
maintenance and preservation,
we, you know, as you are well
aware, we're over a billion
behind in annual, you know,
repairs. So, you know, it's
important that we really take a
good hard look at what's the
practical application moving
forward, how do we balance,
you know, what we want to see
with what we have to do. So is
that document online?
>> I believe the legislative
recommendations
from last year are
in your packet. So you can look
at the climate, which is
of course very limited.
But we can certainly follow up
with you, Senator, to give you
some more information
on what we're doing here
around climate at PSRC. But our
climate asks are fairly limited
on the legislative side.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other comments or
questions? All right,
hearing none. We're going
to move on
to our next discussion item.
This is Kelly with the Ad Hoc
Committee on Board
Representation.
>> Good morning. Let me go
to my cover slide here. Okay,
good morning. Thank you and
thanks, Robin and Alyssa. So I
believe you all received an
email from Sheila Rogers
on behalf of Josh related
to this ad hoc committee
on board representation
with some, with some background
and some options. And so today
we just want to give you
another very brief kind
of introduction
to it and take, we're going
to take a quick poll just
to kind of take a temperature
of the room on this.
But as a quick background, our
interlocal agreement does call
for membership to be
reconsidered every three years
specifically for the
Executive Board and the, the
Executive Committee Said, let's
go ahead. It's been some time
since we looked at our,
our membership parameters
for our policy board. So we're
also taking a look this time
for that. And, and an ad hoc
committee on board
representation has been pulled
together. We tried
to bring members from all
around the region, but also
representing our four boards
and several transportation
policy board members, including
our chair and vice chair are,
as well as many others I can
see on the list here,
are represented
on that ad hoc committee. So
I'm sure that they are going to
appreciate whatever comments
and polling you have today. So
in the both in the packet and
in the email that was sent out,
I believe some alternatives
were looked at. And in
particular the executive board
has a provision that cities
with a population than greater
than greater than 80,000
receive a seat. And so the
alternative, looking
at the policy board membership,
is also considering an
alternative that would provide
a voting seat on each
of the policy boards
in the same manner cities
with greater than 80,000
residents. Given that we do try
to have a board that's not
overwhelmingly large, but also
to achieve geographic balance,
the proposed alternative that
was put forth would modify the
number
of other cities and towns
for three
of the four counties.
Since many of the, I think all
of the cities over 80,000 that
are being added are in King
County. It would reduce the
number
of other cities and towns in
King county, but it would
increase other cities and towns
in Pierce and Snohomish
counties by one again to
maintain that geographic
balance. And this you can see,
while you probably can't see
that because it's very, very
small,
but the yellow highlight is
kind of showing those cities
that are now above 80,000
population and how it would be
modified again. So King county,
other cities and towns, 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, I believe are being
added six, excuse me. And then
reducing the other cities and
towns down
to one and then again
for geographic balance,
increasing the other cities and
towns in Pearson Snohomish. So
the overall number
of voting members
on the TPP would increase
under this alternative. And
again, in the spirit of keeping
the board a manageable size and
also quite frankly reflecting,
you know, overall attendance
patterns,
there was also a part
of the proposal was
to modify the non voting seats.
And you can see that currently
we have 16, we have a fair
number of seats for our
associate members and public
agencies and PSR PSRC
committees, as well as six
for business, labor, community
and environment seats. And the
alternative under consideration
would reduce the overall number
to 10. So we would have three
standing seats
for our partners at The Clean
Air Agency, our equity advisory
committee and Public Health.
And then we, we would have two,
seven total at large. Two
representing our public
agencies and associate members
who would submit for those
seats and then reducing our
community seats by one down
to two, five. So again this
was. This is just some
alternatives that are being put
forth for consider. We are
looking to hear from you. So
I'm happy to take feedback. I
know the next step is the ad
hoc group is going to meet
again and where they're going
to be making a recommendation
to the executive board
for final action.
But definitely would like
to hear some feedback. But
maybe we could go ahead. I know
this is a bit quick,
but hopefully you had time to
evaluate the email that was
sent out. But Alexa has created
a quick poll. Just taking a
temperature for the next ad hoc
committee meeting
to see if you want to keep the
status quo or discuss an
option, whether it's this
option or some other. So
Alexa, if you could go ahead
and start that poll. I think
this is an. It is in a Zoom
poll. So what we can do is
for the, for the four members
in the room,
maybe we could just do kind
of a verbal.
>> So those online are asked
to complete the Zoom poll and
then we're going
to do the others. Unless you've
got Zoom open or not.
Probably not.
>> So you can either just let
us know in the room or you can
also email me separately.
>> But the questions there.
>> So yeah, basically. Yeah,
it's. Basically the first
question is regarding the
voting seats. Do you prefer to
keep the seats as they are or
are you interested
in discussing an alternative?
And then the same question
for the non voting seats.
>> All right,
I'll let folks online vote.
Deputy Mayor Arnold?
>> Yeah. Interested
in discussing both topics.
>> Christine. Puget Sound
Clean Air Agency is a
non-voting member.
So we're here for however we
can be helpful.
>> Councilmember Schneider, how
do you feel
about this?
>> I don't feel like I really
have enough background. It
seems like it's not going
to affect Kitsap County. Is
that true? Okay, thank you. It
does not. Sorry, I didn't turn
my microphone on. So
at least you're open
to discussion. Anyway, it
appears.
>> And Alexa, should I end?
>> Yeah, let's go ahead and do
that.
>> So it looks like 63% on the
first question are interested
in discussing and 56% also
interested in discussing the
second question. Looks like
further discussion is needed.
>> Perfect. So we will take
this short poll and again,
if there are any initial
feedback, please feel free to
Share that or send us an email.
But we will take all
of this feedback
to the next meeting of the ad
hoc committee and we'll go from
there. I beg your pardon? I do.
I almost forgot. We did get an
email and I promised
to share that. Council member
King County Councilmember
Barone was not able to attend
today and he did send us an
email. And the overall message
that he. He was saying is that
he thinks it's important that
no entity loses representation.
It's critical that we find a
solution that ensures fair
representation and balance
for all the bodies represented
at the PSRC without diluting
anyone's voice. He does not
support moving forward
with the options currently
under consideration and
suggests that we just simply
need more time to consider the
proposals and give members the
opportunity to better
understand perspective. So
essentially advocating
for some additional time. So we
will also share that
with the ad hoc committee.
>> Deputy Mayor Arnold, are you
looking
for feedback right now? If we
have it?
If you have it, happy
to take it now.
We're also happy if you want
to send it.
Responding to the email,
that was okay.
>> Well, very briefly,
just thinking
about other towns in King
county within sound cities,
just that there are a variety
of different needs and
perspectives in the discussions
that we have had. And when you
look at the breakdown
of cities above 80,000 and
below that we're talking about,
this proposal would have only
one seat
for the cities below. And
for many
of the things that we do here
in looking at plan eligibility
criteria and things
like that,
there's a vast amount
of differences
in needs and resources
available
for the smaller cities. And so
it's going to be important
for them to have a voice. And
we've got concerns
of only one vote
for all the cities
in the other towns of King
counties at that size.
>> Thank you. Appreciate that
feedback.
>> Other comments and Kelly,
of course,
welcomes and we all do the.
And email back also
with your feedback
to the email that was sent out.
Okay. We ready
to move on?
>> Yes.
>> To our next discussion item,
which is the Regional
Comprehensive Climate Action
Plan. And Sarah Hetrick is
going to present that.
>> Good morning all. Thank you
for having me. I'll just share
my screen. So this morning I'm
really looking forward
to sharing an update
with you all on the Puget
Sound region's draft
Comprehensive Climate Action
Plan. So briefly, here are the
topics that I'm going
to cover today. First, I'm
going to provide you
with an overview of the
Climate Pollution Reduction
Grant Port program as well as
the agency's role. I'm going to
discuss the partners that we've
worked with to develop the
draft climate plan and share
opportunities for public input
using our online engagement
hub. I'm then going to discuss
the plan's emission reduction
analysis,
including a high level overview
of the climate strategies that
are in the plan,
and really how to understand
each strategy's emission
reduction potential. And then
finally, we're going to end
with an opportunity
for you all to ask questions.
So by way of some background,
in 2023, the agency received a
grant from the federal
Climate Pollution Reduction
Grant Program
to lead climate action planning
for the Seattle, Tacoma,
Bellevue Metropolitan
Statistical Area, which covers
King, Pierce and Snohomish
counties.
But it was incredibly important
to the agency that the climate
plan was really truly regional
in nature. And so we worked
with EPA
to actually expand the coverage
of the plan
to include all four counties
in the Puget Sound region. So
that includes Kitsap County.
So this climate plan must be
completed and submitted to EPA
by December of this year. So
here we can see the primary
goals of the climate plan. So
first, we want to create that
long term regional climate plan
to achieve our region's climate
goals and help our region do
its part to meet the state's
climate goals. We want
to ensure that we're aligning
with and complementing state
and local climate planning
efforts. And importantly,
we want to build and maintain
the regional collaborations
that are necessary for that
collective climate action. So
in doing so,
our goal is really to make our
region more competitive
for grant applications to
really increase that available
climate funding
to our region. And then, as
always, we want to make sure
that we're aligning priorities
that foster equity
across our region. So the
purpose
of this climate plan is to
identify high impact regional
strategies and actions
to reduce climate emissions
through those coordinated
efforts with a focus
on maximizing the benefits
for overburdened communities.
And the climate strategies that
we've presented
in this plan are
in the draft plan, are built
on years of emission analysis
and public engagement here
in the Puget Sound region. And
they will also all the
strategies be implemented
at either the local,
regional or state level. So a
little
about the agency's role. We are
serving as the lead
organization for the region's
climate pollution reduction
grant program. We are
responsible for working with
government partners and the
communities we serve
to develop this climate plan.
So over the past two years,
we work closely with the
Washington Climate
Partnership, which consists
of state Departments of
Ecology and Commerce,
to really stay aligned
with their efforts to develop
the state's own comprehensive
climate action plan
under the CPRG program. We are
Also coordinating
with tribal grantees through
the state's climate pollution
reduction grant tribal work
group. And
of course we continue
to coordinate closely with
regional jurisdictions and
partners like PSRC
to stay aligned with local
climate planning efforts,
which are I think really
in many ways the backbone
of this regional climate plan.
So here we have a list
of just some of the many
partners that we have worked
with in developing the draft
climate plan. So this includes
cities and counties,
subject matter experts
across the region, utilities,
transit providers, community
organizations, ports,
and as I previously mentioned,
the Washington Climate
Partnership. And then
of course EPA region 10 state
and tribal grantees. So let's
briefly discuss what's included
in the draft climate plan
itself. So first we have some
climate specific analyses. So
this includes the greenhouse
gas inventory for the four
county region as well as
emission projections and
climate reduction targets
for both the near term 2030 and
longer term 2050 time frames.
Importantly, it also includes a
comprehensive list
of strategies and actions to
achieve these greenhouse gas
reduction targets
across all sectors
of the region's economy. And
later in this presentation
we're actually going
to discuss some of the specific
emission reduction strategies.
The draft climate plan also
includes several other
important analyses which are
going to help make the plan
strategies as actionable as
possible for decision makers
in our region. So in addition
to estimating the emission
reduction potential
for each strategy, the plan
also includes information
on things like costs,
potential funding sources and
co benefits, again
with a focus on overburdened
communities as well as an
understanding of workforce
development implications
for implementation
of the strategies.
Importantly, it also identifies
some of the strategies that are
well posed
for regional implementation.
And so the goal of this
additional information is
really
to provide jurisdictions
in our region
with the information they need
to make these effective climate
planning decisions and
investments. And so it's our
ultimate goal that local and
regional governments are going
to refer
to this climate plan regularly
over the coming years as they
prioritize, select and
implement climate strategies
and actions in our own
jurisdictions. I'll also
mention here that we are
at the very beginning of a
three week public input period
for the draft climate plan.
This public input period
actually began just a few days
ago on October 6th and ends
on October 26th. So
to solicit public feedback, we
developed an online engagement
hub through the Conveyo
platform, which some of you
may be familiar with,
but effect this. This platform
allows folks to review the
draft plan and comment
on specific sections
of the document. We just hosted
a workshop this past Tuesday
to kick off the public in input
period and if you weren't able
to join US. A recording
of this workshop can be found
on the online engagement hub.
I'll also mention that the
agency and regional partners
held four workshops earlier
this year in March and April
to invite a first round
of feedback on the draft
climate strategies and actions.
And then this draft plan also
recently underwent technical
review in July by our CPR
Director Steering committee
members, as well as technical
work groups and state partners.
And so all of this feedback has
been incorporated into the
draft plan that's available
online right now. And so the
link to that online engagement
hub is here on this slide.
Pscaa.conveyo.com we would love
your help in promoting the
public input period. We have a
communications toolkit
with example, social media
posts, graphics, email
language, things
like that that we would be
happy to share with this group
so that you can help us get the
word out to your networks and
constituents. So what exactly
what are we looking for
from the public input period?
Some types
of input can be seen
on this slide. So we're looking
for things or areas that need
clarification as well as ideas
or considerations
for strategy implementation.
But I think importantly, this
climate plan is really intended
to serve as a guiding roadmap
for local and regional
governments
to address climate change. And
so with that in mind,
we would really like to hear
what information folks think is
important to share with
decision makers as they are
prioritizing climate planning
efforts and investments
in their own jurisdictions. So
before we discuss the draft
plans emission reduction
strategies, I just want to
finish up this background
section
by sharing a high level
timeline for development
of this climate plan. So as I
previously mentioned,
technical review
of the plan took place in
July. Staff incorporated this
feedback, the technical
feedback that we heard in
August, and we are now, as I
mentioned, accepting additional
public input on the draft plan
through October 26th. We will
incorporate any final edits
into the climate plan this
coming November, and then we
will plan to submit the plan
by the December 1st deadline.
Okay, so now let's switch gears
a little bit to get to sort
of the meat of the plan,
which is that list of emission
reduction strategies that are
going to help us
to meet our climate targets.
But before,
before we do that,
I think it's important
to talk a little bit about what
the plan's analysis does and
does not do. So
for each strategy
in the plan, we calculate the
emission reduction potential,
or gap, which effectively is
the difference between the
current greenhouse gas
emissions and the 2030
reduction target. So in order
to do this, staff estimated the
maximum potential climate
impact of each strategy. And
really we assume the largest
realistic scale
of action possible. So we did
this for each sector
until the gap to 2030 or 2050
is approximately closed. I want
to, I think it's important to
note that the emission
reduction estimates are not,
they're not planned,
they're not predictions, and
they importantly do not specify
policy mechanisms or
responsible parties. For each
strategy implementation,
we do provide a list
of actions which are sort
of examples of policies or
programs that could reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and
furtherance of the strategy or
enhance carbon sinks. And we
also provide other information.
As I mentioned,
this could include things
like estimated cost per ton
of emissions reduced,
as well as information
on CO benefits. So with all
of this in mind, I just wanted
to be clear that the main goal
of this analysis is to help
decision makers see which
strategies can help contribute
most to meeting our region's
climate goals. This plan is not
an implementation plan, and
implementation considerations
are going to need
to be identified as part
of future planning phases
for climate action
in our region. So
for those who are visual
like me,
this chart which is included
in the plan presents, I think,
a nice summary of the analysis
that we conducted. So the top
pink shading that you can see
in this bar chart represents
the existing policies
to reduce emissions. And then
if you go to the bottom
of this chart, that gray shaded
area represents the remaining
emissions that are allowed
under that 2030 target. So the
middle shading here,
that multicolored shading,
really represents that gap
to the 2030 target. And as you
can see, it is broken up by
each major sector's relative
contribution
to reducing emissions
to reaching that goal. So the
estimated maximum potential of
each strategy that I previously
mentioned is effectively
staff's assume largest
realistic scale of action. And
those are listed in the call
out box that we see here
to the right. So you can see
specific assumptions
for the built environment
in yellow, for industry here
in brown, for transportation
in blue, for refrigerants
in that purple color,
for waste, the waste sector
in gray, and then land use
in teal. So here we have that
same bar chart for 2050. And
like before, all
of the assumptions
in the analysis are
in that call out box
to the right. And collectively,
again, all of these help
to close that gap to the 2050
target. So for example, for
2030, in the last slide,
we assumed that 900,000 homes
were going to be weatherized.
But for 2050, we now assume
that 2.4 million homes would
need to be weatherized to meet
that goal. I'll also just
mention here that right now the
draft plan does include a more
detailed analysis of for the
for meeting that 2030 target.
However, we do anticipate
including a similar analysis
for 2050
in that final climate plan.
Okay, so all of that is some
additional context.
But now I do want to dive into
the emission reduction
strategies themselves. I'm
going
to provide some example actions
for implementation and again
discuss the assumptions that
were used in the analysis for
2030. I'll just mention I'm
only going to cover a few
of the strategies
for each sector,
but the full list
of strategies can be found in
the draft climate plan that we
have online. So here we can see
a total of three of the eight
of the climate strategies that
are available
for the built environment. So
1.1 is to build low carbon new
buildings. So some example
actions include strengthening
building codes or providing
education and outreach
for developers and builders.
And then again, this assumption
is that the vast majority of
new housing units that are
built in the region have fully
non greenhouse gas emitting
space and water heating
systems. Our next strategy
example is
to reduce energy use
in existing buildings. So this
is through things
like weatherization programs,
upgrading appliances,
appliances upgrading lighting,
supporting utility demand
response programs, things
like that. And the assumptions
are here in the last column
which assumes that 900,000
homes are weatherized, 1
million appliance, 10 million
appliances are upgraded.
Excuse me. And 5 million light
bulbs are changed out. Last we
have 1.3 as an example,
electrify or decarbonize
existing buildings. So this is
things
like electrifying a appliances,
developing renewable
electricity and battery storage
systems, or developing building
emission performance standards
or building decarbonization
plans. And so this assumption
is that 800,000 residential
dwelling units and 100,000
residential water heaters are
converted to electric along
with the entire commercial
water heater heating sector.
So now let's move on
to transportation. And again
here we have three
of the total
of eight strategies
to give you an example
for the transportation sector.
So 2.1 is to reduce the vehicle
miles traveled for
on road passenger gas vehicles.
And so example ways to do this
would be implementing
continuing to implement transit
oriented compact growth and
development,
developing a congestion pricing
program, things like that. And
the assumptions here are that
VMT each year was reduced by
1.1 billion miles,
which does account
for approximately 4%
of the annual total. Another
example strategy here is
to increase sales of on road
passenger electric vehicles and
promote low carbon alternative
vehicles. So things like
supporting charging
infrastructure electrifying
fleets and then supporting EV
car sharing programs. And so
for this assumption we assume
that the ED adoption rate
occurred one year quicker One
year ahead
of the current projected ramp,
above and beyond the state's
current ZEV mandate. So that's
approximately 137,000
additional electric vehicles
on the road, or approximately
780,000 in total. Lastly, we
have the strategy to electrify
or reduce the carbon intensity
of on road medium and heavy
duty vehicles. And so here
example actions are
to support the electrification
of public and private fleets,
supporting the state's advanced
clean trucks and advanced clean
fleet rules, and supporting
charging infrastructure. And
here we assume that 15,000
heavy duty electric vehicles
are on the road and 15 million
gallons
of lower carbon fuels are used.
So here we have the solid waste
and wastewater sector. So we
have three of the four total
reduction strategies shown
here. First is to divert
construction and demolition
materials from landfills. And
this assumes 30,000 additional
tons of both steel and wood are
diverted. Another strategy is
to divert other types of
recyclable and compostable
materials from landfills. So
this assumes that 156,000
additional tons
of general waste and 90,000
tons of organic waste are being
diverted by 2030. Again, this
is an analysis for 2030. And
then another strategy,
for example is
to increase methane capture at
landfills. I'll also just
mention here that we did
identify two additional
strategies
for the consumption sector.
And these effectively relate to
reducing the food waste and
promoting low emission dietary
choices as well as promoting
circular economies
for general goods. And while
these are very important,
they're very complex to
calculate when you're thinking
about consumption based
emissions. And so we don't
actually quantify these
in our climate plan,
but they are there. Next, let's
move on
to the land use sector. And
here are the two main
strategies that we have
included
in the clinical climate plans.
First, we have stewarding
natural lands
to reduce tree loss. And
Effectively this assumes 50
million new trees are planted.
And then strategy 4.2,
stewarding natural lands to
increase that carbon
sequestration and reduce
emissions. What this assumption
is that 50,000 hectares of land
are protected or otherwise
enhanced
to stop that carbon loss. And
then we get
to our final sector here,
which is refrigerants. And here
are both of the strategies that
we have identified
for this sector. The first is
to reduce the use of those high
global warming potential
devices as well as increasing
the recovery of the high global
warming potential refrigerants
they use. And this assumes that
100,000 devices have been
replaced with zero or low
global warming potential
devices and that 100,000 old
devices with high global
warming potential refrigerants
have had those refrigerants
recovered. And then last, we
have reducing refrigerant leaks
from the commercial and
industrial systems. And that
assumes an additional 10,000
systems are inspected and leaks
are repaired. So again, that
presents a very high level
overview of the emission
reduction strategies that are
contained in our current draft
climate plan. I'm going
to be happy to take questions
in just a second, but
before I do, I just wanted to
briefly mention the other
discussions and analyses that
are in this draft plan that
contain important information,
again, you know, for decision
makers and jurisdictions
to think about when they're
undertaking climate planning
moving forward. So these
analyses include, or
discussions include
implementation considerations,
again, which is a future phase
in this effort, as well as
important utility
considerations. They are a huge
partner, obviously,
in climate planning. We have a
benefit analysis with a focus
on our region's overburdened
communities that talks
about co benefits,
for example, air quality,
quality improvements
from climate actions, and then
a workforce development
analysis which helps us
to understand the workforce
sort of planning needs that are
associated with a sort
of clean economy transition.
And then lastly,
we also have a brief
discussion, a broad discussion,
excuse me, of next steps
for climate planning processes
for our region. So that does
conclude my slides. I want to
make sure that you all have my
contact information here and
just mention that you can all
stay in touch with us at the
agency and the draft climate
plan
through our CPRG listserv,
which you can access
on the site at the URL shown
on this slide, please.
>> Thank you, Sarah. A lot of
great information there. I see.
Council member Daugherty,
you got your hand raised. You
have a question?
>> Yes, thank you, Sarah.
Thank you
for the presentation. Can I'd
like to ask who did the
technical review?
>> So our technical review was
done
by our CPRG steering committee,
technical work groups,
as well as our state partners.
So we have a CPRG steering
committee that we've been
working with
for the past two years,
of which Kelly McGurdy is a
participant. And so that is a
group that consists
of representatives
from all four counties in the
region as well as major cities.
And then we have, I believe,
five technical work groups. So
that includes subject matter
experts across the region
from built environment,
transportation and consumption
and waste,
as well as equity and workforce
development, excuse me,
and utilities. So there are
six, and then again our state
partners at the Washington
Climate Partnership. So that's
ecology and commerce.
>> And where does the data come
from that you're making
decisions on?
>> Yeah, so it has been sort
of a lot of different places.
So we have our technical folks
at the agency who, you know,
we're really responsible for
putting this analysis together.
We've had lots
of conversations
about what assumptions to put
into this analysis. And as I
mentioned, you know,
I think we are really looking
to folks to help us refine and
enhance the assumptions to make
this plan as actionable as
possible. So I think that's
part of this public input
period is kind of looking to
refine those assumptions.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> And I would just jump in and
say I have been hyping this
document for quite some time
now and I'm super excited that
it's finally here. And
Council Member Daughtry
to your point, Sarah, correct
me if I'm wrong, but this isn't
a decision document. This is a
document that's really trying
to identify what is it going
to take to achieve the goals
that we have. We get that
question a lot. And you know,
here at PSRC and our,
my fingers are definitely all
over this thing. So we,
everything that we do and the
analysis on our Vision 2050 and
Regional Transportation plan is
certainly fed into that.
But we share with you,
if we're doing these types
of things,
what are the emission results?
And this document is really
looking at, given all
of that,
if there's still a gap
to the target,
what will it take? And so that
list
of strategies is really kind
of the best,
the best estimate based on
everything we know and
projections into the future
about if we want
to achieve the goals. We have
to do all
of these different things
across all of these sectors,
but not a decision,
but really it's just
information
on what it will take. Sarah,
did I get that right?
>> You nailed it. Yeah.
Thanks, Kelly. And as I
mentioned earlier, it does not
assign specific policy
mechanisms or responsible
jurisdictions or anything
like that. We wanted
to provide decision makers
with the information
to make decisions that are
right for their jurisdiction.
And so we provide example
strategy,
example policies and things
like that,
but they are not prescriptive.
Again, it's really the largest
realistic scale of action that
we think is possible
for each strategy.
>> Well, the only reason I'm
asking is the best available
science on climate change is
changing constantly. Recently
they have finally figured
out what some of us in the
science community know is the
carbon CO2 only has a certain
effect and we've already passed
that certain effect and has no
more effect on climate change
that's recently come
to light. So with the best
available science,
the same thing that happens in
our biologies or streams and
stuff, but the best available
science is continually changing
and then it continually gets
into our policies and
procedures. At that point which
ultimately makes everything
more expensive to get down,
right down to the bottom line
of it. And so I just caution
ourselves to understand where
these policies are coming
from and who is directing based
on the best available science.
That's changing constantly.
>> Okay, we're going to move
on to Councilmember Walker.
You have your hand raised.
>> Thank you, Sarah. Thank you
for all this great work and all
the great information. I have
not spent very much time
digging into it, so I may ask a
question that I just haven't
dug far enough in.
But my question is around the
land use strategies and I was
surprised not to see anything
on there about zoning. And
that's. I think land use
transportation, we talk
about that all the time. How we
zone our cities for buildings
and roads makes a huge
difference in our ability then
to conserve open space and
plant more trees. And I'm
curious if there's something
more because I know you do
mention zoning,
but it's specific to zoning
for trees. Is there anything
in that category about zoning
for buildings and
transportation or what? I find
that deep in the transportation
section and the built
environment section. But I
didn't really see that
specifically. And I just want
to be a broken record about
land use and transportation
always going hand
in hand and get through one
without the other. Thank you.
>> So that is captured in the
transportation sector
strategies, if memory serves.
2.1 is where we talk
about reducing VMT. And so that
is where those zoning changes
come in as example actions and
strategies. So that is where
those are captured. Land use, I
think we're really specifically
talking about natural and
working lands is kind
of what we were thinking
of when we were talking
about land use.
But what you are talking
about is included in the
transportation sector
strategies.
>> Other questions or comments?
In the room?
And I don't see any hands
raised. So I think we're going
to move on
to our next discussion item.
Actually it's an action item.
>> Thank you.
>> So our next item is the
regional transportation plan
scenario decision. And Kelly
and Craig, that's you.
>> Yes. And Sarah, thank you so
much for the presentation. And
just to close that out,
we are certainly now that it is
out and the timing is
December, we will definitely be
talking in the RTP about how
our two documents fit together.
We are ahead of schedule,
which is great. Which means
we've got a lot more time
to talk about RTP. So we are
here. We did warn you last
month that we are here
to get a, an action from you
to identify kind of that final
scenarios that we could move
forward into developing the
regional transportation plan.
So we're going to just walk
through a few quick background.
I know we've been,
you have all been
on this journey with us.
But a short reminder on the
scenario development process.
We do want
to share the public feedback
to date
with you and I just want
to acknowledge we have had
three out of the six public
meetings so far. We've had
surveys, we've had done a lot
of other interviews. Public
engagement is going
to continue even up to the
point where we release the
draft plan. But we are at a
moment right now where we do
need this decision point so we
can develop the draft plan. But
we will have that constant
feedback scenario and share
that information with you.
We'll do a quick reminder of
the scenario analysis and some
additional metrics that we
included in the packet based
on feedback
from the last meeting. There is
a requested project correction.
It was brought up at the last
meeting and I'll walk through
that again this morning. And
then really we want to hear
from you and hone in
on that final,
final scenario. And I have
brought my phone
of friends again
for our next two topics.
Craig Hellman and Ben Vacanta
is at the table with me. So
this is not new. You have seen
this before. As a reminder we
had our four scenarios, our
four plan scenarios that ran
the gamut of different levels
of funding source, new funding
sources that might be required,
new revenues,
new as well as different
Councilmember Schneider
mentioned them,
different levers
of investment. And based
on the we did a poll
at your meeting in September
and from that poll the majority
preference was leaning towards
scenario 2B. And as a reminder
this is what's
in scenario 2B. So we looked
at for those larger scale
regional capacity projects
looking at only looking
at those that will start
before 2040. And as my never
ending reminder we develop a
new plan every 4 years. This
not a one and done proposition.
There were a lot
of programmatic improvements.
So these are more local
localized investments things
that are off the regional
system or they're not changing
capacity
of the regional system. With
updated planning documents
there is a quite a vast amount
of need that had been
identified not able
to be fully funded. And so
scenario 2B said we are going
to assume that 70% of all
of those needs could be funded
with this
through this planning. But
importantly this was the kind
of the board crafted scenario
where even with all
of that they want to maximize
our maintenance and
preservation levels and
maximize our assumed increase
in local transit service growth
at 2% per year. And with all of
those investments it would
require just under $49 billion
of new revenues
to be identified. So this was
the scenario that was kind
of leading the charge in
September. So I do want
to pivot a little bit and share
with you what we've heard
from the feedback
from our public meetings,
which has been very consistent
with what we've been hearing
around this table. So we've had
three
of them and we've had a number
of elected officials,
including board members,
attend those. So thank you
to all of you that have been
attending. It has been very
much appreciated. And we have
three more coming up next week
in Tacoma, the week after in
Tukwila, and then our last one
in Bremerton. And it's been,
it's. They've been really
valuable public meetings.
We've had over 170 people show
up to the three that we've held
so far. And as we walked them
through, it's been a very
engaging and interactive
process. So when folks come
into the room, we have stations
set up and we ask them to, at
that point we give them
information on what's in the
regional transportation plan,
what is their preferred mode
of travel, talking
about the investments, and then
we do put the four scenarios
in front
of them and we ask them at that
stage what is their preference.
But then we gather everybody.
After that we have table
discussions and each table
talks through the different
scenarios and comes up
with a consensus
for each table. And so these
percentages is a culmination
of all
of those table discussions
at each
of the three public meetings.
And as you can see,
Interestingly enough,
scenario 2B is still kind of
leading the leading preference
from the members of the public
that we've heard so far as
well. And we wanted to share
with you. This is this, these
are paraphrased and there are
certainly many more comments.
And we are gathering all of
that and we will certainly
share that and publish it when
the draft plan comes out. But
there were some key quotes that
we thought we would share that
just kind of gave the flavor
of the conversation. And so
I'll just read
through these fairly quickly.
One, we did ask folks to share
with us information
on both their priorities
in terms of infrastructure, but
also how they feel the system
is doing. I think mostly we
heard roads are failing, but
interestingly we also heard
very much an acknowledgement
that the roads support all
of the other modes. The roads
support transit, they support
bikes,
they support sidewalks. A lot
of interest
in prioritizing transit. So
that came out very clearly and
I thought this quote was great.
Transit should be prioritized
because it serves everybody
regardless of income.
But again, acknowledging that
buses cannot run where there
are bad roads. So feeding into
that maintenance and
preservation theme, sidewalks
are important because they
address accessibility and help
connect people to transit. And
this one was very much what we,
what we think about here at
this table is new projects get
a lot of attention,
but we need more attention to
maintenance. A few other quotes
kind of acknowledging that the
first two quotes here, there
isn't enough infrastructure to
serve everyone and housing
growth is out outpacing
transportation capacity. And
then some interesting, you
know,
as the conversation flowed
between whether it was scenario
one, for example, which is just
use existing sources versus the
other scenarios which required
new revenue,
it was interesting
to see that coalescing
around the middle Scenarios and
Scenario 2B and some comments
about I don't mind being taxed,
but I want it to go to
dependable sources and people
are willing to dig into their
pocketbooks if they're,
if they're going
to see results. And then I
think we've also talked
at this table that as you move
out from core areas,
the quality and quantity
of infrastructure declines. So
some high level feedback from
our really fabulous public
meetings. But we've also been
in front of our equity advisory
committee. So we've had several
presentations with them. But we
had a very similar presentation
to them last week. Their
feedback is a little bit,
a little bit different in that
they are not surprisingly,
really focused on accessibility
and affordability. While some
of them did express a
preference for scenario tb,
more of the EAC members
expressed a preference for
scenario one and it was really
about the cost burden when it
came down to it. So they very
much acknowledge that
additional infrastructure is
certainly needed,
but they're very much worried
about the additional cost to
households and acknowledging
that the cost burdens not only
will be,
will not be equally distributed
across households and
communities, but some comments
about the existing funding
sources are not being equitably
distributed and have an impact.
A couple
of paraphrased comments from
the EAC members which were very
helpful talking about this
first comment is talking about,
as we know, their displacement
occurs and so folks have
to move further away from where
facilities are and they have
to drive. And then if we're
looking at new revenue sources
that are increasing the gas
tax, for example, the sentiment
that it's further punishing
those community members who
have
to drive because they live
in areas. So it's a bit
of a circular,
circular issue there also. And
again, this was kind
of a key theme. Our
transportation infrastructure
needs to meet the needs
of people with low income,
seniors and people of color.
But these communities also
experience the highest
financial burdens. So again,
recognizing they're very,
very concerned about equity
considerations and the pursuit
of new funding sources and how
that will impact folks that are
already feeling burdened.
But if a new scenario,
or excuse me, if a scenario
with new revenues is pursued,
really be clear
about what benefits are going
to be received from the
for those community members
from the additional cost. And
again emphasizing the
importance of equitable funding
mechanisms. And as we heard
that feedback,
I think as we move forward with
this discussion and as we spend
more time with you talking
about the financial strategy,
which is the next presentation
and a good chunk of November,
we will definitely bring these
sentiments and these comments
back. And I'm going to turn it
over to Craig
for the scenario analysis.
>> Yeah, and this will be
pretty brief because we
provided all the information
in the packet, so. And we also
shared a bunch of it
with you last month as well.
But just to kind
of reiterate, as we've talked
about all these four scenarios,
we have definitely seen modest
differences between the
scenarios when we look at the
model performance metrics. And
just as a reminder, that's
because our modeling can look
at the regional capacity
projects and it can look
at transit.
But programmatic investments,
we don't have a list
programmatic investment,
so we can't model those. And
the maintenance and
preservation stuff is the same.
And so that was really
interesting as we were hearing
feedback
at the public meetings,
we're hearing
about the importance of
maintenance and preservation as
a policy.
But also we heard information
about kind of those local
projects or the things that
people interact
with and they see
in their communities. And so
there was a lot of interest
in that. And we definitely see
greater distinctions between
the scenarios when we look at
the spatial qualitative
measures and that one. And you
can see on the next slide,
we just decided
to take one highlight
from all the data we provide
in packaging just to really
reinforce that as we kind
of look at this transit gaps as
a reminder,
this is places we looked at
places that have a density that
could support different levels
of transit and whether or not
they have that level
of transit. So
in this case it's the gap. So
this is saying you have a
density that could support that
level of transit,
but you don't have it available
in those places. And so you can
kind of see how that varies
by today
with our four transit types.
Some
of the biggest gaps being kind
of in that really local or all
day service and you can see how
much different scenario 2b is.
For instance,
as we added those hours. So
that that focus here
to make sure you put the hours
into transit has a big
difference in terms of how much
people would have access
to those, those amenities,
those facilities to be able
to go about and travel. You can
see as an example, the local
transit gap is more than half
of what it is today. And so
that's a percentage wise and
that's with a lot more people
in places that have that level
of transit as well. So it's a
pretty significant reduction
in those gaps.
>> So that's just a quick high
flyover, kind of a summary of
the same information that was
presented
across the scenarios last month
with a few additional metrics
that were included
in the packet. Again mostly
focused on access to transit.
You may remember that WSDOT had
requested one correction at the
last meeting and we just wanted
to formalize that and put that
in front of you. So the project
is the i5 Thorn Lane to 38th
Street Core HOV project. And
the correction is that the
start year
of the project had been
in error submitted for 2042.
It is actually hoped to start
in 2034. And so that would then
bring that project over
into scenario 2B. And this
project of course is going to
complete the HOV system missing
link in Pierce county as well
as I believe from King county
three through to dupont. And
the project does have current
funds committed as well as
future funding through Move
Ahead Washington. And just full
disclosure,
by moving this project, by
making this corrections and
acknowledging that the project
is anticipated to start
before 2040, it does slightly
increase the funding gap. The
new revenues required
for scenario to be instead of
48.9 billion, it would be 49.3
billion. So we went
through that pretty quickly.
But there's been a lot
of conversation
over the last several months
on these scenarios. And again
last month we took a poll
of you and the majority of you
were leaning towards scenario
2B with a focus
on maintenance and transit.
Obviously there's a lot
of conversations
about that pursuit of new
revenues will add some cost to
households and we will again
start queuing up that
conversation
on the financial strategy
in a little bit.
But we are asking
for an action today to land on
the one scenario that we will
finalize the analysis for and
have that be the draft plan
that gets released
for public comment. And
before I ask for the action,
just know that this is still an
iteration. So we will release
the draft plan
for public comment hopefully
in December through the end
of January and we will come
back. We will continue
to have conversations with you
about actions, policy
statements, key messages
for the draft plan and
depending on what we hear and
more thought, we can certainly
modify as we move forward
before we get
to the final plan adoption in
May. But this is just kind
of an important moment in time
for us. And so
with that we took the liberty
of assuming that it would be 2B.
But if there is a difference,
we can certainly modify that.
We're just looking
for an action today. Right.
>> Thank you. Kelly and Craig.
I know that we have put a lot
of time and effort
into this and many meetings.
So hopefully we can move this
the scenario forward and
continue this body
of work and move on
to other things. So the
questions for Kelly or Craig
first and then
after that we'll look
for a motion.
>> So Councilmember
Schneider, thank you very much.
I support to be what I would
ask is when this is being put
out there could there be some
examples of what it does not
fund and is that already
in it? Because I think it's
important
to know what you're getting,
but also what you're not
getting. Absolutely. And so
we've published that for each
of the scenarios. So we'll
definitely keep referencing
that
in the draft plan and we'll
talk about how we got
to scenario 2B and we'll talk
about what's still not included
and what's to come.
Absolutely.
>> Okay. Other comments or
questions? Is there a motion?
Don't all speak at once.
>> So moved.
>> Was that Dana?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. That was
Council member Zarlingo with
the second and the motion was
by Jared Dana Ralph. Further
discussion? We're
with the moving forward
with scenario 2B. Don't hear
any. All in favor,
please say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Is there anyone opposed?
That passes unanimously. Thank
you. All right. We are
to item 10, the Regional
Transportation plan financial
strategy. Kelly, that's the
next step.
>> Well, this is great. We are
having. We were a little
worried that we wouldn't have
terribly much time
on this topic. And so we were
really planning on queuing up
this discussion today, but
really coming and hitting you
hard in November. But we've got
a little bit more time,
which is great. So you may
remember we had numerous
conversations
on the RTP financial strategy
in the fall of 2024. We
identified some parameters,
then we kind of put a pin
in that and then started moving
to what are all of the
investments being proposed,
what are our funding levels?
And the work that we just did
with you to identify the
scenario had a lot
of really great information.
Now we have a level
of new revenues that we need
to go identify the details
of what should that look like?
And so that's what where we're
going
to start the conversation
with you today and then
continue into November. So
we'll do a couple of reminders
on the requirements.
In the background,
we'll remind you on the
approach that you all landed
on for pursuing new revenue
sources. Craig had done some
previous sensitivity analysis
that we'll remind you of. We
have a little bit of additional
background and then really talk
about. We've got some key
discussion points and some
decision points maybe that we
want to work with you on as we
build the financial strategy
and include that
in the draft plan. So you have
seen this a couple of times.
But just a quick reminder, as
the, as the MPO
under federal law, as the
Regional Transportation
Planning Organization
under state law, we have
certain requirements as it
relates to this. So all
of the levers and the,
and the buckets of investment
that we've talked about,
we are required to have a
regional transportation plan
that identifies all
of those investments on the
transportation system as well
as how we are going to pay
for them, including
maintenance,
preservation and operations.
So we have to have what we call
a financially constrained plan.
We've said this a few times and
I think we're kind
of past this point. But I'll
just do a quick reminder. This
is not an adopted budget. It is
not saying that, you know,
for programmatic investments,
for example, we don't,
we don't have a way of saying
it's this investment first or
this city has
to do certain things. This is a
long range vision of these are
the investments that are needed
and desired. This is how much
it will cost
to get there and how would we
go about doing that. So when it
comes to the new revenues which
is going to be the focus
of this conversation, we have
to include some strategies and
a little bit of detail. They
have to be feasible and
somewhat realistic
to move forward. And you may
remember we shared information
on the history and the state
and the region of pursuing new
revenue sources. And I can't
remember already. I think I'm
still going before I pass it
over to you. So this is a great
follow up to the climate
conversation that we just had.
We spent a lot of time talking
about our improved fleet fuel
efficiency of the vehicles as
well as the continued
advancement in electric
vehicles. I looked this
morning, Craig, at our
dashboard and I believe as of
January the, the new sales of
both zero emission vehicle
electric vehicles and hybrids
was about 43% of all sales
in the region. So that just
continues to grow. And that
does obviously have an impact
on the gas tax. The we've been
saying that the gas tax is a
declining revenue source for
quite some time and it's just
getting more so in addition
to fuel efficiency,
also just the impact
of debt service requirements.
And so this is just a reality
that when we're planning on
to 2050 that we have
to acknowledge. And you may
remember that for all of the
investments that were
identified and the gap to fully
funding those investments,
it is not the same
across sponsor categories. And
there's some pretty stark
differences. And the bold
highlights, really,
the majority
of the gap is falling
on cities, followed
by local transit. And that is
also something that now is the
time for us to really dig
in and talk
about not just filling the
$49.3 billion gap,
but filling it in a way that
actually addresses the sponsor
categories. I think this is
where I'm passing it over
to you.
>> And so as we talked
previously in kind
of maybe a pivot
from previous plans,
as we definitely heard, an
interest and being a bit more
focused on our financial
strategy and really focusing on
those sources that one can do
bigger things, the kind
of bigger bang for your buck,
but also ones that be
implemented consistently
across the region. Having said
that, we are definitely
in the financial strategy going
to continue to have that kind
of list of all the other
strategies that locals can
implement and do.
But we really wanted to kind of
hit and we had these five
sources that were identified
and some of it as we kind
of get
through this conversation,
we want to see if this is still
the same five that we want
to continue to have. So we've
heard definitely road usage,
charge changes
in vehicle fees. And so those
can be weight fees,
registration fees,
motor vehicle excise tax, all
those things that we're just
kind of lumping together as
vehicle fees. A look
at increased sales tax rates
for local transit,
increased county road levy,
which is currently capped at a
1% increased annual increase.
And just so if folks remember
this is actually
in the legislature this year,
they were looking
at possibly lifting that to I
believe they looked I think
The House looked at 3%, the
Senate looked at 6%. Neither
passed at this point, but it's
definitely been something the
legislature is actively looking
at right now. And then Deputy
Mayor Arnold appointed us to
some work that their joint
transportation committee had
done
on a retail delivery fee. And
so that was also something that
we heard were five sources
to kind of consider. So we had
gone ahead and done some
sensitivity tests. This was
before we knew what the need
was going to be
for the revenue. And so this is
just a reminder as we kind
of looked at different,
different levels of things,
we now know the gap based
on what you just selected
with scenario 2B is about $49
billion. So as we kind of look
at those, good news,
we don't have to go
with the high versions
of these to generate that
somewhere combination
of the low and medium. We could
actually fill the gap. We can,
we can find a gap, find a way
to fill the gap based
on these,
these sources that we have.
This is just kind
of a reminder of when we kind
of looked at those,
roughly what you could generate
by those. And you can see road
usage charges definitely have a
big bang for their buck. But
you can generate a lot as well
with, say, sales tax. That's
why sales tax is pretty easy
to implement,
but it gives you that kind
of rough order of magnitude
in terms of what the big kind
of bang for your buck is
by these different sources.
Next one. So, kind
of as we continue to move the
conversation forward,
we thought we'd start
to share too. As we look
at these five sources,
some are constrained in
different ways that you can
spend them. And I think this
goes back
to when we saw that gap that
Kelly was showing and we talked
about the percentage. 85%
of the gap is for counties,
cities and local transit. 15%
is for the state. So when we
look at a road usage charge as
an example,
that can be implemented
for the state, if it was
implemented same way gas tax
is, that can go to the state,
that can go to counties,
that can go to cities,
can't go to transit. As an
example, right now,
the current gas tax
distribution, last year, 80%
of the gas tax went
to the state and 20% went
to cities and counties.
So as you start to think
about what that gap is
for moving forward,
when the gap is 85%. So it's
almost the exact reverse
of this. As we think
about that road usage charge,
there's nothing that says it
has to be distributed 20 this
way. That's one of the things
to think about. But definitely
it can help fill those holes.
But current distributions would
make it really, really tough to
use that source and that
current distribution that same
way. We look at vehicle fees,
vehicle fees actually currently
can be used by the state,
by counties, by cities,
and also by transit, both local
transit and regional transit.
Sound Transit has a motor
vehicle excise tax, but also
local transit gets a small
share of Vehicle fees as well.
And you can kind
of see that distribution. When
we look at existing vehicle fee
distributions
in the last couple of years,
that one's close to about 70%
to the state,
little more than 28%
to counties and cities,
and roughly about 4%
to local transit. So definitely
a little bit bigger share.
But just as that reminder,
again, as we look
at those ones, as we think
of newer fees,
this distribution would. And
you can kind of see that the
top line up there. We were
saying if we look at those
current distribution methods,
it would be tough to. For us
to meet the needs, the gaps for
the cities and the counties,
especially if those same
distributions are the same.
When you look
at the transit sales tax,
this is one of the ones.
On that previous slide,
when we talked about levers, we
just did what if everybody was
at a certain level? So we did a
scenario, the middle one,
where what if everyone was
at 1.4% for local sales tax?
We picked 1.4 because that's
what sound trans is. Sales tax
rate is. So what if all local
transit was at that kind
of regional level?
But having said that,
that's a bigger lift for some
of our transit partners than it
would be for others. When you
look at Pierce and Everett, as
an example, are currently
at 0.6%,
that would be more than
doubling to go to 1.4%.
Whereas you can see for
community transit as an
example,
it's a little smaller lift.
But one of the things we know
that's important for us
to highlight is some
of these things take action at
the local level and some take
action
at the legislative level. This
would require action at both.
If it goes over 1.2%,
you'd have to have the
legislature authorize it. And
then you'd also have
to have your locals voted
in as you think about that. So
as we think about how we want
to package these things and
think about what those levels
of them are, kind
of give the framework for.
For kind of that idea. We
already mentioned the county
road levy. It's currently
capped at 1% annual growth.
There's lots of different ways
to do that. We've kind
of showed different levels.
And I had mentioned the state
legislature has already started
looking at other levels,
whether it's somewhere
between 3 and 6% as we go
there. And that's definitely
specific
for those county needs. The
retail delivery fees,
you'll see that not applicable.
And to be determined,
because that doesn't exist yet.
And so sort of to be determined
how that could. Could be used
or generated.
>> And I think this is back
to me. So we would love
to especially since we have
some time this morning,
we would love to hear from you
but I'll just go
through a couple of slides
about some of the topics that
we think are going
to be most relevant. One is
while we had a fair amount
of discussion in late 2024, are
these the five sources that
should still be included
in our financial strategy? And
as Craig mentioned, we will
still have a plan document that
lists all
of the different types of
sources that could be pursued.
But in terms of our financial
figures and our focus, are
those five still the right
ones? What levels or rates
should we kind of assume And I
do want to I will tease up the
next slide. We do have one
decision point that we need
to get your feedback on
to today. But our and Ben maybe
help me out on this. Our
financial strategy. We want
to build something that is kind
of builds the box so
to speak. We need to identify
the feasible sources. We need
to identify how they would be
pursued. But we don't need to
say we think it should be
exactly this and this is what
we want to go advocate for.
We've talked about a future
work program action item and
maybe we could take more time
to dig in. So it's, it's our
financial strategy is a little
bit of a balance
between identifying kind
of the strong parameters
of this is what it's going
to take to fund this plan. How
do we go about it but
without landing on something
that you would go take and
implement tomorrow. We also
know and as we heard
from the EAC members in
particular and some
conversation at this table,
equity and fairness
consideration is certainly
at top of mind. So folks are
already excited experiencing
impacts in the world today
with their with financial
considerations not necessarily
a currently fair system when it
comes
to transportation finance. And
so we definitely need
to have that conversation.
While PSRC and some of you
maybe don't have the
implementation authority we do
we can provide information on
things that should be
considered and called out when
implementation does occur.
We've talked a fair bit
about meeting the gaps
by sponsor category. We don't
want to just say the sum
of all of these can fund
everything when we know that
there's still a large city gap
we want
to address that head on. We've
talked about the changes to the
current distribution methods
and then on that future action
we've talked
about this a couple of times
and I think we're still we'll
be curious
to see where you all are
on that. But it does Seem time,
given all of the uncertainty
that's happening, Robin's
information on,
on the state budget,
what's happening
at the federal level and all of
these issues maybe actually
taking some time once the plan
is adopted to we,
we are the long game. We are,
we are looking at 2050. We are
not looking out
at something that's
to be immediately implemented
in the next, you know, two
to five years. So maybe it is
time to build the box with this
financial strategy and set up a
work program where we reconvene
and we really talk
through some of all of these,
these details. And
before I turn it over to you,
if I may, there is one kind
of nuance that we do need from
you is we will definitely
continue this conversation in
November and December if
necessary. But in order for
Craig to finalize the modeling
and move that forward
into the draft plan,
we do need some guidance on the
road usage chart so that we can
finalize that. And our kind of
baseline assumption is if
should we assume the state rate
that has been looked
at right now. And we also have
assumed maybe that begins in
2035, which is our interim
year. So that's one thing. So
we definitely want to kind
of get some head nods from you
on that so that we can move
forward for that assumption
in the,
in the plan that goes out.
But then also talking
to you about, we think in
November we'll try to bring
back as much information as
possible. Maybe we come back
on a couple of different
updated revenue scenarios
to meet the $49 billion gap,
referencing some of the sponsor
category and really talk
through the policy issues,
what direction you want
to include, what policy
statements or actions you want
to include in the,
in the plan. Anything that I
missed?
>> Not that you missed,
but just
to add the reason we're asking
about the road usage charges
of all these ones,
that's the one that has impacts
on the performance and the
modeling. We'll see changes
in VMT, which will then change
other performance metrics. So
that's really where we're
trying to kind
of get your feel for that now
so that we could move forward
with the now that we know what
scenario it is,
if we know what level that is,
it allows us to move forward
with the modeling stuff now as
well, while we continue
to work
on what all the other kind of
financial inputs would be.
>> Not trying
to steer this too much, but
acknowledging that the biggest
need is in
for local government. Is it
realistic that we're going on
the gas tax or road usage
charge is to change the
distribution methodology Is
that realistic and where the
retail delivery fee really does
probably more impact our local
community roads more than the,
the regional system. So just my
thoughts there,
and I see some hands raised.
Council Member Kettle, go
ahead.
>> Yes, thank you. I just
wanted to thank you
for the briefing. And I just
wanted to make one note that,
you know, when we're talking
about the sales tax,
it was said kind of casually,
but I'm here to tell you that
we're pretty much maxed out.
And, you know, we just had the,
you know, the state approved
the public safety sales tax
increase, which here in King
county, both the city, Seattle
and the county have pushed
forward on, but we're pretty
much capped out. So this idea
that we can use continually
increase the sales tax
percentage, I think is, is
something that shouldn't be
assumed because the, I think at
this point we're the point
where we're going to have to
start pushing back and not
supporting these kinds of
things because the cumulative
effect over the years
of keep adding and adding,
we're pretty much at a point
now where we can't keep doing
so and we can't just say, okay,
this is what we're going
to do. And this applies
to us, too. We had a vote
against it yesterday or two
days ago, and
for good reason,
and overall it did pass.
But again, I think we're pretty
much maxed out. So I put a big
caveat
on the retail sales tax piece.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Council Member
Daugherty.
>> I just need some
clarification
on the road use discharge. Is
the road uses charge. If we're
talking about is it going
to take the place of, or is it
in addition
to the current gas tax?
>> It would be replacement
because the gas tax will
eventually decline
to the point of no return. So
this would not be additive. It
would be a replacement.
>> And we're not really looking
for this to happen until
2035.
>> Correct. Our current plan
assumed maybe starting in
2030, but given that 2030 is
going to be four years away
here pretty soon, and 2035 is
our interim year, we thought
that that was a bit more
realistic,
give us a little bit more time,
10 years or so before maybe
implementing that.
>> And I understand this would
be up to the legislature,
but does that take
into consideration the bonding
of the gas tax?
>> Yes, it does. Yes. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Chair Ralph.
>> Thank you. I know that the
retail delivery fee is
down there
with a TBD and an na,
but I would be, I would be not
doing my job if I didn't
highlight it at Every
opportunity that I can. One
of the concerns I have with the
retail delivery fee is because
of streamlined sales tax. The
change the state made back in
2008, taking all
of the sales tax away
from cities like Kent that have
the distribution hubs costing
us money, we're still Kent is
$20 million
in the hole because
of that change. My concern
with retail delivery fees,
unless they are somehow divided
among cities that are providing
the infrastructure for those
retail deliveries and the city
that they are going to,
it just is a piling on
of those that are receiving all
of the revenue are going
to be receiving more. And those
of us that are providing the
infrastructure so that everyone
can receive that revenue are
going to get further behind.
So I just want to highlight
that and it will not be the
last time that you hear me
raise that concern
about the retail delivery fee.
Thank you.
>> Excuse me, Mr. Chair, can I
offer up a little bit
of information? We'll be
sending out to the board the
paper that the study that the
Joint Transportation Committee
commissioned a couple
of years ago. But one thing
in response, Chair Ralph, is
they looked in particular
at the two places
in the country, Colorado and
Minnesota, where a retail
delivery fee is in effect. And
just as an example,
they use factors
like population, roadway miles,
vehicle miles traveled,
equal share distribution.
There are a lot
of different ways
to address some
of the inequities in
application that you're
pointing out in terms
of understanding how to make
sure that all jurisdictions
actually benefit
from these types of fees. And
also there are some limitations
in terms of the
like they're only,
I believe it's in Minnesota
only on purchases that are
$100 and above and it's a 50
cent fee. So thanks anyhow.
There's a lot more information
about this,
but we've been thinking about
the comments that you've been
making.
>> I appreciate that. Thank
you.
>> This might be a good time
since we're
on retail delivery fee.
Council member Hamilton from
Bellevue could not attend, but
he also submitted some comments
specific
to the retail delivery fee.
And I won't read everything,
but it's really pointing
out that the needs, especially
since we talked
about the needs
for cities and local transit,
that new or replacement revenue
sources should be equitable,
less regressive, support
economic development and
minimize impacts
to small businesses. And
because of that, he, he did not
endorse the retail delivery
fee. He thinks that that retail
delivery, he does not meet
those specific criteria.
But again in November. So I
wanted to make sure I got that
on the record. And in November
we will provide as much more
information
to help the conversation
on each one of these funding
sources so we can have a
broader conversation. Thank
you.
>> Thank you for that input.
Council member Walker, go
ahead.
>> Thank you. Really
appreciating this conversation.
And I think everyone's
comments so far have
highlighted how different
jurisdictions utilize different
tools.
But I just wanted to make
sure.
Council member Kettle.
I don't disagree with you
on the sales tax piece, but
in Pierce county we have not
taken advantage of our entire
transit sales tax authority and
so we are eager to do that. So
just making sure that as we
look at these, we do recognize
how different each jurisdiction
is. You know, for that one,
for example. Maybe Seattle
wouldn't take advantage,
but we would be able to. And
wondering as we model that how
do we take those sorts
of things into account, sort
of the other factors,
because it's a great point. We
have the arts and culture sales
tax, we have the community
safety,
law enforcement sales. You
know, all these pieces are
adding up and it does make a
huge difference. We can't keep
passing sales tax over and
over and over again. So how do
we model that
from the staff perspective?
>> That is a great question.
And I'm looking
to my phone-a-friends next
to me, I think so. I don't know
that we would model that,
but we can come back. And one
of the options that Craig
talked about is we don't need
to apply, particularly
for transit sales tax. We don't
need to apply. Apply the same
assumption for each transit
agency. I think we have a
massive spreadsheet with
revenue information and I
believe we have it broken down
by agency. So one of the
conversations that the board
could have is assuming
different increases per agency
if that was the route that
would want to go. We could
also, again,
since we are talking about a
little bit higher level
approach of we're trying to
identify these are the needs.
Kind of
like the conversation we had
on the climate plan. These are
the needs. What is it going
to take to get there? So we
could also craft something
about, you know,
a more average increase in
transit sales tax would be
necessary to achieve that 2%
local transit growth that is
now embedded in transit
to be that we say we want. And
the details could be worked
out maybe more in this future
action item or we could have
more qualitative information
talking about some
of those challenges. I will go
out on a limb and ask my
colleagues, could we come back
with more information
to council member Kettle's
concern? More information
on sales tax
in general and how an increase
to the transit sales Tax would
impact that.
>> I was going to say the same
thing, Kelly. My mind was going
there too as I were, you know,
here I was fixated
on the transit sales tax piece.
But and it makes a lot of sense
is that we should actually show
what once it gets added
with everything else,
if you end up
with a 15% sales tax,
it's getting really hard.
Right. And so, and we see those
differences where some places
it's already 10.5% once you add
in everybody. So I think that
would be really helpful and we
could definitely do that.
We'll have to find a good way
to do it because I know it.
It varies a lot places
but we can find a way to try
to highlight that
at a higher level.
>> So we understand it maybe
based on some of the
conversations we're hearing
here, it maybe rising raising
the folks that aren't
to the level that others are,
you know, to,
to an even playing field. So
there's invest similar
investments
in all communities.
>> Brady delang, go ahead.
>> Oh, sorry about that. My
camera is not working. Okay,
well thank you, Mr. Chair. So I
just wanted to quickly share
some information
with this group as it relates
to the retail delivery fee.
During my time at AWC,
we worked with the JTC
to spearhead this concept
around the retail delivery fee
specifically
with the intention
of having a distribution
between cities and counties.
And one thing I would just
share with staff
at PRC is that we also. PSRC,
excuse me, my dyslexia. We
asked the GTC to come up
with a mechanism, a tool
to help kind of demonstrate
different distribution levels
among cities and counties, but
with the intent of a direct
distribution specifically
to local governments,
regardless of location,
regardless of direct impact.
So part of that is intended
to really kind
of offset some the, of the
potential impacts. I think
there's a lot of flexibility
in how you might change some of
that distribution and how you
might kind
of adjust specifically
for infrastructure impacts or,
you know, kind of other
elements. I think that some
of the staff that still is
at AWC might be talking
about this. So I would
encourage you to work
with them and to chat
with them about some of the
different opportunities that
create could be on the table
in the future related
to how this,
this tool might work. The other
thing I'll just quickly note
too is that the different,
the distinctions between
Colorado and Minnesota
in particular, Minnesota's fee
really was directed
specifically
at local governments, but
with a lot of caveats. So they
wound up generating far less
revenue than Colorado's.
Conversely, Colorado went back
to a year or two later
to adjust some
of the impacts. So equally,
we took that into account and
with the mechanism,
the tool that we created
in conjunction with JTC,
you can adjust for some
of these,
like clear distinctions
on impacts to businesses,
impacts to infrastructure,
and kind of the categorical or
sequential elements that folks
might want to try to address as
you're creating policy
to implement,
implement something
like this. So I would be happy
to chat
with folks a little bit more
about the work that we did or
put you in contact with the
folks. I think they're kind
of carrying on this torch,
if you're so interested.
But I just wanted
to share a little background
since I was
on this call and frankly, kind
of created the mess, so
to speak.
>> Thank you, Brandy. We will
definitely reach out. Thanks
for that.
>> And Council Member Jacob
Walker.
>> Thank you. Had we got any
indication last year or is
there any idea going
into the next session about how
that gas tax distribution may
change or may not change at all
if the ROC charge is adopted?
>> That is a great question.
I'm looking to bend to see if
you have more details. I know
that when we incorporated
assumptions
about a road usage charge
in our core current plan, we
very much were assuming and
basically stating that the
distribution needed
to be broadened to be able
to fund multimodal investments,
but. Ben, do you have a better
answer to that?
>> I don't recall exactly. I
don't remember there being a
lot of discussion
on any changes
of the formula distribution of
the existing gas tax. I mean,
of THE RUC. It would replicate
the same distribution
percentages as the current gas
tax. That's my recollection.
>> Thank you.
I just want to,
I know we just voted on, on
to be, but just going
through this presentation,
again, being newer
to the board,
but having always dealt with it
as a taxpayer. I'm starting
to have a curiosity if, if the
revenue gap that we're trying
to address is more
of a reminder of our need
to kind of reconsider our
spending expectations or
resource expectations. I think
that obviously we all want to
make sure that we're ensuring
safety and keeping our
commitments realistic.
But I'm just starting to wonder
if the shortfall is not a
revenue problem but more of a
spending expectation problem.
So I just wanted to throw that
out there. Thank you guys.
>> Appreciate that input.
>> Councilman Schneider.
>> Thank you. I appreciate it.
So I in general am, you know,
very interested in the Ruchy
and remembering back
to that being one
of the major levers that we
have for reducing Miles
traveled and you know,
our getting
to our climate action goals,
I'm wondering if it is
considered, is it regressive?
In other words, based on,
based on the comment that we
heard earlier today
about displaced workers, you
know,
leaving the cities and having
to travel further to get
to jobs, is it sort of,
is it going to be sort
of more punitive
for folks who, you know,
are traveling for work in that
way that are lower income?
It's a great question and
again, I'll ask Ben to help me
out here. I think that the
commission has done some really
great work showing that the gas
tax is actually more regressive
than the RUC, that the RUC
could be set up either to, you
know, things could be built
in related
to low income provisions,
for example, but also just
recognizing the gas tax,
I'm going to fumble my way
through this. So correct me if
I get it wrong. The gas tax is
set up that everybody pays the
same regardless of, of the, the
vehicle that they drive and a
road usage charge. It is really
based on how much you drive and
provisions could be built in.
That takes into account,
I think that,
I think the argument was, or
the, or the explanation was
that they would actually be
paying less in a road usage
charge than they would
under the gas tax.
But I probably fumbled that.
So Ben, help me out.
>> I think you covered it well.
Kelly, one
of our assumptions,
we've had an assumption
about having a RUC
in the future in the region
in the last couple
of plans that we've adopted.
And the assumption has been
that you could design
implementation of Iraq
to address many of the equity
concerns that people have
raised in terms of is does
somebody actually have any sort
of alternatives to driving?
Does the nature of say, the
work that they're doing or the
reason for the trip, say
for deliveries and so forth,
you have to drive in order to
actually accomplish that work.
So it's all in the details
in terms of how these are
designed and implemented. But
the assumption has been that we
can do that and we can look at,
as the rep
from FEMSIB was saying
about the, the retail delivery
fee, that you can look
at impacts
to small businesses,
you can look at impacts
in different parts
of the region and it will be,
have to, have to be very,
very carefully designed.
But you know, entering into it
with eyes wide open is really
the approach we should take.
>> So given that, I think that,
and also given that we're
looking 10 years out,
we should go big on, you know,
it's going to take a long time
for the culture to sort of
shift and appreciate that this
is a necessary direction. And
then of course,
the all the techie problems on
collecting revenue and so
forth. But I think we should,
you know, we should go
at least moderate if, if not
higher, as with at the same
time promoting this as a much
more socially just way of
collecting the necessary
revenue for the roads and also
towards our climate goals.
Let's not negotiate
against ourselves. Thank you.
>> All right. Sake
of time here. We're getting
close to the end
of our meeting time and I'm
at a, I'm going to call on
Council Members Arlingo and
then I'm going to go to
Deputy Mayor Arnold
after that and then we're going
to move on. Go ahead, Council
member.
>> Yeah, I'll make this quick.
>> Is it fair to assume that
the road usage charge could be
based on road wear and vehicle
weight? It could definitely be
based on vehicle weight,
for sure. I mean,
it all depends
on how you collect it. It could
be an odometer read when you
submit your registration where
you could do that. And it could
incorporate vehicle weight,
could be higher. So, yeah,
there's lots of opportunities.
I'm not sure the,
the road wear one, I,
if it was tied to the,
the weight of the vehicle,
I guess I could see that.
But otherwise, I'm not sure if
I'm following that one as
closely. But there's lots of
details that you could
definitely get into with a
reducer's charge that differ
from, say, the gas tax. You
definitely have a lot
of options.
>> Thanks. Go ahead. Deputy
Mayor Arlen
>> Thank you. And I hope we
capture a lot
of these policy discussions
in the RTP for future
consideration and
implementation. To Council
Member Schneider's point, you
know, philosophically I think
there's really opportunities
with the road usage charge,
but I want to be realistic.
As Ben has mentioned,
we've had this in the plan with
some assumptions that said the
legislature was going to act
and the legislature is going
to act, and it hasn't up
to this point. And so I think
we need to be realistic. And I
like the idea of what staff has
put up here as being super
conservative because the
assumptions we made
in previous plans
about the legislature starting
to put the road usage
charge in place
haven't happened. And
so I'm concerned
about doing anything at a
higher level or doing anything
earlier than 2035.
>> Good point.
>> All right, we. We're going
to move on now
to information items. And
unless you have anything else
to wrap
on this.
>> [ INAUDIBLE ] to close out,
thank you for that. And I think
I'm looking to my colleagues
got a little bit
of a mixed message. So I think
what we could do is maybe let's
run both we'll we'll and come
back with that information. So
we have scenario 2B already
kind of modeled as is. We'll
work under the assumption that
the draft plan would include a
state level rough beginning
in 2035.
But we we're not going to
release the plan so maybe we
run that and then
but we'll talk about it more
in November and see we'll be
ready for both. If I'm not
gonna if Craig might want
to smack me right now but we'll
give you a little bit more time
to and we'll come back with
that information because there
will be and again as Craig
mentioned the reason that we
need this is there that will
definitely impact demand. So we
want to make sure that we
capture that. So we already
have one run if we go ahead and
assume it and we run it.
But we'll come back in
November and there will still
be if you if you want
to pull us back,
we'll still have time
to do that. Thank you.
>> All right. And what do you
have to share
on the information items?
>> Just our ongoing work work
program progress tracker. So
things still outside of the RTP
things still keep moving
forward. So nothing nothing new
to report on that.
>> Okay, with that we our next
meeting date is Thursday
November 13th and hope to see
you all here that our meeting
is adjourned.